DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.47233#0110
94
THE THEATRE.
[CHAP. IV.
II.—The word
1 proscenium ’
denotes a stage in
Vitruvius’ account
of Roman Theatre
as well as of Greek.
This fact disputed
by Dr. Kawerau,
who thus gains
colour for the Dorp-
feldian theory.
Mr. Louis Dyer, on
the contrary, admits
the meaning ‘ stage ’
in account of Ro-
man Theatre, but
disputes it in ac-
count of Greek,
thence drawing a
different conclusion
with regard to stage.
Both these views
erroneous.
‘ Proscenium ’
means ‘ stage ’
(1) in Vitruvius’
account of the
Greek Theatre,
Other examples are the arguments drawn from the underground passages which have been discovered
in several theatres,9 beneath the orchestra, and from the vaulted staircase 10 beneath the dressing-rooms in the
theatre at Eretria. The explanations given of these discoveries are possible, but wholly conjectural, explana-
tions ; and, with regard to the staircase at Eretria, one has only to glance at the plan of the theatre 11 to see
that the top of it lies altogether outside the dressing-rooms, so that it is more natural to suppose that it gave
access to the orchestra and auditorium from the open country behind than from them.
There is thus, to my mind, a radical weakness in the arguments which have hitherto been put forward
by Hr. Dorpfeld and his followers in order to prove that Vitruvius was wrong in describing the ‘ proscenium ’
in the Greek theatre of his own day as a stage. All of them alike are based on facts which either confirm or
supplement, but never contradict, Vitruvius. But there is one of their arguments which I wish to examine
more in detail, because, though, like the others, it is based (in my opinion) on a preconception, it has derived
some colour from a translation which is, I think, certainly erroneous. This is the argument from the use of the
word ‘ proscenium.’
I have already observed that Vitruvius’ statement what the word ‘ proscenium ’ meant altogether out-
weighs any preconceptions of our own as to what it ought to mean.
But this position, strong as it is, may be made still stronger. Even those who deny that Vitruvius
understood the nomenclature of the Greek Theatre will admit that he understood that of the Roman, or at least
that the burden of proof rests with those who maintain that he did not. Now the word ‘proscenium,’ no less in
Vitruvius description of the Homan Theatre than in his description of the Greek, denotes a stage. Is not this a very
solid confirmation of the correctness of Vitruvius’ use of the word in relation to the Greek Theatre ?
Unfortunately the truth of the statement italicized in the preceding paragraph is disputed, if not
by Dr. Dorpfeld himself, at any rate by some of his leading exponents. For I observe that Dr. Kawerau, in his
exposition of the new theory, takes the word 'proscenium’ (Proskenion), in Vitruvius’ account of the Homan
Theatre, to denote, not the stage, but the ornamental background behind it.12 This interpretation can only be
based on an untenable translation of the words ‘ proscenii pulpitum,’13 Dr. Kawerau rendering them not (as
I believe they should be rendered) ‘the pulpitum (platform) which fs (or ‘is part of’) the proscenium’ but
' the pulpitum which stands in front of the proscenium ’; a meaning which it is hard to get from the words, but
which, if correct, would doubtless introduce some inconsistency between Vitruvius’ account of the Greek Theatre
and his account of the Roman, and would thus lend some colour to the theory that his explanation of the
' proscenium ’ in the Greek Theatre as a stage is erroneous. This seems to me a sufficient reason for
examining in some detail Vitruvius’ use of the words ‘ proscenium ’ and ‘ pulpitum ’ in both accounts.
But I have also another reason for doing so. Mr. Louis Dyer has recently contributed to the
Journal of Hellenic Studies14 a paper written in support of an explanation of Vitruvius put forward by one Fra
Giocondo in the early sixteenth century. The chief feature of this interpretation,—a feature which separates
it toto caelo from the whole class of interpretations now in vogue,—is that, while agreeing with me as to
the identity of the ‘proscenium’ and the ‘pulpitum’ in Vitruvius’ account of the Roman Theatre,15 it
distinguishes between them in his account of the Greek,—making the latter (a stage) project forward from
the former (a columned background standing forward from the ' scena ’). This projecting stage (pulpitum)
was, according to Fra Giocondo’s pupil Scaliger, ' always of wood and removable.’ Fra Giocondo’s interpretation
would, if accepted, lead to a sort of compromise between Dr. Dorpfeld’s view and that of his opponents,—allowing,
with the former, that the ‘ proscenium ’ was a background,—but asserting, with the latter, the existence of a
stage. Unfortunately the distinction made by Fra Giocondo between the ‘proscenium’ and ‘pulpitum’ in
the Greek Theatre is, I cannot but think, a false distinction.
