DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.47233#0109
93
CHAP. IV.]
THE THEATRE.
Dr. Kawerau says it·
Examples.
Vitruvius’ time was,
no evidence to the
(1) was called ‘ proscenium,’
(2) therefore was not a stage.
(1) was called ‘ proscenium,’
(2) was a stage ;
(4) Subsidiary ar-
guments, based on
new discoveries.
A third argument5 is based on the use of the word ‘ proscenium.’ This third argument is precisely on a
par with the first; that is to say, the fact of its application to the disputed structure is not a new discovery
tending to cast discredit on Vitruvius’ account, but a fact stated by Vitruvius himself, and confirmed by a recent
discovery (the inscription 6 in the theatre at Oropus). So that here again the opposition is not one of arguments
but of authorities. Vitruvius says the structure he is describing
I do not of course deny that, besides the chief arguments, summarized above, subsidiary arguments
have been drawn from certain facts which have come to light in the course of recent excavations. But they
are generally facts which, far from showing that the ‘proscenium ’ in the theatre of
as Dr. Dorpfeld says, a background instead of a stage, show at most that, had we
contrary, it might have been so interpreted.
Such, for example, is the constantly-repeated argument from the presence of
most of the extant Vitruvian ‘proscenia.’
tenable in the absence of Vitruvius’ direct statement; but even if the entrance in question were universal,
it could not upset or even discredit that statement; for there is not the smallest reason why there should
have been no way out from under a stage, or why the space beneath a stage should not have been utilized.
And let it be observed that at Megalopolis no traces of such an entrance have been found.
(3) From the use of
the word ‘ pro-
scenium.3
an entrance through
This discovery would perhaps have made the Dorpfeldian theory
As before, we have only to ask—Who is the better authority on such a point ? ‘ Proscenium ’ {προσκήνιου)
—so far as its etymology is concerned—is an entirely colourless word, ‘the structure before the σκηνή’ and
is therefore as applicable to a stage as to a decorated background. But even if this were otherwise, the contem-
porary evidence of Vitruvius, telling us what the word meant in his day,7 would altogether outweigh any a priori
considerations, at this distance of time, as to what it ought to mean.
On the above three arguments—every one of them derived from the agreement of the extant remains with
Vitruvius’ description, and unfairly (as I think) turned to his discredit—Dr. Dorpfeld and his allies propose to
base a theory of the development of the Roman Theatre from the Greek, which altogether excludes the existence
of a stage in the Greek Theatre.8
of Haigh’s ‘Attic Theatre,’ Bert. Phil. Woch., 12 April, 1890,
pp. 461-471. This and Dr. Kawerau’s article ‘ Theatergebau.de,’
in Baumeister’s Denkmaler (accepted by Dr. Dorpfeld, Berl.
Phil. Woch., loc. cit.) are the most authoritative expositions of
the new views yet published. The arguments in the Berl. Phil.
Woch. are based entirely on the height, narrowness, and absence
of communication with the orchestra.
5 For this third argument I do not know that Dr. Dorpfeld is
primarily responsible ; but it comes out strongly in Dr. Kawerau’s
article ‘ Theatergebaude ’ in Baumeister’s Denkmaler—an article
which Dr. Dorpfeld expressly accepts (see preceding note) as
representing his views. Dr. Kawerau puts the argument in
a way which appears to me particularly hard on Vitruvius ; for
he makes it appear as if the word προσκήνιου were a new dis-
covery tending to discredit that writer’s statement. ‘ Vitruv,’ he
says on p. 1733, . . . ‘den Baum zwischen gh und cd [the refe-
rence is to Fig. 1813 in Baumeister] fur eine erhohte Biihne und
gh fur die Vorderwand derselben ansieht, wahrencl gh faktisch
die vor das Biihnengebaude vorgesetzte Dekorationswand, das
“Proskenion” ist3; ignoring the fact that Vitruvius himself
applies the word ‘ proscenium 3 to this very wall. And again
(p. 1739), ‘Diese Wand ist eben nlcht die Vorderwand der Biihne,
sondern das Proskenion ’ [the italics are mine], ‘ der dekorierte
Hintergrund fiir das Spiel, das sich vor ihm in der Orchestra
bewegt. Die Richtigkeit dieser Auffassung wird aber auch noch
durch die kiirzlich aufgefundene Bauinschrift vom Theater zu
Oropos bestatigt.Auf dem Architrav befindet sich die
Inschrift . . . ΓΩΝΟΘΕΤΗΣΑΣ TO ΠΡΟΣΚΗΝΙΩΝ KAI ΤΟΥΣ
ΠΙΝ(ΑΚΑΣ), womit diese Wand selbst hinreichend deutlich als
das Proskenion bezeichnet wird.’ Why, the structure bearing
this inscription is the very one which is expressly called ‘ pro-
cenium 3 by Vitruvius. The inscription is a confirmation of
Vitruvius. That we have here an error in the mode of state-
ment, and not a misinterpretation of Vitruvius, is clear from Fig.
