Ancient Rome: Theatre Spaces, Design, Performance

One of the most specatular settings for a Roman theatre is in Taormina in Sicily

We’ve made a very brief examination of the writers, the theory, and a few alternate forms of entertainment. Now we’ll look closely at how and where and by whom these entertainments were staged.  In Seneca’s case, if you go along with my theory, in Nero’s palace! Plautus and Terence were presented in temporary theatres (the first permanent theatre in Rome wasn’t built till after the era in which they lived.  Temporary does not imply simple, however.  Pliny the Elder, admittedly a historian prone to hyperbole, describes a temporary structure built by the wealthy politician Marcus Aemilius Scaurus in 58 BC:  

The building had three stories, supported on 360 columns...The lower level was marble; the second, glass -- a sort of luxury which since then has been quite unheard of; and the upper most was made of gilded wood.  The lowermost columns... were 38 feet high, and placed between them...were 3,000 statues.  The theatre could accommodate 80,000 spectators. (Nagler, A Sourcebook in Theatre History)

Unless Pliny was dreaming when he wrote this, even if he exaggerated immensely this temporary structure would have been impressive. The Romans were engineers, remember, and not just from this description but from the many structures still standing after about 2,000 years, they were damned fine ones. Shortly after the extravagance of Scaurus, another politician named Gaius Scribonius Curio strove to compete with the earlier effort, and had two large wooden temporary theaters built close together; each nicely poised, turning on a pivot. 

Before noon a spectacle...was performed in each, with the theatres back to back...Then suddenly, during the latter part of the day, the two theaters would swing around to face each other with their corners interlocking and, with their outer frames removed, they would form an amphitheater in which gladiatorial combats were presented. When the pivots were overworked and tired, another turn was given to this magnificent display, for on the final day, the theatres, still in the form of an amphitheater, were cut through the center for an athletic spectacle, and finally, their stages were suddenly withdrawn on either side to exhibit on the same day combat between those gladiators who had previously been victorious.

(Pliny the Elder, quoted in Nagler, A Sourcebook in Theatre History)

Hard to imagine, right? And very likely exaggerated...still...

The first permanent theatre in Rome was the Theatre of Pompey, built in 55 BC. Why so late? Well, a significant faction in 

The Temple to Venus is at the bottom left of the picture
attached to the semicircular cave, or auditorium.
Note the elaborate are behind the theatre itself,
(the semicircle in the foreground), gardens and walkways,
leading to, at the top of the long horseshoe shape, the
Curia of Pompey - this is where Julius Caesar
was assassinated.

Republican Rome were concerned about the corrupting influence of theatre.  In fact theatres had been planned and banned several times during the republic, notably a performance space in 154 BC on which construction had begun when officials ordered its destruction on the grounds that theatre could be injurious to public morals. Not the last time in history that a phrase such as that would be used against the theatre!

The Roman senate decreed that no one could build seats for a      theatre... ”nor should anyone sit down at any dramatic performance in the city [of Rome] or within a mile of the gates,” on the assumption that if they could keep people uncomfortable, they could minimize theatrical activity. 

However, if we can believe ancient Roman writer Tertullian, Pompey (Julius Caesar’s one-time colleague, later his enemy) managed to get away with building stadium seating by constructing a small temple to Venus at the highest point at the rear of the auditorium.  He could argue -- and did -- that these weren’t seats in a theatre, but steps to the temple of Venus.  If this was the case, I dub Pompey the cleverest Roman of them all!  

To identify the theatres, look for semicircles - the one on
the left of the picture is an odeon, where music was played,
 not a theatre, but the same shape. Tthe large one to the
right of that is Pompey's Theatre, the smaller one above
and just rightof it is the Theatre of Balbus, and at the
very top rightof the picture is the Theatre of Marcellus.

But whether we believe Tertullian or not, Pompey was a very influential and powerful man, so perhaps forces opposed to theatre finally realized that they were playing a losing game in trying to keep theatre banned.  In the same area of Rome (called the Campus Martius) where Pompey built his theatre, two others were added in 13 and 11 BC (those of Balbus and Marcellus), making this area what renowned theatre historian Marvin Carlson has called “the first theatre district.”

The Theatre of Marcellus is by far the best preserved of the three theatres. The
reason is that expensive apartments were built atop the theatre - clever Romans!
Alums Juliet Greenblatt (center), Kate Parkin (left) and Jaime Bernstein-Ansaldi
(right) sent this to me for the theatre history slide show

Let’s now set up a prototypical Roman theatre.  We have lots of help here because of a brilliant architect/city planner named Vitruvius, who wrote a multi-volume treatise called De Architectura.  One volume dealt with theatre, and in it we learn that Roman theatres were based on Greek models (and were sometimes built over Greek shells).

