Alexia Latini, Aldo Roma
2025
10.7413/2611-5166012
It. Meccanismo, Macchina; Fr. Machinerie scénique, Machine; Germ. Theatermaschinerie, Maschine; Span. Maquinaria escénica, Maquina.
«[...] In fact the Ancients had various kinds of devices. In addition to those fitted to rotating doors and used to introduce the Gods of the Woods and the Countryside, or marine deities, they even had machines above the Scene for the Celestial Gods, and even under the Theatre for the shadows, the furies, and the other infernal gods, [...] Pollux reports that they were a kind of planking, on which the actors were made to descend to the level of the stage and then under the Theatre by releasing the devices, which had pulled them up. These devices were ropes, wheels and counterweights, which the Greeks called ἀναπέισματα. Those placed on the doors, which they called περίακτοι, were three-sided rotating machines which were turned according to the deities they wanted to represent. The most ordinary machines were those that were lowered from Heaven for the termination, in which the Gods came, so to speak, to help the Poet, whence the proverb θεὸς ἀπὸ μηχανῆς. These machines had a great relation to ours, because, except for the movements, the use was the same [...] Although all these machines had a great relation to ours, so the movements were very different [...]; theirs were recommended to a spice of Grù whose neck passed over the scene, and turning over itself while the counterweights made these machines ascend or descend, they described curves composed of its circular motion, and of their vertical direction [...]». Thus wrote Nicolas Boindin in 1746 (Boindin 1746, pp. 9-10) about ancient machines. When talking about theatre, we usually think of an art form, poetry, or an architectural structure, rather than mechanisms, devices, and techniques used to complement the protagonists and render the performance more articulate and spectacular through amplification and illusive modification of scenic space.
For ancient theatre, where the performance of drama involved simpler machines and devices, understanding this specific aspect is challenging. The issue becomes even more complicated when we look at classical Attic theatre, for which it is likely that, along with the development of drama, stage building, and technical progress in other fields, artificial devices able to meet the new demands of stage practice were introduced. However, there is still an ongoing debate regarding the kinds and extent to which theatrical machines were used in Athenian performances in the 5th and 4th centuries BC.
Much of the information on ancient stage machinery comes from indirect tradition. This includes annotations of late commentators on classical texts, lexicographers and Pollux, who lived at the time of the emperor Commodus, to whom he dedicated his major 10-book work, the Onomasticon. The large extract of the Onomasticon we possess does not differ significantly from the original edition and consists of a sort of lexicon comprising a list of synonyms, structured according to subject rather than alphabetically (Mauduit-Moretti 2010, pp. 521-41).
However, insofar as it refers to more ancient processes that were not always in place when recorded, the Pollux’s Onomasticon, like the erudite commentators, is often contradictory and confusing. Furthermore, practices in use after classical theatre were bundled together and often overgeneralised features of single-episodes, as in the case mentioned by Pollux of the ekkyklema [ἐκκύκλημα], surmounted by a throne (Mauduit-Moretti 2010, pp. 536-69).
Important sources on ancient theatre, such as Aristotle and Vitruvius, do not dwell on the various devised used in theatre: Aristotle mentions the introduction of stage design and criticises the use of the mechané to end the plot (Aristotle, Poetics, 1449 a18-19, 1454 b1-6); Vitruvius only mentions the existence of periaktoi [περίακτοι] (Vitruvius, On Architecture, 5.6.8). Attempts to find evidence of the staged use of these devices in South Italian vase paintings do not throw light on the issues of chronology, function, or technology used and relying on interpreting preserved dramas. Moreover, their dramaturgical construction, often dealt with by scholars of ancient drama, can also lead to different results. It is, therefore, necessary to collate heterogeneous data, including important archaeological research.
Pollux lists a series of theatrical devices: mechané, ekkyklema, periaktoi, keraunoskopeion [κεραυνοσκοπεῖον], bronteion [βροντεῖον], hemikyklion [ἡμικύκλιον], anapiesma [ἀναπίεσμα], and exostra [ἐξώστρα] (Onomasticon, 4.126-32).
«The mechané shows gods and heroes, Bellerophon and Perseus in the air; it is located near the left parodos [πάροδος] above the level of the stage building. The mechané of tragedy is the fig branch (krade [κράδη]) of comedy» (Pollux, Onomasticon, 4.128). Later he explains that the geranos [γέρανος], crane, was a mechanema [μηχάνημα] that descended from above to pick up bodies. The geranos/mechané equivalence, not clearly stated in Pollux, is confirmed by an anonymous lexicon (Bekker, Anecdota graeca, I 232.5-8, s.v. γέρανος). The mechané was a generic term used in different situations, ranging from war to maritime subjects. In the theatrical context, it was also called geranos, and, with specific reference to the arm that composed it, krade by the comedians (in Pseudo Plutarch, Alexandrian Proverbs, centuria 2.216 = Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum 1.338, is identified as the hook of the mechané), or aiorema [αἰώρημα] (Schol. Aristoph. Pax 80, Suda s.v. ἐώρημα; in Pollux, Onomasticon, 4.131 aiorai [αἰῶραι]), perhaps because of the swinging movement of the suspended actors similar to a seesaw; that this last expression also comes from a witty joke from comedy cannot be excluded (Reisch 1893, col. 1044). The mechané was, therefore, configured as a device aimed at lifting actors into the air.
Comedy, and even tragedy, which it parodies by revealing what tragedy conceals, represents the surest source of its use (Newiger 1989, p. 178; Hölscher 1995, p. 84). Recurrent in comedy is the actor’s grasping of the fragile and thus unstable fig branch (see also Strattis, PCG VII fr. 4 = Papyrus of Oxyrhynchus 2742). In Antiphanes’ ridicule (PCG II fr. 189), this becomes the finger raised by the tragedians, lowered to resolve the dramatic action, with evident allusion to the practice that had become customary of the deus ex machina. Therefore, in case of inertia, the beam had to remain level to the surface of the stage building’s roof. Comedy also shows that the mechané had not only to lift actors vertically, but also stage objects needed for the performance: the chariot on which Medea flies away with the lifeless bodies of her children (Euripides, Medea, vv. 1317-404), the fantastic animals, more likely fictitious, that were to appear as being ridden in flight as also confirmed by Aristotelian criticism in the Poetics, Pegasus in the case of Euripides’ Bellerophon (TrGF 18 frr. 306-8) or the dung beetle in the Peace, to cite a few persuasive examples and, if one accepts that the entrance on the stage of Lyssa and Iris in Heracles (Euripides, Heracles, vv. 815-73), or of the Dioscuri in Helen (Euripides, Helen, vv. 1642-87) took place utilising the mechané, even of two characters at once. The image of Medea in the air also seems to be suggested by some South Italian vases: a Lucanian hydria from Policoro (National Museum of the Siritide, inv. 35296) and a kalyx krater (Cleveland Museum of Art, inv. 1991,1), both dating from around 400 BC (Taplin 2007, pp. 117-23, nos. 34 and 35).
