Volltext Seite (XML)
THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT’S JOURNAL. 7 Still, as the semicircle is by far the most advantageous, it out*ht to be retained for them, as might easily be done, should the house itself be equal to an entire circle, or somewhat more (as is the case at Drury Lane); and to effect this, nothing more would be requisite than to omit boxes entirely be tween the chord of the semicircle and the proscenium. Were this done, there would hardly be a seat in any of the boxes that would not command a suffi ciently favourable view of the stage ; while, in an architectural point of view, all the space so given up or lost, as perhaps it will be considered, would be a decided gain, because it would afford ample field for decoration in connexion with and continuation of the proscenium, so that the whole might be made to form a rich architectural framing to the stage; whereas, according to the present mode, the connexion between the boxes and proscenium is too abrupt, and can rarely be well managed; and whenever the boxes adjoining the stage are comparatively empty, they present a forlorn appearance, which does not at all reconcile us the better to their being in themselves a drawback on the general design. There would be another advantage arising from the system here recommended, namely, that as far as the boxes are concerned, there would be a sort of neutral territory between the audience and the stage, highly favourable to scenic effect and illusion. Every one in the boxes would then be seated where he would behold the stage and performance, not only conveniently, but from a proper distance station. The stage ought to be considered as a picture upon a large scale, and when a man looks at a picture of any dimen sions, he neither pokes his nose against it nor does he place himself on one side, so as to view it askew, but in such a manner that he can distinctly behold it. In regard to the stage, however, such certainly is not the case with a very large proportion of the spectators in the boxes. Many of them are obliged to take up with places where they cannot possibly see the scene or flat, as it is technically termed, at all, let them twist their necks as much as they will, though eti revanche they see a great deal more between the wings and side scenes than is either necessary or proper. * * We shall here put together a few particulars relative to some of the principal theatres hitherto erected; not with the expectation of satisfying the reader, but rather of inducing him to prosecute the object further by his own researches; and the following table, it is presumed, will be found both interesting and use ful, as exhibiting a comparative and synoptical view of several of the most im portant structures of this class:— From Curtain to back of Boxes. Width across Boxes. W'idth of Curtain. Depth of Stage from Curtain. Height from Pit 1 Floor to Ceiling. Saloon. Feet. Feet. Feet. Feet. Feet. Feet. London.—Opera House 102 75 40 35 Co vent Garden 73 63 32 59 54 56X10 Drury Lane 70 70 32 48 60 90X26 New English Opera 57 55 32 Paris.—Opera 78 52 40 . . 52 96 Theatre Feydeau 52 64 48 Cirque Olympique 86.0 83 44 Bordeaux .- 64 62.6 39.6 70 57.6 Milan.—La Scala 04 78 44 75 100X21 Naples.—San Carlo 90 76 49 76 80 82X20 Venice.—La Fenice 72 67 42 45 49 56X32 St. Petersburgh 102 96 52 99 92 125X30 Berlin 61 58 38 . . 13 Hamburgh 69 68 39 56 Mentz 65 58 38 , . 43 New Orleans 73 71 44 66 129X26 Dublin 64 62 33 Birmingham 44 45 28 Turin 66.6 52 40 98 Ghent 68 60 37 . . . . 82X40 From this it will be seen that the London Opera House, although of the same extent as the Great Theatre at St. Petersburgh, measured on a line from the curtain to the back of the boxes, is considerably less in its other dimensions, and consequently very different in its proportions ; it being narrow in compa rison with its average breadth, owing to which, and to the contraction towards the stage, the greater part of the persons in the boxes are not placed even at right angles to, but actually turned obliquely from, the stage ; as wiH be seen by the plan of it, and still more palpably by the section, which shows a consi derable extent of the side boxes, whose fronts would not be visible in such re presentation were they at right angles with the curtain. Another great defect is the absence of proscenium, the boxes coming quite up to the opening of the stage, in consequence of which preposterousness in the plan, all architectural expression and propriety are destroyed, and a disagreeable flimsiness takes place, giving to the whole house the appearance of having been hurriedly fitted up for some temporary purpose. Besides wliich, this immediate contact of stage and boxes would render it almost impossible to cut off the flames from communicating to every part, should a fire break out among the scenery. In Schinkel’s new theatre, at Berlin, the proscenium is formed by exceedingly massive walls; and the spectatory itself has the advantage of not being ex tended greatly beyond a semicircle. Covent Garden partakes