" The filet is, there is no object connected with the forma tion of a theatre, which, in all its bearings, is of more im portance than that that part of the house which fitces the scene should be within a moderate distance of the stage ; unless that be the case, it is obvious that a very large proportion of the spectators must be excluded from a clear and distinct view of that play of the features which constitutes the prin cipal merit of the actor in many of the most interesting scenes. If the actor's merit in that particular be not fairly appreciated, he must, of course, be deprived of a proportion ate share of the applause which might otherwise be bestowed on him, and this mortifying want of encouragement, bringing with it a gradual and progressive defect of zeal and emulation, cannot nil in the end to reduce the number of good actors, and materially to injure the state of dramatic performances.
" For the sake of argument, let it be supposed for a moment, that an oval, or horse-shoe, or flat-sided figure, is the best for side-vision, and the fact will then be, that, although in adopting either of those forms, provision may be made for the better accommodation of spectators sitting on the sides of the theatre, that accommodation will be given to them at a serious expense to those sitting in the front, for, while it will enable those who may sit on the sides of the house to see a greater proportion of the stage in cases of spectacles, (though not in ordinary,) those who are placed in the front will be proportionately excluded from that distinct view of the actor's countenance which is not less desirable than to be within the reach of his voice. But in point of fact, the oval, horse-shoe, or flat-sided theatre, is not so well calculated even for side-vision, as that which I have chosen ; for there is one consideration of very great importance to each of these forms, and which appears entirely to have escaped observa tion, although obvious on reflection, namely, that although in either of them, the spectators who sit in the front row of the boxes on each side of the house, may be enabled to see rather more of the stage when extended to an extraordinary depth, those who sit in the back-seats in all the boxes above stairs, (which it should be remembered constitute in point of extent the greater part of the house,) will see considerably less of the stage than in a theatre of circular fbrni ; where, of course, the sides of the theatre will, from their swelling shape, recede from the stage much more than in either of the others ; for nothing can be more unquestionably true, than that the more the boxes on each side shall advance towards the centre-line of the theatre, the more must they overhang the stage, and all the objects on the stage ; and that the more they shall overhang those objects, the more perpen dicular the rays of sight (especially from the upper part of the boxes) must become, and, consequently, the less thOse who sit on the back-rows of the upper boxes will be able to see of the performance on the stage. In proportion as the
point of sight shall be at a greater distance from the stage, the visual rays will have an oblique direction towards the stage ; and a greater proportion of the breadth, as well as depth of the stage, than appears in the plan, will be opened to view in all situations. However, the comparative advan tage which has been stated, namely, of seeing one-fifth more of the breadth of the stage, will belong to the circular form, a fact which I wish to impress• upon the mind of the reader. There is an exemplary instance of this in the Hous.e of Com mons; for, from the second row of seats on the side gallery, (taking a position opposite the side of the table, or speaker's chair,) it is impossible to see the speaker, or any part of the floor of the house, although the whole of the seats on the opposite side of the house, upon a level with the speaker, and even below him, (being farther removed From the point of sight,) are perfectly visible ; whence it is evident, that the more the position of the spectator shall recede from a per pendicular point with respect to the objects below him, the more those objects will be opened to his view : and while it is thus clear, even for the purposes of side-vision, that the oval, horse-shoe, or flat-sided theatre, is inferior to the cir cula• form, it is, on the other hand, impossible for prejudice itself to resist the proof, that in the form I have chosen, namely, three-fourths of a circle, a much larger proportion of the whole house will be placed immediately in front of the scene, than could be the case in either of the other three forms which have been named. Impressed by the impor tance of all the foregoing considerations, I determined to adopt, in my design for a theatre, the form I have described ; and although I was aware at the time when may drawings and model were first made, that a certain proportion of the spectators in the boxes nearest to the stage, would have but an imperfect view of the stage, I considered that as an unavoidable inconvenience in all theatres, and not greater in that projected by me, than all others ; while on the other hand, the form which I had chosen, possessed many advan tages which could not be derived from any other shape.—The angles, however, to which I allude, in the boxes nearest to the stage, having appeared to several persons, who saw my model, as an imperfection to the design, and those persons seeming to view the defect more in its positive than in its comparative bearing upon the perfection of a theatre, I was led to reconsider, most attentively, this particular part of the design ; and after a great deal of reflection, and a variety of experiments, I determined to alter the shape of that part of the theatre adjacent to the stage, by opening the proscenium from the back, instead of from the front of the boxes. The scene (excepting in cases of spectacle) is seldom extended in depth beyond 30 feet from the front line of the stage.