Another important aspect that emerges from comedy is that the mechané could also be horizontally rotated, as shown in a fragment of Aristophanes where the machine operator is urged to rotate (periagein [περιάγειν]) the branch as fast as possible (PCG III 2 fr. 160).
While most scholars do not dispute the use of the mechané in 5th century BC stage practice (among others Pickard-Cambridge 1946, pp. 55-56, Arnott 1962, pp. 72-74; Hourmouziades 1965, p. 169; Di Benedetto-Medda 1997, pp. 19-22; Di Marco 2000, pp. 61-62), the moment of its introduction remains debated. Certainly in use in the late 5th and 4th centuries (Mastronarde 1990, p. 247), it seems to have been ignored by Sophocles; its use in Aeschylean dramas is doubtful, perhaps in the Psychostasis to move Memnon’s body mentioned by Pollux (Onomasticon, 4.130-31) when he speaks of the geranos, and in Prometheus Bound for the appearance of Oceanus on a griffon (Aeschylus, Prometheus, vv. 284-396) although this last tragedy is controversial regarding its paternity and, consequently, chronology. However, its use is confirmed for Peace, when Trygaeus, astride a flying dung beetle, goes to Zeus (Aristophanes, Peace, vv. 80-178), the Birds, where it coincides with the entrance of Iris, messenger of the gods (Aristophanes, Birds, vv. 1196-261), and the Clouds, at least in relation to the first appearance of Socrates (Aristophanes, Clouds, vv. 218-38). The frequent references of comedians to a mechanopoiós [μηχανοποιός], i.e. a machine operator (Aristophanes, Peace, vv. 174-76; PCG III 2 frr. 160 and 192; Strattis, PCG VII fr. 46), indicate that the mechané’s use in this period was widespread and customary and reference to its operator also points to an activity that required specific professionalism which was recognised by contemporary society (Roselli 2017, pp. 401-2).
Based on the caricature disguises of comedy, it is arguable that Euripides exploited this device’s potential on several occasions (in addition to those mentioned, for example, in Andromeda, TrGF 10 fr. 124), especially for the appearances of gods or heroic figures. In the 4th century BC Plato (Cratylus, 425 d), Aristotle (Metaphysics, 1.985 a18), Demosthenes (Against Boetus, II, 59), and Alexis (PCG II fr. 131) recall the frequent and abused use of the deus ex machina as an expedient. The representation of ancient dramas from 386 BC onwards partly justifies the perpetuation of the mechané’s use in the 4th century BC. Two mentions of the mechané in Menander (PCG VI 2 fr. 6 and PCG VI 1 fr. 213) and the role of the deus ex machina in a purely metaphorical sense would suggest the device’s loss of significance of in the second half of the 4th century BC. (Pöhlmann 1995, pp. 158-59). Nevertheless, it did remain in use (Plutarch, Themistocles, 10.1; Quaestiones Convivales, 665 E, 724 D), perhaps along with other devices suitable for the purpose: the theatre of Priene in its Hellenistic phase has yielded a structure similar shape to a chimney, interpreted as a housing for an anapiesma, a sort of platform that must have served to lift an actor from the ground floor to a higher level (Goette 1995, p. 36; Pöhlmann 1995, p. 159). Pollux (Onomasticon, 4.127 and 132) discusses this immediately after explaining the significance of Charon’s stairs, which were also trapdoors that allowed actors to enter the orchestra by means of ladders during performances involving the dead.
Speed of movement, solidity necessary to stabilise a weight in flight, ease of manoeuvre, as well as reduced visibility from the koilon [κοῖλον] and, on the other hand, proximity to the skené [σκηνή], were undoubtedly among the criteria required for the construction of the mechané, a metatheatrical device, whose presence on stage revealed the fiction by making the stage trickery explicit (Mastronarde 1990, p. 253). We have no specific knowledge of the cranes used in this period: engineering practice made it possible to produce a machine capable of moving a weight, at least from the 5th century BC, as the example of the Parthenon proves (Korres 1995, pl. 16), or perhaps even earlier, as early as the end of the 6th century BC, as hypothesised for some archaic temples (Gullini 1990, pp. 80-102). Epigraphic documents from the 4th and 3rd centuries BC show the everyday use of trochiloi [τροχίλοι], pulleys, trochileia [τροχιλεία], pulley systems, mechané, and mechanemata [μηχανήματα] for construction. Simple forms of hydraulic machines were also in everyday use, for example, water supplied from wells (Robkin 1979, pp. 1-6), as portrayed on vase paintings such as the Attic black-figure pelike, preserved in the Staatliche Museen in Berlin, inv. 3228, from the end of the 6th century BC (Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum, Berlin, Antikenmuseum, 7, pp. 36-37, tables 28-29; Beazley Archive Pottery Database 138). Since cranes were used in wharves for loading and unloading goods, the theatrical machine could rely on known and tested systems, which could be adapted to the purpose.
Numerous attempts have been made to locate this apparatus in the classical Athenian theatre building and reconstruct its mechanism (Papastamati-von Moock 2014, pp. 63-72 with a summary of positions; Papastamati-von Moock 2015, pp. 69-70). Proposals have often focussed on the structure (now dated to the Periclean phase of the theatre) located behind the stage building which archaeological literature refers to as the T foundation. Recent archaeological investigations have challenged the hypothesis that the mechané consisted of a single support shaft with an attached articulated arm (Goette 1995, p. 25; Lendle 1995, pp. 165-72). These investigations seem to point towards a tower-like machine comprising two slightly oblique wooden uprights with a rectangular cross-section, well-embedded in the recesses on the T foundation’s side facing the sanctuary to guarantee the structure’s stability (Papastamati-von Moock 2014, pp. 68-72, fig. 1.42). The anchored arm was thought to be at the upper ends of the uprights: Antiphanes’ daktylos [δάκτυλος], the dried fig of comic parody, from which, using a rope and a hook, or harness (Aristotle, Rhetoric 1412 a14-16), Socrates’ κρεμάθρα [kremathra] (Aristophanes, Clouds, v. 218) suspended the actor. Heron of Alexandria suggested colouring the ropes black to make them less visible (Automata 2.30.4). The connection of the beams would have been obtained either through a rope connection, as Papastamati-von Moock seems to suggest, or employing a primitive carchesion, a device consisting of three small U-shaped axes, which anchored to the arm with a pivot, at the natural point of balance, allowing articulation of both the lateral joint and vertical movement.
