t flE

486

THE

attending thereon ; and I shall, therefore, having shownwhat appears to be the best form with respect to size andcapacity, now proceed to the second head of the discussion,namely, the former shape of the theatre, as connected withthe objects of distinct vision and sound.—1st. With referenceto distinct sound, the safest method in deciding upon theshape of a theatre appears to be, to adopt a form which isknown to be in itself capable of conveying sound with facility;to construct that form of materials which are of a conductivenature ; and to avoid all breaks and projections on the sur-face of such form, which can tend to interrupt or impede theprogress of the sound when once conveyed to any part of it.It is generally admitted that a circular enclosure, unobstructedby breaks and projections, possesses the power of conveyingsound with facility, and that wood is the material whichcombines the greatest number of desirable qualities, as toconduction, resonance, &c. &c. It does not absorb the soundso much as some materials, and does not conduct it so muchas others; which medium is acknowledged to be an advantageto the clear and distinct conveyance of sound. That wood issonorous* and capable of producing soft, clear, and pleasingtones, is sufficiently demonstrated by the effect of it in musicalinstruments.—I shall take it for granted that whatever be theform of the theatre, it ought in every part to be confinedwithin the limit to which the voice is known to be capableof expanding : and, certainly, I hazard nothing in assuming,that the nearer the shape shall conform to those proportionswhich would be described by the natural expansion of thevoice, the more equally the sound will be heard in all partsof the theatre. After reading Mr. Saunders’s account of theexperiments upon the voice, which he describes in his Trea-tise on Theatres, I was induced to try the same experimentsmyself, and after changing the relative positions and distancesof the speaker and hearer, in a variety of ways, and afterseveral repetitions of each experiment, the result correspondedas nearly as possible with the statement given by Mr. Saunders,and clearly proved to me, that the natural expansion of thehuman voice, when moderately exerted, will be in the propor-tion of about two-ninths farther in a direct line, than it willlaterally ; and that being distinctly audible on each side thespeaker, at a distance of 75 feet, it will be as plainly heard ata distance of at least 92 feet in front of the speaker, declin-ing in strength behind him, so as not to be clearly heard atmuch more than 30 feet from his back. Upon this principle,I have in my design made the widest of the area of thetheatre, upon the level of the dress-boxes, 58 feet, allowing9 feet 6 inches for the depths of the boxes : upon that floor,a projection of 18 inches more than is given to any of theboxes above, making together, 67 feet 6 inches between theextremity of the stage on one side, and the back wall ofthe boxes on the opposite side. But it should be remem-bered, that the speaker will not at any time be placed laterally,at the very extremity of either side of the stage, and even ifhe were to be sometimes so situated, the distance betweenhim and the opposite side of the house, would be eight feetwithin the expansion of the voice in a lateral direction, and 27within its limits in a direct line. Referring to all the con-siderations connected with the foregoing remarks, I have nohesitation in believing, that the circular form is preferable toany other form. And having, upon the principles abovestated, fixed a limit for the diameter of that form, I nextcome to those considerations connected with sound, whichought to operate upon the longitudinal dimensions of thetheatre, or upon the space from the front line of the stage, tothe boxes immediately facing that line.

It has already been stated, that the natural expansion of thehuman voice is about 75 feet in a lateral direction on each

side of the speaker ; and as it is evident the space bethe front line of the stage, and the boxes immediatelythat line, may at times constitute the lateral direction o ^voice, according as the actor’s face shall be turned ® gtless towards either of the sides of the theatre, the udistance from the front of the stage to the back-wallboxes facing the stage, ought not to exceed 75 feet; ^

limit to which the voice is capable of expanding in A 9 j, e ;ng

direction. For if, calculating upon the actor’s faceturned (as in general it would be) towards the front ohouse, the distance between that part of the house an ^most advanced line of the stage, were to be consider ,invariably the direct line of the voice, and were accor ^ ctto be extended 92 feet, (the expansion of the voice in a 0 f

line,) the consequence would be, that upon a sudden ^

the actor’s head, what had before been the direct line 0 ^sound would then become its lateral direction, and ^persons, sitting in the front boxes at the distance or jjiafrom the actor, would be 17 feet beyond the reach o

aice. .

“ There is a form approaching very nearly to tha

wbic h

I have chosen, which some persons might, perhaps* o , e>first view of it, be disposed to prefer ; I mean a sem 1 , 0 fwith the sides continued parallel to each other, m 9 ^

converging by continuing the circular line to three- ^is

of the circle, as I have done. But upon examinatio > ^form will be found ineligible, because it involves an ex ^. gT d-of the stage-opening to an inadmissible width, without aing any advantage as an equivalent for that defect’"", j; D ealready stated, that the extreme distance from the tr g f a ge>of the stage to the back-wall of the boxes facing ^j^tr®according to my plan, is 53 feet 9 inches; in the latein Drury Lane, it was 74 feet, or 20 .feet 3 inches niomine: in the old theatre in Covent Garden, (I mean a 9 gta gebuilt in 1730,) the distance between the front of 41 j- ee t 6and the back of the wall of the front boxes, was Qper®inches, or 1 foot 3 inches more than mine : in the o , itHouse, built by Sir John Vanburgh, in the Hay®*was 66 feet, or 12 feet 3 inches more than jn ^

of the foreign theatres, it is very much greater t ‘ ia r6 ; i* 1plan. At Milan it is 78 feet, or 24 feet 3 inches * f e ei

the

73 feet, or

8 inches, or 15 feet 11 inches more. The advan^ p r[)J ywhich difference between the theatre now building jistifl®*Lane, and those I have just mentioned, in point 0 pe ct t0sound, are obviously not less than they are with r , , l0 t b evision, and they are in both so evident, that they n® t j,eatr®here detailed. It may be right to remark, that c j,oS®° ’at Bourdeaux is exactly of the form which I voi c<;

and that theatre is always quoted as one in w*nc 1 ^, or ld."'is better heard than in almost any theatre in ji® ^gjiti®®Before I conclude this part of the subject, I s * ia di^ nC L

one more point, which bears very seriously upon ^ t j, fr®.^

ness of sound in a theatre, namely, the uniform j,y U s® :the front to the back of the boxes throughout ' theatre* „has hitherto been invariably the practice in oui t j, tb^carry the boxes facing the stage to a much greatm t0 p rthose on the sides of the theatre ; and, by so 0, ^ va n i® 0 ^duce a great difference between the form of tb® ea st-' v °diately at the back of the boxes, and that of the

wi

ith

diately

or front of those boxes.

“ Having stated my observationsadvantages in point of sound which I conceive r ^dant on the circular form, I shall now offer a reS peOupon its comparative and positive merits wi

to the

resP eC ‘ fl tte£

t0 ><***