DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.47233#0088
★η
THE THEATRE.
[CHAP. IV.
Original height
of the audi-
torium.
Slope of audi-
torium.
(δ) Διαζώματα.—
An uppei'
and a lower.
back of the auditorium. The central part was supported by the hill behind, supplemented
by a very slight embankment, while the massive embankments at the two ends, where the
hill provided insufficient support, were sloped gradually away on the outer side, the need
of a curved retaining wall being thus dispensed with.
The summit of the auditorium in its present state is about 76 feet above the orchestra.
Probably it was never very much higher than this ; though it must have been somewhat higher,
for a quantity of earth has been washed down from the top of the embankment upon
the seats below. In calculating the number of spectators which the Theatre would originally
accommodate,18 we have supposed the horizontal distance of the ridge of the auditorium from
the front row of seats to have been 150 feet, viz. about the same as at present; for since
there is no reason why the earth should have washed down more on one side of this ridge
than on the other, it may be presumed that the original summit was vertically above the present
one. Now the lower part of the auditorium had (as we know from the extant seats) a slope
of one in two. Supposing this slope to have been continuous to the top, we should obtain
a total original height of only 75 feet, which is actually less than the present height, and we must
(as pointed out above) allow something for denudation. We must therefore suppose that the
upper part of the auditorium, starting either from the lower or from the upper diazoma, had
a steeper slope; an arrangement which (though opposed to Vitruvius’ directions19) is not
uncommon in Greek theatres. At Epidaurus the increase of slope above the diazoma makes
a difference of a little over 5 feet in 60 feet horizontal. 20 A similar increase at Megalopolis
would give, if starting from the lower diazoma, a total original height of 83 feet; or, if starting
from the upper diazoma, a total height of 79 feet. The former of these alternatives seems the
more probable ; for 7 feet does not seem an excessive allowance to make for denudation.21
(δ) Διαζώματα.—The position of one διάζωμα is certainly indicated by a broad grassy
ledge which runs round the inside of the embankment, near the top. The ledge is marked
in the plan (Pl. V.), and is clearly visible in the pictorial elevation and section (Pl. VIII.
and IX.). Its distance behind the orchestra is about 100 feet and its height above the
orchestra about 55 feet—a proportion of height to horizontal. distance which agrees remarkably
well with our suggestion that the slope of the auditorium was increased above the lower
diazoma, whose existence we hope we shall be able to establish.
Our reasons for assuming that there was a lower diazoma are, in the first place, the great
height (50 to 55 feet) of this broad ledge above the orchestra, and secondly, a difficulty with regard
to the staircases, which is best explained by such an assumption. It will be observed that the
extreme end staircases (κ:λ/μ.ακε$) in the auditorium, both at its eastern and at its western
extremity, lie close along the inside of the outer retaining walls. Now had they continued in
this straight line beyond the point at which the inner retaining walls begin, they would have fallen
outside the inner retaining walls, which would thus have been completely embedded in the embank-
ment. But this is out of the question; for the inner retaining walls—at any rate the ‘ rusticated ’
wall at the west end—were undeniably meant to be seen ; nor is there any sign of roofed passages
outside them on which the upper seats, with their staircases, could have rested. It follows
that the outermost staircase at each end of the auditorium must have broken off before
reaching the point at which the inner retaining wall began ; and such a breaking off of the
line of steps can hardly have occurred except at a διάζωμα. Besides the omission of the
staircase, the extent of the seats must also have been somewhat curtailed in the upper portions
of the auditorium in order to fall within the inner retaining walls. (See Fig. 27.)
18 It is to be observed that the possible difference of
sl(rpe (discussed below) between the upper and lower tiers
of seats does not affect the number of seats in our calcu-
lation ; since the difference of slope would probably be made,
as at Epidaurus, in the height, not in the width, of the
single seats.
19 Vit. v. 3, 4.—‘ Et ad summam ita est gubernandum
uti linea cum ad imum gradum et ad summum extenta
fuerit, omnia cacumina graduum angulosque tangat. Ita
vox non impedietur.’ The passages we quote from
Vitruvius in this paper are taken from Rose and Miiller-
Striibing’s edition (Leipzig, 1867).
20 Πρακτικά, 1881, Pl. III. section.
21 In the restored section of the auditorium given by
Mr. Schultz in Eig. 28 the other alternative has been
adopted. But the dotted lines in that very figure, indi-
cating the present slope of the earth, appear to us decidedly
to favour our own view.
We may also point out that there is no monumental
evidence for the boundary-wall represented in Fig. 28 at
the top of the auditorium.