BUT! Although there are many similarities between Greek and Roman theatre spaces, there are also major differences.  One is in the basic structure of the building.  You’ll remember that the Greeks relied on natural hillsides for the theatron, the fan-shaped auditorium. The orkestra was a circle on the ground at the bottom of a hill (and in later Hellenistic theatres ¾ of a circle), separate in a sense from the theatron.  The skene too was next to the orkestra circle, but was also a separate unit.  Because the Romans exploited the tremendous architectural possibilities of concrete (which they invented) and the arch, by building one series of arches atop another, strengthened by concrete, they were able to erect a single freestanding building which incorporated all the separate elements of the Greek theatres into one unit. 

The auditorium was called the cavea, divided by several vertical and at least one horizontal aisle.  The audience entered from the

 bottom, climbed steps in the interior of the structure and entered (or were “spit out” into) the seating area through openings called vomitoria, which meant literally “up from under.” We have retained these doors in arena and thrust stages today, and the name is usually shortened to “vom.”  And yes, we are aware of other meanings for this word, often encountered by many of my students late on a Friday night...there are even stories that the term came from the audience members who became a bit queasy when a lion was tearing apart a Christian martyr, running out these doors so they could, well, do the “up from under” thing.

The stage house was called the scaena, a mere Latinization of the Greek skena.  The front wall of the scaena was called the scaena frons -- it was huge, and elaborately decorated with columns,

This theatre, in the south of France, is one of the very
best preserved anywhere

 niches, porticoes and statues.  The stage, called the pulpitum, jutted out from the scaena, about 5 feet off the ground, between 20 and 40 feet deep, and anywhere from 100 to 300 feet long.  On the scaena frons from 3 to 5 doors opened onto this pulpitum.  The orchestra, which in fifth century BC Greece had been the center of the action, was cut into a half circle, and was used primarily to seat a few privileged audience members, though there were theatrical uses for it in some entertainments.

   

Let’s look more closely at the stage. Many questions have been asked about the scaenae frons. We know there was depth, we know

A photo I took when I visited Orange in 1999
A stage is being prepared for the summer opera
season performed here annually. The few workers
you see will give you a sense of scale.

 the niches were good for eavesdropping scenes, of which there were many in Roman comedies, and we know that there were usable doors for comedy which represented different houses (usually 3) involved in the play.  In some theatres there were doors at each side of the stage, one leading to the center of town (the forum?), the other leading out of town.  The ornate scaenae frons provided most of the scenic background, but it’s been argued that periaktoi might have stood on either side of the stage or in the niches, and that these three-sided objects could be turned when necessary to change a scene.  Others have argued persuasively for pinakes placed within the openings of the scaenae frons, with paintings which could have been relatively realistic, or at least painted in perspective (per Vitruvius).  There is evidence in wall paintings found in villas in and around Pompeii that MIGHT depict scenes from the Roman stage, but even this visual evidence is questionable. 

Finally, the Romans used two kinds of curtains in their theatricals.  One was called the auleum -- it was a front curtain, which was dropped into and lifted from a slit in the downstage edge of the pulpitum.  In this way a scene could be suddenly revealed, though there is not much call for that in the existing comedies from the period.  The other curtain was called the siparium. A rear curtain hung on the scaenae frons, this was apparently used primarily in mime performances as a scenic background. Related to curtains but pertaining to the audience was the velarium, made of velum, which was used in sail-making as well, a retractable curtain/ awning on some theatres and amphitheatres, most notably the Colosseum, which acted as a screen from the sun for at least some of the many costumers that attended events in those places.

Roman actors were males (except in mime, where, as in Greece, women performed along with men), proficient in singing and dancing as well as in speaking, and most of them specialized in either comedy or tragedy.  One of the most famous Roman actors

was apparently proficient at both forms, though he preferred comedy.  His name was Roscius, and he must have been the Laurence Olivier of his day -- he was certainly the most famous name that comes down to us from ancient Rome -- Polonius mentions him in Hamlet when the actors are on the way in: “when Roscius was an actor in Rome...”  In the nineteenth century it was common to label a particularly good actor as a “Roscius,” especially when he or she had a specialty:  a child star (and there were several) was known as “the infant Roscius;” and Ira Aldridge, a black actor, was billed as “The African Roscius.”  The Roman Roscius was so well regarded that he was raised to the nobility.  Most actors weren’t so lucky – most were slaves.

