The parodos of the Greek theatres through time: from the Classical to the Roman imperial period
p. 23-62
Résumés
This article examines one of the main architectural features of the Graeco-Roman theatre, namely, the lateral entrances, focusing on a time span that stretches from the Classical to the Late Roman period. Firstly, matters of terminology are addressed. It is shown that the lateral entrances of the Greek theatre were referred to either by the generic word εἴσοδος or, at least from the early Hellenistic period onwards, by the terminus technicus πάροδος. Next, their symbolic significance and their importance from the functional point of view in the Classical and Hellenistic theatre and drama are examined. Architecturally, the parodoi were open-air corridors flanking the retaining walls of the auditorium. Finally, the analysis of the changes observed in performances and theatrical architectures during Roman times leads to the conclusion that the centuries-long history of the side entrances in Greek theatres is characterized by a consistent continuity in both form and function over time.
Cet article examine un des principaux éléments architecturaux du théâtre gréco-romain, ses entrées latérales. Il se concentre sur une période s’étendant de l’époque classique à l’époque romaine tardive. En premier lieu sont abordées des questions de terminologie. Il est démontré que les entrées latérales du théâtre grec étaient désignées soit par le terme générique εἴσοδος, soit, au moins à partir du début de la période hellénistique, par le terminus technicus πάροδος. Ensuite, sont examinées leur valeur symbolique et leur importance dans le fonctionnement des théâtres et dans les drame classiques et hellénistiques. Du point de vue architectural, les parodoi étaient des passages à ciel ouvert, flanquées par les murs de soutènement du koilon. Enfin, l’examen des changements dans les spectacles et les architectures des théâtres durant la période romaine portent à conclure que l’histoire pluriséculaire des entrées latérales dans les théâtres grecs se caractérise par une continuité persistante tant dans leur forme que dans leur fonction au fil du temps.
Texte intégral
1The side entrances are one of the main architectural features of the Greek theatre since its very origin, together with the auditorium or θέατρον, the orchestra, and the skene. Although not properly built elements, as they were hypaethral corridors flanking the retaining walls of the auditorium and leading to the area of the orchestra, they developed as important elements of the Greek (and, later, Roman) theatre. This article deals first with matters of terminology regarding the lateral entrances to Greek theatres, then tackles their role in the Classical and Hellenistic theatres of Greece and, finally, offers a lengthy analysis of their form and function in Greek theatres of the Roman imperial period. Theatres outside mainland Greece are brought into the discussion as comparanda. It will be argued that the lateral entrances to Greek theatres had a pivotal function throughout the Classical and Hellenistic period and that they retained a vital role during the Roman imperial period, too1.
Words matter: πάροδος, εἴσοδος
2The term πάροδος, a word which can be translated as “passage” or “entry path” as it implies the act of passing along something (ὁδός + παρά)2, is not widely found in ancient Greek literary sources in relationship to theatrical buildings. Its most frequently known usage in scholarship about the ancient theatre indicates both the first appearance of a chorus in the orchestra – which was made, in fact, from the lateral entrances3 – and, by extension, the first song sung by the chorus after its arrival4. An early-3rd cent. BC inscription from Eretria, however, containing a decree which regulates theatrical contests in Euboea, explicitly mentions that in each city the relevant inscribed stone stele must be exposed εἰς τὴν πάρ[οδον] | [τοῦ] θεάτρου5. This inscription, which demonstrates that the side entrance of a Hellenistic theatre could be named parodos, finds a later parallel in a much-debated statement by Pollux that has generated ample confusion about the imagined places supposedly connected to the parodoi6. The term parodos, finally, is found in one more late literary source: Athenaeus reports that the antiquarian Semus of Delos (ca AD 200), describing in his book About Paeans the ritual of the unmasked φαλλοφόροι, says that they “enter into the theatre, some from the lateral entrance, some through the central door of the stage” (παρέρχονται οἳ μὲν ἐκ παρόδου, οἳ δὲ κατὰ μέσας τὰς θύρας)7. Here the opposition is made evident between the lateral entrance to the theatre (πάροδος) and the central door of the skene (θύραι)8, while the verb παρέρχομαι denotes the act of passing by and entering into the theatre, which is appropriate for the procession of phallus-bearers9.
3Two Hellenistic inscriptions, dated to the late 4th and the mid-3rd centuries BC regarding the theatre on the island of Delos, add one more piece to this intricate puzzle. They both use the term εἴσοδος10 in order to designate not a lateral corridor or a ramp, but a wooden gateway, a use which is confirmed by other Delian building inscriptions, where the word is always found in the singular form and commonly labels a monumental entrance, be it to the theatre or to a sanctuary or a temple on the Cycladic island11. Remarkably, in one of the two inscriptions concerning the theatre the term does not even refer to the lateral entrance to the monument, as it likely designates a gateway in the upper part of the auditorium12. The hypothesis that the term eisodos may denote a gateway can also be drawn from a passage of Diodorus Siculus (XVI, 94, 3) regarding Philip’s assassination in 336 BC. The murderer Pausanias first posted horses at the city gates (πύλαι), then caught up with the king in the theatre (παρῆλθε πρὸς τὰς εἰς τὸ θέατρον εἰσόδους), killed him and finally ran for the city gates and the horses that he had prepared for his flight. Diodorus uses the word eisodos in the plural, a detail which hints at the fact that he most likely thinks of the gateway and its component leaves, an element which was quite common in Greek theatres during his time – and he, or his source, may even have in mind the monumental gateways in the theatre of Dionysus at Athens13. It must be remembered, however, that the word εἴσοδος appears in ancient dramatic texts too. Its earliest occurrence is in Aristophanes’ Clouds (423 BC): Strepsiades asks Socrates to show him where the chorus of the Clouds is, to which the philosopher replies “παρὰ τὴν εἴσοδον” (l. 326). One could translate Socrates’ line as “by the (lateral) entrance”, and as a matter of fact most scholars of ancient drama prefer to label the side entrances to Greek theatres as eisodoi14. Taking into account, however, both the Delian inscriptions and the testimony of Diodorus, it is possible that Aristophanes employs here (as well as in Birds, l. 296)15 a generic term to the lateral entrance from which the chorus gradually appears to the spectators. Finally, in the late source Souda (s.v. παρασκήνια) the word eisodos occurs again in the meaning of “gateway”. Here, the lexicographer reports that, according to the grammarian Didymus (second half of the 1st cent. BC), paraskenia are called the gates (eisodoi) which are on both sides of the orchestra: “παρασκήνια, ὁ δὲ Δίδυμος τὰς ἑκατέρωθεν τῆς ὀρχήστρας εἰσόδους οὕτω φησὶ καλεῖσθαι”16.
4To sum up, there is no compelling reason to prefer the term πάροδος for the choral entrance song as opposed to the word εἴσοδος for the lateral entrance towards the orchestra of an ancient Greek theatre. The word πάροδος undoubtedly corresponds, already in the Classical period, to the entrance of the chorus and the first choral song performed by the chorus itself. It is furthermore attested in the epigraphic record as a terminus technicus which could designate, among others, the side entrance of a Hellenistic theatre17 – and one cannot exclude that this is connected to the Classical use of the term as related to the chorus. On its side, the word εἴσοδος in the theatrical vocabulary probably either is a generic term or is mostly meant, at least from the Hellenistic period onwards, to indicate the gateway in a πάροδος, be it more or less monumental in its architectural form. Thus, the extremely limited references to parodoi in inscriptions can be explained by the fact that the side entrances which gave access to ancient Greek theatrical buildings were not properly built elements under an architectural perspective. In this paper, the word πάροδος is adopted for the lateral entrances to Greek theatres, on the authority of the epigraphic record as opposed to that of the literary sources.
Lateral entrances in Classical drama and theatres
5As a matter of fact, parodoi in ancient Greek theatres were not architectural elements built per se, as is the case with the auditorium or the scene building. They were hypaethral corridors running along the retaining walls of the auditorium and leading towards the orchestra and were probably not emphasized by gateways until the construction of the monumental gates in the “Lycurgan” theatre at Athens, during the third quarter of the 4th cent. BC18. Their intrinsic architectural nature has led to the absence, in many archaeological publications of Greek theatres, of a section devoted to the examination of the lateral entrances19. Although almost non-existent from an architectural point of view, however, parodoi played a crucial role in the performance of Classical drama. In fact, in the Classical period the acting space was accessed first through the two lateral entrances and later, when the skene was introduced, through the skene doors. Classical playwrights make effective use of such entrances, exploiting them for dramatic effects20. It was first Kelley Rees and, later, Nicolaos C. Hourmouziades who dismantled the theory, generally accepted by most scholars of ancient drama, that the parodoi lead to specific places21. Based on a painstaking examination of Classical dramatic texts, both Rees and Hourmouziades suggested that they led to imaginary loci which were not conventionally set a priori and are instead different in every play22. In the late 1970s, Oliver Taplin has shown the significance of eisodoi in Classical drama, arguing that entrances and exits are of vital importance in the construction of ancient dramatic performances23. Similarly, Donald J. Mastronarde explored the meaning of some aspects of tragic performance, including exits and entrances and their key role in Classical drama24. Both Taplin’s seminal study, although focused mainly on Aeschylus, and Mastronarde’s influential work, which is almost contemporary with Taplin’s and shares several views with it, disentangled research on Classical drama from a merely philological approach and drew scholarly attention on the matter of ancient performance, opening the path to numerous following studies. K.B. Frost, for instance, dealt with exits and entrances in Menander25, while Vayos Liapis, in his relatively recent discussion of the tragedy Rhesus, has convincingly stressed the importance of lateral entrances as spatial backdrop in the play, as well as their function in articulating the theatrical space26.
6Parodoi in Classical theatres do not have standard features and measurements because of the topographic peculiarities of each place and building. Nonetheless, they can usually be well discerned precisely because of their significance in the dramatic action. Side entrances usually had a certain breadth, so to allow both the spectators and the members of the chorus to walk effortlessly through it. They also had a remarkable length, a fact which is eloquently mirrored in the extant dramas: as a result, characters in them could be seen by some spectators well before others. In contrast with the skene door, parodoi could not allow for quick or sudden entrances of actors or the chorus, and this feature was sometimes exploited by playwrights in order to achieve a dramatic effect27. Thus, actors may be announced by the chorus or a messenger before they appear in front of the public, and their character can be identified by the spectators thanks to such an introduction28, as is the case with Theseus in Euripides’ Hippolytus (ll. 1151‑1152) whose entrance is covered by a messenger, while the chorus is still focusing on the suicide within the skene29. The archaeological remains confirm this peculiar feature of lateral entrances. In the theatre of Dionysus in Athens, for instance, the western parodos of the late Classical phase reaches a length of about 30 m and the eastern one has a length of more than 35 m (fig. 1), if one considers the distance between the outer corners of the retaining walls of the auditorium and the annular drainage channel which borders the orchestra, where the actors and the chorus could be seen by the whole of the public. These parodoi are also extremely broad, reaching a width of 5 m in the area of the entrance gateways, which is reduced to about 2.6 m at the corner between the auditorium retaining wall and the projecting wings of the scene building30. Such dimensions are not at all an exclusive peculiarity of the theatre of Dionysus: a remarkable length, for instance, can be observed in the western parodos of the early theatre at Corinth, which extended ca 41.2‑41.3 m from the orchestra, judging from the relevant retaining wall31. In the late 4th cent. BC, the parodoi of the theatre at Isthmia had a width of 3 m, enlarging to 3.5 m at the edge of the orchestra, and were ca 12 m long32. The parodoi of the Hellenistic theatre in Larissa (first half of the 3rd cent. BC) have similar dimensions, as both show a width of 3.55 m and have been revealed to a length of 40.86 m (western entrance) and 25.75 m (eastern entrance) respectively33. Equally wide are the parodoi of the theatre in the sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi (second quarter of the 2nd cent. BC), which reach a width of 4 m34. The parodoi of the theatre at Eretria (phase 2: early 3rd cent. BC) are not only wide (eastern one: 4.80 m at the end towards the orchestra) and relatively long (eastern parodos: ca 15 m), but also show a remarkable inclination, as they slope steeply (more than 11%) down towards the orchestra – a feature which was determined by the fact that the orchestra was hollowed out and the resulting earth was used for the mound of the auditorium35. This same feature is also found in the abovementioned late 4th-cent. BC theatre at Isthmia, whose lateral entrances are both characterized by a steep incline (steeper than the current 11.5%), which remained unchanged in the Roman period36. The parodoi of the early Hellenistic theatre at Epidaurus, finally, have a width of ca 4 m, enlarging to ca 5 m at the corner between the proskenion and the retaining wall of the auditorium, and are 13 m long, if one takes the section only which stretches from the monumental gateways to the outer corner of the orchestra37.
Fig. 1 – The eastern parodos of the theatre of Dionysus at Athens, from the S (photo: author).

Symbolic value of the parodoi in Classical and Hellenistic theatres
7The significance of the parodoi in Classical theatres was not exclusively limited to matters of performance. The parodoi were important elements firstly as entrances and exits for the public, who reached their seats in the auditorium by the two lateral passages and by crossing the orchestra. They also could acquire a remarkable overall symbolic value which is particularly evident in the frame of rituals and processions, in the display of public documents regarding the administrative and political life of the city, and in the celebration of eminent citizens who had benefited the polis and were prized for their civic virtues.
8Parodoi were of crucial importance in ancient Greek theatres both as entrances and as exits. This remark is related not only to the problem of circulation in such monuments38, but also to matters of use of the theatrical space and its relationship with the surrounding natural and built topography. In the context of the rituals framing the Great Dionysia, sources report that each dramatic competition was followed by celebrations of victory (epinikia), which took place in the nearby sanctuary of Dionysus. According to the literary sources, the public must have been invited to join these celebrations39, and it is fascinating to imagine the large crowd which descended from the auditorium, after attending a long day of dramatic performances, and being directed towards the sacred precinct of the god through the parodoi.
9In the theatre of Dionysus at Athens, during the festival of the Great Dionysia the side entrances were exploited emblematically a number of times. It is through the parodoi – and especially the eastern one, which had a special meaning as the final destination of the Street of the Tripods – that pivotal moments of the processions and rituals in the wider frame of the festival took place40. On Elaphebolion 9, the ritual of the eisagoge (“introduction”) consisted of the transportation of the venerable wooden statue of Dionysus from the sanctuary at the southern slopes of the Acropolis to a shrine at the Academy and then back “to the theatre,” in a torchlight nocturnal procession41. Although it has been questioned that the shrine was actually located at the Academy and it has been suggested that the ritual took place around the eschara at the Agora42, what nonetheless matters in this context is that this merry nightly procession entered the theatre through one of its parodoi, namely, the eastern one. Similarly, during the ritual of the following day, named the pompē (“parade”), the eastern parodos of the theatre of Dionysus again played a central role. The colourful, joyful, variegated, and transgressive procession of the whole civic body ranked by groups, led by an aristocratic virgin carrying a jug and closed by men bearing phalluses, came from the Agora and the Street of the Tripods and approached the theatre from the eastern parodos, entered into the orchestra and offered sacrifices to the statue of Dionysus which symbolically attended the event, seated in the centre of the reserved seats in the first row43.
10Some of the abovementioned ritual (and ritualized) processions continued to be performed in the Hellenistic period too, as is the case with the aforesaid eisagoge, or the ritual re-enactment of the advent of Dionysus from Eleutherai44, which is mentioned in an inscription dated to 123 BC45. This ritual survived well into the Roman imperial period: Philostratus reports that, in the 2nd cent. AD, Herodes Atticus openhandedly paid for the wine consumed by the participants in this – obviously not at all sober – procession46. In Hellenistic times several sacred processions are attested, which exploited the proximity of the theatre to the local sanctuary of Dionysus and involved the use of the parodoi. In Hellenistic Delos, for instance, the route of the ritual phallic parade (phallophoria) must have included a stop at the sanctuary of Leukothea47, possibly another one in the theatre48, then it may have progressed along the southern side of the auditorium and direct towards the adjacent sanctuary of Dionysus located to the south of the theatre (fig. 2), which was visible to the spectators through the eastern parodos, probably entailing the placement of the agalma of Dionysus in a ritual that from many points of view resembles the parade performed at Athens during the Great Dionysia49. The theatre at Eretria, furthermore, offers a good example of temple adjoining a city theatre50. It was located near a city gate and must have been, together with the nearby temple of Dionysus, the first public building complex to be seen by those who approached the city from the west. It is even possible that the location of this theatre, only partially set on a natural slope, was suggested by the pre-existence of a sanctuary to Dionysus51. In any case, in late-4th cent. BC Eretria, the theatre and the sanctuary of Dionysus formed a striking building complex which was undeniably involved in the pompai that took place in the wider frame of the festival of the Dionysia52. The indissoluble bond between the theatre and the sanctuary – and, in the end, between the world of the theatre and Dionysus himself – was highlighted by a low retaining wall made of poros which extended for about 20 m along the western parodos (fig. 3)53. It served both as a material link to the sanctuary to the south and as the foundation for the erection of various monuments, including a standing statue of the comic poet Menander54 and a series of choregic dedications55. Thus, the appearance of the western parodos of the theatre in Eretria is reminiscent of that of the eastern parodos in the Athenian theatre of Dionysus Eleuthereus, as they both constituted a sort of monumentalised introduction of the spectators into the world of the theatrical performances.
Fig. 2 – Digital reconstruction of the theatre of Delos around 240 BC (reconstruction: J.‑C. Moretti and P. Fraisse, courtesy J.‑C. Moretti).

