BOOK III

THE COMPANIES

‘Has led the drum before the English tragedians.’ _All’s Well that Ends Well._

XII

INTRODUCTION. THE BOY COMPANIES

[_Bibliographical Note._--The first systematic investigation into the history of the companies was that of F. G. Fleay, which, after tentative sketches in his _Shakespeare Manual_ (1876) and _Life and Work of Shakespeare_ (1886), took shape in his _Chronicle History of the Stage_ (1890). Little is added by the compilations of A. Albrecht, _Das Englische Kindertheater_ (1883), H. Maas, _Die Kindertruppen_ (1901) and _Äussere Geschichte der Englischen Theatertruppen_ (1907), and J. A. Nairn, _Boy-Actors under the Tudors and Stewarts_ (_Trans. of Royal Soc. of Lit._ xxxii). W. W. Greg, _Henslowe’s Diary_ (1904–8), made a careful study of all the companies which had relations with Philip Henslowe, and modified or corrected many of Fleay’s results. An account of the chief London companies is in A. H. Thorndike, _Shakespeare’s Theater_ (1916), and utilizes some new material collected in recent years. W. Creizenach, _Schauspiele der Englischen Komödianten_ (1889), and E. Herz, _Englische Schauspieler und Englisches Schauspiel_ (1903), have summarized the records of the travels of English actors in Germany. C. W. Wallace, besides his special work on the Chapel, has published the records of several theatrical lawsuits in _Advance Sheets from Shakespeare, the Globe, and Blackfriars_ (1909), in _Nebraska University Studies_, ix (1909), 287; x (1910), 261; xiii (1913), 1, and in _The Swan Theatre and the Earl of Pembroke’s Servants_ (1911, _Englische Studien_, xliii. 340); the present writer has completed the information drawn from the _Chamber Accounts_ in P. Cunningham’s _Extracts from the Accounts of the Revels at Court_ (1842) by articles in _M. L. R._ ii (1906), 1; iv (1909), 153 (cf. App. B); and a number of documents, new and old, including the texts of all the patents issued to companies, have been carefully edited in vol. i of the _Collections of the Malone Society_ (1907–11). Finally, J. T. Murray, _English Dramatic Companies_ (1910), has collected the published notices of performances in the provinces, added others from the municipal archives of Barnstaple, Bristol, Coventry, Dover, Exeter, Gloucester, Marlborough, Norwich, Plymouth, Shrewsbury, Southampton, Winchester, and York, and on the basis of these constructed valuable accounts of all the London and provincial companies between 1558 and 1642. Most of the present chapter was written before Murray’s book appeared, but it has been carefully revised with the aid of his new material. I have not thought it necessary to refer to my original provincial sources, where they are included in his convenient Appendix G, but in using his book it should be borne in mind that he has made a good many omissions in carrying data from this Appendix to the tables of provincial visits, which he gives for each company. For a few places I have had the advantage of sources not drawn upon by Murray, and these should be treated as the references for any facts as regards such places not discoverable in Murray’s Appendix. They are:--for Belvoir and other houses of the Earls of Rutland, _Rutland MSS._ (_Hist. MSS._), iv. 260; for the house of Richard Bertie and his wife the Duchess of Suffolk at Grimsthorpe, _Ancaster MSS._ (_Hist. MSS._), 459; for Wollaton, the house of Francis Willoughby, _Middleton MSS._ (_Hist. MSS._), 446; for Maldon and Saffron Walden in Essex, A. Clark’s extracts in _10 Notes and Queries_, vii. 181, 342, 422; viii. 43; xii. 41; for Newcastle-on-Tyne, G. B. Richardson, _Reprints of Rare Tracts_, vol. iii, and _10 N. Q._ xii. 222; for Reading, _Hist. MSS._ xi. 177; for Oxford, F. S. Boas in _Fortnightly Review_ (Aug. 1913; Aug. 1918; May 1920); for Stratford, J. O. Halliwell, _Stratford-upon-Avon in the Time of the Shakespeares, illustrated by Extracts from the Council-Books_ (1864); for Weymouth, H. J. Moule, _Weymouth and Melcombe Regis Documents_ (1883), 136; for Dunwich, _Various Collections_ (_Hist. MSS._), vii. 82; for Aldeburgh, Suffolk, C. C. Stopes, _William Hunnis_, 314. References for a few other scattered items are in the foot-notes. The warning should be given that the dates assigned to some of the provincial performances are approximate, and may be in error within a year or so either way. For this there are more reasons than one. The zealous antiquaries who have made extracts from local records have not realized that precise dates might be of value, and have often named a year without indicating whether it represents the calendar year (Circumcision style) or the calendar year (Annunciation style) in which a performance fell, or the calendar year in which a regnal, mayoral, or accounting year, in which the performance fell, began or ended. When they are clearly dealing with accounting years, they do not always indicate whether these ended at Michaelmas or at some other date. They sometimes give only the year of a performance, when they might have given, precisely or approximately, the month and day of the month as well. But it is fair to add that the accounts of City Chamberlains and similar officers, from which the notices of plays are generally derived, are not always so kept as to render precise dating feasible. Some accountants specify the days, others the weeks to which their entries relate; others put their entries in chronological order and date some of them, so that it is possible to fix the dates of the rest within limits; others again render accounts analysed under heads, grouping all payments to players perhaps under a head of ‘Gifts and Rewards’, and in such cases you cannot be sure that the companies are even entered in the order of their visits, and if months and days are not specified, cannot learn more than the year to which a visit belongs. Where, for whatever reason, I can only assign a performance to its accounting year, I generally give it under the calendar year in which the account ends. This, in the case of a London company and of a Michaelmas year (much the commonest year for municipal accounts), is pretty safe, as the touring season was roughly July to September. Some accounting years (Coventry, Marlborough, Stratford-on-Avon) end later still, but if, as at Bath, the year ends about Midsummer, it is often quite a toss-up to which of two years an entry belongs. In the case of Leicester performances before 1603, I have combined the indications of Michaelmas years in M. Bateson, _Leicester Records_, vol. iii, with those of calendar years in W. Kelly, _Notices Illustrative of the Drama_ (1865), 185, and distinguished between performances before and after Michaelmas. I hope Kelly has not misled me, and that he found evidence in the entries for his dating. After 1603 he is the only source. I do not think that the amount of error which has crept into the following chapter from the various causes described is likely to be at all considerable. I have been as careful as possible and most of Murray’s own extracting is excellently done. I should, however, add that the Ipswich dates, as given both here and by Murray, ii. 287. from _Hist. MSS._ ix. i, 248, are unreliable, because some of the rolls from which they are taken contain membranes properly belonging to those for other years; cf. my notes on Leicester’s (pp. 89, 91), Queen’s (p. 106), Warwick’s (p. 99), Derby’s (p. 120), King’s (p. 209).]

A. INTRODUCTION

The present chapter contains detailed chronicles--too often, I fear, lapsing into arid annals of performances at Court or in the provinces--of all the companies traceable in London during any year between 1558 and 1616. The household and other establishments to which the companies were attached are taken as the basis of classification. This principle is open to criticism. Certainly it has not always the advantage of presenting economic units. It is improbable that there was any continuity as regards membership between the bodies of actors successively appearing, often after long intervals, under the names of Sussex or Hunsdon or Derby. On the other hand, particular associations of actors can sometimes be discerned as holding together under a change of patrons. Thus between 1571 and 1583 Laurence and John Dutton seem to have led a single company, which earned the nickname of the Chameleons, first in the service of Sir Robert Lane and then, turn by turn, in that of the Earls of Lincoln, Warwick, and Oxford. The real successors, again, of the Derby’s men of 1593 are less the Derby’s men of 1595–1618 than the Hunsdon’s men of 1594–1603, who in course of time became the King’s men without any breach of their unity as a trading association. Nevertheless, an arrangement under patrons is a practicable one, since companies nearly always appear under the names of their patrons in official documents, while an arrangement under trading associations is not. Actors are a restless folk, and the history of the Admiral’s men, or the Queen’s Revels, or the Lady Elizabeth’s men, will show how constantly their business organizations were disturbed by the coming and going of individuals, and by the breaking and reconstruction of the agreements on which they were based. It is but rarely that we have any clue to these intricacies; and I have therefore followed the households as the best available guides, indicating breaches of continuity and affiliations, where these appear to exist, and adopting as far as possible an order which, without pretence of being scientific, will bring each household under consideration roughly at the point at which its servants become of the greatest significance to the general history of the stage. The method may perhaps be described as that of a λαμπαδηφορία.

A study of the succession of the companies gives rise to a few general considerations. During the earlier years of Elizabeth’s reign the drama is under the domination of the boy companies. This may be in part due to the long-standing humanistic tradition of the Renaissance, although the lead is in fact taken not so much by schoolboys in the stricter sense, as by the trained musical establishments of the royal chapels and still more that of the St. Paul’s choir under Sebastian Westcott. More important points perhaps are, that the Gentlemen of the Chapel, who had been prominent under Henry VIII, had ceased to perform, that the royal Interluders had been allowed to decay, and that the other professional companies had not yet found a permanent economic basis in London, while their literary accomplishment was still upon a popular rather than a courtly level. Whatever the cause or causes, the fact is undeniable. Out of seventy-eight rewards for Court performances between 1558 and 1576, twenty-one went to the Paul’s boys, fifteen to the royal chapels, and ten to schoolboys, making a total of forty-six, as against only thirty-two paid to adult companies. And if the first half of this period only be taken, the disproportion is still greater, for by 1567 the Paul’s boys had received eleven rewards, other boys two, and the adult companies six. A complete reversal of this position coincides rather markedly with the building of the first permanent theatres in 1576. Between 1576 and 1583 the adult companies had thirty-nine rewards and the boys only seventeen. There is also a rapid growth in the number of companies. Before 1576 the Earl of Leicester’s men and the Duttons were alone conspicuous. After 1576 the entertainment of a London company seems to become a regular practice with those great officers the Lord Chamberlain and the Lord Admiral, as well as with special favourites of the Queen, such as the Earl of Leicester himself or the Earl of Oxford. Stockwood in 1578 speaks of ‘eighte ordinarie places’ in the City as occupied by the players. A Privy Council order of the same year limits the right to perform to six companies selected to take

## part in the Court festivities at Christmas, namely Leicester’s men,

Warwick’s, Sussex’s, Essex’s, and the Children of the Chapel and St. Paul’s. Gabriel Harvey, writing to Edmund Spenser of the publication of his virelays in the following summer, says:

‘Ye have preiudished my good name for ever in thrustinge me thus on the stage to make tryall of my extemporall faculty, and to play Wylsons or Tarletons parte. I suppose thou wilt go nighe hande shortelye to sende my lorde of Lycesters or my lorde of Warwickes, Vawsis, or my lord Ritches players, or sum other freshe starteupp comedanties unto me for sum newe devised interlude, or sum maltconceivid comedye fitt for the Theater, or sum other paintid stage whereat thou and thy lively copesmates in London maye lawghe ther mouthes and bellyes full for pence or twoepence apeece.’[1]

Doubtless many of this mushroom brood of ‘freshe starteupp comedanties’ never succeeded in making good their permanent footing in the metropolis. Lord Vaux’s men, whom Harvey mentions, were never fortunate enough to be summoned to Court; and the same may be said of Lord Arundel’s men, Lord Berkeley’s, and Lord Abergavenny’s. Such men, after their cast for fortune, had to drift away into the provinces, and pad the hoof on the hard roads once more.

The next septennial period, 1583–90, witnessed the extinction, for a decade or so, of the boy companies, in spite of the new impulse given to the latter by the activity as a playwright of John Lyly. Of forty-five Court payments made during these years, thirty apparently went to men and only fifteen to boys. This ultimate success of the professional organizations may largely have been due to their employment of such university wits as Marlowe, Peele, Greene, Lodge, and Nashe in the writing of plays, with which Lyly could be challenged on his own ground before the Court, while a sufficient supply of chronicle histories and other popular stuff could still be kept on the boards to tickle the ears of the groundlings. The undisputed pre-eminence lay during this period with the Queen’s men, who made within it no less than twenty-one appearances at Court. This company enjoyed the prestige of the royal livery, transferred to it from the now defunct Interluders, which had a ready effect in the unloosing of municipal pockets. And at its foundation in 1583 it incorporated, in addition to Tarlton, whose origin is unknown, the leading members of the pre-existing companies: Wilson and Laneham from Leicester’s, Adams from Sussex’s, and John Dutton from Oxford’s. The former fellows of these lucky ones were naturally hardly able to maintain their standing. In January 1587 Leicester’s, Oxford’s, and the Admiral’s were still setting up their bills side by side with those of the Queen’s.[2] But the first two are not heard of at Court again, and even the Admiral’s were hardly able to make a show except by coalition with other companies. Thus we find the Admiral’s combining with Hunsdon’s in 1585, and with Strange’s perhaps from 1589 onwards, and it became the destiny of this last alliance, under the leadership of Edward Alleyn, to dispossess the Queen’s men, after the death of Tarlton in 1588, from their pride of place. The fall of the Queen’s men was sudden. In 1590–1 they gave four Court plays to two by their rivals; in 1591–2 they gave one, and their rivals six. In their turn they appear to have been reduced to forming a coalition with Lord Sussex’s men.

The plague-years of 1592–4 brought disaster, chaos, and change into the theatrical world. Only the briefest London seasons were possible. The necessities of travelling led to further combinations and recombinations of groups, one of which may have given rise to the ephemeral existence of Lord Pembroke’s men. And, by the time the public health was restored, the Queen’s had reconciled themselves to a provincial existence, and continued until 1603 to make their harvest of the royal name, as their predecessors in title had done, without returning to London at all. The combination of which Alleyn had been the centre broke up, and its component elements reconstituted themselves as the two great companies of the Chamberlain’s and the Admiral’s men. Between these there was a vigorous rivalry, which sometimes showed itself in lawsuits, sometimes in the more legitimate form of competing plays on similar themes. Thus a popular sentiment offended by the Chamberlain’s men in _1 Henry IV_ was at once appealed to by the Admiral’s with _Sir John Oldcastle_. And when the Admiral’s scored a success by their representation of forest life in _Robin Hood_, the Chamberlain’s were quickly ready to counter with _As You Like It_. I think the Chamberlain’s secured the better position of the two. They had their Burbadge to pit against the reputation of Alleyn; they had their honey-tongued Shakespeare; and they had a business organization which gave them a greater stability of membership than any company in the hands of Henslowe was likely to secure. If one may once more use the statistics of Court performances as a criterion, they are found to have appeared thirty-two times and their rivals only twenty times from 1594 to 1603. Between them the Chamberlain’s and the Admiral’s enjoyed for some years a practical monopoly of the London stage, which received an official recognition by the action of the Privy Council in 1597. But this state of things did not long continue. Ambitious companies, such as Pembroke’s, disregarded the directions of the Council. Derby’s men, Worcester’s, Hertford’s, one by one obtained at least a temporary footing at Court, and in 1602 the influence of the Earl of Oxford was strong enough to bring about the admission to a permanent home in London of a third company made up of his own and Worcester’s servants. Even more dangerous, perhaps, to the monopoly was the revival of the boy companies, Paul’s in 1599 and the Chapel in 1600. The imps not only took by their novelty in the eyes of a younger generation of play-goers. They began a warfare of satire, in which they ‘berattled the common stages’ with a vigour and dexterity that betray the malice of the poets against the players which had been a motive in their rehabilitation.[3]

No material change took place at the coming of James. The three adult companies, the Chamberlain’s, the Admiral’s, Worcester’s, passed respectively under the patronage of James, Prince Henry, and Queen Anne.[4] On the death of Prince Henry in 1612 his place was taken by the Elector Palatine. The Children of the Chapel also received the patronage of Queen Anne, as Children of the Queen’s Revels. The competition for popular favour continued severe. Dekker refers to it in 1608 and the preacher Crashaw in 1610.[5] It is to be noticed, however, that Dekker speaks only of ‘a deadly war’ between ‘three houses’, presumably regarding the boy companies as negligible. And in fact these companies were on the wane. By 1609 the Queen’s Revels, though still in existence, had suffered from the wearing off of novelty, from the tendency of boys to grow older, from the plague-seasons of 1603–4 and 1608–9, which they were less well equipped than the better financed adults to withstand, from the indiscretions and quarrels of their managers, and from the loss of the Blackfriars, of which the King’s men had secured possession.[6] The Paul’s boys had been bought off by the payment of a ‘dead rent’ or blackmail to the Master. A third company, the King’s Revels, had been started, but had failed to establish itself.[7] The three houses were not, indeed, left with an undisputed field. Advantage was taken of the predilection of the younger members of the royal family for the drama, and patents were obtained, in 1610 for a Duke of York’s company, and in 1611 for a Lady Elizabeth’s company. These also had but a frail life. In 1613 the Lady Elizabeth’s and the Queen’s Revels coalesced under the dangerous wardenship of Henslowe. In 1615 the Duke of York’s, now Prince Charles’s, men joined the combination. And finally in 1616 the Prince’s men were left alone to make up the tale of four London companies, and the Lady Elizabeth’s and the Queen’s Revels disappeared into the provinces. The list of men summoned before the Privy Council in March 1615 to account for playing in Lent contains the names of the leaders of the four companies, the King’s, the Queen’s, the Palsgrave’s, and the Prince’s. The King’s played at the Globe and Blackfriars, the Queen’s at the Red Bull, whence they moved in 1617 to the Cockpit, the Palsgrave’s at the Fortune, and the Prince’s at the Hope. The supremacy of the King’s men during 1603–16 was undisputed. Of two hundred and ninety-nine plays rewarded at Court for that period, they gave one hundred and seventy-seven, the Prince’s men forty-seven, the Queen’s men twenty-eight, the Duke of York’s men twenty, the Lady Elizabeth’s men nine, the Queen’s Revels boys fifteen, and the Paul’s boys three. Their plays, moreover, were those usually selected for performance before James himself. It is possible, however, that the Red Bull and the Fortune were better able to hold their own against the Globe when it came to attracting a popular audience.

