Part II

, and must be taken to show the type of stage on which the ‘drolls’ contained in the book were given ‘when the publique Theatres were shut up’.

A Court interlude, with performers and spectators, might be supposed to be represented in (_e_) a woodcut prefixed to Wilson’s _Three Lords and Three Ladies of London_ (1590), but the subject is not that of the play, and the cut is shown by A. W. Pollard (_English Miracle Plays_, ed. 6, 1914) to be taken from S. Batman, _The Travayled Pylgrime_ (1569), and ultimately from a fifteenth-century illustration to O. de la Marche’s _Chevalier Délibéré_.

Of the exteriors of theatres there are (_f_) a small engraving of _Theatrum_ in a compartment of the title-page of Jonson’s _Works_ (1616), which may be merely a bit of classical archaeology, but appears to have the characteristic Elizabethan hut, and (_g_) a series of representations, or perhaps only cartographical symbols, in the various maps detailed in the bibliographical note to ch. xvi. Doubtfully authentic is (_h_) a façade of the Blackfriars, reproduced by Baker, 78, from a print in the collection of Mr. Henry Gardiner, with a note (44) that the owner and various antiquarians ‘believe it genuine’; and almost certainly misnamed (_i_) a façade engraved as a relic of the second Fortune in R. Wilkinson, _Londina Illustrata_ (1819), ii. 141, and elsewhere, which is plausibly assigned by W. J. Lawrence, _Restoration Stage Nurseries_, in _Archiv_ (1914), 301, to a post-Restoration training-school for young actors.

A small ground-plan (_k_) of the Swan appears upon a manor map of Paris Garden in 1627, reproduced by W. Rendle in Harrison, ii, App. I.

A rough engraving (_l_) on the title-page of _Cornucopia, Pasquils Nightcap_ (1612) shows a section of the orchestra of a classical play-house as seen from the stage, and throws no light on contemporary conditions; and (_m_) the design by Inigo Jones described in ch. vii is of uncertain date, and intended for the private Cockpit theatre at Whitehall.

I know of no representation of an English provincial stage, and unfortunately E. Mentzel, who describes (_Gesch. der Schauspielkunst in Frankfurt am Main_, 38) a woodcut of a play, with signboards, by English actors, probably at Frankfort, Nuremberg, or Cassel, in 1597, does not reproduce it. Some notion of the improvised stages used by travelling companies for out-of-door performances may be obtained from the continental engravings reproduced by Bapst, 153, by Rigal in _Petit de Julleville_, iii. 264, 296, and by M. B. Evans, _An Early Type of Stage_ (_M. P._ ix. 421).

An engraving of the Restoration stage of the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane (built 1663), from _Ariane, ou Le Mariage de Bacchus_ (1674), and another of the same house as altered in 1696, from _Unhappy Kindness_ (1697), are reproduced by Lawrence, i. 169; ii. 140. Of the five engravings of the Duke’s Theatre, Dorset Garden (built 1671), in E. Settle, _Empress of Morocco_ (1673), one is reproduced by Albright, 47, and another by Lawrence, ii. 160, and Thorndike, 110.

Graphic attempts to reconstruct the plan and elevation of a typical Elizabethan stage will be found in the dissertations cited above of Brodmeier, Wegener, Archer, Godfrey, Albright, Corbin (1911, by G. Varian and J. Hambridge), and Forestier, and in the picture reproduced in W. N. Hills, _The Shakespearian Stage_ (1919).

Various revivals have also been carried out on Elizabethan stages, with more or less of archaeological purism, notably in London (W. Poel, _Shakespeare in the Theatre_), Paris (_Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xxxv. 383), Harvard (G. P. Baker in _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xli. 296), and Munich (_Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xlii. 327).]

A history of the theatres would not be complete without some account of their general structure and economy in the disposition of auditorium and stage. I propose to begin with the more assured or less important points, as a clearing of the way for the difficult and controverted problems of scenic setting, on some of which I am afraid that no very secure conclusion can be reached.

[Illustration]

It is necessary, in the forefront, to appreciate the distinction between the ‘common’ or ‘public’ play-houses and the ‘private’ houses, which, so far as our period is concerned, were Paul’s, the Blackfriars, and the Whitefriars. This distinction is in its origin somewhat a technical one, for there is no reason to suppose that in the private houses the performances were private, in the sense that access to them could not be obtained, on payment, by members of the general public. Probably it is to be explained in relation to the Elizabethan system of State control of theatres, and represents an attempt to evade the limitations on the location and the number of play-houses which had been established through the action, first of the civic authorities and later of the Privy Council itself. This view receives support from the allegations made during the campaign for the suppression of the Blackfriars in 1619 that the owner ‘doth vnder the name of a private howse (respectinge indeed private comoditie only) convert the said howse to a publique play-house’.[1643]

It can hardly be supposed, however, that Burbadge could have hoodwinked the Privy Council merely by calling the Blackfriars a ‘private’ house, without finding any other means of differentiating it from the ‘public’ houses, and it is quite possible that the technical distinction, for which modern analogies could be found, consisted in the fact that admission was paid for in advance and no money taken at the doors.[1644] Mr. Lawrence has very appropriately quoted in this connexion the Common Council regulations of 1574, in which an exception is made for performances ‘withowte publique or comen collection of money of the auditorie, or behoulders theareof’; and though I do not suggest that the extension of this principle to Paul’s or the Blackfriars fell within the intention of the order, the evasion may have been allowed, within the gates of Paul’s or in a liberty, and for a well-conducted house attended by a well-to-do audience, to hold.[1645] If so, it is probable that Paul’s from the beginning and the earlier Blackfriars were in effect private houses. But the actual terminology does not emerge before the revival of the boy companies in 1599 and 1600. For some years past the title-pages of plays had vaunted them as ‘publikely acted’.[1646] A corresponding ‘priuately acted’ appears for Blackfriars in Jonson’s _Cynthia’s Revels_ (1601) and _Poetaster_ (1602), and for Paul’s in Middleton’s _Blurt Master Constable_ (1602), while the antithesis is complete in Dekker’s _Satiromastix_ (1602), which was presented ‘publikely’ by the Chamberlain’s and ‘priuately’ by Paul’s. Somewhat later we find Field’s _Woman a Weathercock_ (1612) acted ‘priuately’, and Chapman’s _Revenge of Bussy D’Ambois_ (1613) ‘at the priuate Play-house’ in the Whitefriars.[1647] But by this time the distinction may be taken for granted as well established in general use.[1648]

From the point of view, however, of stage arrangements, the technical _differentia_ of a private house is less important than certain subsidiary characteristics.[1649] The private houses were all in closed buildings, were occupied by boys, and charged higher prices than the ordinary theatres. These facts entailed variations of structure and method, which will require attention at more than one point. They naturally became less fundamental, but did not entirely disappear, after the transfer of the Blackfriars to the King’s men in 1609, and probably passed still further into the background after the introduction of roofed public houses in the Caroline age.[1650] The title-pages generally describe the Blackfriars, the Cockpit, and Salisbury Court as ‘private’ houses right up to the closing of the theatres, but the term, in so far as it connotes anything different from ‘public’, seems to have lost what little meaning it ever had.[1651]

De Witt, about 1596, describes the Theatre, Curtain, Rose, and Swan as ‘amphiteatra’, and Hentzner in 1598 adds that they were all ‘lignea’.[1652] The Globe and the Hope were built later on the same structural model. The Fortune was also of wood, but square. Of the shape and material of the Red Bull we know nothing. Prologues and epilogues often refer to the internal appearance of the auditorium as presenting a ‘round’, ‘ring’, ‘circuit’, ‘circumference’, or ‘O’.[1653] If we can rely upon the draughtsmanship of the London maps, the external outline was rather that of a polygon. This evidence must not be pressed too far, for there is probably an element of cartographic symbolism to be reckoned with. The same house may appear in one map as a hexagon, in another as an octagon or decagon, and the late Hollar group differs from its predecessors in using a completely circular form. But there is confirmation in the Paris Garden manor map of 1627, which shows the ground-plan of the Swan decagonal, and in the statement of Mrs. Thrale that the ruins of the Globe still visible in the eighteenth century were hexagonal without and round within. This was of course the later Globe built in 1613, and there is some reason for thinking that the earlier Globe may have been of rather different design. The verses on the fire by which it was destroyed speak of the stage-house ‘as round as taylers clewe’, and the early Hondius map, while it shows the Rose as polygonal, shows the Globe as circular, with the upper half of less diameter than the lower. This construction reappears in the Delaram drawings, and is so peculiar that the representation may well be realistic. There was an obvious precedent for the amphitheatrical form in the bear and bull rings which preceded the public theatres, and I do not know that we need go back with Ordish to a tradition of round mediaeval play-places, Cornish or English, or to the remains of Roman occupation. A ring is the natural form in which the maximum number of spectators can press about an object of interest.[1654]

There is nothing to show that, for the main fabric, any material but timber was used, until the Fortune was rebuilt of brick in 1623. Timber is provided for in the contracts for the earlier Fortune and the Hope, and these were modelled on the Globe and Swan. Oak was to be mainly used for the Hope; no fir in the lower or middle stories. Burbadge’s lawsuits show that timber was the chief object of his expenditure on the Theatre, although some ironwork was also employed, presumably to tie the woodwork together. The dismantled fabric of the Theatre was used for the Globe. Henslowe used a good deal of timber for the repairs of the Rose in 1592–3, and did the house ‘about with ealme bordes’ in 1595. There was also some brickwork, and the Fortune and Hope were to have brick foundations, a foot above the ground. The Fortune was to be covered with lath, lime, and hair without. Henslowe also used plaster, and I do not see anything inconsistent with a substantially wooden structure in De Witt’s statement that the Swan was ‘constructum ex coaceruato lapide pyrritide ... ligneis suffultum columnis’. This has been regarded as an error which prejudices the reliability of De Witt’s observations, but the description is too precise to be disproved by Hentzner’s generalized ‘lignea’, and after all the strength of the building was naturally in the columns, and the flints and mortar--a common form of walling in the chalk districts of England--may well have filled up the interstices between these. De Witt adds that the columns might deceive the shrewdest ‘ob illitum marmoreum colorem’.[1655]

De Witt has also been criticized for giving the seating capacity of the Swan as 3,000. I dare say this is merely the exaggerated round estimate of a casual visitor, but Wheatley calculates from the drawing that the galleries might hold 2,000, and it would not be surprising if our rude forefathers sat a bit closer than we care to do. Moryson speaks even more largely of theatres ‘more remarkable for the number, and the capacity, than for the building’, and ‘capable of many thousands’, while no less than 2,000 got into Trinity College hall for the academic plays of 1615.[1656] The frame of the Fortune was 80 ft. square without and 55 ft. square within. This allows a depth of 12½ ft. for the galleries, and Corbin calculates a seating capacity, allowing 18 in. for a seat and 18 in. square for a standing man, of 2,138 or 2,558 at a pinch.[1657] We do not know that the Swan was not larger than the Fortune, and have therefore no right to assume that De Witt was seriously out. Wright tells us that the Globe, Fortune, and Red Bull were ‘large’ houses; he is comparing them with the private houses of Caroline days.[1658] The allusion in _Old Fortunatus_ to the ‘small circumference’ of the Rose perhaps hardly indicates that it was below the average size.

The Swan drawing is our one contemporary picture of the interior of a public play-house, and it is a dangerous business to explain away its evidence by an assumption of inaccurate observation on the part of De Witt, merely because that evidence conflicts with subjective interpretations of stage-directions, arrived at in the course of the pursuit of a ‘typical’ stage. Still less can it be discredited on the ground that it was merely made by Van Buchell on ‘hearsay evidence’ from the instructions of De Witt.[1659] It is a copy, like the accompanying description on the same piece of paper, of De Witt’s original, which De Witt says he drew (‘adpinxi’) in order to bring out an analogy which had struck him between the English and the Roman theatres. It was for this reason also, no doubt, that he marked certain features of the structure on the drawing with the names of what he thought to be their classical prototypes. I do not, of course, suggest that the drawing has the authority of a photographic record. De Witt is more likely to have made it as an afterthought in his inn than during the actual performance, and he may well have omitted or misrepresented features. Certainly he can hardly have seen the trumpeter sounding when the action had already begun. And the draughtsmanship is bad, and may have been made worse by the copyist.[1660] The upper part is done, with an attempt at perspective, as he may have seen it from a point in the middle, or perhaps the upper, gallery somewhat to the right of the centre; the lower part as from full face, so that the pillars stand equidistant from the edges of the stage, as they would not have appeared to him in perspective. His doors and the compartments of his stage gallery are of uneven sizes.[1661] But, with all its faults, the drawing is the inevitable basis of any comprehensive account of the main structural features of a play-house, and I propose, leaving aside for the present the question of the possible hangings which it does not show, to take its parts one by one and illustrate them from other sources, and in particular from Henslowe’s contracts for the construction of the Fortune in 1600 and the Hope in 1614.[1662]

The outline of the building is round, or slightly ovoid.[1663] The floor, which shows no traces of seating, is marked ‘planities siue arena’. This is the space ordinarily known as the ‘yard’, a name which it may fairly be taken to have inherited from the inn-yards, surrounded by galleries and open overhead, in which, in the days before the building of the Theatre in 1576, more or less permanent play-houses had grown up.[1664] Spectators in the yard always stood, and the more unstable psychology of a standing, as compared with a seated, crowd must always be taken into account in estimating the temperament of an Elizabethan audience. These are the ‘groundlings’, and the poets take their revenge for occasional scenes of turbulence in open or covert sneers at their ‘understanding’.[1665]

Well into the yard, leaving space for the groundlings on three sides of it, projects a quadrangular stage, which is marked ‘proscaenium’.[1666] The breadth is perhaps rather greater than the depth.[1667] This was certainly the case at the Fortune, where the stage was 43 ft. wide, and extended ‘to the middle of the yarde’, a distance of 27½ ft. The level of the stage may be some 3 or 4 ft. above the ground. Two solid trestles forming part of its supports are visible, but at the Fortune it was paled in with oak, and in view of the common use of the space below the stage to facilitate apparitions and other episodes requiring traps, this was probably the normal arrangement.[1668] It has been thought that the stage of the Swan, like that of the Hope, which was in many respects modelled upon it, may have been removable. But this is hardly consistent with the heavy pillars which, in this respect certainly unlike the Hope, it carries. Moreover, the Hope had to be available for bear-baiting, which entailed an open arena, and there is no evidence, and very little likelihood, that baiting ever took place at the Swan. Like other theatres, it sometimes accommodated gymnasts and fencers, but these would use the stage.[1669] There are no rails round the stage, such as we may infer the existence of at the Globe.[1670] The only scenic apparatus visible is a large bench, on which a lady sits, while another stands behind her in an attitude of surprise, at the rapid approach from an outer corner of the stage of a man in an affected attitude, with a hat on his head and a long staff in his hand. You might take him for Malvolio cross-gartered, were there any chance that _Twelfth Night_ could have been written when the drawing was made, or produced at the Swan.[1671] Probably he is a returning traveller or a messenger bringing news. The floor of the stage is apparently bare. Sometimes rushes were laid down, at any rate for interior scenes.[1672] The Globe produced _Henry VIII_ in 1613 ‘with many extraordinary circumstances of pomp and majesty, even to the matting of the stage’.

Circling the yard and raised above it are three tiers of galleries, each containing three rows of seats. Beneath the first gallery De Witt wrote ‘orchestra’, above its seats ‘sedilia’, and between the middle and upper galleries ‘porticus’. In the classical theatre ‘porticus’ was the name for a covered gallery, and the classical analogy also makes it clear that by ‘orchestra’ De Witt meant to indicate the position occupied by the spectators of highest rank, corresponding to the seats of Roman senators, to which the name of the obsolete dancing place immediately in front of them had been transferred. It was not until the Restoration that the orchestra was allocated to the music.[1673] The fronts of the galleries are supported by a number of turned posts. In the Fortune all the chief supports, presumably both in the auditorium and on the stage, were to be square and made ‘palasterwise, with carved proporcions called Satiers’. Internal painting was contemplated, but was not covered by the contract. Other references to painted theatres suggest that the Elizabethan builders were not content with bare scaffolds, but aimed at a decorative effect.[1674] Three seems to have been the regular number of galleries. Kiechel bears witness to it for the Theatre and Curtain in 1585; and there were three at the Fortune and at the Hope. The lowest gallery at the Fortune was 12 ft. high, the next 11 ft., and the uppermost 9 ft., and each of the two latter jutted out 10 in. beyond that below. This gives a total height of 32 ft., about three-fifths of the interior width of the house. The maps, therefore, make the buildings rather disproportionately high. The uppermost gallery has a roof, marked ‘tectum’. This in the earlier Globe was of thatch, which caused the fire of 1613, and left the unlucky King’s men with little but ‘wit to cover it with tiles’. I think the Rose was also thatched; but the Fortune and Hope were tiled. In view of the jetties, such a roof would give some protection to those in the galleries, but the groundlings had none. Both the drawing and the maps confirm the statement of Wright that the Globe, Fortune, and Red Bull were ‘partly open to the weather’, and this was doubtless also the case with their predecessors.[1675]

De Witt does not indicate any internal gallery partitions, but the Swan had these by 1614, for they were to be the model for ‘two boxes in the lowermost storie fitt and decent for gentlemen to sitt in’, which were to be constructed at the Hope. Similarly the Fortune was to have ‘ffower convenient divisions for gentlemens roomes, and other sufficient and convenient divisions for twoe pennie roomes, with necessarie seates’. These were to be ceiled with lath and plaster. An earlier example of the technical use of the term ‘room’ for a division of the auditorium occurs in the draft Theatre lease of 1585, which gave the landlord a right to sit or stand in ‘some one of the upper romes’, if the places were not already taken up. If the clause, like the rest of the draft, merely reproduced the covenants of the 1576 lease, the term was of long standing. Probably the divisions were of varying sizes. There would not have been much point in cutting up the space available for ‘two-pennie roomes’ into very small sections, but there were also ‘priuate roomes’, which are perhaps the same as the ‘gentlemens roomes’ of the contracts.[1676] If so, these were probably to the right and left of the stage in the lowest gallery. But the whole question of seating and prices is rather difficult, and it is further complicated by obscurely discerned changes of fashion, which involved the adoption of the very inconvenient custom of sitting on the stage, and the consequent abandonment by the gentry of what was called the lord’s room. Prices also, no doubt, tended to grow, at any rate for the better seats; the ‘popular’ prices always remained low.[1677] I do not know whether the professional actors ever contented themselves, after their establishment in London, with merely sending round the hat, or, in mediaeval phrase, making a ‘gatheryng’.[1678] Fixed prices must certainly have been the rule by the time of Kiechel’s visit in 1585, for he tells us that, on the occasion of a new play, double prices were charged. This practice helps to explain the fluctuating receipts in Henslowe’s diary, and was still in force in the seventeenth century.[1679] Spenser and his friends could have their laugh at a play for 1_d._ or 2_d._ in 1579, and ten years later Martin Marprelate could be seen for 2_d._ at the Theatre and 4_d._ at Paul’s.[1680] Higher prices are already characteristic of the private houses. In 1596 Lambarde informs us of a regular scale, apparently applicable to all public entertainments. None, he says, who ‘goe to Paris Gardein, the Bell Savage or Theatre, to beholde beare baiting, enterludes or fence play, can account of any pleasant spectacle unlesse they first pay one pennie at the gate, another at the entrie of the scaffolde and the thirde for a quiet standing’. Platter, in 1599, reports the same scale and adds a distinction, not made by Lambarde, between standings and seats. You paid 1_d._ to stand on the level, 1_d._ at an inner door to sit, and 1_d._ at a third door for one of the best places with a cushion.[1681] The two-penny galleries or rooms long continued to be the resort of the ordinary playgoer, if he was not satisfied to stand in the yard for a penny.[1682] He sat close, and the insolent poets and pamphleteers classed him with the groundlings as a ‘stinkard’.[1683] His domain certainly included the top gallery, but about the other galleries I am not sure. There are some puzzling allusions to penny galleries and rooms, but probably, these are not distinct from the ‘two-penny’ ones, and the explanation is to be found in the practice of paying the twopence in two instalments, one on entrance, the other at the gallery door.[1684] It did not long remain possible to get one of the best seats for the 3_d._ quoted by Platter, even if there was not already in his time a higher charge for ‘the priuate roomes of greater price’.[1685] There were both sixpenny and twelve-penny rooms by 1604.[1686] These may have been the same private rooms at varying prices, according as the play was old or new. I take it that you only got a single seat, even in a ‘private’ room, for your 6_d._ or 12_d._, and not the whole room. Overbury or another gives 12_d._ as the price of the ‘best room’ as late as about 1614, but in the same year the ordinary scale of charges was greatly exceeded throughout the house on the production of _Bartholomew Fair_ at the Hope, where a speaker in the induction says, ‘it shall be lawful to judge his six-penny-worth, his twelve-penny-worth, so to his eighteen-pence, two shillings, half a crown, to the value of his place, provided always his place get not above his wit’. This must have been a quite exceptional occasion, not merely a new play, but a new play at a new house. Similarly, when Richard Vennar brought the gulls to his swindle of _England’s Joy_ in 1602, ‘the price at cumming in was two shillings or eighteen-pence at least’.

A special compartment in one of the galleries was not the only privilege offered to the more fashionable playgoer. He might, at one time or another, sit ‘over the stage’ and on the stage. De Witt’s drawing shows, at the back of the stage, a raised gallery divided into six small boxes, in each of which one or two spectators appear to be placed.[1687] It is reasonable to suppose that these are sitting ‘over the stage’.[1688] And some or all of those ‘over the stage’ again, appear to have sat in ‘the lords room’ or ‘rooms’.[1689] Of such a room we first hear in 1592, when Henslowe, repairing the Rose, paid 10_s._ ‘for sellynge of the Rome ouer the tyerhowsse’ and 13_s._ ‘for sellinges my lords Rome’. The entry rather suggests that this was not so much a room for ‘lords’, as a room primarily reserved for the

## particular ‘lord’, under whose patronage the actors played; but however

this may be, it was probably available by courtesy for other persons of distinction. The practice of sitting on the stage itself first emerges about 1596.[1690] It was general by the seventeenth century, and was apparently most encouraged at the Blackfriars, where it perhaps lent itself best to the structural character of the building.[1691] It was known at Paul’s, but was inconvenient on so small a stage.[1692] And, as it certainly originated at the public houses, so it maintained itself there, in spite of the grumbles of the ordinary spectators, with whose view of the action the throng of feathered and restless gallants necessarily interfered.[1693] It may have been profitable to the actors as sharers, but as actors they resented the restriction of the space available for their movements which it entailed.[1694] The prologue to Jonson’s _The Devil is an Ass_ of 1616 contains a vigorous protest.[1695] But the gallant liked to be seen as well as to see, and liked to slip in and out of the tiring-house and hob-nob with the players. It was not until Caroline times that the custom became intolerable.[1696] On the stage stools were provided for those who did not care to sit on the rushes, and for these they paid at least sixpence and sometimes a shilling.[1697] One result of the introduction of sitting on the stage appears to have been that the lord’s room lost its attractiveness and consequently its status. It fell into the background, and became the haunt of a rather disreputable class of playgoer. The lords were now to be found either on the stage itself, or in the private rooms of the lower gallery. Presumably the ‘grate’ to which the courtier of Sir John Davies’ epigram relegated himself, was in the lord’s room, perhaps fitted with a casement for scenic purposes.[1698] The change is chronicled by Dekker in the passage of _The Gull’s Horn Book_, in which the gull is instructed how to behave himself in a play-house. He must by all means advance himself up to the throne of the stage.

‘I meane not into the Lords roome (which is now but the Stages Suburbs): no, those boxes, by the iniquity of custome, conspiracy of waiting-women and Gentlemen-Ushers, that there sweat together, and the couetousnes of Sharers, are contemptibly thrust into the reare, and much new Satten is there dambd, by being smothred to death in darknesse.’

I return to the guidance of De Witt. The boarding between the yard and the lower gallery, which in the Fortune was overlaid with iron pikes, presumably to prevent the groundlings from climbing over, shows two apertures, to right and left of the stage, one of which is marked ‘ingressus’. From these steps lead to the lower gallery itself, and we may infer the presence of a passage to staircases behind, by which the upper galleries were reached. The contracts show that the Fortune, like the Globe, and the Hope, like the Swan, were to have external staircases.[1699] Perhaps this accounts for the greater diameter of the lower part of the Globe in the London maps. Of external doors there were only two at the Globe, which caused trouble at the time of the fire, and two also at the Fortune, when Alleyn leased a share of it to Henslowe in 1601. One of these would in each case have been a door to the tiring-house, giving access to the stage and the lord’s room, while the other served the body of the theatre.[1700] Those bound for the galleries paid their pennies at the theatre door, passed through the yard to the ‘ingressus’, and made additional payments there and in the ‘rooms’, according to the places selected.[1701] The custom explains itself by the arrangement between the sharers of companies and the housekeepers of theatres, which gave the latter a proportion of gallery takings in lieu of rent. ‘Gatherers’, appointed by the persons interested, collected the money, and although this was put into a locked box, whence the modern term ‘box-office’, there were abundant opportunities for fraud. At need, the gatherers could serve as supernumeraries on the stage.[1702]

At the back of the stage, and forming a chord to an arc of the circular structure of the play-house, runs a straight wall, pierced by two pairs of folding doors, on which De Witt has written ‘mimorum aedes’. Above it is the gallery or lord’s room already described. This wall is the ‘scene’, in the primary sense; it is also the front of the ‘tire-house’, or in modern phrase ‘green-room’, a necessary adjunct of every theatre. The Theatre depositions of 1592 speak of this as ‘the attyring housse or place where the players make them readye’. The drawing indicates nothing in the way of hangings over either wall or doors, but in some theatres these certainly existed. Thus Peacham, in his _Thalia’s Banquet_ (1620) referring to much earlier days, tells us that

Tarlton when his head was onely seene, The Tire-house doore and Tapistrie betweene, Set all the multitude in such a laughter, They could not hold for scarce an hour after.[1703]

The front of the tiring-house is the ‘scene’ in the Renaissance sense, and its characteristics will be of great concern in later chapters.[1704] The Fortune tire-house was to be within the frame of the theatre, and would not, therefore, unless it projected on to the stage, have more depth than about 12 ft. Mr. Brereton, in a careful analysis of the drawing, suggests that the Swan tire-house may not have extended the full width of the stage, but may have left room to come and go on either side of its front.[1705] If so, some projection is not improbable, but one cannot rely much upon the hazardous interpretation of bad draughtsmanship. The ground-plan of the Swan seems to show an annexe at one point, and of course additional depth could easily be obtained in this way. Moreover, there were at least three stories available. The spectators in the lord’s room would not take up the whole depth on the level of the middle gallery, and there must have been a corresponding space on that of the top gallery. Henslowe ceiled ‘the rome ouer the tyerhowsse’ in 1592, and an inventory of the Admiral’s men in 1598 includes effects ‘leaft above in the tier-house in the cheast’. No doubt a fair amount of accommodation was needed. The tire-house was not merely a dressing-room and a store-house. Here came the author, to rail at the murdering of his lines, and the gallants to gossip and patronize the players.[1706] Here were the book-holder, who prompted the speeches, surveyed the entrances and exits, and saw to the readiness of the properties;[1707] the tireman, who fitted the dresses and the beards, furnished stools, and in the private theatres took charge of the lights;[1708] the stage-keeper;[1709] the grooms and ‘necessary attendants’, waiting to draw curtains, to thrust out beds, and to carry benches and banquets on and off.[1710] Here, too, was the head-quarters of the music, although in the public theatres the music was largely incidental, and was often played on, or above, or even below the stage, as might seem most appropriate to any particular

## action.[1711] Music between the acts was not unknown, but we learn

from the induction to the _Malcontent_ that it was ‘not received’ by the audience at the Globe in 1604.[1712] There was also, of course, the final ‘jig’.[1713] For an overture, the public theatres seem to have employed nothing beyond three soundings of a trumpet, the last of which was the signal for the prologue to begin.[1714] Probably the musical element tended to increase. A special music-room perhaps existed already at the Swan in 1611, and, if so, may have been, as it was in the later theatres, in the upper part of the tire-house.[1715]

The Fortune tire-house was to have ‘convenient windowes and lightes glazed’. Some of these may have looked into the auditorium, and have been used for scenic purposes. But the maps show external windows here and there in the walls, and these would be necessary to light both the tire-house and the galleries. We have a picture of Burbadge leaning out of an upper window to greet with abuse the disturbers of his peace at the Theatre in 1590. The yard and the stage itself were, of course, lit, in the absence of a roof, from above. Performances were ordinarily by daylight; before the end of the sixteenth century the time for beginning had been fixed at 2 o’clock.[1716] The stage-directions point to a frequent enough use of lamps and tapers, but always to give the illusion of scenic darkness. Plays, however, lasted at least two hours, sometimes half an hour or even an hour longer, and there was the jig to follow.[1717] It must therefore be doubtful whether, in the depth of winter, daylight could have served quite to the end. Webster complains that the ill-success of _The White Devil_ was due to its being given ‘in so dull a time of winter, and presented in so open and black a theatre’. Perhaps the shorter plays were chosen for the shorter days, or the jig was omitted. But it is also possible that some primitive illumination, in the form of cressets, or baskets of tarred and flaring rope, was introduced.[1718]

The actors themselves were not wholly without protection from the elements. De Witt depicts two heavy classical columns, which stand on square bases rather farther back than the middle of the stage and a little way from each side of it. These support a pent-house roof, which starts from the level of the eaves of the ‘tectum’ over the top gallery, and descends in a steep slope to a level opposite to the middle of the second gallery, where it slightly projects beyond the supporting columns. Behind and above it rises a kind of hut, conspicuous above the ‘tectum’ and forming a superstructure to the tire-house. Its front has less width than that of the tire-house, and its side is shown in clumsy perspective, which is apparently followed round by the pent-house below it. The pent-house is the only thing in the drawing, that can represent the ‘shadow’ or ‘heavens’, which several allusions point to as a regular feature in the public theatres, and which certainly existed at the Rose, the Fortune--and therefore presumably the Globe--and the Hope.[1719] But it must be admitted that this sharply sloping roof, coming down low and considerably impeding the vision of the spectators at any rate in the top gallery, does not agree very well with the notion of a heavens dominating the stage, elaborately decorated, and serving for the display of spectacular effects, which were surely meant to be visible to all. It is possible that De Witt’s halting draughtsmanship has failed him in the attempt to tackle the architectural perspective from a difficult angle in an upper gallery. My impression is that, by giving too much height to the bottom gallery, he has got the two other galleries out of line with the stories of the tire-house to which they correspond, and that the lower gallery should really be on the level of the stage, the middle gallery on that of the gallery ‘over the stage’, and the top gallery on that of the rather obscure story above. If so, the front of this story would have been visible, and may have contained some aperture of which account has not yet been taken in formulating theories of staging.[1720] And I think that the columns were really higher and the roof flatter than De Witt has drawn them. It is perhaps less easy to suggest that the columns stood farther forward than De Witt has placed them, but the roof may well have projected farther over them. They are solid enough to bear a much greater weight than the drawing indicates. However these things may have been at the Swan--I am not blind to the dangers of attempting to convert what De Witt has shown into something which he has not shown--one may, perhaps, infer that more extensive roofing than the pent-house of the drawing would afford was contemplated by the Fortune contract, which provides for ‘a shadowe or cover over the saide stadge’, and the Hope contract, which is even more precise in its specification of ‘the Heavens all over the saide stage’. In both cases there were to be gutters to carry away rain-water. The heavens at the Hope were ‘to be borne or carryed without any postes or supporters to be fixed or sett uppon the saide stage’, and it has been thought that other theatres of later date than the Swan may also have dispensed with posts. But there is little ground for this theory, other than the obvious obstruction which the posts would offer to vision.[1721] Howes seems to refer to the arrangement at the Hope as an innovation, and it can hardly be unrelated to the special need for a removable stage at that house. On the other hand the posts may very likely have been slighter than De Witt has shown them. At the Fortune they were, like other ‘princypall and maine postes’, square and carved ‘palasterwise’ with satyrs. The posts are worked into the action of several plays, and Kempe tells us that pickpockets were pilloried by being tied to them.[1722]