Fig. 3 – The western parodos of the theatre at Eretria, from the W (photo: A. Voegelin, courtesy Swiss School of Archaeology in Greece).

11The parodoi of Classical and Hellenistic Greek theatres could be imbued with a strong symbolic value in the celebration of civic virtues and in the display of documents concerning the administrative and political life of a polis. Theatres were among the favourite places in Greek cities where decrees and other public dedications honouring benefactors and distinguished citizens were displayed to public view. The theatre and precinct of Dionysus Eleuthereus in Athens accommodated a good number of inscriptions, which included honorific decrees and inscribed statue bases mentioning the name of the person depicted – frequently poets and agonothetes56. Often, but not necessarily, related to the sphere of the theatre, the late Classical and Hellenistic inscribed honorific decrees displayed in this area assert the political power of Athens and the influence of their promoters, who proposed them at the special – and strongly politically connotated – meeting of the Assembly which took place after the Great Dionysia57. The majority of the honorific decrees originally displayed in this theatre and sanctuary can be dated to the period that stretches from the late 4th to the late 2nd cent. BC, a fact which must be connected not only to the monumental appearance which both the monument and the temenos acquired at the time of Eubulus and Lycurgus58, but also to the political nature of the area as one of the most prominent public spaces of the city – it was one of the few locations in Athens, besides the Acropolis, where state decrees could be erected. Not at all coincidentally, in the Hellenistic period the names of those benefactors who had the privilege of a crown were officially proclaimed in the theatre of Dionysus, at the beginning of the festival of the Great Dionysia59. At least some of such honorific decrees must have been displayed in the parodoi of the theatre of Dionysus, flanking the many statues of poets who, albeit not always famous and not unanimously esteemed60, had gained the honour of a bronze image in this place, as one can infer from the abovementioned inscription from the theatre at Eretria. In the latter case, the decree regarding the choral and dramatic contests to be held in the four main cities of Euboea was, appropriately, displayed in the theatre – more precisely, as the inscription informs us, in the parodos of the theatre of each city (IG XII, 9, 207, ll. 54‑56). Thanks to a fortunate coincidence, the original location of the decree displayed in the theatre of Eretria is known with precision, as the base for the stele has been found in situ: it was placed at the end of the eastern parodos towards the orchestra, at the corner with the first row of seats61. Finally, manumission inscriptions found in the parodoi of some theatres attest to the special place of such public buildings in the administrative and social life of Greek cities. Two striking examples are offered by the theatre in the sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi and the theatre at Butrint62. The latter was located in the sanctuary of Asclepius, not far from the temple of the god, and the retaining wall of its western parodos shows a noteworthy feature, as it bears a total of 31 manumission inscriptions dated to the late 3rd and the first half of the 2nd cent. BC. These inscriptions, together with 14 more carved on the wall that divides the auditorium into upper and lower section, form a remarkable corpus of texts which provide useful insights on the institution of manumission in early-Hellenistic Epirus. Similarly, in the theatre in the sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi, an impressive corpus of manumission texts was carved between the mid-2nd cent. BC and the late 1st cent. AD on several parts of the building, including both parodoi (fig. 4). The two abovementioned examples not only reveal that theatres were connected to the practice of manumitting slaves63, but also show how the parodoi of Greek theatres could be exploited as display places for documents of public interest which had a wide relevance for the local society.
Fig. 4 – The eastern parodos of the theatre at Delphi, from the N-W (photo: J.‑C. Moretti).

12It is likely that, at some point during the late Classical or early Hellenistic period, the necessity was felt to make the lateral entrances to theatres safer. This was probably aimed at preventing the spectators from having uncontrolled access to the monument and from mingling with the performers, and was achieved with the construction of gates blocking the parodoi. Such gates are relatively frequent in Hellenistic theatres64 and find their most plausible archetype in the monumental gateways decorating – and closing – the parodoi of the theatre of Dionysus at Athens65. Among the best-known examples of such monumentalised entrances are the imposing marble double gates to both lateral entrances in the theatre at Epidaurus (fig. 5), which emphasized not only the parodoi, but also the lateral ramps that allowed the actors to reach the roof of the proskenion (ca 330 BC)66, the double monumental gateways in the Ionic order of the theatre in the sanctuary of Zeus at Dodona (built after the destruction by the Aetolians in 219 BC)67 and, of course, the abovementioned eisodoi in the theatre on the island of Delos (second quarter of the 3rd cent. BC)68. Thanks to the construction of gates, the lateral entrances finally acquired an architectural visibility which marked their role as vital elements of the Classical and Hellenistic theatre.
Fig. 5 – The double gate of the western parodos of the theatre at Epidaurus, from the W (photo: J.‑C. Moretti).

The parodoi in the theatres of imperial Greece: forms and functions
13In Roman imperial times, the function of the parodoi changed radically, as they were not anymore actively used in the dramatic action and during the performances. Already during the Hellenistic period, following the creation and spread of the skene with proskenion, new spaces for the performances were available (fig. 6): besides the orchestra, the actors could exploit the roof of the proskenion and the upper storey of the skene, to the detriment of the roof of the skene, which was being used for apparitions in the Classical period69. Such architectural transformations, not necessarily inspired by and probably even independent from changes in the nature of the performances70, led to mutations in the overall organization of the theatrical space. Actors could then enter the scenic space in several different ways, namely, they could access the orchestra not only through the parodoi as in the Classical period, but also through the doors of the proskenion71. Furthermore, they could reach the roof of the proskenion via ramps or staircases placed at the sides, while it remains highly dubious if actors ever crossed the wide openings located in the façade of the upper storey of the scene building72. It can be reasonably suggested, at any rate, that in Hellenistic theatres the lateral – and gradual – entrances of the performers were still preferred, while the frontal – and more sudden – appearance of the actors into the scenic space was seldom exploited, and even more so the unexpected advents into the orchestra through underground corridors, or on the roof of the skene when a deus ex machina offered the solution of the plot.
Fig. 6 – The theatre at Delos, reconstruction of the Hellenistic scene building with proskenion (reconstruction: N. Bresch and J.‑C. Moretti, courtesy: J.‑C. Moretti).

14The creation of new theatrical architectures in the western part of the Empire is connected to extensive changes in the performance requirements. Tragedies, comedies, and historical plays of the Republican period must have been performed in theatres provided with a temporary wooden set where the actors came to the stage through the three openings of the background building, which conventionally represented the doors of the characters’ houses, while two side entrances onto the pulpitum led to imaginary off-stage locations73 (fig. 7). Such lateral entrances were exploited exclusively by the actors and linked the performance space to the backstage. Consequently, their function is totally different from that of the parodoi in the Greek theatres of the Classical and Hellenistic periods. In imperial times, the creation of – more or less elevated and more or less monumental – scene façades provided with openings onto the stage marked the definitive crystallisation of a changed general organization of the scenic space. The actors mainly appeared on the stage frontally, that is, through the doors of the scaenae frons, and occasionally exploited the lateral entrances in the versurae74 in order to move to and from off-stage loci. Such new theatrical architectures reflect different needs of the performances themselves and constitute, in the Greek area, a real and tangible break with the previous theatrical tradition – the most significant one, indeed, since the Classical period. Furthermore, the lateral entrances of the building leading towards the orchestra (usually named aditus in theatrical literature)75 were not anymore used either by the actors or by most of the public. They were open to a limited number of audience members who held the privilege of occupying the few reserved seats around the rim of the orchestra (senators, chief magistrates, and priests)76, while the remaining public could reach their places thanks to other vaulted corridors built within the auditorium, under the seating77. In some instances, boxes to be occupied by magistrates could be built above these vaulted lateral entrances78 (fig. 8). In order that high officials need not mix with the bulk of the spectators, such reserved boxes could be accessed through separate corridors, often vaulted too79. In the Roman theatres of the imperial period, which hosted a variety of performances80, the circulation routes within the buildings were definitively altered: the performers mainly appeared to the public frontally, from the interior of the scaenae frons, using only sporadically the lateral passages towards the stage, while the spectators followed a rigid hierarchy as they poured towards the theatre and, even more, when they took their seats in the cavea.
Fig. 7 – Virtual depiction of a temporary stage based upon a wall painting in "The Room of the Masks", "House of Augustus", Rome (courtesy: Richard C. Beacham).

Fig. 8 – Box above the eastern lateral entrance in the odeum at Patras (photo: author).

15To consider the topic of this section, namely the theatres of imperial Greece, the theatrical buildings located in the Greek-speaking provinces of Achaea, Macedonia, Epirus, Thrace, and Crete-Cyrenaica (with the exception of Cyrenaic buildings) are taken into account. The main aim of the following remarks is to analyse the form and function of the parodoi in these monuments, according to the features that can be observed in the numerous theatres of the area. As it will be hopefully shown, the study of the lateral entrances is of paramount importance to evaluate to what extent the new theatrical architecture that developed in the western part of the Empire was adopted in the Greek provinces.
16Considering the main architectural features of the Greek theatrical buildings of the imperial period, a homogeneous group of edifices is presented by those theatres of the western type, in which the auditorium and the scene building form a unitary complex, these two elements being intimately interconnected81. Theatrical architectures of such kind imply that the parodoi are covered corridors, and it has been rightly remarked that in the architectural formation of Italian theatres of the Republican period “the roofed parodos was a crucial step towards the development of a unified and closed theatre of the Roman type”82. In such theatres of Greece, which are newly built edifices and are relatively limited in number, the aditus are different from Classical and Hellenistic parodoi not only from a functional point of view, in the sense outlined above, but also from an architectural perspective, insofar as they were vaulted corridors instead of open-air passages. Thus, Greek theatres inspired by the western prototypes show lateral entrances which not only had lost their function in the frame of the performances, but also display the new architectural feature of being vaulted aditus instead of hypaethral parodoi opening onto the orchestra. Among the buildings that feature such entrances are the theatre at Nicopolis (Augustan age), the theatre at Corinth (second Roman rebuilding: early 1st cent. AD) and the odeum in that same city (last third of the 1st cent. AD), the odeum at Argos (early 2nd cent. AD), the odeum at Nicopolis (first half of the 2nd cent. AD), the theatre in the Pythion at Cretan Gortyn (second quarter of the 2nd cent. AD), the odeum of Herodes Atticus at Athens (AD 160‑174), the theatre at Butrint (2nd cent. AD), and the odeum of Patras (third quarter of the 2nd cent. AD)83.
17This short (and not exhaustive) list of examples points to the fact that already in the Augustan age a decisive step in the theatrical architecture of Greece was accomplished, when vaulted entrances made their first appearance in the frame of buildings inspired by western prototypes. A case in point is the theatre of Nicopolis, which had roofed entrances from its first building phase, dated at the time of the foundation of the colony (end of the 1st cent. BC - early 1st cent. AD)84. Here, the two vaulted lateral passages were provided with arches at both the outer entrance and the end towards the stage; above them were the boxes with the honorary seating for the officials, which could be reached via a separate stone staircase following the incline of the underlying entrances85 (fig. 9). Such vaulted passages, however, were exclusively used by the performers, while the spectators accessed the theatre through three entrances symmetrically located in the outer perimeter wall of the monument: two of them (the lateral ones) were open-air staircases leading to the summa cavea, while the third one (the central entrance) was vaulted as it ran under the seating and led to the corridor which divided the auditorium into two horizontal sections86. The theatre of Nicopolis, where a wide use of Roman building techniques (opus incertum, opus quasi reticulatum, concrete masonry) harmonizes with a general plan of the western type, shows vaulted lateral entrances which, contrary to the expectations, did not lead towards the orchestra, but instead towards the stage and the scene building – the latter being provided with a façade of the rectilinear type. An interesting example of vaulted entrances of the early imperial age occurs in the theatre at Corinth, which was rebuilt above its Greek predecessor of the Classical period. In this case, a hasty reworking sometime after the foundation of the Caesarian colony put a decidedly Roman mark on the building, as the obliquely angled parodoi of the Greek theatre were substituted by entrances placed at right angles to the central axis of the construction87. In the Augustan-Tiberian age the monument was extensively redesigned: the cavea was raised to a steeper gradient, raking buttresses were built to strengthen the heightened analemma wall, and a portico in the Doric order, decorated with a painted frieze of Erotes, was added at the back88. In the frame of such works, which probably entailed the construction of a scaenae frons of the rectilinear type89, both lateral entrances were partially left uncovered – to a length of ca 20 m – and partially provided with vaults of strong rubble concrete90, placed in the section leading to the orchestra. Thus, a combination of both hypaethral and vaulted lateral entrances was adopted in the early imperial theatre at Corinth: a hybrid solution that hints at an experimental phase in Greek theatrical architecture. Some decades later, in the Hadrianic age, large-scale renovation works altered the monument once again91. During this phase, the side entrances were totally vaulted and decorated by several elements, among which are two remarkable statues of Dionysus displayed near the outer entrance of each corridor92, welcoming the public and reminding them of the seminal role of this god’s cult in the birth and development of the theatre.
Fig. 9 – Reconstruction of the theatre at Nicopolis during the Augustan age (from https://actianicopolisarchaeopark.gr/nikopolis/megalo-theatro/).

18During the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, the frequent occurrence of vaulted passages in the architecture of the odea hints at the seminal role played by the roofed theatrical buildings in the diffusion of western architectural models in the Greek area. The roofed theatre built around 15 BC in the Athenian Agora by Agrippa was a large concert hall (51.4 x 43.2 m) which occupied the centre of the old marketplace – and the political heart of the city93 (fig. 10). Framed by a portico on three sides, this building was accessed by the public through a porch and a lobby placed on the southern side, while a porch on its northern side allowed the performers to enter the area of the long and narrow stage, whose front was decorated with herms. Two doors at the sides of the orchestra were probably used by distinguished spectators, who had the privilege of accessing the northern porch. The absence of lateral entrances towards the stage hints at uses of the building which did not encompass theatrical performances per se. The huge Ἀγριππεῖον94, which dominated the central space of the Agora, is probably one of the earliest and undoubtedly among the most visible signs of the Roman presence in the heart of Athens and constituted a model for successive roofed theatrical buildings. Although it did not import to Athens the architectural element of the vaulted aditus, it introduced not only the conception of a closed, inwards-oriented theatrical space, but also a circulation system where performers and public enjoyed separate routes of movement – two distinctive features which left a decisive mark on later theatrical buildings. Almost two centuries later, the odeum built on the western side of the agora of Thessalonike (Severan age) demonstrates how topographical constraints could be effectively solved without interfering with functional circulation routes within the edifice95 (fig. 11). This roofed small theatre96 shows a wide use of Roman building techniques (opus caementicium, opus mixtum and brick) and occupied the place of a previous construction probably meant to fulfil political purposes, a feature which dictated the plan of the new building. Several solutions were implemented to overcome this limitation, including an even distribution of the five entrances, which were located in the façade of the building towards the portico of the agora and were all provided with marble doorframes. Thus, the public used the two lateral aditus, passed through a rectangular antechamber located under the stage floor and reached the auditorium thanks to side staircases, while the performers used the three central entrances which led directly to the stage and its richly decorated scene façade97.
Fig. 10 – Reconstruction of odeum of Agrippa, section N-S (courtesy: M. Blazeby for King’s College Lab London).

Fig. 11 – The odeum in the agora of Thessalonike, view from upper cavea (photo: J.‑C. Moretti).

19In the theatrical buildings of Greece which follow the western models, a marked effort to offer effective and easy internal circulation routes is observed. In this regard, a peculiar (and unparalleled) architectural solution was adopted in the theatre of the Pythion in Cretan Gortyn (ca 130‑150 AD). The lateral eastern entrance98 of this theatre, which was vaulted, led from the exterior into the building, towards not only the stage, but also the annular corridor below the seating area and, consequently, the auditorium and the orchestra99 (fig. 12). Such an arrangement of the lateral entrances entails a mixed use of the same corridor by both the spectators and the performers, a fact which from the functional point of view certainly will have caused some confusion. This peculiarity is not found elsewhere, not even in the same Cretan city: the so-called Roman theatre, for instance, built in the Antonine age in the eastern sector of Gortyn, features many typical elements of a theatre of western tradition (use of bricks and opus caementicium, semicircular auditorium supported on radial vaulted corridors, porticus in summa cavea, orchestra paved with marble slabs, three-storeyed façade of the indented type with three doors), including a vaulted aditus running below the edge of the auditorium and leading to the orchestra, as well as two lateral entrances in the projecting versurae, which allowed the actors to move from the side rooms to the stage and vice versa100. Finally, the uncommon layout of the lateral corridors in the theatre at Herakleia Lynkestis is worth comment101. This 2nd-cent. AD building in the province of Macedonia, which adheres to western models in its plan and main features, had two large hall-like lateral corridors provided with niches which led towards the orchestra, as well as, at least on the western side, a vaulted room which similarly gave access to the orchestra. This peculiar conformation of the side entrances is explained by the use of this monument, which was conceived from its very construction as a venue meant to exclusively host arena games, in place of theatrical and musical performances.
Fig. 12 – Plan of the theatre in the Pythion of Gortyn at the ground level; entrances are marked with letter B (after Bonetto, Francisci, Mazzocchin 2019, p. 320, pl. 11.1, courtesy: J. Bonetto).

