390 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECTS JOURNAL. 



[NOVEMBKR, 



REVIS'WS. 



Arlick "Theatre," Penny Cyclopaidia. 



Since our last notice of tliis publication, one or two other inter- 

 esting arcliifectiiral articles liave appeared in if, and among tlieni, 

 tliat of "Temiile," wliicli, if it does not contain much upon the 

 subject that can be said to be new, treats it so as to give it con- 

 siderable freshness, and brings forward many remarks that we meet 

 with for the first time. Were it only on account of the table which 

 accompanies it, that article conveys a good deal of inforraulion not to 

 be obtained elsewhere. What architectural articles of this class are 

 introduced at all into other encyclopffidias, are for the most p^irt ex- 

 ceedingly meagre, and little better than mere compilations— taken at 

 once from the most accessible source that first presents itself, ap- 

 parently without any further research, and with very little previous 

 study of the subject itself. As to the general execution of the Penny 

 Cyclopedia in its other deparlraenis, we do not pretend to offer an 

 opinion, but we will sav— and that without fear of contradiction, that 

 its architectural article's are both more numerous, and more instructive 

 than those in similar works— a remark which is, perhaps, almost super- 

 fluous, after the extracts we h.ave given from those on " Portico," 

 "Spiie," "Staircase," &c. iNIany articles of architectural biography 

 have likeuise been introduced, which are not to be met with in any 

 other Enolish publication— not even in those which are professedly 

 biograplncal ones— such as Rodriguez, Quaglio, Temanza, Tessin, &c. 

 Were there nothing else to stamp the articles in the Penny Cyclo- 

 padia, many of them are rendered more than ordinarily valuable and 

 useful bv communicating a great deal of information in a condensed 

 tabular 'form, which is'an exceedingly convenient one for reference 

 and comparison. And although such tables amount to little more 

 than compilation, it is such as requires considerable research and di- 

 ligence, and shows that no trouble has been spared to render the ar- 

 ticles as complete as may be, by collecting together into the briefest 

 possible compass what is scattered about in fragments, and through a 

 great number of volumes. 