1813 (p. 1733) and accompanying text.
6 Quoted in preceding note.
7 ‘In his day’; for the word ‘proscenium,’ like several
other words in the nomenclature of the ancient Theatre, appears
to have undergone some changes of meaning. It would be
untrue to say that ‘ proscenium3 always meant ‘ stage.’
8 Dr. Dorpfeld tells us {Berl. Phil. Woch., 12 April, 1890, p. 470)
that the explanation which his views afford of the development
of the Roman Theatre [with its low stage extending to the centre
of the orchestra] from the Greek, is the strongest evidence for
their correctness. On the value of this evidence judgment must,
to a certain extent, be suspended, since it appears, from the
passage above referred to, that it has not yet been fully pub-
lished. But it is quite safe to say (1) that, if (as I have tried to
show) Dr. Dorpfeld’s conception of the ‘ Vitruvian ’ Theatre,
from which the supposed development begins, is erroneous, the
theory of development based upon that conception must be
erroneous also ; (2) that any attempt to treat the theory of de-
velopment as independent evidence, and to draw conclusions from
it, is inadmissible.
To these general remarks I will only add : (1) that the
change from a high and narrow stage to a low and broad
one, for which Dr. Dorpfeld wishes to account by his new
theory, is perfectly well explained already (see Vitr. v. 6, 2) by
the fact that in the Roman Theatre (a) all the performers stood
on the stage, and (&) spectators sat in the orchestra ; (2) that Dr.
Dorpfeld’s idea {Berl. Phil. Woch., loc. cit., pp. 469, 470) that
the low Roman stage resulted from a sinking of the half of the
orchestra which was nearest to the spectators is altogether un-
proved. Dr. Dorpfeld supports this theory by the statement
that, in many Greek theatres altered in Roman times, the
lowest row of seats is on a level with the top of the Roman
stage ; but it is admitted by his ally Dr. Kawerau (Baum. Denkm.
p. 1742) that this rule is by no means universal; so that no evi-
dence one way or the other can be fairly deduced from the
position of the lowest row of seats.
B B
CHAP. IV.]
THE THEATRE.
Dr. Kawerau says it·
Examples.
Vitruvius’ time was,
no evidence to the
(1) was called ‘ proscenium,’
(2) therefore was not a stage.
(1) was called ‘ proscenium,’
(2) was a stage ;
(4) Subsidiary ar-
guments, based on
new discoveries.
A third argument5 is based on the use of the word ‘ proscenium.’ This third argument is precisely on a
par with the first; that is to say, the fact of its application to the disputed structure is not a new discovery
tending to cast discredit on Vitruvius’ account, but a fact stated by Vitruvius himself, and confirmed by a recent
discovery (the inscription 6 in the theatre at Oropus). So that here again the opposition is not one of arguments
but of authorities. Vitruvius says the structure he is describing
I do not of course deny that, besides the chief arguments, summarized above, subsidiary arguments
have been drawn from certain facts which have come to light in the course of recent excavations. But they
are generally facts which, far from showing that the ‘proscenium ’ in the theatre of
as Dr. Dorpfeld says, a background instead of a stage, show at most that, had we
contrary, it might have been so interpreted.
Such, for example, is the constantly-repeated argument from the presence of
most of the extant Vitruvian ‘proscenia.’
tenable in the absence of Vitruvius’ direct statement; but even if the entrance in question were universal,
it could not upset or even discredit that statement; for there is not the smallest reason why there should
have been no way out from under a stage, or why the space beneath a stage should not have been utilized.
And let it be observed that at Megalopolis no traces of such an entrance have been found.
(3) From the use of
the word ‘ pro-
scenium.3
an entrance through
This discovery would perhaps have made the Dorpfeldian theory
As before, we have only to ask—Who is the better authority on such a point ? ‘ Proscenium ’ {προσκήνιου)
—so far as its etymology is concerned—is an entirely colourless word, ‘the structure before the σκηνή’ and
is therefore as applicable to a stage as to a decorated background. But even if this were otherwise, the contem-
porary evidence of Vitruvius, telling us what the word meant in his day,7 would altogether outweigh any a priori
considerations, at this distance of time, as to what it ought to mean.
