Download - The Men who Built the Theatres: Theatropolai, Theatronai and Arkhitektones

4

The Men Who Built the Theatres:Theatropolai, Theatronai, and Arkhitektones*

Eric Csapo

We depend mainly upon inscriptions for what little we know aboutthe practicalities of the management and finance of the ancientGreek theatre. It is disappointing, therefore, to find no epigraphicattestation of the terms theatrones or theatropoles, figures absolutelycentral to theatre management and finance. These terms appear onlyin literary sources. Epigraphy, nonetheless, still has something to tellus of their function and their history, particularly in conjunctionwith another shadowy figure, the arkhitekton. In the past these figureshave received little attention,1 yet a close study of the evidence canshed some light on the organisation of the Classical and earlyHellenistic theatre in and even beyond Attica. I will argue, moreover,that the history of these officials is relevant to a number of issues ofcurrent controversy: among them the shape of the early theatre, thedate of the Lykurgan reconstruction of the theatre of Dionysos, andthe background to the introduction of the Athenian festival fund(theorikon).

* For many helpful comments I thank audiences in Oxford, where this paper wasdelivered twice, in very different venues. Special thanks to Hans Goette, Scott Scullion,and William Slater for commenting on earlier drafts of this paper and helping me getmy mind around several difficult questions.

1 Caillemer (1877); Szanto (1896); Buchanan (1962) 86; Pickard-Cambridge(1968 [1988]) 266; Rhodes (1972) 125–6; Walton (1977) 82–6; Shear (1978) 56–8;Walton (1980) 69–73; Henry (1983) 293–4; Scullion (1994) 55–6; Wilson (1997b) 98;Moretti (2001) 221–2.

THEATRON-BUYERS AND THEATRON-SELLERS

Since late antiquity, theatropolai, theatronai, and particular figuresreferred to by the general term arkhitektones, have been lumpedtogether as synonyms for theatre managers.2 They are all theatremanagers, but to stop there would be misleading. Arkhitekton doessometimes appear as a general term for a kind of theatre manager,but one with a very different function from the theatrones or theat-ropoles. Indeed I will argue that they have opposed and mutuallyexclusive functions.

Although the arkhitekton is different, at least theatropolai and thea-tronai really are just synonyms, so far as I can see. Theatropoles,‘theatron-seller’, is attested only once. It is cited by Pollux (7.199)from Aristophanes’ Phoenissai, a play datable to the late fifth or earlyfourth century (PCG F 575):

�ν τα�� Φοινσσαι� θεατροπ�λη� � θ�αν α� ποµισθ�ν.

In the Phoenissai a theatropoles is the man who rents out a place fromwhich to view the spectacle.

Pollux records the term without any context. At a guess Aristophanesused the word in a metatheatrical reference to the greed or profitsof the man who charged admission to the theatre of Dionysos atAthens. The theatrones ‘theatron-buyer’, a word only twice attested,performs the same function. Theophrastos indicates that he is theman who charges and collects admission prices into the theatre(Characters 30.6):

κα� �π� θ�αν τηνικα�τα πορε�εσθαι α� γων το�� υ!ε��, "νκα προ�κ� α� φιασιν

ο! θεατρ�ναι.

And he [the Niggardly Man] goes to the spectacle with his sons only as oftenas the theatronai offer free admission.

Money paid for admission into the theatre goes towards thetheatron-buyer’s profits. The greed of the ‘theatron-buyer’ became

2 Despite Shear (1978) 57 n. 162 who urged that ‘a distinction should now bemade between the elected arkhitekton, the custodian of sanctuaries, and the lesseeswho collected the price of admission’, the distinction is only observed by Moretti(2001) 222.

The Men Who Built the Theatres88

something of a topos, thanks probably to Old Comedy. A recentlypublished papyrus elegy by Nikarkhos suggests as much (POxy. 4502,39–41 Parsons (first century ?)):

πισ]τε�ει� µυ� τυρ%ν, &ν' χ%ρτον, µ�λι µην· [ ]

·[

χ·ησ� σ�ριν, κυσ�ν *ν, παιδαροι� ,φδα,

(ε)!µατιον .ιγο�ντι, θεατρ�{ι}νηι τ/ λ%γευµα ...

(When you invite the seducer Damon to your house and introduce himto your wife, Alexis) you trust cheese to a mouse, hay to a donkey, honey to?bees, chicory to geese, a boar to dogs, a wrap to slaves, a cloak to a freezingman, collected money to a theatrones ...

The theatrones ‘theatron-buyer’ and theatropoles ‘theatron-seller’pretty clearly perform the same function. The two terms simplyexpress different perspectives. ‘Theatron-buyer’ betrays the perspec-tive of the state, which sells the franchise and this is doubtlessthe official term. The meaning of ‘buyer’ emerges clearly from aninscription which records the lease of a theatre in Peiraieus, whichwe will look at more closely in a moment. The Peiraieus lease refersthree (?) times to the lessees of the theatre as ‘buyers’, twice as ο!πριαµενοι and once as 0νητα. Theatron-buyers ‘buy’ or, moreproperly, ‘lease’ a theatre from the state. Attic comfortably uses ‘buy’and ‘sell’, 0νε�σθαι and πωλε�ν, along with µισθο�σθαι/µισθο�ν, tomean take out or let out on lease.3 By contrast ‘theatron-seller’betrays the perspective of the audience who buy admission fromhim, and this may simply be a comic or vernacular compound. Butwhatever the rationale behind the variation, the citations show bothterms used indifferently, at least in non-official speech.

My translations deliberately avoid rendering theatron as ‘theatre’because ‘theatre-seller’ and ‘theatre-buyer’ would be misleading atbest. Theatron in Greek does not mean ‘theatre’ in the broadest senseincluding the rituals and entertainments which go on in a theatrebuilding: the theatropoles is so far as we know not an impresario.4

3 Pace Behrend (1970) 88, cf. 107. See And. Myst. 133–4, Lys. 7.2 with Gernet andBizos (1924–6) ad loc., Arist. Ath. Pol. 47.2, 60.2 with Rhodes (1981) 552, 673,Aeschin. 1. 119.

4 Notwithstanding the fact that the term can in Greek be flexed rhetorically(metonymically) to refer to performances: e.g. Plu. Ant. 9.3 (at night all he cared forwere komoi and theatra).

Eric Csapo 89

Theatron normally refers only to the physical space in which theatri-cal entertainments take place, but the term is still ambiguous.‘Theatron-seller’ could imply selling the theatron in the broad senseof the entire theatre building, or simply in the narrow sense of theseating area or auditorium. The theatron in ‘theatron-seller’ probablyrefers to this narrow sense of ‘auditorium’. A literal translation of theGreek expressions for paying to get into the theatre is ‘buy’, ‘rent’, orotherwise put down money to ‘get’ a θ�α. Θ�α (like Latin spectacu-lum) is also ambiguous: it can mean both the place from which youwatch and the spectacle you sit or stand to watch. But in this usageθ�α generally refers unambiguously to the place and not the spec-tacle.5 The idiom for paying theatre admission focuses on the venuerather than the entertainment, presumably, because this is what thetheatropoles sells or rents out: not a theatron in the broad sense, but aplace from which to watch the theatrical performances. But the otherterm ‘theatron-buyer’ may be more ambiguous. The theatron that thetheatron-buyer leases may be the whole theatre building. At any ratethe Peiraieus lease shows that the terms extend to activities beyondthe auditorium.

The Peiraieus lease shows pretty clearly how the operation worked:

Agora 19 (1991) L13 = SEG 33, 143 = IG II2 1176 + Hesperia 29 (1960) 1 no. 1(SEG 19, 117) + Hesperia 32 (1963) 12 no. 10 (SEG 21, 521). Supplementsfollowing Stroud (1974) 290–8, and Walbank (1991), with some suggestionsby myself and W. J. Slater (see apparatus). Non-stoich., 31 to 40 chars.

lacuna[τ2 ν?] σκην2ν προ[. . . . . ]ασι

· [- - - - - - - - - - - -]a+b

[�]αν τι βο[�]λωντ[αι πε]ρ� τ2ν ο5κοδοµαν·�ξε�ναι δ7 α8[το�� χ]ρ9σθαι λθοι� κα�

γ9ι �κ το� τεµ[�νου�] το� ∆ιον�σου· ;ταν δ��ξωσιν παρα[διδ%ναι? ] α< παντα =ρθα κα� ?-5

5 Thphr. Char. 9.5 (θ�αν α� γορασα�); Agora 19, L13 (below) l. 19; Philoch. FGrHF33 (δραχµ2 τ9� θ�α�); Lib. Hypothesis to Dem. Olynthiac 1 (@δει διδ%ναι δ�ο =βολο��κα� καταβαλ%ντα θ�αν @χειν); Phot. s.v. theorikon kai theorike Theodorides (µισθ/ν τ9�θ�α�). Cf. Poll. 7.199 (θεατροπ�λη� � θ�αν α� ποµισθ�ν); Σ Lucian Tim. 49 (το�� τ%που�µισθο�ν). See also the honorary inscriptions granting prohedria and places in thetheatre, below. Note, however, that Photius, possibly misunderstanding the use of theterm in this context, uses θ�α to refer to the spectacle (s.v. theorika 1 Theodoridesµηκ�τι προ�κα θεωρε�ν, �κµισθο�ν δ7 τα�� θ�αι� το�� τ%που�).


