DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.47233#0112
96
THE THEATRE.
[CHAP. IV.
rejected.
Vitruvius is
therefore quite
consistent.
III.—Summary uf
results.
the 1 scenae irons’ and in supposing it to be a third structure between the ‘ scenae frons ’ and the ‘pulpitum.’
He attempts to avoid both difficulties by steering a middle course between them. He says,20 ‘ Die Vorderwand
des Buhnengebaudes [ = scenae irons'21] und die Dekorationswand [ = proscenium] nicht vollig eins sind,
sondern das letztere nur an jene angelehnt ist.’ That is, the ‘proscenium’ is neither identical with the
‘ scenae frons ’ nor separate from it; the latter is the wall, the former the decorated face oi the wall. I appeal to
my readers whether this subtle distinction perceptibly reduces the difficulty involved by an actual identification
oi ‘ proscenium ’ and ‘ scenae frons ’ (see under ‘ a Certainly it strains the genitive in the expression.
‘ proscenii pulpitum’ (which admittedly describes the Roman stage) beyond endurance.
Every alternative to the identification of the ‘proscenium’ with the ‘pulpitum’ in the Roman Theatre
having thus fallen through, it is clear that we must accept that identification, translating the words ‘ proscenii
pulpitum’ as ‘the pulpitum which is (or ‘is part of’) the proscenium,’—‘ the platform which is (qy ‘is
part of’) the stage,’—‘the stage-platform.’ Vitruvius’ use of the word ‘proscenium’ in his account of the
Greek Theatre is therefore perfectly consistent with his use of it in that of the Roman ; and a comparison of
the two accounts provides in reality a strong confirmation of the former account, since no one disputes that
he understood the nomenclature of the Roman Theatre.
The question whether there was or was not a stage in the Greek Theatre must, as I admitted at
the outset, remain undecided at least until the appearance of Dr. Dorpfeld’s book. This short paper, I need
hardly say, is not offered as a solution of the controversy, even so far as that controversy concerns the late
(Vitruvian) Theatre. But it will not be an entirely useless contribution if it serves—
(1) To draw attention to the fact that the arguments which have as yet been brought forward by Dr.
Dorpfeld and his followers to prove that Vitruvius was wrong in calling the Greek ‘ proscenium ’ a stage
(‘ pulpitum ’) are based, either on the agreement of the extant remains with Vitruvius’ description, or on facts
which supplement, but in no way contradict, Vitruvius.
(2) To prove that, while Dr. Kawerau supposes Vitruvius’ use of the word ‘ proscenium’ in his account
of the Roman Theatre to be inconsistent with his use of it in that of the Greek, and derives from
this supposed inconsistency some colour for the Dorpfeldian theory that his description of the Greek
‘ proscenium ’ as a stage is erroneous,—in reality the word ‘ proscenium ’ has precisely the same meaning in
both accounts, and any argument drawn from a comparison of the two accounts tells as strongly against those
who follow Dr. Dorpfeld as, if Dr. Kawerau’s view were correct, it would tell in their favour.
(3) To show that Fra Giocondo’s interpretation of Vitruvius, advocated by Mr. Louis Dyer, is
untenable, and that the compromise it carries with it,—the compromise, namely, of supposing that
Vitruvian ‘proscenia’ are really backgrounds, but that a raised stage (probably temporary) stood before them,—is
inadmissible.
I have dwelt at this length on the relation of Dr. Dorpfeld’s views to Vitruvius, because a correct
understanding of the ‘Vitruvian’ Greek Theatre, of which so many specimens are extant, is not only in
itself a matter of some interest, but is also—irrelevant as it may at first sight appear to the Theatres of the
fourth and fifth centuries B.C.—in reality one of the keys to the whole controversy. Should Dr. Dorpfeld
succeed in convincing archaeologists that there was no stage in the‘ Vitruvian’Theatre, they will doubtless be
much shaken in their belief in the existence of a stage in the Theatre of earlier times; since our knowledge
of the earlier Theatre, both from literary and monumental sources, is comparatively slender, and the abolition
of a previously existing stage in Hellenistic times would be a fact requiring explanation. On the other
hand, should Dr. Dorpfeld’s views, so far as they concern the ‘Vitruvian’ Theatre, prove to be erroneous, his
whole theory of the development of the Roman Theatre from the Greek—a theory which (he tells us22) will
prove, when his book is published, to be the strongest weapon in his armoury—will have to be abandoned.
For this theory of development can have no value whatever unless it be based on facts, and the facts on
which it must be based are those which concern the later, or ‘ Vitruvian,’ Theatre.
W. L.
APPENDIX B.
THE GREEK STAGE AS REPRESENTED ON VASE-PAINTINGS.
This note is intended merely as a summary of the evidence for the existence of a raised stage afforded
by vase-paintings, and of the relation of this evidence to the extant remains. It is true that all the evidence
here considered has already been published ; but its significance for our present purpose has been obscured by
the introduction of discussions which can to a great extent be dispensed with. It therefore seems desirable
to collect and make accessible to English readers the facts in their simplest form, and to allow them to speak for
themselves, after only so much comment as is necessary for their proper comprehension.
20 Baumeister, p. 1742.
21 Ibid. p. 1732.
22 Cf. note 8.
THE THEATRE.