The article Theatke is certainly not one of the least interesting of 

 tliose relative to architecture which have appeared in this Cyclopedia, 

 for it affords a clearer insight into the subject than has been done any- 

 where else ; and sets in a very forcible light the vast difterence be- 

 tween the system of the ancient and that ot the modern theatre and 

 stage, in favour of which last the writer most expressly decides, llie 

 arguments for so doing are tolerably cogent ones, and must, we think, 

 carrv conviction to all who are not thoroughly Winded by their clas- 

 sical prejudices ; at any rate it will be for those who dislike what he 

 savs as to the defects of the dramatic performances of the ancients, to 

 refute it by proofs to the contrary. The very circumstance of their 

 taking place in the open air, and by daylight, must, as he observes, 

 have proved more or less injurious to scenic illusion, as ar as sucli 

 illusion was at all attempted, fur at the utmost there could have been 

 no very great degree of it. The permanent architectural scena or 

 facade at the back of the stage, is tolerably satisfactory proof t^liat 

 there could have been no iccncry ; and even what is said in regard to 

 the magnificence there displayed, chiefly shows how extravagant and 

 prepcsterous such decoration must have been. In fact 1 liny s ctes- 

 cription-if description it maybe called-of the scena of hcaurus 

 theatre is hardly credible: when he tells us that it was ornamen ed 

 with no fewer than 3GU columns, and 3000 statues, we think that 

 either he himself MmicUav.umscs very cutvageously, or tliat some 

 such small mistake as that of turning tens into hundreds and thou- 

 sands, has been committed by the copyists of manuscripts. Besides, 

 as that theatre was merely a temporary one, and was taken down 

 again long before Plinv's time, he could speak of it only from hearsay, 

 nor does he appear to'huve been at all deficient in credulity, and an 

 appetite for the marvellous. Could the matter be sifted, it won d 

 nribably turn out to be just such another story as that of bt. L-rsula 

 and the"da'£nrfo«Sf-«d>irgins-a little inaccuracy arising from mis- 

 luking the name Undtamilta for a numeral to that amount. Not 

 content with drawing upon our belief so largely in regard to his 

 forest of columns and mob of statues, Pliny further assures us that the 

 middle part or second order of the scena was of glass ! His words 

 are " ima pars scena: e marmore fuit, media e vitro, maudito etiara 

 postea genere luxuriffi, summa e tabulis aurstis." \yonder ul, how- 

 ever, as it is, he neither doubts, nor allows any one else to doubt tins 

 strange statement. He neither gives us the slightest authority tor it, 

 nor aueinpls to offer any explanation, but relates it in the most aconic 

 manner possible, just as if it were a self-evident fact. \\ hat kind ot 

 authority then, we ask, is Pliny himself, for he seems to liave swal- 



lowed with greedy gullabilitv all the incredible stories he could pick 

 up ? Scaurus' theatre was after all merely a temporary structure, how 

 then came Plinv to be so well informed as to the exact number of 

 columns and statues? or knowing so much, how happened it that he 

 knew no more, and could not explain how they were disposed, or how 

 room could possibly be found for that enormous number ; or again, 

 what was to be understood, or what he himself understood by the ex- 

 pression " media i vitro ?" Does nirum here mean glass at all ?— or 

 had not Plinv himself taken a glass too much when he was writing 

 that passage'? And how comes it that the name of the architect who 

 contrived such a truly astonishing work has been nowhere recorded ? 

 Admitting Pliny's account, however, to be true, it is not very credible, 

 because so exceedingly vague and obscure, that it is impossible to 

 understand or make anything out of it. Nevertheless, it is from such 

 vague hints and surmis'es, that modern antiquaries have formed their 

 ideas of the magnificence of the ancient theatres, and that not only in 

 regard to the edifices themselves, but the stage itself and its appar- 

 atus, and whatever enters into the system of dramatic representation. 

 Not so the writer in the Penny Cyclopaedia; since so far from af- 

 fecting to admire the ancient theatre, he dwells at some length upon 

 its great and numerous defects, and upon those of the stage itself. 

 For what he savs on that head, however, we must refer to the article 

 itself, from which we quote nothing relative to the ancient theatre 

 than the following list of some of the principal ones now known. 



Ancnuirium 

 Aspendus 



(scena Ionic and Corinth.) 

 Athens, Tlieatrc of Bacchus 



,, Odeion 

 Cnidus 

 llelos 



Dramyssus, or Joaunina 

 Ephesus 

 Epidaurus 

 Herculaneum 

 HierEpolis 



'aodicea, Great Tlieatre 

 Limyra 

 Mantineia 

 Miletus 

 Myra 



Xicopohs (in Epirus) 

 Orange (scena only remaining, 336 ft. 

 Patara 

 Pcrga 



Phellus 



Pola, about 



(destroyed 1636, but plan preserved 

 Pompeii 

 Pompeiopolis 

 Rome, theatre Marcellus 

 Sardes 



Sollnus (in Cilicia) 

 Sicvon 



Side 



Sparta 

 Stratonicca 

 Syracuse 

 Tauromenium 



Tecs 



Tralles 



Dlam. Orchestra. 



197 feet. 



400 25 rows of seats. 



250 

 90 

 400 

 175 

 440 

 660 

 370 



180 IGrow 

 346 

 304 

 19.) 

 227 

 474 

 360 

 360 

 wide, 114 ft. high.) 

 255 



72 ft. 

 36 



78 



240 



55 



of seats. 



100 



136 



not known 



not known 



224 



120 



120 



400 

 200 

 bv Scamozzi) 



190 



96 



25 rows of seats. 

 Scena 150. 

 68 



62 

 138 

 172 

 162 



212 



517 



395 



114 



313 100 



390 120 



453 217 



390 106 



440 



330 width of scena 132 



285 70 



540 150 



" Of some of these theatres scarcely anything remains, little more than their 

 general shape and extent being now distinguishable; accordingly the state- 

 ments of their dimensions are not to he strictly relied upon, though they are 

 siifKcient to enable us to estimate their comparative size." 



In what is said on the subject of modern theatres we meet 

 with many useful hints, and other information, and shall therefore 

 venture to borrow pretty largely from that part of the article, where 

 after specifying many fa'ults and disadvantages in olden structures ot 

 the kind the writer proceeds to say — ■ 



Very great reforms have now taken place, yet there is still room for fur- 

 ther improvements, obvious, though not likely to be adopted so long as it is 

 considered a matter of course that the space before the curtain must be made 

 to contain as manv persons as can possibly be packed into it, and tliat an 

 audience must be 'piled np around the whole house to the very ceiling. We 

 do not say that modern theatres are too lofty ; the error does not ho there 

 hut in carrying up the boxes, tier after tier, to such apropos erous height 

 that the uppermost box is several feet above the top of the curtain or stage- 

 openings, and the back scats of the upper-gallery are actually on a level with 