20The other, and the most substantial, group of theatres in imperial Greece consists of those edifices which had been built in the Classical or the Hellenistic period and continued to be in use in Roman imperial times102. In some instances, they did not undergo conspicuous architectural transformations, but in most cases they were partially rebuilt and adapted to the new fashion103. Besides the construction of tall façades which follow the western model104, modifications in the auditorium and the orchestra are attested, which nevertheless almost never implied the renovation of the lateral entrances. In the vast majority of cases, the mere addition of several new, fashionable elements to pre-existing theatres was the rule, as for instance in the abovementioned theatre at Delphi, whose parodoi still retained their original form as open-air corridors in the imperial period, when the orchestra was paved with stone slabs and a low pulpitum decorated with figured reliefs was built (Neronian age)105. Similar transformations, which implied the addition of architectural elements of the western tradition but did not alter the form of the parodoi, occurred in many other renovated theatres in every region of Greece: the Peloponnese and central Greece (sanctuary of Asclepius at Epidaurus, large theatre at Argos, Boeotian Orchomenos, Oiniadai), in Macedonia and Aegean Thrace (Mieza, Maroneia), in Attica (harbour of Zea at the Piraeus), and on the islands (Thera on Santorini)106. This phenomenon is most eloquently illustrated by the theatre in the sanctuary of Dionysus at Athens. This iconic theatre of the Classical period underwent large-scale modifications during the imperial period107. In the age of Nero, it acquired a two-storeyed rectilinear façade, probably at the same time with the marble paving of the orchestra and the construction of a parapet of marble slabs around its edge108. New interventions occurred some decades later, in the age of Hadrian, and implied the refurbishment of the scene façade and the enrichment of its decorative apparatus, the placement of distinguished seats in the central section of the auditorium, and the display of 13 statues of the emperor in the seating area, each dedicated by an Athenian tribe. Neither the 1st-cent. AD construction of the rectilinear scaenae frons nor its 2nd-cent. reconstruction and new decoration implied any architectural modification of the parodoi, which remained open-air passages throughout the whole centuries-long history of the building. Painstaking research has shown that the eastern parodos of the theatre had already acquired an outstanding symbolic value at the time of Lycurgus, when the statues of the three Tragedians were installed on a long base placed in that side entrance and, some decades later, a seated statue of the comic poet Menander was added next to them109. Although the eastern parodos was imbued with a special significance as it provided the main entrance to the theatre from the Street of the Tripods, many monuments were displayed in the western parodos as well110. Remarkably, during the imperial period the architecture of the parodoi remained unchanged despite the addition of the abovementioned new elements in the theatre, and very few changes are observed in their statuary display: in the Augustan age, the statues depicting the Tragedians and Menander were relocated a few metres westwards, in the very same eastern parodos, so to be included within the boundaries of the theatre, inside the new marble gateway111, while some other statues were displayed in the corresponding western parodos, including a monumental figure of Aphrodite placed on a tall base112 (fig. 13). This case study not only attests how the parodoi could keep their original form in spite of simultaneous modifications in the building, but also illustrates the vital role of the lateral entrances to Greek imperial theatres in the preservation of cultural memory, a process which was nurtured by displaying the past glories of the city and especially, in that context, a theatrical past that was felt as worth the greatest respect.
Fig. 13 – Fragmentary of statue of Aphrodite from the western parodos of the theatre of Dionysus at Athens (photo: author).

21As a matter of fact, the parodoi in most theatres of imperial Greece continued to be hypaethral passages as in the previous centuries. Examples like the theatre at Isthmia, where during the second Roman reconstruction of the building (second half of the 2nd cent. AD) vaults were added to the parodoi113, or the theatres in Aigeira and Philippi, whose parodoi were provided with vaults in the age of Hadrian and in the 2nd cent. AD respectively114, remain relatively isolated. This continuity in architectural forms throughout the whole imperial period might certainly be ascribed, to some extent, to the “constraints of an earlier Greek layout”115. It is tempting, however, to conclude that it was mainly dictated by a persistence of theatrical habits, especially since recent studies have overturned the long-established idea, based on the loss of literary texts, that drama declined definitively during the imperial period. Although the literary record has preserved very scant traces of drama during the Empire, inscriptions unquestionably attest that many Greek festivals of the imperial period not only hosted performances of newly composed tragedies, comedies, and satyr-plays at least until the late 2nd cent. AD, but also included the re-staging of classical tragedy and comedy well into the 3rd cent. AD116.
22Under this perspective, the theatre at Sparta offers a noteworthy case study117. Built in the early Augustan period (30‑20 BC), probably thanks to the initiative of the wealthy Gaius Iulius Eurykles, a supporter and friend of the emperor himself118, this theatre is located on the southern slope of the hill of the acropolis, looking towards the city and the valley of the Eurotas river. Albeit being built in the very same years as the theatre of Marcellus in Rome, its architectural features are those of a local theatre that fully belongs to the Hellenistic tradition: it had a wide earthen orchestra119, a huge auditorium (diam. 141 m) resting on the slope of the hill and characterized by a shape which exceeds the semicircle, and shows a wide use of limestone blocks and local marble. At the same time, it features some western elements, such as a porticus in summa cavea of the Doric order, analemma walls parallel to the stage and the use of the opus incertum building technique. The peculiar features of this theatre also include the absence of a proper stage until the refurbishment of the Flavian period, when a marble scene building of the rectilinear type was built (AD 78)120. Remarkably, the main access to the theatre was from the east, through an open-air parodos, which remained as such throughout the whole history of this theatre, until the late 4th cent. AD121. Thus, the early Augustan theatre at Sparta was characterized by decided Hellenistic features, including hypaethral parodoi, which were never vaulted in spite of the later renovations in the area of the scene building. A similar pattern is observed in the smaller theatre of the Thessalian city of Larissa, built in the early Augustan age in addition to the pre-existing theatre of the 3rd cent. BC122. Despite its early imperial chronology, it shows many features of a Hellenistic theatre, such as an unpaved orchestra123, an auditorium whose shape exceeds the semicircle, and hypaethral parodoi which run along the oblique line of the auditorium124.
23An interesting parallel can be found in the theatre of the Peloponnesian city of Messene, first built in the early 3rd cent. BC125 (fig. 14). The large auditorium of this imposing theatre partly rests on an artificial fill supported by impressive retaining walls which display, in the outer perimeter as well as in the area of the parodoi, an accurate masonry of neatly joined limestone blocks. The retaining wall of the eastern parodos served as the northern wall of the skenotheke, or storage room for the skene, which during the performances was rolled on stone tracks to its place. Thus, in the Hellenistic period one of the two side entrances of this theatre was used neither by the performers nor by the public and constituted instead the storage place for the movable scenery126, while the other lateral passage functioned as every open-air parodos in Hellenistic theatres. In the late Augustan or early Tiberian age the movable scene was replaced by a permanent scene building127. Quite interestingly, the new skene was nothing else but a scene building in the Hellenistic tradition, built of local limestone and provided with a proskenion bearing a sandstone colonnade in the Ionic order. During this phase, both parodoi retained their form as hypaethral corridors and the access to the roof of the proskenion was possible through two lateral ramps. It is only in the third quarter of the 2nd cent. AD that an extensive transformation is attested, which can be ascribed to the initiative of the local, wealthy family of the Saithidai – a family which could boast senators, helladarchs, and high priests of the imperial cult128. The new theatre was a markedly western building, as its main architectural features were a tall, three-storeyed scene façade decorated with marble columns and statues on inscribed bases, a low pulpitum with niches on its front, and an orchestra paved with polychrome marble slabs. In the frame of such large-scale works, probably required as the theatre was in a state of destruction129, not only two vaulted aditus were built towards the orchestra, but also two lateral entrances to the stage were created, in order to allow the performers to move from the sides of the scene façade to the stage and vice versa, in addition to entering frontally through the three doors of the scaenae frons. As in the case of Sparta, therefore, it was only in the mid-imperial period that the theatre of Messene acquired decidedly western features, while the theatre of early imperial times still retained many characteristics of a typical Hellenistic theatre, including open-air parodoi.
Fig. 14 – The theatre at Messene, view of eastern parodos and scene building, from the E (photo: J.‑C. Moretti).

24An even more interesting example of open-air parodoi is offered by the Roman theatre at Dion, built in the sanctuary of Zeus in the 2nd cent. AD130. Despite its mid-imperial chronology, which could explain numerous western features (vaulted corridors supporting the auditorium, parapet wall around the orchestra, rectilinear scene façade with five openings, use of bricks), this building displays many elements which recall a Greek theatre, such as a wide orchestra, an auditorium bigger than the semicircle, and, remarkably, hypaethral parodoi. The latter feature keeps alive, at such a late period, the Classical and Hellenistic tradition of the Greek theatres in which the auditorium and the scene building are autonomous elements and do not shape a closed, inward-looking edifice.
25The analysis of the abovementioned parodoi of the theatre at Sparta is instructive from another point of view as well. The retaining wall of the eastern entrance bears numerous inscriptions, carved on the accurately joined blocks of the analemma and facing the passers-by (fig. 15). The inscriptions extend to a length of ca 14 m and record the cursus honorum of 2nd-cent. AD Spartan officials; some more inscriptions had been carved on the retaining wall of the western parodos, too131. The neat marble masonry of the retaining walls of the theatre, a public building of crucial significance for the city and the seat of assemblies, had been clearly chosen as a privileged place for recording civic virtues, regardless of whether the visibility of the inscriptions was an issue or not132. The communicative power of this set of inscriptions tells a story of civic pride and necessity for self-representation, which found an appropriate place for display on the lateral entrances, especially the main one, to one of the most frequented public buildings of Sparta. On a larger scale, the northern parodos of the theatre at Aphrodisias in Caria, which bears a dossier of inscribed official documents (the so-called “Archive Wall”), engaged the readers, even the most distracted ones, in an experience that solicited attention, speaking a bold language of commemoration and honour133.
Fig. 15 – Detail of inscribed wall of the eastern parodos of the theatre at Sparta (photo: J.‑C. Moretti).

26A mere inquiry into the architectural forms and the uses of the lateral entrances does not suffice to give an exhaustive account of their role in the Greek theatres of the imperial period. Some parodoi are revealed as ideal places aimed at preserving cultural memory. The already mentioned example of the theatre of Dionysus at Athens is not isolated in the wider panorama of the Greek theatres of the imperial period, as several other ones show parodoi having a peculiar, monumentalized appearance aimed at highlighting their role in ritualized processions. Among them, the large theatre in the Thessalian city of Larissa offers an interesting case study (fig. 16). This theatre was built during the first half of the 3rd cent. BC and was in use at least until the late 3rd or early 4th cent. AD, when its life was abruptly interrupted134. It had a relatively large auditorium, capable of hosting about 10,000 spectators, an orchestra which was transformed into an arena for gladiatorial fights in the late 2nd cent. AD, and a scene building with proskenion (first half of the 2nd cent. BC). The latter was destroyed by an earthquake135 and lavishly rebuilt in the early imperial age, according to western models. Both parodoi leading towards the orchestra remained open-air passages throughout the whole history of the monument, which covers a time span of more than 6 centuries. Most interestingly, such lateral entrances had a remarkable width and length136 and were paved with marble137. The retaining walls of the auditorium, which flank the parodoi, are in the same marble and were carved to show a decorative pattern consisting, at least in the eastern parodos, in a row of circular shields138. The monumental appearance of the parodoi in the theatre of Larissa is not fortuitous. As the seat of the Koinon of the Thessalians, the city celebrated games called Eleutheria, which had a panthessalic status and were held every four years in honour of Zeus Eleutherios139. The Eleutheria included athletic and musical contests, as well as competitions in literary composition and rhetoric140. A decree dated to the turn of the 1st cent. BC to the 1st cent. AD refers to the renovation of these games (ψή[φισμα] <π>ερὶ τῆς | ἀνανεώ[σεω]ς τοῦ ἀγῶ|νος, ll. 8‑10), which probably occurred at the same time as the refurbishment of the theatre and the construction of the new scene building. The inscription lists several competitions which are not customary for the gymnikos agon, such as the torch race for boys, cavalry marksmanship, cavalry charge, infantry charge, infantry marksmanship, and archery141. Even more interestingly, three competitions appear, which hint at the fact that Larissa (and Thessaly as a whole) was famous for its horses, namely the ἀποβάτης (a contest of riders who rode several horses leaping from one to the other), the ταυροθηρία (a bull hunt where a rider on horseback would chase the bull)142, and the ἀφιππολαμπάς, or torch race on horseback. From the above, it is evident that the military virtues were particularly appreciated in the competitions of the Eleutheria, and that the ideal Larissaean citizen – and a real Thessalian – was a man of letters, a good athlete, a brave soldier, and a skilled horseman. In the wider frame of the Eleutheria and other civic and religious processions, which presumably included rituals related to the imperial cult143, the lateral entrances to the theatre must have had a momentous importance. Archaeological investigations in the city of Larissa have shown that the western parodos constituted the starting point of a road which led towards Phalanna and Olossona passing through the smaller theatre, one of the city gates, and the bridge on the river Peneios, while the eastern parodos was placed at the end of a splendid processional route which started from the area of the sanctuaries located to the south-east of the theatre and was paved with marble144. Unsurprisingly, the parodoi of the theatre at Larissa are paved with marble, too, as they were integral part of a processional road which was essential during rituals involving pompai heading towards and passing through the monument145. Very appropriately, these parodoi bear decorative elements in the form of rounded shields, allusive to the military bravery expected by the participants in the panthessalic games of the Eleutheria.
Fig. 16 – View of the eastern parodos of the theatre at Larissa, from the S (photo: J.‑C. Moretti).

