The term ‘equestrian drama’ means a play enacted by horses and riders, usually presented both in the ring and on the stage of a permanent amphitheatre. It is basically a bastard entertainment, the result of a misalliance between the theatre and the circus, two types of spectacle whose fundamental principles are very different. The offspring did enlarge the base line of the theatre although, in this country, I submit it actually inhibited the development of the circus. But before we consider this naive, colourful, melodramatic and, above all, popular entertainment, I would like to deal briefly with the basic characteristics and relevant history of the parent spectacles, particularly those concerning the circus. Whereas the underlying principles of the theatre have been discussed ever since Aristotle set out his Unities, few have attempted to analyse the attributes of the circus. One, however, who has published a critical comparison of stage and ring spectacles is Pierre Bost, whose study fifty years ago led me to try to develop the basic principles he laid down.

In the traditional theatre the audience is confronted with makebelieve on the stage. The spectacle is seen against a representational background. Go backstage and the illusion is lost; all you will see is the plain, ungilded, reverse side of the proscenium and unpainted canvas. It is like looking at the back of a picture. In the circus there is no scenery, no backstage; the spectacle can be seen from all sides, like sculpture. Because the audience holds the spectacle in its midst, there are eyes all round to see that there is no make-believe.