A system of manually operated ropes, pulleys (Aristophanes alludes to a trochós [τροχός] when referring to the mechanopoiós in PCG III 2 fr. 192), counterweights, or winches, ensured its mobility both from top to bottom and, to a lesser extent, in parallel. The opening on the south side of the T foundation facilitated operations. A wooden floor, of which the recesses remain, was at the base of the mechané. The figure could descend onto the roof of the skené, or directly at the orchestra level. Examples of mechané have been surmised for the later theatre of Phliunte (Papadogiannis-Tsakoumaki-Chondros 2010, pp. 1-9).
The ekkyklema is also among the devices believed in use in classical theatre (among others, Arnott 1962, p. 78-88; Hourmouziades 1965, pp. 93-108; Webster 1967, p. 11; Newiger 1989, pp. 181-85; Belardinelli 2000, pp. 243-65; Bonanno 2006, pp. 69-82; Brioso Sánchez 2006, pp. 67-85; Lucarini 2016, pp. 138-56; Casanova 2017, pp. 3-42), despite the scepticism of some scholars (among others, Pickard-Cambridge 1946, pp. 100-22; Di Benedetto-Medda 1997, pp. 22-24).
For the 5th century BC, the only witnesses are verbal forms derived from κυκλέω (kykleo), in turn derived from kyklos, circle, wheel, whose main meaning was to carry on a chariot (Chantraine 1968, I, p. 597, sub voce; see also Bonanno 2006, p. 69): eskyklein [ἐσκυκλεῖν], i.e. to bring inside/into on a chariot, to indicate entry into the skené (Aristophanes, Themophoriazusae, v. 265), and ekkyklein [ἐκκυκλεῖν], i.e. to take out on a chariot, to indicate exit (Aristophanes, Acharnians, vv. 408-9; Themophoriazusae, v. 96). The playwright’s use of the term on these occasions is technical (Lucarini 2016, pp. 139-40; Casanova 2017, pp. 10-12): it serves to render the poet’s parody of Euripides’ tragedy more effectively by representing the characteristics of the tragic works from which he draws his inspiration in a comic guise: to introduce the tragic poet Agathon on stage, lying on his bed in the Thesmophoriazusae (vv. 94-95); in the Acharnians (vv. 408-9) when Diceopolis, faced with Euripides’ reluctance to leave, asks for the ekkyklema’s help (in Wasps, v. 1475, eskyklein seems to have a metaphorical connotation).
Scenes of killings and bloody episodes were excluded from view: the ekkyklema, therefore, only made the outcome of the terrible action visible, bringing on stage the body or bodies of the victims as a kind of tableau vivant. According to Pollux, the ekkyklema served to show what was happening in an interior – that of the stage building – which could not be offered in its crudeness to the public; he also specifies that if bringing inside assumed the name of eiskyklema [εἰσκύκλημα], an obvious allusion to the movement carried out by the device, rather than to another device, different from the first, as also supposed (e.g. Caciagli 2016). Pollux places it near the doors. Its use was however broader; it staged what took place behind the facade of the skené – and which only in part had the character of a tableau – shattering the scenic illusion and combining interior and exterior: the mosaics from the Villa of Cicero in Pompeii depicting scenes from Menander’s Synaristosai (Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale, inv. 9987), and from the House of Menander in Mytilene, seem to visually illustrate this use of the ekkyklema, showing characters from the comedy on a platform.
As for tragedy, as evidenced at least by Sophocles’ Ajax when the hero appears surrounded by the Achaean cattle he has slaughtered (Sophocles, Ajax, vv. 344-595; Schol. Soph. Aiax 346) and perhaps already in Agamemnon (vv. 1372-406) and in Aeschylus’ Libation Bearers (vv. 973-1006; Schol. Aesch. Choeph. 973), its presence in the comic parody of tragedy nevertheless certifies its use at the end of the 5th century BC. The commentaries to the Acharnians around 408 explains its structure: it was a platform, a kind of low wooden chariot (also described as such in Pollux, Onomasticon, 4.128 and in Suda, s.v. ἐγκυκλήθητι), equipped with wheels, capable of movements in a straight line, and, according to some sources, revolving. Familiarity with this type of device is already found in the well-known pithos from Mikonos from the 7th century BC, preserved in the local museum (inventory 2240), where the Trojan horse on wheels is depicted at neck height of the vase. The fact that the verbs στρέφειν [strephein] and περιστρέφειν [peristrephein] occur in participial form in some testimonies has suggested that it was capable of circular movement, i.e. that it revolved around a pivot or a central axis. For it to rotate on itself, three wheels were needed, two parallel and a third single, which, with the help of a system of ropes and counterweights, could allow the platform to rotate within a circular or semi-circular space, as described later by Heron of Alexandria regarding the circular motion of the automata (Automata 1.7-8). However, it has been assumed that the reference to rotation implicit in the above-mentioned verbs is to be linked to the stropheion, i.e. to the winch, the instrument which, employing cross beams or a crank, and ropes and pulleys, could facilitate the movement of the platform (Casanova 2017). This is a hypothesis in line with what has been assumed, in the light of the technology adopted, for the mechané in the same chronological phase.
According to Pollux (Onomasticon, 4.129, Hesychius, sub voce), and also confirmed by Polybius (Histories, 11.5.8), exostra (ἐξωθέω [exotheo], push out) was synonymous with ekkyklema. There is an inscription, in the neuter plural, from Delos of the 3rd century BC. (IG XI 2.199 A 95) related to theatrical devices. However, the term cited by Pollux is feminine. It has been hypothesised that the exostra served to show events that took place in a room on an upper floor, hence the late meaning of the word, balcony. The term was also applied to a type of bridge thrown over the walls of a besieged city, across which the attackers marched (Vegetius, The Art of War, 4.21). Whatever its nature, it must have had a function similar to that of the ekkyklema, though simplified in its mechanism, perhaps with the latter’s function ceasing at a later stage.
The periaktoi, introduced as a technical device in theatrical performances from the Hellenistic period onwards, belong to a more advanced period. Vitruvius defines periaktoi as mobile triangular machines, prisms, each having three decorative surfaces, which, when in the performance «changes are about to occur or when divinities appear with sudden thunder, rotate presenting a differently decorated surface» (Vitruvius, On Architecture, 5.6.8). The term periaktos comes from the verb περιάγω [periago] and indicates a rotating movement around something. Both Vitruvius and Pollux (Onomasticon, 4.126) add that they were placed near the two lateral doors. According to Pollux the two periaktoi were placed so that the prism on the right indicated «the parts outside the city» while the one on the left indicated the areas in the city, in particular the harbour area; it could also have introduced sea gods and do what the mechané was unable to do. Turning only the periaktos [περίακτος] to the right changed the location (topos [τόπος]), moving both, changed the territory (chora [χώρα]): rotating both, therefore, indicated that the scene had moved to a different location from the one previously depicted.