The hut has two windows in front, and a door in the visible side. It has been suggested that it may really have stood rather more forward than De Witt indicates, jutting out from the tire-house so as to be directly over a part of the heavens.[1723] An analogous superstructure is observable in most of the map-representations of theatres. That of the later Globe in Visscher’s map of 1616 seems to have two bays, one behind another, instead of the one bay of the Swan drawing, and would have required more space. The ‘Theatrum’ of Jonson’s 1616 Folio has an =L=-shaped superstructure. The object of a jut forward would be to facilitate the descents and ascents from and to the heavens, which formed popular features in many plays, and which must have been contrived by some kind of machinery from above.[1724] From the roof of this hut floats a flag, with the figure of a swan upon it, and at the door stands a man, apparently blowing a trumpet, from which depends a smaller flag also bearing a swan. There is abundant evidence that the play-houses flew flags when they were open for performances, and took them down when Lent or a plague rendered playing impossible.[1725] The trumpeter is no doubt giving one of the three ‘soundings’ which preluded the appearance of the prologue in his traditional long black velvet cloak.[1726] Nor did the flag and the trumpet exhaust the resources of the Elizabethan art of advertisement. The _vexillatores_ of the miracle-play would perhaps have been out of keeping with London conditions.[1727] But it was customary to announce after the epilogue of each performance what the next was to be.[1728] And public notification was given by means of play-bills, of which we hear from as early a date as 1564, and which were set up on posts in conspicuous places up and down the city and probably also at the play-house doors.[1729] Copies seem also to have been available for circulation from hand to hand.[1730] On 30 October 1587 John Charlwood entered in the Stationers’ Register a licence for ‘the onely ympryntinge of all manner of billes for players’. This passed from him to James Roberts, and was transferred by Roberts to William Jaggard on 29 October 1615.[1731] No theatrical bill of the Elizabethan or Jacobean period is preserved, although a manuscript bill for the Bear Garden is amongst Alleyn’s papers at Dulwich.[1732] Four late seventeenth-century bills are at Claydon; they are brief announcements, which give the names of the plays, but not those of the authors or actors.[1733] There is no evidence of anything corresponding to the modern programme, with its cast and synopsis of scenes.[1734] The audience gathered early, as there were few, if any, reserved seats.[1735] The period of waiting was spent in consuming fruit or sweatmeats and liquid refreshment, and in expressing impatience if the actors failed to make an appearance in good time.[1736] Tobacco was freely used, especially by the gallants on the stage.[1737] Books were also hawked up and down, and a game of cards might beguile the tedium of waiting.[1738] The galleries were full of light women, who found them a profitable haunt, but whose presence did not altogether prevent that of ladies of position, probably in the private rooms, and possibly masked.[1739]

If the audience liked a play, the actors expected a _Plaudite_ of hand-clapping; if otherwise, they took their chance of hissing and ‘mewing’, or of a pointed withdrawal of spectators from the stage.[1740] The device of a _claque_ was not unknown.[1741] The applause was often invited in the closing speech or in a formal epilogue, on the same lines as the prologue, which it seems to have replaced in favour about the end of the sixteenth century.[1742] This might also lead up to or perhaps represent the prayer for the sovereign, of which there are traces up to a late date, and which was analogous to the modern use of ‘God Save the King’.[1743] The accompanying prayer for the ‘lord’ of the players, on the other hand, cannot be shown to have been adopted into the public theatres.[1744] Finally, the epilogue might indicate a coming dance.[1745] Of this a little more needs to be said. The players have amongst other elements in their ancestry the mediaeval mimes, and they inherit the familiar mimic tradition of multifarious entertainment. The ‘legitimate’ drama was not as yet on its pedestal. The companies of the ’eighties and even the early ’nineties were composed of men ready at need to eke out their plays by musical performances and even the ‘activities’ of acrobats. This is perhaps most obvious in the continental companies, which had to face the obstacles to a complete intelligence between stage and audience introduced at the tower of Babel. Such a cosmopolitan mingling of drama and ‘activities’ as we may suppose _The Labours of Hercules_ to have been was a valuable resource.[1746] But at home also we find Strange’s and the Admiral’s men showing their ‘activities’ at court, and Symons the acrobat becoming a leader amongst the Queen’s, and even so late as 1601 Henslowe fitting out the Admiral’s boy Nick to tumble in the presence of royalty. The country tours of the Queen’s were for some time accompanied by a Turkish rope dancer.[1747] In the theatres themselves Italian players made their success and their scandal, with the help of tumbling women.[1748] Whether English players did the same we do not know. But we do know that the dance by way of afterpiece was a regular and enduring custom.[1749] It was known as the jig.[1750] At first, perhaps, nothing more than such dancing, with the help of a variety of foreign costumes, as was also an element in the early masks, it developed into a farcical dialogue, with a musical and Terpsichorean accompaniment, for which popular tunes, such as _Fading_, were utilized.[1751] This transformation was perhaps due to the initiative of Tarlton, to whom several jigs are attributed.[1752] But he was followed by Kempe and others, and in the last decade of the sixteenth century the jig may be inferred from the Stationers’ Register to have become almost a literary type.[1753] Nashe in 1596 threatens Gabriel Harvey with an interlude, and ‘a Jigge at the latter end in English Hexameters of _O neighbour Gabriell, and his wooing of Kate Cotton_’.[1754] In 1597 Henslowe bought two jigs from two young men for the Admiral’s at a cost of 6_s._ 8_d._[1755] In 1598 ‘Kemps Jigge’ was being sung in the streets.[1756] The Middlesex justices made a special order against the lewd jigs, songs, and dances at the Fortune in 1612.[1757] Unfortunately few jigs have survived except from a late date or in German adaptations.[1758] Two or three, however, appear amongst collections of ballads to which they are cognate in metrical form, notably one ascribed to ‘M^r Attowel’, whom we should, I think, identify with the sixteenth-century George, rather than the seventeenth-century Hugh, of that name.[1759] Another, _Rowland’s Godson_, seems to be the surviving member of a well-known cycle.[1760]

Nor was the jig the only form of afterpiece which had its savour in an Elizabethan play-house. Tarlton again, and after Tarlton Wilson, won reputation in the handling of ‘themes’, which appear to have been improvisations in verse, strung together on some motive supplied by a member of the audience.[1761] It has been suggested that complete plays were also sometimes given by the method of improvised dialogue on a concerted plot which was followed in the Italian _commedie dell’ arte_.[1762] This must remain very doubtful. The Italian practice and the stock characters, pantaloon, zany, and harlequin, of the _commedie dell’ arte_ were certainly known in England; but we have the clear evidence of _The Case is Altered_ that by 1597 at any rate they had not been naturalized.[1763] If improvisation went beyond the gagging of a clown, it was probably only in some exceptional experiment or _tour de force_.[1764] As exceptional also we may regard Vennar’s spectacular _Englands Joy_ of 1602 and the wager plays, in which actors or even amateurs challenged each other to compete in rendering some ‘part’ of traditional repute.[1765] One would like to know more about the play, apparently a monologue, ‘set out al by one virgin’, at the Theatre in 1583.[1766]

Many of the characteristics of the public theatres naturally repeated themselves at the Blackfriars, the Whitefriars, and Paul’s. The distinctive features of these, as already indicated, arose from the structure of the buildings, from the higher prices charged, and in the beginning at least from the employment of singing boys as actors. Some assimilation of ‘public’ and ‘private’ methods was bound to follow upon the acquisition of the Blackfriars by men actors in 1609, but the period during which this was the principal house of the King’s company lies outside the scope of this survey.

The exact location of Paul’s is obscure, but we know that its auditorium was round and its stage small.[1767] Whitefriars and both the earlier and the later Blackfriars were in rooms which had formed part of mediaeval conventual buildings, rectangular, roofed, and more analogous to courtly halls than to popular rings. No room at Farrant’s disposal would have given him a stage of a greater width than 27 ft. Burbadge’s theatre was 66 ft. from north to south, and 46 ft. from east to west. It was on the second story of his purchase that he could have best constructed it. The stage, which stood on a paved floor, was probably towards the south end, and as the whole space available was something like 100 ft. long by 52 wide, we may guess that partitions had been put up to screen off a tiring-house behind it and a passage by which the tiring-house could be reached.[1768] The entrance would be at the north end, where a great flight of stairs led up from a yard large enough for coaches to turn in. There were galleries, but not necessarily three distinct tiers of galleries, as in the public theatres, for which, indeed, there would hardly have been height enough.[1769] And there was a ‘middle region’ in which the spectators sat, instead of standing as they did in the public ‘yards’.[1770] This, which was a feature also of the later private houses, came to be known as the ‘pit’, but as the derivation of this term is from ‘cockpit’, it may not be of earlier origin than the building of the Cockpit or Phoenix theatre in Drury Lane about 1617.[1771] A roofed theatre would not require a specially constructed ‘heavens’, as descents could be worked through the ceiling from a room above. There is no clear evidence for a lord’s room at any of the private houses.[1772] But there were ‘boxes’, at any rate at the Whitefriars.[1773] Evidence for seats on the stage has already been furnished. There is much to suggest that the audience was a more select one than that of the public theatres.[1774] Elizabeth cannot be shown to have ever attended the Blackfriars, but Anne certainly did.[1775] And the price of the seats, which ranged from 6_d._ to 2_s._ 6_d._, was of itself sufficient to keep out persons of the ‘groundling’ or ‘stinkard’ type.[1776] Performances did not necessarily take place every day, and they could begin rather later and go on rather longer than those out of doors, since they were not dependent on daylight.[1777] Windows were certainly used, for we hear of them being clapped down to give the illusion of night scenes.[1778] But candles and torches supplied an artificial lighting.[1779] As both the Paul’s boys and those of the Chapel were primarily choristers, it is not surprising that music played a considerable part in the entertainment provided. Musical interludes were given between the acts, and Gerschow records a preliminary concert of an hour in length before the play began at the Blackfriars in 1602.[1780] Sometimes also a boy came forward and danced between the acts.[1781] At Paul’s there was at the back of the stage a ‘musick tree’, which apparently rose out of a ‘canopie’ and bore a ‘musick house’ on either side of it.[1782]

FOOTNOTES:

[1] E. J. L. Scott, _Letter Book of Gabriel Harvey_ (Camden Soc.), 67.

[2] Cf. App. D, No. lxxviii.

[3] Cf. ch. xi.

[4] G. Dugdale, _Time Triumphant_ (1604), sig. B, ‘Nay, see the beauty of our all kinde soveraigne! not onely to the indifferent of worth, and the worthy of honor, did he freely deale about thiese causes, but to the meane gave grace, as taking to him the late Lord Chamberlaines servants, now the Kings acters; the Queene taking to her the Earle of Worsters servants, that are now her acters; and the Prince, their sonne, Henry, Prince of Wales full of hope, tooke to him the Earle of Nottingham his servants, who are now his acters.’

[5] Cf. ch. xvi, introd., and App. C, No. lviii.

[6] Flecknoe (App. I) perhaps exaggerates the share of moral sentiment in bringing to an end the formal connexion of the choirs with plays (cf. p. 52).

[7] De la Boderie, in 1608 (cf. vol. i, p. 327), speaks of five companies in London. These would be the King’s, Queen’s, Prince’s, Revels, and King’s Revels.

[8] _Archaeologia_, lxii. 1. 216, from statutes collected in the decanate of Ralph of Baldock (1294–1304), ‘Cantoris officium est ... pueros introducendos in chorum et ad cantum intitulatos examinare ... Magistrum Scolae Cantus in ecclesia Sancti Gregorii, salva Decano et Capitulo ipsius collacione, preficere’; Dugdale, _St. Paul’s_ (1818), 347, from fifteenth-or early sixteenth-century manuscript of statutes, ‘Magistrum Scholae Cantus constituit Cantor. Ad eum pertinet eos qui canere nequeunt instruere, pueros diligenter docere, eis non solum magistrum Cantus, sed etiam bonorum morum esse.’

[9] _Archaeologia_, lxii. 1. 215, from statutes collected in decanate of Ralph de Diceto (1181–99), ‘Cotidie pascat ... duos pueros elemosinarios ... et secum ad Ecclesiam media nocte panem et cervisiam pro iunioribus chorum frequentantibus defer[r]i faciat, et quolibet quarterio semel vel bis post matutinas iunioribus gentaculum unum in domo sua faciat’. A thirteenth-century statute required the _pueri de elemosinaria_ to sit humbly upon the ground when feeding in the house of a canon. Cf. _Mediaeval Stage_, i. 355, for Diceto’s statute about the Boy Bishop, with its mention of the return of the boys ‘ad Elemosinariam’, and the reforming statute of 1263.

[10] _Archaeologia_, lxii. 1. 220.

[11] Ibid. 217, 220 (_c._ 1263; _c._ 1310) ‘Elemosinarius ... habeat insuper continuo secum octo pueros ad Ecclesiae ministerium ydoneos, quos per seipsum vel alium magistrum in spectantibus ad ministerium ecclesiae et litteratura ac bonis moribus diligenter faciat informari.... Quociens vero dicti pueri ad scolas vel spaciatum ire debent....’; Dugdale, 349 [Elemosinarius] ‘octo pueros bonae indolis et honestae parentelae habeat; quos alat et educat in morum disciplina; videat etiam instruantur in cantu et literatura, ut in omnibus apti ad ministerium Dei in Choro esse possent’.

[12] There was a bequest to the almoner to maintain boys, apparently at the University, after they had changed their voices, as early as 1315 (_Archaeologia_, lxii. 1. 219–22).

[13] Hennessy, 61; W. S. Simpson, _Charter and Statutes of the College of Minor Canons in St. Paul’s Cathedral_ (_Archaeologia_, xliii. 165; cf. _Trans. of London and Midd. Arch. Soc._ (1st series), iv. 231). The statutes of _c._ 1521 note a dispensation of that year for Thomas Hikeman ‘peticanon and amner’ and for ‘all and euery peticanon which shalbe Amneur hear-after’ to bring a stranger to meals.

[14] Stowe, _Survey_, ii. 19; cf. the Hollar engraving in Baker, 95.

[15] Stowe, i. 327; _Archaeologia_, xliii. 171. By c. 14 of the statutes the college gates were shut at meals.

[16] Leach, _Journal of Education_ (1909), 506, cites the _Registrum Elemosinariae_ (ed. M. Hacket from _Harl. MS._ 1080), ‘If the almoner does not keep a clerk to teach the choristers grammar, the schoolmaster of St. Paul’s claims 5_s._ a year for teaching them, though he ought to demand nothing for them, because he keeps the school for them, as the Treasurer of St. Paul’s once alleged before the Dean and Chapter is to be found in ancient deeds’. Mr. Leach adds, ‘It is to be feared the Treasurer invented or misrepresented the ancient deed’. William de Tolleshunt, almoner, appears from his will of 1329 in the same register to have taught his boys himself (_Archaeologia_, lxii. 1. 220), ‘Item lego pueris ecclesiae quos ego educavi senioribus in Elemosinaria existentibus cuilibet xij^d et iunioribus cuilibet vj^d’. He also left his grammar books ‘et omnes quaternos sermonum de Festo Sanctorum Innocencium, quos tempore meo solebant Episcopi Puerorum pronuntiare, ad remanendum in Elemosinaria praedicta imperpetuum, ad usum fructum puerorum in eadem degencium’. His logic and physic books are to be lent out ‘pueris aptis ad scolatizandum, cum ab elemosinaria recesserint’.

[17] _Mediaeval Stage_, i. 356. The sermon written by Erasmus is headed _Concio ... pronunciata ... in nova schola Iohannis Coleti_, but Erasmus may not have known the exact procedure at St. Paul’s. The earlier sermon printed by Wynkyn de Worde has ‘whyche often times I radde whan I was Querester, in the Marteloge of Poulis’.

[18] _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 380.

[19] _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 196, 215, 219. Wallace, i. 88, points out that the performers of the _Menaechmi_ before Wolsey in 1527 were not the Paul’s boys, but the Cardinal’s gentlemen.

[20] _Chamber Accounts_ (1545).

[21] Nichols, _Eliz._ i. xxxv, ‘By Sebastian, scolemaister of Powles, a boke of ditties, written’.

[22] _Household Accounts of Princess Elizabeth, 1551–2_ (_Camden Misc._ ii), 37, ‘Paid in rewarde to the Kinges Maiesties drommer and phipher, the xiij^{th} of Februarye, xx^s; M^r. Heywoodde, xxx^s; and to Sebastian, towardes the charge of the children with the carriage of the plaiers garmentes iiij^{li}, xix^s. In thole as by warraunte appereth, vij^{li}, ix^s’.

[23] F. Madden, _Expenses of Lady Mary_, 62 (March 1538), ‘Item geuen to Heywood playeng an enterlude with his children bifore my lades grace, xl^s’.

[24] Wallace, i. 77, goes against the evidence when he asserts that Heywood wrote for the Chapel. Why he asserts that Heywood ‘had grown up in the Chapel under Cornish’, to whom, by the way, he wantonly transfers the authorship of _The Four P. P._, _The Pardoner and the Frere_, and _Johan Johan_, I do not know. There is nothing to show that Heywood was a Chapel boy, and the absence of his name from the Chapel list of 1509 (cf. p. 27), when he would have been about twelve, may be taken as disposing of the notion. He is first discoverable at Court in December 1514, for which month he received wages at the rate of viij^d a day in some undefined capacity (_Chamber Account_ in _Addl. MS._ 21481, f. 178), which was shared by one John Mason, who was a Yeoman of the Crown by March 1516 (Brewer, ii. 475). By 1520 Heywood himself was a Yeoman of the Crown (Brewer, iii. 1. 499), and during 1519–21 the _Chamber Accounts_ show him as also a ‘singer’ at £5 a quarter. Later he became player of the virginals, and has 50_s._ a quarter as such in the _Accounts_ for 1529–31, 1538–41, and 1547–9. He was Sewer of the Chamber at the funeral of Edward in 1553. It occurs to me as just possible that Heywood’s ‘children’ may have been neither the Chapel nor the Paul’s boys, but the boys taken up by Philip Van Wilder for the musical establishment of the Household; cf. p. 31. But I think it is more likely that Heywood wrote for the Paul’s boys throughout, as he almost certainly did in 1559. There is another hint of his connexion with them in the fact that at the coronation of Mary in 1553 he sat under a vine against the grammar school and made speeches (Holinshed (1808), iv. 6). A. W. Reed (1917, _3 Library_, viii. 247) adds facts, and thinks the Yeoman was distinct.

[25] _Addl. MS._ 15233; cf. _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 454. Thomas Tusser, in the _Autobiography_ printed with the 1573 edition of his _Points of Good Husbandry_, is the authority for placing Redford at Paul’s:

But mark the chance, myself to ’vance, By friendship’s lot, to Paul’s I got. So found I grace a certain space Still to remain With Redford there, the like nowhere For cunning such and virtue much By whom some part of musicke art So did I gain.

From Paul’s Tusser passed to Eton, before he matriculated at Cambridge in 1543. In other manuscripts compositions by Redford and Thomas Mulliner are associated, and one of these, _Addl. MS._ 30513, is inscribed ‘Sum liber Thomae Mullineri, Johanne Heywoode teste’. Stafford Smith, on what authority is unknown, stated (cf. _D. N. B._) that Mulliner was Master of St. Paul’s School. If so, he may have come between Redford and Westcott. On 3 March 1564 he was admitted as organist in Corpus Christi College, Oxford (Fowler, _Hist. of C.C.C._ 426).

[26] Feuillerat, _E. and M._ 145; Wallace, i. 84. The mention of ‘xij cottes for the boyes in Heywoodes play’ does not justify the assumption that the players were the Chapel. The ten established boys of the St. Paul’s choir could be supplemented by probationers or the grammar school.

[27] _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 196.

[28] Machyn, 206. ‘M^r Philip’ was organist of Paul’s in 1557 (Nichols, _Illustrations_, iii). Fleay, 57, guesses that the play was _Nice Wanton_, which is not likely, if Heywood had a hand in it.

[29] Hennessy, 61.

[30] Flood cites a Vatican record of 1561 from _Catholic Record Soc._ i. 21, ‘Sebastianus, qui organa pulsabat apud D. Paulum Londini, cum vellet eiici, tamen tum ita charus Elizabethae fuit, ut nihil schismatice agens locum suum in ea ecclesia retineat’; also Grindal’s letter of 1563 to Dudley in Strype, _Grindal_ (ed. 1821), 113. Hillebrand adds from _Libri Vicarii Generalis_ (_Huick 1561–74_), iii, f. 77, that in July 1563 Westcott failed to appear before the Consistory Court and was excommunicated as ‘contumacem’, and from St. Paul’s records (_A. Box 77_, 2059) that on 8 Nov. 1564 he gave a bond to conform or resign by the following Easter. Gee, 230, gives a list of deprived clergy from N. Sanders, _De Visibili Monarchia_ (1571), 688, which includes among _Magistri Musices_ ‘Sebastianus in Cathedrali ecclesia Londinensi’.

[31] Fleay, 15, 60, has some inaccuracies in these dates, and conjectures that among the early Paul’s plays were a revival of Udall’s _Ralph Roister Doister_ and Ulpian Fulwell’s _Like Will to Like_, and that these contained satire of Richard Edwards and the Chapel.

[32] Dasent, ix. 56.

[33] Hillebrand from _Repertory_, xix, f. 18, ‘For asmoche as this Court ys enformed that one Sebastian that wyll not communicate with the Church of England kepe the playes and resorte of the people to great gaine and peryll of the coruptinge of the Chyldren wyth papistrie And therefore master Morten ys appoynted to goe to the Deane of Powles and to gyve him notyce of that dysorder, and to praye him to gyve suche remeadye therein, within his iurysdyccion, as he shall see meete, for Christian Relygion and good order’.

[34] Dasent, x. 127. _Cath. Record Soc._ i. 70 gives the date of Westcott’s committal ‘for papistry’ from _S. P. D. Eliz._ cxl. 40, as 21 Dec. 1577, and that of release as 19 March 1578. According to _S. P. D. Eliz._ cxviii. 73, Westcott was Master of the Children in 1577 and valued at £100 in goods.

[35] Gosson, _P. C._ 188.

[36] Flood (_Mus. Ant._ iv. 187) gives an abstract of his will, dated on 3 April and proved on 14 April 1582. He describes himself as almoner of St. Paul’s, dwelling in the almonry and born at Chimley in Devonshire; appoints Henry Evans overseer and Justinian Kyd executor, and leaves legacies to relatives (apparently he had no children or wife), to members of the Redford family, to ‘Gyles Clothier’, to the ten choristers, to ‘sometimes children of the said almenerey’, by name Bromeham, Richard Huse, Robert Knight, Nicholas Carleton, Baylye, Nasion, and Gregory Bowringe, to ‘Shepard that keepeth the door at playes’, and to Pole ‘the keper of the gate’. Wallace, i. 171, cites the will from _P. C. C._ 14 and 31, Tirwhite, giving the date of confirmation as 3 July 1582. One name may be added to Westcott’s list of boys from a Court Minute of Christ’s Hospital on 5 March 1580 (_Musical Times_, 1 Jan. 1907), ‘M^r. Sebastian, of Paulls, is appointed to have Hallawaie the younger out of this House to be one of the singing children of the Cathedral Church of Paulls in this Citie’.

[37] Gosson (1582) speaks of the plays as ‘at Paules’; and Rawlidge (1628) mentions a house ‘nigh Pauls’ as one of those pulled down by the City, apparently in 1596 (cf. ch. xvi). The Paul’s boys, however, can hardly have been playing for some years before that date. Howes (1629) definitely specifies the singing school (cf. ch. xvi). On the other hand, Flecknoe, a late authority and in a passage dealing (inaccurately) with Jacobean rather than Elizabethan conditions, assigns the plays to ‘behinde the Convocation-house in Paul’s’ (App. I). This is expanded by Malone (_Variorum_, iii. 46) into ‘in S^t. Paul’s school-room, behind the Convocation-house’, and Baker, 45, suggests that they used a small yard or cloister before the doors of the Convocation House and shut off by a high wall from the main churchyard (cf. Hollar’s prints in Baker, 95, 115). But I doubt if Flecknoe had anything in mind except St. Gregory’s, which stood just west of the Convocation House. The hall of the College of Minor Canons is perhaps also a possibility; but neither this nor the church is likely to have afforded a circular auditorium (cf. ch. xviii). Can they have used the Convocation House itself?

[38] McDonnell, 27, argues for the participation of the grammar school in the plays. Obviously the phrase ‘children of Paul’s’, ordinarily used of the playing-boys, proves nothing one way or the other. That the plays were mainly an affair of the choir is a fair inference from the fact that they were presented at Court by the song-school masters. But there is no reason to doubt that the mediaeval give and take between the two schools continued through the sixteenth century. Hunter, _Chorus Vatum_, v. 542, quotes a manuscript life of Sir Thomas Offley, ‘This Thomas Offley became a good grammarian under Mr. [William] Lillie and understood the Latin tongue perfectly; and because he had a sweet voice he was put to learn prick-song among the choristers of St. Paul’s, for that learned Mr. Lillie knew full well that knowledge in music was a help and a furtherance to all arts’. On the other hand, Dean Nowell (Churton, _Life of A. Nowell_, 190) instructed Thomas Giles in 1584 to teach the choristers catechism, writing, and music, and then to ‘suffer them to resort to Paul’s School that they may learn the principles of Grammar’. Some seventeenth-century performances by the grammar school, after the regular Paul’s plays ceased, are upon record.

[39] Cf. _infra_ (Chapel, Oxford’s); ch. xvii (Blackfriars).

[40] R. Churton, _Life of Alexander Nowell_, 190, from _Reg. Nowell_, ii, f. 189; Nichols, _Eliz._ ii. 432; Collier, i. 258; Hazlitt, 33; Wallace, ii. 67, from original warrant under the Signet in _Sloane MS._ 2035^b, f. 73: ‘By the Queene, Elizabeth.

‘Whereas we haue authorysed our servaunte Thomas Gyles M^r. of the children of the Cathedrall Churche of S^t. Pauls within our Cittie of London to take vpp suche apte and meete Children as are most fitt to be instructed and framed in the arte and science of musicke and singinge as may be had and founde out within anie place of this our Realme of England or Wales, to be by his education and bringinge vp made meete and hable to serve vs in that behalf when our pleasure is to call for them. Wee therefore by the tenour of these presentes will and require you that ye permitt and suffer from henceforthe our saide servaunte Thomas Gyles and his deputie or deputies and every of them to take vp in anye Cathedral or Collegiate Churche or Churches and in everye other place or places of this our Realme of England and Wales, suche Childe and Children as he or they or anye of them shall finde and like of and the same Childe and Children by vertue hereof for the vse and service afouresaide, with them or anye of them to bringe awaye, withoute anye your lettes contradiccions staye or interruptions to the contrarie Charginge and commaundinge you and everie of you to be aydinge helpinge and assisting vnto the aboue named Thomas Gyles and his deputie and deputies in and aboute the due execucion of the premisses for the more spedie effectuall & bettar accomplisshing thereof from tyme to tyme as you and everie of you doe tendar our will and pleasure and will aunswere for doinge the contrarye at your perilles. Youen vnder our Signet at our Manour of Grenewich the 26^{th} Day of Aprill in the 27^{th} yere of our reign.

To all and singuler Deanes, Provostes, Maisters and Wardens of Collegies and all Ecclesiasticall persons and mynisters and to all other our officers mynisters and subiectes to whome in this case it shall apperteyne and to everye of them greetinge.’

No other commission for the Paul’s choir is extant, but their rights are reserved in the commission for Windsor (q.v.) of 8 March 1560.

[41] Harvey, _Advertisement for Pap-Hatchet_ (_Works_, ii. 212). Lyly was still Oxford’s man but writing for Paul’s, _c._ Aug. 1585 (_M. L. R._ xv. 82.).

[42] Cf. ch. ix and App. C, No. xl, especially _Pappe with an Hatchet_ (Oct. 1589).

[43] _Have With You to Saffron Walden_ (_Works_, iii. 46). I do not think the reference to a twelvemonth’s silence, due to envy, in the prologue to Nashe’s _Summer’s Last Will and Testament_ (_c._ Oct. 1592) affords any justification for ascribing that play to the Paul’s boys. Murray, i. 330; ii. 284, records a payment at Gloucester in 1590–1 ‘to the children of powles’. I am sceptical about this, especially as I observe in the next year a payment for a breakfast to the Queen’s men ‘at M^r. Powelles’. Murray’s only other municipal record for the company, at Hedon, Yorkshire, on some quite unknown date, ‘Item, payd to the ---- pawll plaiers’ (ii. 286), is even less satisfactory. But if the boys did travel on their suppression, they may well have gone to Croydon.

[44] Rimbault, 4. Giles must have resigned, if he was the Thomas Giles who, on 18 April 1606, was paid 100 marks a year as instructor to Henry in music (Devon, 35). He was instructor to Charles in 1613 (Reyher, 78) and figures in masks (cf. ch. vi). Fellowes, 184, 190, has two songs set by Pearce, one from _Blurt Master Constable_.

[45] _1 A. and M._ IV. i. 30, ‘Enter Andrugio, Lucio, Cole, and Norwood’. Bullen thinks that the two boys played the parts named, but the action requires at least one page, who sings.

[46] Wallace, ii. 153, says he has evidence of playing at Paul’s in 1598, but he does not give it. It is perhaps rash to assume that Pearce originated the revival, as there is no proof that he came to Paul’s before 1600.

[47] Cf. ch. xi.

[48] V. i. 102.

[49] Collier, iii. 181. On the light thrown on the Paul’s stage by these plays, cf. ch. xxi. It is conceivable that some of them may have been originally written before 1590 (cf. ch. xxiii, s.v. Percy).

[50] Cf. ch. xxiv.

[51] Cf. _infra_ (Queen’s Revels).

[52] Nichols, _James_, iv. 1073, from _The King of Denmark’s Welcome_ (1606), ‘the Youthes of Paules, commonlye cald the Children of Paules, plaide before the two Kings, a playe called _Abuses_: containing both a Comedie and a Tragedie, at which the Kinges seemed to take delight and be much pleased’. The play is lost. Fleay, ii. 80, has no justification for identifying it with _The Insatiate Countess_. _Wily Beguiled_ (ch. xxiv) might be a Paul’s play.

[53] C. W. Wallace, _Nebraska University Studies_ (1910), x. 355; cf. _infra_ (Queen’s Revels), ch. xvii (Blackfriars).

[54] _Constitutio Domus Regis_ (_c._ 1135) in Hearne, _Liber Niger Scaccarii_, i. 342, ‘Capellani, custos capellae et reliquiarum. Corridium duorum hominum, et quatuor servientes capellae unusquisque duplicem cibum, et duo summarii capellae unusquisque 1^d in die et 1^d ad ferrandum in mense’; cf. _R. O. Ld. Steward’s Misc._ 298 (1279); Tout, 278, 311 (1318); _H. O._ 3, 10 (1344–8); _Life Records of Chaucer_ (Chaucer Soc.), iv. 171 (1369); Nicolas, _P. C._ vi. 223 (1454).

[55] _H. O._ 10. In 1318 he was ‘chief chapellain’.

[56] J. H. Wylie, _Henry IV_, iv. 208, from _Household Accounts_, ‘John Bugby our chaplain retained 3 years ago pur apprendre et enformer les enfants de notre chapelle en la science de gramaire at 100/-p. a. nothing yet paid, £15 due’. A grant to John Tilbery, a boy of the King’s chapel, was made on 12 Nov. 1405 (_C. P. R._, _Hen. IV_, iii. 96).

[57] Wallace, i. 12, 21, from _P. R._ The commission of 1420 was to John Pyamour ‘uni clericorum Capellae hospicii nostri’; another of 1440 was to John Croucher, Dean. When regular Masters were instituted, the commissions seem to have been made direct to them.

[58] Wallace, i. 14, quotes laudatory accounts of the singing of the chapel by two members of the suite of Leo von Ro[vz]mital, a Bohemian who visited the English Court in 1466.

[59] _H. O._ 49. There is nothing about plays, but ‘Memorandum, that the King hathe a songe before hym in his hall or chambre uppon All-hallowen day at the latter graces, by some of these clerkes and children of chappel in remembrance of Christmasse; and soe of men and children in Christmasse thorowoute. But after the songe on All-hallowen day is done, the Steward and Thesaurere of houshold shall be warned where it liketh the King to kepe his Christmasse’.

[60] At the coronation of James in 1603 (Rimbault, 127) there were a Sub-dean, 7 Ministers, the Master of the Children, an Organist, 22 ordinary Gentlemen, and a Clerk of the Check; also a Sergeant, 2 Yeomen, and a Groom of the Vestry. This agrees with the Elizabethan fee lists, which give the total number of Gentlemen as 32. The coronation list does not name Epistolers; but it is clear from the notices of appointments in Rimbault, 1, that a Gospeller and Epistoler were appointed, as next in succession to the Gentlemen’s places, although it does not appear that they were necessarily ex-Children. There were also Extraordinary Gentlemen (Rimbault, 31).

[61] Cf. ch. ii.

[62] _H. O._ 160. The hall and chapel are to be kept ‘at all times when his Highnesse shall lye in his castle of Windsor, his mannors of Bewlye, Richmond, Hampton Court, Greenwich, Eltham, or Woodstock’; but ‘in rideing journeys and progresses’, only the Master of the Children, six men, six children, and some officers of the vestry are to attend. In the seventeenth century ‘all removinge weekes’ were amongst the ‘auntient tymes of lyberty and playinge weekes’ (Rimbault, 73). But the practice may have varied. Stopes, 252, gives a Stable warrant of 1554 for a wagon ‘for the necessarie conveying and cariage of the Children of our Chapel and their man from place to place, at such seasons, as they by our commandment shall remove to serve where wee shall appointe them’.

[63] A chapel of St. Stephen existed in 1205. It was rebuilt and made a free collegiate chapel in 1348, and dissolved in 1547, and the building assigned as a chamber for the House of Commons (J. T. Smith, _Antiquities of Westminster_, 72; _V. H. London_, i. 566). It may have originated as a domestic chapel, but seems to be quite distinct from the Household Chapel by the sixteenth century. Thus its St. Nicholas Bishop had an old annual reward of £1 from the Exchequer (Devon, _Issues of Exchequer_, 222; R. Henry, _Hist. of Great Britain_^3, xii. 459; Brewer, iv. 869), while the Household boys got their reward of £6 12_s._ 4_d._ from the Treasurer of the Chamber. Wallace, i. 22, notes that the Masters of the Children ‘all lived’ at Greenwich, which suggests that this was the Tudor head-quarters of the Chapel.