στηκ%τα. �α[ν . . . . . . . ]εψωσιν πρ/� τ9ι σκη-νε�, κ�ρ

·α·[µον κα� ξ]�

·λα α� πτω λαβCν πα-

Ν·Κ·

[- - - - -]Λ·Λ·Ι·· [� δ7 χ]ρ%νο� α� ρχει τ9� µι-c

σθ�σεω[�] HΗ·γησα� α�

·ρ·χων· το�� δ7 δηµ%-

τα� θεωρε�ν α� ργ�ριο[ν] διδ%ντα� πλ2ν ;v-10

σοι� ο! δηµ%ται προ[εδραν δ]εδ�κασι·το�του� δ� α� πογραψα[ι πρ/� το�� π]ρια[µ�]-νου� τ/ θ�ατρον· εJν[αι δ7 τ2ν προεδραν]κα� τ�ι δηµαρχωι κα[� - - - - - - - κα� τ�ι κK]-ρυκι κα� εL τωι α� λλωι [δεδ�κασιν ο! δηµ%ται]15

[τ2]ν προεδραν· ;σοι δ[7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -][- - - - - - - - - - - - -]Ν

·[- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -]

lacunalacuna

[- - - - - - - - - - -το�� πριαµ�νου� τ/ θ�]α·τ·ρ·[ο]ν πα

·[ρ�]-d

[χειν το�� δηµ%τ]α·ι� "δ[ω]λιασµ�νην τ2ν θ�αν [κα]-

[τα τ]α πατρια· �αν δ7 µ2 ποKσωσιν κατα τα� συνθ[K]-20

κα� τα� περ� τ/ θ�ατρον, ο5κοδοµ9σαι µ7ν Πειρα-�α� τα δε%µενα, τα δ � α� ναλ�µατα το�� πριαµ�νοι�

εJναι· �πιτιµητα� δ7 α!ρε�σθαι Πειρα�α� ;ταν πα-ραδιδ�σι τ/ θ�ατρον τρε�� α� νδρα� �κ Πειρα�ων·α� ναγραψαι δ7 τ/ν δKµαρχον κα� το�� ταµα� α� ντ-25

γραφα τ�ν συνθηκ�ν ε5� στKλην λιθνην κα� στ9σα-ι �ν τ9ι α� γοραι τ�ν δηµοτ�ν· παραγραψαι δ7 κα� τ/&νοµα, παρ� Nι αO ν κεωνται α! συνθ9και· 0νητα� Pρι-στοφανη� Σµικ�θο: ΓΗ: Μελησα� �Αριστοκρατο: ΧΗ

�Αρεθο�σιο� �Αριστ%λεω ΠKληξ: Γ: Ο5νοφ�ν Ε8φι-30

λKτου Πειραιε��: ΧΗ. vacatΚαλλιαδη� εJπεν· �ψηφσθαι Πειραε�σι· �πειδ2 Θεα�ο�

φιλοτιµε�ται πρ/� το�� δηµ%τα� κα� ν�ν κα� �ν τ�ι

@µπροσθε χρ%νωι κα� πεπ%ηκεν τριακοσαι� δρα-χµα�� πλ�ον ε,ρε�ν τ/ θ�ατρον, στεφαν�σαι α8τ-35

/ν θαλλο στεφανωι α� ρετ9� Wνεκα κα� δικαιο-σ�νη� τ9� ε5� το�� δηµ%τα�· στεφαν�σαι δ7κα� το�� πριαµ�νου� τ/ θ�ατρον �Αριστοφανην

Πειρα�α, Μελησαν Λαµπτρ�α, Ο5νοφ�ντα

Πειρα�α, �Αρεθο�σιον ΠKληκα. vacat40

1. e.g. ε5 περ� τ2ν σκην2ν προστιθ�ασι 6. α� λεψωσιν Meritt: �αν δ7 παρα-

λεψωσιν Stroud: �αν τι �ξαµεψωσιν / παραµεψωσιν Csapo: �αν µ2

Slater: 7–8. e.g. πα|ν κα� ;τι α� λλο

Eric Csapo 91

The deme of Peiraieus leased its theatre to a corporation of fourmen in 324/3 for 3,300 drachmas. The inscription preserves theterms of the lease and honours them for paying 10 percent, or 300drachmas, beyond the expected price. It begins with a list ofprivileges and responsibilities with regard to construction in thetheatre. The first line refers to alterations to the skene building.ε5 περ� τ2ν σκην2ν προστιθ�ασι would fit: ‘if they make any additionsaround the stage-building’ something something ‘if they shouldwant anything with respect to the construction. But the lessees arepermitted to use stones and earth from the sanctuary of Dionysos.6

When the lease expires the lessees are to return everything in goodrepair: [Except where they change/alter] wood and tile on the stage-building,7 he may depart taking all (i.e. wood and tile) away with him[and anything else they may have provided].’8 The singular verbα� πτω seems to be a formula carelessly applied despite the pluralverb in the conditional clause.9 We continue with ‘Let the leasetake effect when Hegesias becomes archon. The demesmen are to paycash to attend performances, all except those to whom the demes-men have granted prohedria. These are to be registered with thetheatre lessees. The mayor,’ the someone, ‘and the herald are to have

6 The stones and earth are likely to be of use in levelling the slope of the theatronand making foundations for the seating. Cf. the building inscriptions from Skepsis(fourth/third century ) and Capua (second century ): Wilhelm (1900) 54–7;Frederiksen (1959) 126, no. 6. I thank W. Slater for drawing my attention to theseinscriptions.

7 Meritt (1963) 12 and Stroud (1974) 297 supplement with forms of α� λεφω,a common verb in building inscriptions, but ‘if they do some plastering on the stage-building, let them take the tile and wood’ is unfortunately a non-sequitur. So isκαταλεψωσιν, ‘leave behind’. I would suggest some compound of α� µεβω tosupplement the stone’s �α[ν . . . . . . . ]εψωσιν. Satisfactory sense could be madefrom any of �α[ν τι παραµ]εψωσιν / �ξαµ]εψωσιν / α� νταµ]εψωσιν. WilliamSlater suggests �αν µK and takes κ�ρ

·α·[µον κα� ξ]�

·λα with the missing verb. My

translation follows Slater’s suggestion. For the form, cf. IG XII 5, 572. I assume theprovision aims to keep the basic frame of the stage-building intact after expiry of thelease.

8 My suggestion πα| ν κα� ;τι α� λλο may be a little too wide-open and generousfor the language of contract. Cf. SEG 24, 203, 16–18 and IG II2 2499, 11–12 (;ταν δ7� χρ%νο� �ξει... α� πεισιν @χων τα ξ�λα κα� τ/ν κ�ραµον κα� τα θυρ�[µ]ατα. τ�ν δ� α� λλωνκινKσει ο8θ�ν, ‘when the term expires . . . He will leave taking the wood, the tile, andthe door-fixtures, but he will displace nothing else.’

9 Stroud (1974) 297.


prohedria as is anyone else to whom the demesmen have granted it.All those who ...’ The stone breaks off, so there are at least one andtwo half-lines missing, before the non-joining fragment d, whichreads:

the theatre lessees are to provide the demesmen with a θ�α [i.e. a viewingarea], fitted with wooden benchwork according to local custom. If they donot act according to the terms of the agreement concerning the theatre, thenthe people of Peiraieus will build what is required and the cost will fallto the lessees. When they hand over the theatre, the people of Peiraieuswill choose three men from Peiraieus to act as inspectors. The mayor andthe treasurers will have copies of the agreement inscribed on a stonestele and placed in the deme’s agora. They will add the name of the personwith whom the agreement is deposited. Lessees: Aristophanes, son ofSmikythos––600 drachmas; Melesias, son of Aristokratos––1,100 drachmas;Arethousios, son of Aristoleos, of Pelekes––500 drachmas; Oinophon, sonof Euphiletos, of Peiraieus––1,100 drachmas.

The rest is the honorary decree granting a crown to one Theaiosfor his civic zeal (philotimia) in inducing the lessees to pay 300drachmas more than expected from the lease and also crowns tothe lessees, doubtless as a return for being so induced. Unfortu-nately we know nothing of Theaios’ role or function in thesenegotiations.

From the remains, as far as we can tell, the chief obligation on thepart of the lessees (ll. 19–20) is the provision to the demesmen of aviewing place, a θ�α, which is "δ[ω]λιασµ�νην according to localcustom. The verb ?δωλιαζειν is a rare but securely attested termmeaning to fit with wooden benches.10 In return the lessees are to

10 Orlandos and Travlos (1986) 92. The ancient lexica treat the verb as an equiva-lent to 5κρι%ω which refers to the building of wooden benches, usually stands orbleachers. The description, however, suggests a more casual construction. Seeesp. Bekker, Anec. Gr. 259.32 (cf. Suid., EM) ?δωλιασαι κα� 5κρι�σαι· @στι δ7 τ/ µ7ν?δωλιασαι ο!ονε� συνθε�ναι @κ τινων ξ�λων αH πλ�� πρ/� τ%πον τινα συντεθ�ντων. ‘Tobuild hedolia and to build ikria: to build hedolia is to put together as if from planks ofwood put together in some place in a simple fashion.’ The verb appears again in IGXI 2, 287 A 81 where it means, as here, to assemble wooden benches (see below). Itapparently came also to mean ‘seat on the wooden benches’: Harpocration s.v.?δωλιασαι cites Lykurgos (fr. 2) for the meaning συνκαθζειν. Lykurgos may perhapsalso be the ultimate source of Pollux’ discussion of ?δωλιαζειν (= συνκαθζειν),though in Pollux it is cited as a theatrical term (4.121, 123).

Eric Csapo 93

get the entrance fees, which are to be paid by all demesmen exceptthose to whom prohedria is granted. The lease also includes somestipulations regarding construction on or around the stage-building,though that part is all but lost. In the surviving document, the con-sideration, in the legal sense of quid pro quo, is the construction andresale of seating.

Similar arrangements may be attested by a couple of other inscrip-tions only two to three decades later than the Peiraieus decree. Inthese inscriptions another Attic deme and cities in Euboea dispose ofmoney gained or expected from the leasing of their theatres. A decreeof the deme of Akharnai (IG II2 1206) shows the deme at the end ofthe fourth century disposing of moneys ‘collected’ from thetheatre.11 Lines 4–12 read:

: ∆ ∆ : δραχµα� [α� ]-[π/ το� α� ργυ]ρου το� �γλεγοµ�[ν]-5

[ου �κ το� θε]ατρου· �αν δ7 τ/ θ�α[τ]-[ρον . . . . .ο]ν Zι, διδ%ναι α8το�[�][τ/ν δKµαρχ]ον κα� τ/ν ταµαν [ο[][αO ν α� ε� α� ρχω]σιν τ/ γεγραµµ�ν[ον]_[α� ργ�ριον ε]5� τ2ν θυσαν �κ τ[9�]10

[κοιν9� διο]ικKσεω� τ9� τ�ν δη[µ]-[οτ�ν.

