1890.] on the London Stage in Elizabeth's Beign. 31 



The Italians had before this time erected theatres which were 

 copied from the classical stage, and it might be imagined that James 

 Burbage, when about to build a special house for theatrical entertain- 

 ments, would have followed some such model, but there is no evidence 

 whatsoever that he did so. Mr. Halliwell Phillipps believed (I do not 

 know on what authority) that the Curtain, our second London theatre, 

 was round ; indeed, he believed it to be the " wooden " of Henry V. 

 (in opposition to the claims of the ever-memorable Globe). 



The chief reasons for supposing that almost all the Elizabethan 

 theatres were round, are (1) because the early theatres were not 

 intended exclusively for dramatic entertainments, but were used for 

 fencing, tumbling, bear-baiting &c., and the circular form is much 

 more convenient for sports in an arena; (2) because it is highly 

 probable that the Bankside buildings were copied from something 

 that went before ; (3) because this shape is frequently alluded to by 

 the dramatists, and the word " Eound " is used by them as the name 

 of a theatre. Thus, in Brome's City Wit (printed in 1653), one of 

 the characters, Sarpego, who delivers the prologue says — 



" Some in this i^ound may have both seen't and heard 

 Ere I, that bear its title, bore a beard." 



The Fortune theatre, near St. Giles's, Cripplegate, according to the 

 Indenture dated January 1599-1600, was built on the same plan as 

 the Globe, which had just been erected, with the exception that the 

 auditorium was square instead of round. This was found to be in- 

 convenient, so that when the Fortune was rebuilt in 1622, it was made 

 round. 



The only other view of the interior of an early London theatre 

 which we possess, is that of the Red Bull, in the reign of Charles II., 

 in which we find the same expedient as to the stage, so that we may 

 safely come to the conclusion that, whether square or round, the same 

 system was adopted with regard to the plan of the stage. 



This form had the advantage of being convenient for all kinds 

 of entertainment. If it were general, it is clear that the influence of 

 the classical stage upon the foundation of the modern stage was 

 practically non-existent, and also there is sufficient evidence to allow 

 us to set aside the popular notion that the modern theatre has grown 

 out of the old inn-yard. I fail to see any solid ground or basis for 

 this view, and the only point in its favour seems to be that the pit 

 was frequently called the yard — and this can be otherwise explained. 

 If we agree that the original form of the theatre was a round, with a 

 movable stage in the centre, it follows that when the time came for 

 the building to be devoted exclusively to dramatic entertainments, 

 the stage would naturally be brought back to the portion of the 

 round which had become useless by reason that any would-be 

 spectators placed there could see nothing, and the modern theatre at 

 once stands confessed as a circus flattened at one side — an evolution 

 from the amphitheatre. 



