The architecture and sculpture of the Roman theatres of Sabratha and Leptis Magna

The architecture and sculpture of the

Roman theatres of Sabratha

and Leptis Magna

LISA GALEA

2

Preface

The North African littoral has many surviving Roman theatres, amongst these the theatres of Tipasa,

Guelma, Khamisa, Timgad, Dougga, Leptis Magna, Cyrene and Sabratha. The following essay will

deal with the architecture and sculptural programmes of the Roman theatres of Leptis Magna and

Sabratha. I will be dealing with main references from sources who worked in Sabratha and Leptis

Magna, mainly Giacomo Caputo, Ernesto Vergara Caffarelli and J.B. Perkins Ward. Giacomo Caputo

presents excellent work regarding the two theatres, compiled in three titles belonging to a series

published by “L’Erma” di Bretschneider called Monografie di Archeologia Libica, Il teatro di Leptis

Magna, Le Sculture del teatro di Leptis Magna and Il teatro di Sabratha. Most references and plans

will be taken from this series.

With regards to sculpture, in the case of relief sculpture I will be drawing comparisons between

the works on the Arch of Septimius Severus and the frieze sculpture in the exedrae of the proscenium

in Sabratha. I draw comparisons between the relief sculpture of Sabratha, mainly depictions of

Mercury, Hercules and Venus with equivalent freestanding representations in Leptis Magna.

This paper will provide a short background of the historic period during which the two theatres

were built and under which Roman emperor. I will also deal with the location of the theatres. After

this short section, I will dedicate a longer section to the architectural plans and mouldings of the two

theatres stressing on similarities and differences. Finally I will conclude by commenting about

comparisons and differences between examples of the sculptural programmes of the two theatres.

3

HISTORY AND LOCATION

Leptis Magna

The theatre of Leptis Magna is an Augustan style building, it was inaugurated by Annobal Rufus who

commissioned a memorial inscription (Fig. 1.) the tabula ansata. Annobal’s patronage set a trend and

various inscriptions became popularly defused in Leptis Magna. Leptis Magna was built on a per

strigas plan1. With the exception of the crank in the plan of Leptis Magna, (Fig. 2.) there was clearly

continuity between the early and later building phases with regards to city layout. The theatre and

market of Leptis Magna belonged to the second building phase of the city, its orientation was north

east and it faced the sea axially. The theatre was built on a grand plan, its stage building and various

interrupted columns were built with the “intention of masking land irregularities”2.

Sabratha

Similarly to Leptis Magna, the theatre of Sabratha (Fig. 3.) was commissioned by private individuals

during the reign of “Commodus yet it is debated by some scholars that it may date to Septimius

Severus. the 2nd century A.D (possibly 190 A.D.)”3. It has a slight northwest angle orientation and

has been reconstructed from ruins by Italian archaeologists Renato Bartoccini, Giacomo Giudi and

Giacomo Caputo in the 1930s and excavated further by Kathleen Kenyon and J.B. Ward-Perkins in

1948. The plan of Sabratha has various interventions, the area occupied by the theatre is built on a

per strigas plan (Fig. 4.). Sabratha was a Hellenistic city, in the 1st century B.C. and in A.D. 306 and

310 it was hit by earthquakes. These events determined the plan of the city where buildings were

built in a more dispersed manner than Leptis Magna and architectural and sculptural styles are of

different types.

1 Pollidori, Robert : 50. See notes 1. 2 Pollidori, Robert : 50. 3 Pollidori, Robert : 157.

4

Theatre Architecture

The theatres of Sabratha and Leptis Magna are faithful to the vitruvian layout as they are based on

the 12 point theory developed by the overlapping of four equilateral triangles. The fifth book of De

Architectura deals with the construction of theatres. The theatres face the coast and Vitruvius

considers this as a very important feature in theatre building as the winds and direction of the sun

should be considered at the planning stage. Vitruvius states that the theatre should “not have southern

exposure, for when the sun fills up the round hollow of the theater, the air, enclosed by the theater’s

curvature” “heats up in its eddying”.4 According to reconstructions done by archaeologists in

Sabratha it seems the construction also respected the Vitruvian principles, the height of scene

building was directly inline with the roof of the portico on top of the summa cavea. The Virtuvian

principles of theatre building are based on Greek ideas and the geometric divisions of the Zodiac. The

geometry is based on two crossing linear axes and the construction of 4 equilateral triangles followed

by the construction of a circle through these points. This determines the diameter of the Orchestra

and the main length the stage portals should occupy. The dodecagon on plan determines the main

structural supports the building rests on which should be seven points of the twelve mentioned. Both

theatres respect this architectural canon. Underneath each of the six sectors is the necessary

construction of corridors and auditus leading to the vomitori and the seating spaces. Virtuvius’s

geometric division is based on a system of ratios and stress calculations. The main difference

between the Greek and Roman theatre is the calibration of sound. The step between the cavae has a

very important function, that of diffusing sounds. This sound is diffused up the ima cavea to the

media cavea and the media cavea to the summa cavea.