B. THE BOY COMPANIES

i. Children of Paul’s. ii. Children of the Chapel and Queen’s Revels. iii. Children of Windsor. iv. Children of the King’s Revels. v. Children of Bristol. vi. Westminster School. vii. Eton College. viii. Merchant Taylors School. ix. Earl of Leicester’s Boys. x. Earl of Oxford’s Boys. xi. Mr. Stanley’s Boys.

i. THE CHILDREN OF PAUL’S

_High Masters of Grammar School_:--William Lily (1509–22); John Ritwise (1522–32); Richard Jones (1532–49); Thomas Freeman (1549–59); John Cook (1559–73); William Malim (1573–81); John Harrison (1581–96); Richard Mulcaster (1596–1608).

_Masters of Choir School_:--? Thomas Hikeman (_c._ 1521); John Redford (_c._ 1540);? Thomas Mulliner (?); Sebastian Westcott (> 1557–1582); Thomas Giles (1584–1590 <); Edward Pearce (> 1600–1606 <).

[_Bibliographical Note._--The documents bearing upon the early history of the two cathedral schools, often confused, are printed and discussed by A. F. Leach in _St. Paul’s School before Colet_ (_Archaeologia_, lxii. 1. 191) and in _Journal of Education_ (1909), 503. M. F. J. McDonnell, _A History of St. Paul’s School_ (1909), carries on the narrative of the grammar school. The official chroniclers of the cathedral, perhaps owing to the loss of archives in the Great Fire, have given no connected account of the choir school; with the material available on the dramatic side they appear to be unfamiliar. Valuable contributions are W. H. G. Flood, _Master Sebastian_, in _Musical Antiquary_, iii. 149; iv. 187; and H. N. Hillebrand, _Sebastian Westcote, Dramatist and Master of the Children of Paul’s_ (1915, _J. G. P._ xiv. 568). Little is added to the papers on _Plays Acted by the Children of Paul’s and Music in St. Paul’s Cathedral_ in W. S. Simpson, _Gleanings from Old St. Paul’s_ (1889), 101, 155, by J. S. Bumpus, _The Organists and Composers of St. Paul’s Cathedral_ (1891), and W. M. Sinclair, _Memorials of St. Paul’s Cathedral_ (1909).]

Mr. Leach has succeeded in tracing the grammar school, as part of the establishment of St. Paul’s Cathedral, to the beginning of the twelfth century. It was then located in the south-east corner of the churchyard, near the bell-tower, and here it remained to 1512, when it was rebuilt, endowed, and reorganized on humanist lines by Dean Colet, and thereafter to 1876, when it was transferred to Horsham in Sussex. Originally the master was one of the canons; but by the beginning of the thirteenth century this officer had taken on the name of chancellor, and the general supervision of the actual schoolmaster, a vicar choral, was only one of his functions. Distinct from the grammar school was the choir school, for which the responsible dignitary was not the chancellor, but the precentor, in whose hands the appointment of a master of the song school rested.[8] There was, however, a third branch of the cathedral organization also concerned with the training of boys. The almonry or hospital, maintained by the chapter for the relief of the poor, seems to have been established at the end of the twelfth century, and statutes of about the same date make it the duty of a canon residentiary to assist in the maintenance of its _pueri elemosinarii_, and prescribe the special services to be rendered them at their great annual ceremony of the Boy Bishop on Innocents’ Day.[9] In the thirteenth century the supervision of these boys was in the hands of another subordinate official, appointed by the chapter and known as the almoner. The number of the boys was then eight; it was afterwards increased, apparently in 1358, to ten.[10] The almoner is required to provide for their literary and moral education, and their liturgical duties are defined as consisting of standing in pairs at the corners of the choir and carrying candles.[11] A later version of the statutes provides for their musical education, and it is clear that these _pueri elemosinarii_ were in fact identical with or formed the nucleus of the boys of the song school.[12] During the sixteenth century the posts of almoner and master of the song school, although technically distinct, were in practice held together, and the holder was ordinarily a member of the supplementary cathedral establishment known as the College of Minor Canons.[13] To this college had been appropriated the parish church of St. Gregory, on the south side of St. Paul’s, just west of the Chapter or Convocation House, and here the song school was already housed by the twelfth century.[14] The college had also a common hall on the north of the cathedral, near the Pardon churchyard; and hard by was the almonry in Paternoster Row.[15] The statutes left the almoner the option of either giving the boys their literary education himself, or sending them elsewhere. It naturally proved convenient to send them to the grammar school, and the almoners claimed that they had a right to admission without fees.[16] On the other side we find the grammar school boys directed by Colet to attend the Boy Bishop ceremony and make their offerings.[17] Evidently there was much give and take between song school and grammar school.

As early as 1378 the scholars of Paul’s are said to have prepared a play of the History of the Old Testament for public representation at Christmas.[18] Whether they took a share in the other miracles recorded in mediaeval London, it is impossible to say. A century and a half later the boys of the grammar school, during the mastership of John Ritwise, are found contributing interludes, in the humanist fashion, to the entertainment of the Court. On 10 November 1527 they gave an anti-Lutheran play in Latin and French before the King and the ambassadors of Francis I, and in the following year the _Phormio_ before Wolsey, who also saw them, if Anthony Wood can be trusted, in a _Dido_ written by Ritwise himself.[19] There is no evidence that Ritwise’s successors followed his example by bringing their pupils to Court; and the next performances by Paul’s boys, which can be definitely traced, began a quarter of a century later, and were under the control of Sebastian Westcott, master of the song school, and were therefore presumably given by boys of that school. Westcott in 1545 was a Yeoman of the Chamber at Court.[20] He was ‘scolemaister of Powles’ by New Year’s Day 1557, when he presented a manuscript book of ditties to Queen Mary.[21] Five years earlier, he had brought children to Hatfield, to give a play before the Princess Elizabeth; and the chances are that these were the Paul’s boys.[22] With him came one Heywood, who may fairly be identified with John Heywood the dramatist; and this enables us, more conjecturally, to reduce a little further the gap in the dramatic history of the Paul’s choir, for some years before, in March 1538, Heywood had already received a reward for playing an interlude with ‘his children’ before the Lady Mary.[23] There is nothing beyond this phrase to suggest that Heywood had a company of his own, and it is not probable that he was ever himself master of the choir school.[24] But he may very well have supplied them with plays, both in Westcott’s time and also in that of his predecessor John Redford. Several of Heywood’s verses are preserved in a manuscript, which also contains Redford’s _Wyt and Science_ and fragments of other interludes, not improbably intended for performance by the boys under his charge.[25] A play ‘of childerne sett owte by Mr. Haywood’ at Court during the spring of 1553 may also belong to the Paul’s boys.[26] Certain performances ascribed to them at Hatfield, during the Princess Elizabeth’s residence there in her sister’s reign, have of late fallen under suspicion of being apocryphal.[27]

From the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign Westcott’s theatrical enterprise stands out clearly enough. On 7 August 1559 the Queen was entertained by the Earl of Arundel at Nonsuch with ‘a play of the chylderyn of Powlles and ther Master Se[bastian], Master Phelypes, and Master Haywod’.[28] If ‘Master Phelypes’ was the John Philip or Phillips who wrote _Patient Grissell_ (_c._ 1566), this play may also belong to the Paul’s repertory. Heywood could not adapt himself again to a Protestant England, and soon left the country. Sebastian Westcott was more fortunate. In 1560 he was appointed as Head of the College of Minor Canons or Sub-dean.[29] Shortly afterwards, being unable to accept the religious settlement, he was sentenced to deprivation of his offices, which included that of organist, but escaped through the personal influence of Elizabeth, in spite of some searchings of the heart of Bishop Grindal as to his suitability to be an instructor of youth.[30] In fact he succeeded in remaining songmaster of Paul’s for the next twenty-three years, and during that period brought his boys to Court no less than twenty-seven times, furnishing a far larger share of the royal Christmas entertainment, especially during the first decade of the reign, than any other single company. The chronicle of his plays must now be given. There was one at each of the Christmases of 1560–1 and 1561–2, one between 6 January and 9 March 1562, and one at the Christmas of 1562–3.[31] During the next winter the plague stopped London plays. At the Christmas of 1564–5 there were two by the Paul’s boys, of which the second fell on 2 January, and at that of 1565–6 three, two at Court and one at the Lady Cecilia’s lodging in the Savoy. There were two again at each of the Christmases of 1566–7 and 1567–8, and one on 1 January 1569. During the winter of 1569–70 the company was, exceptionally, absent from Court. They reappeared on 28 December 1570, and again at Shrovetide (25–7 February) 1571. On 28 December 1571 they gave the ‘tragedy’ of _Iphigenia_, which Professor Wallace identifies with the comedy called _The Bugbears_, but which might, for the matter of that, be Lady Lumley’s translation from the Greek of Euripides. At the Christmas of 1572–3 they played before 7 January. On 27 December 1573 they gave _Alcmaeon_. They played on 2 February 1575, and a misfortune which befell them in the same year is recorded in a letter of 3 December from the Privy Council, which sets out that ‘one of Sebastianes boyes, being one of his principall plaiers, is lately stolen and conveyed from him’, and instructs no less personages than the Master of the Rolls and Dr. Wilson, one of the Masters of Requests, to examine the persons whom he suspected and proceed according to law with them.[32] Five days later the Court of Aldermen drew up a protest against Westcott’s continued Romish tendencies.[33] The next Court performance by the boys was on 6 January 1576. On 1 January 1577 they gave _Error_, and on 19 February _Titus and Gisippus_. They played on 29 December 1577, and one wonders whether it was anything amiss with that performance which led to an entry in the Acts of the Privy Council for the same day that ‘Sebastian was committid to the Marshalsea’.[34] Whether this was so or not, the Paul’s boys were included in the list of companies authorized to practise publicly in the City for the following Christmas. On 1 January 1579 they gave _The Marriage of Mind and Measure_, on 3 January 1580 _Scipio Africanus_, and on 6 January 1581 _Pompey_. A play on 26 December 1581 is anonymous, but may possibly be the _Cupid and Psyche_ mentioned as ‘plaid at Paules’ in Gosson’s _Playes Confuted_ of 1582.[35]

In the course of 1582 Sebastian Westcott died, and this event led to an important development in the dramatic activities of the boys.[36] Hitherto their performances, when not at Court, had been in their own quarters ‘at Paules’, although the notice of 1578, as well as Gosson’s reference, suggests that the public were not altogether excluded from their rehearsals. Probably they used their singing school, which may have been still, as in the twelfth century, the church of St. Gregory itself.[37] This privacy, even if something of a convention, had perhaps enabled them to utilize the services of the grammar school when they had occasion to make a display of erudition.[38] After Westcott’s death, however, they appear to have followed the example of the Chapel, who had already in 1576 taken a step in the direction of professionalism, by transferring their performances to Farrant’s newly opened theatre at the Blackfriars. Here, if the rather difficult evidence can be trusted, the Paul’s boys appear to have joined them, and to have formed part of a composite company, to which Lord Oxford’s boys also contributed, and which produced the _Campaspe_ and _Sapho and Phao_ of the earl’s follower John Lyly. Lyly took these plays to Court on 1 January and 3 March 1584, and Henry Evans, who was also associated with the enterprise, took a play called _Agamemnon and Ulysses_ on 27 December. On all three occasions the official patron of the company was the Earl of Oxford. In _Agamemnon and Ulysses_ it must be doubtful whether the Paul’s boys had any share, for in the spring of 1584 the Blackfriars theatre ceased to be available, and the combination probably broke up.[39] This, however, was far from being the end of Lyly’s connexion with the boys, for the title-pages of no less than five of his later plays acknowledge them as the presenters. They had, indeed, a four years’ period of renewed activity at Court, under the mastership of Thomas Giles, who, being already almoner, became Master of the Song School on 22 May 1584, and in the following year received a royal commission to ‘take up’ boys for the choir, analogous to that ordinarily granted to masters of the Chapel Children.[40] There is no specific mention of plays in the document, but its whole basis is in the service which the boys may be called upon to do the Queen in music and singing. Under Giles the company appeared at Court nine times during four winter seasons; on 26 February 1587, on 1 January and 2 February 1588, on 27 December 1588, 1 January and 12 January 1589, and on 28 December 1589, 1 January and 6 January 1590. The title-pages of Lyly’s _Endymion_, _Galathea_, and _Midas_ assign the representation of these plays at Court to a 2 February, a 1 January, and a 6 January respectively. _Endymion_ must therefore belong to 1588 and _Midas_ to 1590; for _Galathea_ the most probable of the three years is 1588. _Mother Bombie_ and _Love’s Metamorphosis_ can be less precisely dated, but doubtless belong to the period 1587–90. At some time or other, and probably before 1590, the Paul’s boys performed a play of _Meleager_, of which an abstract only, without author’s name, is preserved. It is not, I think, to be supposed that Lyly, although he happened to be a grandson of the first High Master of Colet’s school, had any official connexion either with that establishment or with the choir school. It is true that Gabriel Harvey says of him in 1589, ‘He hath not played the Vicemaster of Poules and the Foolemaster of the Theatre for naughtes’.[41] But this is merely Harvey’s jesting on the old dramatic sense of the term ‘vice’, and the probabilities are that Lyly’s relation as dramatist to Giles as responsible manager of the company was much that which had formerly existed between John Heywood and Sebastian Westcott. Nevertheless, it was this connexion which ultimately brought the Paul’s plays to a standstill. Lyly was one of the literary men employed about 1589 to answer the Martin Marprelate pamphleteers in their own vein, and to this end he availed himself of the Paul’s stage, apparently with the result that, when it suited the government to disavow its instruments, that stage was incontinently suppressed.[42] The reason may be conjectural, but the fact is undoubted. The Paul’s boys disappear from the Court records after 1590. In 1591 the printer of _Endymion_ writes in his preface that ‘Since the Plaies in Paules were dissolved, there are certaine Commedies come to my handes by chaunce’, and the prolongation of this dissolution is witnessed to in 1596 by Thomas Nashe, who in his chaff of Gabriel Harvey’s anticipated practice in the Arches says, ‘Then we neede neuer wish the Playes at Powles vp againe, but if we were wearie with walking, and loth to goe too farre to seeke sport, into the Arches we might step, and heare him plead; which would bee a merrier Comedie than euer was old Mother _Bomby_’.[43]

A last theatrical period opened for the boys with the appointment about 1600 of a new master. This was one Edward Pearce or Piers, who had become a Gentleman of the Chapel on 16 March 1589, and by 15 August 1600, when his successor was sworn in, had ‘yealded up his place for the Mastership of the children of Poules’.[44] I am tempted to believe that in reviving the plays Pearce had the encouragement of Richard Mulcaster, who had become High Master of the grammar school in 1596, and during his earlier mastership of Merchant Taylors had on several occasions brought his boys to Court. Pearce is first found in the Treasurer of the Chamber’s Accounts as payee for a performance on 1 January 1601, but several of the extant plays produced during this section of the company’s career are of earlier date, and one of them, Marston’s _I Antonio and Mellida_, can hardly be later than 1599. A stage direction of this play apparently records the names of two of the performers as Cole and Norwood.[45] The Paul’s boys, therefore, were ‘up again’ before their rivals of the Chapel, who cannot be shown to have begun in the Blackfriars under Henry Evans until 1600.[46] This being so, they were probably also responsible for Marston’s revision in 1599 of _Histriomastix,_ which by giving offence to Ben Jonson, led him to satire Marston’s style in _Every Man Out of His Humour_, and so introduced the ‘war of the theatres’.[47] Before the end of 1600 they had probably added to their repertory Chapman’s _Bussy d’Ambois_, and certainly _The Maid’s Metamorphosis_, _The Wisdom of Dr. Dodipoll_, and _Jack Drum’s Entertainment_, all three of which were entered on the Stationers’ Register, and the first two printed, during that year. _Jack Drum’s Entertainment_ followed in 1601 and contains the following interesting passage of autobiography:[48]

_Sir Edward Fortune._ I saw the Children of _Powles_ last night, And troth they pleas’d me prettie, prettie well: The Apes in time will doe it handsomely.

_Planet._ I faith, I like the audience that frequenteth there With much applause: A man shall not be chokte With the stench of Garlick; nor be pasted To the barmie Iacket of a Beer-brewer.

_Brabant Junior._ ’Tis a good, gentle audience, and I hope the boies Will come one day into the Court of requests.

_Brabant Senior._ I, and they had good Plaies. But they produce Such mustie fopperies of antiquitie, And do not sute the humorous ages backs, With clothes in fashion.