[64] Wallace, i. 22, 23, 26, 61, from patents of Masters; _Fee List_ (_passim_).

[65] R. Henry, _Hist. of Great Britain_^3, xii. 457; Brewer, ii. 873; iii. 364; iv. 868; _Fee Lists_ (_passim_); Wallace, i. 21, 23, 24, 26, 33, 61, from patents and _Exchequer of Receipt, Auditor’s Privy Seal Books_. The Elizabethan fee for a Gentleman was only £30 (cf. p. 41, n. 3), but it was increased again to £40 by James in 1604 (Rimbault, 61).

[66] _H. O._ 169, 212. The _Chamber Accounts_ for Aug. 1520 include a special payment to the Master for the diets of the boys when they accompanied the King to Calais, at 2_d._ a day each.

[67] The allowance was 6_d._ in 1575 (Collier, i. 175; Nagel, 29; from _Harl. MS._ 589, f. 220), but Hunnis’s petition of 1583 (cf. p. 37) implies that this rate was customary before Elizabeth’s reign.

[68] _Chamber Accounts_ (_passim_); cf. p. 24, n. 6. For the feast of the Boy Bishop on St. Nicholas Day, cf. _Mediaeval Stage_, i. 336, 359, 369.

[69] Stopes, 15, ‘40 surplices for the gentlemen and 16 for the children of the Chapel’ (Wardrobe warrant of 7 Oct. 1533); ‘for 10 children of the Kings Chapell, for gownes of Tawney Chamblett lined with black satin of Bruges, and Milan bonnettes for the said children, as in the same boke of apparel is declared xliii^{li}. iii^s. iiii^d. For two children of the Kings Chapell, for 2 gownes of Black Chamblett, lined with black satin of Bruges 2 cotes of yellow saten of Bruges lined with Coton, and 2 Millan bonnettes, and for making and lining of said gownes and cotes as in the said boke at large it duly apperes x^{li} xviii^s ... Item for twenty gentlemen of the King’s chapel, for 20 gownes of Black Damask for the said gentlemen, cxxvii^{li}. x^s.’ (_Queen’s Remembrancia, Wardrobe Expenses_, _Hen. VIII_, 52/10 A).

[70] _Chamber Accounts_ (_passim_). From 1510 to 1513 Robert Fairfax had 2s. a week for the diet of William Alderson and Arthur Lovekyn, the King’s scholars, and £2 13_s._ 4_d._ for their teaching. In 1513 William Max, late a Child of the Chapel, had 40_s._ In 1514 Cornish was finding and apparelling Robert Philip and another Child of the Chapel, for £1 13_s._ 4_d._ a quarter, and in 1517 finding and teaching William Saunders, late Child of the Chapel, for the same sum, with 2_d._ a week for board ‘when the king keepeth no household’. In 1529–30 Crane had 3_d._ a day wages and 20_d._ a week board wages for Robert Pery, and in 1530 also for William Pery. In 1531 Robert Pery was paid direct. Cunningham, xx, gives a late seventeenth-century example of a similar arrangement. In 1546 a royal letter was written for the appointment of William Bretten, late a Chapel boy, to be singing-man at Lichfield (Brewer, xxi. 1. 142). Some of the above names appear in a list of Chapel Children, William Colman, William Maxe, William Alderson, Henry Meryell, John Williams, John Graunger, Arthur Lovekyn, Henry Andrewe, Nicholas Ivy, Edward Cooke, and James Curteys, receiving liveries at the funeral of Henry VII in 1509 (Lafontaine, 3, from _Ld. Ch. Records_, 550, f. 131). Some amusing correspondence of 1518 relates to a boy Robin, whom Henry VIII wished to transfer from Wolsey’s chapel to his own. It was stipulated that Cornish should treat him honestly, ‘otherwise than he doth his own’, and later Cornish wrote praising the clean singing and descant of the recruit (Brewer, ii. 1246–50).

[71] J. M. Manly in _C. H._ vi. 279; C. Johnson, _John Plummer_ (1921, _Antiquaries Journal_, i. 52); Wallace, i. 21, from patents and Exchequer payments. Wallace does not include Melyonek although (ii. 62) he gives the following commission, already printed by Collier, i. 41, and Rimbault, vii, from _Harl. MS._ 433, f. 189:

‘Mellenek, Ric. etc. To all and every our subgiettes aswele spirituell as temporell thise our lettres hering or seeing greeting, We let you wite that for the confidence & trust that we haue in our trusty and welbeloued seruant John Melyonek oon of ye gentilmen of our Chapell and knowing also his expert habilitie and connyng in ye science of Musique haue licenced him and by thise presentes licence and geue him auctorite that within all places in this our realme aswele Cathedral churges coliges chappells houses of relegion and al oyer franchised & exempt places as elliswhere our colege roial at Wyndesor reserued & except may take and sease for vs and in our name al suche singing men & childre being expart in the said science of Musique as he can finde and think sufficient and able to do vs seruice. Wherfor &c. Yeuen &c. at Nottingham the xvj^{th} day of September A^o secundo [1484].’

Banaster did not die until 1487, but I think Melyonek must have replaced him, perhaps without a patent, under Richard III.]

[72] Cf. _D. N. B._ Songs by Banaster and Newark are in _Addl. MS._ 5465 (Chambers and Sidgwick, _Early English Lyrics_, 299).

[73] Collier, i. 46; cf. Wallace, i. 12. I am not sure that Collier meant 1485.

[74] Reyher, 504, from _Harl. MS._ 69, f. 34^v. Wallace, i. 13; ii. 69, citing the same MS., misdates ‘1490’, and says that eight children took part. Four singing children who had appeared in another disguising a day or two before were probably also from the Chapel.

[75] _Chamber Accounts_ in Wallace, i. 28, 38; Bernard Andrew, _Annales Hen. VII_ (Gairdner, _Memorials of Hen. VII_), 104; Halle, i. 25; Professor Wallace seems to think that the annual Christmas rewards paid by the Treasurer of the Chamber to the Gentlemen, which went on to the end of the reign, were for plays. But these were of £13 6_s._ 8_d._, whereas the reward for a play was £6 13_s._ 4_d._ They were paid on Twelfth Night, and are sometimes said to be for ‘payne taking’ during Christmas. In 1510 they had an extra £6 13_s._ 4_d._ for praying for the Queen’s good deliverance. The ‘payne taking’ was no doubt as singers. An order of Henry VII’s time (_H. O._ 121) for the wassail on Twelfth Night has, ‘Item, the chappell to stand on the one side of the hall, and when the steward cometh in at the hall doore with the wassell, he must crie three tymes, Wassell, wassell, wassell; and then the chappell to answere with a good songe’. The Gentlemen also had 40_s._ annually from the Treasurer of the Chamber ‘to drink with their bucks’ given them for a summer feast, which was still held in the seventeenth century (Rimbault, 122).

[76] Stopes, _Shakespeare’s Environment_, 238; Feuillerat, _Ed. and Mary_, 149, 289. Professor Feuillerat says that one of the documents relating to the play refers to the ‘Children of the Chapel’, and doubts whether there is a real distinction between the ‘Gentlemen’ and the ‘Children’ as actors.

[77] Feuillerat, _Ed. and Mary_, 3, 255. The conjecture is supported by the fact that garments belonging to the Revels were in possession of two Gentlemen of the Chapel in April 1547 (ibid., 12, 13).

[78] _Chamber Accounts_ in Wallace, i. 38, 65, 70; Brewer, xiv. 2. 284; Kempe, 69; Collier, i. 78; Feuillerat, _Ed. and Mary_, 266, 288. The ‘iiij Children y^t played afore y^e king’ on 14 Jan. 1508 were not necessarily of the Chapel.

[79] Cf. ch. viii and _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 192, 215.

[80] Wallace, i. 33. No patent is cited, but the privy seal for the payment to Cornish of the Exchequer annuity was dated 1 April 1510, and he was shortly afterwards paid for the Christmas and Easter quarters. Newark had died in Nov. 1509. It is therefore a little puzzling to find in a list of Exchequer fees payable during the year ended Michaelmas 1508 (R. Henry, _Hist. of Great Britain_^3, xii. 457) the item ‘Willelmo Cornysshe magistro puerorum capellae regis pro excubitione eorundem puerorum 26^{li}. 13^s. 4^d.’ Probably the list was prepared retrospectively in Henry VIII’s reign (cf. the analogous list in Brewer, ii. 873), and the name rather than the date is an error.

[81] The data are: (a) _Exchequer Payments_ (Wallace, i. 34), Mich. 1493, ‘Willelmo Cornysshe de Rege’, 100_s._; (b) _T. C. Accounts_, ‘to one Cornysshe for a prophecy in rewarde’, 13_s._ 4_d._ (12 Nov. 1493); ‘to Cornishe of the Kings Chapell’, 26_s._ 8_d._ (1 Sept. 1496); ‘to Cornysshe for 3 pagents’ (26 Oct. 1501); ‘m^r kyte Cornisshe and other of the Chapell y^t played affore ye king at Richemounte’, £6 13_s._ 4_d._ (25 Dec. 1508); (c) _Household Book of Q. Elizabeth_, 25 Dec. 1502, ‘to Cornisshe for setting of a Carrall vpon Cristmas Day in reward’, 13_s._ 4_d._; (d) John Cornysh in list of Gent. of Chapel 23 Feb. 1504, and William Cornysh in similar lists _c._ 1509 and 22 Feb. 1511 (Lafontaine, 2, from _Ld. Ch. Records_); (e) Songs by ‘W. Cornishe, jun.’ in _Addl. MS._ 5465, by ‘John Cornish’ in _Addl. MS._ 5665, by ‘W. Cornish’ in _Addl. MS._ 31922 (_Early English Lyrics_, 299); (f) _A Treatise betweene Trouthe and Enformacon_, by ‘William Cornysshe otherwise called Nyssewhete Chapelman with ... Henry the VII^{th} his raigne the xix^{th} yere the moneth of July’ [1504], doubtless the satirical ballad on Empson referred to by Stowe, _Annales_, 816 (_B. M. Royal MS._ 18, D. 11). I think they yield an older William and a John Cornish, of whom one, probably John, arranged the three pageants at Arthur’s wedding, and a William ‘jun.’ who must have joined the Chapel in 1503 or 1504 and became Master of the Children. The older William may be identical with the Westminster (q.v.) choir-master of 1479–80. A Christopher or ‘Kit’ Cornish, referred to by Stopes, 17, and elsewhere, had no existence. This is a ghost-name, due to the juxtaposition of ‘kyte’, i.e. Sir John Kite, afterwards Archbishop of Armagh, and ‘Cornisshe’ in the 1508 record above.

[82] Cf. ch. v and _Mediaeval Stage_, i. 400.

[83] The _T. C. Accounts_ show a reward of £200 to Cornish on 30 Nov. 1516, of which the occasion is not specified, and a payment of £18 2_s._ 11½_d._ for ‘ij pagentes’ on 6 July 1517. With these possible exceptions, no expenditure on the disguisings or the interludes which formed part of them as distinct from the independent interludes by the Children, for which Cornish received £6 13_s._ 4_d._ each, seems to have passed through these accounts. Any remuneration received by Cornish or his fellows or children for their personal services probably passed through the _Revels Accounts_.

[84] Wallace, i. 16, 50. He light-heartedly accuses my friend Mr. Pollard, me, and others of perpetuating an old mis-ascription on the strength of Bale, ‘generally without consulting the _Scriptores_’, in the first edition of which (1548) Bale says that Rastell ‘reliquit’, and in the second that he ‘edidit’ _The Four Elements_. This Professor Wallace regards as revision by Bale of an incorrect assertion that Rastell was the author into an assertion that he was the publisher. But Bale elsewhere uses ‘edidit’ to indicate authorship, as Professor Wallace might have learnt from the notice of Heywood which he quotes on p. 80. As to _The Four P. P._ there are three early editions by three different publishers, and they all assign it to Heywood.

[85] Wallace, i. 61, 69; ii. 63, from patents and Exchequer payments. The Elizabethan patent is in Rymer, xv. 517.

[86] Rimbault, viii, quoting only the words ‘in anie churches or chappells within England to take to the King’s use, such and so many singing children and choristers, as he or his deputy should think good’. Stopes, 12, gives _Lansd. MS._ 171, and _Stowe MS._ 371, f. 31^v, as references, but the commission is not in either of them.

[87] Matthew Welder appears as a lute and viol at Court in 1516 and 1517. Peter Welder was appointed in 1519 and is traceable to 1559, as a lute, viol, or flute. Henry van Wilder was a ‘musician’, 1553–8. Philip Welder or van Wilder himself is first noted as a ‘minstrel’ in 1526. Later he was a lute up to 1554. In 1547 he was also ‘of the Privy Chamber’ and keeper of the King’s musical instruments (Nagel, 6, 13, 15, 16, 18, 22, 24, 27; Lafontaine, 8, 9, 12; Brewer, i, cxi). He died 24 Jan. 1554, leaving a son, Henry, probably the one noted above (Fry, _London Inquisitions_, i. 117). The _Chamber Accounts_ for 1538–41 show an allowance to him of £70 ‘for six singing children’ (Stopes, 12). Several references to ‘Philippe and his fellows yong mynstrels’ and to ‘the children that be in the keeping of Philip and Edmund Harmon’ appear in Green Cloth documents from 30 June 1538 to 1544 (_H. O._ 166, 172, 191, 208; _Genealogist_, xxx. 23). Edmund Harmon was one of the royal Barbers. Finally, livery lists of 1547 show nine singing men and children under ‘M^r. Phelips’ (Lafontaine, 7). An earlier company of ‘the King’s young minstrels’ than this of 1538–50 seems to have been lodged at court _c._ 1526 (Brewer, iv. 1. 865), and there were ‘troyes autres nos ioesnes ministralx’ as far back as 1369 (_Life Records of Chaucer_, iv. 174). Elizabethan fee lists continue to make provision for ‘six children for singing’, but there is no indication that the posts were filled up.

[88] Wallace, ii. 63, from docquet in _B. M. Royal MS._ 18, C. xxiv, f. 232. By an obvious error, the name is written by the clerk as ‘Gowre’.

[89] Wallace, i. 77.

[90] Cf. p. 12.

[91] It is possible that the Treasurer of the Chamber did not pay all the rewards for plays during the earlier years of the reign; but the suggestion of Wallace, i. 108, that, if we had the _Books of Queen’s Payments_, more information might be available, seems to show a failure to realize the identity of the Tudor _Books of King’s Payments_ with the _T. of C. Accounts_. There might, however, be rewards in a book subsidiary to the _Privy Purse Accounts_. I do not think that much can be made of the recital of ‘playes’ as well as ‘maskes’ in the preamble of the _Revels Accounts_ for 1558–9, during which the T. of C. paid no rewards, since this may be merely ‘common form’.

[92] Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 34; cf. Appendix A. Naturally no ‘reward’ would be paid in such circumstances. Fleay, 16, 32, 60, conjectures that the play was _Misogonus_.

[93] Strype, _Survey of London_ (App. i. 92), gives the date from Bower’s tombstone at Greenwich, and as his death is recited in Edwardes’ patent (Stopes, _Hunnis_, 146) and his will of 18 June 1561 was proved on 25 Aug. 1561 (Wallace, i. 106), it is clear that the entry of Rimbault, 1, ‘1563. Rich. Bower died, M^r of the children, A^o 5^{to}’, must be an error.

[94] Wallace, _Blackfriars_, 65, from Privy Seal in P. R. O. The patent dated 10 Jan. 1562 is on _Patent Rolls, 4 Eliz._ p. 6, m. 14 _dorso_.

[95] This is recorded in a Revels document, and seems a clear case of a play given by the Chapel and not paid for by the T. of C.

[96] Cf. ch. vii, p. 223.

[97] Rimbault, 2. On Hunnis, cf. ch. xxiii.

[98] Stopes, 295, translates the patent of appointment from _Auditors Patent Books_, ix, f. 144^v; the Privy Seal is in _Privy Seals_, Series iii, 1175. Stopes also prints the patent and Wallace, ii. 66, the Signet Bill (misdescribing it as a Privy Seal) for the commission; it is enrolled on _Patent Rolls, 9 Eliz._ p. 10, m. 16 _dorso_. It is varied from the model of 1562 by the inclusion of power to the Master to take up lodging for the children in transit, and to fix ‘reasonable prises’ for carriage and necessaries at his discretion.

[99] Hazlitt-Warton, iv. 217, citing f. xii of the pamphlet. I know of no copy. One is catalogued among Bishop Tanner’s books in the Bodleian, but Stopes, 226, ‘went to Oxford on purpose to see it, but found that it had utterly vanished’. Macray, _Annals of the Bodleian_, 211, thinks that it may have been destroyed when Tanner’s books fell into a river during their transit from Norwich to Oxford in Dec. 1731. The pamphlet is also cited for an example of the use of the term ‘spur money’ (Bumpus, 29, with date ‘1598’). F. T. Hibgame (_10 N. Q._ i. 458) describes a collection of pamphlets seen by him in New York under the general title of _The Sad Decay of Discipline in our Schools_ (1830), which included _Some Account of the Stripping and Whipping of the Children of the Chapel_, containing a ‘realistic account of the treatment of the boys at one of the royal chapels’, of which he thought the author might be George Colman.

[100] Cf. ch. vii.

[101] Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 244, ‘Holly, Ivye, firr poles & Mosse for the Rock ... Hornes iij, Collers iij, Leashes iij & dogghookes iij with Bawdrickes for the hornes in Hvnnyes playe’.

[102] _Variorum_, iii. 439.

[103] Cf. ch. xxiii (Gascoigne).

[104] W. Creizenach (_Sh.-Jahrbuch_, liv. 73) points out that the source must have been Livy, xxvi. 50.

[105] Cf. _infra_ (Windsor).

[106] Rimbault, 2.

[107] Cf. ch. xvii (Blackfriars). The bare fact of this early use of the Blackfriars has, of course, long been known from the reference to comedies at the Blackfriars in Gosson, _P. C._ 188 (App. C, No. xxx), and the prologues to Lyly’s _Campaspe_ and _Sapho and Phao_. Fleay, 36, 39, 40, guessed that the early Blackfriars performances were at an inn, and by the Paul’s boys, and that the euphuistic prose plays at the Bel Savage mentioned by Gosson, _S. A._ 39 (App. C, No. xxii), in 1579 were early Chapel versions of Lyly’s above-named plays. But there is no evidence that either of the boy companies ever used an inn.

[108] Cf. p. 38.

[109] Cf. ch. vii, p. 223.

[110] Rimbault, 3. The Blackfriars correspondence shows that the date 1581 given in Rimbault, 56, is wrong. A warrant of 1582 for a lease in reversion to his widow Anne is in _Hatfield MSS._ ii. 539.

[111] App. C, No. xlv.

[112] Cf. ch. xvii (Blackfriars).

[113] Wallace, i. 156; Stopes, _Hunnis_, 252; from _S. P. D. Eliz._ clxiii. 88.

[114] Cf. p. 50, which suggests that the boys occasionally ate in hall at festival times.

[115] The _Chamber Accounts_ show no renewal of the payments.

[116] Cf. ch. xxiii (Hunnis).

[117] Cf. ch. xiii (Oxford’s), ch. xxiii (Lyly).

[118] Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 470. _Sapho and Phao_ might, however, have been the unnamed Chapel play of Shrove Tuesday (27 Feb.) 1582.

[119] Perhaps Lyly was still associated with him. F. S. Boas (_M. L. R._ vi. 92) records payments in connexion with a visit by Leicester to Christ Church, Oxford, to Mr. Lyly and his man for the loan of apparel, as well as one of £5 to one Tipslowe ‘for the Revels’ (January 1585).

[120] Cf. _supra_ (Paul’s).

[121] I have no means of dating ‘The order of the show to be done at the Turret, entring into the parke at Grenewich, the musick being within the turrett’, which is preserved in _Egerton MS._ 2877, f. 182, as ‘acted before Q. Elizabeth’. A speech of forty lines beginning ‘He Jove himselfe, that guides the golden spheare’, was delivered by ‘one of the biggest children of her Ma^{tes} Chappell’ as Goodwill, and was followed by a song beginning ‘Ye Helicon muses’.

[122] Rimbault, 4. A note of Anthony Wood’s (cf. _D. N. B._) suggests that Bull joined the Chapel about 1572.

[123] Ashmole, _Antiquities of Berks_ (ed. 1723), iii. 172, from tombstone at St. George’s, Windsor. The inscription gives him 49 years as Master at Windsor, in error for 39. A second stone described as also his by Ashmole is clearly his wife’s.

[124] Wallace, ii. 59, prints both from the Privy Seals of 2 and 3 July in the R. O. The appointment is enrolled in _Patent Rolls, 39 Eliz._ p. 12, and the commission in _Patent Rolls, 39 Eliz._ p. 9, m. 7 _dorso_. The appointment is for life, the commission not so specified, and therefore during pleasure only.

[125] The operative words of the appointment are ‘pro nobis heredibus et successoribus nostris damus et concedimus dilecto seruienti nostro Nathanieli Giles officium Magistri puerorum Capellae nostrae Regiae ... habendum ... durante vita sua naturali Damus etiam ... praefato Nathanieli Giles vada siue feoda quadraginta librarum sterling percipienda annuatim ... pro eruditione duodecem puerorum eiusdem Capellae nostrae ac pro eorum conveniente exhibitione vestiturae et lectuarii ... vnacum omnibus et omnimodis aliis vadis feodis proficubus iurisdiccionibus aucthoritate priuilegiis commoditatibus regardis et aduantagiis quibuscunque eodem officio quoquo modo debitis ... ac ... praedicto Nathanieli Giles locum siue officium illud vnius generosorum nostrorum dictae Capellae nostrae Regiae ... vnacum feodo seu annuali redditu triginta librarum ...’

[126] _E. v. K._ 211; _K. v. P._ 224, 230, 233 (misdated 44 Eliz. for 42 Eliz.), 239. These are only short recitals in the lawsuits. Apparently the fragmentary descriptions of the theatre in Wallace, ii. 39, 40, 41, 43, 49, are from a fuller Latin text of the terms of the lease, possibly recited in a common-law suit, which he has not printed in full.

[127] _K. v. P._ 230, 234.

[128] Halliwell-Phillipps, i. 317.

[129] Fleay, 124, 153; Wallace, ii. 56; cf. _M. L. R._ iv. 156. An initial date for the enterprise in 1600 fits in exactly with the seven years during which there had been plays at the house where _K. B. P._ was produced and the ten years’ training of Keysar’s company up to 1610 (cf. p. 57).

[130] Cf. ch. xi.

[131] Fleay, 127. Burn, 152, notes from _Bodl. Tanner MS._ 300 that among the misdemeanours punished in the Star Chamber was ‘Taking up a gentleman’s son to be a stage player’.

[132] Wallace, ii. 84, gives the endorsed date omitted by Greenstreet and Fleay, as ‘Marti decimo quinto Decembris Anno xliiij Elizabeth Regine’; the date set down for trial is indicated as ‘p Octab Hillar’. This agrees with the time indication of the offence in the complaint itself as ‘about one yere last past, and since your maiesties last free and generall pardon’. The pardon referred to must be that of 1597–8 (_39 Eliz._ c. 28; cf. _R. O. Statutes_, iv. 952). There was another passed by the Parliament of 1601 (_43 Eliz._ c. 19; cf. _Statutes_, iv. 1010) for all offences prior to 7 Aug. 1601, but presumably this was not yet law when the complaint was drawn. The Parliament sat to 19 December. Clifton, however, was only just in time.

[133] _K. v. P._ 248. The date is recited as ‘in or about the three and ffortieth yeare’ of Elizabeth, i.e. 1600–1, which is not exact. The reference can hardly be to any other than the Clifton affair. No Chancery documents in the case, other than the complaint, are known. It may be presumed that censure fell on Giles and Robinson, as well as Evans, but they were not concerned in _K. v. P._ Evans, of course, was technically acting as deputy to Giles under his commission, and Wallace, ii. 71, is not justified in citing the case as evidence that ‘These powers to Giles were supplemented by official concessions to Henry Evans that enabled him to rent the Blackfriars theatre and train the Queen’s Children of the Chapel there, with remunerative privileges’.

[134] _K. v. P._ 224, 230, 236, 242, 244, 248, 250.

[135] _E. v. K._ 211, 216; _K. v. P._ 237, 240, 245. These are recitals. Wallace, ii. 91, says that he has found two copies of the original bond, but the text he prints adds nothing to _K. v. P._ 240. Clearly he is wrong in describing it as ‘containing the Articles of Agreement’. That was a much more detailed document, which Evans unfortunately thought so ‘long and tedious’ that he did not insert it at large in his Answer in _K. v. P._ It was doubtless analogous to the King’s Revels Articles of 1608 (cf. _infra_). It provided for the rights of the partners to the use of rooms (_E. v. K._ 211) and presumably for the division of profits (_K. v. P._ 237).

[136] _K. v. P._ 244. Wallace, ii. 102, adds the actual terms of the bond. He takes Evans’s explanation to mean that hitherto Evans had maintained the boys and the plays out of official funds supplied through Kirkham as Yeoman of the Revels, but that now Evans’s name was to be kept out of the business, and disbursements made by his partners, who were to pay him 8_s._ a week as a kind of steward. I cannot suppose that Kirkham had been the channel of any official subvention, and, on the whole, think it probable that the second ‘compl^t’ in the extract from the pleading is an error for ‘def^t’. This leaves it not wholly clear why Evans should allege his relief from great weekly disbursements as a reason for receiving 8_s._ a week; but if we had the Articles of Agreement, the point would probably be clear. Possibly Evans had in the past made the equivalent of a weekly sum of 8_s._ out of board-wages passed on to him by Giles.

[137] Wallace, ii. 88.

[138] _E. v. K._ 213, 217, 220.

[139] G. von Bülow and W. Powell in _R. H. S. Trans._ vi. 26; Wallace, ii. 105; with translations.

[140] Wallace, ii. 126, summarizes his theory; cf. my review in _M. L. R._ v. 224.

[141] Wallace, ii. 99.

[142] _E. v. K._ 217; _K. v. P._ 224, 227, 229, 231, 236, 248.

[143] Wallace, ii. 73.

[144] Wallace, ii. 75, shows that the Blackfriars repertory would require twenty or twenty-five actors.

[145] Gawdy, 117.

[146] Wallace, ii. 95. Dudley Carleton wrote to John Chamberlain on 29 Dec. 1601 (_S. P. D. Eliz._ cclxxxii. 48), ‘The Q: dined this day priuatly at my L^d Chamberlains; I came euen now from the blackfriers where I saw her at the play with all her candidae auditrices’; cf. _M. L. R._ ii. 12.

[147] _K. v. P._ 235.

[148] Wallace, ii. 89, says that Evans paid £11 0_s._ 2_d._ for repairs on 8 Dec. 1603.

[149] _M. S. C._ i. 267, from _Patent Roll, 1 Jac. I_, pt. 8. Collier, i. 340, and Hazlitt, _E. D. S._ 40, print the signet bill, the former dating it 30 Jan. and the latter 31 Jan., and misdescribe it as a privy seal. Collier, _N. F._ 48, printed a forged letter from Daniel to Sir T. Egerton (cf. Ingleby, 244, 247) intended to suggest that Drayton, and perhaps also Shakespeare, had coveted his post.

[150] Wallace, ii. 80, mentions a case of the employment of a boy at the Blackfriars during James’s reign under a contract with his mother.

[151] _M. S. C._ i. 359. On 7 Oct. 1605 the Wardrobe provided holland for shirts for the 12 children and ‘for James Cutler, a Chappell boy gone off’ (Lafontaine, 46, from _L. C._ 804).

[152] Rimbault, 60; Stowe, _Annales_ (ed. Howes), 1037. An order of 17 July 1604 (_H. O._ 301) continued the allowance of an increase of meat at festival times which the children had presumably enjoyed under Elizabeth.

[153] Middleton, _Father Hubbard’s Tales_ (_Works_, viii. 64, 77). A reference in the same book to an ant as ‘this small actor in less than decimo sexto’ recalls the jest in the Induction to the _Malcontent_ at the boys who played _Jeronimo_ ‘in decimo sexto’.

[154] Cf. ch. xi.

[155] _K. v. B._ 340.

[156] Cf. ch. xxiii, s.v. plays named.

[157] Kirkham and Kendall were still associated in Aug. 1605, when apparel and properties were obtained from them for the plays at James’s visit to Oxford (_M. S. C._ i. 247). There was a performance at the Blackfriars as late as 16 June 1605 (Wallace, ii. 125), a date connected with a dispute in settlement of which Kirkham’s bond of £50 to Evans was exchanged for a new one to Hawkins (_K. v. P._ 244).

[158] Cf. _M. L. R._ iv. 159. The t.p. of _Sophonisba_ only specifies performance ‘at the Blackfriars’; those of _The Fleir_ and _The Isle of Gulls_ ‘by the Children of the Revels at the Blackfriars’. Probably the ‘Children of the Revels’ of the t.p. of Day’s _Law Tricks_ (1608) is also the Blackfriars company. No theatre is named, but the play is too early for the King’s Revels, who, moreover, do not seem to be described on other t.ps. as ‘Children of the Revels’ pure and simple. I take it that these t.p. descriptions follow the designations of the companies in use when the plays were last on the stage before publication, rather than those in use at the times of first production.

[159] Cf. ch. x.

[160] Cf. ch. xxiii, s.v. Day.

[161] Keysar was certainly associated with Kendall by the Christmas of 1606–7, when they supplied apparel and properties for the Westminster plays; cf. Murray, ii. 169.

[162] _K. v. P._ 249.

[163] _M. S. C._ i. 362, from _P. R. O., Patent Roll, 4 James I_, p. 18, _dorso_. Collier, i. 446, long ago noted the existence of a similar clause in a Caroline commission to Giles of 1626. It was probably the choristers who assisted in a quasi-dramatic performance on 16 July 1607, when James dined with the Merchant Taylors, and Giles received the freedom of the company in reward; cf. ch. iv.

[164] Cf. App. I.

[165] _E. v. K._ 221; _K. v. P._ 246. ‘The Children of the Revells’ who appeared at Leicester on 21 Aug. 1608 (Kelly, 248) might have been these boys, but might also have been the King’s Revels, if the King’s Revels were still in existence under that name, which is very doubtful.

[166] Cf. ch. xxiii, s.v. Chapman.

[167] _S. P. D. Jac. I_, xxxi. 73. The mine was no doubt the silver mine discovered at Hilderston near Linlithgow in 1607, and worked as a royal enterprise with little success; cf. R. W. Cochran-Patrick, _Early Records relating to Mining in Scotland_ (1878), xxxvii. 116.

[168] Cf. ch. xxiii.

[169] _K. v. B._ 342.

[170] _E. v. K._ 222; _K. v. P._ 225, 231, 235, 246.

[171] Cf. ch. xvii (Blackfriars).

[172] _K. v. P._ 225, 249.

[173] _E. v. K._ 221; _K. v. P._ 245. In the earlier suit Evans says that the royal prohibition was ‘vpon some misdemeanors committed in or about the plaies there, and specially vpon the defendants [Kirkham’s] acts and doings thereabout’. Unless Kirkham was more directly concerned in the management during 1608 than appears probable, Evans must be reflecting upon the whole series of misdemeanours since 1604.

[174] On 9 May John Browne, ‘one of the playe boyes’, was buried at St. Anne’s.

[175] _K. v. B._ 347, gives the date of surrender in 1610 as ‘about the tenth of August last past’. Probably a year’s sub-tenancy under the King’s men explains the discrepancy with the ‘about August in the sixt year of his Majesties raigne’ of _K. v. P._ 235, and the confirmatory date of the King’s men’s leases.

[176] Cf. ch. _supra_ (Paul’s). _K. v. B._ 355 tells us that Rosseter was in partnership with Keysar.

[177] _M. S. C._ i. 271, from _P. R., 7 Jac. I_, p. 13. Ingleby, 254, gave the material part in discussing a forged draft by Collier (_N. F._ 41), in which the names of the patentees are given as ‘Robert Daiborne, William Shakespeare, Nathaniel Field and Edward Kirkham’. A genuine note of the patent is in Sir Thomas Egerton’s note-book (_N. F._ 40). Ingleby adds that the signet office records (cf. Phillimore, 103) show that the warrant was obtained in Dec. 1609 by the influence of Monson. He was Anne’s household Chancellor and to him Rosseter and Campion dedicated their _Book of Airs_ (1601) and Campion his _Third Book of Airs_ (1617).

[178] _K. v. B._ 343.

[179] _K. v. B._ 343, 350.

[180] Evans, Mrs. Evans, Field, Underwood, Ostler, Baxstead, Rosseter, Marston, and Mrs. Hawkins were to be examined for the King’s men.

[181] _E. v. K._ 213. I presume that some of these are amongst the ‘twelve additional suits’ which Wallace, ii. 36, claims to have found.

[182] _E. v. K._ 218. In _K. v. P._ 225, he put the total annual profits during 1608–12 at £160.

[183] Halliwell-Phillipps, i. 317; cf. _Hist. Hist._ 416 (App. I), ‘Some of the chapel boys, when they grew men, became actors at the Blackfriars; such were Nathan Field and John Underwood’.