It appears then that, while Dr. Kawerau admits the identity of the ' proscenium ’ and ‘ pulpitum ’ in
Vitruvius’ account of the Greek Theatre, but distinguishes between them in the account of the Roman,—Fra
Giocondo, followed by Mr. Louis Dyer, admits the identity in the case of the Roman, but denies it in the case of
the Greek. The object of the paragraphs which follow is to show that the words ‘proscenium’ and ‘pul-
pitum’ in the accounts of both theatres denote one and the same structure.16
I. In Vitruvius’ account of the Greek Theatre, the identity of the structure which he calls ‘proscenium ’
with that which he calls' pulpitum’ (a stage),—admitted as well by Dr. Dorpfeld’s followers as by ourselves,—is
evident (a) from Vitruvius himself, (&) from the extant remains. Thus:—
9 Eretria, American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. vii. pp.
275 sqcp, ancl Pl. XI.—Sikyon, ibid., Vol. v. p. 276, and vii.
pp. 281, 282.—Magnesia, Mittheilungen, Vol. xvi. p. 266.
10 Americ. Journ. Arch., Vol. vii. pp. 260-262.
11 Ibid. Pl. XI.
12 Baumeister, Denkm., p. 1742 ; art. ‘ Theatergebaude.’
13 Vitr. v. 6, 1.
14 Vol. xii. pp. 356-365.
15 ‘ The comparison,’ lie says (p. 361), ‘required by Vitruvius
is between the pulpitum of the Greek and the pulpitum-
proscenium, not the proscenii pulpitum, of the Roman Theatre.’
I have quoted the passage more fully below.
16 There is of course a shade of difference in meaning between
the two words. Otherwise the combination ‘ proscenii pulpitum ’
in the account of the Roman Theatre would be superfluous.
What I insist on, and hope to establish, is that they cannot
possibly be separate structures. If the ‘proscenium’ is not the
‘ pulpitum,’ it incZWes the pulpitum.’ Probably ‘ proscenium’ -
‘ stage ’ exactly in our sense of the word—viz. the platform with
all its adjuncts,—while ‘ pulpitum’ = 'platform ’ simply.
THE THEATRE.
[CHAP. IV.
II.—The word
1 proscenium ’
denotes a stage in
Vitruvius’ account
of Roman Theatre
as well as of Greek.
This fact disputed
by Dr. Kawerau,
who thus gains
colour for the Dorp-
feldian theory.
Mr. Louis Dyer, on
the contrary, admits
the meaning ‘ stage ’
in account of Ro-
man Theatre, but
disputes it in ac-
count of Greek,
thence drawing a
different conclusion
with regard to stage.
Both these views
erroneous.
‘ Proscenium ’
means ‘ stage ’
(1) in Vitruvius’
account of the
Greek Theatre,
Other examples are the arguments drawn from the underground passages which have been discovered
in several theatres,9 beneath the orchestra, and from the vaulted staircase 10 beneath the dressing-rooms in the
theatre at Eretria. The explanations given of these discoveries are possible, but wholly conjectural, explana-
tions ; and, with regard to the staircase at Eretria, one has only to glance at the plan of the theatre 11 to see
that the top of it lies altogether outside the dressing-rooms, so that it is more natural to suppose that it gave
access to the orchestra and auditorium from the open country behind than from them.
There is thus, to my mind, a radical weakness in the arguments which have hitherto been put forward
by Hr. Dorpfeld and his followers in order to prove that Vitruvius was wrong in describing the ‘ proscenium ’
in the Greek theatre of his own day as a stage. All of them alike are based on facts which either confirm or
supplement, but never contradict, Vitruvius. But there is one of their arguments which I wish to examine
more in detail, because, though, like the others, it is based (in my opinion) on a preconception, it has derived
some colour from a translation which is, I think, certainly erroneous. This is the argument from the use of the
word ‘ proscenium.’
I have already observed that Vitruvius’ statement what the word ‘ proscenium ’ meant altogether out-
weighs any preconceptions of our own as to what it ought to mean.
But this position, strong as it is, may be made still stronger. Even those who deny that Vitruvius
understood the nomenclature of the Greek Theatre will admit that he understood that of the Roman, or at least
that the burden of proof rests with those who maintain that he did not. Now the word ‘proscenium,’ no less in
Vitruvius description of the Homan Theatre than in his description of the Greek, denotes a stage. Is not this a very
solid confirmation of the correctness of Vitruvius’ use of the word in relation to the Greek Theatre ?