Twenty drachmas from the money collected from the theatre. If the theatreis [missing word of seven letters] then the mayor and the treasurer in officeat the time should give them the stipulated sum for the sacrifice from thedeme’s operating budget.

The term �κλ�γειν here need not imply that the deme is collect-ing money directly; it is frequently used, for example, of collectingtaxes that have in fact been farmed out to a tax-collector. Onecan perhaps compare the theatrones’ λ%γευµα in the Nikarkhoselegy. The revenues presumably come from leasing out the theatre.Much may depend on the five missing letters in line 7. Wilamowitzconjectured @λαττον, which would mean ‘if the theatre is less’,

11 The connection (made by Köhler apud IG II 5, 587b) with Akharnai is basedon the restored reference to Athena Hippia (cf. IG II2 1207, l. 4, SEG 43, 26 A, ll. 24–5,B, ll. 16–17, and Paus. 1.31.5).


which would then presumably have to be pressed very hard to mean‘if the revenues from the theatre fall short’. I suggest α� πρατον,meaning ‘but if the theatre is not leased’.12

We may note in passing that the theatron of Akharnai, like that ofPeiraieus, was probably of wood. Its front row seating (prohedria)had not the separately articulated stone thrones we know from theLykurgan theatre of Dionysos in Athens. A deme decree of 315/14

(SEG 43, 26 B 22) awards officials prohedria in perpetuity ‘on thefirst bench’ �π� το� πρ�του βαθρου, using a word, bathron, which,when used of seating, normally seems to refer to a wooden bench.Indeed the expression is in Athens used interchangeably with πρ�τον

ξ�λον, literally ‘first plank’, used of the front row of the assemblyand courts in Aristophanes’ day, the former of which Lysiasdescribed as bathra and the latter of which the comic poetPherekrates called protobathron.13 If the prohedria, the seat of hon-our, was a wooden bench, then the rest of the theatron was alsocertainly of wood.

The custom of leasing the theatre was probably also standard inEuboea in the 290s . Wilhelm argued that the famous Euboeanfestivals decree assigns the cost of inscribing the decree and erectingthe stele to expected income from leasing the theatres of Chalkis,Eretria, Karystos, and Oreos during the forthcoming Dionysia:14

τα δ[7 δ%]-[ξαντ]α α� ναγραψαι το�� α� ρχοντα� �ν ?καστ[ηι] τ�ν π%λεων �ν στ[K]ληι

λιθνηι κα� α� ν[α]θε�ναι ε5� τ2ν παρ[οδον]

12 I am grateful to Robert Parker for bringing to my attention N. Papazarkadas’D.Phil. thesis (University of Oxford, 2004) which contains the same conjecture,arrived at independently. Papazarkadas gives full justification for the emendation.

13 For bathron as ‘wooden bench’, see Hellmann (1992) 63, and the discussionbelow, pp. 103–7. Cf. πρ�τον βαθρον in Ar. Ach. 25, V. 90 (with Σ ); Poll. 4.121, 8.133;Lys. 13.37; Pherecr. PCG F 260; cf. Steinhauer (1992) 182. Bathron can refer alsoto the base or foundation block upon which a seat is placed (as in Soph. Ant. 854).The stone foundations for the prohedria in the pre-Lykurgan theatre of Dionysusmight have been referred to as bathra: upon them, I believe, wooden klismoi wereplaced.

14 Wilhelm (1951) 79–83. Le Guen (2001a) I no. 1, ll. 54–7. Le Guen (2001a) I.47 translates ‘que la dépense pour la stèle soit imputée par chacune des cités, chezelle, sur les revenus de son théâtre, au moment où s’effectuera le paiement du loyerpour les prochaines Dionysies’.

Eric Csapo 95

[το�] θεατρου· τ/ δ7 α� ναλωµα τ/ ε5� τ2ν στKλην ,ποθε�ναι ?καστ[ου]� παρ� ?αυ[το]<�>� τ�ι θεατρωι, ;ταν ποK[σωνται τ2ν]

[µσθω]σιν κατα τα �πι%ντα ∆ιον�σια·

It is decreed that the archons in each of the cities have the decisions writtenup on a stone stele and erected in the entranceway of the theatre. Each is toapply the cost of the stele to their respective theatres when they lease themout for the upcoming Dionysia.15

If this is right the cost of publishing the decree is simply added tothe cost of the lease, in much the same way that the cost of thesacrifice at Akharnai is simply added to or put against the anticipatedincome from the lease of the theatre.

THE THEATRE OF DIONYSOS AT ATHENS

We know, then, of theatron-buyers in deme theatres and prob-ably foreign cities. Does this tell us anything about the practice inthe theatre of Dionysos at Athens? Theophrastus’ theatronai, beingin the plural, are probably generalisations in reference to thenormal arrangements at deme theatres. Aristophanes’ theatropoles,being singular, could refer to the production context of Phoenissai,but we still cannot be sure that it was Athens. We have no direct

15 µσθω]σιν is a supplement by Wilhelm (1951); @γδο]σιν is a supplement byWilamowitz, addenda, p. 176 to IG XII 9, 207. Both words are taken to refer tofarming out the theatre on a lease. Cf. Stephanis (1984) 510. W. Slater, however,points out that the misthosis in question could refer to the hiring of Artists ofDionysus, which is also the subject of the next sentence: ;πω� αO ν γνωνται ⟨α!�ργολαβαι suppl. Wilamowitz⟩, τα� π%λει� ?λοµ�να� το�� α� νδρα� κατα τ2νδιαγρα[φ2ν] | [π�µψαι] ε5� Χαλκδα πρ/ τ9� ε5καδο� το� �Απατουρι�νο� µην%�, \�Χαλκιδε�� α� γουσιν, ;πω� αO ν �γδ�σιν τα @[ργα] | [το�� τεχ]νται�. In this case we mightobviate the necessity of Wilamowitz’ supplement, reading ‘let each city ascribe thecost of the stele to their theatre when they do the hiring for the upcoming Dionysia.And so that they (i.e. the hirings) take place, let the cities send men chosen accordingto the agreement to Chalkis before the twentieth of Apatourion in the Chalkidiancalendar, so that they can assign the work to the Artists.’ This may well be right,though it would require a difficult transition from singular µσθω]σιν to pluralγνωνται and contradicts the strong discontinuity argued at this point in the text byWilhelm (1951) 83 and Stephanis (1984) 513. Wilhelm’s reading also makes bettersense of the verb ,ποθε�ναι: Wilhelm (1951) 80.


evidence for theatronai in the theatre of Dionysos, but the cir-cumstantial and comparative evidence makes their presencelikely.

The Athenian theatre of Dionysos charged admission. We takeadmission charges for granted, but Alan Sommerstein (1997: 66–7)and Peter Wilson (1997: 97–8) have recently pointed out just howstrange it was for Athens to have taken this step. The City Dionysia isthe first Greek religious festival known to have exacted money for theright to participate. And at 2 obols the fee was something more thana nominal sum (presumably charged per entry into the theatre, sothat full participation at the Dionysia would cost at least 1 drachmaand 4 obols). Can we assume that Athens in the fifth century tookthe extraordinary measure of permitting entrance fees for the samereason that the deme of Peiraieus allowed such fees in the later fourthcentury? Can we assume, namely, that the theatropoles paid for theright to collect entrance fees in return for constructing and maintain-ing the theatron?

A difference in scale and construction might seem an obstacle tousing procedures at Peiraieus as a model for explaining proceduresat Athens. But new archaeological discoveries and better archaeo-logical syntheses in the last forty years give good reason for ques-tioning the belief that the scale and construction of the Atheniantheatron differed greatly from that of theatres in the Attichinterland.

There have, over the years, been many estimates of the seatingcapacity of the Athenian theatre in the fifth century. They varywidely. Limiting ourselves to estimates over the past ten years, wefind the capacity of the fifth-century theatre of Dionysos pegged at:3,700 (Dawson 1997), 5,500 (Korres 2002: 540), not more than 7,000(Goette per litteras), 10,000 to 15,000 (Moretti 1999–2000: 395).

Moretti’s figure of 10,000 to 15,000 is closer to the traditional viewthat the seating capacity of the fifth-century theatre was nearly thesame as that of the later fourth-century Lykurgan theatre (influen-tially pegged by Pickard-Cambridge at 14,000 to 17,000 (1946: 141)).But for the capacity of the fifth-century theatron the evidence is verymuch in favour of the more modest estimates of Dawson, Korres,and Goette. We should probably think of audiences numberingsomewhere between 4,000 and 7,000.

Eric Csapo 97

The reduced estimates are in line with archaeological evidenceunavailable to the scholars, like Pickard-Cambridge (1946) andDinsmoor (1951), who have shaped our traditional view of the archi-tectural history of the theatre of Dionysos. They thought that theearliest stone theatre could be dated back to the time of Perikles.Many still adhere to this view, but the theory must be abandoned. Inhis Appendix to this chapter Hans Goette provides plans and a fullerdescription of the archaeological evidence for the theatron of thefifth-century theatre of Dionysos. The reader will find this a valuablesupplement to the following summary.

Excavations during the 1960s in the sanctuary of Dionysosprovided clear stratigraphical evidence that the foundations of theearliest stone theatre cannot be dated before the mid-fourthcentury.16 The fifth-century theatron was therefore built almostentirely of wood. This inference is confirmed by Old Comedy whereAristophanes (Thesmophoriazousai 395, cf. scholiast ad loc.) andCratinus (PCG F 360) both refer to the audience sitting uponikria. This term is used only of wooden constructions. Moreover,Pollux (4.122) preserves, probably also from Old Comedy, the wordpternokopein, ‘heel-banging’, which is one of the many means theAthenian audience employed to show displeasure at a performance.Heel-banging is doubtless what Cratinus refers to when he calls‘the noise of the wooden benches’ the ‘mother’ of the audience(PCG F 360). No one with heels of flesh and bone will believe withLeyerle that pternokopein refers to an ‘ominous noise made byheels drumming against the backs of the stone seats’ (2001: 36, myemphasis).

