DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.47233#0102
86
THE THEATRE.
[CHAP. IV.
Rough founda-
tions at East,
and West,
as criteria for
Date.
II. The ' Vitru-
man ’ proscenium.
No entrance in
centre.
This line of foundation must be described here owing to its intimate connexion with the
one we have just been considering, as to the date of which it affords important evidence. It
consists of a number of blocks of tufa, rudely put together, without clamps of any kind, and
distinguished by a series of grooves and other sinkings similar to those already described on the
lower course of the stylobate of the proscenium. It is practically in line with the latter ; at its
extreme east end indeed it projects 3 inches in front of that line, but this is probably due to shifting,
the line of the foundation throughout its length being, in fact, slightly irregular. The west end of the
tufa foundation, where it is separated from the stylobate by a small block of limestone only
5 inches in width and at a lower level, is 5 inches below the level of the stylobate ;69 and from this
point to its east end, a distance of 21 feet 1 inch, it rises about 2 feet, so that its slope is approxi-
mately 1 in 10.
At the opposite end of the Vitruvian proscenium, between it and the Σκανοθήκα, we have
found two blocks of tufa with grooves and sinkings precisely similar to those of the foundation last
mentioned, with which these blocks, though slightly shifted, correspond approximately both in
position and in inclination. Now on the face of one of these blocks is a moulding (shown in
section, Plate VII. Fig. 2), showing that the blocks were taken from an earlier structure. The
block, in order to be used for the foundation, was inverted, and the moulding, which was
probably below ground level, was allowed to remain. One of the blocks composing the foundation
at the east end of the proscenium has a moulding which is probably similar, but, having one
specimen of the moulding, we have not thought it necessary to remove this block in order to
examine it in detail.
The moulding on the block at the west end is assigned by competent authorities
to a base or podium of comparatively late times, certainly not before the third century B.c., and
probably later. If this opinion be correct, the foundations at each end, —which are of course later
than the structure to which the moulding originally belonged,—and with them the lower course of
the stylobate of the ‘ Vitruvian ’ proscenium, and the wooden structure which once stood upon it—
can hardly belong to a period earlier than the second century b.c. ; while the ‘ Vitruvian ’
proscenium, since it took the place of the wooden structure, is necessarily of still later date.
II. The ‘Vitruvian’ proscenium.70
The lower course of the stylobate which supported this proscenium has already
been discussed in connexion with the earlier wooden structure. Upon this lower course were placed,
in order to support the later proscenium, a number of blocks, of regular thickness, but of
irregular length and breadth, badly fitted, and without clamps; many, if not all, of them
having obviously been taken from some earlier building. The stylobate thus completed is
almost exactly on a level with the top of the thin course beneath the later steps of the Portico
behind. .
III. by Mr.
restored (cf.
been discovered ;
there is neither a wider intercolumniation, as at Athens and Piraeus, nor pivot-holes for doors,
as at Eretria, nor traces of any wearing of the stone by feet, the very tooling of the surface
being clearly visible. And a wooden threshold is out of the question, for a wooden threshold
without wooden jambs and lintel would be an absurdity; and of such a door frame as this
would imply there is no sign whatever, the sinkings for the columns on either side of the
central intercolumniation being precisely similar to those for all the other columns in the
row. That there was no doorway here may therefore be regarded as a certainty. And since
The columns which stood upon this stylobate have been described in Chap.
Schultz, who has also discussed the manner in which the proscenium should be
Fig. 36). But a few words here will not be out of place. The columns, which were 14 in number
and stood between two antae, are of extremely rude work. They are unfinished ; for round
the front half of each column the bottoms, but only the bottoms, of flutes
At either side of each column is a projecting fillet, doubtless intended
(viva/ces)71 which formerly filled the intercolumniations.
No traces of an entrance in the middle of the proscenium have
69 But 94 inches below the nearest part of the ‘ Vitru-
vian ’ proscenium in its present state. The extreme end
of the proscenium however was not a colonnade but a
wall (see Fig. 36, Ch. III.).
70 Marked ‘ later proscenium ’ in Plates V. and VII.
71 The authority for the word is the inscription belonging
to the proscenium at Oropus (Τίρακτι,κά, 1886, p. 54,
and Pl. III.).