The criticism, being a self-criticism, must not be taken too seriously. So far as published plays are concerned, _Histriomastix_ is the only one to which it applies. In Marston, Chapman, and Middleton the company had enlisted vigorous young playwrights, who were probably not sorry to be free from the yoke of the professional actors, and appear to have followed the exceptional policy of printing some at least of their new plays as soon as they were produced.

On 11 March 1601, two months after the boys made their first bow at Court, the Lord Mayor was ordered by the Privy Council to suppress plays ‘at Powles’ during Lent. It is to be inferred that they were, as of old, acting in their singing school. Confirmation is provided by a curious note appended by William Percy to his manuscript volume of plays, presumably in sending them to be considered with a view to production by the boys. The plays bear dates in 1601–3, but it can hardly be taken for granted that they were in fact produced by the Paul’s or any other company. The note runs:

A note to the Master of Children of Powles.

Memorandum, that if any of the fine and formost of these Pastorals and Comoedyes conteyned in this volume shall but overeach in length (the children not to begin before foure, after prayers, and the gates of Powles shutting at six) the tyme of supper, that then in tyme and place convenient, you do let passe some of the songs, and make the consort the shorter; for I suppose these plaies be somewhat too long for that place. Howsoever, on your own experience, and at your best direction, be it. Farewell to you all.[49]

Both parts of Marston’s _Antonio and Mellida_ were entered on the Stationers’ Register in the autumn of 1601 and printed in 1602. The second part may have been on the stage during 1601, and in the same year the boys probably produced John Marston’s _What You Will_, and certainly played ‘privately’, as the Chamberlain’s men did ‘publicly’, _Satiromastix_ in which Dekker, with a hand from Marston, brought his swashing blow against the redoubtable Jonson. This also was registered in 1601 and printed in 1602. There is no sign of the boys at Court in the winter of 1601–2. In the course of 1602 their play of _Blurt Master Constable_, by Middleton, was registered and printed. They were at Court on 1 January 1603, for the last time before Elizabeth, and on 20 February 1604, for the first time before James. Either the choir school or the grammar school boys took part in the pageant speeches at the coronation triumph on 15 March 1604.[50] To the year 1604 probably belongs _Westward Ho!_ which introduced to the company, in collaboration with Dekker, a new writer, John Webster. _Northward Ho!_ by the same authors, followed in 1605. The company was not at Court for the winter of 1604–5, but during that of 1605–6 they gave two plays before the Princes Henry and Charles. For these the payee was not Pearce, but Edward Kirkham, who is described in the Treasurer of the Chamber’s account as ‘one of the Mr^{es} of the Childeren of Pawles’. Kirkham, who was Yeoman of the Revels, had until recently been a manager of the Children of the Revels at the Blackfriars. It may have been the disgrace brought upon these by _Eastward Ho!_ in the course of 1605 that led him to transfer his activities elsewhere.[51] With him he seems to have brought Marston’s _The Fawn_, probably written in 1604 and ascribed in the first of the two editions of 1606 to the Queen’s Revels alone, in the second to them ‘and since at Poules’. The charms of partnership with Kirkham were not, however, sufficient to induce Pearce to continue his enterprise. The last traceable appearance of the Paul’s boys was on 30 July 1606, when they gave _The Abuses_ before James and King Christian of Denmark.[52] Probably the plays were discontinued not long afterwards. This would account for the large number of play-books belonging to the company which reached the hands of the publishers in 1607 and 1608. The earlier policy of giving plays to the press immediately after production does not seem to have endured beyond 1602. Those now printed, in addition to _Bussy D’Ambois_, _What You Will_, _Westward Ho!_ and _Northward Ho!_ already mentioned, included Middleton’s _Michaelmas Term_, _The Phoenix_, _A Mad World, my Masters_, and _A Trick to Catch the Old One_, together with _The Puritan_, very likely also by Middleton, and _The Woman Hater_, the first work of Francis Beaumont. _The Puritan_ can be dated, from a chronological allusion, in 1606. The title-pages of _The Woman Hater_, _A Mad World, my Masters_, and _A Trick to Catch the Old One_ specify them to have been ‘lately’ acted. It is apparent from the second quarto of _A Trick to Catch the Old One_ that the Children of the Blackfriars took it over and presented it at Court on 1 January 1609. This was probably part of a bargain as to which we have another record. Pearce may have had at the back of his mind a notion of reopening his theatre some day. But it is given in evidence in the lawsuit of _Keysar v. Burbadge_ in 1610 that, while it was still closed, he was approached on behalf of the other ‘private’ houses in London, those of the Blackfriars and the Whitefriars, and offered a ‘dead rent’ of £20 a year, ‘that there might be a cessation of playeinge and playes to be acted in the said howse neere S^t. Paules Church’.[53] This must have been in the winter of 1608–9, just as the Revels company was migrating from the Blackfriars to the Whitefriars. The agent was Philip Rosseter who, with Robert Keysar, was financially interested in the Revels company. When the King’s men began to occupy the Blackfriars in the autumn of 1609, they took on responsibility for half the dead rent, but whether the arrangement survived the lawsuit of 1610 is unknown.

ii. THE CHILDREN OF THE CHAPEL AND OF THE QUEEN’S REVELS

The Children of the Chapel (1501–1603). _Masters of the Children_: William Newark (1493–1509), William Cornish (1509–23), William Crane (1523–45), Richard Bower (1545–61), Richard Edwardes (1561–6), William Hunnis (1566–97), Richard Farrant (acting, 1577–80), Nathaniel Giles (1597–1634).

The Children of the Queen’s Revels (1603–5).

The Children of the Revels (1605–6). _Masters_: Henry Evans, Edward Kirkham, and others.

The Children of the Blackfriars (1606–9).

The Children of the Whitefriars (1609–10). _Masters_: Robert Keysar and others.

The Children of the Queen’s Revels (1610–16). _Masters_: Philip Rosseter and others.

[_Bibliographical Note._--Official records of the Chapel are to be found in E. F. Rimbault, _The Old Cheque Book of the Chapel Royal_ (1872, _Camden Soc._). Most of the material for the sixteenth-century part of the present section was collected before the publication of C. W. Wallace, _The Evolution of the English Drama up to Shakespeare_ (1912, cited as Wallace, i), which has, however, been valuable for purposes of revision. J. M. Manly, _The Children of the Chapel Royal and their Masters_ (1910, _C. H._ vi. 279), W. H. Flood, _Queen Mary’s Chapel Royal_ (_E. H. R._ xxxiii. 83), H. M. Hildebrand, _The Early History of the Chapel Royal_ (1920, _M. P._ xviii. 233), are useful contributions. The chief published sources for the seventeenth century are three lawsuits discovered by J. Greenstreet and printed in full by F. G. Fleay, _A Chronicle History of the London Stage_ (1890), 127, 210, 223. These are (a) _Clifton v. Robinson and Others_ (Star Chamber, 1601), (b) _Evans v. Kirkham_ (Chancery, May–June 1612), cited as _E. v. K._, with Fleay’s pages, and (c) _Kirkham v. Painton and Others_ (Chancery, July–Nov. 1612), cited as _K. v. P._ Not much beyond dubious hypothesis is added by C. W. Wallace, _The Children of the Chapel at Blackfriars_ (1908, cited as Wallace, ii). But Professor Wallace published an additional suit of importance, (d) _Keysar v. Burbadge and Others_ (Court of Requests, Feb.–June 1610), in _Nebraska University Studies_ (1910), x. 336, cited as _K. v. B._ This is apparently one of twelve suits other than Greenstreet’s, which he claims (ii. 36) to have found, with other material, which may alter the story. In the meantime, I see no reason to depart from the main outlines sketched in my article on _Court Performances under James the First_ (1909, _M. L. R._ iv. 153).]

The Chapel was an ancient part of the establishment of the Household, traceable far back into the twelfth century.[54] Up to the end of the fourteenth, we hear only of chaplains and clerks. These were respectively priests and laymen, and the principal chaplain came to bear the title of Dean.[55] Children of the Chapel first appear under Henry IV, who appointed a chaplain to act as Master of Grammar for them in 1401.[56] In 1420 comes the first of a series of royal commissions authorizing the impressment of boys for the Chapel service, and in 1444 the first appointment of a Master of the Children, John Plummer, by patent.[57] It is probably to the known tastes of Henry VI that the high level of musical accomplishment, which had been reached by the singers of the Chapel during the next reign was due.[58] The status and duties of the Chapel are set out with full detail in the _Liber Niger_ about 1478, at which date the establishment consisted of a Dean, six Chaplains, twenty Clerks, two Yeomen or Epistolers, and eight Children. These were instructed by a Master of Song, chosen by the Dean from ‘the seyd felyshipp of Chapell’, and a Master of Grammar, whose services were also available for the royal Henchmen.[59] There is no further record of the Master of Grammar; but with this exception the establishment continued to exist on much the same footing, apart from some increase of numbers, up to the seventeenth century.[60] Although subject to some general supervision from the Lord Chamberlain and to that extent part of the Chamber, it was largely a self-contained organization under its own Dean. Elizabeth, however, left the post of Dean vacant, and the responsibility of the Lord Chamberlain then became more direct.[61] It probably did not follow, at any rate in its full numbers, a progress, but moved with the Court to the larger ‘standing houses’, except possibly to Windsor where there was a separate musical establishment in St. George’s Chapel.[62] It does not seem, at any rate in Tudor times, to have had any relation to the collegiate chapel of St. Stephen in the old palace of Westminster.[63] The number of Children varied between eight and ten up to 1526, when it was finally fixed by Henry VIII at twelve.[64] The chaplains and clerks were collectively known in the sixteenth century as the Gentlemen of the Chapel, and the most important of them, next to one who acted as subdean, was the Master of the Children, who trained them in music and, as time went on, also formed them into a dramatic company. The Master generally held office under a patent during pleasure, and was entitled in addition to his fee of 7½_d._ a day or £91 8_s._ 1½_d._ a year as Gentleman and his share in the general ‘rewards’ of the Chapel, to a special Exchequer annuity of 40 marks (£26 13_s._ 4_d._), raised in 1526 to £40, ‘pro exhibicione puerorum’, which is further defined in 1510 as ‘pro exhibicione vesturarum et lectorum’ and in 1523 as ‘pro sustencione et diettes’.[65] To this, moreover, several other payments came to be added in the course of Henry VIII’s reign. Originally the Chapel dined and supped in the royal hall; but this proved inconvenient, and a money allowance from the Cofferer of the Household was substituted, which was fixed in 1544 at 1_s._ a day for each Gentleman and 2_s._ a week for each Child.[66] The allowance for the Children was afterwards raised to 6_d._ a day.[67] Long before this, however, the Masters had succeeded in obtaining an exceptional allowance of 8_d._ a week for the breakfast of each Child, which was reckoned as making £16 a year and paid them in monthly instalments of 26_s._ 8_d._ by the Treasurer of the Chamber. The costs of the Masters in their journeys for the impressment of Children were also recouped by the Treasurer of the Chamber. And from him they also received rewards of 20_s._ when _Audivi vocem_ was sung on All Saints’ Day, £6 13_s._ 4_d._ for the Children’s feast of St. Nicholas on 6 December, and 40_s._ when _Gloria in Excelsis_ was sung on Christmas and St. John’s Days. These were, of course, over and above any special rewards received for dramatic performances.[68] In the provision of _vesturae_ the Masters were helped by the issue from the Great Wardrobe of black and tawny camlet gowns, yellow satin coats, and Milan bonnets, which presumably constituted the festal and penitential arrays of the choir.[69] The boys themselves do not appear to have received any wages but, when their voices had broken, the King made provision for them at the University or otherwise, and until this could be done, the Treasurer of the Chamber sometimes paid allowances to the Master or some other Gentleman for their maintenance and instruction.[70]

The earlier Masters were John Plummer (1444–55), Henry Abyngdon (1455–78), Gilbert Banaster (1478–83?), probably John Melyonek (1483–5), Lawrence Squier (1486–93), and William Newark (1493–1509).[71] Some of these have left a musical or literary reputation, and Banaster is said to have written an interlude in 1482.[72] But until the end of this period only occasional traces of dramatic performances by the Chapel can be discerned. An alleged play by the Gentlemen at the Christmas of 1485 cannot be verified.[73] The first recorded performance, therefore, is one of the disguisings at the wedding of Prince Arthur and Katharine of Spain in 1501, in which two of the children were concealed in mermaids ‘singing right sweetly and with quaint hermony’.[74]

Towards the end of Henry VII’s reign begins a short series of plays given at the rate of one or two a year by the Gentlemen, which lasted through 1506–12.[75] Thereafter there is no other play by the Gentlemen as such upon record until the Christmas of 1553, when they performed a morality of which the principal character was Genus Humanum.[76] This had been originally planned for the coronation on the previous 1 October, and as a warrant then issued states that a coronation play had customarily been given ‘by the gentlemen of the chappell of our progenitoures’, it may perhaps be inferred that Edward VI’s coronation play of ‘the story of Orpheus’ on 22 February 1547 was also by the Gentlemen.[77] In the meantime the regular series of Chapel plays at Court had been broken after 1512, and when it was taken up again in 1517 it was not by the Gentlemen, but by the Children.[78] This is, of course, characteristic of the Renaissance.[79] But an immediate cause is probably to be found in the personality of William Cornish, a talented and energetic Master of the Children, who succeeded William Newark in the autumn of 1509, and held office until his death in 1523.[80] Cornish appears to have come of a musical family.[81] He took

## part in a play given by the Gentlemen of the Chapel shortly before

his appointment as Master. And although it was some years before he organized the Children into a definite company, he was the ruling spirit and chief organizer of the elaborate disguisings which glorified the youthful court of Henry VIII from the Shrovetide of 1511 to the visit of the Emperor Charles V in 1522, and hold an important place in the story, elsewhere dealt with, of the Court mask.[82] In these revels both the Gentlemen and the Children of the Chapel, as well as the King and his lords and ladies took a part, and they were often designed so as to frame an interlude, which would call for the services of skilled performers.[83]

In view of Cornish’s importance in the history of the stage at Court, it is matter for regret that none of his dramatic writing has been preserved, for it is impossible to attach any value to the fantastic attributions of Professor Wallace, who credits him not only with the anonymous _Calisto and Meliboea_, _Of Gentleness and Nobility_, _The Pardoner and the Frere_, and _Johan Johan_, but also with _The Four Elements_ and _The Four P. P._, for the authorship of which by John Rastell and John Heywood respectively there is good contemporary evidence.[84] Cornish was succeeded as Master of the Children by William Crane (1523–45) and Crane by Richard Bower, whose patent was successively renewed by Edward VI, presumably by Mary, and finally by Elizabeth on 30 April 1559.[85] His service was almost certainly continuous, and it is therefore rather puzzling to be told that a commission to take up singing children for the Chapel, similar to that of John Melyonek in 1484, was issued in February 1550 to Philip van Wilder, a Gentleman of the Privy Chamber.[86] Neither the full text nor a reference to the source for the warrant is given, and I suspect the explanation to be that it was not for the Chapel at all. Philip van Wilder was a lutenist, one of a family of musicians of whom others were in the royal service, and he may not improbably have had a commission to recruit a body of young minstrels with whom other notices suggest that he may have been connected.[87] Bower himself had a commission for the Chapel on 6 June 1552.[88] Although the Children continued to give performances at Court both under Crane and under Bower, it may be doubted whether they were quite so prominent as they had been in Cornish’s time. Certainly they had to contend with the competition of the Paul’s boys. Crane himself is not known to have been a dramatist. It has been suggested that Bower’s authorship is indicated by the initials R. B. on the title-page of _Apius and Virginia_ (1575), but, in view of the date of the publication, this must be regarded as very doubtful. The chief Marian producer of plays was Nicholas Udall, but it remains uncertain whether he wrote for the Chapel Children. Professor Wallace has no justification whatever for his confident assertions that John Heywood ‘not only could but did’ write plays for the Chapel, that he ‘had grown up in the Chapel under Cornish’, and that ‘as dramatist and Court-entertainer’ he ‘was naturally associated with the performances of the Chapel’.[89] There is no proof whatever that Heywood began as a Chapel boy, and although he certainly wrote plays for boys, they are nowhere said or implied to have been of the Chapel company. There are scraps of evidence which indicate that they may have been the Paul’s boys.[90] It is also conceivable that they may have been Philip van Wilder’s young minstrels.

When Elizabeth came to the throne, then, the Chapel had already a considerable dramatic tradition behind it. But for a decade its share in the Court revels remains somewhat obscure. The Treasurer of the Chamber records no payments for performances to its Masters before 1568.[91] A note in a Revels inventory of 1560 of the employment of some white sarcenet ‘in ffurnishinge of a pley by the children of the Chapple’ may apparently refer to any year from 1555 to 1560, and it is therefore hazardous to identify the Chapel with the anonymous players of the interlude of 31 December 1559 which contained ‘suche matter that they wher commondyd to leyff off’.[92] Bower may of course have retained Catholic sympathies, but he died on 26 July 1561, and it is difficult to suppose that the high dramatic reputation of his successor Richard Edwardes was not based upon a greater number of Court productions than actually stand to his name.[93] Edwardes had been a Gentleman of the Chapel from 1556 or earlier. His patent as Master is dated on 27 October 1561, and on the following 10 December he received a commission the terms of which served as a model for those of the next two Masterships:[94]

Memorandum quod x^o die Januarii anno infra scripto istud breve deliberatum fuit domino custodi magni Sigilli apud Westmonasterium exequendum.