27A procession involving the city theatre is attested in a famous sacred law from Gytheion, whose text provides clues of crucial importance for the reconstruction and development of ritual pompai within a Greek city of the early imperial age146. The inscribed stele, dated to AD 15, describes in full detail the festival dedicated to the imperial family and rulers of the city, which was the harbour of Sparta147, and is completed by a letter by the emperor Tiberius, who accepted the divine honours for his divinized father and graciously refused the ones proposed for him148. The carefully prescriptive text of the sacred law from Gytheion describes the grandiose procession of the thymelic festivities formed by “the ephebes, all the neoi, the other citizens crowned with laurel and dressed in white, the sacred young girls and the women in the sacred clothes” (ll. 26‑28), and provides precise references to some city places through which it unfolded: it started from the sanctuary of Asclepius and Hygeia149, then reached the temple of the imperial cult (Καισάρειον), where the ephors performed sacrifices, and the agora, where other sacrifices were made at the invitation of the ephors (ll. 24‑30). Significantly, the law includes sanctions in the event that the procession was not performed (ll. 30‑31). Although only some of the topographical references can be securely identified on the ground, such as the agora and, probably, the Kaisareion located within it150, the theatre was undoubtedly an integral part of the ritual and possibly the final destination of the solemn pompe, which involved the ritualized procession of the, hierarchically arranged, full citizen body through the city and entered into the building in order to take part into the rituals performed in front of the divine images displayed there. The ritual finds a parallel in the Italika Rhomaia Sebasta Isolympia in Naples, which had been funded in honour of Augustus between 2 BC and AD 2151. A pivotal moment of the games in Naples, which included athletic, equestrian, and theatrical contests, was constituted by the procession which stationed at the Kaisareion and involved sacrifices to the gods and for the salvation of the emperor. Such pompe and the related celebrations and festivals took place in the central area of the city, where the gymnasium, the stadium, both the theatre and the odeum, as well as the temple for the imperial cult have been brought to light. As far as Gytheion is concerned, the theatre located to the south-west of the agora152 can be dated to the Augustan age153 and shows many western features: although the auditorium rests on a slope and its shape exceeds slightly the semicircle, the prohedria is perfectly semicircular and both retaining walls of the cavea are aligned; furthermore, the scaenae frons is rectilinear and provided with a pulpitum that projects deeply into the orchestra. The plan published by Skias154 shows that the access to this theatre was possible through two relatively narrow passages located between the sides of the pulpitum and the corners of the retaining wall of the auditorium, and therefore was parallel to the short sides of the scene building. Although particular in their shape, the lateral entrances of this theatre safeguarded separate access for the spectators (and the participants in the processions) on the one side, and for the performers on the other side, as the latter entered the scenic space through openings in the rear wall of the façade.
The last chapter: blocked parodoi
28To conclude this short outline of the history of lateral entrances in Greek theatres, a final step in their centuries-long development must be examined, namely, those cases in which the parodoi were blocked and thus totally obliterated, in the frame of transformations that are connected to new uses of the theatrical buildings. Although such modifications are usually dated to late Roman times, a review of the occurrences shows that in some cases they appear much earlier.
29One of the earliest examples of blocked parodoi is found in the theatre of Dodona, built in the early 3rd cent. BC within a renowned sanctuary of Zeus155. In the Augustan age, the removal of the first three rows of seats of the auditorium, the construction of a high parapet of reused blocks around the edge of the orchestra, and the demolition of the Hellenistic stage building made the theatre suitable for arena games156. To this end, the water channel around the orchestra went out of use and a thick layer of earth was laid down, which covered both the orchestra and the stage building. The latter was replaced by a curved wall which created an oval arena; to its sides, this wall left two lateral chambers of triangular shape, accessible through two doorways, where wild beasts were probably held before the fights. The parodoi, which in the late 3rd cent. BC had been provided with a beautiful isodomic masonry of accurately joined limestone blocks and with double gates in the Ionic order157, must have clearly gone out of use in the Augustan phase of the arena. Although the excavation reports do not explicitly mention the blocking of the lateral entrances, the fact that the arena was lying at a level 2.80 m lower than the auditorium and did not offer any longer access to the seating area, had as an obvious consequence the elimination of both parodoi. An early example of blocked parodoi can be also observed in the theatre on the island of Thasos, built in the Hellenistic period (second half of the 4th cent. BC) and substantially remodelled in the 1st cent. AD158. At that time, both parodoi were blocked by heavy doors so that the orchestra became a closed arena for beast hunts and gladiatorial fights. At that time, however, traditional performances were most probably still held in this theatre, as the 3rd-cent. BC proskenion was left in its place. A similar mixed use of the building is found in the theatre at Maroneia (Aegean Thrace), where only the western parodos was blocked with reused architectural members during the modifications which occurred during the second Roman rebuilding (second half or end of the 3rd cent. AD)159. Such works, which entailed the removal of the prohedria seats and the suppression of the deep drain of the Hellenistic age, can be understood in the frame of a broader reconfiguration of the monument160. Thus, the theatre of Maroneia was adapted to host gladiatorial fights, but at the same time theatrical performances continued to be staged on a new proscaenium built during the first Roman phase (1st cent. AD), made of brick and provided with half-columns on the front. In this context, it is precisely the mixed use of this theatre that can explain the fact that the eastern parodos continued to function. A different situation is found in the small odeum of the baths at Dion, capable of hosting about 400 spectators and transformed at a much later date. It was a roofed theatre enclosed within a rectangular perimeter and resting upon vaulted chambers, aimed at a select public attending musical performances, political gatherings, and probably serving the imperial cult (end of the 2nd cent. AD)161. One of its main features are the multiple entrances: it was accessible from the side of the nearby agora, where three doors led to the stage area, from the eastern and the western side, where a lateral staircase on each side led the public to the upper part of the auditorium, as well as from the northern side, where an opening led the spectators towards the underground corridors below the seating. Furthermore, two lateral vaulted corridors on the eastern and the western side gave access to the parodoi and towards the level of the orchestra162. The architecture of this building was heavily changed in the 4th cent. AD, following an earthquake and a fire that caused extensive damage. Both parodoi were sealed off by thin walls and the edifice ceased to exist as a public building, as the area of the lateral corridors and the portico towards the agora were used for private dwellings. Finally, two theatres display the definitive obliteration of both parodoi at a late date, to permit the staging of water spectacles, namely, the theatre at Argos (4th cent. AD?) and the theatre of Dionysus at Athens (late 5th cent. AD?). The 3rd-cent. BC theatre at Argos underwent several transformations during the imperial period, including the placing of a temporary barrier around the orchestra for the staging of gladiatorial shows and, later, the construction of a wall in opus caementicium around the orchestra, which joined on both ends the frons pulpiti and shaped a closed basin (probably early 4th cent. AD)163 (fig. 17). At that time, the orchestra of the theatre at Argos became a waterproof basin capable of being flooded with water provided by a nearby aqueduct, which was taken into the theatre through a water pipe that crossed the southern parodos. As far as the theatre of Dionysus at Athens is concerned, the late works carried out in the monument included, among other matters, the extension of the marble parapet towards the bema of Phaedrus, so that the area of the orchestra created a totally waterproof basin164. This had as an obvious consequence the obliteration of the parodoi, which could not function as open-air passages anymore. A similar case is offered, outside Greece, by the theatre at Caesarea Maritima (Palestine): in the 4th cent. AD, where the orchestra was transformed into a waterproof pool, a wall made of reused blocks was built around the rim of the orchestra, the pulpitum was walled up, and both parodoi were not only narrowed with reused material, but also sealed off by removable bulkheads, which were necessary when the basin was flooded with water. As a consequence of such transformations, the circulation within the theatres at Argos and Athens (as well as Caesarea Maritima) was completely altered: the public could not anymore use the parodoi to reach their places in the lower part of the auditorium – for this purpose, a 3 m wide corridor was left between the wall around the orchestra and the prohedria seats in the theatre at Argos – and the performers probably exploited a staircase located in the centre of the pulpitum (made of bricks at Argos, made of marble at Athens) in order to have access to the performing space of the water basin.
Fig. 17 – The orchestra of the theatre at Argos during the excavations of 1955 (photo: G. Roux, courtesy: ÉfA).

