• Next message: Hardy M. Cook: "Shakespeare's "Small Latin and Less Greek""
• Previous message: Hardy M. Cook: "The Big Question"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ]

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 17.0520  Thursday, 1 June 2006

From: 		Gabriel Egan <mail@gabrielegan.com>
Date: 		Tuesday, 30 May 2006 14:30:22 -0400
Subject: 17.0516 A Roof on the Globe?
Comment: 	RE: SHK 17.0516 A Roof on the Globe?

William Dudley's account of the documentary and archaeological evidence 
about open-air amphitheatres in Shakespeare's time is wrong in certain 
facts relevant to our debate.

 >As proposed at that time [mid-1990s], the Pillars
 >[holding the stage cover] were only 2'-6" from
 >the front edge of the stage, based I believe,
 >on a misinterpretation of the Rose Site.

In fact the chief determinant of this design was John Orrell's 
conclusion that the ridge of the stage cover roof was on a radial of the 
playhouse circle, not a chord. The weight of a gable-fronted cover 
protecting the whole stage is considerably greater than the weight of 
the kind of turret+hut design (with a pentice roof sticking out like a 
ballet-dancer's tutu) that one might expect from De Witt's Swan drawing 
and from Visscher's engraving. Orrell's chief evidence for the 
radial-ridge stage-cover roof was John Norden's _Civitas Londini_ 
(1600). The arguments were made in:

John Orrell "The roof the Globe" in _The Shape of the Globe and The 
Interior of the Globe: Reports on seminars held on 29 March 1983 and 12 
April 1986_ edited by Ronnie Mulryne and Margaret Shewring _The 
Renaissance Drama Newsletter Supplements_ Number 8 (Coventry: University 
of Warwick Graduate School of Renaissance Studies, 1987) pages 33-41

and

John Orrell "The roof of the Globe" in _The Development of Shakespeare's 
Theater_ edited by John H. Astington _AMS Studies in the Renaissance_ 
Number 24 (New York: AMS, 1992) pages 95-118

 >the pillars were eventually moved to their current
 >position some 7'-0" upstage. This is still not far
 >enough though, as it does not agree with the equally
 >famous Swan Theatre drawing which alas, was not trusted
 >and thus ignored by the academic committee on the project.

The reasons for setting aside the Swan drawing evidence about this were 
presented in the 1983 and 1986 meetings of the academic committee (of 
theatre historians) held at the London offices of the architects' 
company Pentagram.  These reasons were accepted by the committee and 
published in the above documents. Far from the committee ignoring the 
Swan drawing evidence, the published accounts show committee members 
Richard Hosley, Martin Clout, Ronnie Mulryne, and Margaret Shewring 
arguing for a De Wittish stage cover rather than a Nordenesque one 
(i.e., arguing against Orrell) and losing the debate.

Dudley's talk of his whistle-blowing and his implication that the 
committee was cavalier in its proceedings is probably offensive to the 
surviving members of that committee.  (I believe I'm right in saying 
that its members Theo Crosby, Richard Hosley, C. Walter Hodges, and John 
Orrell have since died.) The committee appears to have taken its duties 
most seriously and to have properly weighed world-class 
theatre-historical scholarship in its deliberations.

One simple reason to ignore the De Witt Swan's evidence is that the 
cover it shows protects only half the stage from the rain, and hence the 
actors' clothing would get wet when it rained. To judge from the 
extraordinary amounts spent on clothing (equal to many tens of thousands 
of pounds today), the cover's main purpose was to prevent the clothes 
getting wet.

 >It was during this vigorous academic debate that
 >I read the famous "Fortune Theatre Contract" which
 >mentions that over the stage there shall be a
 >"shadow"- i.e. not a roof!

The contract calls for "a shadowe or cover".

 >I reasoned that beyond the "majestical roof
 >fretted with golden fire" mentioned by Shakespeare,
 >was an adjustable shadow or cloth shade to screen
 >some of the audience from sunlight and inclement
 >weather, much as in Roman times and in modern
 >Bullfights arenas.

The Fortune contract defines what Peter Street shall make in wood, 
brick, and plaster. A cloth shade seems not the sort of thing it governs.

 >I take great heart from recent findings from the Rose
 >Theatre (where I designed the onsite exhibition in 1999)
 >passed on by the original 1989 archaeologists, that the
 >first (1587) Rose did not have any stage at all, but
 >had a plain yard which was freely adapted by
 >any company or other entertainment that played in it.

I had to read this several times to make sure there wasn't a way to 
reconcile Dudley's account with the well-known archaeological evidence. 
I failed. The interim reports of the Museum of London Archaeological 
Service (MoLAS) all indicate a stage at Phase One (1587) of the Rose. 
For example, in his book _The Rose Theatre: An Archaeological Discovery_ 
(London: Museum of London, 1998) Julian Bowswer, Senior Archaeologist at 
MolAS, discusses the location of the stage (p. 39) and draws it on his 
plans (pp. 31, 35).

Gabriel Egan

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, editor@shaksper.net
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the 
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the 
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

• Next message: Hardy M. Cook: "Shakespeare's "Small Latin and Less Greek""
• Previous message: Hardy M. Cook: "The Big Question"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ]