DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.47233#0104
88
THE THEATRE.
[chap. iv.
Position relatively
to orchestra.
Date.
This proscenium
tends to confirm
Vitruvius.
III. Possible
Roman Stage.
Thersilion. It will appear bye and bye that we do not believe the proscenium to be older
than the first century b.c. ; a period at which, and after which, bad work is by no means the
exception in Greece.
The question of depth being thus disposed of, the only important difference to be
noted between the Vitruvian proscenium at Megalopolis and similar proscenia . elsewhere is
the difference of position; a larger proportion of the circle of the orchestra being cut off
by the proscenium at Megalopolis than in any other extant Greek theatre, and (though to
a less degree) a larger proportion than Vitruvius prescribes. This peculiarity, however, has been
already discussed in our section dealing with the auditorium and orchestra (§ 3), where it was
pointed out that actual, rather than proportionate, measurements guided the architect, and that the
actual measurements at Megalopolis, both from the centre of the front row of seats, and from the
extremities of the auditorium, to the front of the proscenium, agree very nearly with the
corresponding measurements at Epidaurus and at Athens.
With regard to the date of the Vitruvian proscenium at Megalopolis, all we know
for certain is that it is of later date than the wooden structure which once occupied the
same position, and which we saw reason to assign at earZzest to the second century B.c. We
would therefore suggest the first century b.c. as a possible date for the stone structure,
but it may well be later. That such proscenia still continued to be erected in Vitruvius’
own day is generally admitted, 88 not only because his own expressions imply it, but because
the proscenium at Oropus bears a dedicatory inscription89 which is not earlier than the
second, and more probably dates from the first century b.c. The proscenium at Megalopolis
is one of the roughest which have hitherto been found, and may well be of later date than even
the one at Oropus.
It will have appeared from our suggestion of movable scenery erected at the back of the
proscenium, that we are far from deserting Vitruvius, who describes the proscenium in the Greek
Theatre of his day as a stage, in order to accept the new views promulgated by Drs. Dorpfeld and
Kawerau, who, in defiance of Vitruvius, regard the proscenium as a background before which the
actors played. A criticism of these views will be found in Appendix A, at the end of the present
chapter ; and we need only say here that, while the arguments hitherto adduced for the new theory
appear to us to weigh extremely light in the balance against the direct evidence of a contemporary
writer, the Theatre at Megalopolis seems to us, so far as it bears upon the question, distinctly to
confirm Vitruvius as opposed to Dr. Dorpfeld ;—first, because (as we have already stated) the
Vitruvian proscenium there presents no trace ivliatever of any entrance in the middle, like those
which have been found at Epidaurus, Eretria, and elsewhere;—and secondly, because (as we have
endeavoured to show) it occupies the position of an earlier platform which was demonstrably a
stage.
The first of these arguments carries more weight than may appear at first sight.
Dr. Dorpfeld himself would hardly maintain that a colonnade closed by panels, without a
single entrance through it for the actors, could possibly serve as a background for dramatic
performances. Accordingly he has taken pains to point out that, in every proscenium hitherto
discovered, traces of such an entrance have been found.90 Now at Megalopolis there is, as we have
already seen, no trace of such an entrance.
Our second argument, that the later proscenium, itself a platform, occupies the position of
an earlier stage, makes it highly probable that this proscenium was intended to be used as a
stage likewise. At the same time an argument of this kind can never, of course, amount to
demonstration.
III. Possible Roman stage.
Besides the Vitruvian proscenium, and the earlier wooden structure which formerly occupied
the same position, we have possible traces of a Roman stage, actually closing in the orchestra and
88 Even by those who, like Dr. Dorpfeld, deny that
Vitruvius knew what use the ‘ proscenium ’ in the Greek
Theatre served. See e.g. Perl. Phil. Woch. 25 April, 1891,
p. 516 (‘Das griechische Theater seiner Zeit’), and
Baumeister, Denhmaler, p. 1734 (‘und Bauten dieser Art
mlissen auch Vitruv bekannt gewesen sein’).
89 Πρακτικά, 1886, Pl. III.
90 e.g. Berliner Phil. Woch. 12 April, 1890, p. 467 : ibid.
25 April, 1891, p. 514. In the latter of these passages the
statement, so far as it applies to Megalopolis, is incorrect.