[184] The _Chamber Accounts_ record no payment to the company (cf. App. B, introd.).

[185] Cf. ch. xvi.

[186] Murray, i. 361.

[187] E. Ashmole, _Institution of the Garter_ (1672), 127; R. R. Tighe and J. E. Davis, _Annals of Windsor_, i. 426, 477; _Report of Cathedrals Commission_ (1854), App. 467; _V. H. Berks_, ii. 106; _H. M. C. Various MSS._ vii. 10.

[188] Tighe-Davis, ii. 45, from Stowe’s account ‘of the Castell of Wyndsore’ (_Harl. MS._ 367, f. 13).

[189] Nichols, i. 81, and Collier, i. 170, print a copy in _Ashm. MS._ 1113, f. 252, from the Elizabethan commission preserved at Windsor, as follows:

‘Elizabeth R.

Whereas our castle of Windsor hath of old been well furnished with singing men and children, We, willing it should not be of less reputation in our days, but rather augmented and increased, declare, that no singing men or boys be taken out of the said chapel by virtue of any commission, not even for our household chapel: and we give power to the bearer of this to take any singing men and boys from any chapel, our own household and St. Paul’s only excepted. Given at Westminster, this 8^{th} of March in the second year of our reign.’

A further copy from _Ashm. MS._ 1113 is in _Addl. MS._ 4847, f. 117. Copies or notes of the three earlier commissions are in this MS. and in _Ashm. MS._ 1124. In _Ashm. MS._ 1132, f. 169, is a letter of 18 April 1599 from the Chapter to Sir R. Cecil defending their conduct in taking a singing man from Westminster.

[190] Gee, 230, in a list of deprived clergy from N. Sanders, _De Visibili Monarchia_ (1571), 688, ‘_Magistri Musices_ ... Prestonus in oppido Vindelisoriensi’. Can this Preston be the playwright (cf. ch. xxiii)?

[191] Rimbault, 1; Stopes, _Shakespeare’s Environment_, 243.

[192] _Ashm. MS._ 1132, f. 165^a.

[193] Rimbault, 2.

[194] _M. L. R._ (1906), ii. 6.

[195] Cf. ch. xvii (Blackfriars).

[196] Cf. App. B.

[197] Rimbault, 3; _H. M. C., Hatfield MSS._ ii. 539.

[198] Rimbault, 182; _Musical Antiquary_, i. 30; _10 N. Q._ v. 341. A Christ Church, Oxford, MS., dated 1581, assigns to Farrant (cf. ch. xxiii) a possibly dramatic lament of Panthea for the death of Abradates, beginning ‘Ah, ah, alas ye salt sea Gods’. This is assigned to Robert Parsons by _Addl. MSS._ 17786–91, which assign to Farrant a song which may come from a play in which Altages is a character. The writer in the _Musical Antiquary_ thinks that a lament for Guichardo (not from either of the known Gismund texts) in the _Ch. Ch. MS._ is much in Farrant’s style.

[199] Ashmole, _Antiquities of Berks_ (ed. 1723), iii. 172; cf. p. 41.

[200] _Ashm. MS._ 1125, f. 41^v.

[201] Cf. ch. xiii (Chamberlain’s).

[202] Presumably, however, the ‘Gerry’ buried out of the Whitefriars play-house (q.v.) on 29 Sept. 1607 was of the company.

[203] Phillimore, 140; cf. App. A.

[204] _S. P. D. Jac. I_, lxxxi. 12.

[205] _M. S. C._ i. 279, from _P. R. 13 Jac. I_, pt. 20.

[206] _Variorum_, iii. 426; Collier, i. 394; Hazlitt,_ E. D. S._ 49; from _S. P. D. Jac. I_, xcvii. 140.

[207] Collier, i. 396, not, as he says, from the _P. C. Register_, but from _S. P. D. Jac. I_, xcvii. 140.

[208] Clode, ii. 269; Nicholl, _Ironmongers_, 84; cf. ch. iv.

[209] Warton, iii. 313; Stowe, _Survey_, ed. Strype, v. 231.

[210] E. J. L. Scott in _Athenaeum_ (1903), i. 220, from _S. P. D. Eliz._ xxxvi. 22; Murray, ii. 168.

[211] _Observer._ Other payments in this or another year were for ‘a haddocke occupied in the plaie’, ‘a thondre barrell’, ‘drawing the tytle of the comedee’.

[212] E. J. L. Scott in _Athenaeum_ (1896), i. 95; (1903) ii. 220; Murray, ii. 168; _Observer_.

[213] Heywood-Wright, 632; Hazlitt-Warton, iii. 308.

[214] Collins, 215 (1566), ‘M^r Scholemaster towards his charges about the playes laste Christmas, 20/-’; Maxwell-Lyte,^4 154 (1566–7) ‘To M^r Scholemaster for his charge setting furthe ij playes 19^o Martii, iii^l, xiij^s, viij^d’, (1568–9) ‘For ij dossen of links at iij^d the linke for the childrens showes at Christmass, vj^s’, (1572–3) ‘For vj poundes of candles at the playes in the Halle, ix^d’.

[215] J. W. Hales in _Englische Studien_, xviii. 408 (cf. _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 452), made the date of 1553–4 seem plausible, but his conjecture that the play was written for the Westminster boys is disposed of by A. F. Leach, who gives Udall’s appointment to Westminster from the Chapter Act Book as 16 Dec. 1555 (_Encycl. Brit._ s.v. Udall). It might be a Court play of 1553–4, but the parody of the _Requiem_ would have been an indiscretion on Udall’s part at that date.

[216] G. C. Moore Smith (_M. L. R._ viii. 368) has an ingenious identification of him with the Wrenock of Spenser’s _Shepheards Kalendar_, xii. 41.

[217] Clode, _Hist. of Merchant Taylors Company_, i. 235, from Master’s _Accounts_. Before they opened their own school the Company had plays by the Westminster boys (q.v.).

[218] Clode, i. 234.

[219] The subject may have been Perseus and Andromeda, as the Revels prepared a picture of Andromeda this year. If so, it was probably the same play as that of 23 Feb. 1574.

[220] Whitelocke, _Liber Famelicus_ (Camden Soc.), 12.

[221] Clode, i. 264, 280, 390.

[222] _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 186, 256.

[223] The documents in W. Campbell, _Materials for a History of the Reign of Henry VII_, are full for the period 1485–90. There is nothing of King’s players, but certain ‘stuffures’ paid for by a warrant of 25 Nov. 1485 (Campbell, i. 178) included goods delivered to John English, apparently a royal tailor or valet, ‘servant unto my said sovereign’.

[224] Collier, i. 44, from a book of Exchequer payments, beginning Michaelmas 1493, in the Chapter-house (probably _Misc. Books of the Treasury of the Receipt of the Exchequer_, 131), ‘xvij Die Maij [1494] John Englissh, Edwardo Maye, Rico Gibbeson, & John Hammond, Lusoribus Regis, alias, in lingua Anglicana, _les_ pleyars of the kyngs enterluds, de feodis suis V mrc. ꝓ Ann: le home, per lre Regis de privato Sigillo dormant de termino Michaelis alt: pte rec: denar: separatim ꝓ manus proprias, x mrc.’. The payment was continued half-yearly. Collier adds that Mr. Ouvry owned an original receipt signed by May and English for the salaries of the same four men. It is now _Egerton MS._ 2623 (3), f. 1, and appears to be a slip cut from some Exchequer record. F. Devon, _Issues of the Exchequer_, 516, gives similar payments for Michaelmas 1494 and Michaelmas 1503; it is in the latter that the names of William Rutter and John Scott appear. An Exchequer declaration of 1505–6 in _Lansd. MS._ 156, f. 135, has ‘To Richard Gibson, and other the kings plaiers, for their annuity for one yere, £13 6_s._ 8_d._’. Henry, _History of Britain_, xii. 456, gives from an Exchequer annuity list of 1507–8, ‘Ricardo Gybson et aliis lusoribus dom. reg. £13 6_s._ 8_d._’.

[225] Collier, i. 49, quotes: (a) _Account_ of Robert Fowler (1501–2), ‘Oct. 26 [1501], Itm to John Englishe for his pagent, £6 13_s._ 4_d._ ... Jan. 1 [1502] Itm, to the Kinges players, over 40^s paid by Thomas Trollop, 20^s’; (b) _Household Book of Henry VII_ (1492–1505, more correctly from _Addl. MS._ 7099 in Bentley, _Excerpta Historica_, 85), ‘Jan. 6 [1494] To the Kings Pleyers for a rewarde, £2 13_s._ 4_d._ ... Jan. 7 [1502] To John Englishe the Pleyer, 10_s._’; (c) _The Kings Boke of Payments_ (1506–9, apparently _Misc. Books of the Treasury of the Receipt of the Exchequer_, 214), ‘Jan. 7 [1509] To the kings players in rewarde, £2’. Both (b) and (c) are _Chamber Accounts_.

[226] Leland, _Collectanea_ (ed. Hearne), iv. 265.

[227] _Lansd. MS._ 171, cited by Collier, i. 72, is in fact an Elizabethan document, but a list of fees and annuities (1516) in Brewer, ii. 874 has, amongst those granted by Henry VII, ‘John Englisshe and other players £13 6_s._ 8_d._’, and amongst those recently granted, ‘John Englisshe and other players, in addition to the old annuity, £13 6_s._ 8_d._’.

[228] Collier, i. 97, 115, gives an Exchequer payment of 1525–6, ‘Rico Hole et Georgio Mayler, et aliis lusoribus Dom. Regis, de foedis suis inter se ad x marcos per ann. sibi debit: pro festo Michaelis, anno xvij Regis nunc Henrici VIII recept. denar. per manus proprias, per litt. curr. 66_s._ 8_d._’, and was informed by Mr. Devon of a similar payment of £3 6_s._ 8_d._ in 1530, in which John Roll, Richard Hole, and Thomas Sudbury are named. A household list of _c._ 1526 (Brewer, iv. 869) gives as on yearly wages ‘Ric. Hole and other players, £6 13_s._ 4_d._’. One later than March 1544 (Collier, i. 133) gives 8 players at £3 6_s._ 8_d._ each.

[229] _Chamber Accounts_ (Brewer, v. 303; xiii. 2. 524; xiv. 2. 303; xvi. 178, 698; xvii. 474; xx. 2. 515; Nicolas, xxviii; Collier, i. 79, 96, 113, 116, 117; _Trevelyan Papers_, i. 149, 157, 170, 177, 195, 203) give John English (1521–31) at half-yearly ‘fee’ or ‘wages’ of £3 6_s._ 8_d._, John Slye or Slee (1539–40) at £1 13_s._ 4_d._ half-yearly, and Richard Parrowe or Parlowe (1540–5, appointed Christmas 1538), George Birch (1538–45), Robert Hinstock (1538–45), and George Maylour (1538–40), at 16_s._ 8_d._ or 11_s._ 1_d._ quarterly.

[230] _Chamber Accounts_ (Brewer, ii. 1441; iii. 1533, &c.; Nicolas, xxviii; Collier, i. 76, 116). The reward for 1509–10 was £2 13_s._ 4_d._; during 1510–13, £3 6_s._ 8_d._; during 1513–21, £3 6_s._ 8_d._ to the ‘players’ and ‘£4’ to the ‘olde players’; and during 1529–41, £6 13_s._ 4_d._

[231] Collier, i. 69, from a ‘paper, folded up in the roll [of the _Revels Account_ for 1513–14] and in a different handwriting’, ‘Inglyshe, and the oothers of the Kynges pleyers, after pleyed an Interluyt, whiche was wryten by Mayster Midwell, but yt was so long yt was not lykyd: yt was of the fyndyng of Troth, who was caryed away by ygnoraunce and ypocresy. The foolys part was the best, but the kyng departyd before the end to hys chambre.’ According to Collier, the paper is signed by William Cornish and also contains a description of a Chapel interlude. But Brewer, who calendars the _Revels Account_ fully, does not notice it, and according to A. W. Reed in T. L. S. (3 April 1919) it cannot be traced at the R. O.

[232] Cf. ch. iii; _Tudor Revels_, 6.

[233] Brewer, ii. 1493. In 1546–7 they had 5_s._ for the loan of garments to the Revels (Kempe, 71).

[234] _Grey Friars Chronicle_ (C. S.), 34, ‘Also this same yere John Scotte, that was one of the kynges playeres, was put in Newgate for rebukynge of the shreffes, and was there a sennet, and at the last was ledde betwene two of the offecers from Newgate thorrow London and soe to Newgat agayne, and then was delyveryd home to hys howse; but he toke such a thowte that he dyde, for he went in hys shurte’.

[235] John Slye and John Yonge, mercer, had been players to Queen Jane before her death in 1537, and were concerned about 1538 in a Chancery suit about a horse hired ‘to beare there playing garmentes’ (Stopes, _Shakespeare’s Environment_, 235). Perhaps this explains the annuity of £1 10_s._ 5_d._ (1_d._ a day) which Young drew from the Chamber during 1540–2. But he obtained a patent as King’s player, with an annual fee of £3 6_s._ 8_d._, on the death of Roo in 1539 (Brewer, xiv. 1. 423), and an ‘annuity’ of £3 6_s._ 8_d._ on the death of Sudbury in 1546 (Brewer, xxi. 2. 156). Collier, i. 134, cites a description of him in a fee list amongst the _Fairfax MSS._ as ‘Maker of Interludes, Comedies, and Playes’.

[236] Cf. _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 183.

[237] G. H. Overend in _N. S. S. Trans._ (1877–9), 425.

[238] Collier, i. 93; Madden, _Privy Purse Expenses of the Princess Mary_, 104, 140; _Rutland MSS._ iv. 270; Brewer, iv. 340.

[239] Cf. Murray, _passim_, and _Mediaeval Stage_, App. E.

[240] _Royal MS._ 7, C. xvi, f. 97 (cited Collier, i. 137). The names are in a list of servants ‘nuely in ordinary of the Chamber’, and some illegible names of players are in an accompanying list of ‘Offycers in ordynary of the Chamber of the late Kynges Majestie now discharged’.

[241] _Lord Chamberlain’s Records_, _Misc._ v. 127, f. 23 (also with the error ‘E. and P.’ in Sullivan, 249), ‘three broade yerdes of redd wollen clothe for a liuery coate of suche prices as the yeomen officers of oure howseholde are accustomed to haue and iij^s and iiij^d vnto euery of them for the Enbrauderinge of theire saide coates withe the lettres E and R on the backe and on the breste’.

[242] _Chamber Accounts_ in _Trevelyan Papers_, i. 195–205; ii. 17–31, and Collier, i. 136, 138, 148.

[243] _S. P. D. Edw. VI_, xiv.

[244] _Stowe MS._ 571, f. 27^v; _Harl. MS._ 240, f. 13.

[245] Feuillerat, _Edw. and Mary_, 89, 90, 97, 98, 119; cf. _Mediaeval Stage_, i. 406, where I think I was in error in taking John Smith as a name assumed by Will Somers.

[246] _Hist. MSS._ iii. 230, from book of annuities at Penshurst.

[247] Feuillerat, _Edw. and Mary_, 31, 39, 57, 86.

[248] Collier, i. 149. The reference to Ferrers’ ‘divine’ and ‘astronomer’ (cf. _Mediaeval Stage_, i. 407) fixes the date.

[249] _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 201, from _Lansd. MS._ 824, f. 24.

[250] Fee-list in collection of Soc. of Antiquaries, cited by Collier, i. 161.

[251] _Chamber Accounts_ in Collier, i. 161; _Declared Accounts (Pipe Office)_, 541, m. 2^v.

[252] Reading was a London player in 1550 (App. D, No. v). The Chamber Accounts for the first few years of Elizabeth show an annuity to a George Birch under a warrant of 7 Jan. 1560.

[253] Eight players of interludes at £3 6_s._ 8_d._ each are in the fee-lists (cf. vol. i, p. 29), _Stowe MS._ 571, f. 148 (_c._ 1575–80), _Sloane MS._ 3194, f. 38 (1585), _Stowe MS._ 571, f. 168 (_c._ 1587–90), _Lansd. MS._ 171, f. 250 (_c._ 1587–91), _S. P. D. Eliz._ ccxxi, f. 16 (_c._ 1588–93), _H. O._ 256 (_c._ 1598), and with the error of £3 6_s._ in _Hargreave MS._ 215, f. 21^v (_c._ 1592–5), _Lord Chamberlain’s Records_, v. 33, f. 19^v (1593), _Stowe MS._ 572, f. 35^v (_c._ 1592–6), _Harl. MS._ 2078, f. 18^v (_c._ 1592–6). The inaccurate _Cott. MS. Titus_, B. iii, f. 176 (_c._ 1585–93) gives two ‘Plaiers on Interludes’ at £3 6_s._ The normal entry recurs in the Jacobean _Lansd. MS._ 272, f. 27 (1614) and _Stowe MS._ 575, f. 24 (1616), but a group of the early part of the reign (_Addl. MS._ 35848, f. 19; _Addl. MS._ 38008, f. 58^v; _Soc. Antiq. MSS._ 74, 75) have ‘Plaiers on the In lute’ or ‘on in Lutes’, at £3 6_s._ 8_d._ or £3 6_s._, which looks like an attempt to rationalize the _Cotton MS._ entry. And _Stowe MS._ 574, f. 16^v, has ‘Players on Lute’ at £3 6_s._ 8_d._, which some one has corrected by inserting the normal entry. All this suggests that many copyists of fee-lists in the seventeenth century confused the post of interlude player with that of a lute player, and the former was therefore probably obsolete, and its fee no longer paid to the royal players of the day (cf. ch. x). I cannot agree with E. Law, _Shakespeare a Groom, of the Chamber_, 26, 64, that the interlude players survived under James as ‘mummers, who, perhaps, sang in a sort of recitative at masques and anti-masques’.

[254] _Chamber Declared Accounts_ (_Pipe Office_), 541, _passim_, 542, m. 3; Collier, i. 236; Cunningham, xxvii. I do not know how long John Young continued to draw his Exchequer ‘annuity’, but presumably he had retired on it.

[255] Fleay, 43, says, ‘There was no specific company called the Queen’s players till 1583; it was a generic title applied to any company who prepared plays for the Queen’s amusement. In 1561 the players probably were the Earl of Leicester’s servants.’ I need hardly say that I do not accept this, which would not explain the disappearance of the ‘Queen’s’ from provincial records between 1573 and 1583. For another use of the same improvised theory by Mr. Fleay, cf. App. D, No. lxxv.

[256] Murray, i. 19, adds records from other towns, and A. Clark (10 _N. Q._ xi. 41) for Saffron Walden.

[257] App. D, No. xi.

[258] Nichols, _Eliz._ i. 280, ‘To my L. of Leyester’s men for a reward, 2_s._ 6_d._’. Fleay, 18, says that the amount is too small to favour the supposition that these were players. But Elizabeth was at Saffron Walden at the time, and a present was made to the Master of the Revels of a podd of oysters costing no more than 3_s._ 6_d._ Probably Saffron Walden was an economical place, or the payment was only for some speech.

[259] Murray, i. 41.

[260] Printed in _M. S. C._ i. 348, from _MS._ F. 10 (213) in the Marquis of Bath’s collection at Longleat; also in _3 N. Q._ xi. 350. The letter is undated but followed _Procl._ 663, on which cf. ch. viii and App. D, No. xix.

[261] _Mediaeval Stage_, i. 406; Kempe, 47. The garments provided for Ferrers by the Revels included fools’ coats for ‘Children, John Smyth, Ayer apparent ... Seame 2, Parkins 3, Elderton 4’.

[262] App. D, No. xviii.

[263] Cf. ch. ix. The patent is printed from the Patent Roll in _M. S. C._ i. 262; also from a copy of the entry on the Patent Roll preserved amongst Rymer’s papers in _Sloane MS._ 4625 by Steevens, _Shakespeare_ (1773), ii. 156, and therefrom in _Variorum_, iii. 47. This text omits the words ‘oure Citie of London and liberties of the same as also within’. Collier, i. 203, and Hazlitt, _E. D. S._ 25, printed the Signet Bill, erroneously describing it as the Privy Seal, from the State Paper Office. This has the omitted words, and Collier correctly explains the omission in Steevens’s text as due to an inaccurate copyist, pointing in proof to the words ‘in oure _said_ Citye of London’. This did not, however, prevent Fleay, 45, from asserting that in the Patent ‘an alteration had been made from the Privy Seal’, on the ground that its terms ‘infringed on the powers of the City authorities’. Such an alteration not merely did not take place, but would have been a diplomatic impossibility, as the Patent Roll was made up, not from the Letters Patent, but from the Privy Seals on which these were based.

[264] Probably they occupied the Theatre, at any rate in summer, until 1583. A letter of Gabriel Harvey’s in the summer of 1579 mentions ‘Lycesters’, the ‘Theater’, and ‘Wylson’, but in no very definite connexion with each other (cf. p. 4). The Privy Council letter of 23 Dec. 1579, for their toleration at the Blackfriars, printed by Collier, _New Facts_, 9, is a forgery (cf. ch. xvii).

[265] I should think the ‘Myngs’ of Murray, ii. 214, and Collier, _Northbrooke_, viii, more likely to be palaeographically accurate than the ‘Myngo’ of J. Latimer in _9 N. Q._ xi. 444 and his _Sixteenth Century Bristol_. But a song of ‘Monsieur Mingo’ exists in a setting by Orlando de Lassus (cf. _E. H. R._ xxxiii. 83), and is quoted in _2 Hen. IV_, v. iii. 78, and _Summer’s Last Will and Testament_, 968.

[266] Cf. App. D, No. xl.

[267] Cf. ch. xv, s.v. Baylye.

[268] Murray, i. 41, gives additional provincial records for 1576–82.

[269] Stowe, _Annales_, 717, from a description by William Segar.

[270] The show itself was perhaps of Italian origin, for on 17 June 1572 the Earl of Lincoln was entertained at Paris by the Duke of Anjou (2 Ellis, iii. 12, from _Cott. MS. Vesp._ F. vi, f. 93) with ‘an Italian comedie, which eandid, vaulting with notable supersaltes and through hoopes, and last of all the Antiques, of carying of men one uppon an other which som men call _labores Herculis_’.

[271] J. Bruce from _Harl. MS._ 287, f. 1, in _Who was Will, my Lord of Leicester’s jesting player?_ (_Sh. Soc. Papers_, i. 88). Bruce thinks that ‘Will’ might be Johnson, Kempe, or Sly, but not Shakespeare, whose ‘earliest works bear upon them the stamp of a mind far too contemplative and refined’ for Sidney to call him ‘knave’ and ‘jesting player’. I do not subscribe to the reasoning. W. J. Thoms, _Three Notelets on Shakespeare_, 120, upholds the Shakespeare theory, and attempts to support it by evidence of military knowledge in the plays.

[272] Wright, _Eliz._ ii. 268, from _Cott. MS. Galba_ C. viii; cf. _M. L. R._ iv. 88.

[273] Fleay, 82; but cf. Lee, 36, and pp. 124, 272. The thing is complicated by the influence of Malone’s suggestion (_Variorum_, ii. 166) that Shakespeare might have left Stratford with Leicester’s men on a visit to the town. This assumes its most fantastic form in the suggestion of Lee^1, 33, that Shakespeare was already in London, but ‘Shakespeare’s friends may have called the attention of the strolling players to the homeless youth, rumours of whose search for employment about the London theatres had doubtless reached Stratford’.

[274] At Exeter they are called the Lord Steward’s, certainly not the Marquis of Winchester’s, as Murray, ii. 95, suggests, for he was never Steward of Elizabeth’s household.

[275] _Norfolk Archaeology_, xiii. 11.

[276] J. M. Cowper, in _1 R. Hist. Soc. Trans._ i. 218, records a performance by ‘my Lord of Leicester’s men’ at Faversham in 1589–90; but I think this must be an error.

[277] J. D. Walker, _The Black Books of Lincoln’s Inn_, i. 374, gives the name as ‘Lord Roche’, but this is probably a mistake. Viscount Roche of Fermoy in Ireland is not likely to have had players in London.

[278] J. de Perott (_Rev. Germ._ Feb. 1914) suggests that _Portio and Demorantes_ may be the Lamorat and Porcia of the French version (1548) of _Amadis de Grecia_ (1542), viii. 56.

[279] Murray, i. 307, and A. Clark (_10 N. Q._ xii. 41) add records for 1573–83.

[280] Murray, i. 307, has additional provincial records for 1585–91.

[281] I do not agree with Fleay, _Sh._ 18, 184, that Sussex’s were satirized in _A Midsummer-Night’s Dream_; cf. _infra_, s.v. Hertford’s.

[282] Dasent, xxiv. 209.

[283] Cf. App. C, No. lvii.

[284] Dasent, viii. 71, dating the warrant on 29 Feb.

[285] _Ancaster MSS._ (_Hist. MSS._) 466.

[286] _Hist. MSS._ ix. 1. 156. The payment is given as to the Earl of ‘Waffyts’ men.

[287] Nichols, _Eliz._ i. 531.

[288] Wright and Halliwell, _Reliquiae Antiquae_, ii. 122, from _Harl. MS._ 7392, f. 97; cf. _M. L. R._ ii. 5.

[289] _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 222.

[290] Cf. ch. viii.

[291] Ellis, i. 3, 32; Cooper, ii. 379; from _S. P. D. Eliz._ cxxxix. 26. The Privy Council letter of 30 Oct. 1575 (_M. S. C._ i. 195) forbids ‘open shewes’ and ‘assemblies in open places of multitudes of people’ within five miles of Cambridge.

[292] Murray, i. 348. I add Maldon (1581).

[293] Murray, i. 348. I add Stratford (1583–4). Dr. Boas kindly informs me that the Oxford City Accounts for 1584–5 have a payment to Oxford’s ‘musytions’.

[294] Cf. ch. xii (Chapel).

[295] The payment was made to Richard Woderam, but he is more likely to have been an agent of the Corporation than a member of the company.

[296] _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 186, 256. The 1469 entry has been since published by A. Clark in _10 N. Q._ vii. 181, ‘Et solut. lusoribus domini comitis Essex ludentibus coram burgensibus infra burgum hoc anno, v_s_.’

[297] _Variorum_, ii. 150. The ‘lord Cartleyes players’ recorded by B. S. Penley, _The Bath Stage_, 12, in 1580–1, 1582–3, and 1583–4 were perhaps Lord Berkeley’s. Murray, ii. 27, adds other provincial notices.

[298] This did not prevent Chalmers from giving the date 1581 and being set right by Malone (_Variorum_, iii. 442). Collier, i. 247, gives 1583, but misdates Tilney’s commission of 1581, and takes it for the instrument constituting the company.

[299] Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 359.

[300] Nicolas, _Hatton_, 271.

[301] Stowe, _Annales_ (1615), 697, (1631), 698.

[302] Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 79, citing _Addl. MS._ 5750, f. 113.

[303] Cf. ch. x.

[304] Halliwell, _Affray at Norwich in 1583 in which Queen Elizabeth’s Players were involved_ (1864), and in _Illustrations of the Life of Shakespeare_, 118.

[305] Murray, i. 20, and A. Clark in _10 N. Q._ xii. 41 (Saffron Walden) give other provincial records throughout. An Ipswich one for 1581–2 must be misplaced.

[306] Cf. App. D, No. lxxv.

[307] Fleay, 83.

[308] _Variorum_, ii. 166.

[309] _M. S. C._ i. 354. from _P. R. O. Lay Subsidies, Household_, 69/97.

[310] Fleay, 34.

[311] The illustration of Mr. Fleay’s methods of constructing stage history is delightful. In _The True Tragedie of Richard the Third_, a Queen’s play, the murderers of the princes in the Tower are Will Slawter or Sluter, ‘yet the most part calles him blacke Will’ (Hazlitt, _Sh. L._ v. 95), and Jack Denten or Douton. On this Mr. Fleay (ii. 316) comments, ‘One of the actors in it, Sc. 11, is called Will Slaughter, “yet the most part calls him Black Will”, _i.e._ the Black Will of _Arden of Faversham_, q.v., which had no doubt been acted by the same man. Another actor is called Jack Donton (Dutton) or Denten, an accommodation of the Dighton of history to the actor’s real name.’ Obviously there is no need to suppose that the characters in _The True Tragedie_ bore the names of their actors. John Dutton is not very likely to have taken a part of four speeches, and Will Slawter is evidently added to the John Dighton of Holinshed, to give Edward V the ‘irony’ of a pun upon ‘slaughter’. As for _Arden of Faversham_, it is not known to have been a Queen’s play at all, and its ‘Black Will’ is taken from Holinshed. Having gone so far, I do not know why Mr. Fleay stopped short of identifying Black Will’s colleague ‘Shakebag’ with the name of an actor. Of course, Mr. Fleay’s blundering conjectures must be distinguished from the deliberate fabrications of Collier, who published in his _New Facts_, 11, from a forged document amongst the _Bridgewater MSS._, a certificate to the Privy Council under the date ‘Nov. 1589’, from ‘her Ma^{ts} poore playeres James Burbidge Richard Burbidge John Laneham Thomas Greene Robert Wilson John Taylor Anth. Wadeson Thomas Pope George Peele Augustine Phillippes Nicholas Towley William Shakespeare William Kempe William Johnson Baptiste Goodale and Robert Armyn being all of them sharers in the blacke Fryers playehouse’. On this cf. ch. xvii, and Ingleby, 249.

[312] Tarlton, 12, 13, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 37, ‘while the queenes players lay in Worcester’, ‘when the queenes players were restrained in summer, they travelled downe to S. James his fair at Bristow’, ‘in the country where the queenes plaiers were accepted into a gentlemans house’, ‘at Salisbury, Tarlton and his fellowes were to play before the maior and his brethren’, ‘the queenes players travelling into the west country to play, and lodging in a little village some ten miles from Bristow’.

[313] Tarlton, 16, ‘one in mockage threw him in this theame, he playing then at the Curtaine’.

[314] Tarlton, 24, ‘Tarlton then, with his fellowes, playing at the Bel by ... the Crosse-keyes in Gracious streete’.

[315] Tarlton, 13, ‘at the Bull in Bishops-gate-street, where the queenes players oftentimes played’. It was here (Tarlton, 24) that Tarlton and Knell played _The Famous Victories of Henry the Fifth_.

[316] Nashe, _Pierce Penilesse_ (_Works_, i. 197; cf. i. 308).

[317] Arber, ii. 526, ‘A sorowfull newe sonnette intituled Tarltons Recantacon uppon this theame gyven him by a gentleman at the Bel savage without Ludgate (nowe or ells never) beinge the laste theame he songe’. The tract is not extant.

[318] App. C, No. lvii. He names Knell, Bentley, Mills, Wilson, and Laneham.

[319] Cf. ch. xv, s.v. Alleyn, and ch. xviii.

[320] E. J. L. Scott in _Athenaeum_ for 21 Jan. 1882.

[321] Cf. ch. xviii.

[322] Murray, ii. 398 (Southampton), ‘the Queenes maiesties & the Earle of Sussex players, xxx^s’; 240 (Coventry), ‘the Quenes players & the Erle of Sussex players, xv^s’; 284 (Gloucester), ‘the Queenes and the Earle of Sussex players, xxx^s’. At Faversham (Murray, ii. 274) separate payments of 1590–1 for the Queen’s (20_s._) and Essex’s (10_s._) are followed by ‘to the Queen’s Players and to the Earl of Essex’s Players’ (20_s._). It is conceivable that in this last entry ‘Essex’s’ may be a slip for ‘Sussex’s’.

[323] App. D, No. lxxxv.

[324] Nashe, _Works_, iii. 244.

[325] _M. S. C._ i. 190, from _Lansd. MSS._ 71, 75. The letters are both dated 18 Sept. 1592, and that to Burghley contained copies of the charters of Henry III and Elizabeth, of a Privy Council letter of 30 Oct. 1575 (cf. Dasent, ix. 39) forbidding shows within five miles of the University, and of the warrant of the Vice-Chancellor and other justices to the constables of Chesterton, dated 1 Sept. 1592.

[326] University Letter of 17 July 1593 in _M. S. C._ i. 200, from _Lansd. MS._ 75; Privy Council Act of 29 July 1593 in Dasent, xxiv. 427.

[327] _M. S. C._ i. 198, from _Lansd. MS._ 71.

[328] Henslowe, i. 4. The date in the diary is ‘8 of Maye 1593’, but I am prepared to accept Dr. Greg’s view (ii. 80) that as Francis was pawnbroking for his uncle all through 1593, this must be an error of Henslowe’s for ‘1594’. He seems to have actually left London on 18 May 1594.

[329] Henslowe, i. 6.

[330] W. H. Stevenson, _Nottingham Records_, iv. 244.

[331] _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 186, 251.

[332] _Sh. Homage_, 154.

[333] Fleay, _Shakespeare_, 184.

[334] Collier, i. 259.

[335] Murray, i. 294. I add Maldon (1564–5). There is no proof that ‘Beeston and his fellowes’ at Barnstaple in 1560–1 were Strange’s.

[336] The Revels account for 1587–9 (Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 390) includes ‘a paire of fflanell hose for Symmons the Tumbler’, which is not in the separate account for 1587–8 (Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 380).

[337] App. D, No. lxxxii. The forged list of Queen’s men (q.v.) in 1589 is sometimes, by a further error, whose I do not know, assigned to Strange’s.

