Theatre of Marcellus - Essay Example

 Theatre of Marcellus The architect Leland Roth once said “architecture is the unavoidable art” (Roth, 3). There is a lot of truth in this statement. This is because no matter what we do, we grow and exist within a constructed space in a continuous process of interactive adaptation. As Roth explains, “architecture is the chambered nautilus shell of the human species; it is the environment we build for ourselves, and which, as we grow in experience and knowledge, we change and adapt to our expanded condition” (Roth 3). This growth and adaptation, like the sea creature to which it is compared, is built upon the empty shells of the past, growing from the lessons learned and the changes being wrought in the new era. This is important to remember because, as Roth says, “If we wish to understand ourselves, we must take care not to eliminate the ‘shell’ of our past, for it is the physical record of our aspirations and achievements” (3). Although theories regarding architecture continue to change with time, the ancient Roman Vitruvius offered three elements of design – utility, flexibility and beauty – which continue to help us to understand architecture even today. “By utility, Vitruvius means the functional arrangement of rooms and spaces so that there is no hindrance to use and so that a building is perfectly adjusted to its site” (Roth 11). The concept of firmness is used to refer to the building materials, particularly when they are used wisely to make the best possible use of their inherent properties to accomplish the required goals. This also referred to the creation of solid foundations through the use of appropriate settings and materials. “Beauty meant that ‘the appearance of the work is pleasing and in good taste, and [that] its members are in due proportion according to correct principles of symmetry” (Roth 11). These three primary principles of architectural design will be applied to the ancient Theatre of Marcellus, a structure that has had a great deal of influence over architecture even into the modern age. The Importance of Theatre in Rome Social life in ancient Rome was full of spectacle. This included triumphal processions, aristocratic funerals, public banquets, gladiatorial contests, wild beast shows, athletic competitions and chariot races. “As a whole, this pervasive culture of spectacle served both as a vehicle for self-advertisement by the sociopolitical elite and as a means of reinforcing the shared values and institutions of the entire community” (Klar, 2006). In other words, Roman festivities were a means for the populace to celebrate shared cultural values as well as a means for the social elite to affirm their elite status. One form of entertainment that had particular long-term impact upon the citizens of the city was the Roman theatre. “According to the ancient historian Livy, the earliest theatrical activity at Rome took the form of dances with musical accompaniment, introduced to the city by the Etruscans in 364 BC” (Klar, 2006). History reveals that full length plays were introduced into Rome as early as 240 BC. Performances included the comedies and tragedies of playwrights such as Livius Andronicus, Plautus and others. Some of this literature, like the modern literature we revere today, functioned as a means of informing the public about important cultural and societal values, reinforcing their beliefs or understanding of these concepts. Plays had a way of exploring important or controversial issues of the times in a way that made them understandable to people who may or may not have been well-educated in the fine details of politics, religion or social management. In most cases, these performances and texts functioned as a means of reinforcing the status quo. Other forms of entertainment that were popular in ancient Rome included mime and pantomime. However, “the principal occasions for dramatic spectacles in the Roman world were yearly religious festivals, or ludi, organized by elected magistrates and funded from the state treasury” (Klar, 2006). Despite this widespread fascination and enjoyment of theatrical entertainment, it wasn’t until 55 BC when Rome constructed its first permanent theatre in Pompey. “Before then, all theatres erected in Rome had been temporary affairs which were torn down at the end of the festival for which they had been erected” (Sear 23). These temporary theatres obviously did not provide the same sort of control or stratification that was deemed necessary in such a class-conscious society, so the designers for the new permanent theatres had a great deal of logistics to anticipate and overcome. Although there are indications that the mighty political leaders of the day were at best slightly against the idea, the creation of a permanent, well-structured theater space was accomplished and justified through the insistence of the builders that the structure would actually serve as a temple to Venus. The seats would be constructed underneath the covered structure as a means of