Sam Mitchell

ARCH 423
Prof. Williams
05/06/2021

Roman Theater Design by Vitruvius as it Relates to the Theater of Marcellus.

The chapter on Roman theater design in Vitruvius’ “De Architectura” is among the

strictest and most detailed of all its chapters, apart from the chapter describing temples. As a

result of the specificity of the rules and requirements outlined by Vitruvius, it is difficult to find

examples of ancient Roman theaters that adhere to his design methods. The proportions and the

layout of a Roman theater are the most identifiable aspects to determine the extent to which the

building follows Vitruvian principles. In the case of the Theater of Marcellus, by analyzing

archeological remains, reviewing scholarly texts pertaining to the theater typology, and cross-

referencing buildings of the same period and style, it is possible to determine how well it adheres

to the instructions of Vitruvius. In the following text I will explain how the architect of the

Theater of Marcellus in Rome designed the theater to synthesize the initial steps written in “De

Architectura” as well as fill in the gaps of the description so the building could serve as the

model which demonstrates Vitruvius’ design strategy.

The Theater of Marcellus was only the second permanent theater to be built in Rome.

Prior to the construction of the first permanent theater, the Theater of Pompey, in 55 BCE, 1

theaters in Rome could only use wood construction and were modeled after Greek theaters.

Following the construction of this theater celebrating Pompey, Emperor Julius Caesar, who was

1
Sear, "Vitruvius and Roman Theater Design", 249.
a political rival of Pompey, began the commission for what would become the Theater of

Marcellus. Unfortunately, he had only begun

to plot out the site for the theater before Julius

Caesar was murdered in 44 BCE. Following

the death of his great uncle, Emperor Augustus

began working to complete the plans for the

theater. Sometime between 30 and 15 BCE,

Figure 1: Facade of remains of Theater of Marcellus
Vitruvius released his 10 books on architecture or “De Architectura” and dedicated them to

Augustus. Within that period is when the design of the theater would have been completed and

by 13 BCE the theater was fully built 2. The namesake of the theater was Augustus’ nephew who

died before the theater was completed in 23 BCE. Many years after the Theater of Marcellus was

completed, two theaters were constructed out in the provinces of Rome in modern day France.

Both the Theater of Orange and the Theater of Arles were constructed sometime in the 1st

century CE and each provide evidence of the possible configuration of the missing details of the

Theater of Marcellus.

With this timeline of events established, it is also important to understand Vitruvius’

writing on how to plan and build a Roman theater. Vitruvius describes his process by starting

with the central portion of the plan of the theater known as the orchestra. By drawing a circle

containing four equilateral and equidistant triangles with corners aligned to the perimeter of the

circle (See Figure 2). The lines and points are created to orient the different locations of the

various features of the cavea and scaenae frons to this circular datum. The royal doors (valva

regia), guest rooms (hospitalia), and triangular rotating prisms (periaktoi), whose different faces

2
Davison, “Vitruvius on the Theater in Republican Rome”, 143.
represent the various changes in setting of a play, all align with the points facing the stage. The

line bisecting the circle marks where the edge of the stage platform and the seating area within

the orchestra reserved for senators. The points of the triangles on the other side of the bisecting

line mark out the seating wedges (cunei) of

the stands (cavea). Each point marks a

radiating line from the center where the

stairs between the cunei. Some other notable

things from Vitruvius’ chapter on Roman

theater design include some detailed

proportions of the theater. The stage itself

Figure 2:Plan of the Roman theater according to Vitruvius from
should be twice the length of the diameter of "Vitruvius and Roman Theater Design"

the circle which forms the orchestra, and the height of the stage should be the same as the cavea.

Understanding how Vitruvius explains the plan of a Roman theater as well is essential to the

argument of this paper, as well as the lack of information on some of the more detailed aspects of

the theater.

First, we must analyze the remains of the original Theater of Marcellus and how certain

features of the plan indicate were placed as Vitruvius describes. The plan of the theater follows

specific geometric guides employed by Vitruvius starting with the orchestra. The orchestra

serves as the center of the theater both in appearance as it sits between the cavea and the scaena

as well as in that the spatial design of the plan uses the orchestra as sort of grounding point for

the proportions of certain features 3. As can be seen in Figure 3 the stage is also twice the length

3
Millette, “Space, Imagination and Vitruvius in Archaeological [Re]Construction: Reconsidering a Modus
Operandi”, 14
 of the diameter of the orchestra. From here we can begin to infer that the designer began to make

new design choices that were missing from Vitruvius’ description.

