1842.] 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECTS JOURNAL. 



391 



the ceiling over the pit. Such accumulation of diminutive stories gives a 

 crowded appearance to the wliole, and leaves no space for architectural de- 

 coration around the upper part. No doubt a very striking appearance of a 

 ditFerent kind presents itself from the pit and from the stage, when the 

 house is entirely filled to the very top ; and if we consider merely the coup- 

 d'ceil from such points, it may he allowed to be imposing. But then, as re- 

 gards that part of the audience who occupy the upper part of the house, tlie 

 arrangemeut is bad. From the seats which are at all above the level of the 

 top of the curtain, there is only a bird's-eye view of the stage and the sce- 

 nery, and that only from the front seats, and also facing the stage, for from 

 those on the side of it it is impossible at that height to obtain a sight of the 

 scene or even the actors, unless when they come forward tov.ai ds the foot- 

 lights. There should be no seats at a greater height than midway that of 

 the curtain, or the level of what is now the second tier of boxes in our large 

 theatres; for, as the sealery can be painted only to one horizon — generally 

 that of the stage itself — its perspective effect is more or less impaired when 

 it is seen from either very much above or below that level. No less pre- 

 posterous is the practice of continuing the side-boxes up to the proscenium, 

 and sometimes (as in the Opera-house at London) quite up to the very cur- 

 tain, so that there is no proscenium tt all, unless the space on the floor of 

 the stage, between the curtain and foot-lights can be so called. While those 

 ■so seated lose the scenery altogether, they have the disadvantage of seeing 

 between the wings on the side opposite them; and although the positive 

 inconvenience resulting from such arrangement is felt only by a portion of 

 the audience, the bad eft'ect occasioned by it extends to the whole theatre. 

 Not only ought there to be a distinct proscenium, serving as an architectural 

 frame to the stage and its scenery, dividing that part of the theatre from the 

 rest, but it ought to be of much ampler proportions than are now given it. 

 It should extend so far as to leave some interval — a sort of neutral ground- 

 between the curtain and the boxes, so as to remove the nearest spectator in 

 them to a tolerable distance for properly viewing the stage as a picture ; for 

 it is possible to be as inconveniently near the stage as distant from it. 

 Where, in order to contract the stage, or to render the pit and general dia- 

 meter of the house considerably greater than what is required for the width 

 of the curtain, the plan is made to approach a circle (as is the ease in nearly 

 every theatre built within the last 20 years), the boxes should be contiued to 

 the semicircle facing the stage ; and, so far from being a blank, the curved 

 space on each side between them and the curtain might be matle to contri- 

 bute very much to the architectural appearance of the whole house. This 

 would not take away any thing from the pit, and if it materially diminished 

 ihe number of the boxes and seats in them, it would be only where there 

 aught to be nothing of the kind. The banishing of boxes from such situ- 

 ations, and making also no more than two tiers, would certainly greatly 

 abridge the present capacities of theatres ; a house of the same size would 

 not contain the same number of persons as at present, when a large part of 

 the audience are put where they cannot well see the performance. It is 

 likely, therefore, to be objected that such a system would be too expensive, 

 since a large house would be requisite for a comparatively moderate au- 

 dience ; but curtailments might very well be made elsewhere, tor at present 

 the whole building is frequently very much larger and more costly than 

 actual necessity requires, the " house " itself, be its dimensions what they 



i may, taking up a comparatively small area of the entire plan, while th; rest 

 is occupied by stately approaches and saloons, which, where economv ren- 

 dered it expedient, might be greatly abridged, and much plainer in style, and 

 some of them omitted altogether as superfluous appendages. 



In some of the modern continental theatres, the pomp displayed in such 

 accessory parts of the building far exceeds anything of the kind in this 

 country. In that at }5erliu, besides several other spacious apartments, is a 

 music-saloon 38 ft. high, -14 wide, and lOS ft. in length in its upper part, 

 wh-re there is a screen of C Ionic columns at each end; the whole highly 

 decorated, and forming one of Schinkel's richest pieces of interior arcbitec- 

 tuiv. The theatre of Miinieh has two staircases to the boxes, witli flights nf 

 marble stops 1.3 ft. wide; and besides two saloons for the public" (each 

 82 X 31 ft), there is a very magnificent one communicating with the royal 

 box — not a mere ante-room, but what would be termed a noble room even 

 in a palace, its dimensions being 4ij x 44 ft., and 25 in height. In both these 

 theatres, and in that of Genoa, the royal or state box is itself a room of 

 some size, about l.j by 18 ft., more or less ; and according to the general 

 custom of the continental theatres, this box (which occupies the height of 

 two tiers, and is adorned with caryatides in front) is directly in the centre of 

 tlie house, facing the stage, consequently in the very best situation of all ; 

 whereas the situation assigned to royal visitors in our theatres is almost the 

 very worst, as far as seeing the stage and the performance is concerned. 