Archaeological evidence also shows that the fifth-century theatronwas much smaller than its Lykurgan successor. Doerpfeld’s excav-ations uncovered an ‘ancient road’ (Appendix Fig. 1.9) running ina straight line on the south slope of the Athenian acropolis aboutten metres to the south of the Lykurgan Peripatos (along the axis ofthe theatre). This is clearly the extension of the road that later curved

16 Kalligas (1963); Travlos (1971). I am told that reports of recent excavationsin the theatre, to be published soon in Arkhaiologikon Deltion, may provide con-firmation of a mid-fourth-century date for the earliest stone theatron in Athens.


northward to form the Lykurgan Peripatos (running through theLykurgan theatre from Appendix Fig. 1.13). South of this ancientroad Doerpfeld uncovered wells and the walls of fifth-century

houses.17 Still further south a rock cutting (Appendix Fig. 1.7) seemsto mark the northern boundary of the fifth-century theatron also in astraight line. 18

The only material remains of the fifth-century seating area aresome ten blocks which formed a platform for the fifth-century pro-hedria. The distinctive raised bands (anathyrosis) at the ends of theseblocks indicate that they are designed to abut one another to form astraight line.19 Thus, the Classical auditorium was constrained bya straight face on the south and a straight back in the north. Whenthis evidence is combined with comparative evidence from otherfifth- and early fourth-century theatres, all of which are trapezoidalor rectilinear, the case for a trapezoidal theatron for the fifth-centurytheatre of Dionysos seems conclusive.20 Thus the fifth-centurytheatron had a much smaller seating capacity than its Lykurgan suc-cessor, not only because of its smaller extent, but also because of itsrectilinearity.

The extent and construction of the fifth-century theatre ofDionysos allowed for audiences that were larger but not vastly largerthan some of the deme theatres. The Athenian theatron may have hadno more than about twice the capacity of the remote deme theatre ofThorikos, for example, for which the latest capacity estimate is 3,200,

17 See further Dörpfeld and Reisch (1896) 30–1, and fig. 7; Goette (1995a) 28–9.The value of this evidence is limited, or obscured, by the judgement of Schneider thatthe pottery associated with the walls dated no later than 450 . None of the potteryfragments was published, and since knowledge of the chronology of Attic pottery wasslim and dating techniques were primitive in 1889, we can only wait for clarificationfrom further excavation in this area. Schneider’s excavation notebooks are avail-able in the archive of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut in Athens. Recentexcavations in the area of the theatron and Peripatos should yield much more preciseand reliable stratigraphic information.

18 The connection of this cutting with the Lykurgan diazoma has been disprovedby Korres (1980).

19 See esp. Pöhlmann (1981).20 On Classical rectilinear theatres, see most recently: Goette (1995a); Moretti

(1999–2000); Junker (2004).

Eric Csapo 99

or Trakhones, where estimates run as high as 3,750.21 Though stilllarge by contemporary standards, the theatre of Dionysos very likelyhad less capacity than the ekklesiasterion of Pnyx I and II.22 At 4,000to 7,000 it could not have been much bigger than the theatre atPeiraieus which was sometimes used for assemblies of the Atheniandemos (see further below).

If Athens invented admission charges, it was surely in order to dealwith the extraordinary cost and bother of providing seats in thetheatre. The theatre festivals, with an annual periodicity and a settingin the heart of a large urban centre, had more regular and muchlarger audiences than those which frequented most other musical orathletic festivals. It was just the kind of regular maintenance workwhich the Athenian democracy liked to farm out to private entre-preneurs. The demes and even cities outside Attica imitated thesuccess of the City Dionysia, building theatres, appointing choregoi,and holding contests for dithyramb, tragedy, and comedy. Some atleast would appear to have imitated the city in selling the work toentrepreneurs. The city stood only to gain by selling the franchiseand lost no trouble or expense; the entrepreneurs profited by sellingseats. Everyone was happy, excepting only Athenian theatre-goers,who blamed the greed of the theatronai for high admission costs orthe scarcity of seats.

ENTRANCE FEES AND THE THEORIKON

If this seems plausible, it is not quite the way that ancient authorsexplained admission fees. Several late authors mention the intro-duction of admission fees in general accounts of the origin of the

21 For the seating capacity at Thorikos: Palyvou (2001) 56. For Trakhones(Euonymon): Lohmann (1998) 195 (2,600–3,750); Tzachou-Alexandri (1999) 421(‘2,500 spectators at least’).

22 There is controversy too over the capacity of the Pnyx. Recent opinions include:Hansen (1991) 130–1, who estimates that Pnyx I held 6,000 participants, Pnyx II(after 403) held an estimated 6,500 to 8,000; Camp (2001) 46–7, who estimates thatPnyx I held 8,000 to 13,000.


festival dole, theorikon, in Athens.23 They all agree that the root causeof the introduction of the theorikon was fierce competition for seatsin the theatre of Dionysos. Two of the sources, Libanius and thescholiast to Lucian, add, apparently by way of explanation, that thetheatre was not yet of stone. Unfortunately they make no effort toshow how this could possibly exacerbate the competition for seats,and we may suspect that they have garbled their model. Four sourcesmaintain that this competition led to physical violence in thetheatron (Ulpian, Σ Lucian, Libanius, Photius s.v. theorika); thefifth (Etymologicum Genuinum) mentions the violence but withoutconnecting it with the competition for seats. There is disagreementabout whether the fighting was predominantly between rich andpoor (Σ Lucian), citizen and foreigner (Photius s.v. theorikon kaitheorike , Etymologicum Genuinum), or both (Ulpian). From here twoauthors move directly into an explanation of the theorikon: it wasdecided to provide money for all so that the rich (Ulpian), or theforeigners (Photius s.v. theorikon kai theorike), would not havethe advantage in buying up the seats. But four sources have amore complex explanation: to stop the violence in the theatre theAthenians decided to charge admission (Σ Lucian, Libanius, Photiuss.v. theorika, Etymologicum Genuinum).24 The remedy then led torenewed conflict. The rich regularly bought up all the seats, sothe theorikon was created to remedy the remedy (Harpocration,Σ Lucian, Libanius, Photius s.v. theorika). As a group, these sourcesoffer nothing but confusion, non-sequiturs, and mutual contradic-tion. In particular, they do not explain how a theatre in wood is moreconducive to violent confrontation than a stone theatre (was itbecause of its more restricted size?). And they do not explain howintroducing entrance fees is any kind of solution to the competitionfor seats.

23 Harp. s.v. Θεωρικα (includes Philoch. FGrH F33); Ulp. on Dem. Olynthiac 1.1(Dilts); Σ Aeschin. 3.24; Σ Lucian Tim. 49; Lib. Hypothesis to Dem. Olynthiac 1; Phot.s.v. theorikon kai theorike (Theodoridis); Phot. s.v. theorika 1 (Theodoridis); Et. Gen.s.v. theorikon argyrion (Sylburg).

24 It is not easy to see how charging admission stops violence. Only Σ Lucianoffers further explanation by stating that the seats were then sold in advance andsomehow reserved. But this might only remove the rioting from the theatron to thebox office.

Eric Csapo 101

However Ulpian’s version, probably the earliest of the group,shares none of this illogic. Unlike the other sources Ulpian does notmake entrance fees the solution to civil strife, but its cause.25 Heassumes the existence of entrance fees to begin with, and he explainstheir existence by the fact that the theatre was constructed of wood(Ulpian on Dem. Olynthiac 1.1 (Dilts)):

�πειδKπερ χρKµατα @χοντε� στρατιωτικα ο! �Αθηνα�οι @ναγχο� α8τα

πεποιKκασι θεωρικα. ]στε λαµβανειν �ν τ^ θεωρε�ν Wκαστον τ�ν �ν τ_

π%λει δ�ο =βολο��, `να τ/ν µ7ν Wνα κατασχa ε5� 5δαν τροφKν, τ/ν δ7

α� λλον παρ�χειν @χωσι τ^ α� ρχιτ�κτονι το� θεατρου (ο8δ7 γαρ εJχον τ%τε

θ�ατρον δια λθων κατεσκευασµ�νον) ... 5στ�ον δ7 ;τι τα χρKµατα τα�τα ταδηµ%σια θεωρικα �ποησεν �ξ α� ρχ9� � Περικλ9� δι � α5ταν τοια�την· �πειδ2

πολλ�ν θεωµ�νων κα� στασιαζ%ντων δια τ/ν τ%πον κα� ξ�νων κα� πολιτ�ν,κα� λοιπ/ν τ�ν πλουσων α� γοραζ%ντων το�� τ%που�, βουλ%µενο� α� ρ�σαι

τ^ δKµ' κα� το�� π�νησιν, `να @χωσι κα� α8το� π%θεν 0νε�σθαι τ%που�,@γραψε τα προσοδευ%µενα χρKµατα τ_ π%λει γεν�σθαι πασι θεωρικα το��πολται�.

When the Athenians got hold of military money they immediately turnedit into festival money, so that each citizen received two obols for thefestival, one to provide himself with food, the other to have something togive to the arkhitekton (they did this because they did not have a theatrebuilt in stone in those days) . . . It is important to know that Periklesoriginally made this public money festival money for the following rea-son. When there were many wishing to get into the theatre and there wasfierce competition for places both among citizens and foreigners, andthen when the rich bought up all the seats, Perikles wanted to please thepeople and the poor and decreed that the city’s income be turned intofestival money for all citizens so that they could have the means to buyseats.

Arguably Ulpian preserves the least garbled version of the accountthat lies behind this group. According to his source, from the time ofPerikles, at latest, the admission fee went to pay the theatre manager,and this had something to do with the wooden construction of thetheatre. The implication that the theatre manager was called the

25 The same logic may lie behind Phot. s.v. theorikon kai theorike, but if so it iscontradicted by Phot. s.v. theorika 1.


arkhitekton in the time of Perikles is an anachronism, as we will see,and most historians doubt the existence of a theorikon before thelatter half of the fourth century. Plutarch also ascribes the theorikonto Perikles, and a common source, perhaps as early as the fourthcentury, is assumed for Plutarch and the later commentators:Theopompos and Philochorus have been named.26

I do not mean to imply that Ulpian’s account of the theorikon, justbecause it is not illogical, or just because it does not completelygarble a fourth-century author, is therefore somehow true.What interests me here, and what seems to me consistent with a lateClassical/early Hellenistic source, is the logical association ofentrance fees and wooden theatra.