The additus maximi are two hallways that extend to the right and left of the scaena out

from the sides of the orchestra. Their positioning serves as the first concrete indicator of

Vitruvian planning because the end that opens into the substructure is still intact. According to

the article, “Vitruvius and Roman Theater Design” by Frank Sear, we know that these hallways

are oriented on the side of the line bisecting the orchestra that is nearer to the cavea. This is as

prescribed by Vitruvius and can be seen in Figure 2. The details of the substructure itself are not

clearly defined by Vitruvius in his writing. We can infer that the substructure of the cavea was

planned as Vitruvius intended because the additus maximi connect the discreet spaces such as the

pathways between cunei back to the open space of the theater. Any design decisions regarding

the inner workings of this substructure would have been up to the designer’s discretion because

there is no explanation of them in “De Architectura”.

The interior of the theater is comprised of six cavea which were divided in such a way

that the senators and wealthy classes sat closest to the stage with the lower classes sitting further

back and higher up in the stands. The seats themselves also reflect this division of classes with

the highest tiers being made of wood and those seats

lower down being made of carved stone. Each section

of the cavea is divided by a set of stairs that run

between the tiers of the stands. A transverse aisle

separated the upper and lower tiers of seats which

allowed for people to exit and move under the seats

Figure 3: Plan of the Theater of Marcellus adapted from
Bieber 1961. within the open corridors of the substructure made up
of barrel-vaulted ceilings (See Figure 5). The vaults along with internal relieving arches help to

distribute the loads evenly to the foundation.

The layout of the individual cunei of the cavea also illustrate how the orchestra organizes

the features of the theater. While the cavea are mostly missing, their foundations are still intact.

The foundation for the theater is made up of a concrete ring that rests upon wooden supports to

keep it from sinking or shifting in the clay beneath. This foundation marks the diameter of the

semi-circular substructure which is around 364 feet across. “The foundation ring reaches to the

inner circumferential walkway, beyond which there are linear foundation walls up to the

orchestra. The plan view shows the types of dimension stone and concrete facings of the theatre”

(Jackson). We can infer that the manor in which the foundations of each portion of the cavea

extend out from the Orchestra is as Vitruvius intended because of the circle diagram explained

by him in chapter 6 of his 10 books on architecture with the points extending out into the

dividing stairways of the cunei.

During this period in the Roman empire, the standardization of building typologies and

practices was intended to create a uniform style. By building temples, public baths, theaters and

various other examples of Roman architecture, the

Romans established that the territory belonged to

them and was under their reign. Within this

context and from the research conducted by Jean

Davison in their article “Vitruvius on the Theater

Figure 4:Possible Reconstruction of the Theater of
in Republican Rome” it is reasonable to assume Marcellus

that characteristics of other standardized theaters, such as at Arles and Orange, can provide

understanding of what the Theater of Marcellus would have looked like. Specifically, in terms of
the missing scaena and the various rooms and spaces housed behind it. Davison states that, “If

modern scholarship is correct in assuming that the Theater of Marcellus served as the model for

the theaters of Arles, Orange, and Cherchel, among others constructed during the last quarter of

the first century B.C., a plausible restoration of the Theater of Marcellus can be derived in

reverse from them” (143). This furthers the idea that the Theater of Marcellus was a sort of

template for later theaters built using Vitruvius’ books. By Davison’s logic, we can examine the

existing remains of the theaters of Arles and Orange as they are much better preserved than the

Theater of Marcellus because they were built in Roman provinces.

The Theater of Arles has a portion of the scaenae frons remaining. From it we can see the

placement of the valva regia and get an idea of what columns and other

ornamentation decorated the stage 4. The decorations of the façade of the

stage illustrate how the instructions from Vitruvius were expanded upon

by the designer given their lack of specificity on ornamentation and small

details. The Theater of Orange, located in France, is one of the best-

preserved Roman theaters. The structure of the cavea and scaena are

almost entirely intact, except for the columns themselves which were

most likely taken and used elsewhere. It still paints a much clearer picture Figure 5: Ground story
pathway of the substructure
of the missing features of the Theater of Marcellus than any other

remains. The area of the valva regia was comprised of paired columns that protruded from the

curved exedra that surrounds the door. Based on the height of the architraves carved into the wall

of the scaenae frons, the columns on either side of the valva regia extended higher than those of

4
Davison, “Vitruvius on the Theater in Republican Rome”, 148
 the hospitalia on either side. There also remains a niche near the top of the scaenae frons above

the valva regia which housed a statue of Augustus. As the theaters of Arles and Orange are

considered twins, it is likely that such a statue was placed in Arles as well. This indicates their

ties to the Theater of Marcellus which was commissioned by Augustus and would have had

decorations honoring him as well as his nephew for which the theater was named.

