The Early Imperial Period

The Romans' inherent love of theatrical display had been obvious earlier in the ever more opulent decoration of the temporary theatres, and undoubtedly it had both encouraged the provision of a permanent theatre, and in turn, became more pronounced after its construction. But the basis for the marked (and evidently increased) emphasis on spectacle lay as much in social and political events as in matters of taste and aesthetics. The new social and political conditions of the Empire encouraged the building of theatres, and largely determined the nature of the performances taking place within them. The most important new factor was the establishment of the imperial monarchy both as the basis for the administration and governing of Rome and its provinces, and as the head of a new and more clearly defined social hierarchy. The Principate of Augustus and a new system of imperial government (facilitated by predominantly peaceful conditions) assisted the integration of the provinces and their population into the Roman state and Roman society, and, crucially, led to their cultural development and urbanisation. There were in the Empire close to a thousand cities, and although many of these had relatively small populations of under 15,000 inhabitants, by the end of the first century A.D. frequently even the smallest towns had acquired a collection of monumental public buildings, including a theatre.

The social supremacy of the emperor and his family, which displaced from their former pre-eminence the circles of oligarchic families who had so often been engaged in prolonged and disruptive rivalry, encouraged patronage on a vast scale, both in terms of its largess and its geographic distribution. The emperor was personally responsible through his officials for the administration of the provinces, with whose population he enjoyed privileges and in turn exercised the responsibility of a ruler and patron.

The new pattern was established by Augustus. who had himself set the example at Rome, which he transformed through the provision of magnificent new public buildings. Between 13 and 11 B.C., two new theatres were built, which effectively doubled the provision of seats to over 38,000. It was in this period that Vitruvius wrote his great work on architecture, and the section detailing theatre construction is incontrovertible evidence that -- in addition to "many [wooden] theatres built every year at Rome" -- the erection elsewhere of new stone theatres along these lines was anticipated. (Vitruvius, De Arch., 5.5.7). All the indications are that under Augustus (through his own initiative or that of wealthy benefactors) numerous theatres were indeed provided, (and older ones were renovated), including examples at Orange and Arles in Gaul, Merida in Spain, Leptis Magna in north Africa, and within Italy itself at, inter alia, Fiesole, Milan, Turin, Aosta, Herculaneum, Ostia and Minturnae. Under subsequent rulers new theatres continued to be built throughout the empire during the first and second centuries A.D., provided either directly by emperor himself, or through the patronage of prominent and often local, officials.

The audiences in these theatres were catered for by members of a thriving acting profession which under Augustus and his successors had been organised along more efficient lines into an Empire-wide guild that probably had its headquarters at Rome. The conditions favouring the provision of theatres also tended to encourage opulence and grandeur in their entertainments. The place and occasion were symbolic of Roman prestige and imperial glory, and an important expression of the official ideology which justified, gave meaning to, and secured public support for the operation of the Principate. Inside Rome's imperial theatres the audience often was presented with dazzling spectacles calculated to impress and to cast reflected glory upon the rulers and patrons (or their representatives) whose presence frequently added to the excitement and splendour of the occasion and ceremony. In part this was accomplished by the sheer massed cohorts of actors, musicians and supernumeraries, and (in the case of both mime and pantomime) by the diversion, artifice and intensity of their performances. In addition however, there was undoubtedly a great deal of scenic embellishment, although its more precise nature and modes of operation is obscure.

Scenery

In a passage which was greatly to influence the work of Renaissance scenic artists, who sought to interpret it for the scenery used in their own productions, Vitruvius writes,

"Now there are three styles of scenery [scaenae]: one which is called tragic, another comic, a third satyric. The decoration of these are dissimilar and of different arrangement one from another, because the tragic settings are designed with columns and pediments, statues, and other royal things; the comic, however, have the type and appearance of private buildings and balconies, and projections with windows arranged in a manner imitating ordinary buildings; the satyric are decorated with trees, caves, mountains, and other country things, designed in the manner of a landscape." (Vitruvius, De Arch., 5.6.8).

