162
NOTES AND QUERIES, in S.XII.ACQ. 28,1915.
4. Contemporary Maps and Views.
In the third part of his reply MR. HUB- BARD returns again to the maps and views of the Stuart times, and discusses them generally and specifically. In doing so, however, we seem to be getting a long way from a reply to MRS. STOPES'S note. In- deed, MR. HUBBARD'S remarks are rather by way of criticism of my paper in the Surrey Archaeological Collections than of the matter dealt with by that lady.
To do justice to such a topic as maps and views far more space is necessary than is available in a mere reply. To be of value, the topic must be dealt with substantively, and then by reference to reproductions of the maps themselves.
What the markings mean is one thing ; whether they tell the truth is another. MR. HUBBARD attempts to extract from them far more than works of the character under discussion contain. As I have already indicated, he accepts them at their face- value. ? Frankly, I do not. They are but " bird's-eye views," and bear all the imper- fections inseparable from such a method of exposition. They require to be inter- preted. Lines upon which interpretation may proceed I have set out in The South- Eastern Naturalist for 1910, pp. 38-51. The maps I may call them maps for short are replete with conventionalism. The pro- blem is to distinguish conventional from faithful representation. The pictures in little in these picturesque panoramas, which MR. HUBBARD accepts literally and upon which he bases his conclusions, are for the most part conventional. Unless they can be substantiated by extraneous evidence, they should be regarded as approximations only, and judgment upon their fidelity should be left in abeyance. MR. HUBBARD pro- ceeds, moreover, as though the maps of Bankside were consistent in their detail ; indeed, the contrary is the case, except where one map is " lifted " from a pre- decessor. As between maps of independent origin, their representations are so divergent as^to render difficult the production of even a " combination " map which can be regarded as truthful. I have given the closest atten- tion to them for many years, and have brought to bear upon them all the canons of interpretation of which I am possessed. To me the maps are " suspect," and before acceptance require verification in their particulars.
As regards the plea that the maps which bear the words " The Globe " support the
contention for a hypothetical Globe Alley,
and for a northerly position of the " Park "
and Playhouse I think the maps do nothing
of the sort. The Visscher map I havo
already discussed when treating of the first
part of MR. HUBBARD'S reply. In the
Hollar panorama of 1647 there is nothing but
conventional expression in the area west of
Winchester House. There appear in this
conventional sketches of a playhouse and of
a bear-garden, neither being of the shape
it probably presented. For topographical
exactitude Hollar is valueless. As regards
the Merian of 1638, this alone shows the
Globe, the Rose Playhouse, and the bear-
garden in existence contemporaneously as
we know them to have been. In Merian
the Globe is shown south of the Rose and
south of the bear-garden. In contemporary
and later copies of Merian a lane Maid
Lane is interposed between the Rose and
the bear-garden on the north, and the Globe
on the south. Maid Lane was evidently inter-
posed by those who knew the district at the
time, and perceived the deficiency in the map.
As regards Boisseau's view, MR. HUBBARD actually cites this degraded derivative of a well-known type^ to assist him, although, as he says, Wren's cathedral is substituted for old St. Paul's. St. Paul's was burnt in the Great Fire of 1666, and Wren's cathedral erected at a much later date. Yet this map is cited as evidence of topographical detail prior to 1644, when the Globe was demolished. MR. HUBBARD does not quote another degraded derivative of a derivative issued by Porter, c. 1660, which has equal evidential value, and which shows a diminutive picture of a theatre, the Globe, on the south of Maid Lane (Surrey Arch. Coll, xxiii. 192).
I have, however, said enough concerning these maps. We know that for their inter- pretation extraneous evidence is indispen- sable ; but it is this extraneous evidence which is in dispute. It is certain, however, that they lend no countenance to a hypo- thetical Globe Alley, to a park other than the Bishop's Park, or to a Globe other than at the south of Maid Lane. If they prove anj^thing at all, it is that the site accorded by tradition to the south of Maid Lane is correct.
5. The Alleged Site at Nos. 6 and 7, Bankside.
' Here MR. HUBBARD makes a plunge which I can only regard as desperate :
"To-day, the site of the Globe is covered by warehouses, known as 6 and 7, Bankside. When these warehouses were built, the foundations of the theatre were disclosed."