30The example of the theatre at Stobi, one of the few municipia in the Greek world, concludes this short review, as it provides a sort of synopsis of the history of the parodoi over time – but, oddly, not in the sequence that one might expect165. During the first building phase (late 1st cent. AD), this theatre had a scaenae frons with three doors framed by rectangular and curved niches, a low stage, a semicircular auditorium, and vaulted aditus running parallel to the scene building. This theatre in the western fashion was partially suppressed by the one built some decades later (first half of the 2nd cent. AD), where the presence of both a rectilinear scaenae frons with five doorways (but not of a pulpitum) and an orchestra shaped as an arena denote that it was conceived of as a venue for mixed shows, that is, both theatrical performances and gladiatorial games. Another peculiar element of this building phase is the presence of two open-air parodoi lying at an oblique angle to the scene building and provided, at the end towards the orchestra, with small doors which gave access to radial corridors running inside the retaining walls. Finally, reconstruction works carried out during the late 3rd cent. AD were mainly aimed at making the arena safer for the public and imply, among other alterations, the construction of massive gates which sealed off the parodoi. Under this form, the theatre at Stobi continued to exist until the age of Theodosius, when it went out of use.
Concluding remarks
31The present analysis of the lateral entrances to Greek theatres covers a span of time which ranges from the Classical period to Late Antiquity. Examination of the terminology shows that the side entrances could be labelled πάροδοι in the epigraphic record and that this is a terminus technicus which is attested from at least the early Hellenistic period onwards. This term may be preferred to the, more generic, word εἴσοδος, which is found in literary sources and, in some Hellenistic inscriptions, designates the gateways of the parodoi.
32From an architectural point of view, lateral entrances to Classical theatres are peculiar elements of the theatrical buildings, being open-air corridors that flank the retaining walls of the auditorium. From this viewpoint, they are quite unlike the other two key elements of Classical theatres, namely, the seating area and the skene, which were both built – in wood and, later, in stone. In spite of their architectural invisibility, however, parodoi were of crucial importance in Greek drama, as they offered to both the actors and the chorus the main access to the performing space of the orchestra, together with the skene doors. Constituting an actual spatial backdrop of many dramas, they often play a key role in articulating the theatrical space and as such are frequently exploited by playwrights, so that one can agree that “just as metrical boundaries provide the springboard for the myriad effects of verse, so the spatial boundaries within the theatre constitute a formal structure instrumental to the full realization of the play. At the very least, such boundaries provide a strong visual vocabulary”166. A review of their dimensions shows that the parodoi were usually broad and long, not only allowing the gradual entrance of the performers to the scenic space, but also facilitating the speedy and smooth access of the public to the lower part of the auditorium. The construction of gateways in the parodoi, whose earliest occurrence are probably the gates in the theatre of Dionysus at Athens and whose best-known example are the double gates in the theatre of the sanctuary of Asclepius at Epidaurus, provided the lateral entrances with a monumentalized aspect emphasizing their role, enhanced their architectural visibility, and prevented uncontrolled access to the theatrical buildings.
33From a functional point of view, the vital role of the lateral entrances to Greek Classical theatres continued throughout the Hellenistic period, although the actors also had new performance spaces at their disposal: besides the orchestra, in fact, they could use the upper storey of the skene and the roof of the proskenion. Nonetheless, one can argue that the gradual entrances towards the performance space were still preferred. From the architectural point of view, the lateral parodoi continued to be hypaethral corridors as in the previous centuries.
34In Classical and Hellenistic theatres, the parodoi could acquire a strong symbolic value. Study of several examples, including the theatre in the sanctuary of Dionysus at Athens, the theatre of Delos, the theatre at Eretria, and the theatre in the sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi, demonstrates the significance of lateral entrances in the frame of ritualized processions, in the display of civic documents, and in the official celebration of distinguished citizens and benefactors.
35A tangible break with the previous tradition occurred in the West from the Republican period onwards, when extensive changes in the performance requirements brought about mutations in the function and form of the parodoi. Such changes implied that the actors appeared on the scenic space frontally, from the openings in the façade of the scene building, a fact which led to the gradual loss of importance of the lateral entrances (and exits) of the performers. Furthermore, the side corridors leading from the exterior of the theatres towards the orchestra were not anymore exploited neither by the performers nor by most of the public, who reached their seats thanks to staircases and corridors placed below the auditorium. The lateral entrances became then vaulted corridors instead of open-air passages and were aimed at a selected part of the public, namely, those few who had the right of a reserved seat around the rim of the orchestra. Entrances of such kind, however, are seldom found in Greek theatres of the imperial period and are mainly (but not exclusively) observed in newly built edifices, which were inspired by western models. In this process of adaptation to new formulas, an important role must have been played by the odea, which seem to be true carriers of an innovative architectural vocabulary to Roman Greece. In most theatres, the parodoi continued to be hypaethral corridors, a phenomenon which is even attested in those buildings that underwent transformations such as the addition of tall façades or of low pulpita of the western type. It is suggested that this remarkable continuity in architectural forms reflects a fundamental persistence of Greek theatrical habits, which is epigraphically demonstrated until the 3rd cent. AD. This same continuity in the vital role of the parodoi finds a parallel in their symbolic use as privileged places for the display of civic virtues (theatre at Sparta), as ideal loci for the preservation of cultural memory (theatre of Dionysus at Athens), as pivotal points in the unfolding of ritualized processions (large theatre at Larissa, theatre at Gytheion). Such features of the side entrances and their symbolic relevance evidently keep to the same well-worn path laid down in the previous centuries, from the very birth of the Greek theatre, and embed them firmly in a clear and continuous tradition.
36The centuries-long history of the parodoi in Greek theatres is characterized by a decided continuity in form and function throughout time. Until Late Antiquity, the lateral entrances to most theatres of Greece ultimately preserved their character as hypaethral passages, allowing both the actors to access the performing space and the spectators to enter the building and reach their places in the auditorium. An effective change in the Greek theatre design is observed in those buildings which were used either for gladiatorial fights or for aquatic spectacles. Indeed, in some of those theatres the parodoi were blocked and, as a consequence, the circulation within the building was definitively altered for both the performers and the spectators. Such changes, which occurred not only in late periods but are also observed starting from the Augustan age, mark the final step in an extensive history and constitute the last, and probably the most radical, transformation of this fundamental element of the Greek theatre.
Bibliographie
Inscriptions are abbreviated in accordance with AIEGL recommendations, GrEpiAbbr, 2020 and revised in 2022, https://aiegl.org/grepiabbr.html.
Agelidis 2009: S. Agelidis, Choregische Weihgeschenke in Griechenland, Bonn, Bernstein, 2009.
Allamani-Souri et al. 2012: Β. Αλλαμανή-Σουρή, Γ. Καραδέδος, Β. Μισαηλίδου, Ν. Πουλακάκης, “Το αρχαίο θέατρο της Μιέζας”, in Αρχαία θέατρα της Μακεδονίας, Athens, Διάζωμα, 2012, pp. 129‑144.
Antonatos 2007: A. Αντωνάτος, “Το ωδείο της αρχαίας Νικόπολης”, in Κ.Λ. Ζάχος (ed.), Νικόπολις Β΄, Πρακτικά του Δεύτερου Διεθνούς Συμποσίου για τη Νικόπολη, Preveza, Ίδρυμα Άκτια Νικόπολις, 2007, pp. 347‑360.
Antoniou 2015: G.P. Antoniou, “The theatre of Dodona: new observations on the architecture of the cavea”, in Frederiksen, Gebhard, Sokolicek 2015, pp. 177‑191.
Antonopoulos, Christopoulos, Harrison 2021: A.P. Antonopoulos, M.M. Christopoulos, G.W.M. Harrison (ed.), Reconstructing satyr drama, Berlin/Boston, De Gruyter, 2021.
Arapogianni 2021: Ξ. Αραπογιάννη, “Το αρχαίο θέατρο της Θουρίας στη Mεσσηνία. Μια ανασκαφή σε εξέλιξη”, Logeion 11, 2021, pp. 209‑234.
Auberson 1976: P. Auberson, “Le temple de Dionysos”, in Eretria. Fouilles et recherches, vol. V, Bern, Francke, 1976, pp. 59‑67.
Bacelar 2009: A. Bacelar, “Pégase d’Eleuthères: d’une légende de transmission tardive au mythe étiologique ‘re-enacted’”, Codex 1, 2009, pp. 144‑166.
Battezzato 2000: L. Battezzato, “The Thracian Camp and the Fourth Actor at Rhesus 565‑691”, CQ 50, 2000, pp. 367‑373.
Beacham 1991: R. Beacham, The Roman theatre and its audience, Cambridge (MA), Harvard University Press, 1991.
Beare 1938: W. Beare, “Side-Entrances and ΠΕΡΙΑΚΤΟΙ in the Hellenistic Theatre”, CQ 32, 1938, pp. 205‑210.
Beare 1964: W. Beare, The Roman stage. A short history of Latin drama in the time of the Republic, London, Methuen, 1964 (3rd ed.).
Berlan-Bajard 2006: A. Berlan-Bajard, Les spectacles aquatiques romains, Rome, École française de Rome, 2006.
Berti 2017: I. Berti (ed.), Writing matters: presenting and perceiving monumental inscriptions, Berlin, De Gruyter, 2017.
Bieber 1954: M. Bieber, “The entrances and exits of actors and chorus in Greek plays”, AJA 58, 1954, pp. 277‑284.
Bieber 1961: M. Bieber, The history of the Greek and Roman theater, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1961 (2nd ed.).
Blaževska 2018: S. Blaževska (ed.), Studies in the antiquities of Stobi IV, Stobi, National Institution for the management of the archaeological site at Stobi, 2018.
Bommelaer 2002: J.‑F. Bommelaer, “Sur la localisation des concours musicaux de Delphes avant la construction du théâtre actuel”, Ktema 27, 2002, pp. 119‑130.
Bonetto, Francisci, Mazzocchin 2019: J. Bonetto, D. Francisci, S. Mazzocchin, Gortina IX.1. Il teatro del Pythion. Scavi e ricerche 2001‑2013, Athens, Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene, 2019.
Bouchon 2016: R. Bouchon, “Les Thessaliens et le culte des empereurs de Rome: tradition, intégration, polycentrisme et jeu d’échelles”, in A. Kolb, M. Vitale (ed.), Kaiserkult in den Provinzen des Römischen Reiches. Organisation, Kommunikation und Repräsentation, Berlin, De Gruyter, 2016, pp. 285‑307.
Bruneau 1970: P. Bruneau, Recherches sur les cultes de Délos à l’époque hellénistique et à l’époque impériale, Paris, De Boccard, 1970.
Buckler 1986: C. Buckler, “The myth of the movable skenai”, AJA 90, 1986, pp. 431‑436.
Calandra, Gorrini 2008: E. Calandra, M.E. Gorrini, “Cult practice of a pompé in the imperial age: S.E.G. XI.923”, Sparta 4, 2008, pp. 3‑22.
Capps 1895: E. Capps, “Excavations in the Eretrian Theatre in 1894”, AJA 10, 1895, pp. 338‑346.
Caputo 1987: G. Caputo, Il teatro augusteo di Leptis Magna. Scavo e restauro (1937‑1951), Rome, L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1987.
Caputo, Helly 2005: R. Caputo, B. Helly, “Archaeological evidences of past earthquakes: a contribution to the SHA of Thessaly, Central Greece”, Journal of Earthquake Engineering 9/2, 2005, pp. 199‑222.
Cavanagh, Crouwel, Catling 1996: W. Cavanagh, J. Crouwel, R.W.V. Catling (ed.), The Laconia survey. Continuity and change in a Greek rural landscape, vol. II, Archaeological data, London, British School at Athens, 1996.
Ceccarelli 2010: P. Ceccarelli, “Changing contexts: tragedy in the civic and cultural life of Hellenistic city-states”, in I. Gildenhard, M. Revermann (ed.), Beyond the fifth century. Interactions with Greek tragedy from the fourth century BCE to the Middle Ages, Berlin, De Gruyter, 2010, pp. 99‑150.
Chaniotis 2007: A. Chaniotis, “Theatre rituals”, in Wilson 2007, pp. 48‑66.
Chaniotis 2013: A. Chaniotis, “Processions in Hellenistic cities. Contemporary discourses and ritual dynamics”, in R. Alston, O.M. van Nijf, C.G. Williamson (ed.), Cults, creeds and identities in the Greek city after the Classical age, Leuven/Paris/Walpole, Peeters, 2013, pp. 21‑47.
Csapo 2015: E. Csapo, “The earliest phase of ‘comic’ choral entertainments in Athens. The Dionysian pompe and the ‘birth’ of comedy”, in S. Chronopoulos, C. Orth (ed.), Fragmente einer Geschichte der griechischen Komödie, Heidelberg, Verlag Antike, 2015, pp. 66‑108.
Csapo, Slater 1995: E. Csapo, W.J. Slater, The context of ancient drama, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1995.
Csapo, Wilson 2020: E. Csapo, P. Wilson, A social and economic history of the theatre to 300 BC, vol. II, Theatre beyond Athens: documents with translation and commentary, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2020.
des Bouvrie 2012: S. des Bouvrie, “Greek festivals and the ritual process: an inquiry into the Olympia-cum-Heraia and the Great Dionysia”, in J. Rasmus Brandt, J.W. Iddeng (ed.), Greek and Roman Festivals: Content, Meaning, and Practice, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 53-94.
Di Napoli 2013: V. Di Napoli, Teatri della Grecia romana: forma, decorazione, funzioni. La provincia d’Achaia, Athens, Fondazione Nazionale delle Ricerche - Istituto di Studi Storici - Sezione di Antichità Greche e Romane, 2013.
Di Napoli 2015: V. Di Napoli, “Architecture and romanization: the transition to Roman forms in Greek theatres of the Augustan age”, in Frederiksen, Gebhard, Sokolicek 2015, pp. 365‑380.
Di Napoli 2018: V. Di Napoli, “Buildings for entertainment in Roman Macedonia: between continuity and rupture with the past”, in J. Fournier, M.‑G.G. Parissaki (ed.), Les communautés du nord Égéen au temps de l’hégémonie romaine. Entre ruptures et continuités, Athens, Institut de recherches historiques - Fondation nationale de la recherche scientifique, 2018, pp. 321‑340.
Di Napoli 2020: V. Di Napoli, “Ménandre à Érétrie”, in G. Ackermann, T. Krapf, L. Pop (ed.), ἀποβάτης. Mélanges eubéens offerts à Karl Reber par ses étudiant·e·s à l’occasion de son 65e anniversaire, Lausanne, École suisse d’archéologie en Grèce, 2020, pp. 96‑100.
Di Napoli 2021: V. Di Napoli, “Ξένων ἀφῆκε ἐλεύθερον Ὠφελίωνα: δούλοι και απελεύθεροι σε αρχαία ελληνικά θέατρα”, in Μ. Βελιώτη-Γεωργοπούλου, Ι. Καραμάνου (ed.), Θέατρο και Ετερότητα: Θεωρία, Δραματουργία και Θεατρική Πρακτική, Πρακτικά ΣΤ΄ Πανελλήνιου Θεατρολογικού Συνεδρίου, Ναύπλιο 2017, vol. Α’, Nauplion, Τμήμα Θεατρικών Σπουδών Πανεπιστημίου Πελοποννήσου, 2021, pp. 457‑472.
Di Napoli forthcoming a: V. Di Napoli, “Romanizing Greece? Spectacles and buildings for entertainment in imperial Greece”, in C. Maderna (ed.), The romanization of Greece? Critical discussions, Proceedings of an international conference held in Heidelberg in 2017, Heidelberg, Heidelberg University Publishing, forthcoming.
Di Napoli forthcoming b: V. Di Napoli, “In full view: a note on the tribunalia in Roman theatres”, Logeion, forthcoming.
Di Napoli, Vitti 2019: V. Di Napoli, M. Vitti, “Η ορχήστρα του Θεάτρου του Διονύσου. Παρατηρήσεις για τη μορφή και τη λειτουργία του μνημείου κατά την αυτοκρατορική εποχή”, Logeion 9, 2019, pp. 335‑359.
Doulfis 2019: G. Doulfis, “Sacred architecture in Roman Laconia”, in E.C. Partida, B. Schmidt-Dounas (ed.), Listening to the stones. Essays on architecture and function in ancient Greek sanctuaries in honour of R.A. Tomlinson, Oxford, Archaeopress, 2019, pp. 139‑152.
Doyen 2017: C. Doyen, “De la drachme au denier: retour sur l’ὀκτώβολος εἰσφορά de Messène”, in E. Αποστόλου, C. Doyen (ed.), Το νόμισμα στην Πελοπόννησο, Πρακτικά συνεδρίου της ΣΤ΄ Επιστημονικής Συνάντησης των Φίλων του Νομισματικού Μουσείου, Άργος 2011, vol. 1, Athens, École française d’Athènes, 2017, pp. 425‑443.
Duckworth 1952: G.E. Duckworth, The nature of Roman comedy. A study in popular entertainment, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1952.
Fiechter 1937: E. Fiechter, Das Theater in Eretria, Stuttgart, W. Kohlhammer, 1937.
Fossum 1891: A. Fossum, “The stage-building of the theatre of Eretria”, AJA 7, 1891, pp. 257‑266.
Franz, Hinz 2015: S. Franz, V. Hinz, “The architecture of the Greek theatre of Apollonia in Illyria (Albania) and its transformation in Roman times”, in Frederiksen, Gebhard, Sokolicek 2015, pp. 335‑349.
Frederiksen, Gebhard, Sokolicek 2015: R. Frederiksen, E.R. Gebhard, A. Sokolicek (ed.), The architecture of the ancient Greek theatre. Acts of an international conference at the Danish Institute at Athens, 27‑30 January 2012, Aarhus, Aarhus University Press, 2015.
Fries 2014: Α. Fries, Pseudo-Euripides, Rhesus (introduction and commentary), Berlin, De Gruyter, 2014.
Frost 1988: K.B. Frost, Exits and Entrances in Menander, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1988.
Gallis 1988: K.J. Gallis, “The Games in Ancient Larisa. An Example of Provincial Olympic Games”, in W.J. Raschke (ed.), The archaeology of the Olympics. The Olympics and other festivals in antiquity, Madison, The University of Wisconsin Press, 1988, pp. 217‑235.
Gauss et al. 2015: W. Gauss, R. Smetana, J. Dorner, P. Eitzinger, A. Lätzer-Lasar, M. Leibetseder, M. Traplicher, “Old and new observations from the theatre at Aigeira”, in Frederiksen, Gebhard, Sokolicek 2015, pp. 267‑277.
Gebhard 1973: E.R. Gebhard, The theatre at Isthmia, Chicago/London, The University of Chicago Press, 1973.
Gebhard 2015: E.R. Gebhard, “The sunken orchestra: its effects on Greek theatre design”, in Frederiksen, Gebhard, Sokolicek 2015, pp. 105‑117.
Gebhard 2018: E.R. Gebhard, “Discovery of the first theater at Stobi”, in Blaževska 2018, pp. 132‑155.
Gogos 1992: S. Gogos, Das Theater von Aigeira. Ein Beitrag zum antiken Theaterbau, Wien, Eigenverlag des Österreichischen Archäologischen Institutes, 1992.
Gogos 2003: Σ. Γώγος, Το αρχαίο θέατρο των Οινιαδών, Athens, Μίλητος, 2003.
Gogos 2005: Σ. Γώγος, Το αρχαίο θέατρο του Διονύσου, Athens, Μίλητος, 2005.
Goldhill 1987: S. Goldhill, “The Great Dionysia and civic ideology”, JHS 107, 1987, pp. 58‑76.
Goldhill 1990: S. Goldhill, “The Great Dionysia and civic ideology”, in J.J. Winkler, F.I. Zeitlin (ed.), Nothing to do with Dionysos? Athenian drama in its social context, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1990, pp. 97‑129.
Graf 2015: F. Graf, “Comedies and comic actors in the Greek East: An epigraphical perspective”, in C.W. Marshall, T. Hawkins (ed.), Athenian comedy in the Roman empire, New York, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2015, pp. 117‑130.
Greco 2001: E. Greco, “Tripodes. Appunti sullo sviluppo urbano di Atene”, AION (archeol) n.s. 8, 2001, pp. 25‑38.
Hamilton 1978: R. Hamilton, “Announced entrances in Greek tragedy”, HSPh 82, 1978, pp. 63‑82.
Hammond 1937: N.G.L. Hammond, “The sources of Diodorus Siculus XVI”, CQ 31, 1937, pp. 79‑91.
Harrison 2021: G.W.M. Harrison, “Lowering the curtain: (modest) satyrs on stage in the Roman Empire”, in Antonopoulos, Christopoulos, Harrison 2021, pp. 765‑796.
Harrison, Liapis 2013: G.W.M. Harrison, V. Liapis (ed.), Performance in Greek and Roman theatre, Leiden/Boston, Brill, 2013.
Hellmann 1992: M.‑C. Hellmann, Recherches sur le vocabulaire de l’architecture grecque, d’après les inscriptions de Délos, Athens, École française d’Athènes, 1992.
Hijmans 2015: S. Hijmans, “Monumentalising the ephemeral in ancient Rome”, in A.M. Kemezis (ed.), Urban dreams and realities in antiquity: remains and representations of the ancient city, Leiden, Brill, 2015, pp. 144‑161.
Höet-van Cauwenberghe, Kantiréa 2013: C. Höet-van Cauwenberghe, M. Kantiréa, “La popularité de Germanicus en Orient: les figures d’un prince héritier sous Tibère”, CCG 24, 2013, pp. 135‑156.
Hourmouziades 1965: N.C. Hourmouziades, Production and imagination in Euripides. Form and function of the scenic space, Athens, Hellenic Society for Humanistic Studies - International Centre for Classical Research, 1965.
Isler 2007: H.P. Isler, Eretria XVIII. Das Theater: Grabungen 1997 und 1998, Gollion, Infolio, 2007.
Isler 2017: H.P. Isler, Antike Theaterbauten. Ein Handbuch, 3 vols., Texband; Katalogband; Tafelband und Indices, Wien, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2017.
Jones 2001: C.P. Jones, “Greek drama in the Roman empire”, in G. Nagy (ed.), Greek literature in the Roman period and in Late Antiquity: Greek literature, New York, Routledge, 2001, pp. 205‑220.
Johnston 1933: M. Johnston, Exits and Entrances in Roman Comedy (Plautus and Terence), Geneva/New York, W.F. Humphrey Press, 1933.
Karadedos 2012: Γ. Καραδέδος, “Το ρωμαϊκό ωδείο του Δίου”, in Π. Αδάμ-Βελένη (ed.), Αρχαία θέατρα της Μακεδονίας, Athens, Διάζωμα, 2012, pp. 101‑118.
Karadedos, Koukouli-Chryssanthaki 2007: G. Karadedos, C. Koukouli-Chryssanthaki, “The Theatres at Philippi, Thasos and Maroneia”, in A. Iakovidou (ed.), Thrace in the Graeco-Roman World. Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Thracology, Komotini-Alexandroupolis 18‑23 October 2005, Athens, Εθνικό Ίδρυμα Ερευνών, 2007, pp. 275‑280.
Karadima et al. 2015: C. Karadima, C. Zambas, N. Chatzidakis, G. Thomas, E. Doudoumi, “The ancient theatre at Maroneia”, in Frederiksen, Gebhard, Sokolicek 2015, pp. 253‑277.
Knoepfler 1978: D. Knoepfler, “Epigraphisch-topographische Arbeiten”, AD B1 33, 1978, p. 130.
Knoepfler 2010: D. Knoepfler, La patrie de Narcisse. Un héros mythique enraciné dans le sol et dans l’histoire d’une cité grecque, Paris, Odile Jacob, 2010.
Kokkinia 2016: C. Kokkinia, “The design of the ‘Archive Wall’ at Aphrodisias”, Tekmeria 13, 2016, pp. 9‑55.
Kolonia 2013: Ρ. Κολώνια, “Η κατασκευή του θεάτρου”, in Ρ. Κολώνια (ed.), Αρχαία θέατρα της Στερεάς Ελλάδας, Athens, Διάζωμα, 2013, pp. 131‑145.
Korres 1980: Μ. Κορρές, “Εργασίες στα μνημεία”, AD B1 35, 1980, pp. 9‑21.
Korres 1982: Μ. Κορρές, “Διονυσιακό Θέατρο. Συντήρηση-αποκατάσταση μνημείων”, AD B1 37, 1982, pp. 15‑18.
Korres 2002a: M. Korres, “Modell des Dionysos-Theaters”, in M. Maischberger, W.‑D. Heilmeyer (ed.), Die griechische Klassik. Idee oder Wirklichkeit, Katalog der Ausstellung (Berlin-Bonn, 2002), Mainz, P. von Zabern, 2002, pp. 540‑541.
Korres 2002b: Μ. Κορρές, “Αθηναϊκή πολεοδομία - Αρχαίος οικιστικός χώρος. Αξία ορατών μαρτυριών”, in H.R. Goette (ed.), Ancient roads in Greece. Proceedings of a Symposium organized by the Cultural Association Aigeas (Athens) and the German Archaeological Institute (Athens) with the support of the German School at Athens, November 23, 1998, Hamburg, Dr. Kovač, 2002, pp. 1‑31.
Korres 2014: Μ. Κορρές, Η στέγη του Ηρωδείου και άλλες γιγάντιες γεφυρώσεις, Athens, Εκδοτικός Οίκος Μέλισσα, 2014.