Elizabeth by the grace of God Quene of England Fraunce & Ireland defender of the faythe &c. To our right welbeloved & faythfull counsaylour Sir Nicholas Bacon knight Keper of our great Seale of Englande, commaundinge you that vnder our great Seale aforsayd ye cause to be made our lettres patentes in forme followinge. To all mayours sherifs bayliefes constables & all other our officers gretinge. For that it is mete that our chappell royall should be furnysshed with well singing children from tyme to tyme we have & by these presentes do authorise our welbeloved servaunt Richard Edwardes master of our children of our sayd chappell or his deputie beinge by his bill subscribed & sealed so authorised, & havinge this our presente comyssion with hym, to take as manye well singinge children as he or his sufficient deputie shall thinke mete in all chathedrall & collegiate churches as well within libertie[s] as without within this our realme of England whatsoever they be, And also at tymes necessarie, horses, boates, barges, cartes, & carres, as he for the conveyaunce of the sayd children from any place to our sayd chappell royall [shall thinke mete] with all maner of necessaries apperteynyng to the sayd children as well by lande as water at our prices ordynarye to be redely payed when they for our service shall remove to any place or places, Provided also that if our sayd servaunt or his deputie or deputies bearers hereof in his name cannot forthwith remove the chyld or children when he by vertue of this our commyssyon hathe taken hym or them that then the sayd child or children shall remayne there vntill suche tyme as our sayd servaunt Rychard Edwardes shall send for him or them. Wherfore we will & commaunde you & everie of you to whom this our comyssion shall come to be helpinge aydinge & assistinge to the vttermost of your powers as ye will answer at your vttermoste perylles. In wytnes wherof &c. Geven vnder our privie seale at our Manor of St James the fourth daye of Decembre in the fourth yere of our Raigne.

R. Jones.

At Christmas 1564–5 the boys appeared at Court in a tragedy by Edwardes, which may have been his extant _Damon and Pythias_.[95] On 2 February 1565 and 2 February 1566 they gave performances before the lawyers at the Candlemas feasts of Lincoln’s Inn.[96] There is nothing to show that the Chapel had any concern with the successful play of _Palamon and Arcite_, written and produced by Edwardes for Elizabeth’s visit to Oxford in September 1566. Edwardes died on the following 31 October, and on 15 November William Hunnis was appointed Master of the Children.[97] His formal patent of appointment is dated 22 April 1567, and the bill for his commission, which only differs from that of Edwardes in minor points of detail, on 18 April.[98] Hunnis had been a Gentleman at least since about 1553, with an interval of disgrace under Mary, owing to his participation in Protestant plots. He was certainly himself a dramatist, but none of his plays are known to be extant, and a contemporary eulogy speaks of his ‘enterludes’ as if they dated from an earlier period than that of his Mastership. It is, however, natural to suppose that he may have had a hand in some at least of the pieces which his Children produced at Court. The first of these was a tragedy at Shrovetide 1568. In the following year is said to have been published a pamphlet entitled _The Children of the Chapel Stript and Whipt_, which apparently originated in some gross offence given by the dramatic activities of the Chapel to the growing Puritan sentiment. ‘Plaies’, said the writer, ‘will never be supprest, while her maiesties unfledged minions flaunt it in silkes and sattens. They had as well be at their Popish service, in the deuils garments.’ And again, ‘Even in her maiesties chappel do these pretty upstart youthes profane the Lordes Day by the lascivious writhing of their tender limbs, and gorgeous decking of their apparell, in feigning bawdie fables gathered from the idolatrous heathen poets’. I should feel more easy in drawing inferences from this, were the book extant.[99] But it seems to indicate either that the controversialist of 1569 was less careful than his successors to avoid attacks upon Elizabeth’s private ‘solace’, or that the idea had already occurred to the Master of turning his rehearsals of Court plays to profit by giving open performances in the Chapel. That the Court performances themselves took place in the Chapel is possible, but not very likely; the usual places for them seem to have been the Hall or the Great Chamber.[100] But no doubt they sometimes fell on a Sunday.

The boys played at Court on 6 January 1570 and during Shrovetide 1571. On 6 January 1572 they gave _Narcissus_, and on 13 February 1575 a play with a hunt in it.[101] On all these occasions Hunnis was payee. An obvious error of the clerk of the Privy Council in entering him as ‘John’ Hunnis in connexion with the issue of a warrant for the payment of 1572 led Chalmers to infer the existence of two Masters of the name of Hunnis.[102] During the progress of 1575 Hunnis contributed shows to the ‘Princely Pleasures’ of Kenilworth, and very likely utilized the services of the boys in these.[103] And herewith his active conduct of the Chapel performances appears to have been suspended for some years. A play of _Mutius Scaevola_, given jointly at Court by the Children of the Chapel and the Children of Windsor on 6 January 1577, is the first of a series for which the place of Hunnis as payee is taken by Richard Farrant. To this series belong unnamed plays on 27 December 1577 and 27 December 1578, _Loyalty and Beauty_ on 2 March 1579, and _Alucius_ on 27 December 1579.[104] Farrant, who is known as a musician, had been a Gentleman of the Chapel in 1553, and had left on 24 April 1564, doubtless to take up the post of Master of the Children of Windsor, in which capacity he annually presented a play at Court from 1566–7 to 1575–6.[105] But evidently the two offices were not regarded as incompatible, for on 5 November 1570, while still holding his Mastership, he was again sworn in as Gentleman of the Chapel ‘from Winsore’.[106] A recent discovery by M. Feuillerat enables us to see that his taking over of the Chapel Children from Hunnis in 1576 was part of a somewhat considerable theatrical enterprise. Stimulated perhaps by the example of Burbadge’s new-built Theatre, he took a lease of some of the old Priory buildings in the Blackfriars; and here, either for the first time, or in continuation of a similar use of the Chapel itself, which had provoked criticism, the Children appeared under his direction in performances open to the public.[107] The ambiguous relation of the Blackfriars precinct to the jurisdiction of the City Corporation probably explains the inclusion of the Chapel in the list of companies whose exercises the Privy Council instructed the City to tolerate on 24 December 1578. It is, I think, pretty clear that, although Farrant is described as Master of the Chapel Children by the Treasurer of the Chamber from 1577 to 1580, and by Hunnis himself in his petition of 1583,[108] he was never technically Master, but merely acted as deputy to Hunnis, probably even to the extent of taking all the financial risks off his hands. Farrant was paid for a comedy at Lincoln’s Inn at Candlemas 1580 and is described in the entry as ‘one of the Queen’s chaplains’.[109] On 30 November 1580 he died and Hunnis then resumed his normal functions.[110] The Chapel played at Court on 5 February 1581, 31 December 1581, 27 February 1582, and 26 December 1582. One of these plays may have been Peele’s _Arraignment of Paris_; that of 26 December 1582 was _A Game of Cards_, possibly the piece which, according to Sir John Harington, was thought ‘somewhat too plaine’, and was championed at rehearsal by ‘a notable wise counseller’.[111] On the first three of these occasions the Treasurer merely entered a payment to the Master of the Children, without giving a name, but in the entry for the last play Hunnis is specified. It is known, moreover, that Hunnis, together with one John Newman, took a sub-lease of the Blackfriars from Farrant’s widow on 20 December 1581. They do not seem to have been very successful financially, for they were irregular in their rent, and neglected their repairs. It was perhaps trepidation at the competition likely to arise from the establishment of the Queen’s men in 1583, which led them to transfer their interest to one Henry Evans, a scrivener of London, from whom, when Sir William More took steps to protect himself against the breach of covenant involved in an alienation without his consent, it was handed on to the Earl of Oxford and ultimately to John Lyly.[112] In November 1583, therefore, Hunnis found himself much dissatisfied with his financial position, and drew up the following memorial, probably for submission to the Board of Green Cloth of the royal household:[113]

‘Maye it please your honores, William Hunnys, M^r of the Children of hir highnes Chappell, most humble beseecheth to consider of these fewe lynes. First, hir Maiestie alloweth for the dyett of xij children of hir sayd Chappell daylie vi^d a peece by the daye, and xl^{li} by the yeare for theyre aparrell and all other furneture.

‘Agayne there is no ffee allowed neyther for the m^r of the sayd children nor for his ussher, and yet neuertheless is he constrayned, over and besydes the ussher still to kepe bothe a man servant to attend upon them and lykewyse a woman seruant to wash and kepe them cleane.

‘Also there is no allowance for the lodginge of the sayd chilldren, such tyme as they attend vppon the Courte, but the m^r to his greate charge is dryuen to hyer chambers both for himself, his usher chilldren and servantes.

‘Also theare is no allowaunce for ryding jornies when occasion serueth the m^r to trauell or send into sundrie partes within this realme, to take vpp and bring such children as be thought meete to be trayned for the service of hir Maiestie.

‘Also there is no allowance ne other consideracion for those children whose voyces be chaunged, whoe onelye do depend vpon the charge of the sayd m^r vntill such tyme as he may preferr the same with cloathing and other furniture, vnto his no smalle charge.

‘And although it may be obiected that hir Maiesties allowaunce is no whitt less then hir Maiesties ffather of famous memorie therefore allowed: yet considering the pryces of thinges present to the tyme past and what annuities the m^r then hadd out of sundrie abbies within this realme, besydes sondrie giftes from the Kinge, and dyuers perticuler ffees besydes, for the better mayntenaunce of the sayd children and office: and besides also there hath ben withdrawne from the sayd chilldren synce hir Maiesties comming to the crowne xij^d by the daye which was allowed for theyr breakefastes as may apeare by the Treasorer of the Chamber his acompt for the tyme beinge, with other allowaunces incident to the office as appeareth by the auntyent acomptes in the sayd office which I heere omytt.

‘The burden heerof hath from tyme to tyme so hindred the M^{rs} of the Children viz. M^r Bower, M^r Edwardes, my sellf and M^r Farrant: that notwithstanding some good helpes otherwyse some of them dyed in so poore case, and so deepelie indebted that they haue not left scarcelye wherewith to burye them.

‘In tender consideracion whereof, might it please your honores that the sayde allowaunce of vj^d a daye apeece for the childrens dyet might be reserued in hir Maiesties coffers during the tyme of theyre attendaunce. And in liew thereof they to be allowed meate and drinke within this honorable householde for that I am not able vppon so small allowaunce eny longer to beare so heauie a burden. Or otherwyse to be consydred as shall seeme best vnto your honorable wysdomes.

‘[_Endorsed_] 1583 November. The humble peticion of the M^r of the Children of hir highnes Chappell [_and in another hand_] To have further allowances for the finding of the children for causes within mentioned.’

The actual request made by Hunnis seems a modest one. He seems to have thought that for his boys to have the run of their teeth at the tables of Whitehall would be a better bargain than the board-wages of 6_d._ a day. Doubtless he knew their appetites. I do not think that the Green Cloth met his views, for in the next reign the 6_d._ was still being paid and was raised to 10_d._ for the benefit of Nathaniel Giles.[114] Possibly Hunnis did get back the £16 a year for breakfasts, which seems to be the fee described by him as 1_s._ a day, although that in fact works out to £18 5_s._ a year, and the £9 13_s._ 4_d._ for largess, if that also had been withdrawn, since these are included in fee lists for 1593 and 1598.[115] The ‘perticuler ffees’ to which he refers are presumably the allowances occasionally paid by Henry for the maintenance of boys whose voices had changed. In any case Hunnis’s personal grievance must have been fully met by liberal grants of Crown lands which were made him in 1585.[116] It will be observed that he says nothing of any profits derived by him from the dramatic activities of the Children; whether in the form of rewards at Court or in that of admission fees to public performances. Plays were no part of the official functions of the Chapel, although it is consistent with the general policy of the reign towards the London stage to suppose that Elizabeth and her economical ministers were well enough content that the deficiencies of her Chapel maintenance should be eked out, and her Christmas ‘solace’ rendered possible, out of the profits of public exercise. So far, however, as the Chapel was concerned, this convenient arrangement was, for the time, nearly at an end. The facts with regard to the boy companies during 1584 are somewhat complicated. The Treasurer of the Chamber paid the Master of the Chapel Children, without specifying his name, for plays on 6 January and 2 February 1584. He also paid John Lyly for plays by the Earl of Oxford’s ‘servants’ on 1 January and 3 March 1584, and Henry Evans for a play by the Earl of Oxford’s ‘children’ on 27 December 1584. Were this all, one would naturally assume that Oxford had brought to Court the ‘lads’ who appeared under his name at Norwich in 1580, and that these formed a company, quite distinct from the Chapel, of which the Earl entrusted the management either jointly or successively to Lyly and Evans. Lyly, of course, is known to have been at one time in the Earl’s service.[117] One would then be left to speculate as to which company played at the Blackfriars during 1584 and where the other played. But the real puzzle begins when it is realized that in the same year 1584 two of Lyly’s plays, _Campaspe_ and _Sapho and Phao_, were for the first time printed, that these have prologues ‘at the Blackfriars’, that their title-pages indicate their performance at Court, not by Oxford’s company, but by the Chapel and the Paul’s boys, of which latter the Treasurer of the Chamber makes no mention, and that the title-pages of the two issues of _Campaspe_ further specify, in the one case Twelfth Night, and in the other, which is apparently corrected, New Year’s Day, as the precise date of performance, while that of _Sapho and Phao_ similarly specifies Shrove Tuesday. But New Year’s Day and Shrove Tuesday of 1584 are the days which the Treasurer of the Chamber assigns not to the Chapel, but to Oxford’s company; and even if you accept Professor Feuillerat’s rather far-fetched assumption that the days referred to in the title-pages were not necessarily those falling in the year of issue, you will not find a New Year’s Day, or for the matter of that a Twelfth Night, since the opening of the Blackfriars, which, if a play-day at all, is not occupied either by some Chapel or Paul’s play of which the name is known, or by some other company altogether.[118] The conjecture seems inevitable that, when he found himself in financial straits and with the rivalry of the Queen’s men to face in 1583, Hunnis came to an arrangement with the Paul’s boys, who had recently lost Sebastian Westcott, on the one hand, and with the Earl of Oxford and his agents Lyly and Evans on the other, and put the Blackfriars at the disposal of a combination of boys from all three companies, who appeared indifferently at Court under the name of the Master or that of the Earl. In the course of 1584 Sir William More resumed possession of the Blackfriars. Henry Evans must have made some temporary arrangement to enable the company to appear at Court during the winter of 1584–5.[119] But for a year or two thereafter there were no boys acting in London until in 1586 an arrangement with Thomas Giles, Westcott’s successor at St. Paul’s, afforded a new opportunity for Lyly’s pen.[120]

The Chapel had contributed pretty continuously to Court drama for nearly a century. They now drop out of its story for about seventeen years.[121] In addition to the two plays of Lyly, one other of their recent pieces, Peele’s _Arraignment of Paris_, was printed in 1584. Two former Children, Henry Eveseed and John Bull, afterwards well known as a musician, became Gentlemen on 30 November 1585 and in January 1586 respectively.[122] Absence from Court did not entail an absolute cessation of dramatic activities. Performances by the Children are recorded at Ipswich and Norwich in 1586–7 and at Leicester before Michaelmas in 1591. There is, however, little to bear out the suggestion that the Chapel furnished the boys who played at Croydon, probably in the archbishop’s palace, during the summers of 1592 and 1593, other than the fact that the author of the play produced in 1593, _Summer’s Last Will and Testament_, was Thomas Nashe, who was also part author with Marlowe of _Dido_, one of two plays printed as Chapel plays in 1594. The extant text of the other play, _The Wars of Cyrus_, seems to be datable between 1587 and 1594. Hunnis died on 6 June 1597, and on 9 June 1597 Nathaniel Giles, ‘being before extraordinary’, was sworn as a regular Gentleman of the Chapel and Master of the Children. Giles, like Farrant, came ‘from Winsore’. Born about 1559, he was educated at Magdalen College, Oxford, and was appointed Clerk in St. George’s Chapel, Windsor, and Master of the Children on 1 October 1595. He earned a considerable reputation as a musician, and died in possession of both Masterships at the age of seventy-five on 24 January 1634.[123] His patent of appointment to the Chapel Royal is dated 14 July and his commission 15 July 1597.[124] They closely follow in terms those granted to Hunnis.[125]