The wooden machinery must have been made of painted and removable fabrics or panels, fixed on the three surfaces. On each surface a different background was painted which, thanks to a rotating movement, was shown when the performance required it, allowing sudden changes of scene, at the orchestra’s height or the logeion. Their function was therefore twofold: scene changes and certain types of entrance. The discovery in Kaunos in present-day Turkey, and in other theatrical buildings, of blocks with a cavity to accommodate a rotating pin that could be used to fix the mechanism seems to confirm this possibility as experienced precisely in the theatre of Kaunos, employing a wooden prism with a base of 1.80 m and an estimated height of 2.40 m (Varkivanç 2015, pp. 181-202, figs. 1-17).
Pollux also mentions a variant, the keraunoskopeion, i.e. the lightning machine, which he describes as a periaktos, located at the top (periaktos ὑψηλή [hypselé], Onomasticon, 4.130). The rotation of the periaktos was meant to contribute to the representation of a stormy sky with lightning. This device was therefore no more than the adaptation of the periaktoi to a specific function. Rather than presenting a reflective metal surface (Pickard-Cambridge 1946, p. 236), the effect of which would have been dependent on the presence or absence of sunlight, it may have been made with the painted reproduction of a lightning bolt on a dark background that, once the prism was rotated, could give the illusion of lightning (Arnott 1962, p. 89).
Another simpler mechanism was the bronteion, whose use in the 5th century BC, and the situations when it was used, is debated. The sudden sounds of thunder in The Birds (vv. 1750-52), in Oedipus at Colonus (vv. 1456 and 1460), and Prometheus (vv. 1080-87), were probably made by shaking a metal vessel containing stones (Arnott 1962, pp. 89-90). Referring to the theatrical use of automata, Hero of Alexandria later spoke of a device consisting of a perforated vase filled with lead balls which «falling on a taut and tight skin produced a roar resembling that of thunder» (Automata, 2.20.4). It was therefore an elementary device, easily reproducible and acoustically similar to a percussion instrument. The bronteion, according to Pollux (Onomasticon, 4.130), was located at the bottom behind the skené and consisted of wineskins (askoi) filled with pebbles, striking against undefined bronze objects. A more complex mechanism was reported in a lemma of Suida (β 549) and a scholium to Aristophanes’ Clouds (Schol. vet. nub. 292β, p. 71, 3, 1 Holwerda)). The bronteion was an amphora containing marine pebbles which was rolled around in a bronze kettle, causing a noise similar to thunder on impact. Other devices reproducing the roar of thunder are referred to by the Byzantine scholar Tzetzes in relation to the Clouds (Schol. Tz. nub. 291a, p. 451, 4, 2 Holwerda), but these express realities subsequent to classical theatre.
Pollux also mentions the semi-circular hemicycle which was placed in the middle of the orchestra and was used to indicate a place far from the city or those who swam in the sea, and the stropheion which could show men transformed into gods or those who had died in war or at sea. Their use is uncertain but are nevertheless related to the proliferation of spectacular effects that was gradually taking place.
[Alexia Latini]
In the theatrical lexicon of the modern age, the term macchina (Fr. machine; Eng. machine; Sp. máquina; German. Maschine) was commonly used to refer to stage devices employed to create theatrical and illusionistic effects, such as scene changes, flights, appearances, or disappearances. In truth, it is a rather generic word, used in conjunction with other more specific terms, such as apotheosis, glory, ingegno (ingenuity), flight, etc., which metonymically came to identify not only stage effects, but also the related devices designed to achieve them. Exploring the significant nodal points of the theatre’s progressive technological acquisitions means following a path that is neither linear nor homogeneous, but still characterised by a basic material tradition: a know-how that has been enriched over time through the insertions of expedients developed in areas sometimes quite distant from the performing arts, and economically consolidated through the accumulation of technical solutions which have proved effective.
Even before appearing in the field of theatre (and, indeed, even before the full definition, between the 15th and 16th centuries, of what historiography identifies as the pertinent features of modern theatre, namely the formalisation of a science of space, the reinvention of dramaturgical awareness and the gradual constitution of a repertoire, and the consolidation and diversification of the techniques of spectacle production), the use of machinery is documented in the sacred representations. Celebratory apparatuses were set up in the aisles or transepts of churches on the occasion of certain solemnities of the liturgical calendar as well as for celebrations in honour of certain saints. Famous in this sense are the ingegni (in contemporary sources, this is the term that indicates the sacred machine as a whole) created in Florence in the 1530s by Filippo Brunelleschi (1377-1446) in the Church of San Felice in Piazza for the Annunciation and later by Francesco d’Angelo, known as il Cecca (1447-1488), in Santa Maria del Carmine for the Ascension. These technological solutions were based on celebratory devices that were already in use at the beginning of the 15th century and were later improved thanks to the most recent acquisitions in the mechanical arts and civil and military engineering. The presence of analogies and even contiguities between scenic devices and war technologies is a constant in the history of stagecraft, resulting from the fact that the most distinguished and influential theatre engineers/architects were first and foremost experts in the artes mechanicae (cf. Adami 2003, pp. 25-38).
A valuable account of Brunelleschi’s ingegno is provided by Giorgio Vasari (1511-1574), who produced a machine for the Florentine Annunciation in Santo Spirito in March 1566. In Brunelleschi’s ingegno, an opening of almost six metres was made in the nave’s ceiling, and a wooden canopy representing a sky was installed above it. Around the perimeter were twelve children dressed as winged cherubs. Suspended in the centre of the sky was a revolving iron wheel equipped with seats, each of which was occupied by a cherub, and in the centre was a “mandorla di rame vôta” (empty copper almond) housing the Archangel Gabriel. Using a system of winches and pulleys, the device allowed the wheel to be lowered and the mandorla to descend to the platform used as the Virgin’s ‘residence’, set up on the floor of the church in correspondence with the sky; after the mandorla had been secured to the platform, the archangel came out from it and the annunciation to Mary took place. At the end of the episode, the device returned to heaven, and the sky was hidden with the sliding of two panels that – as Vasari recorded – produced a “romore a guisa di tuono” (thunder-like roar; Vasari 1550, ed. 1878, pp. 375-78).
As has been noted (cf. Zorzi 1988), these machines brought an element of dynamism into an initially static apparatus with a rather traditional iconography. This resulted in a multimedia device that was already ‘theatrically’ engaging for the worshipper/spectator, thanks to an evocative interweaving of words, image, sound, music, and light. Chronicles of the time frequently mention lamps, torches, lanterns, and cocciòli, which – in addition to their obvious illuminating function – contributed to the decorative scheme with a skilful arrangement simulating natural light sources such as stars (cf. Grazioli 2008).