[338] I had better give the complicated and in some cases uncertain notices in full; the unspecified references are to Murray: Cambridge (1591–2), ‘my Lord Stranges plaiers’ (Cooper, ii. 518), and so also (ii. 229, 284) Canterbury (13 July 1592) and Gloucester (1591–2); Bath (1591–10 June 1592), ‘my Lord Admiralls players’ ... ‘my L. Stranges plaiers’ (ii. 202); Aldeburgh (1591–2), ‘my Lord Admirals players’ (Stopes, _Hunnis_, 314); Shrewsbury (30 Sept. 1591–29 Sept. 1592), ‘my L. Admeralls players’ ... ‘my l. Stranges and my l. Admyralls players’ (ii. 392, s. a. 1592–3, but the entries for the two years seem to be transposed; _vide infra_); Coventry (10 Dec. 1591–29 Nov. 1592), ‘the Lord Strange players’ (ii. 240); Leicester (19 Dec. 1592), ‘the Lorde Admiralls Playars’ (ii. 305); Shrewsbury (30 Sept. 1592–29 Sept. 1593), ‘The iii of Feb: 1592. Bestowed vppon the players of my Lorde Admyrall’ ... ‘my L. Darbyes men being players’ (ii. 392, s. a. 1591–2, but the detailed date and the name Derby make an error palpable); Bath (11 June 1592–10 Sept. 1593), ‘my L. Stranges plaiers’ (ii. 203); Coventry (30 Nov. 1592–26 Nov. 1593), ‘the Lo Admiralls players’ (ii. 240); York (April 1593), ‘the Lord Admerall & Lord Mordens players’ (ii. 412); Newcastle (May 1593), ‘my Lord Admiralls plaiers, and my Lord Morleis plaiers being all in one companye’ (G. B. Richardson, _Extracts from Municipal Accounts of N._); Southampton (1592–3), ‘my L. Morleys players and the Earle of Darbyes’ (ii. 398, ‘_c._ 18 May’, but Strange became Derby on 25 Sept.); Leicester (Oct.–Dec. 1593), ‘the Erle of Darbyes playors’ (ii. 306); Coventry (2 Dec. 1593), ‘the Lo: of Darbyes players’ (ii. 240); Bath (11 Sept. 1593–1594), ‘the L. Admiralls, the L. Norris players’ (ii. 203); Ipswich (7 March 1594), ‘vnto therlle of Darbys players and to the Lorde Admirals players, the ij amongste’ (ii. 293, s. a. 1591–2, but on 7 March 1592 Strange was not yet Derby, and his men were playing for Henslowe).

[339] App. D, No. xcii.

[340] Henslowe, i. 13. The account is headed, ‘Jn the name of god Amen 1591 beginge the 19 of febreary my lord stranges mene a ffoloweth 1591’.

[341] Cf. ch. xxiv, s.v. _1 Jeronimo_. Some marginal notes of sums of money are not clearly intelligible, but may represent sums advanced by Henslowe for the company.

[342] Henslowe, i. 15.

[343] Dasent, xxiv. 212.

[344] Cf. W. W. Greg in Henslowe, ii. 70.

[345] _Dulwich MSS._ i. 9–15 (_Henslowe Papers_, 34); cf. Henslowe, i. 3.

[346] Their patron was Edward Parker, Lord Morley (Murray, ii. 54). I suspect the Morden of the York entry and the Norris of the Bath entry of being both transcriber’s errors for Morley. No players of Lord Norris are on record, and those of Lord Mordaunt (Murray, ii. 90) only recur in 1585–6 and 1602.

[347] Text in _Henslowe Papers_, 130; on the nature of a ‘plott’, cf. App. N.

[348] The following rather hazardous identifications have been attempted by Greg (_loc. cit._) and Fleay, 84: ‘Harry’ = Henry Condell (Fleay, Greg); ‘Kit’ = Christopher Beeston (Fleay, Greg); ‘Saunder’ = Alexander Cooke (Fleay, Greg); ‘Nick’ = Nicholas Tooley (Fleay, Greg); ‘Ro.’ or ‘R. Go.’ = Robert Gough (Fleay, Greg); ‘Ned’ = Edward Alleyn or Edmund Shakespeare (Fleay); ‘Will’ = William Tawyer (Fleay), William Tawler (Greg). The object is, of course, to establish the connexion between Strange’s and the Chamberlain’s men. Both writers assign two of the unallocated parts to Heminges and Shakespeare.

[349] For speculation as to Shakespeare’s early career, cf. s.v. Pembroke’s.

[350] Text in _Henslowe Papers_, 155.

[351] George Fanner to H. Galdelli and G. Tusinga in _S. P. Dom. Eliz._ cclxxi. 34, 35. I do not accept Mr. James Greenstreet’s theory that W. Stanley was the real W. Shakespeare.

[352] _Hatfield MSS._ xiii. 609.

[353] Murray, i. 295.

[354] Taylor, _Penniless Pilgrimage_ (ed. Hindley), 67.

[355] _Dulwich MS._ i. 14, in _Henslowe Papers_, 40.

[356] _Outlines_, i. 122; ii. 329.

[357] Fleay, 136, ‘Pembroke’s men continued to act at the Curtain from 1589 to 1597’ is guesswork.

[358] Henslowe, i. 131; cf. ch. xxiii, s.v. Fulwell.

[359] Cf. _infra_ (Chamberlain’s). Shank (cf. ch. xv) was once in Pembroke’s.

[360] The Council Register assigns this performance to the Chamberlain’s; cf. App. B.

[361] Fleay, _Sh._ 286, supposed Howard to be both Admiral and Chamberlain at this date, but this view was refuted by Halliwell-Phillipps in the _Athenaeum_ for 24 April 1886, and resigned by Fleay, 31; cf. Greg, ii. 81.

[362] I. H. Jeayes, _Letters of Philip Gawdy_ (Roxburghe Club), 23.

[363] Stopes, _Hunnis_, 322, names payees in error.

[364] Henslowe, ii. 83.

[365] _Henslowe Papers_, 31.

[366] _Alleyn Papers_, 11, 12; cf. _Henslowe Papers_, 32.

[367] _Alleyn Papers_, 1, 5.

[368] Ibid. 54.

[369] Henslowe, ii. 127.

[370] Henslowe, i. 17.

[371] Ibid. 198.

[372] Ibid. 17.

[373] Cf. the petitions assigned to 1592 (App. D, No. xcii).

[374] They may represent n[ew] e[nterlude], or merely ne[w].

[375] Fleay, 140; Henslowe, ii. 84.

[376] Henslowe, ii. 324.

[377] Ibid. ii. 133.

[378] Ibid. i. 126.

[379] Ibid. i. 44.

[380] Henslowe, i. 51; cf. Dr. Greg’s explanation in ii. 129 and my criticism in _M. L. R._ iv. 409. Wallace (_E. S._ xliii. 361) has a third explanation, that the figures represent the sharers’ takings. But (_a_) these would not all pass through Henslowe’s hands, (_b_) the amounts are often less than half the galleries, and (_c_) the columns are blank for some days of playing.

[381] I include _Belin Dun_, produced just before the separation of the Admiral’s and the Chamberlain’s, in the fifty-five; but I do not follow Dr. Greg in taking the sign ‘j’, which Henslowe attaches to _Tamburlaine_ (30 Aug. 1594) and _Long Meg of Westminster_ (14 Feb. 1595) as equivalent to ‘ne’. Were it so, these would furnish two, and the only two, examples of a second new production in a single week. Probably ‘j’ indicates in both instances the _First Part_ of a two-part play. This view is confirmed by Henslowe’s note on 10 March 1595, ‘17 p[laies] frome hence lycensed’; cf. my criticism in _M. L. R._ iv. 408.

[382] Variously entered as ‘olimpo’, ‘seleo & olempo’, ‘olempeo & hengenyo’, &c.; but apparently only one play is meant.

[383] _Alexander and Lodowick_ is actually entered for a second time as ‘ne’ on 11 Feb. 1597, but I have assumed this to be a mistake.

[384] It has been chiefly played by Fleay and Dr. Greg. The relations suggested are between _1 Caesar and Pompey_ and Chapman’s play of the same name, _Disguises_ and Chapman’s _May-day_, _Godfrey of Bulloigne_ and Heywood’s _Four Prentices of London_, _Olympo_, _1, 2 Hercules_, and _Troy_ and Heywood’s _Golden_, _Silver_, _Brazen_, and _Iron Ages_ respectively. _Five Plays in One_ and some of Heywood’s _Dialogues and Dramas_, _The Wonder of a Woman_ and a supposed early version by Heywood of W. Rowley’s _A New Wonder, or, A Woman Never Vexed_, _The Venetian Comedy_ and both the German _Josephus Jude von Venedig_ and Dekker’s lost _Jew of Venice_, _Diocletian_ and Dekker’s _The Virgin Martyr_, _A Set at Maw_ and Dekker’s _Match Me in London_, _The Mack_ and Dekker’s _The Wonder of a Kingdom_, _Vortigern_ and Middleton’s _The Mayor of Quinborough_, _Uther Pendragon_ and W. Rowley’s _Birth of Merlin_, _Philipo and Hippolito_ and both Massinger’s lost _Philenzo and Hypollita_ and the German _Julio und Hyppolita_. Full details will be found in Henslowe, ii. 165 sqq.

[385] Henslowe, i. 44, 128.

[386] Possibly identical with _Mahomet_, if that was Peele’s play. Dr. Greg’s identification with _The Love of an English Lady_ strikes me as rather arbitrary.

[387] I assume that ‘valy a for’ entered on 4 Jan. 1595 is the same play. Conceivably it might be _Vallingford_, i. e. _Fair Em_, an old Strange’s play.

[388] An allusion in Field’s _Amends for Ladies_, ii. 1, shows that _Long Meg_ still held the Fortune stage about 1611.

[389] Possibly identical with _Longshanks_.

[390] The relations suggested are between _The Love of a Grecian Lady_ and the German _Tugend-und Liebesstreit_, _The French Doctor_ and both Dekker’s _Jew of Venice_ and the German _Josephus Jude von Venedig_, _The Siege of London_ and Heywood’s _1 Edward IV_, _The Welshman_ and R. A.’s _The Valiant Welshman_, _Time’s Triumph and Fortune’s_ and Heywood’s _Timon_. For details cf. Henslowe, ii. 165 _sqq._

[391] This was on Whit-Tuesday 1596, and I rather suspect a mis-entry of _iij_^s for _iij_^{li}, the exact amount taken for the plays of the Monday and Wednesday in the same week.

[392] Henslowe, i. 5.

[393] Ibid. 44.

[394] Ibid. 31, 45.

[395] Henslowe, i. 29, 31, 43, 44, 199–201.

[396] I see no reason to agree with Dr. Greg in identifying ‘Black Dick’ with Jones, who would naturally have the ‘Mr.’; and the suggestions that ‘Dick’ might be Dick Juby and that ‘Will’ might be Will Barnes or Will Parr are mere guesses based on the occurrence of these names in other ‘plots’. ‘Will’ might just as well be Will Kendall.

[397] Henslowe, i. 45.

[398] Henslowe’s entry is (i. 54), ‘Martin Slather went for the company of my lord admeralles men the 18 of July 1597’. I think that ‘for’ must be meant for ‘from’. Elsewhere (i. 66) Henslowe writes ‘for’ for ‘from’.

[399] Henslowe, i. 47, 200.

[400] Ibid. 201–4; _Egerton MS._ 2623, f. 19 (a fragment from the Diary).

[401] Henslowe, ii. 89, 101.

[402] Henslowe, i. 105, 131, 134.

[403] Ibid. 40.

[404] Ibid. 199–201.

[405] App. D, No. cxii.

[406] Henslowe, i. 54; _E. S._ xliii. 351.

[407] Henslowe, i. 68–70.

[408] Ibid. 82.

[409] Ibid. ii. 91; cf. p. 200.

[410] Henslowe, i. 69, 73; Wallace in _E. S._ xliii. 382.

[411] Cf. p. 173.

[412] Henslowe, i. 81, 122.

[413] Ibid. 64, 67.

[414] Ibid. 63, 79.

[415] Henslowe, i. 72, ‘Lent W^m Borne to folowe the sewt agenste Thomas Poope’; cf. i. 26, 38, 47–8, 56, 63–9, 71–8, 80, 201, 205; and s.v. Pembroke’s.

[416] Henslowe, i. 84.

[417] During 1599–1602 Henslowe sometimes enters advances as made to the company through ‘W^m’ Juby, and in two cases corrects the entry by substituting ‘Edward’. As there is no other evidence for a William Juby as an actor, not to speak of a sharer, either Henslowe must have persistently mistaken the name, or William must have been a relative of Edward, acting as his agent (cf. Henslowe, ii. 290).

[418] _Henslowe Papers_, 48.

[419] Henslowe, i. 26.

[420] _Henslowe Papers_, 113.

[421] Henslowe, i. 122.

[422] Ibid. 122.

[423] Ibid. 66, 68, 91, 108.

[424] Ibid. 85.

[425] Henslowe, i. 72.

[426] Ibid. 63, 104.

[427] Ibid. 118.

[428] I find ‘Lorde Haywards’ men at Leicester during Oct.–Dec. 1599, ‘Lord Howardes’ at Bristol in 1599–1600, ‘Lord Heywardes’ at Bath in the same year, ‘Lord Howards’ at Coventry on 28 Dec. 1599, and ‘Lord Haywards’ in 1602–3. This must have been another company. The Admiral’s were playing in London at the time of the Leicester and the earlier Coventry visits, and Lord Howard of Effingham became Earl of Nottingham on 22 Oct. 1596. They were at Canterbury in 1599–1600.

[429] Henslowe, i. 120.

[430] _Henslowe Papers_, 49; Henslowe, i. 113.

[431] _Henslowe Papers_, 55; Henslowe, i. 122.

[432] _Henslowe Papers_, 56; Henslowe, i. 135, 147.

[433] _Henslowe Papers_, 56; Henslowe, i. 135.

[434] _Henslowe Papers_, 56–8.

[435] Henslowe, ii. 125.

[436] Henslowe, i. 84–107.

[437] Ibid. 103.

[438] Henslowe, i. 83, 101, 119.

[439] Ibid. ii. 124.

[440] _Henslowe Papers_, 113, from Malone (1790), i. 2. 300; the manuscript is now lost. The various sections of the document are headed: (_a_) ‘The booke of the Inventary of the goods of my lord Admeralles men, tacken the 10 of Marche in the yeare 1598’; (_b_) ‘The Enventary of the Clownes sewtes and Hermetes Swetes, with dievers others sewtes, as followeth, 1598, the 10 of March’; (_c_) ‘The Enventary of all the aparell for my Lord Admiralles men, tacken the 10 of Marche 1598--Leaft above in the tier-house in the cheast’; (_d_) ‘The Enventary tacken of all the properties for my Lord Admeralles men, the 10 of Marche 1598’; (_e_) ‘The Enventorey of all the aparell of the Lord Admeralles men, taken the 13^{th} of Marche 1598, as followeth’; (_f_) ‘A Note of all suche bookes as belong to the Stocke, and such as I have bought since the 3^d of Marche 1598’; (_g_) ‘A Note of all suche goodes as I have bought for the Companey of my Lord Admirals men, sence the 3 of Aprell, 1598, as followeth’. A comparison of the book-list with the diary payments makes it clear that ‘1598’ is 1597/8 and not 1598/9. The last book entered was bought in Aug. 1598. An undated inventory of Alleyn’s private theatrical wardrobe is in _Henslowe Papers_, 52.

[441] It should be borne in mind that these lists are based in part upon a rather conjectural interpretation of evidence. Full details, for which I have not space, will be found in Henslowe, ii. 186 _sqq._ I have annotated a few points of interest.

[442] So called in the book-inventory; in the diary it is _Triplicity of Cuckolds_.

[443] The first name appears in the inventory, the second in the diary.

[444] Only £4 was paid ‘to by a boocke’, which is low for a new play and high for an old one. Possibly Porter was in debt to the company.

[445] Once described as ‘other wisse called worsse feared then hurte’, whence Dr. Greg infers that the 1598–9 play of that name was a second part of it.

[446] So in the book-inventory; in the account it is only called _The Cobler_.

[447] Possibly _Strange Flattery_, but the manuscript is lost.

[448] They had to buy _Mahomet_, _The Wise Man of West Chester_, _Longshanks_, and _Vortigern_ from Alleyn in 1601 and 1602.

[449] ‘the Mores lymes’, ‘iiij Turckes hedes’, ‘j Mores cotte’.

[450] ‘iiij genesareys gownes’, ‘owld Mahemetes head’.

[451] ‘Tamberlyne brydell’, ‘Tamberlynes cotte, with coper lace’, ‘Tamberlanes breches of crymson vellvet’.

[452] ‘j cauderm for the Jewe’.

[453] ‘j tree of gowlden apelles’.

[454] ‘j whell and frame in the Sege of London’.

[455] ‘Belendon stable’.

[456] ‘Tasso picter’, ‘Tasoes robe’.

[457] ‘senetores gowne’ and ‘capes’.

[458] ‘Kents woden leage’.

[459] ‘j mawe gowne of calleco for the quene’.

[460] ‘j sewtte for Nepton’, ‘Nepun forcke & garland’.

[461] ‘Harey the fyftes dublet’ and ‘vellet gowne’, ‘j payer of hosse for the Dowlfyn’.

[462] ‘j longe-shanckes sewte’.

[463] ‘j great horse with his leages’.

[464] ‘Vartemar sewtte’, ‘Valteger robe of rich tafitie’, ‘j payer of hosse & a gercken for Valteger’, ‘ij Danes sewtes, and ij payer of Danes hosse’.

[465] ‘j tome of Guido’, ‘j cloth clocke of russete with coper lace, called Guydoes clocke’.

[466] ‘Merlen gowne, and cape’.

[467] ‘my lord Caffes gercken & his hoose’.

[468] These include ‘Argosse head’, ‘Andersones sewte’, ‘Will Sommers sewtte’, ‘ij Orlates sewtes’, ‘Cathemer sewte’, ‘j Whittcomes dublett poke’, ‘Nabesathe sewte’, ‘j Hell mought’, ‘the cloth of the Sone & Mone’, ‘Tantelouse tre’, ‘Eves bodeyes’. Probably ‘Perowes sewte which W^m Sley were’ dated back to the days of Strange’s men. After 3 April 1598 Henslowe bought, _inter alia_, ‘a gown for Nembia’ and ‘a robe for to goo invisibell’.

[469] It looks as if the book-inventory were not exhaustive; perhaps it only includes books more or less in current use.

[470] There is a self-contradictory entry, ‘to paye vnto M^r Willson Monday & Deckers ... iiij^{ll} v^s in this maner Willson xxx^s Cheattell xxx^s Mondy xxv^s’.

[471] Regarded by Dr. Greg as _2 Hannibal and Hermes_.

[472] I agree with Dr. Greg that this, for which Chapman had £4 in 1598–9, is probably identical with _The Isle of a Woman_, for which he had had earnests of £4 or £4 10_s._ in 1597–8.

[473] I think the play licensed as _Brute Grenshallde_ in March 1599 was a second part written by Chettle to an old _1 Brute_ by Day, which would not need re-licensing.

[474] I do not see with what to identify the play licensed under this name in March 1599 except the unnamed ‘playe boocke’ and ‘tragedie’, for which Chapman had something under £9 in the previous Oct. and Jan.

[475] The title _War without Blows and Love without Strife_ in one entry is probably an error.

[476] I agree with Dr. Greg that the entries point to two plays by Chettle and Dekker rather than one. They are probably incomplete owing to the hiatus in the manuscript.

[477] Dr. Greg makes two plays of this, but the entry ‘his boocke called the world rones a whelles & now all foolles but the foolle’ seems unambiguous, and the total payments of £8 10_s._ are not too high for a play by Chapman.

[478] No importance can be attached to Mr. Fleay’s childish identifications of _War without Blows and Love without Suit_, _Joan as Good as my Lady_, and _The Four Kings_ with _The Thracian Wonder_, Heywood’s _A Maidenhead well Lost_, and _Sir Clyomon and Sir Clamydes_ respectively.

[479] So called in Drayton’s autograph receipt, but Henslowe calls it _William Longbeard_.

[480] Henslowe, i. 72, 78.

[481] Cf. ch. xv, s.v. Alleyn.

[482] The only entry is of 15 July ‘to bye a boocke’, but the hiatus in the manuscript probably conceals earlier payments.

[483] Here also the hiatus has only left an entry of £2 ‘in full payment’ on 1 Aug. Dr. Greg, however, would identify _Bear a Brain_ and _The Gentle Craft_.

[484] The entries are as follows: 2 Sept., ‘Thomas Deckers Bengemen Johnson Hary Chettell & other Jentellman in earneste of a playe calle Robart the second kinge of Scottes tragedie’; 15 Sept., ‘in earneste of a boocke called the Scottes tragedi vnto Thomas Dickers & Harey Chettell’; 16 Sept., ‘Hary Chettell ... in earneste of a boocke called the Scottes tragedie’; 27 Sept., ‘Bengemen Johnsone in earneste of a boocke called the Scottes tragedie’; 28 Sept., ‘vnto M^r Maxton the new poete in earneste of a boocke called [blank]’. Dr. Greg resists the fairly reasonable identification of ‘M^r Maxton the new poete’ with the ‘other Jentellman’. All the payments are called earnests, but the total is £6 10_s._ and therefore the play probably existed.

[485] ‘Lent vnto me W Birde the 9 of Februarye to paye for a new booke to Will Boyle cald Jugurth xxx^s which if you dislike Ile repaye it back.’ The price is the lowest ever entered for a ‘new’ book. Mr. Fleay’s suggestion that Will Bird, who already had one alias in Will Borne, was also himself Will Boyle, is one of those irresponsible guesses by which he has done so much to make hay of theatrical history.

[486] Both parts were entered on the Stationers’ Register, but no copy of _2 Sir John Oldcastle_ is known.

[487] _Bodl. Ashm. MS._ 236, f. 77^v (_c._ 1600), has Forman’s note of the ‘plai of Cox of Cullinton and his 3 sons, Henry Peter and Jhon’.

[488] _Henslowe Papers_, 49.

[489] This was taken up again in 1601, but still not finished. Dr. Greg, however, thinks that it is identical with Day’s Italian tragedy, and forms half of _Two Lamentable Tragedies_ (1601), and that Chettle’s work in 1601 may have been the effecting of the combination with _Thomas Merry_.

[490] Dr. Greg, following Mr. Fleay, identifies this with Dekker’s _Whore of Babylon_, and as Time is a character in this play, cites the purchase of ‘a Robe for tyme’ in April 1600 as a proof that it was then performed. Time, however, might also have been a character in _The Seven Wise Masters_.

[491] Possibly finished later and identical with the pseudo-Marlowesque _Lust’s Dominion_.

[492] The payment-entry is cancelled. The play may have been finished for another company, and be identical with the extant _Grim, the Collier of Croydon_, or, _The Devil and his Dame_.

[493] Possibly the basis of Bird and Rowley’s _Judas_ of 1601.

[494] It seems to me a little arbitrary of Dr. Greg to assume that the 10_s._ entered as an earnest for this was really a bonus on _1 The Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green_.

[495] _Henslowe Papers_, 51. I do not think that Dr. Greg recognizes the full significance of this when he suggests (Henslowe, ii. 94) that Alleyn was back on the stage by 1598; cf. my criticism in _M. L. R._ iv. 410. Dr. Greg relies mainly on the appearance of his name in the plot of _The Battle of Alcazar_, which, he says, ‘almost certainly belongs to 1598’. But I can find no reason why it should not belong to 1600–2; cf. p. 175.

[496] Henslowe, i. 56.

[497] Ibid. 162.

[498] Ibid. 141.

[499] Ibid. 144, 165, 174.

[500] Ibid. 134, 136, 140, 147.

[501] Dr. Greg puts it in 1598, on the assumption that Alleyn returned to the stage in that year. It might conceivably belong to 1597, between 18 Dec., when Bristow was bought, and 29 Dec., by which day Alleyn had left. It cannot be later than Feb. 1602, by which month Jones and Shaw had left. The prefix ‘M^r’ allotted to Charles and Sam is in favour of a date after their agreements on 16 Nov. 1598. Dr. Greg’s argument (_Henslowe Papers_, 138) that Kendall’s agreement expired 7 Dec. 1599 is not convincing, as there was nothing in it to prevent him from staying on, and the satire of the play in Jonson’s _Poetaster_ of 1601, to which he refers, obviously tells in favour of a date nearer to 1601 than 1598.

[502] Henslowe, i. 38.

[503] Ibid. 131, 134.

[504] Ibid. 164.

[505] Ibid. 205.

[506] Cf. ch. x.

[507] The entry is ‘Thomas Deckers for his boocke called the fortewn tenes’. Collier read ‘forteion tenes’ and interpreted _Fortunatus_. Mr. Fleay furnished the alternatives of _Fortune’s Tennis_ and _Hortenzo’s Tennis_. I should add that Dr. Greg assigns the ‘plot’ to this play.

[508] Dr. Greg thinks that this may be the same as Haughton’s _The English Fugitives_ of the previous April. If so, it was probably finished, as the payments amount to £6.

[509] As the account of advances is continuous, I have drawn the line between 1600–1 and 1601–2 at the beginning of Aug. 1601.

[510] _The Life_ became _2 Cardinal Wolsey_, as _The Rising_, although written later, was historically _1 Cardinal Wolsey_. The entries are complicated. It is just possible that the playwrights were working on an old play, for the property-inventories of 1598 include an unexplained ‘Will Sommers sewtte’ (cf. p. 168). A ‘W^m Someres cotte’ was, however, bought for _The Rising_ on 27 May 1602.

[511] Possibly based on Haughton’s unfinished play of 1600.

[512] A note preserved at Dulwich (_Henslowe Papers_, 58) indicates that licensing fees were in arrear on 4 Aug. 1602 for ‘baxsters tragedy, Tobias Comedy, Jepha Judg of Israel & the Cardinall, Loue parts frendshipp’. But of course Warner’s identification of ‘baxsters tragedy’ with _The Bristol Tragedy_ is conjectural.

[513] There is no _1 Tom Dough_, unless this was an intended sequel to _The Six Yeomen of the West_.

[514] Already begun by Chettle in 1599.

[515] This may be identical with _1 The Six Clothiers_, which is not called by Henslowe a ‘first part’, if, as is possible, that was a sequel to _The Six Yeomen of the West_.

[516] Possibly finished later as Dekker and Rowley’s _The Noble Spanish Soldier_. But it may have been an old play re-written, for C. R. Baskervill (_M. P._ xiv. 16) quotes from the preface to H. O.’s translation of Vasco Figueiro’s _Spaniard’s Monarchie_ (1592), ‘albeit it hath no title fetched from the Bull within Bishopsgate, as a figge for a Spaniard’.

[517] I suppose this was unfinished. The only entry is on 22 June 1602, ‘vnto Bengemy Johnsone ... in earneste of a boocke called Richard Crockbacke & for new adicyons for Jeronymo the some of x^{ll}’. Jonson had already had £2 on 25 Sept. 1601 ‘vpon his writtinge of his adicians in Geronymo’. Unless _Richard Crookback_ was nearly complete, his prices must have risen a good deal.

[518] Possibly finished later as _Hoffman_ (1631).

[519] The £4 paid was cancelled and then reinstated, but the book was evidently transferred to Worcester’s men (cf. p. 227).

[520] Cf. p. 168.

[521] Cf. vol. i, p. 323. _The Massacre_ was printed (N.D.) as an Admiral’s play.

[522] The conjectural rendering of Henslowe’s ‘ponesciones pillet’ finds support from the presence of garments for ‘Caffes’ or Caiaphas in the inventory of 1598; cf. p. 168.

[523] A payment to ‘John Daye & his felowe poetes’ implies at least three collaborators.

[524] For _Samson_ cf. p. 367.

[525] All four entries merely show the payments as made to ‘Antony the poyete’.

[526] Finished later and extant; probably identical with the _Danish Tragedy_ of 1601–2.

[527] I suppose that it was the play which Chettle ‘layd vnto pane’ to Mr. Bromfield, and which had to be redeemed for £1 (Henslowe, i. 174).

[528] The more so as I do not think that Dr. Greg’s survey in Henslowe. ii. 135, is accurate.

[529] Henslowe made the total £167 7_s._ 7_d._, but evidently the error was detected, as only £166 17_s._ 7_d._ was carried forward.

[530] Henslowe, ii. 133. Apparently Henslowe reverted to the plan of deducting three-quarters only, at the beginning of 1599–1600, but only for a fortnight, as the receipts from 20 Oct. are headed, ‘Heare I begane to receue the gallereys agayne which they receued begynynge at Myhellmas wecke being the 6 of October 1599’.

[531] I have disregarded an error of 15_s._ made by Henslowe.

[532] Henslowe, i. 85, 145.

[533] Ibid. ii. 33.

[534] Henslowe, i. 29, 47, 81, 96, 97, 118, 124, 136, 138, 144, 146, 148, 152, 153, 166, 172, &c.

[535] The exact date is uncertain, as they do not appear to have had a patent until 1606; but it must lie between their visit to Leicester as the Admiral’s on 18 Aug. 1603 and the making out of a warrant to them as the Prince’s men on 19 Feb. 1604 for their Christmas plays.

[536] _N. Sh. Soc. Trans._ (_1877–9_), 17*, from _Lord Chamberlain’s Books_, 58^a.

[537] Cf. ch. xvi (Hope).

[538] On the legend that he had developed moral scruples about the stage, cf. s.v. Marlowe, _Dr. Faustus_.

[539] _Henslowe Papers_, 18.

[540] _Dulwich MS._ iii. 15.

[541] _Henslowe Papers_, 13; cf. ch. xvi, s.v. _Fortune_.

[542] _Henslowe Papers_, 63.

[543] Ibid. 85.

[544] _M. S. C._ i. 268, from _P. R. 4 Jac. I_, pt. 19; also printed by T. E. Tomlins, and dated in error 1607, in _Sh. Soc. Papers_, iv. 42.

[545] Birch, _Life of Henry_, 455; Greg, _Gentleman’s Magazine_, ccc. 67, from _Harl. MS._ 252, f. 5, dated 1610.

[546] Henslowe, i. 175.

[547] Ibid. 214.

[548] There may be an allusion to this play in H. Parrot, _Laquei Ridiculosi, Springes for Woodcocks_ (1613), ii. 162:

’Tis said that _Whittington_ was rais’d of nought, And by a cat hath divers wonders wrought: But _Fortune_ (not his cat) makes it appear, He may dispend a thousand marks a year.

Dr. Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 65) has dispersed Collier’s myth of one Whittington ‘perhaps a sleeping partner in the speculation of the Fortune’.

[549] Most of the play-dates of 1605–12 are in Apps. A and B.

[550] _A. for L._ II. i. In III. iv a drawer says, ‘all the gentlewomen [from Bess Turnup’s] went to see a play at the Fortune, and are not come in yet, and she believes they sup with the players’.

[551] Cf. ch. xv, s.v. Garlick.

[552] Nichols, _James_, ii. 495.

[553] _M. S. C._ i. 275, from _P. R. 10 Jac. I_, pt. 25; also from signet bill in Collier, i. 366, and Hazlitt, _E. D. S._ 44. Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 263) notes copies in _Addl. MS._ 24502, f. 60^v, and _Lincoln’s Inn MS._ clviii.

[554] _Henslowe Papers_, 106.

[555] Ibid. 64.

[556] _Fennor’s Defence, or I am Your First Man_ (Taylor’s _Works_, 1630, ed. _Spenser Soc._ 314). The 1659 print of the _Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green_ has at l. 2177, ‘Enter ... Captain Westford, Sill Clark’. The title-page professes to give the play as acted by the Prince’s men, but whether Clark was an actor of 1603–12 or not must remain doubtful.

[557] Henslowe, i. 17; cf. p. 140.

[558] Cf. App. D, No. ci. It is not ‘my newe companie’, as it is sometimes misprinted. But I do not think that either term can be interpreted as showing that the company had or had not a corporate existence before it came under Hunsdon’s patronage. The use which the company ‘have byn accustomed’ to make of the inn is only related to ‘this winter time’.

[559] The dates here assigned to Shakespeare’s plays are mainly based on the conclusions of my article on Shakespeare in the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_.

[560] Cf. ch. xxiv, s.v. _Gesta Grayorum_ and _M. L. R._ ii. 11.

[561] Cf. my paper on _The Occasion of A Midsummer-Night’s Dream_ in _Shakespeare Homage_, 154, and App. A.

[562] I have recently found confirmation of the date for _Rich. II_ in a letter from Sir Edward Hoby inviting Sir R. Cecil to his house in Canon Row on 9 Dec. 1595, ‘where, as late as shall please you, a gate for your supper shall be open, and K. Richard present himself to your view’ (_Hatfield MSS._ v. 487).

[563] T. Lodge, _Wits Miserie_ (S. R. 5 May 1596), 56, ‘the Visard of y^e ghost which cried so miserably at y^e Theator, like an oister wife, Hamlet, revenge’.

[564] Cf. ch. xvii (Blackfriars). There is a slight doubt as to the authenticity of the text of the petition, which the inclusion of Lord Hunsdon’s name can only emphasize. But the fact of the petition and its result are vouched for by a City document of later date. The counter-petition of the players published by Collier, i. 288, in which they are misdescribed as the Lord Chamberlain’s men, is a forgery. The names given are those of Pope, Burbadge, Heminges, Phillips, Shakespeare, Kempe, Sly, and Tooley. There is nothing to connect Tooley with the company before 1605.