facilitating religious festivals to the important goddess. “Indeed the close association of theatre and temple has a long history and can be seen in several Republican sanctuaries” (Sear 24). Theatre of Marcellus The Theatre of Marcellus was constructed in Rome’s capital from 23-13 BC. This places its construction at the very beginning of the Imperial period. The theatre edifice is situated on the banks of the Tiber River. It includes numerous architectural cut-outs specifically designed to take full advantage of the view of the island available just at that point. Constructed with a semi-circular footprint, the theater measured 111 meters (just over 364 feet) in diameter (Theatre of Marcellus, 2008). However, there are other reports that indicate the building was actually closer to 150 meters or 492 feet in diameter (Platner 515). According to Platner, the scaena was approximately 80-90 meters long which equates to about 262-295 feet. It was approximately 20 meters deep, which is about 65 feet. An apsidal hall was located at the end of the scaena which measured approximately 25 by 15 meters or 82 by 49 feet. One of these may have been the regia, the position from which royalty might watch the proceedings (Platner 515). All seating within the theatre was accessed through circumferential access corridors along the curved side, enabling strict control over theatre attendees. The flattened side of the theatre located nearest to the river held the performance stage. Expert estimates vary on the amount of available seating created within the theatre, but these estimates typically suggest somewhere between 11,000 to 40,000 people could be seated for a given event. Engravings by Piranesi: Theatre of Marcellus (Seindal, 2008) It is probable that the theatre was first conceived of as a symbol of the authority and power of the ruling elite. The evidence for this cited as the reaction of Julius Caesar to the permanent theatre that had been constructed in Pompey (Aleandri, 2006). The Theatre of Marcellus did not get off to a very successful start thanks to the way in which Caesar introduced the project. He fostered hard feelings among the populace toward the theatre project by indiscriminately clearing the land intended for its construction. “To make room for it he [Caesar] removed the temple of Pietas in the forum Holitorium and other shrines and private houses” (Platner 513). While the removal of private houses may have only angered the tenants of those houses, the removal of shrines was often considered a severe form of blasphemy. Caesar’s murder occurred before he could do anything more than clearing the land and this was undoubtedly viewed by some as just recompense for the disrespect he had shown the ancient gods. Following Caesar’s death, the land lay empty for 22 years until his successor Octavian, now appearing in the form of Caesar Augustus, undertook the project as a public works project. His justification for continuing the work of Caesar was to beautify and modernize his city by constructing something useful in the ugly scar that still marred the city from Caesar’s land-clearing. At the same time, Octavian made the project palatable to his Roman subjects by declaring it would be a tribute to his nephew, adopted son and heir, Marcellus. This likely prompted many Romans to look to the project with an eye toward the future grandeur of the city rather than focusing their memories on what had gone on before. Probably designed by Vitruvius, the theatre differed from its Greek counterpart in many ways, which can be discovered through architectural analysis. Theatre Design Although often hailed as true innovators and one of the first advanced societies in history, much of Roman architecture up to and including the Republican period was little more than a simple modification of an older form of architecture. This tendency continued even into the Imperial period. However, at this point in history, the Romans began to experiment with the forms they had learned elsewhere in the world as a result of their conquests and began modifying them to a much greater extent, eventually emerging with something that could only be called uniquely Roman in nature. As a result of this major cultural shift, it is not surprising to discover that the Theatre of Marcellus is strikingly different in its design from theatres found throughout Greece, the traditional model from which Romans had built in the past. “The Roman theater … was a fully enclosed edifice, unroofed but often covered with awnings on performance days” (Klar, 2006). The enclosed nature of the building, including the ability to add awnings on performance days, was a major break from the traditional two-part Greek system. While the Roman theatre did retain the horseshoe-shaped seating area, it eliminated the freestanding stage building in favor of incorporating the stage structure within the confines of the primary structure. While the Greek stage was usually a free-standing, low-walled construction which provided little more than a basic