During the Renaissance, the adoption of machines was also consolidated and expanded in specific representational and entertainment forms connected with secular liturgies and celebratory practices that characterised the context of Italian courtly festivities. Carousels, jousts, banquets, tournaments, and trionfi were organised to celebrate exceptional events and anniversaries (births, baptisms, weddings, the arrival and sojourn of princes, sovereigns, foreign ambassadors in the city, etc.). These machines owe much to Brunelleschi’s ingegni, although the technical solutions could be diversified according to the material contingencies of the festivity. Such variety could be also found in the figurative schemes they featured, which were usually taken from the classical mythological repertoire, suitably re-functionalised in an encomiastic key according to the “political programme of self-justification of power that the Renaissance prince” was promoting (Tichy 2003, p. 27). The contribution of Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) in his work as a stage designer and decorator at festivals and tournaments in Milan and France was both significant and original. Drawing from his studies in mechanics, he devised or perfected several scenic devices that proved to be of considerable effect. In doing so, he established himself as an ingenious interpreter of classical culture and the relative technical knowledge re-proposed by Humanism.
Among the drawings documenting Leonardo’s inventions are some sketches of the machines for three stagings: La festa del paradiso, with verses by Bernardo Bellincioni, put on in Milan in 1490 by Duke Regent Ludovico Sforza, known as il Moro, on the occasion of the wedding of his nephew Gian Galeazzo to Isabella of Aragon; the Comedia di Danae by Baldassarre Taccone, performed in 1496 at the court of Count Giovan Francesco Sanseverino of Aragon; the Favola di Orfeo by Angelo Poliziano, possibly staged between 1506 and 1508 for Charles d’Amboise, the governor of Milan. Several drawings depicting a revolving scene with a mountain, which could probably be open using a system of counterweights to show Orpheus the gateway to hell, have been traced back to the latter production (cf. Pedretti 1981, pp. 290-95).
Medicean Florence at the height of the 16th century is the setting for a particularly prosperous conjuncture for subsequent developments in stagecraft. Here, the intermezzi between the acts of the dramas performed at court – a custom that, however, already dated back to the spectacles in Ferrara under Ercole I d’Este (1431-1505) – became, as Sara Mamone (2015, p. 19) recalls, “the favourite [spectacular] form for the audience, and thus the form of the self-representational magnificence of the commissioning lord, and the best training ground for the technological skills of his artists-designers”. Emblematic of this orientation are the intermezzi for L’amico fido by Giovanni Bardi (1534-1612), performed in the new theatre of the Uffizi in 1586 at the wedding of Cesare d’Este and Virginia de’ Medici, sister of the Grand Duke Francesco I; and even more so the intermezzi for La Pellegrina by Girolamo Bargagli (1537-1586), staged in 1589 for the wedding of the later Grand Duke Ferdinando I to Christine of Lorraine. In both cases, the creator of the machines was Bernardo Buontalenti (1531-1608), a designer, architect, and engineer who had already collaborated with Vasari and Baldassarre Lanci (1510-1571) in previous Medicean festivals and performances. Moreover, he was responsible for the new organisation of the Uffizi’s theatrical space. In this regard, the way he optimised the space to house and operate the machines and make it functional is noteworthy: in particular, he achieved this by enlarging the theatre’s attic – i.e., the upper space of the scenic tower between the ceiling and the grid, not visible to spectators – and expanding the backstage, as well as implementing the practicability of the stage floor through the use of trap doors (in addition to Warburg’s famous 1895 essay, cf. Michaud 2012; Testaverde 1991; Mamone 2015). This allowed Buontalenti to fully exploit the potential of the stage box and its depth, making it possible, for example, the descent from above of clouds bearing supernatural characters (even in large numbers), and the emergence of mountains and infernal figures from under the stage. To do so, he employed a system of winches and counterweights to manage the vertical and horizontal movement of stage devices. A century later, Filippo Baldinucci (1624-1696) still mentioned Buontalenti’s perspectives and machines in his Notizie, recognising them as “something unmatched, either before or after; […] these same machines were the exemplar, from which the newest and most singular methods and artifices were taken by engineers all over Europe, through which the beautiful things that are known have been made, in Rome as well as every other city and province […]” (Baldinucci 1688, pp. 97-98). In this experience the historiography of the performing arts has also recognised the full maturation of the knowledge of the stage machinery as well as the development of a vocabulary of technological solutions destined to become not only an integral part of the model of Italian-style theatre, but above all a codified repertoire of scenic possibilities, which would also have been a constraint in terms of dramaturgical choices (cf. Mamone 2003 and, with regard to opera, Viale Ferrero 1988).
The so-called Baroque stagecraft seamlessly inherited the material tradition that had been elaborated and experienced in the Florentine context. It perfected the systems that allowed the movement of machines and came up with new devices, albeit based on the same technologies, to reproduce particular natural phenomena on stage with markedly illusionistic effects. The catalogue of devices was relatively limited: it included aerial machines and cranes, elevating or hoisting equipment, carts and devices for special effects (e.g. those to simulate the rippling of sea waves or the flames of hell). The variety of realisations was ensured by the different combination and multiplication of the constituent modules of the machines and by research into the possibilities of movement on stage, as well as the pictorial and therefore more properly scenographic element. The most significant innovations achieved during the first half of the 17th century were precisely the technical conditions needed to confer fluidity and agility to the movement of machines and scenic apparatus, which had as its “visual result […] the construction of an absolute time of the image, of a fluidity of appearances that nullifies the real space and unifies the complex reality of the scenic construction also on a dynamic level”. This is what Raimondo Guarino (1992, p. 54) shrewdly points out with regard to the Venetian acquisitions of Giacomo Torelli (1608-1678), an architect from Fano who moved to Venice to work, perhaps as a naval engineer, at the Arsenale. He soon became involved in the construction of the Teatro Novissimo, the city’s first space specifically intended for opera, inaugurated with La finta pazza (libretto by Giulio Strozzi, music by Francesco Sacrati) in January 1641 (cf. Bianconi-Walker 1975; Bianconi 2000). According to contemporary chronicles, some historiography had attributed to Torelli the supremacy of the invention of a device for the simultaneous and visible change of all the wings – at the time, the wings were called telari or teleri, and they gradually supplanted the períaktoi, i.e., large rotating prisms of classical ancestry, with a mostly triangular base, that allowed the scene shifting at sight. The device adopted by Torelli consisted of a single, sturdy winch placed in the centre of the under-stage in the direction of the scene depth and connected to all the wings by means of counterweighted ropes, which ran simultaneously when the winch rotated, thus allowing them to change. In fact, this solution had already been used several years earlier in the Teatro Farnese in Parma by Giovan Battista Aleotti (1546-1636), the hydraulic and theatre engineer who had conceived a device for flooding the Pilotta’s stalls for the naumachia, staged precisely for the theatre’s inaugural performance (cf. Ciancarelli 1987). His innovations were then employed by his pupil Francesco Guitti (early 17th century-1640) in Parma and Ferrara. It is, therefore, likely that Torelli perfected the fluidity of a device that, by then, was already among the technical possibilities available for the purpose (cf. Adami 2003).