Kougeas 1928: Σ.Β. Κουγέας, “Ἐπιγραφικαὶ ἐκ Γυθείου συμβολαὶ εἰς τὴν ἱστορίαν τῆς Λακωνικῆς κατὰ τοὺς χρόνους τῆς ρωμαϊκῆς αὐτοκρατορίας”, Ελληνικά 1, 1928, pp. 7‑44.
Kyriazi, Kitsou, Bilis 2013: Ο. Κυριαζή, Γ. Κίτσου, Θ. Μπιλής, “Αρχαίο θέατρο Ορχομενού Βοιωτίας”, in Ρ. Κολώνια (ed.), Αρχαία θέατρα της Στερεάς Ελλάδας, Athens, Διάζωμα, 2013, pp. 79‑91.
Lambert 2008: S.D. Lambert, “Polis and Theatre in Lykourgan Athens: the honorific decrees”, in Α.Π. Ματθαίου, I. Polinskaya (ed.), Μικρός ιερομνήμων. Μελέτες εις μνήμην Michael H. Jameson, Athens, Ελληνική Επιγραφική Εταιρεία, 2008, pp. 53‑85.
Lambert 2011: S. Lambert, “What was the point of inscribed honorific decrees in Classical Athens?”, in S. Lambert (ed.), Sociable man. Essays on ancient Greek social behaviour in honor of N. Fisher, Swansea, The Classical Press of Wales, 2011, pp. 193‑214.
Lampaki 2021: A. Lampaki, “Sculpted monuments and movement in ancient Greek theatres”, in M. Dromain, A. Dubernet (ed.), Les ruines résonnent encore de leurs pas. La circulation matérielle et immatérielle dans les monuments grecs (viie s.-31 a.C.). Actes de la journée d’étude pluridisciplinaire à Bordeaux les 3‑4 novembre 2016, Pessac, Ausonius, 2021, pp. 121‑138 (https://una-editions.fr/les-ruines-resonnent-encore-de-leurs-pas, accessed 26/09/2023).
Leigh 2004: M. Leigh, Comedy and the rise of Rome, New York, Oxford University Press, 2004.
Leventi 2009: I. Leventi, “A colossal Aphrodite from the theater of Dionysos and early imperial Athenian sculptural workshops”, in V. Gaggadis-Robin, A. Hermary, M. Reddé, C. Sintes (ed.), Les ateliers de sculpture régionaux: techniques, styles et iconographie. Actes du Xe colloque international sur l’art provincial romain, Arles et Aix-en-Provence 2007, Arles, Musée de l’Arles antique, 2009, pp. 269‑277.
Liapis 2012: V.J. Liapis, A commentary on the Rhesus attributed to Euripides, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2012.
Liapis 2013: V. Liapis, “Staging Rhesus”, in Harrison, Liapis 2013, pp. 235‑253.
Mactoux 2008: M.‑M. Mactoux, “Regards sur la proclamation de l’affranchissement au théâtre à Athènes”, in A. Gonzales (ed.), La fin du statut servile? Affranchissement, libération, abolition, Besançon, 15‑17 décembre 2005, vol. II, Besançon, Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté, 2008, pp. 437‑451.
Manieri 2016: A. Manieri, “Il coro nei concorsi di età ellenistica: cori di “uomini tragodoi” in un decreto dell’Eubea?”, ZPE 200, 2016, pp. 88‑99.
Marshall 2006: C.W. Marshall, The stagecraft and performance of Roman Comedy, Cambridge/New York, Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Mastronarde 1979: D.J. Mastronarde, Contact and discontinuity. Some conventions of speech and action on the Greek tragic stage, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1979.
Mauduit, Moretti 2010: C. Mauduit, J.‑C. Moretti, “Pollux, un lexicographe au théâtre”, REG 123, 2010, pp. 521‑541.
Mauduit, Moretti 2016: C. Mauduit, J.‑C. Moretti, “L’architecture dans l’Onomasticon de Pollux”, in R. Robert (ed.), Dire l’architecture dans l’Antiquité, Paris, Karthala/Maison méditerranéenne des sciences de l’Homme, 2016, p. 205‑222.
Mikedaki 2015: Μ. Μικεδάκη, “Παρατηρήσεις σχετικά με τον όρο «θυρώματα» του αρχαίου ελληνικού θεάτρου”, in Κ. Κυριακός (ed.), Το αρχαίο ελληνικό θέατρο και η πρόσληψή του. Πρακτικά του Δ΄ Πανελληνίου Θεατρολογικού Συνεδρίου, Πάτρα 2011, Patras, Τμήμα Θεατρικών Σπουδών του Πανεπιστημίου Πατρών, 2015, pp. 55-70.
Miller 2004: S.G. Miller, Ancient Greek athletics, New Haven/London, Yale University Press, 2004.
Miranda 2020: E. Miranda, “Forme e riti del culto di Augusto a Napoli”, in C. Capaldi (ed.), Augusto e la Campania. Da Ottaviano a Divo Augusto, 14‑2014 d.C., Naples, Naus Editoria, 2020, pp. 31‑41.
Montali 2006: G. Montali, Il teatro romano di Gortina, Padova, Bottega d’Erasmo - Aldo Ausilio, 2006.
Monterroso 2010: A. Monterroso, “La scaenae frons en los teatros de Roma. Entre liturgia, formas y modelos”, in S.F. Ramallo Asensio, N. Röring (ed.), La scaenae frons en la arquitectura teatral romana. Actas del Symposium internacional, 12‑14 de marzo de 2009, Murcia/Cartagena, Universidad de Murcia/Fundación Teatro Romano de Cartagena, 2010, pp. 15‑55.
Moretti 1992: J.‑C. Moretti, “Les entrées en scène dans le théâtre grec: l’apport de l’archéologie”, Pallas 38, 1992, pp. 79‑107.
Moretti 2001: J.‑C. Moretti, Théâtre et société dans la Grèce antique. Une archéologie des pratiques théâtrales, Paris, Le Livre de Poche, 2001.
Moretti 2014: J.‑C. Moretti, “The evolution of theatre architecture outside Athens in the fourth century”, in E. Csapo, H.R. Goette, J.R. Green, P. Wilson (ed.), Greek theatre in the fourth century B.C., Berlin/Boston, De Gruyter, 2014, pp. 107‑137.
Moretti, Fraisse 2007: J.‑C. Moretti, P. Fraisse, Exploration archéologique de Délos XLII. Le théâtre, Athens, école française d’Athènes, 2007.
Moretti, Mauduit 2015: J.‑C. Moretti, C. Mauduit, “The Greek vocabulary of theatrical architecture”, in R. Frederiksen, E.R. Gebhard, A. Sokolicek (ed.), The architecture of the ancient Greek theatre. Acts of an International Conference at the Danish Institute at Athens, 27‑30 January 2012, Aarhus, Aarhus University Press, 2015, pp. 119‑129.
Müller 1898: A. Müller, Untersuchungen zu den Bühnenalterthümern, Leipzig, Dieterich’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung Theodor Weicher, 1898.
Paleothodoros 2013: D. Paleothodoros, “Dionysos in late Archaic Athens”, Electra 2, 2013, pp. 51‑66.
Panayotakis, Harrison, Liapis 2013: C. Panayotakis, G.W.M. Harrison, V. Liapis, “Making sense of ancient performance”, in Harrison, Liapis 2013, pp. 1‑42.
Papastamati-von Moock 2007: C. Papastamati-von Moock, “Menander und die Tragikergruppe. Neue Forschungen zu den Ehrenmonumenten im Dionysostheater von Athen”, MDAI(A) 122, 2007, pp. 273‑327.
Papastamati-von Moock 2012: Χ. Παπασταμάτη-φον Μόοκ, “Θέατρο του Διονύσου Ελευθερέως. Tα γλυπτά της ρωμαϊκής σκηνής: χρονολογικά, καλλιτεχνικά και ερμηνευτικά ζητήματα”, in Θ. Στεφανίδου-Τιβερίου, Π. Καραναστάση, Δ. Δαμάσκος (ed.), Κλασική παράδοση και νεωτερικά στοιχεία στην πλαστική της ρωμαϊκής Ελλάδας, Πρακτικά Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Θεσσαλονίκη 2009, Thessaloniki, University Studio Press, 2012, pp. 129‑149.
Papastamati-von Moock 2014: C. Papastamati-von Moock, “The theatre of Dionysus Eleuthereus in Athens: new data and observations on its ‘Lycurgan’ phase”, in E. Csapo, H.R. Goette, H.R. Green, P. Wilson (ed.), Greek theatre in the fourth century B.C., Berlin/Boston, De Gruyter, 2014, pp. 15‑76.
Papastamati-von Moock 2018a: Χ. Παπασταμάτη-φον Μόοκ, “Το Θέατρο του Διονύσου Ελευθερέως”, in Β. Λαμπρινουδάκης (ed.), Αρχαία θέατρα της Αττικής. Τα θέατρα του άστεως, Athens, Διάζωμα, 2018, pp. 87‑120.
Papastamati-von Moock 2018b: Χ. Παπασταμάτη-φον Μόοκ, “Θέατρο του Διονύσου Ελευθερέως: η ανάδειξη του ρόλου των παρόδων μέσω της αποκατάστασης των βάθρων τους”, in Μ. Κορρές, Σ. Μαμαλούκος, Κ. Ζάμπας, Φ. Μαλλούχου-Tufano (ed.), Ήρως κτίστης. Μνήμη Χ. Μπούρα, vol. 2, Athens, Μέλισσα, 2018, pp. 403‑416.
Papastamati-von Moock 2020: Χ. Παπασταμάτη-φον Μόοκ, “Το «θέατρο των μεγάλων τραγικών»: αρχαιολογικά δεδομένα και λειτουργικά ζητήματα”, Logeion 10, 2020, pp. 1‑124.
Pavlovski 2018: G. Pavlovski, “The cavea of the theatre in Stobi. Results from the excavations in 2009, 2010 and 2012”, in Blaževska 2018, pp. 156‑205.
Pickard-Cambridge 1988: A.W. Pickard-Cambridge, The dramatic festivals of Athens, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1988 (2nd ed. revised by J. Gould and D.M. Lewis, reissued with supplement and corrections).
Pliakou, Smyris 2012: Γ. Πλιάκου, Γ. Σμύρης, “Το θέατρο, το βουλευτήριο και το στάδιο της Δωδώνης”, in Κ.Ι. Σουέρεφ (ed.), Αρχαία θέατρα της Ηπείρου, Athens, Διάζωμα, 2012, pp. 62‑100.
Price 1984: S.R.F. Price, Rituals and power. The Roman imperial cult in Asia Minor, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1984.
Rädle 1971: H. Rädle, “Freilassung von Sklaven im Theater (Inschriftliche Zeugnisse)”, RIDA 18, 1971, pp. 361‑364.
Rambo 1915: E.F. Rambo, “The Significance of the Wing-Entrances in Roman Comedy”, CPh 10, 1915, pp. 411‑431.
Rees 1911: K. Rees, “The Significance of the Parodoi in the Greek Theater”, AJPh 32, 1911, pp. 377‑402.
Rehm 2002: R. Rehm, The play of space. Spatial transformation in Greek tragedy, Princeton/Oxford, Princeton University Press, 2002.
Ritchie 1964: W. Ritchie, The authenticity of the Rhesus of Euripides, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1964.
Rostovtzeff 1930: M. Rostovtzeff, “L’empereur Tibère et le culte impérial”, RH 163, 1930, pp. 1‑32.
Schley Graham 2021: A. Schley Graham, “Reading visual cues on the so-called Archive Wall at Aphrodisias: a cognitive approach to monumental documents”, AJA 125, 2021, pp. 571‑601.
Schmitz 2010: T. Schmitz, “A sophist’s drama: Lucian and classical tragedy”, in I. Gildenhard, M. Revermann (ed.), Beyond the fifth century. Interactions with Greek tragedy from the fourth century BCE to the Middle Ages, New York, De Gruyter, pp. 289‑311.
Scoufopoulos-Stavrolakes 1985: N. Scoufopoulos-Stavrolakes, “Ancient Gythion, the port of Sparta. History and survey of the submerged remnants”, in A. Raban (ed.), Harbour archaeology. Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Ancient Mediterranean Harbours, Caesarea Maritima 1983, Oxford, BAR Publishing, 1985, pp. 49‑61.
Scully 1996: S. Scully, “Orchestra and Stage and Euripides’ ‘Suppliant Women’”, Arion 4/1, 1996, pp. 61‑84.
Sear 2006: F. Sear, Roman theatres. An architectural study, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006.
Seyrig 1929: H. Seyrig, “Inscriptions de Gytheum”, RA 29, 1929, pp. 84‑106.
Sifakis 1971: G.M. Sifakis, “Aristotle, E.N., IV, 2, 1123 a 19‑24, and the Comic Chorus in the Fourth Century”, AJPh 92, 1971, pp. 410‑432.
Skias 1891: Α.Ν. Σκιάς, “Περὶ τοῦ ἐν Γυθείῳ θεάτρου καὶ τοῦ παρ’ αὐτὸ ἀρχαίου κτιρίου”, Prakt, 1891, pp. 71‑90.
Skotheim 2016: M. Skotheim, The Greek dramatic festivals under the Roman empire, PhD, University of Princeton, 2016 (unpublished).
Skotheim 2021: M. Skotheim, “Satyr drama in the late Hellenistic and Roman imperial periods: an epigraphical perspective”, in Antonopoulos, Christopoulos, Harrison 2021, pp. 749‑763.
Slater 2007: W.J. Slater, “Deconstructing Festivals I,” in Wilson 2007, pp. 21‑47.
Small 1983: D.B. Small, “Studies in Roman theater design”, AJA 87, 1983, pp. 55‑68.
Sourwinou-Inwood 1994: C. Sourvinou-Inwood, “Something to do with Athens: tragedy and ritual”, in R. Osborne, S. Hornblower (ed.), Ritual, finance, politics. Athenian democratic accounts presented to David Lewis, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1994, pp. 269‑290.
Sourvinou-Inwood 2003: C. Sourvinou-Inwood, Tragedy and Athenian religion, Lanham, Lexington Books, 2003.
Stefanidou-Tiveriou 2007: Θ. Στεφανίδου-Τιβερίου, “Γλυπτός «διάκοσμος» και αρχιτεκτονική λειτουργία. Το παράδειγμα του Ωδείου της Θεσσαλονίκης”, in Γ. Κοκκορού-Αλευρά, Κ. Κοπανιάς (ed.), Μέθοδοι προσέγγισης και έρευνας της αρχαίας ελληνικής και ρωμαϊκής γλυπτικής, Πρακτικά Διεθνούς Ημερίδας, Αθήνα 2004, Athens, Kardamitsas, 2007, pp. 93‑108.
Stillwell 1952: R. Stillwell, Corinth II. The theatre, Princeton, The American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 1952.
Sturgeon 2004: M.C. Sturgeon, Corinth IX.3. Sculpture: the assemblage from the theater, Princeton, The American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 2004.
Taplin 1977: O. Taplin, The stagecraft of Aeschylus. The dramatic use of exits and entrances in Greek tragedy, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1977.
Themelis 2010: Π. Θέμελης, Τα θέατρα της Μεσσήνης, Athens, Διάζωμα, 2010.
Themelis 2015: P. Themelis, “The theatre at Messene: building phases and masons’ marks”, in Frederiksen, Gebhard, Sokolicek 2015, pp. 203‑231.
Thiercy 1986: P. Thiercy, Aristophane. Fiction et dramaturgie, Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1986.
Tozzi 2011: G. Tozzi, “Statue onorarie per poeti e agonoteti nel teatro di Dioniso ad Atene”, Scienze dell’Antichità 17, 2011, pp. 441‑476.
Tozzi 2014: G. Tozzi, “Iscrizioni e spazio teatrale: l’esempio di Atene e di altri teatri del mondo greco”, in W. Eck, P. Funke (ed.), Öffentlichkeit - Monument - Text. XIV Congressus Internationalis Epigraphiae Graecae et Latinae, 27.-31. Augusti MMXII. Akten, Berlin, De Gruyter, 2014, pp. 693‑695.
Tozzi 2021: G. Tozzi, Decreti dal santuario di Dioniso Eleutereo ad Atene, Pisa/Rome, Fabrizio Serra Editore, 2021.
Tsitsiridis 2019: Σ. Τσιτσιρίδης, “Η σκηνή του Ευριπίδη”, Logeion 9, 2019, pp. 121‑208.
Tziafalias 2008: Α. Τζιαφάλιας, “Αρχαίο Θέατρο Λάρισας: Πώς ένα όνειρο έγινε πραγματικότητα”, in 1ο Διεθνές Συνέδριο Ιστορίας & Πολιτισμού της Θεσσαλίας. Πρακτικά συνεδρίου, 9‑11 Νοεμβρίου 2006, vol. Ι, Thessaloniki, Εκδόσεις Αλέξανδρος, 2008, pp. 207‑223.
Tziafalias 2011: Α. Τζιαφάλιας, “Αποκάλυψη αρχαίων θεάτρων της Λάρισας”, in Αρχαία θέατρα στη Θεσσαλία, Athens, Διάζωμα, 2011, pp. 23‑29.
Tziafalias, Karagounis 2014: Α. Τζιαφάλιας, Δ. Καραγκούνης, Αρχαίο Θέατρο Λάρισας, s.l., Υπουργείο Πολιτισμού και Αθλητισμού, 2014.
Von Gerkan, Müller-Wiener 1961: A. von Gerkan, W. Müller-Wiener, Das Theater von Epidauros, Stuttgart, W. Kohlhammer, 1961.
Wiles 1997: D. Wiles, Tragedy in Athens. Performance space and theatrical meaning, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Wiles 2000: D. Wiles, Greek theatre performance. An introduction, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Williams 2013: C.K. Williams II, “Corinth, 2011: investigation of the west hall of the theater”, Hesperia 82, 2013, pp. 487‑549.
Williams, Zervos 1988: C.K. Williams II, O.H. Zervos, “Corinth, 1987: south of temple E and east of the theater”, Hesperia 57, 1988, pp. 95‑146.
Williams, Zervos 1989: C.K. Williams II, O.H. Zervos, “Corinth, 1988: east of the theater”, Hesperia 58, 1989, pp. 1‑50.
Wilson 2007: P. Wilson (ed.), The Greek theatre and festivals. Documentary studies, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007.
Wilson 2009: P. Wilson, “Tragic honours and democracy: neglected evidence for the politics of the Athenian Dionysia”, CQ 59, 2009, pp. 8‑29.
Woodward 1923‑1925: A.M. Woodward, “Excavations at Sparta, 1924‑25”, ABSA 26, 1923‑1925, pp. 116‑239.
Woodward 1925‑1926: A.M. Woodward, “Excavations at Sparta, 1926”, ABSA 27, 1925‑1926, pp. 172‑254.
Woodward 1927‑1928: A.M. Woodward, “Excavations at Sparta, 1924‑28. II, The inscriptions”, ABSA 29, 1927‑1928, pp. 2‑56.
Yoshitake 2016: R. Yoshitake, “The movable stage in Hellenistic Greek theatres. New documentation from Messene and comparisons with Sparta and Megalopolis”, AA 2, 2016, pp. 119‑133.
Zachos 2018: K.L. Zachos, “Recent investigations at the theater of Nicopolis. The Augustan building phase”, in J.‑L. Lamboley, L. Përzhita, A. Skenderaj (ed.), L’Illyrie méridionale et l’Épire dans l’Antiquité. VI, Actes du VIe colloque international de Tirana (20‑23 mai 2015), vol. II, Paris, De Boccard, 2018, pp. 721‑734.
Zachos, Pavlidis, Tranoylidis 2015: K.L. Zachos, E.A. Pavlidis, A. Tranoylidis, The theater of Nicopolis, Athens, Ministry of Culture and Sports, 2015.
Zachos et al. 2015: K.L. Zachos, I. Stamou, L. Leontaris, I. Soukantos, The odeum of Nicopolis, Athens, Ministry of Culture and Sports, 2015.
Notes de bas de page
1 I would like to warmly thank Djamila Fellague and Jean-Charles Moretti for their support during the preparation of this article, with special gratitude to the latter for his invaluable help and advice. I would also like to extend my warm thanks to my colleague, Stavros Tsitsiridis, who provided valuable comments on an earlier draft of the text.
2 LSJ, s.v. πάροδος 2 (B) I. Hence its use for narrow mountain passes, as the Thermopylae: Lys., II, 30. The noun ὁ πάροδος (and ὁ παροδίτης) indicates a “passer-by” and is frequently found in funerary inscriptions (where the passer-by walks along the funerary monument): see e.g. IG XII, 7, 445 (from Aigiale on the island of Amorgos) and IG XII, 2, 410 (from Lesbos).
3 Arist., Nic. Eth., 1123a23; Plut., Praecepta, 805c‑d; Poll., IV, 108. It must be noted, however, that only Pollux’s text is unambiguous: καὶ ἡ μὲν εἴσοδος τοῦ χοροῦ πάροδος καλεῖται. The passage by Aristotle is very controversial (see Sifakis 1971, esp. pp. 416‑417), as it might mean either “at the parodos” or “during the parodos”: see Tsitsiridis 2019, p. 159, note 99, with discussion and full bibliography. The passage by Plutarch, despite the reference to drama (ὥσπερ δράματος), likely alludes to the entrance into public life (τὸ μέντοι φαῦλον ἄνθρωπον, ἀπονοίᾳ δὲ καὶ δεινότητι πεποιημένον ὑφ᾽ αὑτῷ τὴν πόλιν, οἷος ἦν Κλέων Ἀθήνησι καὶ Κλεοφῶν, ἐπαναστάντα καθελεῖν καὶ ταπεινῶσαι λαμπρὰν ποιεῖται τὴν πάροδον ὥσπερ δράματος τῆς πολιτείας…: “On the other hand, to revolt against a bad man who by shameless audacity and cunning has made the city subject to himself, such as Cleon and Cleophon were at Athens, and to pull him down and humble him provides a glorious entrance upon the stage of public life…”, transl. Goodwin). Plutarch’s expression can be compared, for instance, to the one found in Demosthenes, Letters, III, 29, who speaks of a pretentious politician named Pytheas “who was a friend of the people down to his entrance into public life but after that was ready to do anything to injure you” (τὸν Πυθέαν […] τὸν μέχρι τῆς παρόδου δημοτικόν, μετὰ ταῦτα δ᾽ ἕτοιμον εἰς τὰ καθ᾽ ὑμῶν πάντα). The word is used here as a synonym of the verb πολιτεύεσθαι, which occurs immediately afterwards in the same paragraph: “For who does not know that this man, when, under the obligation to serve you, he was entering upon public life, was being hounded as a slave…” (τίς γὰρ οὐκ οἶδεν τοῦτον, ὅτε μὲν τὴν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν τάξιν ἔχων εἰς τὸ πολιτεύεσθαι παρῄει, ὡς δοῦλον ἐλαυνόμενον…). In this latter sense, the word πάροδος is also found much later, e.g. in an oration of the emperor Julian (Or., VII, 205b).
4 Arist., Po., 1452b22 (on which see especially Taplin 1977, pp. 449, 470‑476); Plut., An seni, 785a (reference to Sophocles’ tragedy Oedipus at Colonus). See also Isler 2017, Textband, p. 155, note 1315. The term can also refer to the use of the stage for the performance of an artist, in the expression “ἡ πάροδος εὗρεν δραχμήν” (in contrast with the free spectacle: “ἡ δὲ θέα ἐγένετο δωρεάν”): see the seven 2nd-cent BC inscriptions from Carian Iasos, which were carved on the pillar of the entrance to the theatre (I. Iasos, 160‑166). Review of the occurrence of the term πάροδος in theatrical vocabulary in Müller 1898, pp. 89‑92.
5 IG XII, 9, 207, ll. 55‑56 (early 3rd cent. BC). On this inscription, see below, p. 32.
6 Poll., IV, 126‑127 (see also IV, 128). See below, p. 26‑27.
7 Athen., XIV, 622 a-d = FgrHist, 396 F 24 (my translation).
8 The word θύραι is found in this meaning in Delian inscriptions, see e.g. IG XI, 2, 199, l. 37 (274 BC).
9 Csapo 2015, p. 101, connects this reference to the pompē entering into the Theatre of Dionysus (on which see below, p. 29‑30) or, alternatively, to a similar procession in Delos (on which see below, p. 30).
10 IG XI, 2, 142, l. 27 (308‑306 BC) and I. Délos, 290, ll. 176‑177 (246 BC), respectively. Comments in Moretti, Fraisse 2007, pp. 157‑158, 194‑198, and Csapo, Wilson 2020, pp. 639‑641, no. 7.
11 Hellmann 1992, pp. 120‑121, s.v. εἴσοδος. The word is attested in this meaning outside Delos, too: see e.g. an Athenian inscription regarding the sanctuary of Asclepius and Hygeia, which mentions the repairing of the doors (θυρώματα) of the old gateway to the sanctuary (τῆς πρό|τερον οὔσης εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν εἰσόδου: IG II2, 1046, ll. 11‑12: 52/51 BC).
12 I. Délos, 290, ll. 176‑177. See the observations in Moretti, Fraisse 2007, pp. 196‑197.
13 Diodorus did not, of course, eyewitness Philip’s murder. His source for this episode has been identified by Nicholas Hammond as “a third-rate Hellenistic historian, bred in Athens”, being probably Diyllus of Athens: Hammond 1937, pp. 84, 89‑90. On the monumental gateways in the theatre of Dionysus see below, p. 26 and note 18.
14 On the use of the word eisodos instead of parodos for the lateral entrances, see Taplin 1977, pp. 449‑450. On Aristophanes’ line, see Pickard-Cambridge 1988, p. 21, note 1, and Thiercy 1986, p. 25.
15 Here Euelpides, at the sight of the chorus, cries out: “By Phoebus! what a cloud! The entrance is no longer visible so closely do they fly together” (ὦναξ Ἄπολλον τοῦ νέφους. ἰοὺ ἰού, οὐδ᾽ ἰδεῖν ἔτ᾽ ἔσθ᾽ ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν πετομένων τὴν εἴσοδον, transl. E. O’Neill Jr). The comedy was first performed in 414 BC.
16 This, of course, raises the problem of the meaning of the word παρασκήνια, a topic which goes beyond the bounds of this article. Sources in Müller 1898, pp. 57‑62, and remarks in Moretti, Fraisse 2007, pp. 178‑182.
17 This use of the word πάροδος can be confirmed, to a certain extent, by the obscure mention by Plutarch (Demetr., XXXIV, 3) of ἄνω πάροδοι. When entered into Athens in 317 BC, Demetrius ordered the Athenians to gather in the theatre (κελεύσας εἰς τὸ θέατρον ἀθροισθῆναι πάντας), blocked the stage building with armed men (ὅπλοις μὲν συνέφραξε τὴν σκηνὴν) and encompassed the stage with his bodyguards (δορυφόροις τὸ λογεῖον περιέλαβεν), while he himself, like the tragic actors, came down into view through one of the upper parodoi (αὐτὸς δὲ καταβάς, ὥσπερ οἱ τραγῳδοί, διὰ τῶν ἄνω παρόδων). Although it is not entirely clear why Plutarch uses the adjectival adverb ἄνω, the fact that the stage was not accessible and even blocked by soldiers evokes the image of a 5th cent. tragic actor impressively entering the orchestra through the lateral corridor, or parodos. Themelis 2010, p. 21, and 2015, p. 205 and note 7, interprets as “ano parodos” the broad staircase leading from the north-western exterior side of the theatre at Messene to its upper auditorium, although to my knowledge tragic actors never accessed the scenic space from the auditorium.
18 Korres 2002a, who suggests that these two monumental gateways (first published in Korres 1980, pp. 11‑14, drawings 1‑2, pl. 9; Korres 1982, p. 16, pls. 12b-13a) may be the earliest example of the kind. Gogos 2005, pp. 159‑165, fig. 32 hypothesizes that the Lycurgan theatre of Dionysus had no monumental entrances to the parodoi. For a recent re-examination and new chronology of the marble gateway of the eastern parodos, see Papastamati-von Moock 2014, pp. 39‑47, figs. 1.17‑1.22. On gateways closing the parodoi of Hellenistic theatres, see below, p. 33‑34.
19 In their study of the theatre at Epidaurus, for instance, Gerkan, Müller-Wiener 1961 do not delve into the question of the parodoi and limit themselves to the examination of the monumental gates, as well as of the ramps that led the actors to the roof of the proskenion.
20 See below, p. 27. An archaeological review of entrances to the scenic space in the Classical and Hellenistic period is offered by Moretti 1992.
21 Rees 1911 and Hourmouziades 1965. Based on Poll., IV, 126‑127 (see above, note 6), it was generally assumed that the parodoi lead to specific places, such as “the city”, “the countryside”, “the harbour”, and so on: see e.g. Bieber 1954. A similar issue has been tackled for Roman drama: see below, p. 35 and note 73. On the theatrical vocabulary used by Pollux, see Mauduit, Moretti 2010 and Moretti, Mauduit 2015; on his architectural vocabulary more in general, see Mauduit, Moretti 2016.