backdrop for the actors, the walls of the Roman stage went fully as high as the walls of the surrounding seating area. This provided numerous spaces in which various forms of statuary or other artworks might be displayed, increasing the structure’s usefulness as a temple or proto-museum/art gallery. The Roman seating area was supported on large concrete vaults rather than constructed on a natural hillside. This construction advantage served to focus and direct the audience, made it possible to control access to various parts of the building and for the seating structure alone to re-affirm already established social hierarchies. Individuals could suddenly announce their ascent in the hierarchy simply by taking their appointed place in a higher ranked seating area from where they had been seated previously with the advantage that the majority of other influential Romans would learn of their rise at the same time. Model of Tiber Island facing Theatre of Marcellus: View from North (Raia, 1999) As the above model reconstruction of the original building illustrates, the three tiers of seating are strongly separated, indicating a strong degree of social control in determining where individuals might be permitted to sit or even if they would be allowed into the theatre at all. What is particularly interesting about the Roman theater is its contrast with the Greeks. Archaeological evidence reveals that Greek theater was largely left open, allowing audiences to mix, enter and leave with little to no obvious direction. The Roman audience, however, was kept very strictly segregated. Divisions were made according to class, gender, nationality, profession, and marital status (Klar, 2006). These divisions are made known through the enclosed construction of the building, enabling officials to restrict entrance, egress and even access to specific areas of the building. It is also made clear in the vaulted substructures of the building which helped organize proper seating arrangements for various events (Klar, 2006). The interior spaces of the theatre are largely defined by the overall structure of the building. In terms of design, the structure of the theater consists of three massive structural arcades on piers. Each of these arcades is characterized by columns of one of the Greek orders – Doric on the lowest level, Ionic on the middle level and Corinthian on the topmost level, again emphasizing hierarchy and the importance of social status. “A purely cosmetic layer of trabeation was added to the front. The trabeation was of the Greek orders and gave scale to the building. It also creates a rhythm of solids and voids on the elevation” (Module 7, 2008). The trabeation gave the structure the look of white marble giving it the sense of opulence and impressiveness Augustus was seeking while the natural rhythms included in the overall design of the building encouraged a sense of harmony and togetherness within the strict hierarchy of the forms. Theatre of Marcellus (Seindal, 2006). Theatre Structure The structure of the Theatre of Marcellus is based largely upon the use of cement and the Roman innovation of the half-column. The materials used in the construction are tuff, cement and opus reticulatum brickwork. “Tuff is a type of rock consisting of consolidated volcanic ash ejected from vents during a volcanic eruption” (Tuff, 2008). This material makes an important component in opus reticulatum, which was a form of brickwork that employed diamond-shaped bricks of tuff placed in cement to create a strong structure while adding textural depth and artistry. It is surprising to many to find concrete as a material within some of these ancient structures. Although it is often incorrectly referred to as cement, the Romans were the first to develop and explait the properties of concrete (Roth 35). Indeed, without this highly versatile and stable building material, many of their impressive structures likely would not have been possible. “Concrete is in essence an artificial stone that begins as a viscous mixture of water and assorted aggregate pieces of broken rock, combined with a binding material, or cement, derived from lime that will bond everything together” (Roth 35-36). The bulk of this type of work can be found in the radial walls and ambulatory walks as the exterior façade is coated in a decorative sheath of travertine to give the building the appearance of marble. Theatre of Marcellus Cavia (Raia, 1999). The exterior presents a series of arches in arcade style giving entrance into the building as well as the necessary support for the weight of the stone. Two advantages of the stone arch over the stone post and lintel is that the masonry arch is created from a variety of many smaller parts which are called voussoirs. This was an advantage because the use of many smaller parts made it less necessary to find a larger stone free of cracks or other flaws to serve as a lintel. Even when such a stone was found, issues with transport and setting into place would often mar the stone and cause the