The physical factors that have to be satisfied in staging the monument scene are (1) Cleopatra is aloft with her women; (2) Diomedes reports Antony’s suicide and then tells her to look out the other side of the monument to see Antony; (3) Antony is heaved aloft as Cleopatra calls for aid, but not specifically from Diomedes. Diomedes, it is necessary to note, is Cleopatra’s, not Antony’s, servant; (4) Antony’s body is carried out at the end of the scene.
Warren Smith suggests that a scaffold was utilized for the monument (“Evidence of Scaffolding on Shakespeare’s Stage,” R.E.S., N.S. II (1951), 29). This is unlikely in view of the specific direction placing the action “aloft.” Wherever scaffolds are otherwise used (Troilus and Cressida, I, ii; Julius Caesar, III, ii; Volpone, II, ii; Fair Maid of Bristow, Sig. E4r-F2v), the term “aloft” or “above” is never introduced. Smith also fails to satisfy the final direction, “Exit bearing Anthony.” The monument must be connected to the tiring house. At the same time there is no indication of a curtain. Consequently, I suppose the monument to be located above. What of factor (2)? It is generally supposed that the stage direction, “Enter Diomed,” refers to an entrance on the platform. Kittredge adds “below” after this stage direction. But this is not the necessary interpretation. If Diomedes entered above, and reported in messenger fashion to his mistress, Cleopatra, his injunction to “Look out o’ th’ other side your monument” could easily mean “Look out front.” In messenger fashion he leaves after making his report. The last problem concerns raising Antony. The agency for doing so was the combined energy of more than four boys (Cleopatra, Charmian, Iras, and her maids who appear for the first time) and of at least four men. How high the body had to be raised is uncertain. J. C. Adams calculates the above was 12’ above the floor and had a 2’6” railing. Hodges’ estimate is less, about 10’. Neither 10’ nor 12’ are prohibitive heights although a railing would be difficult to work over. Perhaps it was possible to remove a portion of the railing. Despite the obstacles, however, Antony was raised in a manner which, we must suppose, was not ludicrous.
NOTES
[1] C. W. Wallace, The First London Theatre (Lincoln, Neb., 1913), p. 24.
[2] Gerald E. Bentley, “Shakespeare and the Blackfriars Theatre,” Shakespeare Survey, I (1948), p. 47.
[3] Peter Streete agreed, in this contract dated January 8, 1600, to complete his construction by July 25, 1600 (E. K. Chambers, The Elizabethan Stage (Oxford, 1923), II, p. 438), a period of about twenty-eight weeks. However, it was covenanted that “the saide Peeter Streete shall not be chardged with anie manner of pay[ntin]ge in or aboute the saide fframe howse or Stadge or anie parte thereof, nor rendringe the walls within” (Chambers, II, p. 437). Consequently, we must add to the twenty-eight weeks an indeterminate period during which the playhouse was painted, thus bringing the estimated completion of the Fortune to some time in August at least. It is probable that in computing the schedule for the Fortune, Streete utilized his experience at the Globe, particularly since the new stage was to be so much like the Globe’s. Streete would find such computation easy after allowing for differences in building conditions. On the one hand the fact that the timber from the Theatre was to be used for the Globe suggests that the frame for the Globe took less time to erect. On the other hand, the fact that the Globe had to be built on piles might reasonably suggest that laying its foundations required more time. If Henslowe’s notation of payment “to the laberers at the eand of the fowndations the 8 of maye 1600” (Philip Henslowe, Papers, ed. W. W. Greg, p. 10), correctly reflects the time consumed in erecting these of the Fortune, a matter of about sixteen weeks, then we must assume that the base of the Globe was not ready to take a frame until the middle of June. As Henslowe’s Diary and Papers indicate, Streete probably consummated his portion of the contract somewhat later than he had estimated, that is, about the first week in August (Henslowe, p. 11). But even if there were some delay, as Greg believes, Streete had erred merely by a matter of two weeks. I believe that his initial estimate, fundamentally reliable, reflected his experience at the Globe.
[4] Among others Heminges testified that he shared in profits from the presentation of plays at Blackfriars for four years previous to 1612 (Kirkham vs. Painton, as reprinted in F. G. Fleay, A Chronicle History of the London Stage (London, 1890), pp. 225, 235, 238, 244, 249). The only time when the plague bills declined sufficiently to permit the possibility of performances was in March, 1609. The weekly count of plague deaths was thirty-two as of March 2, forty-three as of March 9, and thirty-three as of March 16. Thereafter, the plague increased in severity and the weekly number of deaths fell below forty only once again before December, 1609. (Statistics from John Bell, London’s Remembrancer (London, 1665) as reprinted in J. T. Murray, English Dramatic Companies (London, 1910), II, pp. 186-187.)