T H E 



293 



THE 



concluded that the whole stage was concealed by a cur- 

 tain both previous to the commencement of the perform- 

 ance and whenever it was requisite to make any change in 

 the decorations. But we agree with Winckelmann, that 

 such could not possibly have been the case, because in the 

 first place it could hardly have been practicable, anil in 

 the next it was quite unnecessary as regarded the perma- 

 nent scena or architectural facade. Whatever changes, 

 says that writer, were made at all could have been only in 

 the side-scenes or rersuree, and it was merely before them 

 that curtains or aula>a were drawn at such times; which 

 circumstance says nothing in favour of what little stage 

 machinery there was. The notion of there being painted 

 moveable scenes like ours, capable of being let down or 

 drawn up at pleasure, is completely contradicted not only 

 by one, but by every circumstance that can be mentioned. 

 Admitting the possibility of having scenes of such prodi- 

 gious size, how are we to reconcile with the use of them 

 the bestowing so much decoration upon the scena, or wall 

 at the back of the stage, behind them? to what purpose 

 would have been the entrances through that wall, for the 

 performers to come upon the stage, if there had been a 

 separate painted scene before it? The stage itself again 

 was so exceedingly shallow, that it would hardly have 

 borne to be further contracted in depth, by other scenes 

 being let down before the permanent one ; nor would there 

 have been space for them and the versures also. There 

 would also have been more explicit mention made of such 

 s, and there would have been some particular term to 

 distinguish them from what is now called the scena, if they 

 had ever been used. What Vitruvius says 

 npon the subject of stage decoration is not only 

 very brief, but exceedingly obscure, and only 

 proves his carelessness in omitting to describe 

 or even mention much that is of real import- 

 ance, while he goes altogether out of his way to 

 give us a chapter De Harmonica, and to speak 

 of many matters that have no connection what- 

 ever with theatres as a distinct class of build- 

 ing*. 



Even admitting that there was painted scenery, 

 and that it was not at all inferior to that of our 

 own theatres either in regard to truth of per- 

 spective or anything else, it still must have 

 fallen very far short of the Latter in effect, 

 if only for the reason that the performances 

 took place by daylight. At the best the illu- 

 sion could have been but exceedingly imper- 

 fect a strange mixture of the artificial with 

 the real ; and even what degree of effect there 

 else might have been, must have been more 

 or less counteracted by the sun shining on some 

 part of the stage and scene, while shadows 

 would be thrown upon them, in others-, by the 

 wall at either end or side. Or if the stage itself 

 was at any time roofed in, all the upper part of the 

 e must have been thrown into shadow, fhe natural 

 lights and shadows and the painted ones must frequently 

 have been in strange contradiction to each other ; nor was 

 it possible to manage any effects of light, as in our theatres, 

 by either increasing or diminishing it, or by concentrating 

 it on any particular part of the scenery. The only thing 

 in favour of the antient stage in this respect, is that there 

 were no ' foot-lights,' and consequently the faces of the 

 performers were not lighted from beneath. Yet even this 

 comparatively unimportant advantage was nullified by the 

 use of masks, some of them so extravagantly grotesque as 

 to bear scarcely any resemblance to the human counte- 

 nance. The most natural masks were in some degree dis- 

 toitfcl, and a fixed expression of countenance was substi- 

 tuted for what could properly be only a momentary one. 

 Hence one great excellence in acting was entirely sup- 

 1 : the face was as rigidly inanimate as in wax-work. 

 It is true this was of no very great consequence, because, 

 owing to the vast extent of the theatres, the faces of the 

 actors could hardly have been distinctly seen, or seen at 

 all by the great majority of the spectators, more especially 

 as such aids to vision as opera-glasses were then unknown. 

 The whole space was so great, that in regard to it the 

 actors could have been no more than as the figures put 

 by a painter into a landscape. Neither does what is said 

 as to their cothurni, or thicksoled buskins, being intended 

 to make the actors appear taller, give us any very high 



idea of the effect so produced; for while the increase of 

 stature could have been scarcely perceptible or if it had, 

 it would have caused the limbs to appear strangely dis- 

 proportioned the means employed for it were ill calcu- 

 lated to give ease and gracefulness to the performer's 

 movements. 



On considering the audience part, and the accommoda- 

 tion provided for the spectators, although there the ar- 

 rangement of an antient theatre was nearly perfect, and in 

 some respects preferable to that of modern ones, it was not 

 free from many inconveniences. The most obvious one is, 

 that as there was no roof, there was no shelter from the 

 weather, on which account awnings were sometimes made 

 use of to screen from the heat of the sun, while in case 

 of sudden and heavy rain the spectators were obliged to 

 take shelter in the corridors behind and beneath the seats, 

 where there were any, and in the porticos at the back of 

 the theatre. Besides interruption to the performance, this 

 must have occasioned considerable confusion in so nu- 

 merous an assemblage of persons. Beautiful too as the 

 arrangement of all the seats in concentric rows is in itself, 

 it is attended with some disadvantage, as will be perceived 

 on referring to the annexed plans, for instead of being 

 placed, as in the pit of a modern theatre, parallel to and 

 immediately facing the stage, a considerable portion of the 

 audience must have sat sideways to it, with part of it be- 

 hind them ; and those at the ends of the further or upper 

 benches could hardly have had any view of the scena at 

 all. at least not in the Greek theatre. 



The Greek and Roman theatres so very nearly resemble 



Greek Theatre. 



Roman Theatre. 



each other in their general form and principal parts, that 

 it is only by comparing the plans, for the purpose of seeing 

 wherein they vary, that the difference between them can 

 be clearly understood. Such difference however is ex- 