On the above three arguments—every one of them derived from the agreement of the extant remains with
Vitruvius’ description, and unfairly (as I think) turned to his discredit—Dr. Dorpfeld and his allies propose to
base a theory of the development of the Roman Theatre from the Greek, which altogether excludes the existence
of a stage in the Greek Theatre.8
of Haigh’s ‘Attic Theatre,’ Bert. Phil. Woch., 12 April, 1890,
pp. 461-471. This and Dr. Kawerau’s article ‘ Theatergebau.de,’
in Baumeister’s Denkmaler (accepted by Dr. Dorpfeld, Berl.
Phil. Woch., loc. cit.) are the most authoritative expositions of
the new views yet published. The arguments in the Berl. Phil.
Woch. are based entirely on the height, narrowness, and absence
of communication with the orchestra.
5 For this third argument I do not know that Dr. Dorpfeld is
primarily responsible ; but it comes out strongly in Dr. Kawerau’s
article ‘ Theatergebaude ’ in Baumeister’s Denkmaler—an article
which Dr. Dorpfeld expressly accepts (see preceding note) as
representing his views. Dr. Kawerau puts the argument in
a way which appears to me particularly hard on Vitruvius ; for
he makes it appear as if the word προσκήνιου were a new dis-
covery tending to discredit that writer’s statement. ‘ Vitruv,’ he
says on p. 1733, . . . ‘den Baum zwischen gh und cd [the refe-
rence is to Fig. 1813 in Baumeister] fur eine erhohte Biihne und
gh fur die Vorderwand derselben ansieht, wahrencl gh faktisch
die vor das Biihnengebaude vorgesetzte Dekorationswand, das
“Proskenion” ist3; ignoring the fact that Vitruvius himself
applies the word ‘ proscenium 3 to this very wall. And again
(p. 1739), ‘Diese Wand ist eben nlcht die Vorderwand der Biihne,
sondern das Proskenion ’ [the italics are mine], ‘ der dekorierte
Hintergrund fiir das Spiel, das sich vor ihm in der Orchestra
bewegt. Die Richtigkeit dieser Auffassung wird aber auch noch
durch die kiirzlich aufgefundene Bauinschrift vom Theater zu
Oropos bestatigt.Auf dem Architrav befindet sich die
Inschrift . . . ΓΩΝΟΘΕΤΗΣΑΣ TO ΠΡΟΣΚΗΝΙΩΝ KAI ΤΟΥΣ
ΠΙΝ(ΑΚΑΣ), womit diese Wand selbst hinreichend deutlich als
das Proskenion bezeichnet wird.’ Why, the structure bearing
this inscription is the very one which is expressly called ‘ pro-
cenium 3 by Vitruvius. The inscription is a confirmation of
Vitruvius. That we have here an error in the mode of state-
ment, and not a misinterpretation of Vitruvius, is clear from Fig.
1813 (p. 1733) and accompanying text.
6 Quoted in preceding note.
7 ‘In his day’; for the word ‘proscenium,’ like several
other words in the nomenclature of the ancient Theatre, appears
to have undergone some changes of meaning. It would be
untrue to say that ‘ proscenium3 always meant ‘ stage.’
8 Dr. Dorpfeld tells us {Berl. Phil. Woch., 12 April, 1890, p. 470)
that the explanation which his views afford of the development
of the Roman Theatre [with its low stage extending to the centre
of the orchestra] from the Greek, is the strongest evidence for
their correctness. On the value of this evidence judgment must,
to a certain extent, be suspended, since it appears, from the
passage above referred to, that it has not yet been fully pub-
lished. But it is quite safe to say (1) that, if (as I have tried to
show) Dr. Dorpfeld’s conception of the ‘ Vitruvian ’ Theatre,
from which the supposed development begins, is erroneous, the
theory of development based upon that conception must be
erroneous also ; (2) that any attempt to treat the theory of de-
velopment as independent evidence, and to draw conclusions from
it, is inadmissible.
To these general remarks I will only add : (1) that the
change from a high and narrow stage to a low and broad
one, for which Dr. Dorpfeld wishes to account by his new
theory, is perfectly well explained already (see Vitr. v. 6, 2) by
the fact that in the Roman Theatre (a) all the performers stood
on the stage, and (&) spectators sat in the orchestra ; (2) that Dr.
Dorpfeld’s idea {Berl. Phil. Woch., loc. cit., pp. 469, 470) that
the low Roman stage resulted from a sinking of the half of the
orchestra which was nearest to the spectators is altogether un-
proved. Dr. Dorpfeld supports this theory by the statement
that, in many Greek theatres altered in Roman times, the
lowest row of seats is on a level with the top of the Roman
stage ; but it is admitted by his ally Dr. Kawerau (Baum. Denkm.
p. 1742) that this rule is by no means universal; so that no evi-
dence one way or the other can be fairly deduced from the
position of the lowest row of seats.
B B