As we know, the nature of the existing remains of the Theater of Marcellus makes it

difficult to determine how closely the design matches the instructions of Vitruvius. Vitruvius

himself stated that not every theater will be able to use the proportional

systems he describes exactly as he explains them. Based on Sear’s

article, there were very few Roman theaters that applied the step-by-step

process of the laying out the plan of the theater. With this in mind, we

can infer meaning from the façade of the Theater of Marcellus and its

use of other Vitruvian principles. Vitruvius does not state any directions
Figure 6: Detail view of the
first two tiers of the on how to construct and decorate the substructure of the theater. This
substructure.
and other features of the building such as the materials, decorations, and functional elements are

still necessary. The design choices made by the architect of the Theater of Marcellus in these

unrepresented parts of the design point back to my original statement that the theater is the

embodiment of Vitruvian design principles beyond just the floorplan.

The Façade that exists as part of the Palazzo Savelli still demonstrates the hierarchy of

Vitruvius’ orders. This staple of Roman architecture is adhered to by countless buildings across

the span of the empire, but in this instance, it may point to a timeline of events that help illustrate

the point that the buildings plan specifically aligns with Vitruvian principles. The theater reached

a height of over 100 feet comprised of three distinct tiers. The arcades that make up the façade of
each tier followed the ordering principles defined by Vitruvius with the Doric columns and

entablature at the base, Ionic above that, and we assume that the third would have Corinthian

columns before they were replaced. The third level is no longer there as it was destroyed during

one of its renovations over the centuries. The structure of the theater is comprised mostly of tuff

with some concrete facing in the opus reticulatem style 5. Behind the external arcade of engaged

columns there is a secondary arcade superimposed on the outer which can now be seen where the

external portion has fallen away.

The two most important features are the orders of the columns and the use of an arcuated

colonnade. Both are design choices that Vitruvius would have made

based on his writing. First, the monumentality of the theater requires

ornamentation to fit the presence it has in the city. Demonstrating the

hierarchy with Vitruvius’ orders achieves that. Second, arcuated

colonnades were seen by Vitruvius as less formal and better suited to

functional use for structures such as aqueducts. This points to the idea
Figure 7: External View of
that the substructure was intended to simply support the cavea of this substructure and other remains
from the site.
building intended for entertainment. Trabeated colonnades were reserved for buildings of

governmental or religious importance.

The plan of the Theater of Marcellus matches the process that Vitruvius describes for

how to construct a Roman theater and served as the manifestation of his instructions. With

written accounts of what portions of the theater looked like, scholars have pieced together

evidence to determine the most plausible configuration. The lower portions of the remains at the

5
Jackson, “Building Materials of The Theatre of Marcellus, Rome”
site of the theater demonstrate the theaters adherence to the Vitruvian method of planning a

Roman theater. There are also examples of theaters that were modeled after the Theater of

Marcellus, so a comparison of these subsequent theaters allows us to piece together the missing

details of the original, solidifying our understanding of the placement of certain features. Finally,

the features that are not described in Roman theater design by Vitruvius point towards the

intention of the designer of the theater to use Vitruvian principles. Based on these points and

supported by the evidence outlined above, one can conclude that the Theater of Marcellus, as it

stood originally in Rome, aligns with Vitruvius’ instructions and materialized his ideas into a

monument to the leisure and wealth of the Roman empire.

 Works Cited

Bomgardner, D. L. 2000. The Story of the Roman Amphitheatre. London: Routledge.

Dickison, Sheila K., Katherine A. Geffcken, and Jean M Davison. “Vitruvius on the Theater in
Republican Rome.” Essay. In Rome and Her Monuments: Essays on the City and
Literature of Rome in Honor of Katherine A. Geffcken, 125–71. Wauconda, IL:
Bolchazy-Carducci, 2000.
Jackson, M. D., P. Ciancio Rossetto, C. K. Kosso, M. Buonfiglio, and F. Marra. “Building
Materials of The Theatre of Marcellus, Rome*.” Archaeometry 53, no. 4 (2011):
728–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2010.00570.x.
Mayer, Emanuel. 2012. The Ancient Middle Classes : Urban Life and Aesthetics in the Roman
Empire, 100 Bce-250 Ce. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Millette, Daniel M. 1997. “Space, Imagination and Vitruvius in Archaeological
[Re]Construction : Reconsidering a Modus Operandi.” Retrospective Theses and
Dissertations, 1919-2007. T, University of British Columbia.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.14288/1.0088189.
Sear, Frank. 2006. Roman Theatres : An Architectural Study. Oxford Monographs on Classical
Archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sear, Frank B. "Vitruvius and Roman Theater Design." American Journal of Archaeology 94, no.
2 (1990): 249-58. Accessed February 3, 2021. doi:10.2307/505952.
Ulrich, Roger Bradley, and Caroline K Quenemoen, eds. 2013. A Companion to Roman
Architecture. Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World. Ancient History.
Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley Blackwell.
Vitruvius. “Public Buildings.” Chapter. In Vitruvius: 'Ten Books on Architecture', edited by
Ingrid D. Rowland and Thomas Noble Howe, 63–74. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1999. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511840951.008.