The actors wore masks, complete headdresses with wig and beard

 attached. Costumes consisted of the tunic (a fitted linen garment worn next to the skin and a toga, a heavier wool cloak draped over the tunic. But there were many variations dependent on genre of drama being played, and the social position of the character. Color was important. Royalty, for example, was indicated by purple borders on the costume (toga praetexta).

Music was more extensive in Rome than in Greece – again the flute was the principal instrument.  The Roman flute consisted of two 20-inch pipes, bound to the musician’s head so that both hands could work the stops. Stringed instruments and percussion were also made use of in the theatre.

How about the stage hands?  We don’t find much in history, though I can’t imagine there weren’t a lot of them, and along with hordes of slave labor, a happy few had to be highly skilled.  One of the few pieces of evidence that comes down to us is the sad story of the technicians who had apparently botched a show at the Colosseum.  For their screw-up the Emperor Claudius had them executed...think about that the next time you miss a cue!

  

The decline of the Roman theatre, and Rome itself paralleled the growth of the Christian (Catholic) Church.  That from the dead bodies of Christians eaten by lions and clobbered by gladiators

The patron saint of actors was martyred in the
Colosseum

should arise an institution as powerful and lasting as the Roman Catholic Church is at least surprising -- but the fact is that in 313 AD Emperor Constantine, in the Edict of Milan, gave freedom and official standing to the Church; and by 393 AD Theodosius I outlawed any other religion.  So in the days of the late empire, the dominant religion was Christianity -- and Christians did not like the theatre and attacked it, ostensibly because it was related to pagan rituals, but also because some theatrical activity, most often in Roman mime troupes, made fun of Christian ceremonies.  This was enough for the Church to brand actors (and theatre) as immoral and worse.  Again, this is hardly the last time in this course that we’ll hear that refrain.  I should say that theatre had gotten increasingly decadent by the late empire (nudity and flagrant sexual acts were usual on the late empire stage). So there were a few good reasons that the Church found theatre repulsive.

Of the near constant attacks on the theatre by the Church, perhaps 

the most important was a decree by the Council of Carthage in 398 AD that any person who even attended theatre on holy days of the church would be excommunicated.  This basically meant that the sinner who attended would not pass go (to heaven); instead…would go directly to hell. It was even worse for actors, who were forbidden the sacraments under this decree, which meant automatic excommunication, and while the audience was let off hook relatively early on, the portion of the decree pertaining to actors was not rescinded until the late eighteenth century. After the fall of the Roman Empire it was used selectively, but it could be quite a punishment to the actor who was accused, and a stern lesson to others.  The best example is Molière, who was refused Christian burial on the grounds of this ancient church council edict. 

So, the Christian Church was one of the prime reasons for the fall of Roman theatre, as well as for weakening the empire itself.  But there were other causes. The so-called “barbarians” were pushing towards Rome and eating away at its empire. As early as 330 AD 

For a time when the Roman Empire was
divided intoeast and west, Ravenna, on the
Adriatic sea in Italy, became the seat of the
Western Roman Church - these powerful
mosaics depict Christ and the angels

the emperor Constantine thought it wise to divide the empire and move the capital from Rome east to Byzantium.  He built a city he called Constantinople, and it’s now called Istanbul.  But, although the Byzantine empire was very important for a number of reasons, it wasn’t particularly significant in its theatre, probably because of its Christian base. What records come down to us indicate popular entertainments similar to those in Rome, but theatre was looked down on by the Christian elite.

For our purposes, Byzantium is MOST important for the period just before it fell to the Turks in 1453.  The libraries of Constantinople were famous for their collections of ancient Greek and Roman texts. As it became apparent that the end was coming, scholars fled west back to Italy with as many manuscripts as they could carry – many of the remaining Greek and Roman plays were preserved at this time.

figurines of Roman mime actors - comic or grotesque?

After the move of the capital to Byzantium, the empire was divided into east and west.  Rome began to be sacked regularly, notably by the Visigoths in 410, and it was taken again by Goths in 476 AD, which is the usual marking of the end of Rome as a power.  But more than Christians or Goths, it was the Romans who

destroyed themselves -- the result of a bloated empire, a vast, increasingly corrupt bureaucracy to govern it, and the decadence that accompanies such corruption.  And Roman theatre, such as it had become, perished with the empire.  Well, almost – by the sixth century AD support for theatrical activity, already weakened, collapsed completely.  But who survives when

official,“legitimate” theatre ceases?  The mimes, the lowliest of players – my God, they even allowed WOMEN to perform!  It’s these mime troupes that survive into and through the so-called “dark” ages.  How “dark” were they? We’ll find out next time, when we begin to describe the Medieval theatre.