WOODEN THEATRES

The emphasis placed in the Peiraieus lease upon the provisionof wooden benches (rather than, say, a general provision for themaintenance of the theatre) suggests that something more thanthe mere maintenance of pre-existing structures is involved. Just howoften was the theatron rebuilt?

It does not seem to have been the practice in antiquity to leavewooden seating in place very long before or after use. Epigraphyoffers few references to the rebuilding of wooden theatra, but that isin itself interesting. The building accounts which might preservesuch information refer only to expenditures from the public purseand the only theatres involved are those being built or rebuilt instone. What the building accounts of various Greek cities do provideis a number of references to the erection of stands of wooden seats instadia and lawcourts.

In Delos, for example, we have records of the payment of thosewho brought the wooden benches (bathra) into the stadium (andpresumably installed them): this happened at least twice over a

26 Meinhardt (1957) 38 (Philochorus); Wade-Gery (1958) 237 (Theopompos);Connor (1968) 111–16 (Theopompus). Cf. Stadter (1989) 116.

Eric Csapo 103

five-year period in the mid-third century .27 The context makes itclear that the installation was preparatory to the annual games (theApollonia). A few years later the Amphictyonic accounts for thepreparation of the Pythian games record a payment for the placingof wooden stands for the spectators (bathrosis) in the stadium atDelphi.28 The same inscription may also refer to the bathrosis of thetheatre, although the line is heavily restored.29

It is perhaps easier to see why the seating at stadia should beerected and dismantled on each occasion. Games are frequentlybiennial, or quadrennial, and large tracts of land, especially inremoter sanctuary locations, could be put to good use in the mean-time: inscriptions show that the hippodrome in Delos, the stadiumin Libadia, and even the Panathenaic stadium in Athens were leasedfor pasturage once the games were over.30 The same logic wouldgovern the set up and removal of bleachers for viewing processions:we have literary evidence from Athens for the erection of bleachersfor the Panathenaia from the second century , and architecturalevidence, in the form of postholes, for their regular periodic use asearly as the fifth century .31 The stands were placed in the middle

27 IG XI 2, 274 (Delos c. 255 ) l. 24, with correction and supplement by Tréheux(1984) 334 n. 33: το�� τα βαθ[ρα �νεγκασι - - ‘(paid) to those who carried in thebathra’; IG XI 2, 287 A (Delos 250 ) l. 81: κα� �ργαται� ?δωλιασασιν � ‘and tothe workers who assembled the hedolia one drachma’; and l. 32: βαθρα �ν�γκασι ||‘to those who brought in the bathra two obols’. On bathra see above, p. 95 andn. 13.

28 CID II 139 (Delphi 247/6? ), ll. 29–30: ταν βαθρωσιν �ν τ·[�ι] πυθικ�ι

σταδ·ωι Νκων, π%δα� [: 1 |: ], στατKρων : ΓΣ: ‘for assembling the bathra in the Pythian

Stadium x feet by x feet, Nikon (received) six staters’.29 CID II 139 (Delphi 247/6? ) l. 27: ταν βαθρωσι

·ν· [το�] θε

·α·[τρου το�

πυ]θικο� Μελισσ[ων] : ∆Σ∆ΣΓΣΣΣΣ ‘for assembling the bathra of the Pythian

Theatre (?), Melission (received) twenty-eight staters’. The koilon of the theatre seemsnot to have been built in stone until the second century .

30 Delos: IG XI 2, 104–11 A, 16–17; IG XI 2, 104–19 A, 11; IG XI 2, 104–26 A, 9; IGXI 2, 149, 2; IG XI 2, 152 B, 6; IG XI 2, 158 A, 11; IG XI 2, 161 A, 11; IG XI 2, 162 A, 9;IG XI 2, 199 A, 5–6; IG XI 2, 287 A, 32; IG XI 2, 352, 12; IG XI 2, 1417 B II, 114;Homolle (1890) 390, 427; Hellmann (1992) 176. Libadia: Vollgraff (1901) 372.Athens: IG II2 1035, 50.

31 Ath. 4.167F (Hegesander): το�� δ7 Παναθηναοι� `ππαρχο� bν Lκριον@στησεν πρ/� το�� :ΕH ρµα�� Αρισταγ%ραι µετεωρ%τερον τ�ν ΕH ρµ�ν ‘whenHipparch he erected a bleacher for Aristagora by the herms which was higherthan the herms’. Cf. Poll. 7.125 s.v. ikriopoioi: 5κριοποιο� δ’ ε5σ�ν ο! πηγν�ντε�τα περ� τ2ν α� γοραν Lκρια ‘bleacher-makers are those who emplace the bleachers


of the agora and would have to be removed immediately after thefestival so as not to hinder normal activity.32 More remarkableperhaps is to find the same ad hoc set-up and removal operation inthe case of lawcourts, which met much more frequently. But we haveevidence for this at Delos. One inscription uses the verb hedoliazo(the same verb used in the Peiraieus lease).33 Another, if correctlyrestored, records payment for workers who bring in and remove 200wooden benches from the lawcourts.34 Roland Martin even arguesthat it was normal to construct and dismantle the benches for eachmeeting of the court of the Heliaia in Athens (1951: 325–7; 1957: 81).

The very terms employed for installing wooden seats seem to con-note temporary structures. If the term ikria can be applied to suchvery different structures as the bleachers set up on the flat plane ofthe agora and the benches laid upon the rising ground of the theatreof Dionysos, it is probably because it connotes primarily anybenchwork which is wooden and temporary. According to Martin(1957: 76): ‘le terme designe tout echafaudage, tribune, etc., decaractère temporaire élevé pour les assemblées, les fêtes, etc.’35 Theimpermanence of the construction is also indicated by the vocabu-lary used in describing the way ikria or hedolia are put together:usually words like δ�ω, δεσµε�ω, (συν)πKγνυµι, the seats, oroften explicitly ‘the planks’, are ‘affixed’, ‘emplaced’ or ‘assembled’;

around the agora’. Postholes for the erection of bleachers have been found onthe Panathenaic way: see Camp (1986) 45–6. These bleachers are not to be connectedin any way with the alleged theatre in the agora: see the important discussion byScullion (1994) 52–66.

32 Cf. Plaut. Curc. 643–7: as a child Planesium was taken to see the Dionysia andlost in the confusion that followed when the stands (spectacula) collapsed. This doesnot refer to the Epidaurian theatre, since drama there formed part of the Asklepieia(and besides the sanctuary theatron was built into the hillside and of stone). Thereference must be to stands built for spectators along the route followed by the pompe(cf. Plaut. Cist. 90).

33 IG XI 2, 287 A, l. 81, cited above, n. 27.34 IG XI 2 no. 145 (Delos 302 ) ll. 37–8 with addenda, cf. Tréheux (1984) 334

n. 33: [�ργαται� βαθρα ;] | [τ’] Zν τα δικαστKρια τα�� !ερα�� γραφα�� δι·ακ%σ[ια]

κατεν�γκασ[ι] κ·α� α� πεν�γκασι ·� �· ‘and two drachmas to the workers bring-

ing in and taking out two hundred bathra when the courts met at the ?sacredsessions’.

35 Cf. the theatron ‘cobbled together’ (5κρι�σα�) for a beast hunt by Caesar inDio Cassius 43.22.2.

Eric Csapo 105

the ancient lexica describe hedolia as ‘planks of wood put together insome place in a simple fashion’.36 Moreover the building accountsoften do not itemise the expense as a ‘construction of benches’,so much as a mere expenditure on the labour of ‘bringing in’ or‘carrying out’ wood.

The evidence for the transitory nature of the Classical theatron sitswell with the evidence for the rectilinear shape of the orchestra andtheatron which we find in the older deme theatres of Attica.37 Theeffort and expense of shaping a wooden theatron to fit a circular planwould hardly be worthwhile if the theatron were only being put upfor a few days or a single festival season, especially when the decisionswere being made by an entrepreneur who was mainly interested inmaximising his profits. Not aesthetics, let alone Wiles’ imputedrationalistic or antitheocentric values (1997: 23–62), but simplepractical economics, reine Zweckhaftigkeit (Junker 2004: 28), dictatedthe rectilinear plan of all fifth- and early fourth-century theatres forwhich we have sufficient evidence. Aesthetic considerations take overonce theatra are built of stone and with money directly dispensedfrom state coffers. We know of no circular theatres until the stonetheatres of Lykurgos at Athens, Epidaurus, and Megalopolis.

The temporary character of the seating would also explain whythe evidence shows the Athenian assembly meeting so rarely in thetheatre of Dionysos. The fact is especially odd if one accepts the more

36 δ�ω: Hsch. s.v. παρ’ α5γερου θ�α. δεσµε�ω: Suid. s.v. Lκρια: Σ Ar. Th.395.(συµ)πKγνυµι: Poll. 7.125; Lib. Hypothesis to Dem. Olynthiac 1; Hsch. s.v. α5γερου-θ�α. The ancient lexica are cited above, n. 10. Cf. Martin (1957) 75–6.