THE THEATRE.
[chap. iv.
Position relatively
to orchestra.
Date.
This proscenium
tends to confirm
Vitruvius.
III. Possible
Roman Stage.
Thersilion. It will appear bye and bye that we do not believe the proscenium to be older
than the first century b.c. ; a period at which, and after which, bad work is by no means the
exception in Greece.
The question of depth being thus disposed of, the only important difference to be
noted between the Vitruvian proscenium at Megalopolis and similar proscenia . elsewhere is
the difference of position; a larger proportion of the circle of the orchestra being cut off
by the proscenium at Megalopolis than in any other extant Greek theatre, and (though to
a less degree) a larger proportion than Vitruvius prescribes. This peculiarity, however, has been
already discussed in our section dealing with the auditorium and orchestra (§ 3), where it was
pointed out that actual, rather than proportionate, measurements guided the architect, and that the
actual measurements at Megalopolis, both from the centre of the front row of seats, and from the
extremities of the auditorium, to the front of the proscenium, agree very nearly with the
corresponding measurements at Epidaurus and at Athens.
With regard to the date of the Vitruvian proscenium at Megalopolis, all we know
for certain is that it is of later date than the wooden structure which once occupied the
same position, and which we saw reason to assign at earZzest to the second century B.c. We
would therefore suggest the first century b.c. as a possible date for the stone structure,
but it may well be later. That such proscenia still continued to be erected in Vitruvius’
own day is generally admitted, 88 not only because his own expressions imply it, but because
the proscenium at Oropus bears a dedicatory inscription89 which is not earlier than the
second, and more probably dates from the first century b.c. The proscenium at Megalopolis
is one of the roughest which have hitherto been found, and may well be of later date than even
the one at Oropus.
It will have appeared from our suggestion of movable scenery erected at the back of the
proscenium, that we are far from deserting Vitruvius, who describes the proscenium in the Greek
Theatre of his day as a stage, in order to accept the new views promulgated by Drs. Dorpfeld and
Kawerau, who, in defiance of Vitruvius, regard the proscenium as a background before which the
actors played. A criticism of these views will be found in Appendix A, at the end of the present
chapter ; and we need only say here that, while the arguments hitherto adduced for the new theory
appear to us to weigh extremely light in the balance against the direct evidence of a contemporary
writer, the Theatre at Megalopolis seems to us, so far as it bears upon the question, distinctly to
confirm Vitruvius as opposed to Dr. Dorpfeld ;—first, because (as we have already stated) the
Vitruvian proscenium there presents no trace ivliatever of any entrance in the middle, like those
which have been found at Epidaurus, Eretria, and elsewhere;—and secondly, because (as we have
endeavoured to show) it occupies the position of an earlier platform which was demonstrably a
stage.
The first of these arguments carries more weight than may appear at first sight.
Dr. Dorpfeld himself would hardly maintain that a colonnade closed by panels, without a
single entrance through it for the actors, could possibly serve as a background for dramatic
performances. Accordingly he has taken pains to point out that, in every proscenium hitherto
discovered, traces of such an entrance have been found.90 Now at Megalopolis there is, as we have
already seen, no trace of such an entrance.
Our second argument, that the later proscenium, itself a platform, occupies the position of
an earlier stage, makes it highly probable that this proscenium was intended to be used as a
stage likewise. At the same time an argument of this kind can never, of course, amount to
demonstration.
III. Possible Roman stage.
Besides the Vitruvian proscenium, and the earlier wooden structure which formerly occupied
the same position, we have possible traces of a Roman stage, actually closing in the orchestra and
88 Even by those who, like Dr. Dorpfeld, deny that
Vitruvius knew what use the ‘ proscenium ’ in the Greek
Theatre served. See e.g. Perl. Phil. Woch. 25 April, 1891,
p. 516 (‘Das griechische Theater seiner Zeit’), and
Baumeister, Denhmaler, p. 1734 (‘und Bauten dieser Art
mlissen auch Vitruv bekannt gewesen sein’).
89 Πρακτικά, 1886, Pl. III.
90 e.g. Berliner Phil. Woch. 12 April, 1890, p. 467 : ibid.
25 April, 1891, p. 514. In the latter of these passages the
statement, so far as it applies to Megalopolis, is incorrect.