Three years later the theatrical enterprise which had been dropped in 1584 was renewed by Giles, in co-operation with Henry Evans, who had been associated with its final stages. The locality chosen was again the Blackfriars, in the building reconstructed by James Burbadge in 1596, and then inhibited, on a petition of the inhabitants, from use as a public play-house. Of this, being ‘then or late in the tenure or occupacion of’ Henry Evans, Richard Burbadge gave him on 2 September 1600 a lease for twenty-one years from the following Michaelmas at a rent of £40.[126] According to Burbadge’s own account of the matter, Evans ‘intended then presentlye to erect or sett vp a companye of boyes ... in the same’, and knowing that the payment of the rent depended upon the possibility of maintaining a company ‘to playe playes and interludes in the said Playhowse in such sort as before tyme had bene there vsed’, he thought it desirable to take collateral security in the form of a bond for £400 from Evans and his son-in-law Alexander Hawkins.[127] Long after, the Blackfriars _Sharers Papers_ of 1635 describe the lease as being to ‘one Evans that first sett vp the boyes commonly called the Queenes Majesties Children of the Chapell’.[128] I find nothing in this language to bear out the contention of Professor Wallace that Evans’s occupation of the Blackfriars extended back long before the date of his lease, and that, as already suggested by Mr. Fleay, the Chapel plays began again, not in 1600, but in 1597.[129] Burbadge speaks clearly of the setting up of the company as still an intention when the lease was drawn, and the reference to earlier plays in the house may either be to some use of it unknown to us between 1596 and 1600, or perhaps more probably to the performances by Evans and others before the time of James Burbadge’s reconstruction. Mr. Fleay’s suggestion rested, so far as I can judge, upon the evidence for the existence of Jonson’s _Case is Altered_ as early as January 1599 and its publication as ‘acted by the children of the Blacke-friers’. But this publication was not until 1609 and represents a revision made not long before that date; and as will be seen the company did not use the name Children of the Blackfriars until about 1606. There is no reason to suppose that they were the original producers of the play. A confirmatory indication for 1600 as the date of the revival may be found in the appearance of the Chapel at Court, for the first time since 1584, on 6 January and 22 February 1601. On both occasions Nathaniel Giles was payee. The performance of 6 January, described by the Treasurer of the Chamber as ‘a showe with musycke and speciall songes’ was probably Jonson’s _Cynthia’s Revels_, which that description well fits; that of 22 February may have been the anonymous _Contention between Liberality and Prodigality_. Both of these were published in 1601. Jonson has preserved for us in his Folio of 1616 the list of the principal actors of _Cynthia’s Revels_, who were ‘Nat. Field, Sal. Pavy, Tho. Day, Ioh. Underwood, Rob. Baxter and Ioh. Frost’. The induction of the play is spoken by ‘Iacke’ and two other of the Children, of whom one, impersonating a spectator, complains that ‘the vmbrae, or ghosts of some three or foure playes, departed a dozen yeeres since, haue bin seene walking on your stage heere’. _Liberality and Prodigality_ may be one of the old-fashioned plays here scoffed at, but it is probable that Jonson also had in mind Lyly’s _Love’s Metamorphosis_, which was published in 1601 as ‘first playd by the Children of Paules, and now by the Children of the Chappell’, and there may have been other revivals of the same kind. The company was included in the Lenten prohibition of 11 March 1601. Later in the year they produced Jonson’s _Poetaster_, containing raillery of the common stages, which stimulated a reply in Dekker’s _Satiromastix_, and which, together with their growing popularity, sufficiently explains the reference to the ‘aerie of children, little eyases’ in _Hamlet_.[130] The _Poetaster_ was published in 1602 and the actor-list of the Folio of 1616 contains the names of ‘Nat. Field, Sal Pavy, Tho. Day, Ioh. Underwood, Wil. Ostler and Tho. Marton’. The full name of Pavy, who died after acting for three years, is given as Salathiel in the epigram written to his memory by Jonson; it appears as Salmon in a document which adds considerably to our knowledge both of the original constitution of the company and of the lines on which it was managed. This is a complaint to the Star Chamber by one Henry Clifton, Esq., of Toftrees, Norfolk, against a serious abuse of the powers of impressment entrusted under the royal commission to Nathaniel Giles.[131] Clifton alleged that Giles, in confederacy with Evans, one James Robinson and others, had set up a play-house for their own profit in the Blackfriars, and under colour of the commission had taken boys, not for the royal service in the Chapel Royal, but employment in

## acting interludes. He specified as so taken, ‘John Chappell, a gramer

schole scholler of one Mr. Spykes schole neere Criplegate, London; John Motteram, a gramer scholler in the free schole at Westmi[n]ster; Nathan ffield, a scholler of a gramer schole in London, kepte by one Mr. Monkaster; Alvery Trussell, an apprentice to one Thomas Gyles; one Phillipp Pykman and Thomas Grymes, apprentices to Richard and Georg Chambers; Salmon Pavey, apprentice to one Peerce’. These were all children ‘noe way able or fitt for singing, nor by anie the sayd confederates endevoured to be taught to singe’. Finally they had made an attempt upon Clifton’s own son Thomas, a boy of thirteen, who had been seized by Robinson in Christ Church cloister on or about 13 December 1600, as he went from Clifton’s house in Great St. Bartholomew’s to the grammar school at Christ Church, and carried off to the play-house ‘to exercyse the base trade of a mercynary enterlude player, to his vtter losse of tyme, ruyne and disparagment’. Clifton went to the Blackfriars, where his son was ‘amongste a companie of lewde and dissolute mercenary players’, and made a protest; but Giles, Robinson, and Evans replied that ‘yf the Queene would not beare them furth in that accion, she should gett another to execute her comission for them’, that ‘they had aucthoritie sufficient soe to take any noble mans sonne in this land’, and that ‘were yt not for the benefitt they made by the sayd play howse, whoe would, should serve the Chappell with children for them’. Then they committed Thomas Clifton to the charge of Evans in his father’s presence, with a threat of a whipping if he was not obedient, and ‘did then and there deliuer vnto his sayd sonne, in moste scornefull disdaynfull and dispightfull manner, a scrolle of paper, conteyning parte of one of theire sayd playes or enterludes, and him, the sayd Thomas Clifton, comaunded to learne the same by harte’. Clifton appealed to Sir John Fortescue and got a warrant from him for the boy’s release after a day and a night’s durance. It was not, however, until a year later, on 15 December 1601, that he made his complaint.[132] During the following Christmas Giles brought the boys to Court on 6 and 10 January and 14 February 1602, and then with the hearing of the case in the Star Chamber during Hilary Term troubles began for the syndicate. Evans was censured ‘for his vnorderlie carriage and behauiour in takinge vp of gentlemens childeren against theire wills and to ymploy them for players and for other misdemeanors’, and it was decreed that all assurances made to him concerning the play-house or plays should be void and should be delivered up to be cancelled.[133] Evans, however, had apparently prepared himself against this contingency by assigning his lease to his son-in-law Alexander Hawkins on 21 October 1601. This at least is one explanation of a somewhat obscure transaction. According to Evans himself, the assignment was to protect Hawkins from any risk upon the bond given to Burbadge. On the other hand, there had already been negotiations for the sale of a half interest in the undertaking to three new partners, Edward Kirkham, William Rastall, and Thomas Kendall, and it was claimed later by Kirkham that the assignment to Hawkins had been in trust to reassign a moiety to these three, in return for a contribution of capital variously stated at from £300 to £600. No such reassignment was, however, carried out.[134] But although the lease from Burbadge was certainly not cancelled as a result of the Star Chamber decree, it probably did seem prudent that the original managers of the theatre should remain in the background for a time. Nothing more is heard of James Robinson, while the partnership between Evans and Hawkins on the one side and Kirkham, Rastall, and Kendall on the other was brought into operation under articles dated on 20 April 1602. For the observance of these Evans and Hawkins gave a bond of £200.[135] Kirkham, Rastall, and Kendall in turn gave Evans a bond of £50 as security for a weekly payment of 8s., ‘because after the said agreements made, the complainant [Kirkham] and his said parteners would at their directions haue the dieting and ordering of the boyes vsed about the plaies there, which before the said complainant had, and for the which he had weekely before that disbursed and allowed great sommes of monie’.[136]

Of the new managers, Rastall was a merchant and Kendall a haberdasher, both of London.[137] Kirkham has generally been assumed to be the Yeoman of the Revels, but of this there is not, so far as I know, any definite proof. The association did not prove an harmonious one. According to Evans, Kirkham and his fellows made false information against him to the Lord Chamberlain, as a result of which he was ‘comaunded by his Lordship to avoyd and leave the same’, had to quit the country, and lost nearly £300 by the charge he was put to and the negligence of Hawkins in looking after his profits.[138] This seems to have been in May 1602. Meanwhile the performances continued. The company did not appear at Court during the winter of 1602–3, but _Sir Giles Goosecap_ and possibly Chapman’s _Gentleman Usher_ were produced by them before the end of Elizabeth’s reign; and on 18 September 1602 a visit was paid to the theatre by Philipp Julius, Duke of Stettin-Pomerania, of which the following account is preserved in the journal of Frederic Gerschow, a member of his suite:[139]

‘Von dannen sind wir auf die Kinder-comoediam gangen, welche im Argument iudiciret eine castam viduam, war eine historia einer königlichen Wittwe aus Engellandt. Es hat aber mit dieser Kinder-comoedia die Gelegenheit: die Königin hält viel junger Knaben, die sich der Singekunst mit Ernst befleissigen müssen und auf allen Instrumenten lernen, auch dabenebenst studieren. Diese Knaben haben ihre besondere praeceptores in allen Künsten, insonderheit sehr gute musicos.’

‘Damit sie nun höfliche Sitten anwenden, ist ihnen aufgelegt, wöchentlich eine comoedia zu agiren, wozu ihnen denn die Königin ein sonderlich theatrum erbauet und mit köstlichen Kleidern zum Ueberfluss versorget hat. Wer solcher Action zusehen will, muss so gut als unserer Münze acht sundische Schillinge geben, und findet sich doch stets viel Volks auch viele ehrbare Frauens, weil nutze argumenta und viele schöne Lehren, als von andern berichtet, sollen tractiret werden; alle bey Lichte agiret, welches ein gross Ansehen macht. Eine ganze Stunde vorher höret man eine köstliche musicam instrumentalem von Orgeln, Lauten, Pandoren, Mandoren, Geigen und Pfeiffen, wie denn damahlen ein Knabe cum voce tremula in einer Basgeigen so lieblich gesungen, dass wo es die Nonnen zu Mailand ihnen nicht vorgethan, wir seines Gleichen auf der Reise nicht gehöret hatten.’

This report of a foreigner must not be pressed as if it were precise evidence upon the business organization of the Blackfriars. Yet it forms the main basis of the theory propounded by Professor Wallace that Elizabeth personally financed the Chapel plays and personally directed the limitation of the number of adult companies allowed to perform in London, as part of a deliberate scheme of reform, which her ‘definite notion of what the theatre should be’ had led her to plan--a theory which, I fear, makes his _Children of the Chapel at Blackfriars_ misleading, in spite of its value as a review of the available evidence, old and new, about the company.[140] Professor Wallace supposes that Edward Kirkham, acting officially as Yeoman of the Revels, was Elizabeth’s agent, and that, even before he became a partner in the syndicate, he dieted the boys and supplied them with the ‘köstlichen Kleidern zum Ueberfluss’ mentioned by Gerschow, accounting for the expenditure either through the Revels Accounts or through some other unspecified accounts ‘yet to be discovered’.[141] Certainly no such expenditure appeared in the Revels Accounts, and no other official account with which Kirkham was concerned is known. It may be pointed out that, if we took Gerschow’s account as authoritative, we should have to suppose that Elizabeth provided the theatre building, which we know she did not, and I think it may be taken for granted that her payments for the Chapel were no more than those with which we are already quite familiar, namely the Master’s fee of £40 ‘pro exhibicione puerorum’, the board-wages of 6_d._ a day for each of twelve children, possibly the breakfast allowance of £16 a year and the largess of £9 13_s._ 4_d._ for high feasts, and the occasional rewards for actual performances. None of these, of course, passed through the Revels Office, and although this office may, as in the past, have helped to furnish the actual plays at Court, the cost of exercising in public remained a speculation of the Master and his backers, who had to look for recoupment and any possible profits to the sums received from spectators. If it is true, as Gerschow seems to say, that performances were only given on Saturdays, the high entrance charge of 1_s._ is fully explained. The lawsuits, of course, bear full evidence to the expenditure by the members of the syndicate upon the ‘setting forward’ of plays.[142] Nor is there any ground for asserting, as Professor Wallace does, that there were two distinct sets of children, one lodged in or near the palace for chapel purposes proper, and the other kept at the Blackfriars for plays.[143] It is true that Clifton charged Giles with impressing boys who could not sing, but Gerschow’s account proves that there were others at the Blackfriars who could sing well enough, and it would be absurd to suppose that there was one trained choir for the stage and another for divine service. Doubtless, however, the needs of the theatre made it necessary to employ, by agreement or impressment, a larger number of boys than the twelve borne on the official establishment.[144] And that boys whose voices had broken were retained in the theatrical company may be inferred from the report about 1602 that the Dowager Countess of Leicester had married ‘one of the playing boyes of the chappell’.[145] I cannot, finally, agree with Professor Wallace in assuming that the play attended by Elizabeth at the Blackfriars on 29 December 1601 was necessarily a public one at the theatre; much less that it was ‘only one in a series of such attendances’. She had dined with Lord Hunsdon at his house in the Blackfriars. The play may have been in his great chamber, or he may have borrowed the theatre next door for private use on an off-day. And the actors may even more probably have been his own company than the Chapel boys.[146]

The appointment of a new Lord Chamberlain by James I seems to have enabled Evans to return to England. He found theatrical affairs in a bad way, owing to the plague of 1603, and ‘speach and treatie’ arose between him and Burbadge about a possible surrender of his lease.[147] By December, however, things looked brighter. Evans did some repairs to the Blackfriars, and the enterprise continued.[148] Like the adult companies, the partners secured direct royal protection under the following patent of 4 February 1604:[149]

[Sidenote: De licencia speciali pro Eduardo Kirkham et aliis pro le Revell domine Regine.]

Iames by the grace of God &c. To all Mayors Shiriffes Justices of Peace Baliffes Constables and to all other our officers mynisters and lovinge Subiectes to whome theis presentes shall come, greeting. Whereas the Queene our deerest wief hath for her pleasure and recrea[~c]on when she shall thinke it fit to have any playes or shewes appoynted her servauntes Edward Kirkham Alexander Hawkyns Thomas Kendall and Robert Payne to provyde and bring vppe a convenient nomber of Children, whoe shalbe called children of her Revelles, knowe ye that we have appointed and authorized and by theis presentes doe authorize and appoynte the said Edward Kirkham Alexander Hawkins Thomas Kendall and Robert Payne from tyme to tyme to provide keepe and bring vppe a convenient nomber of Children, and them to practize and exercise in the quality of playinge by the name of Children of the Revells to the Queene within the Black-fryers in our Cytie of London, or in any other convenient place where they shall thinke fit for that purpose. Wherefore we will and commaunde [you] and everie of you to whome it shall appertayne to permytt her said Servauntes to keepe a convenient nomber of Children by the name of Children of her Revells and them to exercise in the quality of playing according to her pleasure. Provided allwaies that noe such Playes or Shewes shalbee presented before the said Queene our wief by the said Children or by them any where publiquelie acted but by the approbacion and allowaunce of Samuell Danyell, whome her pleasure is to appoynt for that purpose. And theis our lettres Patentes shalbe your sufficient warraunte in this behalfe. In witnes whereof &c., witnes our self at Westminster the fourth day of February. per breve de priuato sigillo &c.