THE THEATRE.
[CHAP. IV.
Original height
of the audi-
torium.
Slope of audi-
torium.
(δ) Διαζώματα.—
An uppei'
and a lower.
back of the auditorium. The central part was supported by the hill behind, supplemented
by a very slight embankment, while the massive embankments at the two ends, where the
hill provided insufficient support, were sloped gradually away on the outer side, the need
of a curved retaining wall being thus dispensed with.
The summit of the auditorium in its present state is about 76 feet above the orchestra.
Probably it was never very much higher than this ; though it must have been somewhat higher,
for a quantity of earth has been washed down from the top of the embankment upon
the seats below. In calculating the number of spectators which the Theatre would originally
accommodate,18 we have supposed the horizontal distance of the ridge of the auditorium from
the front row of seats to have been 150 feet, viz. about the same as at present; for since
there is no reason why the earth should have washed down more on one side of this ridge
than on the other, it may be presumed that the original summit was vertically above the present
one. Now the lower part of the auditorium had (as we know from the extant seats) a slope
of one in two. Supposing this slope to have been continuous to the top, we should obtain
a total original height of only 75 feet, which is actually less than the present height, and we must
(as pointed out above) allow something for denudation. We must therefore suppose that the
upper part of the auditorium, starting either from the lower or from the upper diazoma, had
a steeper slope; an arrangement which (though opposed to Vitruvius’ directions19) is not
uncommon in Greek theatres. At Epidaurus the increase of slope above the diazoma makes
a difference of a little over 5 feet in 60 feet horizontal. 20 A similar increase at Megalopolis
would give, if starting from the lower diazoma, a total original height of 83 feet; or, if starting
from the upper diazoma, a total height of 79 feet. The former of these alternatives seems the
more probable ; for 7 feet does not seem an excessive allowance to make for denudation.21
(δ) Διαζώματα.—The position of one διάζωμα is certainly indicated by a broad grassy
ledge which runs round the inside of the embankment, near the top. The ledge is marked
in the plan (Pl. V.), and is clearly visible in the pictorial elevation and section (Pl. VIII.
and IX.). Its distance behind the orchestra is about 100 feet and its height above the
orchestra about 55 feet—a proportion of height to horizontal. distance which agrees remarkably
well with our suggestion that the slope of the auditorium was increased above the lower
diazoma, whose existence we hope we shall be able to establish.
Our reasons for assuming that there was a lower diazoma are, in the first place, the great
height (50 to 55 feet) of this broad ledge above the orchestra, and secondly, a difficulty with regard
to the staircases, which is best explained by such an assumption. It will be observed that the
extreme end staircases (κ:λ/μ.ακε$) in the auditorium, both at its eastern and at its western
extremity, lie close along the inside of the outer retaining walls. Now had they continued in
this straight line beyond the point at which the inner retaining walls begin, they would have fallen
outside the inner retaining walls, which would thus have been completely embedded in the embank-
ment. But this is out of the question; for the inner retaining walls—at any rate the ‘ rusticated ’
wall at the west end—were undeniably meant to be seen ; nor is there any sign of roofed passages
outside them on which the upper seats, with their staircases, could have rested. It follows
that the outermost staircase at each end of the auditorium must have broken off before
reaching the point at which the inner retaining wall began ; and such a breaking off of the
line of steps can hardly have occurred except at a διάζωμα. Besides the omission of the
staircase, the extent of the seats must also have been somewhat curtailed in the upper portions
of the auditorium in order to fall within the inner retaining walls. (See Fig. 27.)
18 It is to be observed that the possible difference of
sl(rpe (discussed below) between the upper and lower tiers
of seats does not affect the number of seats in our calcu-
lation ; since the difference of slope would probably be made,
as at Epidaurus, in the height, not in the width, of the
single seats.
19 Vit. v. 3, 4.—‘ Et ad summam ita est gubernandum
uti linea cum ad imum gradum et ad summum extenta
fuerit, omnia cacumina graduum angulosque tangat. Ita
vox non impedietur.’ The passages we quote from
Vitruvius in this paper are taken from Rose and Miiller-
Striibing’s edition (Leipzig, 1867).
20 Πρακτικά, 1881, Pl. III. section.
21 In the restored section of the auditorium given by
Mr. Schultz in Eig. 28 the other alternative has been
adopted. But the dotted lines in that very figure, indi-
cating the present slope of the earth, appear to us decidedly
to favour our own view.
We may also point out that there is no monumental
evidence for the boundary-wall represented in Fig. 28 at
the top of the auditorium.