There are a number of literary references from the imperial period which, although they fail to provide any comprehensive account of later Roman scenic practice do certainly confirm that its was capable of complex and impressive effects. Seneca the younger refers to the scenic virtuosity of the "arts of entertainment which give amusement to the eye and ear";

"Amongst these you may count the engineers [machinatores] who contrive a structure that soars up by itself, or wooden panels that rise silently aloft, and many other unexpected devices such as objects fit together which come apart, or things separate which automatically join together, or objects which stand erect, then slowly collapse. The eyes of the ignorant are astonished by such things." (Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Epist. Mor., 1.88.22).

The theatre was a place of spectacle, and although eventually the spectacle outgrew the theatre to be presented elsewhere, very considerable effects were almost certainly achieved, first on the temporary, and later on the permanent stages. The dedication of Pompey's theatre encompassed, as noted, above in addition to the dramatic and musical contests, gymnastic events and the "hunting" of vast numbers of animals Even when the context of a reference makes it certain that the event described occurred in the circus or amphitheatre, it may plausibly suggest theatrical practice as well, since from earliest times the distinction between activities appropriate to each venue do not appear to have been rigidly defined by the Romans, and the same personnel were customarily responsible for scenic spectacle wherever it took place.

The soaring "structure" that Seneca refers to was the pegma; some sort of flying device which apparently originated in the theatre and was later used in scenic entertainments generally, with references to it from the late first century B.C, through the late fourth century A.D.. It could exhibit performers as well as scenic displays which may have divided laterally and certainly could be borne aloft. It was sometimes elaborately decorated and could consist of several storeys.

Vitruvius refers to devices called periaktoi. The earliest reference to their use may be found in the notice that the aediles L. and M. Licinius Lucullus made the scaena "revolving" in 79 B.C. (Valerius Maximus 2.4.6).

This would indicate that both methods of scenic change were used in the temporary theatres, and the context of Vitruvius' description strongly suggests that the periaktoi, at least, continued to be employed in permanent theatres as well.Probable corroboration for this is found in the description given of them in the second century A.D. by Pollux, writing when such theatres were common.

Unfortunately neither Vitruvius' nor Pollux's account of the periaktoi is entirely clear. The word may be translated literally as merely "that which moves", although there is an implication of rotary motion, and this is clearly what Vitruvius takes it to mean. He writes,

"Now the scenery is so arranged that the middle entrances have the decoration of a royal door, the ordinary doors are to the left and right. Adjacent are spaces prepared for decoration, which areas the Greeks call periaktoi from the fact that in these areas are revolving prismatic machines each having three types of decoration, which when there is an imminent change of plays or the arrival of gods with sudden thunder, are turned and change the type of decoration on their panels." (Vitruvius, De Arch., 5.6.8).

Like Vitruvius, Pollux evidently conceives of the periaktoi as rotating devices, located to either side of the central door of the scaena, close to the two side doors. They are decorated with some sort of presumably emblematic scenery. In a second reference to them, Pollux associates their decoration with the katablemata; painted curtains or panels, apparently (as etymologically the word implies) "let down" upon them. He states,

"By each of the two doors to either side of the centre are...the location of the periaktoi...A periaktos can present sea-gods and anything too heavy to be flown in on the crane [mechane]. When the periaktoi are revolved, the right hand one can change anything; both together alter location...As for the lightning and thunder machines, the one is a high swivelling periaktos...

Katablemata are curtains or panels with decoration appropriate to the play's requirements. On the periaktoi the background could be a mountain, sea, river or some such." (Julius Pollux, Onomasticon, 4.124-132).

Unfortunately the somewhat imprecise accounts by these two authors cannot be complemented by any obvious visual evidence from wall paintings, vases, reliefs, or elsewhere. Nor is there any certain archaeological proof although in several Hellenistic theatres holes have been found, appropriately located, which may have held the axis for a hypothetical revolving prismatic device. It is impossible to say how widely they were employed in the Roman theatre. Perhaps the most significant fact to emerge from otherwise inconclusive evidence is that both authors undoubtedly conceived of scenic decoration which was both movable, and could be changed in the course of performance. In terms of theatrical convention, this is an significant concept, with broad implications for stage practice. It is also important to note that neither writer limits scenery to the periaktoi, with both indicating that other scenic devices were employed.