Apparently it was still thought better to keep the name of Evans out of the patent, and he was represented by Hawkins; of the nature of Payne’s connexion with the company I know nothing. The adoption of the name of Children of the Queen’s Revels should perhaps be taken as indicating that, as the boy-actors grew older, the original connexion with the Chapel became looser. The use of Giles’s commission as a method of obtaining recruits was probably abandoned, and there is no evidence that he had any further personal association with the theatre.[150] The commission itself was, however, renewed on 13 September 1604, with a new provision for the further education of boys whose voices had changed;[151] and in December Giles was successful in getting the board-wages allowed for his charges raised from 6_d._ to 10_d._ a day.[152]

The Revels children started gaily on the new phase of their career, and the _Hamlet_ allusion is echoed in Middleton’s advice to a gallant, ‘if his humour so serve him, to call in at the Blackfriars, where he should see a nest of boys able to ravish a man’.[153] They were at Court on 21 February 1604 and on 1 and 3 January 1605. Their payees were Kirkham for the first year and Evans and Daniel for the second. Evidently Daniel was taking a more active part in the management than that of a mere licenser. Their play of 1 January 1605 was Chapman’s _All Fools_ (1605), and to 1603–5 may also be assigned his _Monsieur d’Olive_ (1606), and possibly his _Bussy d’Ambois_ (1607), and _Day’s Law Tricks_ (1608). I venture to conjecture that the boys’ companies were much more under the influence of their poets than were their adult rivals; it is noteworthy that plays written for them got published much more rapidly than the King’s or Prince’s men ever permitted.[154] And it is known that one poet, who now began for the first time to work for the Blackfriars, acquired a financial interest in the undertaking. This was John Marston, to whom Evans parted, at an unspecified date, with a third of the moiety which the arrangement of 1602 had left on his hands.[155] Marston’s earliest contributions were probably _The Malcontent_ (1604) and _The Dutch Courtesan_ (1605). From the induction to the _Malcontent_ we learn that it was appropriated by the King’s men, in return for the performance by the boys of a play on Jeronimo, perhaps the extant _I Jeronimo_, in which the King’s claimed rights. Marston’s satirical temper did not, however, prove altogether an asset to the company; and I fear that the deference of its directors to literary suggestions was not compatible with that practical political sense, which as a rule enabled the professional players to escape conflicts with authority. The history of the next few years is one of a series of indiscretions, which render it rather surprising that the company should throughout have succeeded in maintaining its vitality, even with the help of constant reconstructions of management and changes of name. The first trouble, the nature of which is unknown, appears to have been caused by Marston’s _Dutch Courtesan_. Then came, ironically enough, the _Philotas_ of the company’s official censor, Samuel Daniel. Then, in 1605, the serious affair of _Eastward Ho!_ for which Marston appears to have been mainly responsible, although he saved himself by flight, whereas his fellow authors, Jonson and Chapman, found themselves in prison and in imminent danger of losing their ears.[156] I do not think that the scandal arose on the performance of the play, but on its publication in the late autumn.[157] The company did not appear at Court during the winter of 1605–6, but the ingenious Kirkham seems to have succeeded in transferring one of its new plays, Marston’s _Fawn_, and possibly also _Bussy D’Ambois_, to Paul’s, and appeared triumphantly before the Treasurer of the Chamber’s paymaster the following spring as ‘one of the Masters of the Children of Pawles’. Meanwhile the Blackfriars company went on acting, but it is to be inferred from the title-pages of its next group of plays, Marston’s _Sophonisba_ (1606), Sharpham’s _The Fleir_ (1607), and Day’s _Isle of Gulls_ (1606), that its misdemeanour had cost it the direct patronage of the Queen, and that it was now only entitled to call itself, not Children of the Queen’s Revels, but Children of the Revels.[158] Possibly the change of name also indicates that thereafter, not Daniel, but the Master of the Revels, acted as its censor. Anne herself, by the way, must have felt the snub, for it was probably at the Blackfriars that, if the French ambassador may be trusted, she had attended representations ‘to enjoy the laugh against her husband’.[159] The alias, whatever it connoted, proved but an ephemeral one. By February 1606 one of the plays just named, the _Isle of Gulls_, had given a new offence. Some of those responsible for it were thrown into Bridewell, and a fresh reconstruction became imperative.[160] It was probably at this date that one Robert Keysar, a London goldsmith, came into the business. Kirkham, like Evans before him, discreetly retired from active management, and the Children, with Keysar as ‘interest with them’, became ‘Masters themselves’, taking the risks and paying the syndicate for the use of the hall.[161] Kirkham claims that under this arrangement the moiety of profits in which he had rights amounted to £150 a year, as against £100 a year previously earned.[162] Shortly afterwards the dissociation of the Chapel from the Blackfriars was completed by a new commission issued to Giles on 7 November 1606, to which was added the following clause:

‘Prouided alwayes and wee doe straightlie charge and commaunde that none of the saide Choristers or Children of the Chappell so to be taken by force of this commission shalbe vsed or imployed as Comedians or Stage players, or to exercise or acte any Stage playes Interludes Comedies or tragedies, for that it is not fitt or decent that such as shoulde singe the praises of God Allmightie shoulde be trayned vpp or imployed in suche lascivious and prophane exercises.’[163]

It is presumably to this pronouncement that Flecknoe refers in 1664, when he speaks of the Chapel theatre being converted to the use of the Children of the Revels, on account of the growing precision of the people and the growing licentiousness of plays.[164] It is, however, curious to observe that the abandoned titles of the company tended to linger on in actual use. Evans in 1612 speaks of the syndicate as ‘the coparteners sharers, and Masters of the Queenes Maiesties Children of the Revells (for so yt was often called)’ in 1608;[165] while the name Children of the Chapel is used in the Stationers’ Register entry of _Your Five Gallants_ in 1608, at Maidstone in 1610, and even in such official documents as the Revels Accounts for 1604–5 and the Chamber Accounts for 1612–13.

Under Keysar the name was Children of the Blackfriars. For a couple of years the company succeeded in keeping clear of further disaster. But on 29 March 1608 the French ambassador, M. de la Boderie, reported that all the London theatres had been closed, and were now threatened by the King with a permanent inhibition on account of two plays which had given the greatest offence.[166] Against one of these, which dealt with the domestic affairs of the French king, he had himself lodged a protest, and his description leaves no doubt that this was one of the parts of Chapman’s _Conspiracy and Tragedy of Byron_, which was published, without the offending scene, later in the year, as ‘acted at the Black-Friars’. The other play was a personal attack upon James himself. ‘Un jour ou deux devant’, says La Boderie, ‘ilz avoient dépêché leur Roi, sa mine d’Escosse, et tous ses favorits d’une estrange sorte; car aprés luy avoir fait dépiter le ciel sur le vol d’un oyseau, et faict battre un gentilhomme pour avoir rompu ses chiens, ils le dépeignoient ivre pour le moins une fois le jour.’ This piece is not extant, but I have recently come across another allusion to it in a letter of 11 March 1608 to Lord Salisbury from Sir Thomas Lake, a clerk of the signet in attendance upon the King at Thetford.[167]

‘His ma^{tie} was well pleased with that which your lo. advertiseth concerning the committing of the players y^{t} have offended in y^{e} matters of France, and commanded me to signifye to your lo. that for y^{e} others who have offended in y^{e} matter of y^{e} Mynes and other lewd words, which is y^{e} children of y^{e} blackfriars, That though he had signified his mynde to your lo. by my lo. of Mountgommery yet I should repeate it again, That his G. had vowed they should never play more, but should first begg their bred and he wold have his vow performed, And therefore my lo. chamberlain by himselfe or your ll. at the table should take order to dissolve them, and to punish the maker besides.’

Sir Thomas Lake appears to have been under the impression that two companies were concerned, and that the ‘matters of France’ were not played by the Children of Blackfriars. If so, we must suppose that _Byron_ was originally produced elsewhere, perhaps by the King’s Revels, and transferred to the Blackfriars after ‘reformation’ by the Council. M. de la Boderie, however, writes as if the same company were responsible for both plays, and perhaps it is on the whole more probable that Sir Thomas Lake misunderstood the situation. I feel very little doubt that the maker of the play on the mines was once more Marston, who was certainly summoned before the Privy Council and committed to Newgate, on some offence not specified in the extant record, on 8 June 1608.[168] And this was probably the end of his stormy connexion with the stage. He disappeared from the Blackfriars and from literary life, leaving _The Insatiate Countess_ unfinished, and selling the share in the syndicate which he had acquired from Evans about 1603 to Robert Keysar for £100. Before making his purchase, Keysar, who tells us that he put a value of £600 on the whole of the enterprise, got an assurance, as he thought, from the King’s men that they would not come to any arrangement with Henry Evans which would prejudice his interests.[169] This the King’s men afterwards denied, and as a matter of fact the negotiations, tentatively opened as far back as 1603, between Evans and Burbadge for a surrender of the lease were now coming to a head, and its actual surrender took place about August 1608.[170] On the ninth of that month Burbadge executed fresh leases of the theatre to a new syndicate representing the King’s men.[171] The circumstances leading up to Evans’s part in this transaction became subsequently the subject of hostile criticism by Kirkham, who asserted that the lease, which Alexander Hawkins held in trust, had been stolen from his custody by Mrs. Evans, and that the surrender was effected with the fraudulent intention of excluding Kirkham from the profits to which he was entitled under the settlement of 1602.[172] According to Evans, however, Kirkham was at least implicitly a consenting party, for it was he who, after the King’s inhibition had brought the profits to an end, grew weary of the undertaking and initiated measures for winding it up. On or about 26 July 1608 he had had the ‘apparells, properties and goods’ of the syndicate appraised and an equitable division made. When some of the boys were committed to prison he had ‘said he would deale no more with yt, “for”, quoth he, “yt is a base thing”, or vsed wordes to such, or very like effect’. And he had ‘delivered up their commission, which he had vnder the greate seale aucthorising them to plaie, and discharged divers of the partners and poetts’. In view of this, Evans claimed that he was fully justified in coming to terms with Burbadge.[173]

After all, the King’s anger proved only a flash in the pan. Perhaps the company travelled during the summer of 1608, if they, and not the King’s Revels, were ‘the Children of the Revells’ rewarded at Leicester on 21 August.[174] But by the following Christmas they were in London, and with Keysar as their payee gave three plays at Court, where they had not put in an appearance since 1604–5. Two of these were on 1 and 4 January 1609. As they still bore the name of Children of Blackfriars, they had presumably remained on sufferance in their old theatre, which the King’s men may not have been in a hurry to occupy during a plague-stricken period.[175] But when a new season opened in the autumn of 1609, new quarters became necessary. These they found at Whitefriars, which had been vacated by the failure of the short-lived King’s Revels company, and it was as the Children of Whitefriars that Keysar brought them to Court for no less than five plays during the winter of 1609–10. He had now enlisted a partner in Philip Rosseter, one of the lutenists of the royal household, who carried out a scheme, with the co-operation of the King’s men, for buying off with a ‘dead rent’ the possible competition of the Paul’s boys, who had closed their doors about 1606, but might at any moment open them again.[176] More than this, through the influence of Sir Thomas Monson, Rosseter was successful in obtaining a new patent, dated on 4 January 1610, by which the Children once more became entitled to call themselves Children of the Queen’s Revels.[177] It ran as follows:

[Sidenote: De concessione Roberto Daborne & aliis.]

Iames by the grace of God &c., To all Maiors Sheriffes Iustices of peace Bayliffes Constables and to all other our Officers Ministers and loving Subiects to whome theis presentes shall come Greeting. Whereas the Quene our deerest wyfe hathe for hir pleasure, and recreacion, when shee shall thinke it fitt to have any Playes or Shewes, appoynted hir servantes Robert Daborne, Phillippe Rosseter, Iohn Tarbock, Richard Iones, and Robert Browne to prouide and bring vpp a convenient nomber of Children whoe shalbe called Children of hir Revelles, knowe ye that wee haue appoynted and authorised, and by theis presentes do authorize and appoynte the said Robert Daborne, Phillipp Rosseter, Iohn Tarbock, Richard Iones, and Robert Browne from tyme to tyme to provide keepe and bring vpp a convenient nomber of children, and them to practice and exercise in the quality of playing, by the name of Children of the Revells to the Queene, within the white ffryers in the Suburbs of our Citty of London, or in any other convenyent place where they shall thinke fitt for that purpose. Wherfore wee will and commaund you and euery of you to whome it shall appertayne to permitt her said seruants to keepe a conuenient nomber of Children by the name of the Children of hir Revells, and them to exercise in the qualitye of playing according to hir pleasure, And theis our lettres patentes shalbe your sufficient warrant in this behaulfe. Wittnes our self at Westminster, the ffourth daye of Ianuary. per breve de priuato sigillo.

Of the new syndicate Browne and Jones were old professional actors who had belonged to the Admiral’s men a quarter of a century before, and had since been prominent, Browne in particular, as organizers of English companies for travel in Germany. Daborne was or became a playwright. Of Tarbock I know nothing; he may have been a nominee of Keysar, whose own name, perhaps for reasons of diplomacy, does not appear in the patent. He may, of course, have retired, but a lawsuit which he brought in 1610 suggests that his connexion with the company was not altogether broken. The Whitefriars had not the tradition of the Blackfriars, and Keysar was aggrieved at the surrender of the Blackfriars lease by Evans over his head. On 8 February 1610 he laid a bill in the Court of Requests against the housekeepers of the King’s men, claiming a share in their profits since the date of surrender, which he estimated at £1,500, on the strength of the one-sixth interest in the lease assigned by Evans to Marston and by Marston to him.[178] He asserted that he had kept boys two years in the hope of playing ‘vpon the ceasing of the generall sicknes’, and had spent £500 on that and on making provision in the house, and had now, at a loss of £1,000, had to disperse ‘a companye of the moste exparte and skilful actors within the realme of England to the number of eighteane or twentye persons all or moste of them trayned vp in that service, in the raigne of the late Queene Elizabeth for ten yeares togeather and afterwardes preferred into her Maiesties service to be the Chilldren of her Revells’.[179] Burbadge and his fellows denied that they had made £1,500, or that they had attempted to defraud Keysar either about the surrender of the lease or, as he also alleged, the ‘dead rent’ to Paul’s, and they pointed out that his losses were really due to the plague. He could recover his share of the theatrical stock from Evans. Evans had had no legal right to assign his interest under the lease. As only the pleadings in the case and not the depositions or the order of the court are extant, we do not know what Evans, who was to be a witness, had to say.[180] The fact that one of the new Blackfriars leases of 1608 was to a Thomas Evans leaves the transaction between Henry Evans and Burbadge not altogether free from a suspicion of bad faith. Kirkham also found that he had been either hasty or outwitted in 1608, and as the deaths of Rastall and Kendall in that year had left him the sole claimant to any interest under the arrangement of 1602, he had recourse to litigation. In the course of 1611 and 1612 he brought a ‘multiplicitie of suites’ against Evans and Hawkins, and was finally non-suited in the King’s Bench.[181] Then, in May 1612, Evans in his turn brought a Chancery action against Kirkham, in the hope of getting his bond of 1602 cancelled, and thus securing himself against any further persecution for petty breaches of the articles of agreement. The result of this is unknown, but in the course of it many of the incidents of 1600–8 were brought into question, and Kirkham claimed that not merely had Evans shut him out in 1604 from certain rooms in the Blackfriars which he was entitled to use, but that by the surrender of the lease in 1608 he had lost profits which he estimated at £60 a year.[182] Finally in July 1612 Kirkham brought a Chancery action against Evans, Burbadge, and John Heminges, and also against the widow of Alexander Hawkins and Edward Painton, to whom she was now married, for reinstatement in his moiety of the lease. In this suit much of the same ground was again traversed, but the Court refused to grant him any relief.

It is not altogether easy to disentangle the plays produced at the Blackfriars under Keysar from those produced immediately afterwards at the Whitefriars. The only title-page which definitely names the Children of the Blackfriars is that of Jonson’s _The Case is Altered_ (1609). But Chapman’s _Byron_ (1608) and _May Day_ (1611) and Middleton’s _Your Five Gallants_ (n.d.?1608) also claim to have been acted at the Blackfriars. The Q_{1} of Middleton’s _A Trick to Catch the Old One_ (1608) assigns it to Paul’s; the Q_{2} both to Paul’s and Blackfriars, with an indication of a Court performance on New Year’s Day, which can only be that of 1 January 1609. This play, therefore, must have been taken over from Paul’s, when that house closed in 1606 or 1607. As Middleton is not generally found writing for Blackfriars, _Your Five Gallants_ may have been acquired in the same way. It is also extremely likely that Chapman’s _Bussy d’Ambois_ passed from Paul’s to Blackfriars on its way to the King’s men. No name of company or theatre is attached to Beaumont and Fletcher’s _Knight of the Burning Pestle_ (1613) or to _The Faithful Shepherdess_ (_c._ 1609). But the _K. B. P._ was published with an epistle to Keysar as its preserver and can be securely dated in 1607–8; it refers to the house in which it was played as having been open for seven years, which just fits the Blackfriars. _The Faithful Shepherdess_ is of 1608–9 and a boys’ play; the commendatory verses by Field, Jonson, and Chapman justify an attribution to the company with which they had to do. Chapman’s _The Widow’s Tears_ (1612) had been staged both at Blackfriars and at Whitefriars before publication, and was probably therefore produced shortly before the company moved house. The greatest difficulty is Jonson’s _Epicoene_ (S. R. 20 September 1610). No edition is known to be extant earlier than the Folio of 1616, in which Jonson ascribed the production to ‘1609’ and to the Children of the Revels. According to the system of dating ordinarily adopted by Jonson in this Folio, ‘1609’ should mean 1609 and not 1609–10. Yet the Children were not entitled to call themselves ‘of the Revels’ during 1609. Either Jonson’s chronology or his memory of the shifting nomenclature of the company has slipped. The actor-list of _Epicoene_ names ‘Nat. Field, Gil. Carie, Hug. Attawel, Ioh. Smith, Will. Barksted, Will. Pen, Ric. Allin, Ioh. Blaney’. Amongst these Field is the sole direct connecting link with the Chapel actor-lists of 1600 and 1601. Keysar’s pleading shows us that from 1600 to 1610 the company had maintained a substantial identity throughout all its phases, as successively Children of the Chapel, Children of the Queen’s Revels, Children of the Blackfriars, Children of the Whitefriars; but part of his grievance is its dispersal, and possibly the continuity with the second Children of the Revels may not have been quite so marked. ‘In processe of time’, say the Burbadges in the _Blackfriars Sharers Papers_ of 1635, ‘the boyes growing up to bee men, which were Underwood, Field, Ostler, and were taken to strengthen the King’s service’.[183] This, which is written in relation to the acquisition of the Blackfriars, is doubtless accurate as regards Ostler and Underwood, and their transfer may reasonably be placed in the winter of 1609–10. But it was not until some years later that Field joined the King’s men.

