| Greek | Roman | Medieval | Renaissance | Neo-Class |
The following images are good examples of how the theater looked during the Roman period.
This is an image one of the earliest permanent Roman theaters,
constructed
in the first century A.D., nearly two centuries after Plautus and Terence
wrote. One common (but by no means universally accepted) explanation for
this lag between literature and architecture is religious taboo, the idea
that imitating others is somehow unnatural and therefore a potential
source
of social contamination that would spread unchecked if it were given a
permanent site. In fact, actors in Rome were indeed subect to a form of
taboo. The contrasts with Greek theater architecture are sometimes subtle
but important. The Greek theater is part of the natural landscape, but
the Roman structure is imposed on nature. The orchestra (the
"dancing
place"), a central feature of Greek theater architecture, has shrunk
drastically in size. Finally, the long and narrow Roman stage is backed
by an elaborately decorated frons scaenae Typically the frons
scaenae included several openings for actors to make their exits and
entrances, the openings representing the various doors of separate
private
houses built along the public street. 
Our knowledge of ancient theater comes not only from the work of
philologists
and literary critics but from the study of architecture and the findings
of archaeologists. Not only artists but artisans of all sorts drew on the
theater for inspiration for many of their images. Scenes from
contemporary
performances were recreated and thus preserved in vase decorations,
mosaics,
terracotta figurines, masks, and even wall-paintings, much the same way
as Disney's Pocohantas is mememorialized in countless dolls, posters, and
trinkets. Here is an unknown artist's rendering on a wall in Pompeii of
a Hellenistic performance. 
This is a conjectural reconstruction of Roman stage at the time of
Plautus
and Terence. Like the Greek theater, the Romans too used a facade stage,
though here the facade is much more elaborate. Yet the architecture of
the classical facade stage still makes for drama and dramatic
performances
quite different from modern proscenium or thrust stages. It is
principally
a public drama: nearly all scenes were set out-of-doors, with the
various openings in the facade representing the doors of houses set along
a street, and most of the encounters between people, whether trivial or
important, take place in public spaces rather than private ones. If you
think that the most significant events of peoples' lives take place
behind
closed doors, such drama may not seem very credible. But stop for a
moment
and think, from a spectator's point of view, which is the more logical
theatrical convention: to witness conversations between people on a
public
street, or to eavesdrop on the life of a family in their living room, one
of the walls of the house made magically transparent to permit you to see
through it?
Here
it is possible to compare two styles of theater architecture, that of
Hellenistic
Greece (top) and of Imperial Rome. The prototype for the Roman theater
is Hellenistic, and yet here as in most other respects (recall the
changes
Plautus made to his Greek texts) the Romans did not simply copy their
predecessors.
For one thing, unlike the Greeks, the Romans typically built their
theaters
on flat sites, combining the acting areas and the seating areas into a
single structure. Also the Romans built with concrete, a technique which
revolutionised the construction of theaters in the same way it
revolutionized
cities themselves as well as urban life. It was now possible to build
larger
and more lavishly, and the construction of larger buildings led naturally
to greater architectural emphasis on the buildings' interiors, and
greater
emphasis on interiors--much the same thing has occurred in our culture
with shopping malls--ledto changed social habits.