22 See also Taplin 1977, pp. 450‑451; contra, see Wiles 1997, esp. pp. 133‑160.
23 Taplin 1977.
24 Mastronarde 1979.
25 Frost 1988.
26 Liapis 2013, esp. pp. 239‑243. On the tragedy Rhesus, see also: Ritchie 1964; Battezzato 2000; Liapis 2012; Fries 2014.
27 Wiles 2000, pp. 117‑118.
28 Hamilton 1978 lists and interprets the different ways in which Greek tragic characters who make their entrance in the scenic space are announced (or not announced).
29 Wiles 2000, pp. 117‑118.
30 The measurements follow the plan published in Papastamati-von Moock 2014, p. 73, fig. 1.43.
31 Williams 2013, p. 489.
32 Gebhard 1973, pp. 51‑53, pl. IV. The western entrance had a length of 11.85 m, while the eastern one a length of 12.20 m. Both parodoi in this theatre were well defined already in the earliest phase (400 BC ca): Gebhard 1973, p. 137.
33 Tziafalias 2008, pp. 211‑213; Tziafalias, Karagounis 2014, pp. 34‑38.
34 Bommelaer 2002.
35 Capps 1895, pp. 341‑343, fig. 38, pl. XIX.
36 Gebhard 1973, p. 77. The author hypothesizes that the present inclination is lower than that of the Greek and Roman phases. On sunken orchestras, see Gebhard 2015, with bibliography.
37 Gerkan, Müller-Wiener 1961, esp. pls. 1, 17, 27. The larger opening of the western gate to the parodos has a width of 2.40 m: Gerkan, Müller-Wiener 1961, pl. 26.
38 On the topic, see Lampaki 2021.
39 Aristoph., Eccl., 1141‑1142; Plat., Symp., 174a speaks of a “throng” (ὄχλος).
40 On the Great Dionysia, see mainly: Goldhill 1987; Pickard-Cambridge 1988; Goldhill 1990; Csapo, Slater 1995, pp. 103‑121; Wilson 2007; Wilson 2009; des Bouvrie 2012, esp. pp. 69‑85. Sourvinou-Inwood 2003, pp. 67‑140, tried to reconstruct the route of the Archaic procession, which in her opinion started from the Prytaneion, or the seat of the archon. On the Street of the Tripods, see below, p. 43.
41 IG II2, 1006, ll. 12‑13: εἰσήγαγον δὲ [κ]αὶ τὸν Διόνυσον ἀπὸ τῆς ἐσχά|ρας εἰς τὸ θέατρον μετὰ φωτὸς (2nd cent. BC): see Sourvinou-Inwood 1994, p. 270, and Csapo 2015, esp. pp. 71‑73. See also IG II2, 1008, 1011 and cf. Alciphr., IV, 18, 16. Comments in Chaniotis 2013, p. 29.
42 Sourvinou-Inwood 1994; Sourvinou-Inwood 2003, pp. 67‑100. See comments in Csapo 2015.
43 See recently Csapo 2015, with bibliography and full discussion of the evidence; see also Rehm 2000, esp. pp. 44‑54.
44 Bacelar 2009; Paleothodoros 2013.
45 See above, note 41. The ritual of the eisagoge is attested indeed in these Hellenistic ephebic inscriptions, but scholars agree on the fact that it was an older ritual. On Hellenistic rituals in the theatre of Dionysus, see: Chaniotis 2007; Ceccarelli 2010.
46 Philostr., VS, ΙΙ, 1.
47 This sanctuary is mentioned in IG XI, 2, 203 (ll. 37‑38: 269 BC) but its location remains unknown: Bruneau 1970, pp. 317‑318.
48 Bruneau 1970, p. 317.
49 Fraisse, Moretti 2007, p. 241, fig. 422 (sanctuary GD116) and pl. 111, fig. 425. The sanctuary must have been founded during the period of Delian Independence. On the Delian phallic parade, see also Csapo, Wilson 2020, pp. 655‑657.
50 Isler 2007.
51 Fossum 1891, p. 257; Isler 2007, p. 17. On the temple of Dionysus, see Auberson 1976.
52 On the Dionysia in Eretria see most recently the exhaustive comments in Csapo, Wilson 2020, pp. 667‑673.
53 Capps 1895, pp. 341‑343 and pl. XIX; Isler 2007, pp. 46‑47, 52, pls. 31.2, 45.7‑8, 46.3; Knoepfler 2010, pp. 230‑235. The suggestion by Fiechter 1937, p. 15, that a similar wall was present in the eastern parodos too, has been rejected by Isler 2007, p. 47.
54 Di Napoli 2020, with bibliography.
55 See Csapo, Wilson 2020, pp. 666‑667, with bibliography.
56 Tozzi 2014. On the statues of poets and agonothetes in this area, see Tozzi 2011. On honorary decrees in this sanctuary and theatre, see Tozzi 2021, with full bibliography.
57 Lambert 2008; Lambert 2011, esp. pp. 204‑205.
58 On the “Lycurgan” phase of the theatre of Dionysus, see Papastamati-von Moock 2014, with bibliography.
59 This is attested not only by literary sources (Aeschin., III, 34 and 41; Demosth., XVIII, 120), but also by numerous inscriptions: see e.g. IG II3, 1, 877 (honorific decree for the agonothetes Philippides, where the honour of a golden crown and the proclamation on the occasion of the tragic contest at the Great Dionysia are mentioned: 283/282 BC) and the similar decree for an unknown person IG II2, 1008, ll. 68‑69 (with mention of a golden crown and reference to the tragic contest of the Great Dionysia: late 2nd cent. BC). The practice is also known in Lamptrai: see Csapo, Wilson 2020, pp. 189‑191, with bibliography (honorific decree dated to the last quarter of the 4th cent. BC).
60 Besides the statues of the three tragic playwrights and Menander, in the theatre of Dionysus other statues of poets were displayed: some of them were “obscure” (Paus., I, 21, 1), some others “indifferent to inaccuracy and unpleasantness” (Dio Chrys., XXXI, 116).
61 Knoepfler 1978; D. Knoepfler, Bulletin épigraphique 2007, pp. 681‑682, no. 328. See also Isler 2007, pl. 14.5‑6.
62 They are both analysed in Di Napoli 2021, pp. 463‑465, with bibliography.
63 See Rädle 1971. Mactoux 2008 comments on the different practice of heralds proclaiming manumissions of slaves during the festival of the Great Dionysia at Athens, until its prohibition by law at the mid‑4th cent. BC. – a practice whose main source is Aeschynes’ Against Ctesiphon, dated to 330 BC.
64 Moretti 2001, p. 170.
65 See above, p. 26 and note 18.
66 Gerkan, Müller-Wiener 1961, pp. 64‑67, fig. 16, pls. 16, 24‑26.
67 Pliakou, Smyris 2012, pp. 67‑68, 72‑73, fig. 15 (with bibliography); Antoniou 2015, esp. pp. 185‑187.
68 Fraisse, Moretti 2007, pp. 69‑72, 234‑235.
69 A probable exception is the 4th-cent. phase of the theatre at Corinth, where a stairway located in a corner of the scene building led to an opening cut into the roof: Stillwell 1952, pp. 37‑38; see also Moretti 2014, p. 132, fig. 3.17.
70 Moretti 2014, esp. pp. 133‑137, expresses the view that the stage building with proskenion was not a response to new needs of the performances, and was instead the result of architectural experimentations which likely took place in 4th-cent. BC Peloponnese.
71 Moretti 1992, pp. 91‑92, who hypothetically suggests that the access to the orchestra through both the parodoi and the doors in the lower storey of the scene building might be connected to the habit, epigraphically attested in the 4th cent. BC., of re-performing 5th-cent. plays, where the actors were supposed to perform in the orchestra. Underground passages which started either within the scene building or within the proskenion and led into the orchestra are attested at Argos, Delos, Sikyon, Eretria, and Corinth. They are, however, exceptions and it is doubtful that they may have been used for sudden apparitions of actors in the orchestra.
72 Moretti 1992, pp. 92‑99; Moretti 2014, p. 130. Such openings are known under the term thyromata, on which see the interpretation by Mikedaki 2010.
73 Marshall 2006, with a particular focus on Roman comedy. The same author challenges the opinion (based on Vitr., V, 6, 8 and Poll., IV, 127) that the lateral entrances led to fixed locations, although an opposition between the forum and the countryside/the harbour is almost always present in Roman comedies. See also the remarks in Leigh 2004, pp. 105‑111, and in Panayotakis, Harrison, Liapis 2013, esp. pp. 22‑28. For older discussion on lateral entrances to the stage, especially (but not exclusively) in Roman comedy, see: Rambo 1915; Johnston 1933; Beare 1938; Duckworth 1952, pp. 85‑87; Beare 1964, pp. 248‑255. On the imagined loci connected to the stage set, see the remarks of the Prologue speaker in Plautus’ Menaechmi, 72‑76: “This is the city of Epidamnus while this play is acting; when another shall be acted, it will become another town; just as our companies, too, are wont to be shifted about. The same person now acts the procurer, now the youth, now the old man, the pauper, the beggar, the king, the parasite, the soothsayer ...” (transl. H.T. Riley).
74 Vitr., V, 6, 8 speaks of versurae procurrentes or “projecting wings”, referring to the two walls rising to the side of the scene façade: see the remarks in Sear 2006, p. 9.
75 The Latin term aditus maximi, however, is “a recent coining with no specific theatrical authority”: Sear 2006, p. 6 and note 112. In the Greek-speaking area, such lateral entrance is named αψίς or ψαλίς: see the relevant sources in Müller 1898, p. 92.
76 Sear 2006, pp. 5‑6.
77 Such entrances within the auditorium are named vomitoria in Latin (Macr., Sat., VI, 4) and ψαλίδες in Greek (Ι. Ephesos, 2033, ca AD 1): Sear 2006, p. 6. Outside Greece, the aditus of the theatre in Leptis Magna (Libya) are worth mentioning, as different solutions for the staircases and the entrances are adopted in this monument: Caputo 1987, pp. 71‑75, pls. 7, 13 and 15.
78 Such boxes are called tribunalia in Latin, following the expression praetoris tribunal which is attested in Suet., Aug., 44.
79 Sear 2006, pp. 6‑7. Being located only a few metres above the stage, such boxes seem more aimed at separating the highest dignitaries from the rest of the audience, and at placing them in full sight of the public, than at offering to their occupants a privileged view of the performances: see Di Napoli forthcoming b.
80 Bieber 1961, pp. 227‑253, offers an overview on the performances hosted by the theatres of the imperial period.
81 Di Napoli 2013, esp. pp. 115‑116, with bibliography.
82 Sear 2006, p. 50.
83 Theatre of Nicopolis: Sear 2006, p. 413, plan 434, pls. 142‑143 (with bibliography); Zachos, Pavlidis, Tranoylidis 2015; Isler 2017, Katalogband, pp. 526‑527, pl. 105.314‑315; Zachos 2018. Theatre at Corinth: Sear 2006, pp. 392‑393, plan 419 (with bibliography); Isler 2017, Katalogband, pp. 404‑407, pl. 81.243‑244. Odeum at Corinth: Sear 2006, pp. 392‑393, plan 420, pl. 140 (with bibliography); Isler 2017, Katalogband, pp. 407‑408, pl. 82.245. Odeum at Argos: Sear 2006, p. 387, plan 414, pl. 136 (with bibliography); Isler 2017, Katalogband, pp. 101‑102, pl. 19.56. Odeum at Nicopolis: Sear 2006, pp. 413‑414, plan 435, pl. 144 (with bibliography); Antonatos 2007 (chronology in the Augustan age); Zachos et al. 2015; Isler 2017, Katalogband, pp. 528‑529, pl. 105.316. Theatre in the Pythion at Gortyn: Sear 2006, pp. 295‑296, plan 271 (with bibliography); Isler 2017, Katalogband, pp. 313‑315, pl. 59.177; Bonetto, Francisci, Mazzocchin 2019. Odeum of Herodes Atticus: Sear 2006, pp. 389‑390, plan 418, pl. 139 (with bibliography); Korres 2014; Isler 2017, Katalogband, pp. 130‑132, pl. 26.77‑79. Theatre at Butrint: Sear 2006, pp. 410‑411, plan 432 (with bibliography); Isler 2017, Katalogband, pp. 180‑182. Odeum of Patras: Sear 2006, pp. 403‑404, plan 427 (with bibliography); Isler 2017, Katalogband, pp. 575‑576, pl. 115.345.
84 On the chronology, see Zachos, Pavlidis, Tranoylidis 2015, pp. 76‑78.
85 Zachos, Pavlidis, Tranoylidis 2015, p. 62. An honorary box has been found on the western entrance only, but excavators suppose that a similar one was placed on the eastern entrance, too.
86 Zachos, Pavlidis, Tranoylidis 2015, pp. 60‑62.
87 Sturgeon 2004, p. 4. See also Williams, Zervos 1988, p. 109.
88 Sturgeon 2004, p. 4. On the chronology of the earliest Roman phases, see Williams, Zervos 1988, esp. pp. 109‑113, fig. 13, and Williams, Zervos 1989, esp. pp. 28‑36.
89 Stillwell 1952, p. 13; Sear 2006, p. 392.
90 Stillwell 1952, pp. 10, 49‑58, pls. II and VI.
91 On the Hadrianic phase, see mainly Sturgeon 2004.
92 Sturgeon 2004, pp. 167‑168, no. 56, pl. 56c and pp. 170‑171, nos. 61‑62, pl. 58a-d.
93 See most recently Di Napoli forthcoming a, with full bibliography.
94 It is labelled as such by Philostr., VS, II, 5, 4 and 8, 3‑4.
95 Sear 2006, p. 421, plan 448; Isler 2017, Katalogband, pp. 788‑789, pl. 157.470; Di Napoli 2018, p. 325 (with bibliography).
96 It is explicitly labelled as “odeion” in the building inscription: see AD 18 B2, 1963, p. 199, pl. 239c.
97 It included at least nine statues, four of which representing Muses and found in situ: Stefanidou-Tiveriou 2007.
98 Although the western entrance has not been fully explored, the excavators suppose that it had a similar form: Bonetto, Francisci, Mazzocchin 2019, p. 322.
99 Bonetto, Francisci, Mazzocchin 2019, esp. pp. 68‑79, 322.
100 Full and accurate publication in Montali 2006.
101 Isler 2017, Katalogband, pp. 331‑332, pl. 64.191 (with bibliography).
102 Di Napoli 2013, esp. pp. 111‑115.
103 Such modifications, defined by Isler 2017 as “fairly surprising” (“einigermassen überraschend”: Textband, p. 581), are quite common in the theatres of imperial Greece, where a blend of traditional Greek and imported western features can be observed: see Di Napoli 2015.
104 In Roman Greece (and Asia Minor) the façades of the indented type are a rare exception and the rectilinear scenae frons was so widely spread that it occurs even in theatrical buildings featuring many western characteristics (e.g. odeum of Herodes Atticus at Athens), in most odea or small theatres, and in pre-existing theatres which had been rebuilt according to the new fashion (e.g. theatre of Dionysus at Athens). This preference is due, partially at least, to the fact that rectilinear façades could be built with relatively little effort and could therefore be easily added to pre-existing theatres: see the remarks in Di Napoli 2015, pp. 372‑373.
105 Kolonia 2013, pp. 138‑139 (with bibliography).
106 Epidaurus (Roman scene building bearing statues as decorative elements): Sear 2006, pp. 396‑397, plan 423; Isler 2017, Katalogband, pp. 271‑273, pl. 49.146 (with bibliography). Argos (pulpitum of the Hadrianic period in the place of the Hellenistic scene building): Isler 2017, Katalogband, pp. 99‑101, pl. 18.54‑55 (with bibliography). Orchomenos (low Roman pulpitum built in the place of the Hellenistic scene building): Kyriazi, Kitsou, Bilis 2013, p. 89. Oiniadai (construction of Roman scene building in the place of the Hellenistic proskenion): Gogos 2003. Mieza: Allamani-Souri et al. 2012. Maroneia (1st Roman phase, construction of a scene building and of a pulpitum made of bricks): Karadima et al. 2015, esp. pp. 261‑263. Zea at the Piraeus (remodelling of the auditorium in the Augustan age): Sear 2006, p. 404; Di Napoli 2015, p. 367, fig. 1 (with bibliography). Thera (new scene decorated with statues of members of the imperial family built in the Tiberian period): Sear 2006, p. 409, plan 431; Isler 2017, Katalogband, pp. 786‑787.
107 The bibliography about the theatre of Dionysus at Athens is very vast. See most recently: Isler 2017, Katalogband, pp. 119‑128, pls. 24.73 and 25.74‑76; Papastamati-von Moock 2018a and 2020 (both with rich bibliography).
108 On the imperial scene façade and its decorative elements, see Papastamati-von Moock 2012 (with bibliography); on the orchestra and the surrounding parapet, see Di Napoli, Vitti 2019 (with bibliography).
109 Papastamati-von Moock 2007. See also Papastamati-von Moock 2018.
110 Papastamati-von Moock 2018, esp. pp. 406‑407 (see also the seminal research by Korres 1982). On the Street of the Tripods see Korres 2002b. Greco 2001 stresses the role of this road as one of the main urban axes of the Archaic city, which determined its development from south-east towards west; however, on the use of the Street of the Tripods not as a functional road, but mainly as a processional road imbued with a special, sacred significance, see the remarks in Agelidis 2009, pp. 115‑120 (with bibliography).
111 Papastamati-von Moock 2007, pp. 312‑326; Papastamati-von Moock 2014, pp. 35‑52, figs. 1.17‑1.27.
112 Leventi 2009. Several monuments in both parodoi were demolished during the 19th-cent. excavations by Rousopoulos: Papastamati-von Moock 2007, pp. 299‑300; Papastamati-von Moock 2018b, pp. 404‑405.
113 Gebhard 1973, pp. 110‑113, figs. 59‑60. In the first Roman rebuilding of the monument, however, which occurred in the early imperial period, both the auditorium and the scene building underwent modifications, while the pre-existing parodoi remained unaltered: Gebhard 1973, pp. 77‑80, figs. 41‑42.
114 Aegeira: Gogos 1992, pp. 102‑103; Gauss et al. 2015. Philippi: Karadedos, Koukouli-Chryssanthaki 2007; Di Napoli 2018, pp. 329‑331, figs. 3‑4 (with bibliography).
115 The expression is by Small 1983, p. 55.
116 Graf 2015; Skotheim 2016. For a review of drama under the Empire, see Jones 2001 and Panayotakis, Harrison, Liapis 2013. On satyr drama in the imperial period, see Harrison 2021 and Skotheim 2021. Traditional views include Beacham 1991, p. 154 (who states that no new plays were composed under the Empire, and that classical drama was only occasionally re-performed) and Schmitz 2010, p. 301 (who defines the performances of drama in the imperial period as “quite exceptional events”).
117 Sear 2006, pp. 406‑407, plan 428; Isler 2017, Katalogband, pp. 724‑727, pl. 142.426 (with bibliography).
118 On Eurykles see Calandra, Gorrini 2008, pp. 5‑6 (with bibliography).
119 The marble pavement of the orchestra dates to a later imperial phase.
120 During the first century of its existence, the theatre at Sparta had a movable stage which was stored in the skanotheka, located in the western parodos: see below, note 126.
121 The inscription SEG 11, 1950, 464, mentions a restoration of theatre under the proconsul Ampelius (AD 359). In the late 4th cent. AD, the monument was incorporated into the late Antique fortification wall of the city.
122 On the bigger theatre of Larissa see below, p. 47‑49.
123 It is paved with two layers of river pebbles.
124 See most recently Tziafalias 2011, pp. 28‑29 (with bibliography).
125 On the Hellenistic phase, see Themelis 2010, pp. 20‑27.
126 This same (and odd) configuration of one of the side entrances is found in the theatres of Megalopolis, Sparta, and Thouria: see Buckler 1986, Yoshitake 2016, and, on Thouria, Arapogianni 2021 (with bibliography).
127 On this phase, see Themelis 2010, pp. 27‑28. On the chronology, see Themelis 2015, pp. 211‑212. This large building must have been used for theatrical performances and political gatherings as well, as the late-1st cent. BC text regarding the oktobolos eisfora attests (IG V, 1, 1432: 39 BC, see most recently Doyen 2017, with bibliography).
128 On this phase, see Themelis 2010, pp. 28‑36. For the family tree of the Saethidai, see Themelis 2015, p. 227, table 1.
129 The relevant inscription explicitly mentions (l. 16) the κατηρειμμένον … προσκή[νιον]: SEG 51, 2001, 458 (A).
130 Di Napoli 2018, pp. 323‑324, fig. 1 (with bibliography).
131 Eastern parodos: Woodward 1923‑1925, pp. 160‑200; Woodward 1925‑1926, pp. 211‑236; Woodward 1927‑1928, pp. 2‑9. Western parodos: Woodward 1923‑1925, pp. 200‑205; Woodward 1927‑1928, pp. 10‑20, fig. 1.
132 On monumental inscriptions, see Berti 2017. On the issue of visibility in Roman art, see Hijmans 2015.
133 Interesting reading in Schley Graham 2021; Kokkinia 2016 remains fundamental.
134 Tziafalias 2008; Tziafalias, Karagounis 2014.
135 Caputo, Helly 2005.
136 See above, p. 28 and note 33.
137 This marble, carved from the quarries of Kastrì Hagiàs, is also used in the imperial scene building and in the auditorium: Tziafalias 2008, p. 218; Tziafalias, Karagounis 2014, p. 40.
138 This decoration is not commented on in the preliminary publications of the theatre. It is visible, however, on site and in some pictures: see Tziafalias 2008, pp. 222‑223, fig. 27; Tziafalias, Karagounis 2014, fig. p. 33.
139 Gallis 1988; Miller 2004, p. 145. These games had been founded immediately after the battle at Kynoscephale and celebrated the liberation of Thessaly from the Macedonian rule – hence their name.
140 See e.g. IG IX.2, 528 (early 1st cent. BC), where prizes are listed for auletes, kytharistes, and kytharodos; IG IX.2, 531 (late 1st cent. BC-early 1st cent. AD), where the names of winners in encomium (λογικόν and ἐπικόν), recitation (καταλογή) and epigram are recorded: Gallis 1988, p. 228.
141 IG IX.2, 531: see Miller 2004, p. 165.
142 The bull hunt is also a symbol which appears on some coins of Larissa: example in Miller 2004, p. 164.
143 An honorary decree of the 1st cent. AD provides evidence for Caesareia in Larissa which included diaulos, stadion, and apobates: IG IX.2, 614b. On the imperial cult in Larissa, see Bouchon 2016.
144 Tziafalias, Karagounis 2014, pp. 34‑38.
145 An interesting parallel is offered by the theatre of Marcellus in Rome, built in the early Augustan age. It has been demonstrated that the via triumphalis passed through the building, between the auditorium and the scaenae frons, in the place where a travertine-paved via per theatrum Marcelli has been found. Thus, the public seated in the theatre could follow the imperial triumphs and the many processions, whose symbolic value was enhanced by the backdrop of the scene façade. See Monterroso 2010, esp. pp. 38‑51.
146 SEG 11, 1950, 923. The first edition by Kougeas 1928, pp. 16‑38, fig. 4, was immediately followed by two commentaries: Seyrig 1929 and Rostovtzeff 1930. Since then, many publications have been devoted to this inscription: see Calandra, Gorrini 2008 (with full bibliography) and most recently Höet-van Cauwenberghe, Kantiréa 2013.
147 On Gytheion, see Cavanagh, Crouwel, Catling 1996, pp. 296‑297, and Doulfis 2019, pp. 143‑144 (with bibliography). On the harbour, see Scoufopoulos-Stavrolakes 1985 (cf. Polybius, V, 19, 6).
148 SEG 11, 1950, 922.
149 Very appropriately, as the abovementioned sacrifices and the rituals were dedicated to the salvation of the rulers.
150 Kanellopoulos, Zavvou 2014 on the agora; see also pp. 358‑359 for the Kaisareion.
151 The inscription recording such games (I. Olympia, 56) has been found in Olympia; on the games, see most recently Miranda 2020, with bibliography.
152 Isler 2017, Katalogband, pp. 317‑319, pl. 60.181 (with bibliography).
153 This chronology is suggested in Di Napoli 2013, p. 84, and shared by Isler 2017, Katalogband, pp. 318‑319, who underlines that some features of this theatre remind the ones of some Republican theatres of Sicily, Campania and Samnium.
154 Skias 1891.
155 Pliakou, Smyris 2012, pp. 62‑87 (with bibliography); Antoniou 2015; Isler 2017, Katalogband, pp. 247‑249, pl. 45.135‑136.
156 Pliakou, Smyris 2012, pp. 74‑75, fig. 17.
157 See above, p. 33.
158 Di Napoli 2018, pp. 326‑328, fig. 2 (with bibliography).
159 Karadima et al. 2015, esp. pp. 262‑263.
160 Roman rebuilding also occurred in the Hellenistic theatre of Apollonia (Illyria), when the orchestra was adapted to host gladiatorial games and the parodoi were blocked by gates: Franz, Hinz 2015, esp. pp. 346‑348.
161 Di Napoli 2018, pp. 324‑325 (with bibliography). The building often appears as “bouleuterion” in older scholarship.
162 Analytic drawing in Karadedos 2012, p. 112, fig. 13.
163 Berlan-Bajard 2006, pp. 511‑518, fig. 30, pl. XXIV (with bibliography); Isler 2017, Katalogband, pp. 101‑102. The suggested chronology is based on parallels, as the only data regarding this phase is an honorary inscription dated to ca AD 169 found reused in the drainage channel, which of course only offers a terminus post quem: SEG 16, 1959, 257 (see Berlan-Bajard 2006, p. 518).
164 For a preliminary study of this phase, see Di Napoli, Vitti 2019 (with bibliography).
165 Di Napoli 2018, pp. 332‑333 (with bibliography); Gebhard 2018; Pavlovski 2018.
166 Scully 1996, p. 79.
Auteur

