such sorte as is prefigured in a plott thereof drawen; and which stadge shall conteine in length fortie and three foote of lawfull assize, and in breadth to extend to the middle of the yarde of the saide howse. and the saide stadge to be in all other proporcions contryved and fashioned like unto the stadge of the said plaiehowse called the Globe; with convenient windowes and lights glazed to the said tyreinge-howse. This passage seems specially contrived to tantalize us; because, in the first place, the "plott" or plan, which would have set so many questions at rest, has disappeared; in the second place, the model proposed to the builder, the Globe Theatre Shakespeare's Globe is the very building we want to know so much about, and know so little. If only old Henslowe had been moved to say "contrived as in the playhouse called the Globe to wit, soand-so and so-and-so." how we should have blessed him!

We have learnt, however, that the Fortune was a three-story square structure, of 80 ft. outside measurement and 55ft. inside measurement; that the storeys were respectively 12. 11. and 9ft. in height; that the galleries were 12ft, 6in. deep, with, in each of the upper storeys, an additional "jutty forwards" of 10in.; and that the stage was 43ft. broad and 27 ft. 6 in. deep. These, it may be mentioned, are very much the proportions of a moderate-sized stage of to-day; only that the proscenium, cutting off some 6ft. or 7ft. on each side, reduces the visible breadth to about 30 ft.

From this point onward we have to launch into conjecture; and the first question that confronts us is: What was the position of the stairs? It might seem from the expression "stairs, conveyances and divisions without and within,", that the stairs were in part actually outside the building. But they are to be contrived" as in the Globe; and none of the representations we possess of round or octagonal theatres shows any sign of an external staircase. The two slight projections in a very late drawing of the Hope may have been designed to give room for the landings of internal staircases; but external staircases they cannot possibly have contained. On the other hand, the contract stipulates that the frame, stadge, and stearecases are to be "covered with tyle," so that the stairs cannot have. been entirely under the roof of the "frame," as, from the De Witt drawing, they would seem to have been in the Swan Theatre. We must conclude, then. that the stairs were partly placed in some projecting structure or structures within the interior square or “yard " of the building. Mr. Godfrey was inclined, perhaps rightly, to place

Jahrbuch XLIV.

11

two spiral staircases in the angles of the "yard" opposite the stage and nearest the main entrance. On my persuasion, however, he ultimately placed a roofed staircase in each of the six-foot ways on either side of the stage. My reason for preferring this position was that the spiral stairs in the opposite angles would block out a good deal of valuable seating-room; whereas the staircases, as Mr. Godfrey has actually placed them, block out no desirable point of view. Feeling,

however, that it would be awkward if access to the galleries could be gained only by stairs situated at the other end of the "yard from the main entrance, Mr. Godfrey has provided another staircase close to the doorway.

Far more important is the question of the relation of the stage to the "tiring [attiring] house" from which the actors made their entrances. And first to clear away a difficulty which may occur to a careful reader of the contract. The phrase, "a stage and tiringhouse to be erected and set up within the said frame," might be

interpreted to mean that the tiring-house was a structure not forming part of the "frame," but projecting in front of it into the "yard." This interpretation is, however, pretty clearly ruled out. Such an arrangement would mean a quite impossible waste of space. The tiring-house would cut off at least 10ft. of the stage, reducing its depth to about 17ft.; and what could be made of the space in the "frame" behind it? We are bound, I think, to as

In designing the "shadow" over the stage, Mr. Godfrey has, in the main, followed De Witt's drawing of the Swan; but he has made the half-roof heavier and solider, because it was a permanent structure, whereas the stage and (probably the) "shadow" of the Swan were movable. He has shown, as in the Swan, and almost all the other drawings we possess of "public" theatres, a turret over the stage, whence the trumpeter sounded the three blasts which announced the beginning of the performance. Underneath the turret he has placed since it can scarcely have been placed elsewhere the pulley by which

"gods from the machine descended and ascended. The railing round the stage is interrupted in the middle merely for the sake of clearness. In reality it was probably continuous, but more open than it appears to be in the drawing.

66

But now comes the point at which Mr. Godfrey, at my instigation, has chiefly exposed himself to the fire of criticism. We know from hundreds of stage-directions that entrances, both in "public and private theatres, were usually made from the tiring-house by means of two doors. For instance. in Heywood's "If You Know Not Me You Know Nobody Queen. Lecester, Sussex.

we read "Enter at one doore the At the other Cassimer, the French

and Florentine Ambassadors." A little later on, "They march one way out. At the other doore enter Sir Francis Drake with the Colours and Ensignes taken from the Spaniards." This may be called the typical form of stage-direction wherever two people, or parties, or armies, encounter or avoid each other. And, sure enough, in the Swan drawing, we have two doors staring us in the face, in the flat back-wall of the stage. Why, then, has Mr. Godfrey shown no flat back-wall, and placed his doors in oblique panels, with a curtained recess between them?

There are many converging reasons. In the first place, the Swan drawing cannot possibly be regarded as typical, since there is evidence in many plays of a third or middle entrance. Moreover, there is overwhelming evidence (though this is sometimes contested) that playwrights habitually counted upon some sort of recess at the

back of the stage, which could serve as a cave, tent, vault, tomb, study, bedroom, or shop, as the case might be. This recess is apt to be vaguely conceived as a closely boxed-in alcove; but a little reflection will show, I think, that it was probably much more in the nature of an open passage, as Mr. Godfrey has figured it. There must have been some entrance to it from behind; and since large properties were often placed in it, or brought through it on to the main stage, the probability is that access to it was as little obstructed as possible. When its curtains were closed, an actor passing between them might be said to use a third or middle entrance; but as we have explicit references to a middle door, I see no reason to doubt the existence of a door such as Mr. Godfrey has placed in the back wall of the recess, or Rear Stage, which would be visible to the audience when the curtains were opened. With the curtains open, then, the stage here designed has five distinct entrances; and one could cite scenes (for instance, the Enfield Chase scenes in “The Merry Divell of Edmonton) in which five were none too many, since the characters dodge each other in and out, like rabbits in a warren.

But while this argument may justify the form given to the Rear Stage, it does not explain the oblique position of the two principal doors. I was first led to conjecture an oblique panel at each side of the stage from the necessity which arises in several plays of providing a point on the Upper Stage (that is, the gallery at the back of the main stage) from which incidents passing on the Rear Stage should be visible. A typical case occurs at the beginning of Peele's "David and Bethsabe." Prologus enters and speaks his piece; then, “He draws a curtain and discovers Bethsabe, with her Maid, bathing over a spring; she sings, and David sits above viewing her. Some students maintain that the curtain drawn by Prologus would be placed between the pillars supporting the "shadow.” I have not space at present to point out the numberless difficulties which beset this theory. Assuming, what seems to me overwhelmingly probable, that Bethsabe and the spring (doubtless a fairly elaborate property) were discovered on the Rear Stage, it is evident that, if the Upper Stage were a perfectly straight gallery over the Rear Stage, David would have needed a giraffe's neck in order to "view" Bethsabe from it. We cannot but suppose him placed in some part of the Upper Stage which raked considerably forward; and if the gallery had a forward rake, the wall supporting it, and the door in that wall, would almost necessarily have the same inclination.