The career of the second Queen’s Revels, but for the temporary suppression of _Epicoene_ owing to a misconstruction placed on it by Arabella Stuart, was comparatively uneventful. They are recorded at Maidstone as the Children of the Chapel about March 1610. They made no appearance at Court during the following winter, and were again travelling in the following autumn, when they came to Norwich under the leadership of one Ralph Reeve, who showed the patent of 4 January 1610, and at first claimed to be Rosseter, but afterwards admitted that he was not. As he could show no letters of deputation, he was not allowed to play, although he received a reward on the following day, which was recorded, not quite correctly, as paid to ‘the master of the children of the King’s Revells’. By 29 August Barksted and Carey had left the company to join the newly formed Lady Elizabeth’s men. We may therefore place at some time before this date Barksted’s completion of Marston’s _Insatiate Countess_, which was published in 1613 as ‘acted at Whitefriars’. The entry in the Stationer’s Register of Field’s _A Woman is a Weathercock_ (1612) on 23 November 1611 shows that he also had begun to experiment in authorship. As this had been acted at Court, as well as by the Queen’s Revels at Whitefriars, it probably dates back to the winter of 1609–10. The company returned to court on 5 January 1612 with Beaumont and Fletcher’s _Cupid’s Revenge_, and the Clerk of the Revels entered them as the Children of Whitefriars.[184] The travels of 1612 were under the leadership of Nicholas Long, and on 20 May another _contretemps_ occurred at Norwich. The instrument of deputation was forthcoming on this occasion, but the mayor chose to interpret the patent as giving authority only to teach and instruct children, and not to perform with them; and so once again ‘the Master of the Kings Revells’ got his reward of 20s., but was not allowed to play. Between Michaelmas and Christmas ‘the queens maiesties revellers’ were at Bristol, and at some time during 1612–13 ‘two of the company of the childeren of Revells’ received a reward at Coventry. Conceivably the provincial company of Reeve and Long was a distinct organization from that in London. Rosseter was payee for four performances at Court during the winter of 1612–13. On the first occasion, in the course of November, the play was Beaumont and Fletcher’s _Coxcomb_; on 1 January and again on 9 January it was _Cupid’s Revenge_; and on 27 February it was _The Widow’s Tears_. In one version of the _Chamber Accounts_ the company appears this year as the Children of the Queen’s Revels, but in another under the obsolete designation of Children of the Chapel. In addition to the plays already named, Chapman’s _Revenge of Bussy_ had been on the Whitefriars stage before it was published in 1613; and it is conceivable that Chapman’s _Chabot_ and Beaumont and Fletcher’s _Monsieur Thomas_ and _The Nightwalker_ may be Queen’s Revels plays of 1610–13. They may also, indeed, be Lady Elizabeth’s plays of 1613–16, but during this period the Lady Elizabeth and the Queen’s Revels appear to have been practically amalgamated, under an arrangement made between Henslowe and Rosseter in March 1613 and then modified, first in 1614, and again on the addition of Prince Charles’s men to the ‘combine’ in 1615. Yet in some way the Children of the Revels maintained a separate individuality, at least in theory, during these years, as may be seen from the patent of 3 June 1615, which licensed Rosseter and Reeve, together with Robert Jones and Philip Kingman, to build a new Blackfriars theatre in the house known as Porter’s Hall.[185] The main purpose of this undertaking was expressed to be the provision of a new house for the Children of the Queen’s Revels instead of the Whitefriars, where Rosseter’s lease was now expired, although it was also contemplated that use might be made of it by the Prince’s and the Lady Elizabeth’s players. Porter’s Hall only stood for a short time before civic hostility procured its demolition, and the single play, which we can be fairly confident that the Children of the Revels gave in it, is Beaumont and Fletcher’s _Scornful Lady_. This presumably fell after the amalgamation under Henslowe broke up about the time of his death early in 1616. Field appears to have joined the King’s men about 1615. The Queen’s Revels dropped out of London theatrical life. Their provincial travels under Nicholas Long had apparently terminated in 1612, as in 1614 he is found using the patent of the Lady Elizabeth’s men (q. v.) in the provinces. But some members of the company seem to have gone travelling during the period of troubled relations with Henslowe, and are traceable at Coventry on 7 October 1615, and at Nottingham in February 1616 and again later in 1616–17. On 31 October 1617 a new Queen’s Revel’s company was formed by Rosseter, in association with Nicholas Long, Robert Lee of the Queen’s men, and William Perry of the King’s Revels.[186]

iii. THE CHILDREN OF WINDSOR

_Masters of the Children_:--Richard Farrant (1564–80), Nathaniel Giles (1595–1634).

The Chapel Royal at Windsor was served by an ecclesiastical college, which had been in existence as far back as the reign of Henry I, and had subsequently been resettled as St. George’s Chapel in connexion with the establishment of the Order of the Garter by Edward III, finally incorporated under Edward IV, and exempted from dissolution at the Reformation. Edward III had provided for a warden, who afterwards came to be called dean, 12 canons, 13 priest vicars, 4 clerks, 6 boy choristers, and 26 ‘poor knights’. The boys were to be ‘endued with clear and tuneable voices’, and to succeed the clerks as their voices changed. Their number was altered from time to time; during the greater part of Elizabeth’s reign it stood at 10. Each had an annual fee of £3 6_s._ 8_d._ They were lodged within the Castle, in a chamber north of the chapel, and next to a building founded by James Denton in 1520, known as the ‘New Commons’. This is now merged in the canons’ houses, but a doorway is inscribed ‘Edes pro Sacellaenorum et Choristarum conviviis extructae A. D. 1519’. There were also an epistoler and a gospeller.[187] The music was ‘useyd after ye order and maner of ye quenes chappell’.[188] One of the clerks, whose position corresponded to that of the Gentlemen of the household Chapel Royal, was appointed by the Chapter of the College to act as Organist and Master of the Children. The College was privileged, like the Chapel Royal itself, to recruit its choir by impressment. A commission for this purpose, issued on 8 March 1560, merely repeats the terms of one granted by Mary, which itself had confirmed earlier grants by Henry VIII and Edward VI.[189]

The Master at Elizabeth’s accession was one Preston.[190] But he was deprived, as unwilling to accept the new ecclesiastical settlement; and the first Master under whom the choristers appear to have acted at Court was Richard Farrant. He had been a Gentleman of the Chapel Royal from about 1553, but was replaced on 24 April 1564, doubtless on his appointment as Master at Windsor.[191] On the following 30 September the Chapter assigned a chantry to the teacher of the choristers for an increase of his maintenance.[192] On 5 November 1570, Farrant was reappointed a Gentleman of the Chapel Royal, but evidently did not resign his Mastership.[193] On 11 February 1567 he began a series of plays with the ‘Children of Windsor’ at Court, which was continued at Shrovetide 1568, on 22 February and 27 December 1569, at Shrovetide 1571, on 1 January 1572, when he gave _Ajax and Ulysses_, on 1 January 1573, on 6 January 1574, when he gave _Quintus Fabius_, on 6 January 1575, when he gave _King Xerxes_, and on 27 December 1575. With the winter of 1576–7 the entries of his name in the accounts of the Treasurer take a new form; he is no longer ‘M^r of the children of the Chappell at Wyndsore’ but ‘M^r of the children of the Chappell’. The Revels Accounts for the same season record that on 6 January 1577 _Mutius Scaevola_ was played at Court by ‘the Children of Windsore and the Chappell’, and it is a fair inference that Farrant, in addition to exercising his own office, was now also acting as deputy to William Hunnis, the Master by patent of the Children of the Chapel Royal, and had made up a combined company from both choirs for the Christmas delectation of the Queen.[194] This interpretation of the facts was confirmed when Professor Feuillerat was able to show from the Loseley archives that in 1576 Farrant had taken a lease of rooms in the Blackfriars from Sir William More and had converted them into the first Blackfriars theatre.[195] Whether boys from Windsor continued to take a share in the performances by the Chapel during 1577–8, 1578–9, and 1579–80, for all of which Farrant was payee, we do not know; there is no further mention of them as actors in the Court accounts, although they accompanied the singing men from Windsor to Reading during the progress of 1576.[196] Farrant died on 30 November 1580, leaving a widow Anne, who in 1582 obtained the reversion of a small lease from the Crown, and was involved in controversies with Sir William More over the Blackfriars tenement at least up to 1587.[197] He had acquired some reputation as a musician, and amongst his surviving compositions are a few which may have been intended for use in plays.[198] Farrant was succeeded at Windsor by Nathaniel Giles, but only after an interval of either five or fifteen years. Ashmole reports Giles’s monument as crediting him with forty-nine years’ service as Master of St. George’s before his death in 1634.[199] There must be an inaccuracy, either here or in the date of 1 October ’37 Eliz.’ (1595) upon a copy of his indenture of appointment by the Windsor chapter, which is amongst Ashmole’s papers.[200] This recites that the chapter ‘are now destitute of an experte and cunnynge man’, and that Giles ‘is well contented to come and serve’ them. He is granted from the previous Michaelmas to the end of his life ‘the Roome and place of a Clerk within the said ffree Chappell and to be one of the Players on the Organes there, and also the office of Instructor and Master of the ten Children or Choristers of the same ffree Chappell, And the office of tutor, creansor, or governor of the same tenn Children or Coristers’. He is to have an annuity of £81 6s. 8d. and ‘tholde comons howse’, wherein John Mundie lately dwelt, which he is to hold on the same terms as ‘one Richarde ffarrante enjoyed the same’ at a rent of £1 6_s._ 8_d._ His fee is to be ‘over and besides all such giftes, rewardes or benevolences as from time to time during the naturall lief of him the said Nathanaell Gyles shall be given bestowed or ymployed to or upon the Choristers for singinge of Balattes, playes or for the like respects whatsoever’. He is to maintain the children and to supply vacancies, ‘her Maiesties comission for the taking of Children which her highnes hath alredie graunted to the said Dean and Canons being allowed vnto him the said Nathanaell Gyles for that purpose’. Evidently the door was left open for a resumption of theatrical activities, such as was afterwards brought about at the London Chapel Royal during the Mastership of Giles there; but there is no proof that such a resumption ever took place at Windsor. It is perhaps a fanciful conjecture that the boys may have helped with _The Merry Wives of Windsor_ about 1600.[201]

iv. CHILDREN OF THE KING’S REVELS

_Masters_:--Martin Slater and others.

[_Bibliographical Note._--The chief source of information is J. Greenstreet, _The Whitefriars Theatre in the Time of Shakspere_ (_N. S. S. Trans. 1887–92_, 269), which gives the text of the bill and answer in _Androwes v. Slater_ (1609, Chancery).]

The accident of litigation brings into light a company of boys, who appear to have acted for a brief and troubled period, which probably ended in 1608 or early in 1609. The story is told by one George Androwes a silk-weaver of London, and begins in February 1608. At that date a part of the dissolved Whitefriars monastery was held, in contemplation of a lease from Lord Buckhurst, by Michael Drayton and Thomas Woodford. The lease was actually executed about the following March, and was for six years, eight months, and twenty days, at a rent of £50. Woodford had assigned his interest to one Lording Barry; and Barry in turn persuaded Androwes to take over a third of it, and to join a syndicate, of which the active manager was Martin Slater, who is described as a citizen and ironmonger of London, but is, of course, well known as an actor in the Admiral’s and other companies. The bill incorporates the terms of Articles of Agreement entered into on 10 March 1608 by Slater on the one hand and Barry, Androwes, and Drayton, together with William Trevell, William Cooke, Edward Sibthorpe, and John Mason, all of London, gentlemen, on the other. They throw a good deal of light upon the business organization of a theatrical enterprise. Slater is to have a sixth part of the net profits of ‘any playes, showes, interludes, musique, or such like exercises’ in the Whitefriars play-house or elsewhere, together with lodging for himself and his family on the premises, and any profits that can be made in the house ‘either by wine, beere, ale, tobacco, wood, coales, or any such commoditie’. When the ‘pattent for playinge’ shall be renewed, Slater’s name is to be joined in it with Drayton’s, because ‘if any restrainte of their playinge shall happen by reason of the plague or other wise, it shalbe for more creditt of the whole company that the said Martyn shall travel with the children, and acquainte the magistrates with their busines’. During any such travel his allowance is to be increased to a share and a half, no apparel, books, or other property of the company is to be removed without the consent of the sharers, and none of them is to print any of the play-books, ‘except the booke of Torrismount, and that playe not to be printed by any before twelve monthes be fully expired’. In order to avoid debt, a sixth part is to be taken up each day of the ‘chardges of the howse’ for the week, including ‘the gatherers, the wages, the childrens bourd, musique, booke keeper, tyreman, tyrewoman, lights, the Maister of the revells’ duties, and all other things needefull and necessary’. The children are to be ‘bound’ for three years to Slater, who undertakes not to part with ‘the said younge men or ladds’ during their apprenticeship except on the consent of his fellow sharers.

The theatrical experience of the syndicate presumably rested with Slater and Drayton. Of Trevell, Cooke, and Sibthorpe I know nothing, except that Trevell, like Woodford, seems still to have had an interest in the lease of the Whitefriars (cf. ch. xvii) in 1621. But Mason and Barry were the authors respectively of _The Turk_ (1610, S. R. 10 March 1609), and _Ram Alley_ (1611, S. R. 9 November 1610), the title-pages of which ascribe them to the children of the King’s Revels, and thereby enable us to give a more definite title to the boys, who are only described in the Chancery pleadings as ‘the Children of the revells there beinge’, that is to say, at the Whitefriars. And we can trace the King’s Revels a little farther back than February 1608 with the aid of the earliest of similar entries on the title-pages of other plays, which are, in the chronological order of publication, Sharpham’s _Cupid’s Whirligig_ (1607, S. R. 29 June 1607), Middleton’s _Family of Love_ (1608, S. R. 12 October 1607), Day’s _Humour Out Of Breath_ (1608, S. R. 12 April 1608), Markham’s (and Machin’s) _The Dumb Knight_ (1608, S. R. 6 October 1608), and Armin’s _Two Maids of Moreclack_ (1609). If Lewis Machin was the author of the anonymous _Every Woman In Her Humour_ (1609), it is possible that this ought to be added to the list. Clearly the boys were playing at least as early as the first half of 1607 and the agreement of 1608 must represent a reconstruction of the original business organization. I do not find anything in the plays to prove an earlier date than 1607, but it is quite conceivable that the King’s Revels may have come into existence as early as 1606, perhaps with the idea of replacing the Queen’s Revels after their disgrace over _The Isle of Gulls_. But if so, the Queen’s Revels managed to hold together under another name, and in fact proved more enduring than their rivals. Mr. Fleay, however, suggests that the King’s Revels were a continuation of the Paul’s boys, and played at the singing-school, and apparently also that they were themselves continued as the Duke of York’s men (_H. of S._ 152, 188, 202, 206). He did not, I think, know of _Androwes v. Slater_, but _Androwes v. Slater_ does not indicate that the King’s Revels were at Whitefriars before 1608; rather the contrary.[202] The dates render Mr. Fleay’s conjectures tempting, although it must be admitted that there is not much evidence. But _The Family of Love_ was played in a round theatre and the Paul’s house was round. The curious description of the Duke of York’s men at Leicester in 1608 as ‘of the White Chapple, London’, might conceivably be a mistake for ‘of the Whitefriars’, but more probably indicates that they came from the Boar’s Head (cf. ch. xvi). ‘The Children of the Revells’ followed them at Leicester on 21 August 1608, but these may have been the Blackfriars children under a not quite official name. A complete search through the Patent Rolls for 1606–8 might disinter the patent for the King’s Revels, which is referred to in the Articles of Agreements; I find no obvious clue to it in the printed index of signet bills. It seems possible that William Barksted (cf. ch. xv) may have belonged to the King’s Revels.

The syndicate did not hold together long. It will be noticed that, in spite of the attempt in the articles to bar the printing of plays, these had begun to reach the stationers again as early as April 1608. The inhibition of 1608 hardly gave the company a chance, and then came the plague. They were probably broken before the end of 1608, and although Mason and Barry had at least the consolation that they had got their own plays staged, other members of the syndicate could only reflect that they had lost their money. And when dissensions broke out, and Slater sued Androwes on a bond of £200 given by the sharers for observance of the articles, and this for defaults which Androwes himself had not committed, it is not surprising that Androwes drew the conclusion that he had been a gull. He took Slater to Chancery, and alleged that he had been asked £90 and paid £70 for his share in the expectation of a profit of £100 a year, and on the understanding that the apparel was worth £400 when it was not worth £5, that he had been led into building and other expenses to the tune of £300, that the lease had been forfeited for non-payment of rent before any assignation had been made to him, and that he had been clearly told by Slater that his obligation was not to extend beyond any breaches of covenant that he might himself commit. Slater denied any responsibility for Androwes’s misunderstandings, and pointed out that he had himself been the principal sufferer by the breakdown of the enterprise, since he and his family of ten had been illegally turned out of the rooms to which they were entitled under the articles of agreement, and were now driven to beg their bread. The view taken by the court is not upon record.

The company which was described as the King’s Revels at Norwich in 1611 and 1612 was travelling under the Queen’s Revels patent of 1610, and was therefore clearly misnamed. But a second King’s Revels company did in fact come into existence through a licence given to William Hovell, William Perry, and Nathan May under the royal signet on 27 February 1615. It performed only in the provinces, and is traceable at Norwich, Coventry, and Leicester. Its warrant was condemned and withdrawn by an order of the Lord Chamberlain on 16 July 1616 (Murray, ii. 343), and in the following year the company seems to have amalgamated with the provincial relics of the Queen’s Revels.

v. CHILDREN OF BRISTOL

_Masters_:--John Daniel (1615–17); Martin Slater, John Edmonds, Nathaniel Clay (1618).

A signet bill for a patent for a company of Children of Bristol under the patronage of Queen Anne was passed in June 1615, perhaps as a result of her visit to that city in 1613.[203] On 10 July Sir George Buck wrote to John Packer, the Earl of Somerset’s secretary, to say that the grant had been made through the Queen’s influence on behalf of Samuel Daniel, and that he was prepared to assent to it, without prejudice to his rights as Master of the Revels.[204] The actual patent, dated 13 July, is made out to Daniel’s brother John.[205]

[Sidenote: De concessione regardante Iohannem Daniell.]