[CHAP. IV.
rejected.
Vitruvius is
therefore quite
consistent.
III.—Summary uf
results.
the 1 scenae irons’ and in supposing it to be a third structure between the ‘ scenae frons ’ and the ‘pulpitum.’
He attempts to avoid both difficulties by steering a middle course between them. He says,20 ‘ Die Vorderwand
des Buhnengebaudes [ = scenae irons'21] und die Dekorationswand [ = proscenium] nicht vollig eins sind,
sondern das letztere nur an jene angelehnt ist.’ That is, the ‘proscenium’ is neither identical with the
‘ scenae frons ’ nor separate from it; the latter is the wall, the former the decorated face oi the wall. I appeal to
my readers whether this subtle distinction perceptibly reduces the difficulty involved by an actual identification
oi ‘ proscenium ’ and ‘ scenae frons ’ (see under ‘ a Certainly it strains the genitive in the expression.
‘ proscenii pulpitum’ (which admittedly describes the Roman stage) beyond endurance.
Every alternative to the identification of the ‘proscenium’ with the ‘pulpitum’ in the Roman Theatre
having thus fallen through, it is clear that we must accept that identification, translating the words ‘ proscenii
pulpitum’ as ‘the pulpitum which is (or ‘is part of’) the proscenium,’—‘ the platform which is (qy ‘is
part of’) the stage,’—‘the stage-platform.’ Vitruvius’ use of the word ‘proscenium’ in his account of the
Greek Theatre is therefore perfectly consistent with his use of it in that of the Roman ; and a comparison of
the two accounts provides in reality a strong confirmation of the former account, since no one disputes that
he understood the nomenclature of the Roman Theatre.
The question whether there was or was not a stage in the Greek Theatre must, as I admitted at
the outset, remain undecided at least until the appearance of Dr. Dorpfeld’s book. This short paper, I need
hardly say, is not offered as a solution of the controversy, even so far as that controversy concerns the late
(Vitruvian) Theatre. But it will not be an entirely useless contribution if it serves—
(1) To draw attention to the fact that the arguments which have as yet been brought forward by Dr.
Dorpfeld and his followers to prove that Vitruvius was wrong in calling the Greek ‘ proscenium ’ a stage
(‘ pulpitum ’) are based, either on the agreement of the extant remains with Vitruvius’ description, or on facts
which supplement, but in no way contradict, Vitruvius.
(2) To prove that, while Dr. Kawerau supposes Vitruvius’ use of the word ‘ proscenium’ in his account
of the Roman Theatre to be inconsistent with his use of it in that of the Greek, and derives from
this supposed inconsistency some colour for the Dorpfeldian theory that his description of the Greek
‘ proscenium ’ as a stage is erroneous,—in reality the word ‘ proscenium ’ has precisely the same meaning in
both accounts, and any argument drawn from a comparison of the two accounts tells as strongly against those
who follow Dr. Dorpfeld as, if Dr. Kawerau’s view were correct, it would tell in their favour.
(3) To show that Fra Giocondo’s interpretation of Vitruvius, advocated by Mr. Louis Dyer, is
untenable, and that the compromise it carries with it,—the compromise, namely, of supposing that
Vitruvian ‘proscenia’ are really backgrounds, but that a raised stage (probably temporary) stood before them,—is
inadmissible.
I have dwelt at this length on the relation of Dr. Dorpfeld’s views to Vitruvius, because a correct
understanding of the ‘Vitruvian’ Greek Theatre, of which so many specimens are extant, is not only in
itself a matter of some interest, but is also—irrelevant as it may at first sight appear to the Theatres of the
fourth and fifth centuries B.C.—in reality one of the keys to the whole controversy. Should Dr. Dorpfeld
succeed in convincing archaeologists that there was no stage in the‘ Vitruvian’Theatre, they will doubtless be
much shaken in their belief in the existence of a stage in the Theatre of earlier times; since our knowledge
of the earlier Theatre, both from literary and monumental sources, is comparatively slender, and the abolition
of a previously existing stage in Hellenistic times would be a fact requiring explanation. On the other
hand, should Dr. Dorpfeld’s views, so far as they concern the ‘Vitruvian’ Theatre, prove to be erroneous, his
whole theory of the development of the Roman Theatre from the Greek—a theory which (he tells us22) will
prove, when his book is published, to be the strongest weapon in his armoury—will have to be abandoned.
For this theory of development can have no value whatever unless it be based on facts, and the facts on
which it must be based are those which concern the later, or ‘ Vitruvian,’ Theatre.
W. L.
APPENDIX B.
THE GREEK STAGE AS REPRESENTED ON VASE-PAINTINGS.
This note is intended merely as a summary of the evidence for the existence of a raised stage afforded
by vase-paintings, and of the relation of this evidence to the extant remains. It is true that all the evidence
here considered has already been published ; but its significance for our present purpose has been obscured by
the introduction of discussions which can to a great extent be dispensed with. It therefore seems desirable
to collect and make accessible to English readers the facts in their simplest form, and to allow them to speak for
themselves, after only so much comment as is necessary for their proper comprehension.
20 Baumeister, p. 1742.
21 Ibid. p. 1732.
22 Cf. note 8.