The theatre of Leptis Magna follows Vitruvian designs because of its post scaenam portico.

Vitruvius considers this an important aspect of theatre building because if “sudden rains interrupt the

performances, the audience has a place to gather outside the theatre, and the performers have a space

in which to reherse”.5 The theatre of Sabratha has this post scaenam portico but it is unlike what

Vitruvius intended and this difference and liberty of architectural planning confirms J.B. Ward

Perkins considerations that the North African architecture as “largely derivative”.6

The theatre of Leptis Magna was built in the style of an “Augustan structure”7 which was mainly

characterised by its “fine grey limestone”.8 The changes that occurred in the architecture of Leptis

4 Vitruvius : 69 5 Vitruvius : 71 6 Ward-Perkins, John Bryan : 371. 7 Ward-Perkins, John Bryan : 376. 8 Ward-Perkins, John Bryan : 378.

5

Magna between the 1st and 2nd century largely effected the fashioning of columns. J.B. Ward Perkins

writes “that Ionic columns were eventually replaced with the Corinthian order, but until Trajan the

theatre was still made of the local limestone. Under Hadrian’s rule the columns were replaced with

marble columns mainly penthelic marble from Greece and other types from Asia Minor”9.

The function of the theatre of Leptis Magna was mainly for entertainment purposes, but was also

used for the Leptician assemblies, festivals and ceremonies dedicated to the Emperor’s cult. The

Roman theatre of Leptis Magna (Fig. 5.) was 87.60 metres wide and consisted of three tiers of cavae.

Caputo, Ward-Perkins and Pollidori reproduce a plan of the theatre (Fig. 7.) which illustrates “the

drawing of the semicircular auditorium”. Pollidori says that part of the “tiers of seating were dug into

the hill side and were reinforced by an embankment. The chambers and rear chambers run through

the base of the structure into the streets outside”.10 The orchestra was surrounded by the first seats for

dignitaries. The media and summa cavea were built and were accessed through the vomitori, together

with the ima cavea where the spectators would be seated. The cavae determined the individual’s

place in the hierarchy of society, those who belonged to the elite sat closer to the orchestra. The

theatre also consisted of the stage and entrances, the wall of the scenery was built, and the stage was

covered with a protruding wooden ceiling. At the top of the summa cavea there were stakes for

canvas awnings similar to those found in amphitheatres and an attic gallery which consisted of a

portico along the topmost tier of the summa cavea.

The stage of Leptis Magna was reinterpreted in the 2nd century A.D. with some changes in the

three large niches and changes from stone columns to marble ones. Behind the stage, the temple of

Ceres Augusta was built on a central axis to that of the theatre within a post scaenam portico (Fig. 6.).

The temple was made up of a tetrastyle pro naos and a naos with engaged columns. The idea of the

temple surrounded by an irregularly shaped four-sided portico made it inward looking. Its introverted

aspect somehow harked back at ideas used by the Greek construction at Didyma, even though

introverted architecture is attributed to the Romans. Therefore the provincial architectural language

was faithful to the Empire’s architectural dogma.

The plan of the theatre of Sabratha (Fig. 8.) is similar to that of Leptis Magna with one considerable

difference. The side of the stage facing the orchestra has niches: four rectangular and three

semicircular niches with relief sculpture made of pink and white marble. These niches are similar to

examples from Italy such as Fiesole or Spain such as Cordoba and Merida. However Leptis Magna

has a straight pulpitum with some structural features showing such as eight columns on its façade.

9 Ward-Perkins, John Bryan : 378. 10 Pollidori, Robert : 68

6

The two theatres share the basic characteristics of a Roman theatre, the semi-circular shape, the

orchestra, stage, cavae and vomitori and the attic gallery.