[565] Cf. App. D, No. cvi.

[566] For the distinction between ‘bad’ and ‘good’ quartos, cf. ch. xxii.

[567] R. James (c. 1625), in the dedication to his manuscript _Legend of Sir John Oldcastle_ (quoted by Ingleby, _Shakespeare’s Centurie of Praise_, 165), says, ‘offence beinge worthily taken by Personages descended from his title’.

[568] Raleigh wrote to R. Cecil on 6 July 1597 that Essex was ‘wonderful merry at your conceit of Richard II’ (Edwardes, ii. 169); for the later history of the play, _vide infra_.

[569] Cf. ch. xvi (Curtain).

[570] App. C, No. lii.

[571] Aubrey, ii. 12. The same writer is obviously confused when he says, on the authority of Sir Edward Shirburn, that Jonson ‘killed M^r Marlow the poet, on Bunhill, comeing from the Green-Curtain play-house’.

[572] Cf. ch. x. There is no reason to suppose that the Richard Hoope, W^m Blackwage, Rafe Raye, and W^m Ferney, to whom Henslowe lent money as ‘my lord chamberlenes men’ in 1595 (Henslowe, i. 5, 6), were actors. In fact Raye was a ‘man’ of Hunsdon’s before the company was in existence at all (Henslowe, ii. 305).

[573] The order of the Shakespearian actors named in the 1623 Folio, and the omission of the names of Duke and Beeston, rather suggests that these two were hired men, and that there were ten original sharers, Shakespeare, Burbadge, Heminges, Phillips, Kempe, Pope, Bryan, Condell, Sly, and Cowley.

[574] App. C. No. xlviii.

[575] Cf. ch. xxii.

[576] Henslowe, i. 72.

[577] Cf. ch. xxii.

[578] Malone, _Variorum_, ii. 166; Fleay, _L. and W._ 8.

[579] _Hen. V_, epil. 12.

[580] That the _Famous Victories_ was reprinted in 1617 as a King’s men’s play proves nothing. It was to pass as _Henry V_; obviously the King’s men never acted it, _Henry V_ being in existence.

[581] Henslowe, i. 72, 101.

[582] For further details, cf. ch. xvi (Globe).

[583] Cf. ch. xvi, introd.

[584] Fleay, 138; cf. Murray, ii. 125; Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 108. A loan of 21 Sept. 1600 by Henslowe (i. 132) to Duke is only slight evidence, and the fact that Anne’s men chose to revive the already printed _Edward II_, once a Pembroke’s play, even slighter.

[585] Cf. ch. xv.

[586] Cf. ch. vii.

[587] Cf. ch. xxii.

[588] _S. P. D. Eliz._ cclxxviii. 72, 78, 85. Accounts consistent with this are given in depositions of Sir W. Constable and Sir Gilly Meyrick (ibid.), Camden, _Annales_, 867, Cobbett, _State Trials_, i. 1445, and Bacon, _A Declaration of the Practices and Treasons attempted and committed by Robert late Earl of Essex and his Complices_ (1601; _Works_, ix. 289).

[589] Fleay, 123, 136; cf. _M. L. R._ ii. 12.

[590] Cf. ch. xiv (Scotland).

[591] For the texts cf. ch. xi.

[592] W. H. Griffin in _Academy_ for 25 April 1896, suggests that the ‘innovation’ of 1604 was the same as the ‘noveltie’ of 1603, i.e. the setting up of child actors. But I am afraid that this leaves ‘inhibition’ without a meaning.

[593] Nichols, _Eliz._ iii. 552, prints, perhaps from a manuscript of Lord De La Warr’s (_Hist. MSS._ iv. 300), a note by W. Lambarde of a conversation with the Queen on 4 Aug. 1601, ‘Her Majestie fell upon the reign of King Richard II, saying, I am Richard II, know ye not that? _W. L._ Such a wicked imagination was determined and attempted by a most unkind Gent. the most adorned creature that ever your Majestie made. _Her Majestie._ He that will forget God, will also forget his benefactors; this tragedy was played 40^{tie} times in open streets and houses’. The performances here referred to must have been in 1596–7, not 1601.

[594] Cf. ch. xi.

[595] J. Manningham, _Diary_, 18.

[596] Cf. App. A.

[597] Collier, _New Particulars_, 57, and _Egerton Papers_, 343, ‘6 August 1602 Rewardes ... x^{li} to Burbidges players for Othello’; cf. Ingleby, 262.

[598] Wallace, ii, 108; cf. p. 367.

[599] Cf. ch. xv (Kempe).

[600] Cf. ch. ii.

[601] G. Dugdale, _Time Triumphant_ (1604), sig. B.

[602] Printed in _M. S. C._ i. 264, from _P. R. 1 Jac. I_, _pars 2_, _membr. 4_; also in Rymer, xvi. 505, and Halliwell, _Illustr. 83_. Halliwell also prints the practically identical texts of the Privy Signet Bill, dated 17 May, and the Privy Seal, dated 18 May. The former is also in Collier, i. 334, Hazlitt, 38, and Halliwell-Phillipps, ii. 82.

[603] Cf. ch. xiv (Scotland).

[604] Except in one of Collier’s Blackfriars forgeries; cf. ch. xvi.

[605] W. Cory (_Letters and Journals_, 168) was told on a visit to Wilton in 1865 that a letter existed there, naming Shakespeare as present and the play as _As You Like It_; but the letter cannot now be found.

[606] Marston, _Malcontent_, Ind. 82.

[607] Bullen, _Middleton_, viii. 36, ‘Give him leaue to see the Merry Deuil of Edmonton or A Woman Killed with Kindness’.

[608] _N. S. S. Trans._ (1877–9), 15*, from _Lord Chamberlain’s Records_, vol. 58^a, now ix. 4 (5); cf. Law (_ut infra_), 10. Collier, _Memoirs of Alleyn_, 68, printed a list headed ‘Ks Company’ from the margin of the copy of the Privy Council order of 9 April 1604 at Dulwich. This is a forgery. To the nine genuine names Collier added those of Hostler and Day. The former joined the company some years later, the latter never; cf. Ingleby, 269.

[609] App. B; cf. E. Law, _Shakespeare as a Groom of the Chamber_ (1910), and the Spanish narrative in _Colección de Documentos inéditos para la historia de España_, lxxi. 467.

[610] Cf. ch. x.

[611] For the exact dates and the difficult critical questions raised by the records, cf. App. B.

[612] Cf. App. B.

[613] Clode, _Early Hist. of Merchant Taylors_, i. 290, ‘To M^r Hemmyngs for his direccion of his boy that made the speech to his Maiestie 40^s, and 6^s given to John Rise the speaker’; cf. ch. iv.

[614] Cf. ch. x.

[615] App. C, No. lvii.

[616] Cf. ch. xii (Queen’s Revels).

[617] Fleay, 173, and Murray, i. 152, are wrong in saying that there were no Court plays this year; cf. _M. L. R._ iv. 154.

[618] Rye, 61, from narrative of tour of Lewis Frederick, Duke of Württemberg, ‘Lundi, 30 [Apr.] S. E. alla au Globe, lieu ordinaire où l’on joue les Commedies, y fut representé l’histoire du More de Venise’. Forman’s accounts of _Macbeth_ from _Bodl. Ashm. MS._ 208, f. 207, and of _Cymbeline_ from the preceding leaf, but undated, are printed in _N. S. S. Trans._ (1875–6), 417.

[619] Fleay, 190, says that Ecclestone came from the Queen’s Revels. I think he must have confused him with Field.

[620] Perhaps his place between Ostler and Underwood in the actor-list of the 1623 Folio gives some confirmation to the statement of the Burbadges; cf. p. 219.

[621] Cf. ch. iv.

[622] _N. S. S. Trans._ (1875–6), 415, from Simon Forman’s notes in _Bodl. Ashm. MS._ 208, f. 200.

[623] For the precise dates and their difficulties, cf. App. B.

[624] Clode, _Early Hist. of the Merchant Taylors_, i. 334.

[625] Text in _M. S. C._ i. 280, from Signet Bill in _Exchequer, Treasury of Receipt, Privy Seals, 17 Jac. I_, Bundle ix, No. 2; also in Collier, i. 400, and Hazlitt, _E. D. S._ 50.

[626] Tawyer, a ‘man’ of Heminges’s, played in some revival of _M. N. D._ before 1623, but not necessarily before 1619 (cf. ch. xv).

[627] _M. L. R._ iv. 395.

[628] Downes, 21, 24. Nevertheless, Taylor did not join the King’s men until three years after Shakespeare’s death.

[629] Murray, i. 56, adds 1563–83 records.

[630] G. Le B. Smith, _Haddon Hall_, 121.

[631] Kelly, 211, from _Leicester Hall Papers_, i, ff. 38, 42; _Hist. MSS._ viii. 1, 431. The latter part of the record, from the Earl’s licence onwards, was given by Halliwell in _Sh. Soc. Papers_, iv. 145, but with the date 1586, due to a misprint of ‘28^o Eliz.’ for ‘25^o Eliz.’ in the licence. This has misled Fleay, 86, and other writers. Maas, 49, and M. Bateson, _Records of Leicester_, iii. 198, introduce fresh errors of their own.

[632] Gildersleeve, 53.

[633] Cf. ch. ix and App. D, No. lvi.

[634] Halliwell-Phillipps, _Notices of Players Acting at Ludlow_; B. S. Penley, _The Bath Stage_, 12, from account for year ending 16 June 1584.

[635] Lord Herbert was, of course, Worcester’s son; not, as Dr. Greg (Henslowe, ii. 104) seems to think, one of the Pembroke family.

[636] _Henslowe Papers_, 31; cf. _supra_ (Admiral’s).

[637] Fleay, 87.

[638] Murray, i. 58, adds 1589–94 records.

[639] App. D, No. cxxx.

[640] Henslowe, i. 179. As Henslowe paid 7_s._ ‘for my Lo^r Worsters mens warant for playinge at the cort vnto the clarke of the cownselles for geatynge the cownselles handes to yt’ (_Henslowe Papers_, 108), and the only warrant to these men was dated 28 Feb. 1602, the connexion with Henslowe probably began while they were still at the Boar’s Head.

[641] Henslowe, i. 160, 190.

[642] Cf. _supra_ (Chamberlain’s).

[643] Henslowe, i. 132, 163.

[644] Ibid. 177.

[645] Ibid. 178, ‘Lent vnto Richard Perckens the 4 of September 1602 to buy thinges for Thomas Hewode play & to lend vnto Dick Syferweste to ride downe to his felowes’. This is, of course, a private loan, and not in the company’s account.

[646] Called in the earlier entries _The Two Brothers_.

[647] The two names do not occur together, but almost certainly indicate the same play.

[648] Spelt ‘Burone’ and ‘Berowne’ in the entries.

[649] Henslowe, i. 180, 183, 185, 186, 187, 190.

[650] Cf. p. 7. A further notice of the transfer is given by Thomas Heywood, Γυναικεῖον _or General History of Women_ (1624), who says that he was one of Worcester’s men, who at James’s accession ‘bestowed me upon the excellent princesse Queen Anne’.

[651] _N. S. S. Trans._ (_1877–9_), 16*, from _Lord Chamberlain’s Books_, 58^a. In August the company served as grooms of the chamber (App. B).

[652] In assigning Kempe to the Queen’s Revels in 1605, Dr. Greg (Henslowe, ii. 108) has been tripped up by one of Collier’s forgeries; cf. my review in _M. L. R._ iv. 408.

[653] Printed in _M. S. C._ i. 265, from _S. P. D. Jac. I_, ii. 100; also by Collier, i. 336, and Halliwell-Phillipps, _Illustrations_, 106. It is a rough draft full of deletions, marked by square brackets, and of additions, printed in italics, in the text. The theory of Fleay, 191, that the document is a forgery is disposed of by Greg, _Henslowe’s Diary_, ii. 107.

[654] Printed in _M. S. C._ i. 270, from _P. R. 7 Jac. I_, pt. 39; also from _P. R._, but misdescribed as a Privy Seal, by T. E. Tomlins in _Sh. Soc. Papers_, iv. 45. The Signet Bill is indexed under April 1609 in Phillimore, 104.

[655] Cf. App. B.

[656] _Rutland MSS._ iv. 461. They stayed two days, and gave four performances.

[657] Kelly, 248, ‘Item the vj^{th} of June given to the Queenes Players xl^s.... Item the xxj^{th} of Auguste given to the Children of the Revells xx^s. Item the xxvj^{th} of September given to one other Companye of the Queenes playors xx^s.’

[658] Murray, ii. 245, ‘paid to the Queenes players to Thomas Swinerton xl^s’.

[659] Murray, ii. 340, from Mayor’s Court Books (18 April 1614), ‘Swynnerton one of the Quenes players in the name of himselfe & the rest of his company desyred leaue to play in the cytty accordinge to his Maiesties Lettres patents shewed forth. And M^r Maior & Court moved them to play onely on Wednesday, Thursday & Fryday in Easter weke.’

[660] Murray, ibid. (6 May 1615), ‘Thomas Swynnerton produced this day Letters Patents dated the x^{th} [? xv^{th}] of Aprill Anno Septimo Jacobi whereby hee & others are authorised to play as the Quenes men, vidz. Thomas Grene, Christofer Breston [? Beeston], Thomas Haywood, Richard Pyrkyns, Rob^t. Pallant, Tho. Swynnerton, John Duke, Robt. Lee, James Hoult, & Robt. Breston [? Beeston].’

[661] Kelly, 252, ‘Item given to the Queenes Maiesties Highnes Playors xl^s.... Item the xvj^{th} daye of October Given to the Queenes Playors xl^s. Item given to one other Companye of the Queenes Playors xxx^s.’

[662] Murray, ii. 340 (30 March 1616), ‘A Patent was this day brought into the Court by Thomas Swynerton made to Thomas Grene ... & Robert Beeston Servants to Quene Anne & the rest of their associats bearing Teste xv^o Aprilis Anno Septimo Jacobi. But the said Swynerton confesseth that hee himselfe & Robert Lee only are here to play the rest are absent....’; (29 May 1616), ‘Thomas Swynerton came this day into the Court & affirmed himselfe to be one of the players to the Quenes Maiestie & bringinge with him no patent desyred to haue leaue to play here ... the same company had liberty to play here at Easter last....’ Leave was refused on this occasion.

[663] Kelly, 253, ‘Item the sixt of Februarye given to the Queenes Playors. Item given to one other Companye of the Queenes Playors’.

[664] _Hist. MSS._ xi. 3. 26.

[665] App. D, No. clviii; cf. Murray, ii. 343.

[666] Murray, i. 204.

[667] Kelly, 254.

[668] Collier, i. 397, from a manuscript at Bridgewater House.

[669] Fleay, 192, guesses that her first husband was Robert Browne of the 1583 Worcester’s company. As Queen Anne’s men played at the Boar’s Head, he is very likely to have been the ‘Browne of the Boares head’ who ‘dyed very pore’ in the plague of 1603 (_Henslowe Papers_, 59).

[670] Murray, i. 193, appears to date this list _c._ 1612, and the allegation in the Bill (Fleay, 275) that the pensions were paid for five years supports this. But it cannot be earlier than 1613 as Read was still with the Lady Elizabeth’s in that year. Nor does it include Lee, who was payee for the Queen’s in 1614–16. It clearly belongs to the 1616 settlement.

[671] ‘Goodman Freshwater’ was furnishing stuffs to Worcester’s men in 1602–3 (Henslowe, i. 179, 187).

[672] Sanderson may be the ‘Sands’ who played with ‘Ellis’ [Worth] in Daborne’s _Poor Man’s Comfort_ (q.v.), about 1617. Or James Sands, formerly a boy with the King’s men, may have come to the Queen’s.

[673] Adams, 351.

[674] _M. S. C._ i. 272, from _P. R. 8 Jac. I_, p. 8; also printed by T. E. Tomlins in _Sh. Soc. Papers_, iv. 47.

[675] Fleay, 188.

[676] Murray, i. 239, confuses the Duke’s with Lord Aubigny’s men.

[677] A letter, probably originally from Dulwich, but now _Egerton MS._ 2623, f. 25 (printed in _Sh. Soc. Papers_, i. 18, and _Henslowe Papers_, 126), is signed by William Rowley, as well as by Taylor and Pallant, and must therefore be later than this amalgamation, and not, as Dr. Greg suggests, from the Lady Elizabeth’s _c._ 1613. It confirms a purchase of clothes from Henslowe for £55.

[678] Text in Collier, _Memoirs of Alleyn_, 127; abstract in _Henslowe Papers_, 90.

[679] _N. S. S. Trans. 1877–9_, 19*; cf. Fleay, 265. Collier, i. 406, has an elegy by William Rowley on Hugh Attwell, servant to Prince Charles, who died 25 Sept. 1621.

[680] App. D, No. clviii.

[681] _Henslowe Papers_, 93.

[682] _M. S. C._ i. 274, from _P. R. 9 Jac. I_, p. 20.

[683] _Henslowe Papers_, 18, 111.

[684] Cf. App. B.

[685] _Henslowe Papers_, 86, from _Dulwich MS._ i. 106; also printed in _Variorum_, xxi. 416, and Collier, _Alleyn Papers_, 78.

[686] Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, 58, 87, thinks that the ‘Baxter’ of the Grievances was William Barksted or Backstede. It may be so.

[687] Thorndike, 66, thinks that the list belongs to an earlier production by the Queen’s Revels before 30 March 1610, when Taylor joined the Duke of York’s. But there is no evidence that he was ever in the Queen’s Revels.

[688] _Henslowe Papers_, 65, 125; A. E. H. Swaen, _Robert Daborne’s Plays_ (_Anglia_, xx. 153). The account in Fleay, i. 75, is full of inaccuracies. The documents now form separate articles of _Dulwich MS._ 1. All, unless otherwise specified below, are letters or undertakings from Daborne to Henslowe. Most of them are dated, and I think that the following ordering, due to Dr. Greg, is reasonable: (i) Art. 70, 17 Apr. 1613; (ii) Art. 71, 17 Apr. 1613; (iii) Art. 72, 25 Apr. 1613; (iv) Art. 73, 3 May 1613; (v) Art. 74, 8 May 1613; (vi) Art. 75, 16 May 1613; (vii) Art. 77, 19 May 1613; (viii) Art. 78, 5 June 1613; (ix) Art. 79, 10 June 1613; (xi) Art. 80, 18 June 1613; (xii) Art. 81, 25 June 1613; (xiii)? Art. 100, Field to Henslowe, N.D.; (xiv)? Art. 69, Field to Henslowe, N.D.; (xv)? Art. 68, Field, Daborne, and Massinger to Henslowe, N.D.; (xvi) Art. 82, 16 July 1613; (xvii) Art. 83, 30 July 1613; (xviii)? Art. 76, N.D.; (xix)? Art. 99, Daborne to Edward Griffin (Henslowe’s scrivener), N.D.; (xx). Art. 84, 23 Aug. 1613; (xxi) Art. 85, 14 Oct. 1613; (xxii) Art. 86, 29 Oct. 1613; (xxiii) Art. 87, 5 Nov. 1613; (xxiv) Art. 88, 13 Nov. 1613; (xxv) Art. 89, 13 Nov. 1613; (xxvi). Art. 90, 27 Nov. 1613; (xxvii) Art. 91, 9 Dec. 1613; (xxviii) Art. 92, 10 Dec. 1613; (xxix) Art. 93, 24 Dec. 1613; (xxx)? Art. 95, N.D.; (xxxi) Art. 94, 31 Dec. 1613; (xxxii) Art. 96, 11 Mar. 1614; (xxxiii) Art. 97, 28 Mar. 1614; (xxxiv), Art. 98, 31 July 1614.

[689] _Henslowe Papers_, 68.

[690] _Sh. Soc. Papers_, i. 16; _Henslowe Papers_, 125, from _Egerton MS._ 2623, f. 24. This document cannot be dated, but it has probably been detached from the Dulwich series.

[691] _Henslowe Papers_, 82.

[692] Ibid. 71. I should suppose this, rather than, with Dr. Greg, _Bartholomew Fair_, to be the ‘Johnsons play’ contemplated on 13 Nov. (_Henslowe Papers_, 78), but others of Jonson’s plays may also have been revived.

[693] Ibid. 69, 70.

[694] Ibid. 71, 103, 111.

[695] Ibid. 76, 77, 78.

[696] Ibid. 71.

[697] Dr. Greg (_Henslowe Papers_, 75) makes them the same play, founded on Dekker’s tracts, _The Bellman of London_ (1608) and _Lanthorn and Candlelight, or the Bellman’s Second Night-walk_ (1609), but _The Arraignment_ seems to have been too nearly finished on 5 June for this identification (_Henslowe Papers_, 72).

[698] Still more so the ascription (Fleay, i. 81) of _The Faithful Friends_ to Daborne and the Lady Elizabeth’s men.

[699] _Henslowe Papers_, 23; also in Collier, _Memoirs of Alleyn_, 118. A few additional lines, much mutilated, appear to have provided for the allocation of half the daily takings of the galleries to the discharge of a debt of £124 due to Henslowe and Meade and of any further disbursements by them. This agrees with the Dawes articles _infra_, but the Articles of Grievance refer to a debt of £126.

[700] Fleay, 187; Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, 87, _Henslowe’s Diary_, ii. 138.

[701] Cf. p. 240.

[702] _Henslowe Papers_, 82.

[703] Ibid. 123, from _Variorum_, xxi. 413; also in Collier, _Alleyn Papers_, 75. The original, formerly at Dulwich, is now missing.

[704] _Henslowe Papers_, 72, 79.

[705] I agree with Dr. Greg that the ‘fower’ in Dawes’s articles is probably a mistake for ‘fourteen’.

[706] _Bartholomew Fair_, v. 3, ‘I thinke, one Taylor, would goe neere to beat all this company, with a hand bound behinde him’.

[707] Ibid. _Cokes._ Which is your Burbage now?

_Lanterne._ What meane you by that, Sir?

_Cokes._ Your best Actor. Your Field?

[708] Murray, ii. 254. This, however, was probably Long’s company; v. _infra_.

[709] Robert Pallant, one of the company, is noted (Henslowe, ii. 20) as visiting Henslowe on his death-bed.

[710] _Variorum_, iii. 59.

[711] App. D, No. clviii.

[712] Murray, i. 263; ii. 4. I add Belvoir on 1 March 1614.

[713] Cunningham, xliv.

[714] Murray, ii. 344.

[715] Lawrence, i. 128 (_Early French Players in England_). One can hardly, I suppose, assume that the Turkish acrobat of 1589–90 (cf. ch. xviii) was a real Turk.

[716] J. A. Lester, _Italian Players in Scotland_ (_M. L. N._ xxiii. 240), traces _histriones_, whom he unjustifiably assumes to be actors, and _tubicines_ in 1514–61.

[717] _S. P. F._ (1569–71), 413.

[718] Nichols, _Eliz._ i. 302.

[719] Murray, ii. 374.

[720] Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 225, 227, 458.

[721] Furnivall, _Robert Laneham’s Letter_, 18.

[722] Cf. App. B.

[723] Smith, 148, makes him then head of the Gelosi, but the authorities she cites do not bear her out.

[724] Baschet, 18, 25, 34, 43; D’Ancona, ii. 455, 457, 459; Rennert, 28, 479.

[725] R. B. M^cKerrow (_Nashe_, iv. 462) suggests that Tristano may have been ‘that famous Francatrip Harlicken’ represented in the dedication of _An Almond for a Parrat_ (1590) as asking questions at Venice about Kempe. But Francatrippa seems to have been the stage name of Gabriello Panzanini da Bologna of the Gelosi (D’Ancona, ii. 469, 511).

[726] Is this ‘the nimble, tumbling Angelica’ of Marston’s _Scourge of Villainy_ (1598), xi. 101? If so, a later visit may be suspected. Drusiano Martinelli was comedian to the Duke of Mantua, to whose son Angelica had been mistress, in 1595 (D’Ancona, ii. 518).

[727] Baschet, 72, 82, 90, 194, 199; D’Ancona, ii. 464, 479, 504, 518, 523, 526; Smith, 147. The main body of the Gelosi passed about this time under the leadership of Flaminio Scala, fifty of whose _scenarii_ are printed in _Il Teatro delle Fauole rappresentatiue_ (1611).

[728] Cf. ch. xviii as to traces of improvised comedy in England.

[729] G. E. P. Arkwright, _Notes on the Ferrabosco Family (Musical Antiquary_, iii. 221; iv. 42); G. Livi, _The Ferrabosco Family_ (ibid. iv. 121). I may add that he was evidently the Bolognese groom of the chamber, favoured by the Queen as a musician, who dropped a hint for a Venetian embassy in 1575 (_V. P._ vii. 524). He left an illegitimate son, Alfonso, in England, who also was a Court musician by 1603, and was succeeded in turn by sons, Alfonso and Henry, in 1627 (Lafontaine, 45, 63).

[730] Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 159, 160.

[731] Ibid. 160, 301.

[732] Cunningham, 221; cf. _D. N. B._; _M. L. N._ xxii. 2, 129, 201.

[733] _Magdalene College, Cambridge, Pepys MS._ ii. 663 (cf. _Hist. MSS. Comm. Report_, 190). The letter is endorsed, ‘To Q. Elizabeth: Ubaldino an Italian Musitian I suppose’.

[734] Cf. my letter in _T.L.S._ for 12 May 1921.

[735] Cf. ch. xiii (Interluders); _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 187.

[736] _Variorum_, iii. 461; cf. _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 202.

[737] Cf. p. 272.

[738] E. J. L. Scott in _Athenaeum_ for 21 Jan. 1882. I am sorry to say that Mr. Scott suggests that Shakespeare was of the company.

[739] J. Scott, _An Account of Perth_, in Sir J. Sinclair, _Statistical Account of Scotland_, xviii (1796), 522.

[740] J. C. Dibdin, _Annals of the Edinburgh Stage_ (1888), 20, from _Accounts_ of the Lord High Treasurer of Scotland. _A True Accompt of the Baptism of Prince Henry Frederick_, printed in 1594 (_Somers Tracts_, ii. 171), records plays amongst other festivities, but does not say that English actors took part.

[741] _Scottish Papers_, ii. 676. I suppose that this document is the authority on which P. F. Tytler, _Hist. of Scotland_, ix. 302, describing the events of 1599, says of Fletcher, ‘He had been there before, in 1594; and on his return to England, had suffered some persecution from his popularity with James’.

[742] D. H. Fleming, _St. Andrews Kirk Session Register_, ii. 870, ‘Ane Jnglishman haveing desyrit libertie of the session to mak ane publik play in this citie, it was voted and concludit that he suld nocht be permitted to do the samin’.

[743] Calderwood, _Historie of the Kirk of Scotland_ (Wodrow Soc.), v. 765.

[744] _Acts of the Privy Council of Scotland_, vi. 39, 41. Calderwood seems to have put the whole business a week too late.

[745] Dibdin, 22.

[746] Lee, 83, from _S. P. D. Scotland_ (R. O.), lxv. 64; cf. summary in _Scottish Papers_, ii. 777, ‘Performances of English players, Fletcher, Martin, and their company, by the King’s permission; enactment of the [Fower] Sessions, and preaching of the ministers against them. The bellows blowers say that they are sent by England to sow dissension between the King and the Kirk’.

[747] Dibdin, 24.

[748] J. Stuart, _Extracts from the Council Register of the Burgh of Aberdeen_ (_Spalding Club_), ii. xxi, xxii, 222.

[749] Fleay, 136; cf. Furness, _Macbeth_, 407. Fleay goes so far as to ‘hazard the guess’ that the ‘speciall letter’ of recommendation from James produced at Aberdeen was ‘the identical letter that James wrote to Shakespeare with his own hand’, as recorded by Oldys.

[750] Henslowe, i. 45

[751] App. C, No. lvii.

[752] _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xlv. 311, ‘5 Thaler den englischen Spielleuten, so ufm Rathaus ihr Spiel mit Springen und allerlei Kurzweil getrieben’.

[753] The inevitable attempt to show that Shakespeare ‘must’ have been of the party was made by J. Stefansson, _Shakespeare at Elsinore_, in _Contemporary Review_, lxix. 20, and disposed of by H. Logeman, _Shakespeare te Helsingör_ in _Mélanges Paul Fredericy_ (1904); cf. _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xii. 241.

[754] Fürstenau, 69; Cohn, xxiii; Bolte, _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xxiii. 99. Herz, 5, endeavours to show traces of a visit to Danzig by this company.

[755] M. Röchell, _Chronik_, in J. Janssen, _Gesch. des Bisthums Münster_ (1852), iii. 174; Cohn, cxxxiv (misdated 1599); _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xxxvi. 274.

[756] _Henslowe Papers_, 31. Greg, _Henslowe_, ii. 8, disposes of the confusion between Robert Browne and Alleyn’s step-father, John Browne.

[757] Cohn, xxxi. There seems nothing to connect the Andreas Röthsch who appeared at Leipzig in July 1591 with Browne, or even to justify the conjecture (_Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xlv. 311) that he was English.

[758] L. Ph. C. van den Bergh, _’s Gravenhaagsche Bijzonderheden_ (1857), 51 from Hague Archives; Cohn, xxviii. A letter from R. Jones to Alleyn (_Henslowe Papers_, 33), often assigned to this date, seems to me probably to belong to 1615: cf. p. 287.

[759] Another Admiral’s passport is printed in Rye, 47.

[760] G. van Hasselt, _Arnhemsche Oudheden_, i (1803), 244, naming Robert Bruyn, Johan Bradsdret, Thomas Saxwiell, Richardus Jonas, and Everhart Sauss.

[761] Bolte in _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xxxiii. 104.

[762] Mentzel, 23.

[763] Cf. vol. i, p. 343.

[764] _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xxi. 247.

[765] _Archiv_, xiv. 116.

[766] Mentzel, 25.

[767] Henslowe, i. 29.

[768] Cohn, xxxiii, xxxviii; Goedeke, ii. 519; Herz, 8. A conventional clown, variously called ‘Jahn Clam’, ‘Jahn Posset’, ‘Jahn der Engelländische Narr’, &c., also appears in plays, from 1596 onwards, by Jacob Ayrer of Nuremberg, who has other debts, including the ‘jig’, to the English players (Cohn, lxi; Goedeke, ii. 545).

[769] _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xxiii. 103.

[770] _Archiv_, xii. 320; xiii. 316; xiv. 118; xv. 115; Mentzel, 26, 37. Herz, 34, points out that about this date the Duke of Brunswick’s _Ehebrecherin_ and _Vincentius Ladislaus_ were played in Frankfort, probably by these men. They are referred to at length by Marx Mangoldt, _Markschiffs-Nachen_ (1597), in a passage beginning:

Da war nun weiter mein Intent, Zu sehen das Englische Spiel, Dauon ich hab gehört so viel. Wie der Narr drinnen, Jan genennt, Mit Bossen wer so excellent.

Herz, 34, also assigns to the company anonymous appearances at Ulm, Munich, and Tübingen in 1597 (_Archiv_, xii. 319; xiii. 316; xv. 212).

[771] Cohn, xxxiv.

[772] Cf. p. 279.

[773] Cohn, xxxiv.

[774] Herz, 37; T. Coryat, _Crudities_, ii. 291. Cf. also _Ein Discurss von der Frankfurter Messe_ (1615):

Der Narr macht lachen, doch ich weht, --Da ist keiner so gut wie Jahn begeht-- Vor dieser Zeitt wol hat gethan, Jetzt ist er ein reicher Handelsmann.

[775] Cohn, xxxiv; _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xl. 342.

[776] _Henslowe Papers_, 37.

[777] Cohn, xviii, lvii; Goedeke, ii. 522; Duncker, _Landgrave Moritz von Hessen und die Englischen Komödianten_ in _Deutsche Rundschau_, xlviii. 260.

[778] _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xiv. 361.

[779] Cohn, lviii; Herz, 13.

[780] Könnecke in _Z. f. vergleichende Litteralurgeschichte_, N. F. i. 85.

[781] _Hatfield MSS._ v. 174. Browne was also the agent for a similar transaction licensed on 11 July 1597 (_S. P. D. Eliz._ cclxiv).

[782] _Archiv_, xiv. 117; xv. 114.

[783] Rommel, vi. 390, from Cassel archives, ‘Robert Brown und John Wobster begleiteten ihn’. The payment therefore on behalf of the Admiral’s men about Oct. 1596 ‘to feache Browne’ (Henslowe, i. 45) is not very likely to refer to Robert.

[784] Cohn, lviii; Duncker, 265.

[785] Mentzel, 41.

[786] _Archiv_, xv. 115. Herz, 17, assigns to them, conjecturally, performances by ‘Englishmen’ at Memmingen, Cologne, Munich, Ulm, and Stuttgart during 1600. But the wording of the Strassburg documents suggests a continuous stay.

[787] On 21 Oct. 1603 Joan Alleyn wrote to Edward Alleyn (_Henslowe Papers_, 59), ‘All the companyes be come hoame & well for ought we knowe, but that Browne of the Boares head is dead & dyed very pore, he went not into the countrye at all’. Obviously this is not Robert Browne, who lived many years longer. But it may have been a relative, as Lord Derby’s men are very likely to have preceded Worcester’s at the Boar’s Head. There was at least one other actor of the name, Edward Browne, and possibly more (cf. ch. xv).