building project to again be placed on hold until a new stone could be located, transported successfully and placed with precision. “Second, because of the physics involved, the arch can span much greater distances than can a stone lintel” (Roth 32). When several arches are used in succession as in this structure, the need for exterior buttressing is removed as the physics involved cancel out the lateral forces except at the ends, where the theatre is supported by the two wings at either end of the stage wall. Again, the design of the building is such that the weight and the requirements for use are engaged, but the aesthetic appeal is increased through the more decorative nature of the curved arches. This effect was enhanced even further through the Roman innovation of using half-columns as support for a complete entablature between the three levels of arches. Like the Tabularium, another famous Roman structure, a great proportion of the Marcellus Theatre was created with concrete as its primary building material. The primary exception to this is the outer façade. This façade is comprised of a series of half columns which flank multiple round-headed openings. The columns provide the necessary support for the entablature running above these arches. It is a feature that would make a significant impression on Roman builders because of the pleasing aesthetic formed and the utility of its use within a structure of this size and importance. “An arch combined with half columns in this manner is termed a fornix and becomes a stock feature of [Roman] architecture” (Sear 27). This can be clearly seen on the two remaining levels of the original building. Theatre of Marcellus Bottom Tier of Arches, Doric Columns (Raia, 1999) Theatre of Marcellus Detail of Arch and Ionic Column (Raia, 1999) Comparison to Modern Design Since its construction, the theatre of Marcellus has continued to influence the way theatres are constructed throughout the world. “In the 17th century, the renowned English architect Sir Christopher Wren explicitly acknowledged that his design for the Sheldonian Theatre in Oxford was influenced by Serlio’s engraving of the Theatre of Marcellus” (Theatre of Marcellus, 2008). Sheldonian Theatre Oxford (Burnett, 2004) As can be determined from the above image, the theater adopts the same sort of D-shape as that seen in the Theatre of Marcellus and in numerous theatres constructed since. Arches are a major architectural feature of the construction as is a decorative use of the brickwork and a visible entablature to unite the arch series. Wren preserves the Roman tendency for statuary display by including the busts of various people on the fence line columns. The second tier of the building is brought into contemporary times by a more gothic approach including ironwork along the roof line. Where the original theatre required no roof for the comfort of its visitors, the Sheldonian theatre required a roof in order to be useful. This required the use of other architectural innovations known to the Romans in the form of trusses. Conclusion and Summary Theatre and spectacle were very important elements of Roman society, but so was a sense of social hierarchy and controlled social functions. The Theatre of Marcellus represents a significant break from the earlier theatre designs of the Greeks that took these elements into account. Modifying the ideas of the ancients in developing half-columns, creatively using concrete and other materials and skillfully manipulating the materials to take advantage of known physics, the creators of this theatre were able to effectively provide Rome with a beautiful theatre that harmoniously blended the architectural elements of utility, flexibility and beauty in a unique construction. This unique construction was so perfectly suited to its use that the basic structure of this theatre, with the later addition of a roof, is still used as a model for theatres today. Works Cited Aleandri, Emelise. “The Theatre of Marcellus, Rome: Architecture and History.” New York Council for the Humanities, 2006. Burnett, Mark. “Sheldonian Theatre Oxford.” Photo. May 3, 2004. November 22, 2010 Klar, Laura S. “Theater and Amphitheater in the Roman World.” Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2006. Module 7: Roman Architecture. Departement of Architecture, College of Environmental Design :King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals. Platner, Samuel Ball. A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome. London: Oxford University Press, 1929. Raia, Ann. VRoma Images Archive. (2001). November 22, 2010 Roth,Leland M. Understanding Architecture: Its Elements, History and Meaning. New York: Harper Collins , 1993. Sear, Frank. Roman Architecture. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1983. Seindal, Rene. Photo Archive. November 22, 2010 . “Theatre of Marcellus.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. November 22, 2010 . “Tuff.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. November 22, 2010 . Read More