Unfortunately the truth of the statement italicized in the preceding paragraph is disputed, if not
by Dr. Dorpfeld himself, at any rate by some of his leading exponents. For I observe that Dr. Kawerau, in his
exposition of the new theory, takes the word 'proscenium’ (Proskenion), in Vitruvius’ account of the Homan
Theatre, to denote, not the stage, but the ornamental background behind it.12 This interpretation can only be
based on an untenable translation of the words ‘ proscenii pulpitum,’13 Dr. Kawerau rendering them not (as
I believe they should be rendered) ‘the pulpitum (platform) which fs (or ‘is part of’) the proscenium’ but
' the pulpitum which stands in front of the proscenium ’; a meaning which it is hard to get from the words, but
which, if correct, would doubtless introduce some inconsistency between Vitruvius’ account of the Greek Theatre
and his account of the Roman, and would thus lend some colour to the theory that his explanation of the
' proscenium ’ in the Greek Theatre as a stage is erroneous. This seems to me a sufficient reason for
examining in some detail Vitruvius’ use of the words ‘ proscenium ’ and ‘ pulpitum ’ in both accounts.
But I have also another reason for doing so. Mr. Louis Dyer has recently contributed to the
Journal of Hellenic Studies14 a paper written in support of an explanation of Vitruvius put forward by one Fra
Giocondo in the early sixteenth century. The chief feature of this interpretation,—a feature which separates
it toto caelo from the whole class of interpretations now in vogue,—is that, while agreeing with me as to
the identity of the ‘proscenium’ and the ‘pulpitum’ in Vitruvius’ account of the Roman Theatre,15 it
distinguishes between them in his account of the Greek,—making the latter (a stage) project forward from
the former (a columned background standing forward from the ' scena ’). This projecting stage (pulpitum)
was, according to Fra Giocondo’s pupil Scaliger, ' always of wood and removable.’ Fra Giocondo’s interpretation
would, if accepted, lead to a sort of compromise between Dr. Dorpfeld’s view and that of his opponents,—allowing,
with the former, that the ‘ proscenium ’ was a background,—but asserting, with the latter, the existence of a
stage. Unfortunately the distinction made by Fra Giocondo between the ‘proscenium’ and ‘pulpitum’ in
the Greek Theatre is, I cannot but think, a false distinction.
It appears then that, while Dr. Kawerau admits the identity of the ' proscenium ’ and ‘ pulpitum ’ in
Vitruvius’ account of the Greek Theatre, but distinguishes between them in the account of the Roman,—Fra
Giocondo, followed by Mr. Louis Dyer, admits the identity in the case of the Roman, but denies it in the case of
the Greek. The object of the paragraphs which follow is to show that the words ‘proscenium’ and ‘pul-
pitum’ in the accounts of both theatres denote one and the same structure.16
I. In Vitruvius’ account of the Greek Theatre, the identity of the structure which he calls ‘proscenium ’
with that which he calls' pulpitum’ (a stage),—admitted as well by Dr. Dorpfeld’s followers as by ourselves,—is
evident (a) from Vitruvius himself, (&) from the extant remains. Thus:—
9 Eretria, American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. vii. pp.
275 sqcp, ancl Pl. XI.—Sikyon, ibid., Vol. v. p. 276, and vii.
pp. 281, 282.—Magnesia, Mittheilungen, Vol. xvi. p. 266.
10 Americ. Journ. Arch., Vol. vii. pp. 260-262.
11 Ibid. Pl. XI.
12 Baumeister, Denkm., p. 1742 ; art. ‘ Theatergebaude.’
13 Vitr. v. 6, 1.
14 Vol. xii. pp. 356-365.
15 ‘ The comparison,’ lie says (p. 361), ‘required by Vitruvius
is between the pulpitum of the Greek and the pulpitum-
proscenium, not the proscenii pulpitum, of the Roman Theatre.’
I have quoted the passage more fully below.
16 There is of course a shade of difference in meaning between
the two words. Otherwise the combination ‘ proscenii pulpitum ’
in the account of the Roman Theatre would be superfluous.
What I insist on, and hope to establish, is that they cannot
possibly be separate structures. If the ‘proscenium’ is not the
‘ pulpitum,’ it incZWes the pulpitum.’ Probably ‘ proscenium’ -
‘ stage ’ exactly in our sense of the word—viz. the platform with
all its adjuncts,—while ‘ pulpitum’ = 'platform ’ simply.