37 The theatres in question are Ikarion, Thorikos (see further below), Rhamnous,?Peiraieus (Goette 1995a: 43 n. 32 finds the scant remains, mainly the drainage canal,reported by the nineteenth-century excavations, at least consistent with a rectangularorchestra), Trakhones, Oropos (Goette 1995a: 253–60 argues that it is mid-fourthcentury; Tzachou-Alexandri 1999: 421 would include it in the fifth century),Syracuse, Argos, Isthmia, Chaeroneia, Morgantina, ?Tegea, ?Phlious, ?Cyrene,Metapontum. The shape of most of these theatres is known from the prohedria whichwas of stone or had foundations in stone. Some early theatres, however, retained therectangular form of the theatron and orchestra, despite the fact that the entire theatronwas in stone, or substantially built of stone: Thorikos, for example, which has atheatron with nineteen stone seats dating to the early fifth century . In general, seemost recently (with further literature) Moretti (2001) 121–36; Junker 2004. Calydonmay also have had a rectilinear theatre: we await the publication of recentexcavations.


traditional figures for seating capacity, by which the ekklesiasterionon the Pnyx had less space and probably no seating apart from the‘first benches’.38 Yet, the only meetings of the assembly which wereheld in the theatre took place each year immediately after theDionysia, and only, it appears, for the express purpose of reviewingthe festival.39 The infrequency of such gatherings is consistent withone or both of our earlier conclusions: namely that the capacity ofthe theatre of Dionysos was in fact smaller than or equal to theekklesiasterion of the Pnyx and that seating was only available in thetheatre during the festival season. Once the theatre was built in stone,it was regularly used in preference to the Pnyx.40 The temporaryconvenience of available seating may also explain the pattern forassemblies in Peiraieus. Down to 188 all epigraphically attestedassemblies held in the Peiraieus theatre in the third and secondcenturies took place during one of the three winter months,Poseideon, Gamelion, or Elaphebolion. Thereafter the assembly metfrequently at any time of year. The building of the stone theatre atZea is usually dated broadly to the mid-second century , but onthis evidence, might be more narrowly dated to about 185 .41

38 See e.g. Hansen and Fischer-Hansen (1994) 53.39 D. 21.8–10, 206; Aeschin. Emb. 61, Ktes. 52; IG II2 140.4 (353/2 ), 223 (343/2

); Pickard-Cambridge (1968 (1988)) 68–70; Kourouniotis and Thompson (1932)136–8; Kolb (1981) 93; Hansen and Fischer-Hansen (1994) 44–5. There was also adisplay of the ephebes in the theatre in Boedromion attested by Arist. Ath. Pol. 42.4,but this may refer to the time of the stone theatre; so also the assembly in lateAnthesterion 331/0 reported by IG II2 350. The assembly of the deme ofMyrrhinous after the rural Dionysia also met in the theatre to discuss the festival(χρηµατζειν περ� ∆ιονυσων, IG II2 1183, 36).

40 Moretti (2001) 118; Kolb (1981) 94–5, with some adjustments by Hansen andFischer-Hansen (1994) 44 n. 82. The formula for meetings of the assembly whichfollow the Dionysia (�κκλησα �ν ∆ιον�σου) is consistently distinguished from theformula for other meetings (�κκλησα �ν τ^ θεατρ'). Kolb claims that the latterappears in inscriptions first in 319/18 ‘als die vollständig aus Steinsitzen konstruierteCavea des lykurgischen Dionysostheaters fertiggestellt war’, and then regularly afterthe beginning of the third century (Kolb 1981: 95).

41 Meetings in Peiraieus to 188/7 : IG II2 785 (Poseideon 239/8 ); IG II2 849(Gamelion c. 206/5 ); IG II2 850 (Elaphebolion c. 200 ); Agora 15.165(?Poseideon c. 197/6 ); SEG 25, 112 (Elaphebolion 196/5 ); IG II2 890 (Posedeion188/7 ). After 184/3: Hesperia 40 (1971) no. 9 (Hekatombaion 184/3 ); SEG16, 89 (Metageitnion 175/4 ); SEG 16, 91 (Metageitnion 173/2 ); SEG 16, 94(Maimakterion 173/2–168/7 , cf. SEG 21, 452); IG II2 910 (Gamelion 169/8 );Hesperia 5 (1936) no. 17 (Skirophorion 169–165 ); IG II2 946 (Elaphebolion 166/5

Eric Csapo 107

Why theatra were reassembled for each festival or season of usagecan only be a matter for speculation. The effect of spring rains andthe summer sun on exposed and untreated wood may have been aprimary concern. Anyone who has made the mistake of leavingfurniture out on the balcony on a hot summer day in Athens will beable to estimate the potential for damage. Another possible reason istheft or vandalism. Long planks were a valuable resource. More per-tinent, however, is the desire, especially on the part of entrepreneurs,to keep the wood in circulation. The texts just discussed may helpform some impression of how frequently public seating needed to betransported and reassembled for festivals and public assemblies of allsorts. There seems little possibility that the planks were simply putinto storage for safe-keeping until the next Dionysia.

THE ARKHITEKTON

It is time now to consider the third term in our trinity, thearkhitekton. The arkhitektones we meet in Greek inscriptions oftenseem to have little in common with what we would call ‘architects’.42

Arkhitekton might most often better be translated as ‘general con-tractor’. But remoter still from what we consider architects are theofficial arkhitektones, who appear as salaried officials in variousGreek states, beginning in the mid to late fourth centuries , andwho work together with boards of epistatai or epimeletai. This figuremore often functions as a combination of Chairman of the PublicWorks Dept. and Building Inspector. Not coincidentally, perhaps, theofficial arkhitekton is best attested in places like Athens, Delphi, andDelos during periods of major civic construction in the fourthand third centuries : at Athens from a little before the time of

); SEG 16, 96 (Gamelion 164/3 ); SEG 16, 95 (Elaphebolion 164/3 ); SEG 34,95 (Boedromion 161/0 ); SEG 16, 96 (?Gamelion c. 158 ); IG II2 971 (Skiro-phorion 140/39 ); I.Delos 1505 (Thargelion 150/49 ); IG II2 974 (Gamelion137/6 ); IG II2 977 (month unknown, 131/0 ); IG II2 978 (Anthesteria, c. 130 );SEG 21, 468 (month unknown, c. 130 ). The exception is D. 19.60 which showsthe assembly meeting in Peiraieus to discuss naval matters in summertime (27thSkirophorion, 347/6 ).

42 See most recently Svenson-Evers (1996) 505–9.


Lykurgos, at Delphi during the time of the reconstruction of thetemple of Apollo, and at Delos during the great boom in publicbuilding in the period of independence from 314 to 240 .43 TheDelian inscriptions also seem to show that the official arkhitektonwas, as we would expect, recruited from the ranks of professionalbuilders, since some of them appear to have state contracts beforeand possibly even while they are in office.44

At Athens the first epigraphic attestation of arkhitektones salariedby the state is in an inscription of 337/6 .45 The Athenaion Politeiaindicates that the official arkhitektones were elected by the popularassembly, probably from the beginning, since elected arkhitektonesare mentioned in inscriptions from as early as 333/2 .46 AnAthenian inscription mentions official arkhitektones in the plural(IG II2 244), and different offices are known. One of the arkhitektonesspecialised in the upkeep of sanctuaries and related buildings.We have direct evidence of the α� ρχιτ�κτων � �π� τα !ερα

χειροτονο�µενο� ‘the arkhitekton elected to look after sanctuaries’from 270/69 .47 His colleagues were the α� ρχιτ�κτονε� ο! �π� τα�

να�� (χειροτονο�µενοι) ‘the arkhitektones elected to look after theships’ (Ath. Pol. 46.1). We see an arkhitekton elected possibly on anad hoc basis to take charge of a large construction project at Eleusisin 333/2 : he is explicitly called � κεχειροτονηµ�νο� �π� τ/ν

ο5κοδοµαν ‘(the arkhitekton) elected to look after the construction’(IG II2 1673 with Clinton 1971: 100–1).

The earliest full reference to the arkhitekton elected to look aftersanctuaries is the Athenian decree honouring Kallias of Sphettos,

43 Delphi: see esp. Burford (1969); Jacquemin (1990). Delos: see esp. Lacroix(1914). For literature on the Athenian arkhitekton, see below.

44 Lacroix (1914) 304; Burford (1969) 139; sceptical, Svenson-Evers (1996) 510.45 IG II2 244 (337/6) where ‘the arkhitektones salaried by the city’, το��

α� ρχιτ�κτονα� το�� παρα τ9� π%λεω� µισθοφορο�ντα�, appears twice (withsupplements).

46 Arist. Ath. Pol. 46.1; IG II2 1673 + SEG 32, 167 + SEG 34, 122, ll. 59–60 (seebelow). cf. IG II2463 (307/6 ) α� ρχιτ�κτ]ονα τ/ν κεχειρο[τ]ονηµ�νο[ν] ,π[/το]� δ[Kµου] ‘the arkhitekton elected by the people’; SEG 28, 60.98 (270/69 ); SEG37, 89 (third century ?), IG II2 900.12 (185/4 ); SEG 32, 129.9–10 (c. 185 ).At Delphi the arkhitektones were appointed by the assembly or council, and by thehieropes at Delos: Jacquemin (1990) 85.

47 SEG 28, 60.98, cf. SEG 27, 89 (third century ?), and the second centuryinscriptions IG II2 839.29, IG II2 840.13, 21, IG II2 841.14, IG II2 842.2; SEG 34, 95.6.

Eric Csapo 109

dated 270/69 . Here the arkhitekton is instructed to provide Kalliaswith prohedria in all the contests sponsored by the city (SEG 28, 60,ll. 96–9):

εJναι δ-7 κα� προεδραν α8τ�ν �ν α< πασιν το�� α� γ�σιν οc� " π%λι� τ[]-θησιν κα� τ/ν α� ρχιτ�κτονα τ/ν �π� τα !ερα χειρο<το>νο�µεν[ο]-ν κατ<α>ν�µειν α8τ�ι τ2ν προεδραν.

May he have prohedria in all of the contests which the city sponsors and maythe arkhitekton elected to look after sanctuaries assign him prohedria.

The formula for providing seats or prohedria for persons honouredby the Athenians is a familiar one, though in other decrees it isattached to ‘the arkhitekton’ simpliciter, without specifying ‘elected tolook after sanctuaries’. I assume it is the same office. We have elevenAthenian inscriptions, dating from 331–324 to 185/4 , which namethe arkhitekton in a formulaic clause granting perpetual prohedriaor one-off occasional theatre seats:48 The formula normally readsA+B or B+C as follows:

A εJναι δ7 / ,παρχειν + κα� προεδραν �ν α< πασιν το��+ dat. pronoun α� γ�σιν (οc�

" π%λι� τθησιν/αO ν τιθε�)

B τ/ν α� ρχιτ�κτονα + καταν�µειν + dat. + τ2ν

pronoun προεδραν / (τ2ν) θ�αν / τ/ν τ%πον

C ε5� τα ∆ιον�σια vel sim.