[788] Mentzel, 46.

[789] Mentzel, 45, 48; _Archiv_, xiv. 119. A performance at Dresden in Oct. 1600, assigned to them by Herz, 38, is anonymous.

[790] Mentzel, 48.

[791] Duncker, 267, from chronicle of Wilhelm Buch, ‘Anno 1602 hat er die Engländer alle mit einander von sich gejagt und des springens und tanzens müde geworden’.

[792] Mentzel, 50.

[793] Mentzel, 51; Bolte, _Das Danziger Theater_, 34.

[794] _Archiv_, xv. 117.

[795] Mentzel, 52.

[796] Mentzel, 50; _Archiv_, xiv. 122.

[797] The Frankfort archives call them ‘Thomas Blackreude’ and ‘Johannes Fheer’, which has prevented their identity with Worcester’s men from being noticed.

[798] Mentzel, 51.

[799] Mentzel, 53; _Archiv_, xv. 117. Herz, 18, assigns to Browne anonymous appearances by Englishmen at Strassburg in June 1601, Ulm in Nov. 1602, Nördlingen in May 1605, and Ulm in May and June 1605. At Nördlingen a play from the prophet Jonah, possibly Greene and Lodge’s _Looking Glass for London and England_, was given.

[800] _Archiv_, xv. 120. Coryat, ii. 183, saw him at Strassburg in 1608.

[801] Mentzel, 53; Meissner in _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xix. 125; _Archiv_, xiii. 320; Duncker, 268. The _Ottonium_ was named after Maurice’s son Otto, the friend of Prince Henry Frederick, who paid a visit to England in 1611 (Rye, 141).

[802] _Archiv_, xiv. 124.

[803] Cohn, lviii; R. P. Wülcker in _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xiv. 360.

[804] Mentzel, 53.

[805] _Henslowe Papers_, 63.

[806] Bolte, 35.

[807] This might be Heywood’s _King Edward IV_.

[808] F. von Hurter, _Gesch. Kaiser Ferdinands II_, v. 395.

[809] _The Proud Woman of Antwerp_ might be the lost piece by Day and Haughton.

[810] Meissner, 74, and in _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xix. 128; cf. pp. 284–6. The text of _Nobody and Somebody_ is printed from a manuscript at Rein by F. Bischoff in _Mittheilungen des hist. Vereins für Steiermark_, xlvii. 127. I think it is just possible that the companies of 1608 and 1617 may have been Spencer’s. There seem to have been _Saxoni_, as well as _Angli_, playing. These do not seem to have constituted a distinct company, and are perhaps more likely to have been with Spencer than with Green. Spencer, as well as Green, was in relations with the imperial court in 1617; cf. p. 290. But I think that the evidence of the Rein manuscript is fairly decisive in favour of Green.

[811] This may have been Green himself. A drawing of a red-haired actor, in the traditional get-up of Nobody, is on the Rein manuscript.

[812] Mentzel, 54, 55, 56, 58.

[813] _Archiv_, xiv. 125; xv. 215. Herz, 41, ascribes to them anonymous appearances at Ulm, Nördlingen, and Augsburg. John Price, afterwards well known as a musician at Dresden and Stuttgart, is said to be recorded at Stuttgart in 1609 (Cohn, cxxxviii), and may have been with the Hessian company.

[814] Cohn, lix; Duncker, 272.

[815] Meissner, 46; Duncker, 272. Herz, 41, ascribes to them anonymous appearances at the wedding of the Margrave John George, brother of the Elector of Brandenburg, and the Princess Christina of Saxony at Jägerndorf in July, and at Nuremberg and Ulm in November.

[816] Cohn, lix, without reference. Herz, 41, adds an anonymous performance of _The Merchant of Venice_ at the Court of Margrave Christian of Brandenburg at Halle.

[817] _Archiv_, xiv. 126.

[818] Duncker, 273.

[819] _Archiv_, xiii. 319. If this is the company which, according to Alvensleben, _Allgemeine Theaterchronik_ (1832), No. 158, played _Daniel_, _The Chaste Susanna_, and _The Two Judges in Israel_ at Ulm in 1602, the identification with the company found at Nördlingen and Rothenburg is assisted.

[820] Cohn, lxxvii, from Erhard Cellius, _Eques Auratus Anglo-Wirtembergicus_ (1605); cf. Rye, cvii.

[821] _Archiv_, xi. 625; xiii. 70. They also played _Daniel in the Lions’ Den_, _Susanna_ (? by Henry Julius of Brunswick or another version), _The Prodigal Son_, _A Disobedient Merchant’s Son_ (? _The London Prodigal_), _Charles Duke of Burgundy_, _Annabella a Duke’s Daughter of Ferrara_ (? Marston’s _Parasitaster_), _Botzarius an Ancient Roman_, and _Vincentius Ladislaus_ (? by Henry Julius of Brunswick). Three of these plays (_Romeo and Juliet_, _The Prodigal Son_, and _Annabella_) are in the repertories of John Green; cf. p. 285.

[822] _Archiv_, xiv. 122.

[823] _Zeitschrift für vergleichende Litteraturgeschichte_, N. F. vii. 61. They played in 1604 _Daniel in the Lions’ Den_, _Melone of Dalmatia_, _Lewis King of Spain_, _Celinde and Sedea_, _Pyramus and Thisbe_, _Annabella a Duke’s Daughter of Montferrat_; and in 1606 _Charles Duke of Burgundy_, _Susanna_, _The Prodigal Son_, _A Disobedient Merchant’s Son_, _An Ancient Roman_, _Vincentius Ladislaus_. The Nördlingen and Rothenburg companies must be the same. _Celinde and Sedea_, however, is found in a repertory, not of Green, but of Spencer; cf. p. 289.

[824] Herz, 42, 65.

[825] A. van Sorgen, _De Tooneelspeelkunst in Utrecht_.

[826] Bolte, 41, 47. Herz, 27, conjectures that these may have been the English players at Wolfenbüttel in May 1615; cf. p. 277.

[827] Schlager, 168; Meissner in _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xix. 139.

[828] Cohn, xciii; cf. p. 282 as to the inference that Green was at Gräz in 1607–8.

[829] _Archiv_, xiv. 129.

[830] _Archiv_, xv. 120.

[831] Mentzel, 60.

[832] Bolte, 51.

[833] Herz, 22, from Wolter, 97.

[834] Mentzel, 61; Meissner, 65.

[835] _Archiv_, xiv. 130; Mentzel, 61.

[836] Herz, 30, from Wolter, 97; A. van Sorgen, _De Tooneelspeelkunst in Utrecht_.

[837] Herz, 30.

[838] Goedeke, ii. 543, could find no copy of _Musarum Aoniarum tertia Erato_ (Hamburg, 1611), the title-page of which claims ‘etlichen Englischen Comedien’ as a source.

[839] The last two plays have some kind of relation to Shakespeare’s _Two Gentlemen of Verona_ and _Titus Andronicus_. _Sidonia and Theagenes_ is a prose version of Gabriel Rollenhagen’s _Amantes Amentes_ (1609). A supplement to the 1620 collection, with six other plays and two jigs, appeared as _Liebeskampff oder Ander Theil der Englischen Comödien und Tragödien_ (1630), but none of these are traceable before the Thirty Years’ War.

[840] Cf. pp. 279, 281, 283. The Dresden list is in Cohn, cxv.

[841] Played at Nördlingen in 1604. Cohn, 309, prints a German version from a Vienna manuscript.

[842] Possibly Heywood’s _The Silver Age_.

[843] Green played at Gräz in 1608 ‘Von ein Herzog von Florenz der sich in eines Edelmann’s Tochter verliebt hat’. This seems too early for Massinger’s _Great Duke of Florence_, but suggests the same story.

[844] Possibly _1 Jeronimo_.

[845] Possibly Dekker’s _Patient Grissel_.

[846] Played at Nördlingen and Rothenburg in 1604. Bolte, 177, prints from a Danzig manuscript a later German version based on Marston’s _Parasitaster_.

[847] Played by Green at Gräz in 1608, in a version extant in a Rein manuscript; a later one is in the 1620 collection. Cf. p. 282.

[848] Possibly _Clyomon and Clamydes_.

[849] Cohn, 236, prints a German version from a late copy.

[850] Possibly Robert Greene’s play.

[851] Played by Browne at Cassel in 1607; a text is in the 1620 collection.

[852] Probably Kyd’s _Spanish Tragedy_, played by Browne at Frankfort in 1601.

[853] Printed in the 1620 collection.

[854] Probably Dekker’s _Virgin Martyr_.

[855] Played by Green at Gräz in 1608.

[856] Possibly Robert Greene’s _Alphonsus_, _King of Arragon_ or _Mucedorus_.

[857] Played by Green at Gräz in 1608. A version, related to Dekker’s _Old Fortunatus_, is in the 1620 collection.

[858] Played by an anonymous company at Halle in 1611; cf. p. 283. _The Jew_, played by Green at Passau and Gräz in 1607–8, might be either this play or _The Jew of Malta_. Dekker wrote a _Jew of Venice_, now lost; but a German version, printed by Meissner, 131, from a Vienna manuscript, is in part based on _The Merchant of Venice_.

[859] Could this be _The Winter’s Tale_?

[860] Green played _The King of Cyprus and Duke of Venice_ at Gräz in 1608.

[861] Played at Nördlingen in 1604 and Rothenburg in 1606 and by Green at Passau and Gräz in 1607–8. A version is in the 1620 collection.

[862] Green played _Dives and Lazarus_ at Gräz in 1608.

[863] Fleay, _Sh._ 307.

[864] _Henslowe Papers_, 33.

[865] Ibid. 94.

[866] Cf. ch. xvi, introd.

[867] C. F. Meyer in _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xxxviii. 208.

[868] _D. N. B._ s.v. Giles Farnaby.

[869] Cf. pp. 279, 283.

[870] Cohn, lxxviii.

[871] Fürstenau, i. 76.

[872] Cf. p. 282. Herz, 44, identifies them with ‘English’ at The Hague (June 1606), Cologne (Feb. 1607), The Hague (April), Ulm (May), Nördlingen (June), and Munich (July).

[873] Wolter, 93.

[874] L. Schneider, _Geschichte der Oper in Berlin_, Beilage, lxx. 25; Fürstenau, i. 77.

[875] Cf. p. 283.

[876] Cohn, lxxxiv.

[877] Ibid. lxxxvii.

[878] _Archiv_, xiv. 128. _Philole and Mariana_ may be Lewis Machin’s _The Dumb Knight_, and _The Turk_ Mason’s play of that name. _Celinde and Sedea_ had formed part of a repertory at Rothenburg in 1604 apparently related to those of Green; cf. p. 284. Spencer is not recorded to have played any other piece found in Green’s repertories.

[879] _Archiv_, xii. 320; xiv. 128.

[880] Schlager, 168; Elze in _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xiv. 362; Meissner, 53, and in _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xix. 120.

[881] _Archiv_, xiv. 129; _Zeitschrift für vergl. Litt._ vii. 64; Mentzel, 58.

[882] _Archiv_, xv. 118.

[883] Ibid. xii. 320; xiii. 322.

[884] Ibid. xv. 119.

[885] Ibid. xv. 215; cf. Herz, 48.

[886] Wolter, 96; Cohn in _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xxi. 260; Cohn, xci, from _Harl. MS._ 3888, _The Evangelic Fruict of the Seraphicall Franciscan Order_.

[887] _Archiv_, xv. 119.

[888] Mentzel, 59.

[889] Cohn in _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xxi. 261; Wolter, 96.

[890] Meissner, 59, and in _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xix. 122.

[891] Cohn, lxxxviii.

[892] Ibid. lxxxiii; Mentzel, 54.

[893] Cohn in _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xxi. 257; Wolter, 95.

[894] _Archiv_, xiv. 124; Mentzel, 54; Schlager, 168; Herz, 53.

[895] Cohn, xxxv; Bolte, 41.

[896] Cohn, xcii.

[897] Bolte, 51.

[898] Cohn, xcii; Meissner, 38, and in _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xix. 122.

[899] Cf. pp. 275, 285.

[900] _Archiv_, xiv. 131.

[901] Ibid., xiii. 316; xiv. 116; Heywood, 60.

[902] Mentzel, 55. H. Chardon, _La Troupe du Roman comique_, 32, notices Maurice of Nassau’s company at Nantes in 1618 and Paris in 1625, but does not say that they were English.

[903] _Archiv_, xiii. 317; xiv. 121.

[904] Cohn, lxxvii.

[905] _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xlv. 311.

[906] Cohn in _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xxi. 253.

[907] Cf. p. 273.

[908] Pellicer, i. 80, citing the records of the Madrid hospital, ‘en 11 de Enero de 1583 voltearon unos ingleses en el Corral de la Pacheca’. The original record is probably lost, as it is not with those of 1579–82, 1590, and 1601–2 published from the _Archivo de la Diputacion provincial de Madrid_ by C. Pérez Pastor in the _Bulletin Hispanique_ (1906) and reprinted by Rennert, 345.

[909] E. Soulié, _Recherches sur Molière_, 153; cf. Rigal, 46; Jusserand, _Shakespeare in France_, 51.

[910] Henslowe, i. 114.

[911] Soulié et de Barthélemy, _Journal de Jean Héroard_, i. 88, 91, 92.

[912] H. C. Coote in _Intermédiaire des Chercheurs et Curieux_, ii. 105; cf. _5 N. Q._ ix. 42. The idea was that ‘Tiph, toph’ represented a reminiscence of _2 Henry IV_, II. i. 205, ‘This is the right fencing grace, my lord; tap for tap, and so part fair’. The phrase ‘tiff toff’ occurs in brackets in a speech of Crapula while he beats Mendacio in _Lingua_ (Dodsley,^4 ix. 434). Collier explains it as hiccups; Fleay, ii. 261, on the authority of P. A. Daniel, as an Italian term for the thwack of stage blows.

[913] E. Fournier, _Chansons de Gaultier Garguille_, lix, and _L’Espagne et ses Comédiens en France au xvii^e Siècle_ (_Revue des Provinces_, iv. 496), cites H. Ternaux in _Revue Françoise et Étrangère_, i. 78, for statements that the head of the English at Fontainebleau was Ganassa, who in Spain had had a mixed company of English, Italians, and Spanish, and on 11 Jan. 1583 had a share in the receipts of a troupe of English _volteadores_. I have not been able to see the work of M. Ternaux, who does not inspire confidence by calling Ganassa Juan instead of Alberto. There seems to be nothing to connect Ganassa with the _volteadores_ of 1583, except the fact that the Corral de la Pacheca where they played was leased to him for nine or ten years in 1574 (Rennert, 29), and they may therefore have paid him rent. His troupe in 1581–2, as given by Rennert, 479, consisted entirely of Italians, with two Spanish musicians. He is said to have been in Spain in 1603 (Pellicer, i. 57, 72; Rennert, 30), but there is nothing to show that, if so, he went on to France. But Héroard tells us that there was a Spanish rope-dancer at Fontainebleau in 1604, and a very obscure passage in his diary suggests that this Spaniard was really an Irishman. Irish marauders (_voleurs_) were then giving trouble in Paris, which led Louis to say ‘Ce voleur qui voloit sur la corde étoit Irlandois?’ and Héroard comments, ‘Il étoit vrai; il accommoda le mot de voleur à l’autre signification, il l’avoit vu voler à Fontainebleau’ (_Journal_, i. 90, 126).

[914] F. Bischoff in _Mittheilungen des hist. Vereins für Steiermark_, xlvii. 127; cf. p. 282.

[915] De Bry, _India Orientalis_ (1613), xii. 137, ‘Angli ludiones per Germaniam et Galliam vagantur’.

[916] Alleyn’s life is more fully dealt with than is here possible in G. F. Warner and F. Bickley, _Catalogue of Dulwich MSS._ (1881, 1903); G. F. Warner in _D. N. B._ (1885); W. Young, _History of Dulwich College_ (1889); W. W. Greg, _Henslowe Papers_ (1907), _Henslowe’s Diary_, vol. ii (1908). An earlier treatment of the material is that by J. P. Collier, _Memoirs of Edward Alleyn_ (1841), _Alleyn Papers_ (1843). On an account by G. Steevens in _Theatrical Review_ (1763) with a forged letter from Peele to Marlowe, cf. Lee, 646.

[917] _Dulwich Muniments_, 106.

[918] Cf. ch. xiv.

[919] _Henslowe Papers_, 34, from _Dulwich MSS._, i. 9–15; Edward to Joan Alleyn, 2 May 1593; Henslowe to Edward Alleyn, 5 July 1593; Edward to Joan Alleyn, 1 August 1593; Henslowe to Edward Alleyn, _c._ August 1593; Henslowe to Edward Alleyn, 14 August 1593; Henslowe to Edward Alleyn, 28 September 1593; John Pyk (Alleyn’s ‘boy’) to Joan Alleyn, _c._ 1593. Later letters of 4 June and 26 September 1598 from Henslowe to Edward Alleyn and of 21 October 1603 from Joan to Edward Alleyn are in _Henslowe Papers_, 47, 59, 97.

[920] _Works_, i. 215, 296.

[921] _Henslowe Papers_, 32. The verses on the same theme in Collier, _Memoirs_, 13, are forged.

[922] Dekker, _Plays_, i. 280.

[923] _Epigrammes_ (1599), iv. 23:

_In Ed: Allen._

_Rome_ had her _Roscius_ and her Theater, Her _Terence_, _Plautus_,_Ennius_ and _Me_[n]_ander_, The first to _Allen_, _Phoebus_ did transfer The next, _Thames_ Swans receiu’d fore he coulde land her, Of both more worthy we by _Phoebus_ doome, Then t’ _Allen Roscius_ yeeld, to _London Rome_.

[924] Heywood, _Apology_, 43.

[925] Fuller, _Worthies_ (ed. 1840), ii. 385.

[926] S. Rowland, _Knave of Clubs_ (1609), 29:

The gull gets on a surplis With a crosse upon his breast, Like Allen playing Faustus, In that manner he was drest.

[927] Heywood, _Epistle_ to _The Jew of Malta_ (1633), ‘the part of the Jew presented by so vnimitable an Actor as M^r Allin’; and _Prologue_,

And He, then by the best of Actors [_in margin_ ‘Allin’] play’d: ... in Tamberlaine, This Jew, with others many, th’ other wan The Attribute of peerelesse, being a man Whom we may ranke with (doing no one wrong) Proteus for shapes, and Roscius for a tongue, So could he speake, so vary.

[928] E. Guilpin, _Skialetheia_ (1598), _Epig._ xliii,

_Clodius_ me thinks lookes passing big of late, With _Dunston’s_ browes, and _Allens Cutlacks_ gate.

[929] _Henslowe Papers_, 155.

[930] For this myth, cf. ch. xxiii, s.v. Marlowe.

[931] Tarlton, 22, ‘How Tarlton made Armin his adopted sonne, to succeed him’. The earliest extant edition of _Tarlton’s Jests_ is that of 1611, but the Second Part, here quoted, was entered in _S. R._ on 4 Aug. 1600.

[932] Extract in Halliwell-Phillipps, i. 321; the unique copy of this edition is described in his _Calendar of Shakespeare Rarities_ (1887), 145.

[933] Reprinted in the Shakespeare Society’s _Fools and Jesters_ (1842).

[934] _Variorum_, iii. 159, 241, 242; _M. S. C._ i. 345.

[935] Jeaffreson, ii. 107, 110, 114, 120, 128, 220.

[936] Harleian Soc. _Registers_, ix. 62; xvii. 131.

[937] Collier, _Actors_, xxxi.

[938] _M. S. C._ i. 344.

[939] McKerrow, _Nashe_, i. 255.

[940] Collier, iii. 364.

[941] The biographical material collected by C. C. Stopes, _Burbage and Shakespeare’s Stage_ (1913), is supplemented by the lawsuit records in C. W. Wallace, _The First London Theatre, Materials for a History_ (1913, _Nebraska University Studies_, xiii. 1).

[942] _Variorum_, iii. 199, 476; Collier, iii. 367; P. C. Carter, _Hist. of St. Mary Aldermanbury_, 9, 11, 21, 58, 86, 87.

[943] _Variorum_, iii. 200, from P. C. C.; Collier, iii. 376.

[944] Collier, iii. 376, 380.

[945] _Varioram_, iii. 211.

[946] _Henslowe Papers_, 61.

[947] Collier, iii. 406; Rendle, _Bankside_, xxvi.

[948] _Variorum_, iii. 482, from P. C. C.; Collier, iii. 409.

[949] Collier, iii. 389.

[950] H. R. Plomer in _10 N. Q._ vi. 368, from _London Archdeaconry Wills_, vi, f. 22.

[951] Heywood, _Apology_, 43.

[952] Fleay, 190; cf. _The Sharers Papers_.

[953] Collier, iii. 457; Rendle, _Bankside_, xxvi.

[954] _K. B. P._ i. 104, ‘Were you neuer none of Mr. Monkesters schollars?’

[955] Collier, iii. 411.

[956] Fleay, 85; Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, 133.

[957] Collier, iii. 473; Rendle, _Bankside_, xxvii.

[958] _Variorum_, iii. 472; Chester, _London Marriage Licenses_.

[959] _Variorum_, iii. 187.

[960] Ibid. 188.

[961] Ibid. 187.

[962] Halliwell-Phillipps, i. 31.

[963] _Variorum_, iii. 198, 475; Collier, iii. 308; P. C. Carter, _St. Mary, Aldermanbury_, 11, 58, 86, 87. Malone misread Beavis as Beatrice. An earlier John (1598) and a Swynnerton (1613) died as infants.

[964] _Variorum_, iii. 191.

[965] _D. N. B._ s.v.; Wood, _Athenae_, iii. 277.

[966] _O. v. H._ 16; cf. C. W. Wallace, in _The Times_ for 2 and 4 Oct. 1909.

[967] _N. U. S._ x. 311.

[968] _Kemps Nine Daies Wonder. Performed in a Daunce from London to Norwich_ (1600) is reprinted with a biography by A. Dyce (1840, _Camden Soc._) and in Arber, _English Garner_^2, ii (_Social England_), 139, and E. Goldsmid, _Collectanea Adamantea_, ii (1884). Dissertations are J. Bruce, _Who was ‘Will, my Lord of Leycester’s Jesting Player’?_ (1844, _Sh. Soc. Papers_, i. 88); B. Nicholson, _Kemp and the Play of Hamlet_ (_N. S. S. Trans. 1880–6_, 57); _Will Kemp_ (1887, _Sh.-Jahrbuch_, xxii. 255).

[969] Collier, iii. 391.

[970] Ibid. 395.

[971] Ibid. 396.

[972] Ibid. 397; _Bodl._; Rendle, _Bankside_, xxvi.

[973] Norman, 91.

[974] For further details of his later career, cf. Collier and _D. N. B._

[975] Downes, 24.

[976] Wright, 10.

[977] _Variorum_, iii. 211; Collier, iii. 403.

[978] Halliwell-Phillipps, i. 317.

[979] Collier, iii. 423.

[980] Henslowe, ii. 302; _Henslowe Papers_, 36, 41.

[981] Collier, iii. 322, 325; Rendle, _Bankside_, xxv.

[982] _Variorum_, iii. 470.

[983] S. Lee in _Nineteenth Century_ for May 1906, quoting a manuscript by Smith in private hands, with the title _A Brief Discourse of y^e causes of Discord amongst y^e Officers of arms and of the great abuses and absurdities comitted by painters to the great prejudice and hindrance of the same office_. Northampton did not get his title until 1604.

[984] Collier, iii. 323.

[985] _N. U. S._ x. 308, 312; cf. ch. xvi (Globe).

[986] Henslowe, i. 72.

[987] _Variorum_, iii. 506; Collier, iii. 363.

[988] Collier, iii. 358; Rendle, _Bankside_, xxvi.

[989] Henslowe, i. 178; ii. 303.

[990] Cf. s.v. Phillips.

[991] Collier, iii. 488; J. 348; _Bodl._

[992] _Variorum_, iii. 514; P. Cunningham in _Sh. Soc. Papers_, ii. 11; Collier, iii. 478.

[993] Halliwell-Phillipps, i. 314.

[994] Collier, iii. 482; Rendle, _Bankside_, xxvi.

[995] Collier, iii. 483.

[996] App. I (ii).

[997] Collier, iii. 481.

[998] Henslowe, i. 29.

[999] _Henslowe Papers_, 120.

[1000] Collier, iii. 381.

[1001] _Variorum_, iii. 477; Collier, iii. 385.

[1002] _N. U. S._ x. 317; _O. v. H._ 32.

[1003] J. O. Halliwell, _Tarlton’s Jests ... With ... some Account of the Life of Tarlton_ (1844, _Sh. Soc._; the Jests are reprinted with a few additions in Hazlitt, _Jest-Books_, ii. 189) and _Papers respecting Disputes which arose from Incidents at the Death-bed of Richard Tarlton, the Actor_ (1866).

[1004] Collier, iii. 460; Rendle, _Bankside_, xxvi.

[1005] C. W. Wallace, _Globe Theatre Apparel_ (1909).

[1006] _M. L. Review_, iv. 395, from _Hist. MSS._ iv. 299.

[1007] Downes, 21.

[1008] Wright, _Hist. Hist._ 405.

[1009] _S. P. D._ 1637–8, p. 99.

[1010] Cunningham, l.; _Variorum_, iii. 238.

[1011] Cunningham, l.; Wright, _Hist. Hist._ 411.

[1012] _Variorum_, iii. 484, from _P. C. C._

[1013] Collier, iii. 447.

[1014] Henslowe, i. 152; _Henslowe Papers_, 61.

[1015] Collier, iii. 451.

[1016] _Variorum_, iii. 214.

[1017] Collier, iii. 443.

[1018] Halliwell-Phillipps, i. 313.

[1019] _Mediaeval Stage_, i. 383; ii. 184, 190, 380. It is, of course, doubtful whether the ‘theatrum nostrae civitatis’ at Exeter was permanent.

[1020] Ordish, 12, attempts to affiliate the ring type of baiting-place and theatre to Roman amphitheatres, Cornish ‘rounds’, and other circular places used for mediaeval entertainments. But a ring is so obviously the form in which the maximum number of spectators can see an object of interest, that too much stress must not be laid upon it as an evidence of folk ‘tradition’.

[1021] Cf. ch. xviii.

[1022] _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 221.

[1023] G. Fothergill in _10 N. Q._ vi. 287, from _Guildhall MS._ 1454, roll 70, ‘And wyth 22^s 2^d for money by them receyved for the hyer of Tryntie Halle for playes, the warmanthe [ward-moot] inquest and other assemblyes within the time of this accompt’.

[1024] Cf. ch. xxiii, s.v. Vennar.

[1025] Several galleried inns are illustrated in W. Rendle and P. Norman, _The Inns of Old Southwark_ (1888), and by Ordish, 119 (Tabard), Baker, 200 (Four Swans), Adams, 4 (White Hart). Probably, however, none of these are pre-Restoration. The only ones still extant are the George in Southwark and a much later one in Theobalds Road (_V. H. Surrey_, iv. 128).

[1026] _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 190, 223.

[1027] Cf. ch. ix.

[1028] Flecknoe tells us _c._ 1664 (App. I) that the actors, ‘about the beginning of Queen Elizabeth’s reign ... set up Theaters, first in the City (as in the Inn-yards of the Cross-Keyes, and Bull in Grace and Bishops-Gate Street at this day is to be seen)’.

[1029] Cf. App. C, No. xvii.

[1030] App. C, Nos. xv, xvii; App. D, No. xxii.

[1031] Cf. s.v. Hope.

[1032] K. D. Hassler, _Die Reisen des Samuel Kiechel_ (1866) 29, ‘Werden auch täglichen commedien gehalten, sonderlichen ist lustig zu zusehen, wann der Königen comedianten agiren, aber einem frembden, der düe sprach nicht kan, verdrüslich, das ers nicht verstöth; es hat öttliche sonderbare heüser, wölche dozu gemacht sein, das ettwann drey genng ob ein ander sein, derowegen stöts ein grosse menge volckhs dohin kompt, solcher kurzweil zuzusehen. Es begibt sich wol, das süe uf einmal 50 in 60 dalr ufhöben; sonderlichen wann süe was neyes agiren, so zuvor nicht gehalten worden, mues mann doppelt gelt gebenn, und wehrt solchs vast alle tag durch düe wochen, onangesehen es freytag wüe auch samstags zu halten verbotten, würt es doch nicht gehalten.’ Cf. Rye, 87. Kiechel appears to have been in London from 12 Sept. to about 29 Oct. and from 14 to 17 Nov. 1585.

[1033] Lambarde, _Perambulation of Kent_ (1596), 233. The passage is not in the first edition of 1576.

[1034] _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 222; cf. ch. xiii (Oxford’s).

[1035] P. 2. Malone, in _Variorum_, iii. 46, refers the event to a date soon after 1580; but there is no justification for this in the text.

[1036] Cf. p. 477.

[1037] Rye, 216, from _Itinerarium_ in Beckmann, _Accessions Historiae Anhaltinae_ (1716), 165:

‘Hier besieht man vier spielhäuser, Darinnen man fürstelt die Fürsten, Könge, Keyser, In rechter lebens gröss, in schöner kleider pracht, Es wird der thaten auch, wie sie geschehn, gedacht.’

[1038] Text by H. B. Wheatley, _On a Contemporary Drawing of the Interior of the Swan Theatre, 1596_ (_N. S. S. Trans. 1887–92_, 215), from _Utrecht Univ. Library MS. Var._ 355, ff. 131^v, 132, with facsimile reproduction of drawing. The passage was first made known by K. T. Gaedertz, _Zur Kenntniss der altenglischen Bühne_ (1888). The reproduction of the drawing published by Gaedertz and further reproduced from him in many modern books is not an exact facsimile; the only material difference is that the engraver has made the figure at the door of the loft rather more obviously a man than it is in the original. Letters of the early part of the seventeenth century from de Witt to Buchell, who was his fellow-student at Leyden in 1583, are also in the Utrecht Library (Gaedertz, 57). The last sentence of the passage appears from ‘narrabat’ to be a report by Buchell either of something not directly copied by him or of de Witt’s conversation; but the rest is pretty clearly from ‘ea quae alio loco a me notata sunt’ a verbatim extract from a manuscript of de Witt’s own. If so, ‘adpinxi’ further shows that the eye-witness of de Witt and not the imagination of Buchell is the source of the drawing. Gaedertz, 63, indeed suggests that the drawing is an original given by de Witt to Buchell, but as Wheatley, 219, points out, this is impossible, as the paper is the same as that used in the rest of the volume. There remains the question of date. De Witt is traceable at Amsterdam in Nov. 1594, at Utrecht in the winters of 1595 and 1596, and in 1599, and at Amsterdam again in March 1604 (Gaedertz, 58). His visit to London obviously falls between Nov. 1594, when the Swan was still only an intention, and Dec. 1598, when the Theatre was pulled down. Gaedertz, 55, puts it in the summer of 1596, largely because Shakespeare, whom he thinks de Witt would certainly have mentioned if he had met him, may have been in Stratford about that time. This is hopeless. Nor does the further suggestion of Gaedertz that a lameness from which de Witt was suffering in Dec. 1596 was due to his travels carry much conviction. But he is not likely, before that year, to have appended the words ‘A^o. 1596’ to his notice of Sir John Burgh’s tomb. If this is intended to be the date, not of his visit, but of the tomb, it is an error. Camden, _Reges ... in Ecclesia ... West-monasterii sepulti_ (1600), gives the final words of the inscription as ‘G. B. A. M. P. anno Dom. 1595’, and although the tomb itself has disappeared since 1868 and some modern guides date it 1594 or 1598, Camden is confirmed by J. C[rull], _Antiquities of Westminster_ (1711), 198. Burgh’s death, also given on the monument, was 7 March ‘1594’. On the whole 1596 is the most probable date for de Witt’s visit. Arend van Buchell was himself a traveller, and his _Diarium_ has been edited (1907) by G. Brom and L. A. van Langeraad. But he did not visit England.

[1039] The emendation is due to Wallace (_E. S._ xliii. 356). Adams, 168, suggests that ‘cijn’ is Flemish for ‘swan’, but the dictionary gives ‘zwaen’, which is perhaps what de Witt wrote.

[1040] Cf. plan of the manor in Rendle, _Bankside_, i.

[1041] Cf. p. 456.

[1042] Hentzner, 196.

[1043] _Survey_ (ed. Kingsford), i. 93. In 1603 the words ‘as the Theater, the Curtine, &c.’ are omitted from the body of the passage.

[1044] _Survey_, ii. 73. This passage was omitted altogether in 1603. The early draft in _Harl. MS._ 538 (Kingsford, ii. 369) runs, ‘Neare adjoyning are builded two houses for the shewe of Activities, Comedies, tragedies and histories, for recreation. The one of them is named the Curtayn in Holy Well, the other the Theatre.’

[1045] G. Binz in _Anglia_, xxii. 456 (from Platter’s narrative written in 1604–5 of his travels in 1595–1600, now in the Basle University Library): ‘Den 21 Septembris nach dem Imbissessen, etwan umb zwey vhren, bin ich mitt meiner geselschaft [:v]ber dz wasser gefahren, haben in dem streüwinen Dachhaus die Tragedy vom ersten Keyser Julio Caesare mitt ohngefahr 15 personen sehen gar artlich agieren; zu endt der Comedien dantzeten sie ihrem gebrauch nach gar [:v]berausz zierlich, ye zwen in mannes vndt 2 in weiber kleideren angethan, wunderbahrlich mitt einanderen.

