DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.47233#0111
CHAP. IV.]
THE THEATRE.
95
(a) Vitruvius,—after giving directions for determining the position of the front edge of the ‘ proscenium ’
finitio proscenii ’), and that of the ‘ irons scenae relatively to the orchestra (no mention whatever of the
‘ pulpitum ’),—sums up by saying ‘ Ita.. . . ampliorem habent orchestra,™ Graeci et scenam recessiorem minoreque
latitudine pulpitum ’ etc. (no mention whatever of the ‘ proscenium ’).17
(δ) The extant remains of the disputed structure at Epidaurus, Oropus, and similar theatres, answer
in height and breadth to the ‘pulpitum’ of Vitruvius, and in position to his ‘ proscenium.’ The evidence is so
strong that their identification with the ‘ pulpitum ’ is admitted by both Vitruvians and Dorpfeldians ; while their
identification with the ‘ proscenium ’ is not only admitted by both the contending parties, but placed beyond
the reach of doubt by the inscription at Oropus, containing the very word προ σκηνών, upon the structure in
question.
These two considerations ‘ («) ’ and ‘ (δ) ’ seem to me to render Fra Giocondo’s view, which distinguishes
the ‘ pulpitum ’ from the ‘ proscenium ’ in the account of the Greek Theatre, altogether untenable.
II. In Vitruvius’account of the Roman Theatre, the word ‘ proscenium ’ alone does not occur; but the
expression ‘ proscenii pulpitum ’ is applied to the same structure which is elsewhere called simply ‘ pulpitum ’
(a stage).
Now the expression ‘proscenii pulpitum’ is susceptible of two different interpretations,—viz., (1) ‘the
pulpitum which belongs to (or ‘is part of’) the proscenium,’ (2) ‘the pulpitum which is the proscenium.’ So
that the ‘ proscenium ’ either is, or includes,13 the ‘ pulpitum.’ The interpretation which makes the ‘ pro-
scenium ’ merely the background to the ‘ pulpitum ’ is a loose extension of ‘ (1) ’; and, even apart from the
difficulty of obtaining such a meaning from the words, it is (I think) demonstrably incorrect.
For if the ‘proscenium’ be not the same as the ‘pulpitum,’ either it must be the same as the ‘scenae
irons’ or it must be some third structure between the ‘ scenae irons’ and the ‘ pulpitum.’ Let us consider these
two alternatives.
(a) If the ‘proscenium’ be identical with the ‘scenae irons,’ we have the following curious anomaly:—
In Vitruvius’ account of the Roman Theatre we find precisely the same terms applied to the principal parts of
the stage buildings as in his account of the Greek Theatre. They are in each case three in number,—viz.
‘ pulpitum,’ ‘proscenium,’ and ‘irons scenae’ (or ‘scenae irons’); and in each case two of these terms are con-
vertible. But, while in the account of the Greek Theatre the convertible terms are ‘ pulpitum ’ and
‘ proscenium,’ in the account of the Roman Theatre the convertible terms are ‘ proscenium ’ and ‘ scenae irons ’ !
Is not this a reductio ad absivrdum of the hypothesis ‘ (a) ’ which stands at the head of this paragraph ?
(δ) That the second alternative—that which supposes the ‘ proscenium ’ to have been a third structure,
situated somewhere between the ‘ pulpitum ’ and the ‘ scenae irons ’—is no better than the other, is clear from the
following facts :—
(1) While the positions of the ‘ pulpitum ’ and of the ‘ scenae frons,’ relatively to the orchestra, are fixed
by Vitruvius, no directions whatever are given for fixing the position of any third structure between them.
(2) In extant Roman Theatres (which are very numerous and complete) a ‘ pulpitum ’ and a ‘ scenae
frons ’ are regularly found, but no trace of the third structure which my hypothesis implies has ever been
discovered.
Hypothesis ‘ (δ) ’ is indeed so impossible that I doubt whether it would ever be seriously maintained. The
objections to it are so strong that even Mr. Louis Dyer, who, following Fra Giocondo, supposes the two words to have
designated two different structures in Vitruvius’ description of the Greek Theatre, is obliged to admit that such
a distinction is impossible in the case of the Roman. ‘ Vitruvius,’ he says,19 ‘ insists upon a feature in the Roman
stage which he really borrows from the Greek, namely the pulpitum proscenii. This is apparently an invention
of Vitruvius, one of those “ refinements in practice not observed by his predecessors nor followed by his successors.”
