Page:The Elizabethan stage (Volume 3).pdf/100

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

in a loose sense of persons, who do not actually move in or out, but are 'discovered', or covered, by a curtain.[1]

Of what nature, then, was the space so disclosed? There was ordinarily, as already stated, a narrow space behind an arras; and if the gallery above the stage jutted forward, or had, as the Swan drawing perhaps indicates, a projecting weather-board, this might be widened into a six- or seven-foot corridor, still in front of the back wall.[2] Such a corridor would, however, hardly give the effect of a chamber, although it might that of a portico. Nor would it be adequate in size to hold all the scenes which it is natural to class as chamber scenes; such, for example, as that in Tamburlaine, where no less than ten persons are discovered grouped around Zenocrate's bed.[3] The stage-directions themselves do not help us much; that in Alphonsus alone names 'the place behind the stage', and as this is only required to contain the head of Mahomet, a corridor, in this particular scene, would have sufficed.[4] There is, however, no reason why the opening curtains should not have revealed a quite considerable aperture in the back wall, and an alcove or recess of quite considerable size lying behind this aperture. With a 43-foot stage, as at the Fortune, and doors placed rather nearer the ends of it than De Witt shows them, it would be possible to get a 15-foot aperture, and still leave room for the drawn curtains to hang between the aperture and the doors. Allow 3 feet for the strip of stage between arras and wall, and a back-run of 10 feet behind the wall, and you get an adequate chamber of 15 feet × 13 feet. My actual measurements are, of course, merely illustrative. There would be advantages, as regards vision, in not making the alcove too deep. The height, if the gallery over the stage ran in a line with the middle gallery for spectators, would be about 8 feet or 9 feet; rather low, I admit.[5] A critic may point out that behind the back wall of the outer stage lay the tire-house, and that the 14-foot deep framework of a theatre no greater in dimensions than the Fortune does not leave room for an inner stage in addition to the tire-house. I think the answer is that the 'place behind the stage' was in fact nothing but an enclave within the tire-house, that its walls consisted of nothing but screens covered with some more arras, that these were only put up when they were needed for some particular scene, and that

  1. Prölss, 85; Albright, 140; Reynolds, i. 26; cf. p. 65, n. 3 (Battle of Alcazar); p. 67, n. 1 (Dr. Faustus).
  2. W. Archer in Quarterly Review, ccviii. 470; Reynolds, i. 9; Graves, 88; cf. Brereton in Sh. Homage, 204.
  3. Cf. p. 65, n. 3 (2 Tamburlaine).
  4. Cf. p. 64, n. 2 (Alphonsus).
  5. Cf. p. 85.