r, the outcome of an
evolution which could be traced through the other theaters if we had
the necessary documents. If the various theaters did not differ from
each other as some of our modern theaters do, they {39} still did
differ in important points. For example, while the Globe and the
Curtain were round, other theaters were hexagonal or octagonal, and the
Fortune was square. Likewise, there were certainly differences in
size. In spite of these facts, it is, however, still possible to
describe the theaters, in general terms which are sufficiently accurate
for our present purpose.

An Elizabethan theater was a three-story building of wooden or
half-timber construction. The three stories formed three galleries for
spectators. The first of these was raised a little above the level of
the ground, while the yard, or 'pit,' in which the lower class of
spectators stood, seems to have been somewhat sunken. The galleries
were supported by oaken columns, often handsomely carved and
ornamented. They were roofed and ceiled, but the yard was open to the
weather. Although we know that the Fortune was eighty feet square
outside, and that the yard within was fifty-five feet square, we are
left in uncertainty about the seating capacity. From fifteen hundred
to eighteen hundred is, however, the most convincing estimate. There
were two boxes, or 'gentlemen's rooms,' presumably in the first balcony
on either side of the stage. Besides these, there were other, cheaper
boxes, and the rest of the balcony space was filled with seats. The
better seats were most comfortably cushioned, and the whole theater
anything but the bare rude place which people often imagine it.
Coryat, a widely traveled Englishman of the period, writes of the
theaters which he saw in Venice that they were "bare and beggarly in
comparison of our stately playhouses in England; neither can their
actors compare with us for stately apparel, {40} shows, or music."
That this was no mere British prejudice is shown by the similar
statements of foreigners traveling in England.

The most striking difference between Elizabethan and modern theaters
was in the position of the stage, which was not back of a great
proscenium frame, but was built out as a platform into the middle of
the yard. At the Fortune, the stage was forty-three feet wide,--wider,
that is, than most modern stages.[2] Jutting out from the level of the
top gallery, and extending perhaps ten feet ov