As Demosthenes (18.28.5) and Aeschines (2.55) use the same for-mula in relation to a decree of 346 , we can conclude that this isour earliest evidence for the arkhitekton to look after sanctuaries. As

48 Hesperia 43.322–3, ll. 27–30 (B+C, 331–324 ); IG II2 456 fr. b, 31–2 (B+C,307/6 ); IG II2 466 fr. b, 52–3 (B+C, 307/6 ); IG II2 567 fr. b, 22–3 (B+C, fin s IV a;SEG 21, 343.3–5 (A+B, ex s IV a); IG II2 500, 23–4 (A+B, 302/1 ); IG II2 512 (= SEG31, 83), 6–8 (A+B, c. 300 ); SEG 14, 65. 41–3 (A+B, 271/0 ); IG II2 792, 7–9(A+B, c. 230 ); SEG 32, 129. 9–10 (A+B, c. 185 ); IG II2 900, frs. 1–b, 11–13 (A+B,185/4 ). Note that the formula B+C is replaced by A+B sometime between 307/6and 302/1. General discussion in Henry (1983) 291–4.


the name implies, this arkhitekton had duties in connection with allor most of the sanctuaries in the city, not just the theatre. Inscrip-tions show him taking care of the shrine of the Hero Doctor,probably the shrine of Kodros, Neleus, and Basile, and possibly theshrine of Aphrodite Hegemone or Aphrodite Ourania.49 Despite along-standing scholarly tradition, then, the arkhitekton, as an electedand salaried public official, with duties extending beyond the theatre,to the maintenance of all Athenian sanctuaries, is far from being justanother name for a theatre lessee.

Nonetheless there are some similarities in function between thearkhitekton and the theatrones. The arkhitektones mentioned by thesedecrees have a special connection with the theatre and are clearlyin charge of the distribution of seats. Just as the theatre lessees atPeiraieus are responsible for giving free admission and prohedriato those to whom it was granted by the demesmen of Peiraieus,so in the Athenian theatre by the mid-fourth century it is thearkhitekton. Perhaps the arkhitekton was now also required to see tothe collection of the two obols which Demosthenes mentions as thecost of an ordinary seat in the theatre. If so, Ulpian’s claim that thecost of theatre tickets went to the arkhitekton is correct but anachro-nistic, insofar as it is ascribed to the time of Perikles, and misleading(some of the other sources on the theorikon correctly state that theticket money went ‘to the polis’). The money is certainly no part ofthe arkhitekton’s personal remuneration, as has sometimes beensupposed.50 Official arkhitektones have a relatively modest salary ofone to two drachmas per day, as we know from inscriptions fromAthens, Delphi, and Delos.51 It would be absurd to think that, forthis particular job, Athens threw in, as some sort of perk, an annualbonus of several talents.

So then what became of the theatron-seller of the theatre ofDionysos once the theatron was built in stone and no longer needed

49 IG II2 839, 29–30 (221/0 ); IG II2 840, 13, 22–3 (late third century ); SEG19, 78 (239/8 ); SEG 34, 95.7 (161/0 ); Cf. IG II2 841, 14–15 (early second century); IG II2 842, 2 (mid-second century ). See also Shear (1978) 58; Rhodes (1972)95–6, 126.

50 E.g. Kahrstedt (1969 (1937)) 312. Cf. Buchanan (1962) 86–7.51 Lacroix 1914 (303–9); Burford (1969)140–1; Jacquemin (1990) 85; Svenson-

Evers (1996) 503–4.

Eric Csapo 111

to be assembled and dismantled for each festival season? As men-tioned earlier, the literary and architectural evidence both indicatethat the theatre of Dionysos––and for our purposes in particularits theatron––was built of wood until the construction of the theatrecalled ‘Lykurgan’. But the Lykurgan theatre is in part earlier than thisname implies, since it had been under construction for some timebefore Lykurgos. Of this the theatron was perhaps the first part to becompleted. A pre-Lykurgan drainage canal contains reused blocksfrom the platform of the late fifth-century prohedria.52 Also the baseof a statue of Astydamas was built into the west analemma of theso-called Lykurgan theatron, and this fact perhaps suggests a date ofcompletion, at latest, around 340 .53 We can therefore date thebeginning of the construction of the stone theatron in Athens toseveral years before 340 , indeed about the time, 348 , that thearkhitekton first appears distributing seats in the theatre.

I suggest that the need for leasing the theatre disappeared with thebuilding of a permanent theatron.54 At this point the arkhitekton tookdirect charge of the maintenance of the theatre. If we can comparethe situation at Delos and Epidauros we find plenty of epigraphicevidence to show that the contracts for the construction and main-tenance of the stone theatres, and in particular the stone theatra,were tendered and paid directly by the hieropoioi or epimeletai uponapproval by the official arkhitekton.55 There was no need for theatrelessees or any other sort of middleman. Inscriptions are particularlyinformative about work on the stone theatron in Delos, which wasunderway by 305 .56 Several of the accounts of the hieropoioi

52 See Appendix 116–118; Goette (1995a) 25–6.53 Goette (1995a) 30. There are further indications that the theatron was com-

pleted around 330 before the beginning of building on the Panathenaic stadium.See the inscription published by Heisserer and Moysey (1986) and also IG II2 351,16–18 (IG II2 351 + 624 = Syll.3 288 = Tod II, no. 198), date of c. 330/29, whichmentions provision of oxen for construction of the Panathenaic theatron. For theconnection between the building of the Panathenaic stadium and the work on thetheatre see Lauter and Lauter (1988) and, following them, Goette (1995a) 46 n. 81and (1999) 25. On this inscription see most recently Dillery (2002).

54 The reference to the theatronai in Theophrastos’ Characters 30.6 is not evidencefor the survival of leasing arrangements in the main Athenian theatre. See above,p. 96.

55 See esp. Delos: IG II2 XI 2, 150A, 10–13 (297 ), with Vallois (1944) 231–2.56 Vallois (1944) 231–2.


record payments made, at the bidding of the epimeletai and thearkhitekton, to individuals who laboured on various parts of thetheatron.57 We have only one comparable account, from Epidauros.The accounts of the Epidaurian building commission for the theatrerecord payments for the laying of tiers of stone seats (krepidia), theconstruction of stone chairs (thokoi), probably intended for the pro-hedria, in addition to work done on the stagebuilding.58 As at Delos,the work at Epidauros regularly requires the oversight and specificapproval of the official arkhitekton.59

CONCLUSION

In sum, we know of leasing arrangements only for theatres built ofwood. The main benefit of the lease is, for the state, income from thetheatre without the regular expense and trouble of laying benches inthe theatron for each festival season. The benefit for the lessees wasthe right to collect admission charges, thereby recovering the cost ofthe lease and chalking up what probably amounted to a handsomeprofit.60 This arrangement fits well with the layout of the theatron

57 IG XI 2, 142, 27 (305 ); IG XI 2, 150 A, 10–13 (297 ), with Vallois (1944)231; IG XI 2, 163A, 24–6, (276 ); IG XI 2, 203A, 82–8, 95–7 (269 ); IG XI 2, 287A,92–3, 94–6, 120 (250 ). Cf. ID 291, b14.17, 30–1, c 16 + e15 (247 ), with Vallois(1944) 233 n. 5; I.Délos 290, 176–92 (246 ).

58 Peek (1970–2) no. 19 (with Burford 1966: 296–300) A 8–9, 24–5, B 4–12,C 8–14 (Epidauros ?350 ). For the meaning of krepidia and thokoi cf. IG XI 2, 203 A95; Burford (1966) 299; Hellmann (1992) 149–50, 242–3.

59 Burford (1966) 297; Burford (1969) 138–45; Svenson-Evers (1996) 415–28.60 In the case of the Peiraieus lease, the cost of the lease is 3,000 drachmas to

which 300 were added out of civic zeal. Behrend (1970) 88 n. 178 reckons the incomeas follows. The theatre will not have had a larger capacity than the ‘new theatre’ atZea, therefore no more than 5,000. At two obols a head, 9,900 paying customers, soat least two days of performances, are required to cover the initial outlay. He assumesthat the costs for construction and upkeep amount to many times the cost of thelease, so that the lessees need at least ten days of capacity audiences to make a profit.But the costs of assembling wooden benches in the inscriptions from Delos andDelphi (two obols, two drachmas, six staters, or in the case of an entire theatre,twenty-eight staters) indicate that construction costs to the lessees were probablynowhere near as high as Behrend imagines. We do not know how many daysthe Dionysia at Peiraieus lasted. In 127/6 the ephebes who participated in the

Eric Csapo 113

which is rectilinear or trapezoidal in all early theatres. When theatreswere built in stone, there was no need for such leasing arrangementsand construction, maintenance, and repair now fell to the responsi-bility of the arkhitekton, or a commission advised by the arkhitekton.

It is hardly surprising, under these conditions, that the leasingarrangements came to an end. The need to construct the theatronwas eliminated by the permanent theatre. The stone architecturereduced maintenance costs to a minimum. It also provided the statewith vastly greater income from seat sales in a theatre with doublethe capacity of its predecessor. The state therefore had nothing tolose and everything to gain in discontinuing the former leasingarrangement. Perhaps the financial wizard Lykurgos was no lessinterested in the income the theatre brought to the state coffersthan in the architectural glorification of his city. For although themaintenance of the theatres passed from private to public hands,admission fees certainly continued, despite the loss of their originaljustification.61 This contradiction perhaps added some stimulus forthe introduction of the theorikon, which is only directly attested after343 . In any case, the appearance of the arkhitekton in Athens by346 should be taken as evidence that the building of the stonetheatron was well underway. Demes such as Peiraieus and Akharnai,and many foreign cities, like those of Euboea, continued to make useof leasing arrangements for their theatres until the end of the fourth

‘Introduction’ and sacrifice to Dionysos stayed for four days. There were at least threedithyrambic choruses ([Plu.] Moral. (Ten Orators) 842a) and tragedy and comedy(Law of Euegoros in D. 21.10). Assuming four days and admission paid upon eachentry, one Dionysia would easily repay the lease (2 obols × 5,000 × 4 = 6,666drachmas, twice the cost of the lease). The lease may have been longer than one yearor one festival season. Aristotle (Ath. Pol. 47.4) gives ten years as the norm in Athensfor the leasing of a temenos. Behrend (1970) 116, cf. Rhodes (1981) 556–7, alsomentions a twenty-year lease of a temenos (though this is 418/17 and involvesthe planting of olive trees); ‘exceptional’ leases of thirty and forty years are alsomentioned. The Euboean decree (above, pp. 95–6), however, implies that an annuallease was customary in the Euboean cities, and we must reckon with the possibilitythat other events in the theatre, closely following the Dionysia, might add to thelessee’s income.

