" It has already been stated, that the natural expansion of the human voice is about 75 fcet in a lateral direction on each side of the speaker ; and as it is evident the space between the front line of the stage, and the boxes immediately theing that line, may at times constitute the lateral direction of the voice, according as the actor's face shall be turned more or less towards either of the sides of the theatre, the utmost distance from the front of the stage to the back-wall of the boxes facing the stage, ought not to exceed 75 feet ; or the limit to which the voice is capable of expanding in its lateral direction. For if, calculating upon the actor's face being turned (as in general it would be) towards the front of the house, the distance between that part of the house and the most advanced line of the stage, were to be considered as invariably the direct line of the voice, and were accordingly to be extended 92 feet, (the expansion of the voice in a direct line,) the consequence would be, that upon a sudden turn of the actor's head, what had before been the direct line of the sound would then become its lateral direction, and those persons, sitting at the front boxes at the distance of 92 feet from the actor, would be 17 feet beyond the reach of his voice.
`• There is a form approaching very nearly to that which I have chosen, which some persons might, perhaps, on the first view of it, be disposed to prefer ; 1 meat- a semicircle, with the sides continued parallel to each other, mstead converging by continuing the circular line to three-fourths of the circle, as I have done. But upon examination, this form will be found ineligible, because it involves an extension of the stage-opening to an inadmissible width, without affii d ing any advantage as an equivalent for that defect.-1 have already stated, that the extreme distance from the front line of the stage to the back-wall of the boxes facing the stage, according to my plan, is 53 feet 9 inches; in the late theatre in Drury Lane, it was 74 feet, or 20 feet 3 inches more than mine : in the old theatre in Covent Garden, (1 mean as it was built in 1730,) the distance between the front of the stage and the back of the wall of the front boxes, was 54 feet 6 inches, or 1 foot 3 inches more than mine : in the old Opera House, built by Sir John Vanburgh, in the Haymarket, it was 66 feet, or 12 feet 3 inches more than mine.—lu most of the foreign theatres, it is very much greater than in my plan. At Milan it is 78 feet, or 24 feet 3 inches more : in the theatre of San Carlos, at Naples, it is 73 feet, or 19 feet 3 inches more : at Bologna it is 74 feet, or 20 feet 3 inches more : in the present theatre of Covent Garden, it is 69 feet 8 inches, or 15 feet 11 inches more. The advantages of which difference between the theatre now building in Drury Lane, and those I have just mentioned, in point of distinct sound, are obviously not less than they are with respect to vision, and they are in both so evident, that they need not be here detailed. It may be right to remark, that the theatre
at Bourdeaux is exactly of the form which 1 have chosen ; and that theatre is always quoted as one in which the voice is better heard than in almost any theatre in the Before I conclude this part of the subject, I shall mention one more point, which bears very seriously upon the distinct ness of' sound in a theatre, namely, the uniform depth from the front to the back of the boxes throughout the house : it has hitherto been invariably the practice in our theatres, to carry the boxes facing the stage to a much greater depth than those on the sides of the theatre ; and, by so doing, to pro duce a great difference between the form of the wall imme diately at the back of the boxes, and that of the breast-work, or front of those boxes.
" Having stated my observations with respect to the advantages in point of sound which I conceive to be atten dant on the circular form, I shall now offer a few remarks upon its comparative and positive merits with respect to vision. In entering on this branch of the subject, I should wish to anticipate a question, which may possibly arise in the minds of some persons, why we should not, in the form of our theatres, adopt the semicircle, which was generally in use among the ancients, and which has evidently great advan tages with respect to vision ? The answer to this is, that the semicircle requires either that the stage-opening should be of enormous width, or that the size of the house should be extremely small, and therefore it is inadmissible in our thea tres. It is inadmissible on the first point, namely, the enor mous width of the stage as to opening, for the reasons which have been already shown (under the first head) upon that subject : and it is equally so upon the second point, because it is impossible to maintain a good theatre in this metropolis upon such a revenue as would accrue from an extremely small house. So long as the public taste for spectacle shall continue (and it is not likely to cease) all the objections to increasing the stage opening, and with it the magnitude and expense of the scenery, must remain in force. The Greeks and Romans, in their theatres, made use of scarcely any change of scenes, and their performances were given gratis to the public; consequently, their theatres were not subject to many of those considerations which are attached to ours. Under these circumstances, therefore, the semicircle is totally inadmissible for a principal theatre in London. The oval and the horse-shoe, as well as some flat-sided forms, have been supposed to be very advantageous in point of vision ; but it is evident, that in the oval, a large proportion of the spec tators must be placed with their backs inclining towards the scene, and that in all of them (if the house be not of ex tremely small dimensions) the front boxes must be at a great distance from the stage ; for, in proportion as the sides shall approximate each other, the front must recede, provided the circumference be not varied.