in some degree of the faulty plan adopted in the Opera House, as the boxes between the semi circular portion and the stage are carried, not at right angles to the latter, but sloping toward-, and consequently inclined from it. Had the boxes been con tinued on the sides for no more than a third of their present extent, this would have been of comparatively little moment; but as these sloping sides are pro tracted to such a distance that an entire circle might be described between the centre box and the proscenium, the spectators in the boxes nearest the stago are better stationed for reconnoitering the audience, than for viewing the scenery or the performance. Therefore, at least three of the boxes on each side should have been shallower than the rest. The plan of Drury Lane is de cidedly preferable in every respect to that of Covent Garden, as well in the arrangement ©f the vestibule, staircases, aud approaches, as in the form of the spectatory itself. It would indeed have been better had it not exceeded a per fect circle, that is, had the distance from the centre box to the curtain been no more than the diameter of the pit. Yet, notwi hs anding that the general form itself is good, it exhibits an adherence to the erroneous practice of con tinuing the boxes beyond the semicircle facing the stage. We will not be so rigorous as to insist that they should in no degree be suffered to extend beyond that diameter or line, but most assuredly, the less they were to do so the better. We have now extracted at some length from this admirable work ; but we only fear that, although at some extent for our columns, not sufficiently to gratify the wishes of the reader. We know, indeed, that although ancient knowledge may be useful as the basis of our studies, we shall only be able to carry them on effectively by attention to the progress of the present. To all those, therefore, who are desirous of ascertaining the actual state of art in the metropolis, and of availing themselves of it, we can only refer them to this work, which will not only give them food for their observation, but teach them how to exert it. It has thus been our lot to criticise a work devoted to criticism, but such is the fate of all publications, and to which our own must sub mit. Criticism must take its food from everything like death, for, in the words of Horace—“ Pallida mors equo pulsat pede regura turres, pauperas que tabernas.’* Wefeel happy, however, that, as brethren,it has not been our fate to disagree; but that on the other hand we are enabled to bear testimony to the correctness with which the editor has carried out the principles declared in his preface. Publishers are but too little looked upon in these things, but we must bear in mind that they are entitled to some thing more than the organ-blower’s meed. There is much judgment to be exerted in the choice of a work, and often much boldness in the manner in which expense is incurred, and he who well carries out a great work is as well entitled to praise for his discrimination and public spirit as the author or editor himself. We are happy, there fore, in affording our tribute to the manner in which the publisher has complied with his duty, and not the less so that he has chosen in Mr. Leeds, one whose exertions deserve to merit the confidence of the public as much as his own. Collection des principaux Monumens c? Architecture Bizantine, Oo- thique, frc., de la France. Paris, folio, 11 th number. Ornemens Classiques executees d'apres les Peintures Originates de Jules liomain et de ses Eleves. Paris, 4to. These publications are the fruits of our Parisian neighbours* rage for the Renaissance. The first is the introductory number of a work on the early architecture of France, and includes the Byzantine, a style of which we know little in England. The second is a collection of the arabesques of Guilio Romano and his pupils; and they are both works of reference of which we have a deficiency here. Herculanum und Pompeii Vollstandige Sasmmlung der Vis svfden neutigen Tag daselUt entdeckten Malereien, Bronzen, u. s. w. En- thaltend sammtliche in der Antichita di Ercolano, dem Museo Bor- bonica und dem ubrigen bisher erschienen Werken, mit Neuern noch unedirten Aegenstanden vermehrt. Von H. Roux et Ad. Bouchet, Deutsh Vearbeilet von Dr. A. Kaiser. (Complete Collection of all the Herculaneum and Pompeian Paintings, Bronzes, Mosaics, &c., described in the Antiquities of Herculaneum, the Bourbon Museum, and the latest Works. Translated into German from the French of H. Roux, sen., and Ad. Bouchet, by Dr. A. Keiser.) Hamburg: Meissner. This splendid work is to be completed in two hundred numbers of four plates each, great octavo, six of which have already appeared. The first division of the work, containing the paintings, is to consist of architectural ornaments, groups of figures, single figures, friezes, landscapes, and mosaics. The second division includes statues, busts, lamps, &c. The work is cheap and well got up, and cannot fail to promote the knowledge of these elegant styles.