. The comparison required by Vitruvius is between the pulpitum of the Greek and the pulpitum-
proscenium, not the proscenii pulpitum, of the Roman Theatre.’
So that even those who maintain, in opposition both to Dr. Dorpfeld and to his antagonists, that in his
account of the G-reelc Theatre Vitruvius means one thing by ‘ proscenium ’ and another by ‘ pulpitum,’ are
obliged to admit that in his account of the Roman Theatre one structure alone is designated.
Apparently Dr. Kawerau, the advocate of the distinction which I am combating between the ‘ pulpitum ’
and ‘ proscenium ’ in the Roman Theatre, is aware of the difficulties involved both in identifying the latter with
17 Vitr. v. 8, 2. The word ‘ita’ shows that the comparative
narrowness of the ‘ pulpitum ’ in the Greek Theatre is a deduction
from the rules just given for setting out the Theatre. But a ‘pul-
pitum,’as distinguished from the‘proscenium,’ has not been so much
as mentioned,much less any rules given for determining its breadth.
This being so, Fra Giocondo’s theory, as interpreted (rightly or
wrongly) by Mr. Louis Dyer, involves the following suppositions :
(1) that the object of the two supplementary circles mentioned by
Vitruvius is to determine, not the length of the ‘proscenium,’but
the part of the ‘ proscenium ’ from which the ‘ pulpitum ’ is to pro-
ject—though, as I have already noted, no ‘ pulpitum ’ has so much
as been mentioned ; and (2) that the word ‘ latitudine ’ refers to
the length of the supposed ‘ pulpitum ’ instead of to its breadth—in
spite of the fact that in the passage complementary to this in the
account of the Roman Theatre—‘ ita latius factum fuerit pul-
pitum quam Graecorum ’—the word ‘ latius ’ demonstrably refers
to the breadth (or, as we sometimes say, ‘ depth ’) of the stage,
and not to its length. ‘ Demonstrably,’ since rules have been
given for determining the position of the front and back of the
stage, while nothing has been said about the position of its ends.
18 ‘ Either is, or includes.’ See note 16.
19 J. H. S. Vol. xii. p. 361.
(2) in his account
of the Roman
Theatre.
Alternative views
THE THEATRE.
95
(a) Vitruvius,—after giving directions for determining the position of the front edge of the ‘ proscenium ’
finitio proscenii ’), and that of the ‘ irons scenae relatively to the orchestra (no mention whatever of the
‘ pulpitum ’),—sums up by saying ‘ Ita.. . . ampliorem habent orchestra,™ Graeci et scenam recessiorem minoreque
latitudine pulpitum ’ etc. (no mention whatever of the ‘ proscenium ’).17
(δ) The extant remains of the disputed structure at Epidaurus, Oropus, and similar theatres, answer
in height and breadth to the ‘pulpitum’ of Vitruvius, and in position to his ‘ proscenium.’ The evidence is so
strong that their identification with the ‘ pulpitum ’ is admitted by both Vitruvians and Dorpfeldians ; while their
identification with the ‘ proscenium ’ is not only admitted by both the contending parties, but placed beyond
the reach of doubt by the inscription at Oropus, containing the very word προ σκηνών, upon the structure in
question.
These two considerations ‘ («) ’ and ‘ (δ) ’ seem to me to render Fra Giocondo’s view, which distinguishes
the ‘ pulpitum ’ from the ‘ proscenium ’ in the account of the Greek Theatre, altogether untenable.
II. In Vitruvius’account of the Roman Theatre, the word ‘ proscenium ’ alone does not occur; but the
expression ‘ proscenii pulpitum ’ is applied to the same structure which is elsewhere called simply ‘ pulpitum ’
(a stage).
Now the expression ‘proscenii pulpitum’ is susceptible of two different interpretations,—viz., (1) ‘the
pulpitum which belongs to (or ‘is part of’) the proscenium,’ (2) ‘the pulpitum which is the proscenium.’ So
that the ‘ proscenium ’ either is, or includes,13 the ‘ pulpitum.’ The interpretation which makes the ‘ pro-
scenium ’ merely the background to the ‘ pulpitum ’ is a loose extension of ‘ (1) ’; and, even apart from the
difficulty of obtaining such a meaning from the words, it is (I think) demonstrably incorrect.