Torelli’s case, however, is exemplary, above all, of the phenomenon of the transfer of stagecraft knowledge related to the model of Italian-style theatre and its fortune at European courts across the Alps. Such cultural transfer depended mainly on the circulation of artists and craftspeople in the networks of aristocratic and princely patronage – Torelli, for example, worked at the French court from 1645 – but also, vice versa, on the peregrinatio mechanica et militaris, that is, the journeys of foreign architects and intellectuals to the Italian courts (an overview of the ‘diaspora’ of the “great dynasties” of Italian set designers active in the opera field is offered in Viale Ferrero 1988, pp. 54-56; for the significant case of the transfer of Italian mechanical knowledge to the Germanic area favoured by Joseph Furttenbach the Elder, cf. Lazardzig-Rößler 2016; on the British architect Inigo Jones, a pupil of Alfonso Parigi in Florence, cf. Orgel-Strong 1973).
Stagecraft – and, more generally, mechanics – fell within the realm of tacit knowledge: its transmission took place primarily in oral form. It was subordinate to dynamics of appropriation and individual implementation that were intimately conditioned by variable practical contingencies (cf. Lazardzig - Rößler 2016). It is for this reason that the sources documenting the theatrical machines of the time, even the numerous and apparently detailed reports and descriptions, are deficient, incomplete, and even obscure, most of the time not clarifying the devices’ actual functioning and mainly reporting on their effects on the public. In addition, it has to be noted that these sources show a particular propensity for secrecy, both because of issues related to the intellectual protection of inventions and because the sharing of technical knowledge with laymen would have compromised the desired aesthetic effect (the gusto and marvel mentioned in all 17th-century treatises). On the other hand, the emergence of treatises on architecture, stagecraft, and perspective – they became increasingly numerous and widespread during the century (see, e.g., Sabbatini 1638, Chiaramonti 1675, Carini Motta 1676 and 1688, Carapecchia 1689-1691, Pozzo 1693-1700; cf. Povoledo 1961, cols. 1616-17) – is indicative of a progressive codification of spectacular praxis: as has been noted, these treatises are symptomatic of “a general trend in the Artes Mechanicae towards the discursivisation and de-personalisation of tacit knowledge” (Lazardzig-Rößler 2016, p. 279).
In non-European theatrical traditions, too, the use of stage machinery is attested in the 18th century to allow rapid entrances and exits, flights, costume changes, and scene shifts. For example, in the kabuki of mid-18th-century Japan, a revolving stage (known as mawari-butai) was introduced to achieve quick scene changes thanks to a device controlled from the under-stage (for a more detailed discussion see Leiter 1976 and, more generally, Liu 2016 and the bibliography cited there).
In the centuries that followed, stage machinery underwent the gradual standardisation of the processes of spectacle production. Its importance diminished considerably in relation to the changes that affected the broader renewal of aesthetic and representational conceptions. Yet, the basic stagecraft principles remained and remain valid today. At the same time, scientific and technological advances have intervened and still intervene today, as in the past, in the realisation of the new devices, such as the use of hydraulic and then electric power in the motorisation of the stage.
[Aldo Roma]
Teatro antico
PCG = R. Kassel - C. Austin (edd.), Poetae Comici Graeci, Berolini et Novi Eboraci 1984-2001, de Gruyter; P. Arnott, Greek Scenic Conventions in the Fifth Century B.C., Oxford 1962, Clarendon Press; W. Beare, Side-Entrances and Periaktoi in the Hellenistic Theatre, in «The Classical Quarterly» 32 (1938), pp. 205-10; A.M. Belardinelli, A proposito dell’uso e della funzione dell’ekkyklema: Eur. Hipp. 170-266, 808-1101; Men. Asp. 309-399, Dysk. 689-758a, in «Seminari Romani di Cultura Greca» 3, 2 (2000), pp. 243-65; M. Bieber, The History of the Greek and Roman Theater (seconda edizione rivista), Princeton 1961, Princeton University Press; N. Boindin, Ragionamento sopra la forma e la struttura del teatro antico, in cui si esaminano la situazione, la proporzioni e gli usi di tutte le sue parti, del Signor Boindin, Venezia 1746, Antonio Groppo; M.G. Bonanno, L’ἐκκύκλημα di Aristofane: un dispositivo paratragico?, in KOMODOTRAGODIA - Intersezioni del tragico e del comico nel teatro del V secolo a. C., Atti del convegno, Pisa 24-25 giugno 2005, Pisa 2006, pp. 69-82, Scuola Normale Superiore; M. Brioso Sánchez, Soibre la maquinaria teatral en la Atenas clásica: el il ἐκκύκλημα, in «HABIS» 37 (2006), pp. 67-85; S. Caciagli, L’ecciclema nell’erudizione, in Lessico del Comico, Milano 2016, www.lessicodelcomico.unimi.it/ecciclem; A. Casanova, La macchina teatrale chiamata ecciclèma, in «Prometheus» 43 (2017), pp. 3-42; P. Chantraine, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue greque. Histoire des mots, I, Paris 1968, Klincksieck; G. Comotti, Scenografia e spettacolo: le macchine teatrali, in «Dioniso» 59 (1989), pp. 283-96; E. Csapo et al. (edd.), Greek Theatre in the Fourth Century B.C., Berlin 2014, de Gruyter; V. Di Benedetto - E. Medda, La Tragedia sulla Scena. La tragedia greca in quanto spettacolo teatrale, Torino 1997, Einaudi; M. Di Marco, La tragedia greca. Forma, gioco scenico, tecniche drammatiche, Roma 