The Globe Conversations

A little bit of history: the American Shakespeare Center is in the planning phase for its own reconstruction of the 1614 Globe. About a year ago, there was talk about the theatre opening in 2012, but there are still many questions to consider before the groundbreaking. We'll be discussing some issues related to the construction of Globe 2.

Peter McCurdy

The goal in the construction of the Globe is to find new ways of bringing Shakespeare's plays alive by placing them within their architectural context. The transformative power of a reconstruction of the space is remarkable; I remember being awash in wonderment the first time I stepped into the Blackfriars.

McCurdy's experience in London wth historical reconstructions has led to more informed archeological and architectural work. The level of detail present in modern hitoric reconstructions is vastly superior to what it would have been 30 years ago, and the partnership between scholars and builders has yielded as much in the world of historic reconstruction as the partnership between scholars and actors has at the ASC.

With the foundations of The Rose, and pieces of The Theatre having been excavated, we are in a better position to know how these playhouses were laid out. We no longer need to rely exclusively on historical descriptions of Elizabethan theatres.

There is increasing evidence that the prevalence in the 16th century was toward three story buildings. there is something that links these buildings to the size and areas of the theatres, and McCurdy feels this is another area worth exploring.

Despite references to oak, McCurdy feels that there was probably a prevelence of soft woods. The fact that the first Globe burned down within two hours seems to indicate soft woods used in construction, and we have documentary evidence of other theatres being constructed of soft wood. McCurdy points out that we have little evidence of specifics, as there is not much documentary evidence of carpentry practices from this time. The first book written on carpentry technique was publish in America in the 19th century, and it is quite plausible that the guilds had worked to protect that information. Shakespeare was close with his builder, but there may have been things he still didn't know about the construction of his theatre.

McCurdy asks the bear for a hug, which is granted, and concludes by reminding us all that this is a work in progress.

Tiffany Stern

Stern provides a quote from the Second Maiden's Tragedy and Ovid's Elegies that suggests that it was possible for an audience to sit at the gobe and watch the shoe without themselves being observed. Other descriptions from the time suggest that box seats concealed by grates, or lattice work, provide discreet places from which an audience might watch a play.

Other textual evidence, in the form of lines and stage directions, anticipates a bell in the theatre. Stern notes that, whenever you have a bell striking to indicate time, the play has a character counting the strokes of the bell. The stage direction for clock striking are, in fact, the bell ringing. Stern believes that the textual motivation for this is is that, while the clock is always a bell, the bell is not always a clock. In Macbeth, for example, there is an alarm bell, and likewise in The Changeling a bell is struck for a fire alarm. It must be a "prominent bell that is different from a hand bell. It seems to be a structural bell hanging up within the fabric of the theatre."

Dekker and Jonson make references to visible tapestries in public theatres in the form of an arras, and there also seem to be indications that these curtains had depictions of people on them. Stern feels that these must have been changeable. They could have been used to "swell the number of people on the stage." References to this practice are seen as late as 1749.

Stern offers these observations for consideration in the Globe discussions. Her new book, Documents of Performance in Early Modern England, will be available November 30.

Tim Fitzpatrick

Fitzpatrick will be examining te second Globe from the perspective of Hollar's sketches to the underlying structure. I miss looking at CAD drawings, so this is fun for me. He suggests that the interior of the Globe, rather than be circular, would have been a 16 sided polygon that would have appeared circular from enough of a distance. That makes a lot of sense.

He also examines the authority of the 1630 sketch, which was originally done in light pencil marks, and then over-inked. Because most scholars examine photographs of the drawings, they miss these pencil marks, and the multiple pencil lines reveal that the drawing is, in fact, a concept sketch rather than a detailed draft. The close up of the Globe is so small that you need a magnifying glass to see it.

This presentation is very graphical, and so again, it's going to be hard for me to describe what I'm seeing in any meaningful way. I'll try getting the over-arching points that don't rely on specific visual details doe you.

So the basic principle in this conception of the construction is to take Hollar seriously; he was trying his best to represent what he saw. Second to use the premise of the ad quadratum Globe (the original Globe, based on descriptions) and use it as the underlying basis for what Hollar drew.

One issue that has been resolved is the stair tower is, from Hollar's perspective, skewed slightly owing to his perspective. There is no reason to think that there is anything irregular about the structure itself.

Between Hollar's sketch and the CAD drawing, there are three discrepencies. The first is that the stage cover is uneven. There are also two un-inked pencil lines in Hollar's sketch, and three pencilled-base lines.

The approximation of three windows per bay makes sense when you take into account that the stair tower, which is in the front of the building from Hollar's perspective, would have obscured two of those windows.

Perhaps most shocking is that there was no discovery is that there is no discovery space. Fitzpatrick allows that there may have been a curtain hung as a discovery space, but there was no discovery space built into the stage.

This is some very intriguing stuff. I wish I could show you the drawings. Fitzpatrick has come to some very fascinating conclusions based on this evidence.

Frank Hildy

Hildy offers that considerations for any Globe reconstruction must be which Globe to reconstruct. Most reconstructions use the 1599 Globe, and 20 additional years of scholarship have led to new revelations and questions about the accuracy of the London recreation. Of course, that was the point of building it in the first place: to test the best theories available at the time as to the nature of the reconstruction. Rebuilding the 1614 Globe, as the ASC has choen to do, offers the benefit of Hollar's 1647 drawing. The only other construction of the 1614 Globe is in Tokyo.

Modern research seems to indicate that the London Globe was too big. Archaeological evidence does not support a Gobe that has 20 sides and is 100' in diameter. A maximum proposal based on this evidence is 18 sides and 90', and a minimum gives it 16 sides and ~84'. But the excavation of the Rose in 1989 indicated it was 74' across and 14 sided, which is an impossible number of sides using either the ad quadratum or the ad triangulum systems of calculation. A portion of the foundation of the Globe was excavated a few months later, but not enough to say with any certainty how many sides it had.

Rather than using either ad triangulum or ad quadratum methods, Hildy examines building techniques using a transit (theodolite) based on architectural manuals of the time. By standing in the center of the space and sighting a 20 degree angle, and then using a rope to trace an arch in between, you will span the distance of two bays. Again, there are some excellent drawings that describe all this better than I am able to here.

16th century architects had access to a device called a Surveyor's Protactor, which allowed them to calculate the angle necessary for creating a space of any polygonal shape desired.

The issue of size is important because it will effect everthing from the actor's ability to project to the function of the heavens.

By the way, happy St. Crispin's day. I can't think of a more appropriate day to bring this wonderful conference to a close. If you're in town, please stop by for The Merry Wives of Windsor this afternoon, and The City Musick later this evening.

Before I leave you, I want to thank my fellow bloggers (and fellow M.Litt/MFA students) Sarah Klingbell and Zachary Lyon Brown, and the American Shakespeare Center for letting us sit in and keep you all posted on what's been happening here this past week. We'll work on getting some more materials from the conference online within the next few days where possible, so with a little bit of luck (and permission of the hosts and presenters) we'll be able to follow up with a few of the visuals that I've been talking about.

Thank you all for joining our blog of the 5th bi-annual Blackfriars conference. It's been a blast. If you happen to visit Staunton to see a show, give a shout, we'd love to hear from you. Otherwise, we'll see you again in 2011!

[exit, pursued by house manager.]