Auf ein andere Zeitt hab ich nicht weit von unserem wirdtshaus in der Vorstadt, meines behaltens an der Bischofsgeet, auch nach essens ein Comoedien gesehen, da presentierten sie allerhandt nationen, mit welchen yeder zeit ein Engellender vmb ein tochter kempfete, vndt vberwandt er sie alle, aussgenommen den teütschen, der gewan die tochter mitt kempfen, satzet sich neben sie, trank ihme deszwegen mit seinem diener ein starken rausch, also dasz sie beyde beweinet wurden, vndt warfe der diener seinem Herren den schu an kopf, vnndt entschliefen beyde. Hiezwischen stige der engellender in die Zelten, vnndt entfuhret dem teütschen sein gewin, also [:v]berlistet er den teütschen auch. Zu endt dantzeten sie auch auf Englisch vnndt Irlendisch gar zierlich vnndt werden also alle tag vmb 2 vhren nach mittag in der stadt London zwo biszweilen auch drey Comedien an vnderscheidenen örteren gehalten, damitt einer den anderen lustig mache, dann welche sich am besten verhalten, die haben auch zum meisten Zuhörer. Die örter sindt dergestalt erbauwen, dasz sie auf einer erhöchten brüge spilen, vnndt yederman alles woll sehen kan. Yedoch sindt vnderscheidene gäng vnndt ständt da man lustiger vnndt basz sitzet, bezahlet auch deszwegen mehr. Dann welcher vnden gleich stehn beleibt, bezahlt nur 1 Englischen pfenning, so er aber sitzen will, lasset man ihn noch zu einer thür hinein, da gibt er noch 1^d, begeret er aber am lustigesten ort auf kissen ze sitzen, da er nicht allein alles woll sihet, sondern auch gesehen kan werden, so gibt er bey einer anderen thüren noch 1 Englischen pfenning. Vnndt tragt man in wehrender Comedy zu essen vndt zu trinken vnder den Leüten herumb, mag einer vmb sein gelt sich also auch erlaben.

Die Comedienspiler sindt beim allerköstlichsten vnndt zierlichsten bekleidet, dann der brauch in Engellandt, dasz wann fürnemme herren oder Ritter absterben, sie ihren dieneren vast die schönesten kleider verehren vndt vergaben, welche, weil es ihnen nicht gezimpt, solche kleider nicht tragen, sondern nachmahlen, den Comoedienspileren vmb ein ringen pfenning ze kaufen geben.

Was für zeit sie also in dem Comoedien lustig alle tag können zubringen, weisset yeglicher woll, der sie etwan hatt sehen agieren oder spilen....

... Midt solchen vndt viel anderen kurtzweilen mehr vertreiben die Engellender ihr zeit, erfahren in den Comedien, wasz sich in anderen Landen zutraget, vndt gehendt ohne scheüchen, mann vndt weibs personen an gemelte ort, weil mehrtheils Engellender nicht pflegen viel ze reysen, sondern sich vergnügen zehausz frembde sachen ze erfahren vnndt ihre kurtzweil ze nemmen.’

[1046] C. A. Mills in _The Times_ (11 April 1914) from the travels of ‘a foreign nobleman, to be published by J. A. F. Orbaan from a _Vatican MS._’. Mills says that the visit was to the Globe, but the passage quoted does not exclude the Rose or Swan.

[1047] G. von Bülow in _2 R. Hist. Soc. Trans._ (1892), vi. 6, 10, from MS. _penes_ Count von der Osten of Plathe, Pomerania; cf. Wallace, _Blackfriars_, 105, who identifies the _Samson_ play, rightly, with that of the Admiral’s men at the Fortune (cf. p. 180), and that at the Blackfriars, wrongly I think, with Chapman’s _The Widow’s Tears_. He assumes that the theatre visited on 13 Sept, was the Globe, but it might have been the Rose.

[1048] ‘13. Den 13 ward eine comedia agirt, wie Stuhl-Weissenburg erstlich von den Türken, hernacher von den Christen wiederum erobert....

14. Auf den Nachmittag ward eine tragica comoedia von Samsone und dem halben Stamm Benjamin agirt. Als wir zu dem Theatro gingen ...’.

[1049] Cf. ch. xii (Chapel).

[1050] Grosart, _Dekker_, iv. 210 (S. R. July 1608, printed 1609). The ‘two houses’ are, of course, those of York and Lancaster. Note the final puns.

[1051] Cf. ch. x. Fynes Moryson says in his _Itinerary_, iii. 2. 2 (_c._ 1605–17), ‘The Theaters at London in England for Stage-plaies are more remarkeable for the number, and for the capacity, than for the building,’ and in the continuation (_c._ 1609–26, C. Hughes, _Shakespeare’s Europe_, 476), ‘The Citty of London alone hath foure or fiue Companyes of players with their peculiar Theaters capable of many thousands, wherein they all play euery day in the weeke but Sunday.... As there be, in my opinion, more Playes in London than in all the partes of the worlde I haue seene, so doe these players or Comedians excell all other in the worlde.’

[1052] _Epigram 39._ Both Curtain and Swan are named by W. Turner in _Turners Dish of Stuffe, or a Gallimaufry_ (1662), but this cannot be dated; cf. ch. xv (Shank):

That’s the fat fool of the Curtain, And the lean fool of the Bull: Since Shancke did leave to sing his rhimes, He is counted but a gull: The players on the Bankside, The round Globe and the Swan, Will teach you idle tricks of love, But the Bull will play the man.

[1053] Jodocus Sincerus, _Itineris Anglici brevissima delineatio_ in _Itinerarium Galliae_ (1617), 370; cf. Rye, 131, who gives the first edition as 1616.

[1054] K. Feyerabend in _E. S._ xiv. 440, from manuscript in Cassel Library (cf. Rye, 143), ‘Zu Londen sind 7 theatra, da tägliche, die sonntäge ausgenommen, comoedien gehalten werden, unter welchen die vornehmste der glbs [_sic_, for _globus_], so über dem wasser liegt. Das theatrum, da die kinder spielen, ist auf diesseit des wassers, spielen um 3 uhr, aber nur von michaelis bis auf ostern; hier kostet der eingang einen halben schilling nur, da an andern orten wohl eine halbe kron. Diese [nämlich der Globus, _Ed._, but surely in error] spielen nur bei lichtern und is die beste Cumpani in London.’ The baiting is also mentioned; cf. p. 457.

[1055] _Henslowe Papers_, 72, 79.

[1056] Taylor, _The True Cause of the Watermen’s Suit concerning Players,_ _and the reasons that their Playing on London side is their extreame hindrances. With a Relation how farre that suit was proceeded in, and the occasions that it was not effected_, reprinted by Hindley, ii, No. 15, from Taylor’s _Works_ (1630), probably originally printed in 1614.

[1057] It cites Caesar’s promotion and describes the agitation by the watermen as taking place in ‘January last, 1613’, i. e. 161¾. Probably it was written in the winter of 1614, and touched up before 1630, since it refers to Bacon and Somerset as ‘then’ Attorney-General and Lord Chamberlain respectively. Bacon’s term of office was from 27 Oct. 1613 to 7 March 1617, Somerset’s from 10 July 1614 to 2 Nov. 1615.

[1058] There is, I suppose, no reason why Randolph’s _Muses Looking Glass_, 1. i. 55, should not have been written before Salisbury Court was built. Herein a ‘brother’ is said to pray--

That the Globe, Wherein (quoth he) reigns a whole world of vice, Had been consum’d: the Phoenix burnt to ashes: The Fortune whipp’d for a blind whore: Blackfriars, He wonders how it ’scaped demolishing I’ th’ time of reformation: lastly, he wish’d The Bull might cross the Thames to the Bear Garden, And there be soundly baited.

[1059] Stowe, _Annales_ (1631), 1004. In the extract in Harrison, ii. 49*, the period covered is given in error as 1553–1613.

[1060] Cf. App. I.

[1061] S. A. Strong, _Catalogue of Letters at Welbeck_, 226.

[1062] Harrison, iv. 212, from _Phillipps MS._ 11613, f. 16, _penes_ J. F. P. Fenwick, of Thirlestane House, Cheltenham, written about 1656–8. The writer is not quite accurate in some of his earlier dates.

[1063] Ward, iii. 280; Lawrence, ii. 138.

[1064] Baker, 135, gives an enlarged reproduction under the name of the Theatre; but that is an obvious mistake.

[1065] Rendle, _Bankside_, 1.

[1066] [Nicholas Goodman?] _Hollands Leaguer or an historical Discourse of the Life and Actions of Dona Britanica Hollandia the Arch-Mistris of the wicked women of Evtopia_ (1632), sig. F 2; cf. C. W. Wallace in _Engl. Stud._ xliii. 392.

[1067] Stowe, _Survey_, ii. 52.

[1068] I cannot agree with Dr. Martin (_Surrey Arch. Colls._ xxiii. 186), who sees, both in the Delaram and the ‘Hondius’ engravings, an east to west highway running north of the cylindrical building, which he takes for Maid Lane.

[1069] The somewhat wanton suggestion of Dr. Martin (loc. cit. 188) that the engraver mistook the Rose for the Globe is sufficiently refuted by the fact that the Rose was extinct or at least long disused.

[1070] I do not know on what ground Adams, 458, says that Visscher’s view was drawn several years before it was printed, ‘and represents the city as it was in or before 1613’.

[1071] Martin, loc. cit. 192, again suggests that the houses are misnamed. He thinks that the Rose has been called the Globe in error and the Globe the Bear Garden, and that the unnamed house is the Globe. I cannot follow him in thinking that Merian represents the western house of the group as south of Maid Lane; all three are clearly to the north.

[1072] Adams, 458, thinks that Merian worked upon Visscher, ‘with additions from some other earlier view not yet identified’. If so, this might perhaps go back to 1605.

[1073] Cf. p. 463.

[1074] Rendle, _Bankside_, xxx.

[1075] Cf. p. 433.

[1076] B. Marsh, _Records of the Worshipful Company of Carpenters_, iii. 95. I have to thank Mr. Marsh for this reference.

[1077] _Sloane MS._ 2530, f. 11 _et passim_.

[1078] App. C, No. xviii.

[1079] Gosson, _Schoole of Abuse_, 40. The date renders very hazardous the identifications of _Ptolemy_ with the _Telomo_ shown at Court by Leicester’s men on 10 Feb. 1583, and of _The Jew_ with R. W.’s _Three Ladies of London_ (1584), which leads Fleay, 36, 40, to infer that Leicester’s men played at the Bull from 1560 to 1576.

[1080] App. D, Nos. lx-lxii.

[1081] Tarlton, 13, 24.

[1082] Birch, _Elizabeth_, i. 173, from _Lambeth MS._; Spedding, viii. 314.

[1083] Cf. App. I.

[1084] Machyn, 238.

[1085] Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 277. The play may have only been rehearsed, so that the identification of it by Fleay, 36, with _The Irish Knight_ shown at Court by Warwick’s men on 18 Feb. 1577 is untenable, and with it vanishes all ground for the assignment of the inn by Fleay, 40, to Rich’s men in 1568–70, Lane’s in 1571–3, Warwick’s in 1575–80, and Hunsdon’s in 1582–3.

[1086] Tarlton, 24.

[1087] Harben, 65.

[1088] Tarlton, 21. Apparently the Queen of Sheba, and not Pocahontas, was the original _Belle Sauvage_.

[1089] App. C, No. xiv.

[1090] App. C, No. xxii. The description reads like a compliment to Lyly, but does not justify the inference of Fleay, 39, that the Chapel boys played at the Bel Savage from 1559 to 1582.

[1091] Arber, ii. 526.

[1092] _Sloane MS._ 2530, ff. 7, 10, 11, 14; cf. the quotation from G. Silver, _Paradoxe of Defence_ (1599), in Adams, 13.

[1093] Wallace, _N. U. S._ xiii. 82, 89.

[1094] Tarlton, 23.

[1095] App. D, No. ci. Fleay, 89, has no other material than these notices and an unjustifiable assumption of identity between the two companies for assigning the house to Leicester’s (1586–8) and Strange’s (1589–91).

[1096] Halliwell-Phillipps, i. 317; cf. p. 425.

[1097] Stowe, _Survey_ (ed. Kingsford, ii. 262, 369), ends his account of Holywell in the 1598 edition, ‘And neare therevnto are builded two publique houses for the acting and shewe of Comedies, Tragedies, and Histories, for recreation. Whereof the one is called the Courtein, the other the Theatre: both standing on the South-west side towards the field’. This is omitted from the 1603 edition, probably not so much, as has been suggested, because Stowe shared the Puritan dislike of the stage, as because in 1603 the Theatre was gone and the Curtain little used. Stowe’s draft (_c._ 1598) in _Harl. MS._ 538 runs, ‘Neare adjoyning are builded two houses for the shewe of Activities, Comedies, tragedies and histories, for recreation. The one of them is named the Curtayn in Holy Well, the other the Theatre.’ No contemporary map shows the Theatre, although that of Agas (_c._ 1561) gives a good idea of the Halliwell district before it was built. The representation from the seventeenth-century ‘Ryther’ map, given as the Theatre by Baker, 135, is presumably the Curtain.

[1098] Braines (1915), 4; Stopes, 185.

[1099] Halliwell-Phillipps, i. 345; Braines (1915), 5, 21.

[1100] Latin translations of parts of the lease are recited in pleadings of 1600 and 1602 (Wallace, 166, 268), and the description of parcels agrees with that in the draft lease of 1585, similarly recited in 1600 (Wallace, 169); cf. Braines (1915), 8.

[1101] The position of the well in Chassereau’s _Survey of Shoreditch_ (1745) seems to me to bear out this identification, although, as Braines (1915), 4, points out, we do not know Chassereau’s authority. Under Burbadge’s lease all Giles Allen’s tenants in Holywell were to have access to the well. Stowe, _Survey_, i. 15, describes the holy well as ‘much decayed and marred with filthinesse purposely laide there, for the heighthening of the ground for garden plots’. It is clearly distinct from Dame Agnes a Cleere’s well, which was outside Holywell, towards the north (Stowe, _Survey_, i. 16; ii. 273; Stopes, 192).

[1102] _Tarlton’s News out of Purgatory_ (S. R. 26 June 1590), in _Tarlton_, 54, 105, ‘I would needs to the Theatre to a play, where when I came, I founde such concourse of unrulye people, that I thought it better solitary to walk in the fields, then to intermeddle myselfe amongst such a great presse. Feeding mine humour with this fancie, I stept by dame Anne of Cleeres well, and went by the backside of Hogsdon, where, finding the sun to be hotte, and seeing a faire tree that had a coole shade, I sat me downe to take the aire, where after I had rested me a while, I fell asleepe.... And with that I waked, and saw such concourse of people through the fields that I knew the play was doon.’

[1103] Braines (1915), 27. Halliwell-Phillipps, i. 351, put the site on the present Deane’s Mews, but this is too far south, and does not allow for the interposition of Rutland’s holding between Holywell Lane and Allen’s. The shoring up of the barn to the Theatre is testified to in Wallace, 227, 231, 243. The exact site therefore cannot have been far east of the Curtain Road, which apparently occupies the strip of void land held by Burbadge between the old priory wall and the ditch bordering Finsbury fields.

[1104] Wallace, 134, 141, 153.

[1105] Ibid. 39.

[1106] Ibid. 139.

[1107] Wallace, 142 (Miles), 152 (Nicoll).

[1108] App. D, No. xxxiv.

[1109] Wallace, 135.

[1110] Ibid. 140.

[1111] Ibid. 151 (Nicoll).

[1112] Ibid. 152 (Nicoll).

[1113] Wallace, 73 (Bett), 102, 119 (Ralph Miles), 137 (Collins), 143 (Robert Miles), 152 (Nicoll), 157.

[1114] Ibid. 53, 107, 111 (Hyde), 73 (Bett), 143 (Robert Miles), 103, 120 (Ralph Miles). Brayne’s will was proved 10 Aug. 1586 (Wallace, 14).

[1115] Ibid. 104 (Ralph Miles), 146 (Robert Miles).

[1116] Ibid. 16, 55, 108 (Hyde), 73 (Bett), 145 (Miles).

[1117] Ibid. 46.

[1118] Wallace, 86 (Bett), 115 (Bishop), 122 (Ralph Miles).

[1119] Ibid. 109 (Hyde), 134 (Griggs), 137 (Collins), 106 (Ralph Miles), 139, 148 (Robert Miles).

[1120] Ibid. 83 (Bett), 88 (Gascoigne), 90 (James).

[1121] Ibid. 87 (Bett).

[1122] Griggs (Wallace, 134) puts Brayne’s expenditure at 1,000 marks and Burbadge’s at under £100; Collins (Wallace, 137) agrees as to Brayne’s and puts Burbadge’s at about £50; Miles (ibid. 141) says Brayne spent £600 or £700 in cash or credit and Burbadge about £50 in cash and material; Lanman (ibid. 148) had heard that the building cost 1,000 marks; Giles Allen (ibid. 164) valued it at £700 in 1599.

[1123] Robert Miles put Burbadge’s total profits from tenements and play-house in eight or nine years before 1592 at 2,000 marks, but in 1600 he only put the aggregate profits of James and Cuthbert from the play-house by itself at 1,000 marks (Wallace, 147, 263). Giles Allen (ibid. 198) put them at £2,000. Ralph Miles in 1592 had heard that Burbadge had received £700 or £800 in rents and profits since Brayne’s death in 1586 (ibid. 106). John Alleyn, a more disinterested witness, confirms this estimate, putting the figure at £100 or 200 marks a year for the five years before 1592 (ibid. 102).

[1124] Wallace, 76 (Ellam), 77 (Hudson).

[1125] Ibid. 47.

[1126] Wallace, 59 (C. Burbadge), 62 (J. Burbadge), 97, 114 (Bishop), 100, 126 (Alleyn), 105, 121 (Ralph Miles).

[1127] Ibid. 49, 66.

[1128] Ibid. 101, 127 (Alleyn). The two depositions are not quite consistent as to dates. From that of 6 Feb. 1592, one would infer that the dispute between Burbadge and the Admiral’s was at the time of the contempt of 16 Nov. 1590. The second, of 6 May 1592, apparently corrects the first, by giving the date of the insult to the Lord Admiral as ‘about a yere past’. The point is of importance, as bearing upon the length of the stay of the Admiral’s and Strange’s (cf. ch. xiii) at the Theatre. No doubt Mrs. Brayne, who came ‘dyvers tymes’ to the Theatre, continued her applications after laying her affidavit of contempt.

[1129] Wallace, 153.

[1130] Wallace, 156.

[1131] Ibid. 161, 263. Miles still held Burbadge’s bonds in 1600.

[1132] Ibid. 137, ‘iron worke which the said Braynes bestowed vppon the same Theater’.

[1133] Cf. ch. xviii.

[1134] Wallace, 62 (Burbadge), 88 (Bett), 125 (Alleyn), 149 (Lanman).

[1135] Cf. pp. 358, 362. This evidence outweighs the rather slight grounds on which T. S. Graves, _The Shape of the First London Theatre_ (_South Atlantic Quarterly_, xiii. 280), conjectures that it may have been rectangular.

[1136] G. Harvey, _Letter Book_, 67, suggests in 1579 that he may be asked by Leicester’s, Warwick’s, Vaux’s or Rich’s men, or ‘sum other freshe starteup comedanties’ for ‘sum malt conceivid comedye fitt for the Theater, or sum other paintid stage’ (cf. p. 4). It is a pity he was not more precise.

[1137] Cf. App. C, Nos. xxii, xxx. Fleay, 40, 88, 145, identifies _The Play of Plays_ in which Delight was a character with the _Delight_ shown at Court by Leicester’s on 26 Dec. 1580, and _Caesar and Pompey_, which Gosson does not quite clearly assign to the Theatre at all, with the _Pompey_ shown by Paul’s on 6 Jan. 1581; and conjectures successive occupations by Leicester’s (1576–83), Paul’s (1582), Queen’s and Hunsdon’s (1584), Queen’s and Oxford’s (1585), Queen’s (1586–93), Chamberlain’s (1594–7). He was unlucky in omitting the Admiral’s from his guesses.

[1138] Cf. App. D, Nos. xliii, xliv.

[1139] Wallace, 201 (Cuthbert Burbadge), 239 (Smith), 240 (May), 242 (Tilt).

[1140] Ibid. 11.

[1141] Cf. App. D, No. lxxiv.

[1142] Nashe, _Pierce Penilesse_ (_Works_, i. 197). Harington, _Metamorphosis of Ajax_ (1596), speaks of a vulgar word ‘admitted into the Theater with great applause by the mouth of Mayster Tarlton, the excellent comedian’. It was near the Theatre that the writer of _Tarltons Newes of Purgatorie_ (Tarlton, 54) had his dream of the dead actor.

[1143] Cf. App. C, No. xl.

[1144] Lodge, _Wits Miserie_ (1596), ‘pale as the visard of the ghost which cried so miserably at the Theator, like an oister wife, Hamlet, revenge’. In T. M., _Black Book_ (1604), is a mention of ‘one of my divells in D^r Faustus, when the olde Theatre crackt and frighted the audience’. This was presumably before 1592, as _Dr. Faustus_ seems to have been continuously in Henslowe’s hands from the beginning of that year. Halliwell-Phillipps, i. 363, quotes an allusion of Barnaby Rich in 1606 (_Faultes Faults, and Nothing Else but Faultes_, 7) to ‘Gravets part at the Theatre’, but this must not be pressed as a reference to the long-destroyed house.

[1145] _Sloane MS._ 2530, ff. 6, 11, 12, 46; cf. App. D, Nos. lxii, lxviii.

[1146] Cf. ch. xi, p. 371.

[1147] T. W., _Sermon at Paul’s Cross_ (3 Nov. 1577), ‘Beholde the sumptuous Theatre houses’; Northbrooke (S. R. 2 Dec. 1577), 85, ‘places ... builded for such Playes and Enterludes, as the Theatre and Curtaine is’; Stockwood, _Sermon at Paul’s Cross_ (24 Aug. 1578), ‘the Theatre, the Curtayne, and other places of Playes in the Citie ... the gorgeous Playing place erected in the fieldes ... as they please to have it called, a Theatre’; _News from the North_ (1579), ‘the Theaters, Curtines ... and such places where the time is so shamefully mispent’; T. Twyne, _Physic for Fortune_ (1579), i. xxx, 42, ‘the Curteine or Theater; which two places are well knowen to be enimies to good manners: for looke who goeth thyther evyl, returneth worse’; Stubbes (S. R. 1 March 1583), i. 144, ‘flockyng and runnyng to Theaters and Curtens ... Venus pallaces’; Field (1583), ‘the distruction bothe of bodye and soule that many are brought unto by frequenting the Theater, the Curtin and such like’; Rankins (1587), f. 4, ‘the Theater and Curtine may aptlie be termed for their abhomination, the chappell _adulterinum_’; Harrison, _Chronologie_ (1588), i. liv, ‘It is an evident token of a wicked time when plaiers wexe so riche that they can build suche houses’.

[1148] App. D, Nos. XXXV, lxxiv. It appears to have been thought a good example to frequenters of the Theatre that the locality should occasionally be used for a public execution. Stowe, _Annales_ (1615), 749, 750, records the hanging of W. Gunter, a priest from beyond the seas, ‘at the Theater’ on 28 Aug. 1588, and of W. Hartley, another priest, ‘nigh the Theator,’ on 1 Oct. 1588; cf. Halliwell-Phillipps, i. 351, from _True Report of the Inditement of Weldon, Hartley, and Sutton, who Suffred for High Treason_ (1588).

[1149] Sir A. Ashley to Sir R. Cecil (_Hatfield MSS._ vii. 504).

[1150] Cf. ch. ix. In addition to the occasions described above, the Theatre and Curtain are particularly referred to in the City’s complaint to Walsingham on 3 May 1583, and in the Council’s inhibitions of 29 Oct. 1587, where the ‘Liberty’ of Holywell is clearly pointed at in the allusion to ‘places priviledged’, and 23 June 1592 (App. D, Nos. lxix, lxxx, xc).

[1151] App. D, No. xlii. The County records also contain entries of a recognisance by ‘James Burbage of Shorditch gent.’, Henry Bett, and [Cuthbert] Burbage in the Strond, yeoman’, on 6 April 1592, for the former’s appearance at the next Middlesex sessions, and a similar recognisance of ‘James Burbage of Hallywell, yeoman’, on 11 Sept. 1593 (Jeaffreson, i. 205, 217); but there is nothing to show the nature of the proceedings.

[1152] Cf. App. C, No. xxv.

[1153] App. D, No. cx.

[1154] E. Guilpin, _Skialetheia_, sat. v:

‘but see yonder, One, like the unfrequented Theater, Walkes in darke silence and vast solitude’.

[1155] Wallace, 169, 183, 191, 214, 218.

[1156] Ibid. 72, 76, 226.

[1157] Ibid. 232, 235.

[1158] Wallace, 195, 203, 212, 216, 220, 238. Robert Miles took occasion of the negotiations to renew his old claim by petitioning in the Court of Requests for an interest in the new lease. The proceedings, so far as preserved, are inconclusive (ibid. 158). Meanwhile Cuthbert Burbadge was co-operating with Giles Allen in defending a claim made by the Earl of Rutland to the ‘debateable’ ground, and remained a party to the consequent litigation in 1602, long after the Theatre had disappeared (Stopes, 184).

[1159] Wallace, 184, 196, 204.

[1160] Ibid. 221.

[1161] Ibid. 164, 179, 197, 217, 222, 238, 278. The dates are not quite certain; possibly the 20 Jan. of _Allen v. Street_ was an error. Allen’s Answer in the Court of Requests places the whole transaction ‘aboute the feast of the Natiuitie’, and this in his Star Chamber suit becomes ‘aboute the eight and twentyth day of December’, without any suggestion that more than one day was occupied.

[1162] Ibid. 163.

[1163] Ibid. 181.

[1164] Wallace, 186, 215, 220.

[1165] Ibid. 285.

[1166] Ibid. 267, 275.

[1167] Aubrey, ii. 12, on the authority of J. Greenhill, says that Ben Jonson ‘acted and wrote, but both ill, at the Green Curtaine, a kind of nursery or obscure play-house, somewhere in the suburbes’ (I thinke towards Shoreditch or Clarkenwell), and on that of Sir Edward Shirburn that Jonson killed Marlowe, ‘on Bunhill, comeing from the Green-Curtain play-house’. Hoxton, where Jonson killed Gabriel Spencer, is of course not far from Bunhill, and both are in the Holywell neighbourhood. Probably Aubrey, in giving a name to the theatre, is babbling of green frieze, rather than green fields. Steevens and Malone (_Variorum_, iii. 54) committed themselves to the view that ‘the original sign hung out at this play-house was the painting of a curtain striped’.

[1168] Thomas Wilkins was perhaps related to George Wilkins the dramatist, who was buried at Shoreditch 9 Aug. 1613. Sir William Allen is not known to have had anything to do either with Edward Alleyn or with Giles Allen, the ground-landlord of the Theatre. Lanman was 54 on 30 July 1592. We cannot assume that the name is merely an orthographic variant of that of Laneham.

[1169] Reproduced in Ordish, 40.

[1170] Reproduced in Baker, 36, 135, with a photographic enlargement of the building, wrongly identified with the _Theatre_. It is shown as a round or hexagonal structure, with a large flag, standing in the middle of a square paled plot; but too much stress must not be laid on what is probably only a cartographic symbol. Immediately south of it is Bedlam. Kiechel tells us that the house had three galleries, and de Witt that it was an ‘amphitheatrum’ (cf. pp. 358, 362). In the epilogue to _Three English Brothers_ (1607) it is a ‘round circumference’.

[1171] Cf. p. 393.

[1172] Fleay, 40, 88, 145, 201, 300, assigns it as follows: Sussex’s (1576–83), Arundel’s and Oxford’s (1584), Howard’s and Hunsdon’s (1585), Oxford’s (1586–8), Pembroke’s (1589–97), Chamberlain’s (1597–9), Derby’s (1599–1600), uncertain company (1601), Queen Anne’s (1604–9), Duke of York’s (1610–23). But, of course, this _is_ guessing.

[1173] Tarlton, 16. If _Tarlton’s Jig of a Horse Load of Fools_, taken from a manuscript of Collier’s (Tarlton, xx), is genuine, that also was given at the Curtain.

[1174] _Sloane MS._ 2530, ff. 4, 12, 43, 44, 46.

[1175] Guilpin, _Skialetheia_ (S. R. 8 Sept. 1598), Sat. v:

if my dispose Perswade me to a play, I’le to the Rose, Or Curtaine, one of Plautus comedies, Or the patheticke Spaniards tragedies;

and in the _Preludium_, of a ‘Cittizen ... comming from the Curtaine’.

[1176] _Scourge of Villainy_ (1598), xi. 37 (_Works_, iii. 372):

Luscus, what’s play’d to-day? Faith now I know I set thy lips abroach, from whence doth flow Naught but pure Juliet and Romeo. Say who acts best? Drusus or Roscio? Now I have him, that ne’er of ought did speak But when of plays or players he did treat-- Hath made a commonplace book out of plays, And speaks in print: at least what e’er he says Is warranted by Curtain plaudities.

[1177] Cf. p. 365.

[1178] Jeaffreson, i. 259.

[1179] Heath, Epigram 39; Wither, _Abuses_, i. 1; ii. 3.

[1180] Cf. App. C, No. lix.

[1181] _Variorum_, iii. 54, 59; Ordish, 106, from _Vox Graculi_ (1623) and Jeaffreson, iii. 164.

[1182] A writer in the _Daily News_ for 9 April 1898 identifies the site of the theatre, without giving any evidence, as ‘between Clock Passage, Newington Butts, Swan Place, and Hampton Street’; cf. _9 N. Q._ i. 386.

[1183] App. D, Nos. xlvi, lxxvi, xcii.

[1184] Cf. p. 373.

[1185] C. W. Wallace in _N. U. S._ xiii. 2, ‘as shown by a contemporary record to be published later’.

[1186] _A Woman is a Weathercock_, III. iii. 25.

[1187] Rendle, _Antiquarian_, viii. 60, ‘Among the early Surveys, 1 Edward VI, we see that this was not merely a name--the place was a veritable Rose Garden, and paid £1 3_s._ 4_d._ by the year, and the messuage called the Rose paid £4’.

[1188] _Close Roll 6 Edw. VI_, p. 5, m. 13; cf. Rendle, _Bankside_, xv; _H. P._ 1.

[1189] _Egerton MS._ 2623, f. 13, quoted in Henslowe, ii. 25. But in ii. 43 Dr. Greg misdescribes the Rose as on the west of the Barge, Bell, and Cock.

[1190] _Henslowe Papers_, 1.

[1191] Ibid. 2.

[1192] Henslowe, i. 209.

[1193] Cf. Dekker, _Satiromastix_, 1247, ‘th’ast a breath as sweet as the Rose, that growes by the Beare-garden’.

[1194] G. L. Gomme, _The Story of London Maps_ (_Geographical Journal_, xxxi. 628), ‘1588. Henchley.--Item, we present Phillip Henchley to pull upp all the pylles that stand in the common sewer against the play-house to the stopping of the water course, the which to be done by midsomer next uppon paine of x^s yf it be undone. x^s (done)’. Wallace, in _The Times_ (1914), says that these records mention the theatre as ‘new’ in April 1588, and show other amercements during the next eighteen years.

[1195] Dr. Greg, in Henslowe, ii. 46, is, I think, successful in showing that all the dated building entries belong to 1592 and not to 1591 or 1593. I suppose the scattered entries with the date ‘1591’ to have been written in first, and the continuous account under the date ‘1592’ added later, probably after Henslowe had changed the year-date in his play-entries, which seems to have been on 6 May.

[1196] Henslowe, i. 7.

[1197] App. D, No. xcii.

[1198] The words ‘Chomley when’ appear with other scribbles by Henslowe on the first page of the diary (Henslowe, i. 217).

[1199] Cf. p. 402.

[1200] Henslowe, i. 4.

[1201] Henslowe, i. 178.

[1202] Ibid. ii. 55.

[1203] Wallace, in _The Times_ (1914).

[1204] Rendle, _Bankside_, xv, quotes

In the last great fire The Rose did expire,

and adds ‘but when that was, I am not clear’. It reads like Collier.

[1205] I cannot endorse the suggestion of Dr. Martin (cf. p. 378) that the ‘Globe’ of Visscher (1616) was really the Rose. Baker, 165, reproducing a cut from Hollar (1640), also misnames the Globe as the Rose.

[1206] Young, ii. 241.

[1207] _Variorum_, iii. 56. I should have been happier if Malone had quoted _verbatim_, but I do not see that Adams, 160, explains away the statement by suggesting that a source for Malone’s ‘error’ is a note on p. 66, where he again cites Herbert for fencing at the Red Bull in 1623.

[1208] _E. S._ xliii. 341; _Index to Remembrancia_, 277. It appears from _Hatfield MSS._ vi. 182, 184, that in May 1596 Langley was concerned in some negotiations about a missing diamond claimed by the Crown; cf. p. 396.

[1209] Printed from a contemporary copy in the Guildhall by W. Rendle in Appendix to