2000, Carocci; Ph. Fraisse - J.Ch. Moretti, Exploration archéologique de Délos, 42, Le théâtre, Athènes 2007, École française d'Athènes; R. Frederiksen - E.R. Gebhard - A. Sokolicek (edd.), Acts of an International Conference at the Danish Institute at Athens 27-30 January 2012, Athens, Danish Institute at Athens, Aarhus 2015, Aarhus University Press; H.R. Goette, Griechische Theaterbauten der Klassik - Forschungsstand und Fragestellungen, in Pöhlmann 1995, pp. 9-48; G. Gullini, Ingegneria e artigianato industriale, in Pugliese Carratelli 1990, pp. 80-102; C. Hourmouziades, Production and Imagination in Euripides. Form and Function of the Scenic Space, Athens 1965, Greek Society for Humanistic Studies; M. Korres, From Pentelicon to the Parthenon, the Ancient Quarries and the Story of a Half-worked Column Capital of the First Marble Parthenon, Athens 1995, Melissa; O. Lendle, Überlegungen zum Bühnenkran, in Pöhlman 1995, pp. 165-72; C.M. Lucarini, L’ἐκκύκλημα nel teatro greco dell’età classica, in «Hermes» 144 (2016/2), pp. 138-56; Chr. Mauduit - J.Ch. Moretti, Pollux, un lexicographe au théâtre, in «Revue des Études Grecques» 123 (2010/2), pp. 521-41; D.J. Mastronarde, Actors on high. The Skene Roof, the Crane, and the Gods in Attic Drama, in «Classical Antiquity» (1990), pp. 247-94; G.W. Most - L. Ozbek (edd.), Staging Ajax’s Suicide, Pisa 2015, Edizioni della Normale; S. Nervegna, Performing Classics: The Tragic Canon in the Fourth Century and Beyond, in Csapo et al. 2014, pp. 157-87; H.J. Newiger, Ekkyklema e mechané nella messa in scena del dramma greco, in «Dioniso» 59 (1989), pp. 173-85; A.S. Papadogiannis - M.C. Tsakoumaki - Th.G. Chondros, Deus ex Machina. Mechanism Reconstruction in the Theater of Phlius, Corinthia, in «Journal of Mechanical Design», 132 (2010), pp. 1-9; Chr. Papastamati-von Moock, The Theatre of Dionysus Eleuthereus in Athens. New Data and Observations on its “Lycurgan” Phase, in Csapo et al. 2014, pp. 15-76; Chr. Papastamati-von Moock, The Wooden Theatre of Dionysos Eleuthereus in Athens. Old Issues, New Research, in The Architecture of the Ancient Greek Theatre, in Frederiksen - Gebhard - Sokolicek 2015, pp. 39-79; A.W. Pickard-Cambridge, The Theatre of Dionysos in Athens, Oxford 1946, Clarendon Press; J.P. Poe, The Periaktoi and Actors’ Entrances, in «Hermes» 121 (1993), pp. 377-82; E. Pöhlmann (ed.), Studien zur Bühnendichtung und zum Theaterbau der Antike (Studien zur klassischen Philologie 93), Frankfurt am Main - New York 1995, Peter Lang; G. Pugliese Carratelli (ed.), Magna Grecia. 4, Arte e artigianato, Milano 1990, Electa; E. Reisch, Αἰώρημα, in Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, I, 1, Aal-Alexandros, Stuttgart 1893, J.B. Metzler, col. 1044; A.L.H. Robkin, That Magnificent Flying Machine. On the Nature of the “mechane” of the Theatre of Dionysos at Athens, in «Archaeological News» 8 (1979), pp. 1-6; O. Taplin, Pots & plays. Interactions between Tragedy and Greek Vase-Painting of the fourth century B.C., Los Angeles 2007, J. Paul Getty Museum; B. Varkıvanç, Periaktoi at the Theatre of Kaunos, in «Adalya» 18 (2015), pp. 181-202; V. Zanusso, ‘Sentire’ sulla scena tragica del V secolo a.C.: la funzione drammaturgica del rumore nel dramma attico, Tesi di dottorato, Sapienza Università di Roma, Dottorato di Ricerca in Filologia e Storia del Mondo Antico, XXX Ciclo.
Website: Beazley Archive Pottery Database, versione online, https://www.beazley.ox.ac.uk/pottery/default.htm
Teatro moderno
G. Adami, Scenografia e scenotecnica barocca tra Ferrara e Parma (1625-1631), Roma 2003, L’Erma di Bretschneider; F. Baldinucci, Notizie de’ professori del disegno da Cimabue in qua, IV, Firenze 1688, stamperia di Piero Matini; Gaspare & Carlo Vigarani. Dalla corte degli Este a quella di Luigi XIV, a cura di W. Baricchi - J. de La Gorce, Cinisello Balsamo - Versailles 2009, Silvana Editoriale - Centre de recherche du château de Versailles; L. Bianconi - Th. Walker, Dalla “Finta pazza” alla “Veremonda: storie di febiarmonici, in «Rivista Italiana di Musicologia» 10 (1975), pp. 379-454; L. Bianconi, Illusione e simulazione: “La finta pazza”, in Milesi 2000, pp. 77-85; Illusione scenica e pratica teatrale. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di studi in onore di Elena Povoledo, a cura di M.I. Biggi, Firenze 2016, Le Lettere; C. Bino, Macchine e teatro. Il cantiere di Bernardo Buontalenti agli Uffizi, in «Nuncius» 18 (2003), 1, pp. 249-68; P. Bjurström, Giacomo Torelli and Baroque stage design, Stockholm 1961, Nationalmuseum; C. Burattelli, Spettacoli di corte a Mantova tra Cinque e Seicento, Firenze 1999, Le Lettere; S. Carandini, Teatro e spettacolo nel Seicento, Roma-Bari 1990, Laterza; R. Carapecchia, Pratica delle machine de’ teatri [1689-91], edizione moderna in Tamburini 1994, pp. 99-159; F. Carini Motta, Trattato sopra la struttura de theatri, e scene, Guastalla 1676, Alessandro Giavazzi; F. Carini Motta, Costruzione de’ teatri e machine teatrali [1688], edizione moderna in Tamburini 1994, pp. 3-97; S. Chiaramonti, Delle scene, e teatri, Cesena 1675, Verdoni; M. Ciammaichella, Scenografia e prospettiva nella Venezia del Cinquecento e Seicento. Premesse e sviluppi del teatro barocco, Napoli 2021, La scuola di Pitagora; R. Ciancarelli, Il progetto di una festa barocca. Alle origini del Teatro Farnese di Parma, 1618-1629, Roma 1987, Bulzoni; F. Cruciani - C. Falletti - F. Ruffini, La sperimentazione a Ferrara negli anni di Ercole I e Ludovico Ariosto, in «Teatro e Storia» 9 (1994), 16, pp. 131-217; D. Diderot - J.