II. - Schloss Schwetzingen

II.
Fig. 5: Nicolas de Pigage, cross
section of the theatre looking
west; pen and ink, grey wash
(41,3 x 57 cm), condition
after 1762. The plan shows the
galleries as they were just after
completion. Compared to today
they were considerably deeper
and more spacious. Parts of
the fl yloft and the borders are
visible too.
66
II. Schwetzingen – A Prince Elector’s Eighteenth-Century Summer Residence
the machinery was overhauled and rebuilt,
but during the late 18th and the 19th century
the theatre was hardly used any more. The
alterations in the course of the 20th century
were tantamount to a gradual dismantling.
The Baroque stage machinery of the Schwetzingen
court opera was demolished in the
1950s. Wooden constructions were replaced
by modern ones of steel, and in 1971, the
historical stage was pulled down. The loss is
particularly regrettable in view of the fact that
the machinery was still largely intact at the
beginning of the 20th century.
Today’s stage possesses a modern technology
capable of meeting all the demands made on a
contemporary theatre.
A dDescription of the Baroque
Stage Machinery
The main stage, 16m wide and 19,5m deep,
had fi ve groups of three sets each, plus additional
pairs of sets; the wooden construction
holding the painted sets was made of posts,
not the usual ladders. The sets were moved
by a shaft in the stage below with fl ies and
counterweights. The below stage also featured
trapdoors and adjustable stage lighting.
Six shafts were mounted in the fl yloft for the
moving of ceiling parts and other features;
several more were mounted on the galleries
and beneath the roof. Only the shafts for the
backcloths, the borders and the house curtain
had to be assigned permanently; the others
could be used for fl ying machines, cloud
chariots and the like, and freely assigned to
varying purposes.
The available machinery lent itself to a variety
of productions; changes could be made within
seconds.
A comparison of Pigage’s elevations, probably
from the 1760s, with depictions by Schweitzer
from the 1920s and 1930s shows mainly
agreements, the chief difference being that
Pigage’s drawings depict the machinery with
the ropes in place: a comparison with other
stage machineries can thus help to comprehend
the function of individual elements, such
as the borders. In the longitudinal section
these are shown gathered up and turned up
at the sides. Little can be inferred about the
curtain, the backcloth and their machinery.
They are shown in cross-section; the curtain is
gathered up at the sides; the backcloth depicts
a building; the sets show walls with columns
and arcades. Neither depiction provides any
information about the lighting of the house
or about additional features, like thunder or
rain machines, although according to other
sources, both were available. Unfortunately
the shafts for the counterweights have
been omitted in the drawings; no traces of
them have as yet been discovered in today’s
building.
On the whole, though, Pigage’s drawings,
probably intended to document things after
the completion of the building, give a clear
and detailed idea of the layout of the wooden
theatre and the functioning of its sets and
borders.
The roof truss above the house has been
preserved, and as it is identical in both
dimensions and construction to the one above
the stage, it gives an excellent idea of the
working conditions in the fl yloft, surrounded
by machinery and ropes.
The few pieces of the stage that have been
preserved are in the care of the Mannheim