THE THEATRE.
[CHAP. IV.
Rough founda-
tions at East,
and West,
as criteria for
Date.
II. The ' Vitru-
man ’ proscenium.
No entrance in
centre.
This line of foundation must be described here owing to its intimate connexion with the
one we have just been considering, as to the date of which it affords important evidence. It
consists of a number of blocks of tufa, rudely put together, without clamps of any kind, and
distinguished by a series of grooves and other sinkings similar to those already described on the
lower course of the stylobate of the proscenium. It is practically in line with the latter ; at its
extreme east end indeed it projects 3 inches in front of that line, but this is probably due to shifting,
the line of the foundation throughout its length being, in fact, slightly irregular. The west end of the
tufa foundation, where it is separated from the stylobate by a small block of limestone only
5 inches in width and at a lower level, is 5 inches below the level of the stylobate ;69 and from this
point to its east end, a distance of 21 feet 1 inch, it rises about 2 feet, so that its slope is approxi-
mately 1 in 10.
At the opposite end of the Vitruvian proscenium, between it and the Σκανοθήκα, we have
found two blocks of tufa with grooves and sinkings precisely similar to those of the foundation last
mentioned, with which these blocks, though slightly shifted, correspond approximately both in
position and in inclination. Now on the face of one of these blocks is a moulding (shown in
section, Plate VII. Fig. 2), showing that the blocks were taken from an earlier structure. The
block, in order to be used for the foundation, was inverted, and the moulding, which was
probably below ground level, was allowed to remain. One of the blocks composing the foundation
at the east end of the proscenium has a moulding which is probably similar, but, having one
specimen of the moulding, we have not thought it necessary to remove this block in order to
examine it in detail.
The moulding on the block at the west end is assigned by competent authorities
to a base or podium of comparatively late times, certainly not before the third century B.c., and
probably later. If this opinion be correct, the foundations at each end, —which are of course later
than the structure to which the moulding originally belonged,—and with them the lower course of
the stylobate of the ‘ Vitruvian ’ proscenium, and the wooden structure which once stood upon it—
can hardly belong to a period earlier than the second century b.c. ; while the ‘ Vitruvian ’
proscenium, since it took the place of the wooden structure, is necessarily of still later date.
II. The ‘Vitruvian’ proscenium.70
The lower course of the stylobate which supported this proscenium has already
been discussed in connexion with the earlier wooden structure. Upon this lower course were placed,
in order to support the later proscenium, a number of blocks, of regular thickness, but of
irregular length and breadth, badly fitted, and without clamps; many, if not all, of them
having obviously been taken from some earlier building. The stylobate thus completed is
almost exactly on a level with the top of the thin course beneath the later steps of the Portico
behind. .
III. by Mr.
restored (cf.
been discovered ;
there is neither a wider intercolumniation, as at Athens and Piraeus, nor pivot-holes for doors,
as at Eretria, nor traces of any wearing of the stone by feet, the very tooling of the surface
being clearly visible. And a wooden threshold is out of the question, for a wooden threshold
without wooden jambs and lintel would be an absurdity; and of such a door frame as this
would imply there is no sign whatever, the sinkings for the columns on either side of the
central intercolumniation being precisely similar to those for all the other columns in the
row. That there was no doorway here may therefore be regarded as a certainty. And since
The columns which stood upon this stylobate have been described in Chap.
Schultz, who has also discussed the manner in which the proscenium should be
Fig. 36). But a few words here will not be out of place. The columns, which were 14 in number
and stood between two antae, are of extremely rude work. They are unfinished ; for round
the front half of each column the bottoms, but only the bottoms, of flutes
At either side of each column is a projecting fillet, doubtless intended
(viva/ces)71 which formerly filled the intercolumniations.
No traces of an entrance in the middle of the proscenium have
69 But 94 inches below the nearest part of the ‘ Vitru-
vian ’ proscenium in its present state. The extreme end
of the proscenium however was not a colonnade but a
wall (see Fig. 36, Ch. III.).
70 Marked ‘ later proscenium ’ in Plates V. and VII.
71 The authority for the word is the inscription belonging
to the proscenium at Oropus (Τίρακτι,κά, 1886, p. 54,
and Pl. III.).