-B. Le Rond d’Alembert, Machines de théâtre: recueil de planches de l’Encyclopédie, X, Paris 1772, Briasson; M. Fabbri - E. Garbero Zorzi - A.M. Petrioli Tofani, Il luogo teatrale a Firenze. Brunelleschi Vasari Buontalenti Parigi, Milano 1975, Electa; Il “gran teatro” del barocco, I: Le capitali della festa, a cura di M. Fagiolo, Roma 2007, De Luca; C. Grazioli, Luce e ombra. Storia, teorie e pratiche dell’illuminazione teatrale, Roma-Bari 2008, Laterza; R. Guardenti, Teatro e arti figurative, in Il teatro e le arti. Un confronto fra linguaggi, a cura di L. Allegri, Roma 2017, Carocci, pp. 43-92; Teatro e culture della rappresentazione. Lo spettacolo in Italia nel Quattrocento, a cura di R. Guarino, Bologna 1988, il Mulino; R. Guarino, Torelli a Venezia. L’ingegnere teatrale tra scena e apparato, in «Teatro e Storia» 7 (1992), 12, pp. 35-72; Le Lieu théâtral à la Renaissance, a cura di J. Jacquot, Paris 1964, Centre national de la recherche scientifique; Technologies of theatre: Joseph Furttenbach and the transfer of mechanical knowledge in early modern theatre cultures, a cura di J. Lazardzig - H. Rößler, numero monografico di «Zeitsprünge: Forschungen zur Frühen Neuzeit» 20 (2016); S.L. Leiter, “Keren”: spectacle and trickery in kabuki acting, in «Educational Theatre Journal» 28 (1976), 2, pp. 173-88; Routledge handbook of Asian theatre, a cura di S. Liu, Abingdon-New York 2016, Routledge; S. Mamone, La macchina o l’indifferenza del mito [2001], in Ead., Dèi, semidei, uomini. Lo spettacolo a Firenze tra neoplatonismo e realtà borghese (XV-XVII secolo), Roma 2003, Bulzoni, pp. 193-209; S. Mamone, Drammaturgia di macchine nel teatro granducale fiorentino. Il teatro degli Uffizi da Buontalenti ai Parigi, in «Drammaturgia» 12 (2015), n.s. 2, pp. 17-43; V. Marchi, v. scenotecnica, in Enciclopedia italiana, XXXI, Roma 1936, Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, ad vocem; Leonardo e gli spettacoli del suo tempo, a cura di M. Mazzocchi Doglio - M. Tiella, Milano 1983, Electa; Ph.-A. Michaud, Florence III. La scène théâtrale, in Id., Aby Warburg et l’image en mouvement, Paris 2012, Éditions Macula, pp. 158-84; Giacomo Torelli. L’invenzione scenica nell’Europa barocca, a cura di F. Milesi, Fano 2000, Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Fano; C. Molinari, Le nozze degli dèi. Un saggio sul grande spettacolo italiano nel Seicento, Roma 1968, Bulzoni; N. Newbigin, Feste d’Oltrarno. Plays in churches in fifteenth-century Florence, Firenze 1996, L.S. Olschki; S. Orgel - R. Strong, Inigo Jones. The theatre of the Stuart Court, London - Berkeley - Los Angeles 1973, Sotheby Parke Bernet - University of California press; C. Pedretti, Leonardo architetto, Milano 19812, Electa; F. Perrelli, Storia della scenografia. Dall’antichità al Novecento, Roma 2002, Carocci; E. Povoledo, v. scenotecnica, in Enciclopedia dello spettacolo, VIII, Roma 1961, Le Maschere, coll. 1613-17; E. Povoledo, Origini e aspetti della scenografia in Italia. Dalla fine del Quattrocento agli intermezzi fiorentini del 1589, in N. Pirrotta, Li due Orfei. Da Poliziano a Monteverdi, Torino 1969, Giulio Einaudi, pp. 335-460; A. Pozzo, Perspectiva pictorum et architectorum, Romae 1693-1700, Joannis Jacobi Komarek; A.-J. Roubo [le fils], Traité de la construction des théâtres et des machines théâtrales, Paris 1777, Cellot & Jombert fils; N. Sabbatini, Pratica di fabricar scene, e machine ne’ teatri, 2 ed., Ravenna 1638, Pietro de’ Paoli, e Gio. Battista Giovannelli (edizione moderna a cura di E. Povoledo, Roma 1955, Carlo Bestetti); Ph. Steadman, Renaissance Fun. The machines behind the scenes, London 2021, University College London, https://doi.org/10.14324/111.9781787359154; E. Tamburini, Teatri e macchine teatrali: un sapere nascosto, in F. Carini Motta - R. Carapecchia, Scenotecnica barocca, Roma 1994, E & A Editori Associati, pp. VII-LXXX; A.M. Testaverde, L’officina delle nuvole. Il teatro Mediceo del 1589 e gli Intermedi del Buontalenti nel Memoriale di Girolamo Seriacopi, numero monografico di «Musica e teatro. Quaderni degli amici della Scala» 7 (1991), 11-12; A.M. Testaverde, L’avventura del teatro granducale degli Uffizi (1586-1637), in «Drammaturgia» 12 (2015), n.s. 2, pp. 45-69; S. Tichy, Cultura teatrale e rappresentazione del potere. Milano e Ferrara alla fine del XV secolo, in Corti rinascimentali a confronto: letteratura, musica, istituzioni, a cura di B. Marx - T. Matarrese - P. Trovato, Firenze 2003, Cesati, pp. 27-56; G. Vasari, Le vite de’ più eccellenti pittori, scultori ed architetti (1550), a cura di G. Milanesi, II, Firenze 1878, G.C. Sansoni; P. Ventrone, Teatro civile e sacra rappresentazione a Firenze nel Rinascimento, Firenze 2016, Le Lettere; M. Viale Ferrero, Luogo teatrale e spazio scenico, in Storia dell’opera italiana, V, La spettacolarità, a cura di L. Bianconi - G. Pestelli, Torino 1988, EDT, pp. 1-122; L. Zorzi, Il teatro e la città. Saggi sulla scena italiana, Torino 1977, Einaudi; L. Zorzi, La scenotecnica brunelleschiana. Problemi filologici e interpretativi, in Guarino 1988, pp. 301-17; L. Zorzi, I luoghi e le forme dello spettacolo, in S. Ferrone - L. Zorzi - G. Innamorati, Il teatro del Cinquecento. I luoghi, i testi e gli attori, Perugia 2006, Morlacchi, pp. 5-46; A. Warburg, I costumi teatrali per gli “Intermezzi” del 1589. I disegni di Bernardo Buontalenti e il “Libro di conti” di Emilio de’ Cavalieri. Saggio storico-artistico [1895], in Id., Opere, I: La rinascita del paganesimo antico e altri scritti (1889-1914), a cura di M. Ghelardi, Torino 2004, Aragno, pp. 163-226.