61 D. 18.28.5. It is also clear from the Samian decree honouring Polos: (SEG 1, 362= MDAI(A) 44, 16 no. 7, c. 306 ) that Samos charged admission to its theatre andfreely disposed of its revenue.


century and probably until they rebuilt their theatres in stone.62

Through the influence of comedy, however, the reputation of thetheatre-lessees for greed survived as a literary topos even whenwooden theatres were a rarity, and on the evidence of Nikarkhos’poem, even into the first century .

62 The earliest mention of the arkhitekton in relation to Peiraieus is in 307/6 .This is a decree of the Athenian assembly granting honours to the people ofKolophon. Among the many other honours, it includes in the last line a directive that‘the arkhitekton is to assign [the ambassadors of the Kolophonians] a seat at theDionysia in Peiraieus’. This is clearly the Athenian ‘arkhitekton elected to look aftersanctuaries’ and the Athenians are exercising their usual central control over thePeiraean Dionysia (Jones 2004: 134–5, 154). Contrast the wording of the Peiraeandecree granting prohedria in IG II2 1214, where there is no mention of the arkhi-tekton. The reason why the Athenians assign seats at the Peiraean Dionysia rather thanthe City festivals has to do, presumably, with the date of the ambassadors’ visit. Thedecree is dated to Maimakterion, the month before the Peiraieus Dionysia. It isinteresting, however, that the Peiraieus lease makes no provision for seats assigned byAthenian officials.

Eric Csapo 115

An Archaeological Appendix

Hans Rupprecht Goette

The Classical theatre of Dionysos was almost completely built over bythe new, greatly enlarged building that was finished during the time ofLykurgos, perhaps in 329 . Little evidence remains with which toreconstruct the Classical theatre; thus, the reconstruction presented heremust be hypothetical. Future excavation in the area of the parodoi and thetheatron (i.e. koilon) may produce a more detailed picture of the theatre ofDionysos of c. 400 .

The following archaeological evidence provides the basis for the archi-tectural reconstruction represented in Fig. 1:

(1) Three short walls made of Acropolis limestone (‘SM 1, 2, and 4’) werebuilt north of the late Archaic temple of Dionysos on a higher level of theslope. One of these walls, which is curved (‘SM 1’), prompted Doerpfeld toreconstruct a circular orchestra already for the late Archaic/early Classicalperiod. But, in fact, much evidence (see the following) makes it clear that theorchestra was not circular. As we shall see, the three short walls (‘SM 1, 2, 4’)should be connected to one continuous terrace wall (Fig. 1 nos. 1–3), whichdivided the level of the temple from that of the theatre. It served the samepurpose as the later ‘wall H’, which was erected almost at the same place.

(2) The prohedria was made of rectangular stone slabs with anathyrosisat their sides and can be dated to the late fifth century as indicated by theletter forms cut on their front. Thus the prohedria was a straight row of seatsor adjacent supports for seats, yielding a straight line for the lowest step(s)of the theatron. Since most of the early theatres in the Attic demes (especiallyTrakhones-Euonymon) show the central part of the theatron flanked bywings, some stones of the Classical prohedria in Athens might have beensituated at the sides of the orchestra as well, which therefore had an overallrectangular (or trapezoidal) form.

(3) Because open theatres collect much rain water, a drainage system hadto be installed. There is a water channel, which leads from the east side of theorchestra in a southeastern oblique direction straight down the slope and outof the Dionysos temenos in the area of the later propylon to the sanctuary.Some lateral stones and some of the cover slabs of the northern portion of


1–3: late Archaic terrace wall: 1: wall SM 4; 2: wall SM 2; 3: wall SM 14: water channel (drainage for the orchestra)5: prohedria6: Odeion of Perikles7: rock cutting for theatre access (or foundation for back wall of theatre)8: two wells belonging to a house9: ancient road (later Peripatos)10: reconstructed theatron of the Classical theatre11: reconstructed skene of the Classical theatreA–B: Doerpfeld’s excavation trench through the theatron12: outline of the ‘Lykurgan’ theatron13: entry points of the Peripatos14: choregic monument of Thrasyllos (320/19 ) at the ‘katatome’

Fig. 1 Reconstructed plan of the Classical Theatre of Dionysos with some‘Lykurgan’ additions (bold: Classical; italics: ‘Lykurgan’).

Eric Csapo 117

this subterranean drainage channel once belonged to the Classical theatre’sstraight prohedria; thus at least this portion of the channel was builtsome time between the construction of the prohedria (c. 400 ) and theinception of the new (rounded) theatre in the 360s .. Because one ofthese blocks was incorporated into the Lykurgan theatron wall at its south-western end, the construction of the channel most probably dates to the endof this four-decade period. The earlier channel starts on a lower level thanthe rounded channel of the Lykurgan theatre, to which it was connectedwhen the new theatre was used. It is not clear, however, how far the earlierstraight channel ran to the north. The pavement of the circular orchestraof Lykurgan times lies mostly on top of the levelled rock; according toDoerpfeld’s excavation, few ancient cuttings were made into the rockyground beneath the orchestra, and it is not clear if these were connected tothe Classical drainage channel. The contemporary theatre in Trakhonesmight assist in the reconstruction: here the water drainage––a well, not achannel––was situated at the corner of the theatron, close to the skene andthe east parodos. The same layout may have existed in the theatre ofDionysos in Athens.

(4) The east side of the Lykurgan theatre has an irregular shape, i.e. itruns parallel to the rectangular outline of the Odeion of Perikles. Since thisOdeion was built later (mid-fifth century) than the theatre of Dionysos ofc. 500 , and since it was connected to the theatre by the fact that theproagon was held in it, it is probable that its layout was designed with theold theatre in mind. Because the Odeion is parallel to the later Lykurgantheatre’s theatron it is likely that the east side of the earlier theatre of the fifthcentury was parallel also. The reconstruction drawing (Fig. 1) shows thehypothetical east end in an oblique line, starting in the south at the pointwhere the Lykurgan theatron terminates in an angle and ending in the northat the line of a rock cutting (Fig. 1 no. 7; Fig. 2).

(5) The excavation trench made by Doerpfeld through the theatronreveals a narrow, horizontal cutting in the bedrock about ten metres abovethe orchestra level (Fig. 2). This was thought to be the foundation of adiazoma of the Lykurgan theatre, but recent research by M. Korres indicatesthat this was not the case, so the cutting must have been for anotherpurpose.

At about ten metres up the slope, Doerpfeld found two wells belonging toClassical houses, and cut into the bedrock above them an ancient road thatagain runs in a straight line. This ‘antiker Weg’––hypothetically extended atthe east and west––connects the access points of the later Lykurgan (curved)way through the theatre, and so the straight road of the Classical period wasclearly already part of the Peripatos. Because there are wells indicating


Fig. 2 Doerpfeld’s excavation trench (A–B in Fig. 1) through the theatron(bold: Classical; italics: ‘Lykurgan’).

Eric Csapo 119

houses south of the road down the slope, the Classical theatre could nothave reached to this higher level. It is probable that the narrower rockcutting (Fig. 1 no. 7) below the wells (nos. 8–9) marks the north boundaryof the Classical theatron, either as the foundations for a back wall or, moreprobable, for another means of access to the theatre in addition to theparodoi. And because the ‘antiker Weg’ (no. 9) is laid out in a straight lineand the cuttings for this road and the one (no. 7) below the wells are similar,one can conclude that the north side of the theatron also ran in a straightline and thus was parallel to the prohedria row at the centre of the Classicalorchestra.

Unfortunately, no archaeological evidence exists for the layout of thetheatron to the west. It may have joined the lower front of the theatron tothe higher back with a 90° wall (as reconstructed in Fig. 1), in which casethe theatron would have been similar to that in the theatre at Thorikos. Butit is also possible that it mirrored the east side of the theatron, that is, that itwas connected to the front and the back side of the theatron at an obliqueangle.

The thickness and the exact inclination of the layer of earth on the rockyslope is also important for the reconstruction of the Classical theatre, butarchaeological remains are of little help in this matter. In the area of theearlier theatre’s theatron, the Lykurgan stone seats were set upon the bed-rock (Fig. 2). But the wooden benches of the Classical theatre were surelyplaced on a layer of earth, which must have been levelled to create a steppedslope as is still preserved in several Attic deme theatres, for example, atRhamnous or Trakhones. How thick this layer of earth once was; how muchearth was removed for the construction of the Lykurgan stone theatron;and at which point between the end of the drainage channel and theLykurgan prohedria the stepped slope began, cannot be determined withour present knowledge. Thus, it is not clear where the straight row ofthe Classical prohedria stones was once situated (in regard to the roundedprohedria). They may have been in line with the central throne of the laterprohedria (as shown in Fig. 1), but it is also possible that they were placeda few metres further south of the position of the Lykurgan marble throneof the priest of Dionysos; then the theatron would have been broader (ina NS direction) and the Classical orchestra narrower than shown in Fig. 1,in which case there would have been more space for wooden benchesas proposed by the reconstruction (Fig. 3). However it may have been, it isclear that the Classical theatre provided much less capacity for seatsthan its later incarnation, maybe just a little more than one-third of thec. 17,000 stone seats of the later rounded theatron belonging to the Lykurgantheatre.


Fig. 3 Model reconstruction of the Classical Theatre of Dionysos (photocourtesy of the Theatermuseum, Munich). The model shows the stone stepsof the Classical prohedria and behind them the wooden benches on the slopein a straight line along three sides of the rectangular orchestra. The ninety-degree angle at which the left (east) side of this theatron is attached to themiddle part is improbable, because this wing was parallel to the Odeion ofPerikles and thus in an oblique line to the centre of the theatron (see Fig. 1).

Eric Csapo 121