“The semicircular seating space was not excavated in rock but built; in complete Roman style this

enabled the profuse use of various ambulatories and vomitori.”11 When viewing a section drawing,

(Fig. 9.) it is possible to note that the seating structure lies against the ambulatories. The ambulatories

are hollow structures made of arches and high passages, this architectural structure is lighter yet

strong (Fig. 10.). The stresses of the seating space move horizontally therefore the ambulatories

behind the seating act as buttresses. The outer core of the building consisted of three tiers of arches

with columns which principally take the load being exerted by the arch enabling the structure to be

well grounded. In both theatres the order of capitals used was Corinthian. On the east and west side

of the architectural scenery were the parascenes, which served as buttresses enclosing and stabilising

the whole scenery structure. In both theatres the front elevation of the architectural scenery is built on

three tiers.

Beside the prominent difference between the pulpits there is one other unparalleled characteristic

on plan; Sabratha did not have a temple behind the architectural scenery, there was a garden. On the

stage both theatres had three main apses projecting up the three tiers. In Sabratha the three apses were

interrupted by an entrance, the central entrance was wider than the lateral ones (Fig. 11.). The first tier

of the scaena consisted of Corinthian columns with plain shafts held up on a podium. The plan is

architecturally symmetrical and the lateral doors had an attic window above. The cornice of the first

tier was made of a marble architrave, a frieze upholstered with marble and a marble cornice. The

mouldings used in the architrave were the rope, bead and reel and the acanthus leaf moulding. The

cornice had dentils, egg and dart motifs, the vitruvian scroll and finally an acanthus leaf motif. The

second floor had three windows of which the central one had a triangular pediment and the lateral

having arched pediments. This storey, had Corinthian capitals throughout with fluted and spiral fluted

shafts. The marked difference between the first and second storey is that the frieze was decorated

with a rinceau motif. On the third storey the mouldings were identical to the second storey, but the

columns were the same as the first. The only difference with the other two storeys was that the

windows were arched.

In Leptis Magna, the plan is remarkably similar to Sabratha and at present the first tier of columns

still stand. The columns were made of marble imported mainly from Mount Pentellicus near Athens

and the capitals were Corinthian. The pulpitum in Sabratha made use of a different order of capitals,

the projecting faces had Ionic columns in their corners, the frieze was ornamented with a bay-leaf

11 Caputo, Giacomo (1959) : 9 See notes 2.

7

garland and the cornice had the same features as the entablatures of the scaena, the one in Leptis

Magna had none of these decorative features but it had arched niches within the pulpitum. In Leptis

Magna the only sculpture in the theatre was either around inscriptions, freestanding figures or relief

sculpture of cornucopias and laurel leaves, this kind of celebratory relief illustrates how wealthy a

province Leptis Magna was. In Sabratha the sides of the ima cavea were enclosed with the large

sculpture of a dolphin (Fig. 12.), fish sculpture was also used in Leptis Magna at the stalls in the

market place (Fig. 13.). The extremities of the ima cavea had a decorative pier for a statue, which was

reserved mainly for free-standing statues, of “gods and heroes, members of the reigning Imperial

house in Rome” “often represented by life-size and over life-size portrait statues placed on the edges

and corners of the stage” (Fig. 14.).12 The sculptural programmes and sculpture intrinsically form part

of the architecture of the theatres; in Leptis Magna they form part of the monumental programme and

in Sabratha they form part of the decorative programme.

Sculpture

The free standing sculpture at Leptis Magna is mainly an example of Greek marble sculpture. With

the introduction of marble sculpture under Hadrian’s emperorship, marble was introduced into Leptis

Magna, in part because of the decorative programme of his baths and also for columns and statuary in

the theatre. “Craftsmen who trained in the Aegean and Rome”13 travelled to Libyan shores in order to

decorate this thriving city. “Leptis Magna uses the same thick marble used in Cyrene; it is Pentellic

marble, some sculptures are made of ‘Lapis Hymetius’ and ‘Lunese marble’ and ‘Parian marble’.”14

Scholars debate the sculptural styles in Leptis Magna, Giacomo Caputo mentions that Maria

Floriani Scquarciapiano considers that the sculptural style used in Leptis Magna belongs to the

School of Aphrodisias a theory accepted by other scholars. Yet, Gilbert Charles Picard debates that

there could be influences from the schools of Carthage and Mactar due to the use of the Phoenician

helmet and neo-punic stars. He also insists that the North African sculptural influences persist during

the Severan period and makes stylistic comparisons with sculpture in Setif and Thugga. Picard

suggests that the north African manner of sculpture is not only of eastern influence, mainly the Asia

Minor Hellenic style (school of Aphrodisias) but is combined with local ideas mainly punic.15

The main differences between the sculptural programmes in the theatres of Leptis Magna and

Sabratha are that the sculpture in Leptis Magna was mainly made of free-standing figures. Sabratha

had a pulpitum made of alternate niches and it was decorated with high reliefs becoming bas-reliefs.