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Creative Commons - Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
The Iranian Plateau during the Bronze Age
Development of urbanisation, production and trade
Jan-Waalke Meyer, Emmanuelle Vila, Marjan Mashkour et al. (dir.)
2019
Les vaisseaux du désert et des steppes
Les camélidés dans l’Antiquité (Camelus dromedarius et Camelus bactrianus)
Damien Agut-Labordère et Bérangère Redon (dir.)
2020
Chantiers et matériaux de construction
De l’Antiquité à la Révolution industrielle en Orient et en Occident
Anne Baud et Gérard Charpentier (dir.)
2020
Multidisciplinary approaches to food and foodways in the medieval Eastern Mediterranean
Sylvie Yona Waksman (dir.)
2020
On salt, copper and gold
The origins of early mining and metallurgy in the Caucasus
Catherine Marro et Thomas Stöllner (dir.)
2021
Chalcis/Qinnasrin (Syrie)
De l’âge du Bronze à l’époque mamelouke. Qinnasrin II
Marie-Odile Rousset (dir.)
2021
Kition-Bamboula VIII
Le port de guerre de Kition
Olivier Callot, Sabine Fourrier et Marguerite Yon (dir.)
2022
Networked spaces
The spatiality of networks in the Red Sea and Western Indian Ocean
Caroline Durand, Julie Marchand, Bérangère Redon et al. (dir.)
2022
Kition-Bamboula IX
Les cultes des Salines à Kition : étude des terres cuites d'époque classique
Pauline Maillard
2023
Les espaces funéraires autour d’Apamée de l’Euphrate (iiie siècle avant-viiie siècle après J.‑C.)
Catherine Abadie-Reynal (dir.)
2023
Les théâtres antiques et leurs entrées
Parodos et aditus
Djamila Fellague et Jean-Charles Moretti (dir.)
2024