For if the ‘proscenium’ be not the same as the ‘pulpitum,’ either it must be the same as the ‘scenae
irons’ or it must be some third structure between the ‘ scenae irons’ and the ‘ pulpitum.’ Let us consider these
two alternatives.
(a) If the ‘proscenium’ be identical with the ‘scenae irons,’ we have the following curious anomaly:—
In Vitruvius’ account of the Roman Theatre we find precisely the same terms applied to the principal parts of
the stage buildings as in his account of the Greek Theatre. They are in each case three in number,—viz.
‘ pulpitum,’ ‘proscenium,’ and ‘irons scenae’ (or ‘scenae irons’); and in each case two of these terms are con-
vertible. But, while in the account of the Greek Theatre the convertible terms are ‘ pulpitum ’ and
‘ proscenium,’ in the account of the Roman Theatre the convertible terms are ‘ proscenium ’ and ‘ scenae irons ’ !
Is not this a reductio ad absivrdum of the hypothesis ‘ (a) ’ which stands at the head of this paragraph ?
(δ) That the second alternative—that which supposes the ‘ proscenium ’ to have been a third structure,
situated somewhere between the ‘ pulpitum ’ and the ‘ scenae irons ’—is no better than the other, is clear from the
following facts :—
(1) While the positions of the ‘ pulpitum ’ and of the ‘ scenae frons,’ relatively to the orchestra, are fixed
by Vitruvius, no directions whatever are given for fixing the position of any third structure between them.
(2) In extant Roman Theatres (which are very numerous and complete) a ‘ pulpitum ’ and a ‘ scenae
frons ’ are regularly found, but no trace of the third structure which my hypothesis implies has ever been
discovered.
Hypothesis ‘ (δ) ’ is indeed so impossible that I doubt whether it would ever be seriously maintained. The
objections to it are so strong that even Mr. Louis Dyer, who, following Fra Giocondo, supposes the two words to have
designated two different structures in Vitruvius’ description of the Greek Theatre, is obliged to admit that such
a distinction is impossible in the case of the Roman. ‘ Vitruvius,’ he says,19 ‘ insists upon a feature in the Roman
stage which he really borrows from the Greek, namely the pulpitum proscenii. This is apparently an invention
of Vitruvius, one of those “ refinements in practice not observed by his predecessors nor followed by his successors.”
. The comparison required by Vitruvius is between the pulpitum of the Greek and the pulpitum-
proscenium, not the proscenii pulpitum, of the Roman Theatre.’
So that even those who maintain, in opposition both to Dr. Dorpfeld and to his antagonists, that in his
account of the G-reelc Theatre Vitruvius means one thing by ‘ proscenium ’ and another by ‘ pulpitum,’ are
obliged to admit that in his account of the Roman Theatre one structure alone is designated.
Apparently Dr. Kawerau, the advocate of the distinction which I am combating between the ‘ pulpitum ’
and ‘ proscenium ’ in the Roman Theatre, is aware of the difficulties involved both in identifying the latter with
17 Vitr. v. 8, 2. The word ‘ita’ shows that the comparative
narrowness of the ‘ pulpitum ’ in the Greek Theatre is a deduction
from the rules just given for setting out the Theatre. But a ‘pul-
pitum,’as distinguished from the‘proscenium,’ has not been so much
as mentioned,much less any rules given for determining its breadth.
This being so, Fra Giocondo’s theory, as interpreted (rightly or
wrongly) by Mr. Louis Dyer, involves the following suppositions :
(1) that the object of the two supplementary circles mentioned by
Vitruvius is to determine, not the length of the ‘proscenium,’but
the part of the ‘ proscenium ’ from which the ‘ pulpitum ’ is to pro-
ject—though, as I have already noted, no ‘ pulpitum ’ has so much
as been mentioned ; and (2) that the word ‘ latitudine ’ refers to
the length of the supposed ‘ pulpitum ’ instead of to its breadth—in
spite of the fact that in the passage complementary to this in the
account of the Roman Theatre—‘ ita latius factum fuerit pul-
pitum quam Graecorum ’—the word ‘ latius ’ demonstrably refers
to the breadth (or, as we sometimes say, ‘ depth ’) of the stage,
and not to its length. ‘ Demonstrably,’ since rules have been
given for determining the position of the front and back of the
stage, while nothing has been said about the position of its ends.
18 ‘ Either is, or includes.’ See note 16.
19 J. H. S. Vol. xii. p. 361.
(2) in his account
of the Roman
Theatre.
Alternative views