12 Raabe, Ashleigh W. : 20. 13 Ward-Perkins, John Bryan : 376. 14 Caputo, Giacomo Traversari, Gustavo (1976) : 6. See notes 3. 15 Caputo, Giacomo Traversari, Gustavo (1976) : 6

8

In her book Corinth, Mary C. Sturgeon says that in Leptis Magna, a very long sculptural commentary

survives from the Arch of Septimius Severus. When comparing the sculpture of the Arch of

Septimius Severus with the Sculpture in Sabratha it is evident that there are stylistic differences in

these reliefs.

“The proscenium of the theater at Sabratha in Tripolitania has the best preserved reliefs of any of

the theaters.” “A great variety of subject is achieved in the carvings. Some, such as the

representations of tragedy and mime, are related to the plays given on the stage. In the central exedra

we see an allegorical scene in which Roma and Sabratha are depicted clasping hands and surrounded

by warriors. Other slabs present more traditional figures such as the three Graces, Paris and

Aphrodite, the nine muses and Tyche. The effect of this Severan theater, which is the largest in

Africa and preserved to three stories in height, is most impressive and greatly enhanced by the

decorated proscenium.” “Sabratha remains the best example for the use of a sculptural frieze on a

theater. Although the theater at Leptis Magna does not have a sculptured frieze, it does display a

herm in relief at each end of the front of the proscenium. This shows an interesting analogy with the

Odeion in Athens.”16

When compared with the perfect proportions of Greek sculptural friezes, the stylisation is closely

related to the sculptural proportions of works on Roman funerary sarcophagi.

“The sculptural representations refer to Sabratha’s most significant gods there are all on the

forepart of the pulpit. In the exedrae are exalted depictions of all the theatre genre and theatre

literature. The sculptural programme was dictated by a literary man or college of actors or a person

chosen from Dionysian circles”.17

The façade of the pulpitum has 15 planes (Fig. 15). The first rectangular exedra features a scene

from the theatre academy, it represents figures discussing with their teachers or engaged in rehearsals

(Fig. 16). The second rectangular exedra seems to depict a scene from a mime (Fig. 17), the scene seems

to depict a scaenae frons with actors impersonating an adultery scene and the third rectangular exedra

depicts the dialogue between tragic characters (Fig. 18). The last and finally another tragic-comedy

scene, where a seated woman looks at two male figures mime a fight. (Fig. 19)

Of these four panels the dialogue between tragic characters stands out as being the most singular

stylistically, the characters are depicted in a very archaic manner; they are very rigid when compared

to the other panels and their eyes are depicted frontally.

16 Sturgeon, Mary Carol :125-126 17 Caputo, Giacomo Traversari, Gustavo (1976) : 16

9

The semicircular exedrae feature a completely different subject, mainly mythological figures and

allegories. In the first semicircular exedra (Fig. 20), the sculptures depict all the muses Clio, Thalia,

Erato, Euterpe, Polyhymnia, Urania, Melpomene with the exception of Calliope and Terpsichore (see

notes 3). In the second semicircular exedra, the central one, there is an allegory of Rome and

Sabratha (Fig. 21) both depicted in sacrifice. In Rites of the state religion in Roman Art Inez Scott

Ryberg takes note of the stylistic intentions of this panel in comparison with the sculpture of the Arch

of Septimius Severus. “In general, the reliefs from Sabratha are simpler and less detailed than those

on the Lepcis arch, but they share a similar frontality, symmetry of composition, rhythmic repetition

of figures, and interest in associating the provincial city with Rome, the greater Empire, and the

Emperor, similarities which aid in dating the pulpitum to the time of Septimius Severus.”18 The third

semicircular exedra represents the three graces (Fig. 22) and the judgement of Paris (Fig. 23) who

judges Venus Minerva and Juno. He wears shepherds clothing and stands next to Mercury (Fig. 24).

The pulpitum’s projecting panels and other panels depict the goddess Nemesis, Mercury and Iacchus

(Fig. 25) and Victory. Other panels have been lost. There are also other decorative reliefs on the sides

of the rectangular exedrae which depict comic and tragic masks (Fig. 26).

