Roman
Theaters
The
small number of theatres in Rome, and the absence of any that
could be considered fine, is a surprise to the student of Roman
architecture, especially when the importance and beauty of Greek
theatres is considered in connection with the fact that the
Greeks were the artistic models of the Romans. The estimation of
those who worked for money, either with brain or hands, was so
far from honourable, that actors, singers, etc., were denounced,
and were incapable of voting in the burgess assembly or serving
in the burgess army. Moreover, the police magistrates were
especially severe against them, and the urban magistrates could
legally imprison or inflict bodily punishment upon actors at any
time, and wherever found. Thus, three and a half centuries
before the Christian era, and about four centuries after the
foundation of Rome, everything connected with the theatre was
held in perfect contempt by Romans of position.
The
presentation of plays--all such entertainments being free--was
essentially confined to the national festivals, when they made a
part of the public shows and were held in buildings that were
little more than wooden sheds; a scaffolding made the stage,
with an apology of a scene at the back; there was no provision
for seating the audience, and no decoration of any sort. It is
curious that while it was entirely reputable to perform in the
masked farces,--in which the characters of Maccus, Bucco, Pappus,
and Dossennus, personating the harlequin, the glutton, the good
papa, and the wise counsellor, may have been the ancestors of
the actors in Pulcinello,--the paid actors of the theatre, who
wore no masks, were esteemed as distinctly infamous, and not at
all above the rope-dancers and buffoons.
When
we consider this condition of things at this period, and take
into account the stubborn conservatism of the ancient Romans, we
are surprised to find that a century later the guild of actors
was allowed a place of worship in the Aventine Temple of
Minerva, and that Roman plays were presented on a Roman stage,
though written by the Greek Livius. The theatres, however,
remained as before, and as late as 155 B. C. there were still no
seats provided; those who did not bring chairs stood, reclined,
or sat on the ground. The women were separated from the men and
relegated to the worst places. In 194 B. C. the best places were
given to the senators, which shows that the most reputable men
attended, although these officials may have regarded it as a
public duty, rather than a pleasure.
The
audiences were not select, and probably resembled those of more
recent days who flock to free entertainments. Children were
freely admitted with their mothers; and both the women and
children were noisy, expressing any emotion excited by the play
in a boisterous manner, and, on the whole, the proceedings were
disorderly.
Late in the
second century before our era, the equites, or equestrian
order,--now essentially wealthy people to whom money had brought
rank and position,--had fourteen benches reserved for their use
at the theatres and all burgess entertainments; this indicates
the better consideration that was gradually accorded to the
theatre in Rome.
It
is not possible to make here a detailed statement of the advance
of the drama; many circumstances prove that more permanent and
commodious theatres were needed, and in various provincial towns
good stone theatres had been built while there were still none
in the capital. When, in 155 B. C., a stone theatre in Rome had
been contracted for, its erection was prohibited by the Senate.
Ten
years later, after the conquest of Corinth, things were made a
little more favourable for those engaged in dramatic ventures.
The stage was more permanently constructed and its still scanty
scenery was provided at the public expense, whereas this cost
had previously devolved upon the manager of the theatre, and was
paid out of the meagre allowance devoted by the city fathers to
these entertainments.
About
78 B. C., the custom of stretching canvas above the theatre was
introduced, thus protecting both actors and audience from sun,
wind, and rain; and, in fact, vast sums of money were spent in
erecting and re-erecting wooden theatres, which if applied to
permanent edifices would have made a great public economy. But
not until 55 B. C. was a stone theatre built. Pompey the Great
took this decided step; and he moreover celebrated its
dedication with a magnificence which surpassed any like ceremony
which had before taken place in Rome.
Thus
it resulted that in the history of Roman architecture but three
theatres of importance can be mentioned, those of Pompey, of
Balbus, and of Marcellus; the last two were completed in 13 B.
C. That of Marcellus is also called the Theatre of Augustus, as
Marcellus died before its dedication, which was conducted by the
Emperor. In addition to these were the theatres in the great
baths.
The
study of Roman theatres can be most advantageously prosecuted
outside of Rome itself. There was a theatre at Herculaneum and
two at Pompeii, but perhaps the most satisfactory one remaining
is at Orange, in Southern France. The great wall at the back of
this theatre may well be ranked among the important massive
works of the Romans. It is one hundred and sixteen feet high and
three hundred and forty long, broken only by the corbels, which
supported masts that held the awnings, and a row of blank arches
about midway of its height above the basement. When speaking of
this theatre, Fergusson says:--
"Nowhere
does the architecture of the Romans shine so much as when their
gigantic buildings are left to tell their own tale by the
imposing grandeur of their masses. Whenever ornament is
attempted, their bad taste comes out. The size of their
edifices, and the solidity of their construction, were only
surpassed by the Egyptians, and not always by them; and when, as
here, the mass of material heaped up stands unadorned in all its
native grandeur, criticism is disarmed, and the spectator stands
awe-struck by its majesty, and turns away convinced that truly
'there were giants in those days.'"
|