In regard to the form of the " house," a decided im irovement has taken 

 place of late years; and the circular plan, or one approaching to it (either 

 extended by the curtain being a tangent to the circle or somewhat beyond if, 

 or reduced by the curtain intersecting and forming a chord to the segment), 

 may now be considered the one established as being the most pleasing and 

 commodious — that which is best adapted for affording a distinct view of the 

 stage to the majority of the audience. But there is considerable difference 

 of opinion .is to its being the best form in regard to hearing. In fact, the 

 science of acoustics is not yet brought to exactness as regards practical pur- 

 poses in building : it is easy enough to ascertain beforehand how much of 

 the stage will be visible from different parts of tlie theatre, but not so what 

 will be the result as to soimd, since that will depend upon a variety of cir- 

 cumstances, some of them connteraeting each other, and not every one of 

 them to be guarded against or foresee. The shape of the house is but one 

 of them out of many: much will also depend upon size, much upon the 

 depth of the boxes and galkries, and also upon accidental and such trivial 

 matters, that any defect of advantage so occasioned is not likely to be traced 

 to them. Here the chief guide is experience ; and experience seems at pre- 

 sent to be in favour of, at least not at all against, tire circular form ; for the 

 new theatres at Mayence, Dresden, and other places where it has been 

 adopted, are said to be perfectly satisfactory in regard to the actors being 

 distinctly heard in every part. 



The article concludes with a table of modern thealres, dntvvii up on 

 the same |>laii as some of the other very useful tabular synopses at- 

 tached to previous architectural articles in this Cyclopajdia, and from 

 which we have occasionally borrowed. In the pi-esent instance we 

 must content oursel"-es with a small portion, namely that section of 

 (he table which relates to Germany and Belgium. 



Germany .\nd Belghjm. 



.\rchitecf. 



Date. 



From 

 Curtain 

 to Back 

 of Pit. 



= • Stage. 



CO 



Berlin, Opera-house 



„ Great Theatre 

 Dresden 



Hamburg 



Mannheim . . 

 Mayence 



Miiiiich 



WoUenbiittel, in the 

 palace 



Ghent . . . . 



Voa Knohelsdorf 1 740-3 



Schinkel 

 Semper 



Scbinlcel 



Ant. G. Bibbiena 

 Moller 



K. von Fischer 



Ottmer 

 Roelandt 



1816 



1837- 



1841 



1826-7 



Fin 1833 



Open 

 1818 



1836-7 



1837-9 



26 

 43 



40 



30 

 54 



39 



58 j 



44 I 



i 



56 



I 



60 I 



i 

 64 



1 

 I 

 1 



27 



50 deep 

 52 wide 

 66 deep 

 86 wide 



60 deep 

 80 wide 



71 deep 

 56 deep 

 80 wide 

 91 deep 

 94 wide 



36 deep 



56 wide 



60 deep 

 78 wide 



An insulated building, 214 x 78 feet. Principal front, Corintnian 

 portico, hexastyle raonoprostyle, on low basement. 



.\ magnificent structure, with Grecian Ionic hexastyle portico on 

 a lofty flight of steps. 



Plan of auditory nearly circular, i.e. a circle of C6 feet diameter, 

 to which the curtain is a tangent. Four tiers of boxes, aiul 

 amphitheatre formed by a colonnade of 22 pillars. 



Insulated, about 250 x 140 feet, with semicircidar projectioi, 140 



feet diameter on one of longer tides or facade. 

 Burnt Jan. 14, 1823; restored 1824-25. Octastyle Corinthian 



portico, inohuling boxes, the auditory, a circle 72 feet diameter, 



between which aud curtain is a space of 9 feet. Five tiers of 



boxes. 

 Private theatre, fitted up in Gothic style, but detail in poor taste. 



Fayadc 300 feet. Oval saloon 91 x 59, making, with smaller 

 saloon and concert room, an cxtnr.t of 270 feet. 



3 4 2 