Surviving sculpture yields some figures both represented in Sabratha and Leptis Magna: Mercury,

Venus, Hercules, and possibly Septimius Severus. In Leptis Magna, the arch of Septimius Severus

has a theme consonant to a triumphal arch, which is Septimius Severus’s triumphs (Fig. 27). There are

depictions of Victory in relief in Sabratha of which a small fragment is left. The Three Graces (Fig.

28a) and the Venus of Sabratha (Fig. 28b) represented in the panel G. Caputo attributed to the

Judgement of Paris, may be compared anatomically to Venuses (Fig. 28c) in the theatre of Leptis

Magna. A torso of Venus had been excavated (Fig. 28d). and a freestanding statue of Venus and Eros

were found during excavations in the theatre. In Sabratha the Three Graces are stout in proportion,

they do not resemble other Roman copies of the period such as the copy found in Villa Cornovaglia

in Rome which has some Renaissance interpolations (Fig. 29a) (now in the Louvre) and other classic

Greek examples such as the Kharites of the Metropolitan Museum in New York (Fig. 29b). The copies

from Greek works or reliefs such as those of Caria in Aphrodisias are sinuous in modelling. The

Roman Provincial stylisation is clear as well as its eastern influences. On such an account Sir

Mortimer Wheeler attributes stylisation in Africa as being influenced by Roman Oriental stylisation

such as the stucco heads found in Hadda of Bodhisattva, Afghanistan (Fig. 30a) and a stucco head

18 Raabe, Ashleigh W. : 38

10

found in Sabratha (Fig. 30b), suggesting at a “return movement along the Alexandria-India-China

traffic route”.19

The stylistic trends in Leptis Magna are of strong Greek influence in the freestanding works and

are of Roman influence in the relief work and in the The Arch of Septimius Severus. The Greek style

in relief work is present in Sabratha, in the distribution of figures in space and figures not carved with

the great intensity and vigour as Roman relief work, they are modelled and finished and have

graceful attributes. Roman relief work is carved intensively and the undercutting is harsh and nearly

three-dimensional, yet figures are static and less naturalistic. In Leptis Magna, Giacomo Caputo

documents two statues of Mercury as having being found in the theatre (Fig. 31a) (Fig. 31b), these

compare better stylistically to the Phidian Doriphorus found in the Orchestra (Fig. 14). When

compared to the relief sculpture in Sabratha (Fig. 32a) (Fig. 32b) the proportions and stylisation can be

more closely associated to the relief work in the Arch of Septimius Severus in particular the episode

relating the sacrifice of the bulls (Fig. 33). If a comparison is drawn between the sacrifice of the bulls

depicted on the Arch of Sepitmus Severus and the sacrifice of the bull depicted in the central exedra

in the pulpitum of Sabratha, the stylistic similarity between the relief sculptures of both provinces is

more apparent (Fig. 34).

The stylistic currents are of great similarities and dissimilarities as is my final example of

Hercules. Giacomo Caputo writes about the bust of Hercules (Fig. 35a) and refers to it as belonging to

Greek iconography because the lion’s skin covers Hercules’s head. He makes reference to various

sources and mentions that it belonged to Greek iconography developed in the 4th Century B.C. He

calls it an “archaic archetype” and he considers the hook type of rendering of the beard and the locks

of hair as being late archaic stylisation. He dates this sculpture to Hadrian’s time.20 The architectural

function of this work was as a decorative bust, a herm, similar to the Liber Pater (Fig. 14) placed on

the lateral side of the orchestra. The following example is the bust of Septimius Severus depicted as

Hercules (Fig. 35b), which Caputo compares to the depiction of the same emperor on the Triumphal

frieze depicting the Dextrarum Iunctio (Fig. 35c). This representation of Septimius is also found in

coins dating to his emperorship. The representation of Hercules is more narrative than

commemorative; it depicts the 12th labour of Hercules, the last labour when Hercules was to return to

Eurystheus with Cerberus (Fig. 35d). 21

19 Wheeler, Mortimer : 230 20 Caputo, Giacomo Traversari, Gustavo (1976) : 73,74 21 Caputo, Giacomo Traversari, Gustavo (1976) : 73,74

11

Conclusion

The architectural and sculptural context of the two theatres differs greatly, the theatre of Sabratha

has less sculpture than Leptis Magna and the sculpture on the pulpitum was a mythological narrative

type. The sculptures in the theatre of Sabratha were free-standing monumental sculptures which

made political references rather than narrative. This implicates the political importance of the

provinces and the importance the embellishing works given by the Antonine emperors. The theatres

were fine examples of Roman provincial architecture and were built in a context of a thriving North

African littoral, no expenses were spared for building materials or decorative works and it is evident

that these were centres of production which had craftsmen from different regions, near or far. The

sometimes eclectic combination of styles and the presence of local and distant styles bear witness to

the assemblage various influences which apex in the Roman period. These theatres are marvellous

examples of Roman architecture; the Romans achieved engineering perfection because they managed

to grasp the best engineering and architectural ideas from their predecessors, which Vitruvius rightly

and briefly encompassed in beauty, utility and solidity.

12

Notes

1. Per Strigas is a term which derives from Hellenistic Koine Greek. It presupposes a plan made on a

drawing board, drafted in a rational design taking account of the natural site and exsisting buildings. The plan

of Leptis Magna consisted of a base of rectangular units.

2. “Mentre l-anfiteatro, sorto appena prima, fu incastrato nel fondo d’una cava, il teatro di Sabratha non

fu edificato in roccia affossata, ma in piano scoperto / tav. 1/, con senso tutto romano, particolarmente

esemplificato in Africa: senso sia delle possibilità della volta e dell’ arco sia sopratutto, delle permeablità tipica

del teatro Romano, ricco di ambulacri, e sporatutto di fornici, al contrario di quello Greco, che è un cono cieco,

dal quale, come altrove per la mia analisi specificato2), il primo differisce nettamente ed originalmente.”

3. The nine muses are Clio, Thalia, Erato, Euterpe, Polyhymnia, Calliope, Terpsichore, Urania,

Melpomene.

Clio is the muse of history and is symbolised by scrolls. Thalia is the muse of comedy and is symbolised by a

comic mask. Erato is the muse of Love poetry and is symbolised by the chitara. Euterpe is the muse of song and

Egeic poetry and is symbolised by Aulos. Polyhymia is the muse of hymns and is symbolised by the veil. Caliope

is the muse of epic poetry and is symbolised by a writing tablet. Terpsichore is the muse of dance and is

symbolised by the lyre. Urania is the muse of Astronomy and is symbolised by the globe and Melpomene is the

muse of tragedy and is symbolised by the tragic mask.

13

Bibiliography

Caputo, Giacomo 1959 Monografie di Archeologia Libica VII Il teatro di Sabratha e L’Architetura

Teatrale Africana, Rome; “L’Erma” di Bretschneider Caputo, Giacomo and Vergara Caffarelli, Ernesto 1963 Leptis Magna, Rome, Arnoldo Mondadori Editore o.b.o Impresa Astaldi Caputo, Giacomo Traversari, Gustavo 1976 Monografie di Archeologia Libica XIII Le sculture del teatro di Leptis Magna,

Rome; “L’Erma” di Bretschneider Pollidori, Robert 1998 Libya The lost cities of the Roman Empire, Slovenia; Édition Mengès Vitruvius 1999 Ten Books on Architecture, Edited by Ingrid D. Rowland and Thomas Noble

Howe, New York, Cambridge University Press Raabe, Ashleigh W. 2007 Imagining Roman-ness: A study of the theater reliefs at Sabratha, University

of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Sturgeon, Mary Carol 1971 Corinth, Germany, J.J. Augustin GluckStadt Ward-Perkins, John Bryan 1994 Roman Imperial Architecture, Hong Kong; Yale University Press Wheeler, Mortimer 1964 Roman Art and Architecture, London; Thames & Hudson, reprint 2005

14

Photos Sources

(Fig. 1.) Pollidori, Robert

1998 Libya The lost cities of the Roman Empire, Slovenia; Édition Mengès :68 (Fig. 2.) http://www.lib.luc.edu/specialcollections/items/show/757 (Fig. 3.) Caputo, Giacomo

1959 Monografie di Archeologia Libica VII Il teatro di Sabratha e L’Architetura Teatrale Africana, Rome; “L’Erma” di Bretschneider: Tav. 30, Fig. 53

(Fig. 4.) http://www.lib.luc.edu/specialcollections/items/show/768 (Fig. 5.) http://www.temehu.com/Cities_sites/LeptisMagna.htm (Fig. 6.) Caputo, Giacomo and Vergara Caffarelli, Ernesto

1963 Leptis Magna, Rome, Arnoldo Mondadori Editore o.b.o Impresa Astaldi: Fig. 72 (Fig. 7.) Caputo, Giacomo

1959 Monografie di Archeologia Libica VII Il teatro di Sabratha e L’Architetura Teatrale Africana, Rome; “L’Erma” di Bretschneider: Tav. 90

(Fig. 8.) Caputo, Giacomo




(Fig. 9a.) Caputo, Giacomo 1959 Monografie di Archeologia Libica VII Il teatro di Sabratha e L’Architetura Teatrale

Africana, Rome; “L’Erma” di Bretschneider: Tav. 70 (Fig. 10.) Caputo, Giacomo

1959 Monografie di Archeologia Libica VII Il teatro di Sabratha e L’Architetura Teatrale Africana, Rome; “L’Erma” di Bretschneider: Tav.20 Fig. 41




1959 Monografie di Archeologia Libica VII Il teatro di Sabratha e L’Architetura Teatrale Africana, Rome; “L’Erma” di Bretschneider: Tav. 25 Fig. 46

(Fig. 13.) Caputo, Giacomo and Vergara Caffarelli, Ernesto

1963 Leptis Magna, Rome, Arnoldo Mondadori Editore o.b.o Impresa Astaldi: Fig. 60

15

(Fig. 14.) Caputo, Giacomo and Vergara Caffarelli, Ernesto 1963 Leptis Magna, Rome, Arnoldo Mondadori Editore o.b.o Impresa Astaldi: Fig. 77








1959 Monografie di Archeologia Libica VII Il teatro di Sabratha e L’Architetura Teatrale Africana, Rome; “L’Erma” di Bretschneider : Tav. 44 Fig. 77
















1959 Monografie di Archeologia Libica VII Il teatro di Sabratha e L’Architetura Teatrale Africana, Rome; “L’Erma” di Bretschneider: Tav 43. Fig. 75


1963 Leptis Magna, Rome, Arnoldo Mondadori Editore o.b.o Impresa Astaldi: Fig. 42 (Fig. 28a.) Caputo, Giacomo


(Fig. 28b.) Caputo, Giacomo

16


(Fig. 28c.) Caputo, Giacomo Traversari, Gustavo

1976 Monografie di Archeologia Libica XIII Le sculture del teatro di Leptis Magna, Rome; “L’Erma” di Bretschneider: Tav. 16 Fig. 20, Fig. 21

(Fig. 28d.) Caputo, Giacomo Traversari, Gustavo

1976 Monografie di Archeologia Libica XIII Le sculture del teatro di Leptis Magna, Rome; “L’Erma” di Bretschneider: Tav. 37 Fig. 41

(Fig. 29a.) http://www.theoi.com/Gallery/S21.1.html (Fig. 29b.) http://www.metmuseum.org (Fig. 30a.) Wheeler, Mortimer

1964 Roman Art and Architecture, London; Thames & Hudson: 230 (Fig. 30b.) Wheeler, Mortimer

1964 Roman Art and Architecture, London; Thames & Hudson: 230 (Fig. 31a.) Caputo, Giacomo Traversari, Gustavo

1976 Monografie di Archeologia Libica XIII Le sculture del teatro di Leptis Magna, Rome; “L’Erma” di Bretschneider: Tav. 1 Fig.1

(Fig. 31b.) Caputo, Giacomo Traversari, Gustavo

1976 Monografie di Archeologia Libica XIII Le sculture del teatro di Leptis Magna, Rome; “L’Erma” di Bretschneider: Tav. 11 Fig.12

(Fig. 32a.) Caputo, Giacomo


(Fig. 32.b) Caputo, Giacomo



1963 Leptis Magna, Rome, Arnoldo Mondadori Editore o.b.o Impresa Astaldi: 47 (Fig. 34.) Caputo, Giacomo


(Fig. 35a.) Caputo, Giacomo Traversari, Gustavo


(Fig. 35b.) Caputo, Giacomo Traversari, Gustavo


(Fig. 35c.) Caputo, Giacomo and Vergara Caffarelli, Ernesto

1963 Leptis Magna, Rome, Arnoldo Mondadori Editore o.b.o Impresa Astaldi: 48 (Fig 35d.) Caputo, Giacomo


i

(Fig. 2)Plan of Leptis Magna

Plan of Leptis Magna

(Fig. 1)(Detail) The theatre in Leptis Magna. Plaque from the Northwest access corridor opening into the orchestra. This tabula anasata is in local

limestone and preserves a beautifully engraved Latin inscription commemorating the theatre’s construction in A.D. 1-2. The name of the generous partron of the building, Annobal Himilchonis (filius) Tapapius Rufus, is repeated in Neo-Punc after the Latin text

ii

(Fig. 4)Plan of Sabratha

Plan of Sabratha

(Fig. 3)The theatre of Sabratha

iii

(Fig. 6) An aerial view of the thetre of Leptis Magna with the templeof Ceres Augusta

(Fig. 5)(1) Ima Cavea; (2) Media Cavea; (3) Summa Cavea; (4) Vomitori; (5) Orchestra; (6) Seats for important dignitaries; (7) Entrance to stage; (8)

Stage; (9) Wall of scenery; (10) Wooden ceiling; (11) Stakes to secure the canvas awning; (12) Attic gallery.

iv

(Fig. 7)A plan of the theatre of Leptis Magna

v

(Fig. 8)A plan of the theatre of Sabratha

vi

(Fig. 9)A section drawing the theatre of Sabratha

vii

(Fig. 10)The reconstructed ambulatories of the theatre of Sabratha

(Fig. 9a)The columns and arches outside the theatre

viii

(Fig. 11)A plan and elevation of the stage of the theatre of Sabratha

ix

(Fig. 13) The stalls at the market place of Leptis Magna with the carved fish

(Fig. 12)The sides of the ima cavea of sabratha with the dolphin sculpture

x

(Fig. 14)The bust of Liber Pater and the Dioscuro

xi

(Fig. 16) Scene from the theatre academy, Sabratha

(Fig. 15)The plan and elevation of the pulpitum and the scaenae frons of the stage in the theatre of Sabratha

xii

(Fig. 18) The tragic characters, Sabratha

(Fig. 17) A mime about adultery, Sabratha

xiii

(Fig. 20) The muses (detail), Sabratha

(Fig. 19) The tragi-comedy, Sabratha

xiv

(Fig. 22) The Three Graces, Sabratha

(Fig. 21) The allegory of Rome and Sabratha, Sabratha

xv

(Fig. 24) Mercury and Paris, Sabratha

(Fig. 23) The Thre Graces, Venus, Minerva and Juno and the judgement of Paris, Sabratha

xvi

(Fig. 26) Tragedy masks, Sabratha

(Fig. 25) Mercury and Iacchus, Sabratha

xvii

(Fig. 27)A depiction of the Dextrarum Iunctio, Septimius Severus with his sons Caracalla and Geta, Sabratha

(Fig. 28a) The Three Graces, Sabratha (Fig. 28b) Venus, Sabratha

xviii

(Fig. 29a)The Three Graces. 2nd Century B.C. Roman copy. Musée du Louvre, Paris

(Fig. 28c) Torso of Venus excavated in the theatre of Leptis Magna

(Fig. 28d) Free-standing statue of Venus excavated in the theatre of Leptis Magna

xix

(Fig. 30a) (Fig. 30b) (Left) Stucco head of a Bodhisattva from Hadda, the rendering of effeminate features is thoroughly Oriental. (Right) Stucco head from Sabratha. Its

similarity to the Hadda head may point to an East/West movement of artistic ideas

(Fig. 29b)The Three Graces. Roman, Imperial period, 2nd century A.D., copy of Greek work from 2nd century B.C.

Image provided by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. All rights reserved.

xx

(Fig. 32a) (Fig. 32b)(Left) Mercury, Sabratha (Right) Mercury and Iacchus, Sabratha

(Fig. 31a) (Fig. 31b)The statues of Mercury found during Giacomo Caputo’s excavations in the theatre of Leptis Magna

xxi

(Fig. 34)A detail of the central exedra, Sabratha

(Fig. 33)The Arch of Septimius Severus (detail) sacrifice, Leptis Magna

xxii

(Fig. 35d)Hercules, Sabratha

(Fig. 35a) (Fig. 35b) (left, the herm) Bust statues of Hercules found during Giacomo Caputo’s excavations in the theatre of Leptis Magna

(Fig. 35c)A detail of Septimus Severus trom the Triumphal frieze, belonging to the Arch of

Septimius Severus, Leptis Magna

The architecture and sculpture of the Roman theatres of Sabratha and Leptis Magna

Documents

Transcript of The architecture and sculpture of the Roman theatres of Sabratha and Leptis Magna