Iames by the grace of God &c. To all Iustices of peace, Mayors, Sheriffes, Bayliffes, Constables, headboroughes and other our lovinge subjectes and Officers greetinge. Knowe yee that wee at the mocion of our most deerelie loved consort the Queene have licenced and authorised, And by theise presentes do licence and authorise, our welbeloved subjectes Iohn Daniell and his Assignes to entertaine and bringe vp a company of children and youthes vunder the name and title of the children of her Maiesties royall Chamber of Bristoll, to vse and exercise the arte and qualitie of playinge Comedies, histories, Enterludes, Moralles, Pastoralles, Stageplayes, and such other like, as they have alreadie studied or hereafter shall studie or vse, aswell for the solace and delight of our most derely loved Consort the Queene whensoever they shalbe called, as for the recreacion of our loving Subiectes, And the said Enterludes or other to shewe and exercise publiquely to their best commoditie, aswell in and about our said Citie of Bristoll in such vsuall houses as themselves shall provide, as other convenient places within the liberties and freedomes of any other Cittie, vniversitie, Towne, or Burrowe whatsoever within our Realmes and Dominions, willing and commaundinge you and every of you, as you tender our pleasures, not onelie to permitt and suffer them herein without any your lettes, hinderances, molestacions, and disturbances during our said pleasure, but alsoe to be aydinge and assistinge vnto them, yf any wronge be done vnto them or to them offred, and to allowe them such further curtesies as have bene given to other of the like qualitie, And alsoe what further grace and favour you shall show vnto them for our sakes wee shall take kindly at your handes. Provided alwaies and our will and pleasure is, all authoritie, power, priviledge, and profitt whatsoever belonginge and properlie apperteyninge to the Maister of the Revelles in respect of his office shall remayne and abide entire and in full force, effect, and vertue, and in as ample sort as if this our Commission had never byn made. In witnes whereof &c., witnes our selfe at Westminster the seaventeenth day of Iuly. per breve de priuato sigillo &c.

The company is not traceable in London, but Daniel brought it to Norwich in 1616–17. By April 1618 he had assigned his privilege to Martin Slater, John Edmonds and Nathaniel Clay, who obtained, presumably from the Privy Council, supplementary letters of assistance in which they are described as ‘her Maiesties servants’, and are authorized to play as ‘her Maiesties servants of her Royall Chamber of Bristoll’.[206] From a complaint sent in the following June by the Mayor of Exeter to Sir Thomas Lake, it emerges that, although the patent was for children, the company consisted of five youths and several grown men.[207] Slater and Edmonds still held their _status_ as Queen’s men (q.v.) in 1619.

vi. WESTMINSTER SCHOOL

_Head Masters_:--John Adams (1540); Alexander Nowell (1543–53); Nicholas Udall (1555–6); John Passey (1557–8, with Richard Spencer as usher); John Randall (1563); Thomas Browne (1564–9); Francis Howlyn (1570–1); Edward Graunte (1572–92); William Camden (1593–8, Undermaster 1575–93); Richard Ireland (1599–1610); John Wilson (1610–22).

_Choir Masters_ (?):--William Cornish (1480); John Taylor (1561–7); John Billingsley (1572); William Elderton (1574).

[_Bibliographical Note._--The best sources of information are: R. Widmore, _History of Westminster Abbey_ (1751); J. Welch [--C. B. Phillimore], _Alumni Westmonasterienses_, ed. 2 (1852); _Appendix to First Report of the Cathedral Commissioners_ (1854); F. H. Forshall, _Westminster School, Past and Present_ (1884); J. Sargeaunt, _Annals of Westminster School_ (1898); A. F. Leach, _The Origin of Westminster School in Journal of Education_, n. s. xxvii (1905), 79. Some valuable records have been printed by E. J. L. Scott in the _Athenaeum_, and extracts from others are given in the _Observer_ for 7 Dec. 1919. A. F. Leach has fixed the dates of Udall’s life in _Encycl. Brit._ s.v.]

There is no trace of any grammar school in the abbey of Westminster until the fourteenth century. The _Customary_ of 1259–83 (ed. E. M. Thompson for _Henry Bradshaw Soc._) only contemplates education for the novices, and in the earliest almoner’s accounts, which begin with 1282, entries of 1317 ‘in maintaining Nigel at school for the love of God’ (Leach, 80) and 1339–40, ‘pro scholaribus inueniendis ad scolas’ (E. H. Pearce, _The Monks of Westminster Abbey_, 79), need only refer to the support of scholars at a University. But from 1354–5 there were almonry boys (_pueri Elemosinariae_) under the charge of the Sub-Almoner, and these are traceable up to the dissolution. To them we may assign the _ludus_ of the Boy Bishop on St. Nicholas’ day, mentions of which have been noted in 1369, 1388, 1413, and 1540 (_Mediaeval Stage_, i. 360; Leach, 80). They had a school house near ‘le Millebank’, and from 1367 the Almoner paid a _Magister Puerorum_. From 1387 he is often called _Magister Scolarum_ and in the fifteenth century _Magister Scolarium_. From 1510 the boys under the _Magister_ become _pueri grammatici_, and may be distinct from certain _pueri cantantes_ for whom since 1479–80 the Almoner had paid a separate teacher of singing. The first of these song-masters was William Cornish, doubtless of the family so closely connected with the Chapel Royal (q.v.). In 1540 the _pueri grammatici_ were reorganized as the still existing College of St. Peter, Westminster, which is therefore generally regarded as owing its origin to Henry VIII, who on the surrender of the abbey in 1540 turned it into a college of secular canons, and provided for a school of forty scholars. This endured in some form through the reactionary reign of Mary, whose favourite dramatist Nicholas Udall became its Head Master, although the date of his appointment on 16 December 1555 (A. F. Leach in _Encycl. Brit._, s.v. Udall) makes it probable that, if he wrote his _Ralph Roister Doister_ for a school at all, it was for Eton (q.v.) rather than Westminster. His predecessor Alexander Nowell is said by Strype to have ‘brought in the reading of Terence for the better learning the pure Roman style’, and, as the Sub-Almoner paid ‘xvi_d._ for wryting of a play for the chyldren’ as early as 1521 (_Observer_), the performance of Latin comedies by the boys may have been pre-Elizabethan. It is provided for in the statutes drafted by Dean Bill (_c._ 1560) after the restoration of her father’s foundation by Elizabeth. These statutes also contemplate a good deal of interrelation between the choir school and the grammar school. They are printed in the _Report of the Cathedral Commission_ (App. I, 80). The personnel of the foundation was to include (a) ‘_clerici duodecim_’, of whom ‘_unus sit choristarum doctor_’, (b) ‘_decem pueri symphoniaci sive choristae_’, presumably in continuation of the former singing boys, (c) ‘_praeceptores duo ad erudiendam iuventutem_’, (d) ‘_discipuli grammatici quadraginta_’. The ‘_praeceptores_’ are distinguished later in the document as ‘_archididascalus_’ and ‘_hypodidascalus_’, and the former is also called ‘_ludimagister_’. By c. 5 the choristers are to have a preference in elections to the grammar school. The following section ‘_De Choristis et Choristarum Magistro_’ forms part of c. 9:

‘Statuimus et ordinamus ut in ecclesia nostra praedicta sint decem choristae, pueri tenerae aetatis et vocibus sonoris ad cantandum, et ad artem musicam discendam, et etiam ad musica instrumenta pulsanda apti, qui choro inserviant, ministrent, et cantent. Ad hos praeclare instituendos, unus eligatur qui sit honestae famae, vitae probae, religionis sincerae, artis musicae peritus, et ad cantandum et musica instrumenta pulsanda exercitatus, qui pueris in praedictis scientiis et exercitiis docendis aliisque muniis [? muneribus] in choro obeundis studiose vacabit. Hunc magistrum choristarum appellari volumus. Cui muneri doctores et baccalaureos musices aliis praeferendos censemus. Volumus etiam quoties eum ab ecclesia nostra abesse contingat, alterum substituat a decano vel eo absente prodecano approbandum. Prospiciat item puerorum saluti, quorum et in literis (donec ut in scholam nostram admittantur apti censebuntur) et in morum modestia et in convictu educationem et liberalem institutionem illius fidei et industriae committimus. Quod si negligens et in docendo desidiosus, aut in salute puerorum et recta eorum educatione minime providus et circumspectus, et ideo non tolerandus inveniatur, post trinam admonitionem (si se non emendaverit) ab officio deponatur. Qui quidem choristarum magister ad officium suum per se fideliter obeundum iuramento etiam adigetur. Choristae postquam octo orationis partes memoriter didicerint et scribere mediocriter noverint, ad scholam nostram ut melius in grammatica proficiant singulis diebus profestis accedant, ibique duabus minimum horis maneant, et a praeceptoribus instituantur.’

The following section ‘_De Comoediis et Ludis in Natali Domini exhibendis_’ comes in c. 10:

‘Quo iuventus maiore cum fructu tempus Natalis Christi terat, et tum actioni tum pronunciationi decenti melius se assuescat: statuimus ut singulis annis intra 12^m post festum Natalis Christi dies [? diem], vel postea arbitrio decani, ludimagister et praeceptor simul Latine unam, magister choristarum Anglice alteram comoediam aut tragoediam a discipulis et choristis suis in aula privatim vel publice agendam, curent. Quod si non prestiterint singuli quorum negligentia omittuntur decem solidis mulctentur.’

The statutes appear never to have been confirmed by the Crown, and their practical adoption was subject to certain exceptions. Thus, it is stated in the report of the Public Schools Commission in 1864 (i. 159) that there is no reason to believe that the provision giving a preference to choristers in elections for the grammar school was ever attended to.

Of plays and the like, however, there are various records. The first since 1521 is at the Lord Mayor’s Day of 1561, when the Merchant Taylors’ expenses for their pageant included items ‘to John Tayllour, master of the Children of the late monastere of Westminster, for his children that sung and played in the pageant’, and ‘to John Holt momer in reward for attendance given of the children in the pageant’. Similar payments were made to Taylor as ‘M^r of the quirysters’ for the services of the children on the Ironmongers’ pageant of 1566.[208] In 1562 the choristers of Westminster Abbey performed a goodly play before the Society of Parish Clerks after their annual dinner.[209] In 1564–5 comes the first of a series of Court performances, which received assistance from the Revels office. To this occasion belongs a memorandum of ‘Thexpenses of twoo playes viz. Heautontimoroumenos Terentii and Miles Gloriosus Plauti plaied by the children of the grammer schoole in the colledge of Westminster and before the Quenes maiestie anno 1564’.[210] The items include, ‘At ye rehersing before Sir Thomas Benger for pinnes and suger candee vj_d._’, ‘For a lynke to bring thapparell from the reuells iiij_d._’, ‘At the playing of Miles Glor: in M^r. Deanes howse for pinnes half a thousand vj_d._’, ‘Geuen to M^r. Holte yeoman of the reuells x_s._’, ‘To M^r. Taylor his man’, ‘For one Plautus geven to ye Queenes maiestie and fowre other vnto the nobilitie xj_s._’ It is not quite clear whether the _Heautontimorumenus_, as well as the _Miles Gloriosus_, was given before the Queen, but I think not. In 1565–6 Elizabeth was again present at the play of _Sapientia Solomonis_, and there were payments ‘For drawing the city and temple of Jerusalem and paynting towers’, ‘To a woman that brawght her childe to the stadge and there attended uppon it’, and for a copy of the play bound ‘in vellum with the Queenes Ma^{tie} hir armes and sylke ribben strings’, almost certainly that still extant as _Addl. MS._ 20061 (cf. App. K), which shows that Elizabeth was accompanied by Cecilia of Sweden.[211] Whether these plays were at the school or at Court is not quite clear. I should, on the whole, infer the latter, but no rewards were paid for them by the Treasurer of the Chamber. John Taylor was, however, paid for plays by the Children of Westminster during the Shrovetide of 1566–7 and the Christmas of 1567–8; John Billingesley for their _Paris and Vienna_ on 19 February 1572; and William Elderton for their _Truth, Faithfulness, and Mercy_ on 1 January 1574. In 1567 also the boys are recorded (_Observer_) to have played at Putney before Bishop Grindal. I suppose that Billingesley and Elderton succeeded Taylor as _Magistri Choristarum_. Taylor himself is probably the same who on 8 September 1557 was Master of the singing children at the hospital of St. Mary Woolnoth. Elderton is presumably the same who brought the Eton boys to Court in 1573. Whether he is also the bibulous balladist of the pamphleteers (cf. ch. xv) is more doubtful. The absence of a payment for _Miles Gloriosus_ may suggest that this was given by the grammar school who, like the Inns of Court, did not expect a reward, and that the English plays were given by the choristers, who were on the same footing as the choristers of Paul’s. I am not sure, however, that the wording of the statutes quite implies such a sharp distinction between the two sets of boys, and it will be noticed that Taylor, or his man, was in some way concerned with the Latin play. Very possibly grammar boys and choristers acted together. With 1574 the Court performances end, but expenses of plays are traceable in the college accounts in 1604–5, 1605–6, 1606–7, and 1609–10, and up to about 1640, when they stop for sixty-four years.[212]

vii. ETON COLLEGE

_Head Masters_:--William Malim (c. 1555–73); William Smyth (c. 1563); Reuben Sherwood (c. 1571); Thomas Ridley (1579); John Hammond (1583); Richard Langley (1594); Richard Wright (1611); Matthew Bust (1611–30).

[_Bibliographical Note._--The best sources of information are J. Heywood and T. Wright, _Ancient Laws of King’s College and Eton College_ (1850); _Report of Public Schools Commission_ (1864); W. L. Collins, _Etoniana_ 1865); H. Maxwell-Lyte, _History of Eton_ (1875, 4th ed. 1911); W. Sterry, _Annals of Eton College_ (1898).]

The King’s College of Our Lady of Eton beside Windsor was founded by Henry VI in 1441. The Statutes of 1444 provide for a Boy Bishop (_Mediaeval Stage_, i. 365), but the custom was discontinued before 1559–61, when William Malim prepared a _Consuetudinarium_ for a Royal Commission appointed to visit the college. By this time, however, Christmas plays by the boys had become the practice, and Malim writes:[213]

‘Circiter festum D. Andreae [Nov. 30] ludimagister eligere solet pro suo arbitrio scaenicas fabulas optimas et quam accommodatissimas, quas pueri feriis natalitiis subsequentibus non sine ludorum elegantia, populo spectante, publice aliquando peragant. Histrionum levis ars est, ad actionem tamen oratorum, et gestum motumque corporis decentem tantopere facit, ut nihil magis. Interdum etiam exhibet Anglico sermone contextas fabulas, quae habeant acumen et leporem.’

There are ‘numerous’ entries of expenditure on these plays in the Audit Books from 1525–6 to 1572–3, of which a few only have been printed.[214] There is also an inventory, apparently undated, of articles in ‘M^r. Scholemasters chamber’, which includes ‘a great cheste bound about with yron to keepe the players coats in’, and a list of the apparel, beards, and properties. The Eton boys played under Udall before Cromwell in 1538 (_Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 196, 451), and it is possible that _Ralph Roister Doister_ may belong to his Eton mastership.[215] The only Court performance by Eton boys on record was one on 6 January 1573, for which the payee was Elderton, presumably the William Elderton who was payee for the Westminster boys in the following year.

viii. MERCHANT TAYLORS SCHOOL

_Head Masters_:--Richard Mulcaster (1561–86); Henry Wilkinson (1586–92); Edmund Smith (1592–9); William Hayne (1599–1625).

The London school of the Merchant Taylors was founded in 1561, and its first master was Richard Mulcaster, or Moncaster, as his name is spelt in some of the earlier records.[216] He was a student of King’s, Cambridge and Christ Church, Oxford, who had been teaching in London since 1559. The first performances by his boys, of which record remains, were in 1572–3. In that and the following year they played before the Merchant Taylors Company at the Common Hall.[217] Unfortunately the audience, who had paid for their seats, and very likely Mulcaster himself, paid more attention to the plays than to the dignitaries in whose hall they were given. The plays were therefore stopped, and the following pleasing example of civic pomposity inserted in the archives of the Company on 16 March 1574:[218]

‘Whereas at our comon playes and suche lyke exercises whiche be comonly exposed to be seene for money, everye lewd persone thinketh himself (for his penny) worthye of the chiefe and most comodious place withoute respecte of any other either for age or estimacion in the comon weale, whiche bringeth the youthe to such an impudente famyliaritie with theire betters that often tymes greite contempte of maisters, parents, and magistrats foloweth thereof, as experience of late in this our comon hall hath sufficyently declared, where by reasone of the tumultuous disordered persones repayringe hither to see suche playes as by our schollers were here lately played, the Maisters of this Worshipful Companie and their deare ffrends could not have entertaynmente and convenyente place as they ought to have had, by no provision beinge made, notwithstandinge the spoyle of this howse, the charges of this Mystery, and theire juste authoritie which did reasonably require the contrary. Therefore and ffor the causes ffirst above saide, yt is ordeyned and decreed by the authoritie of this presente Courte, with the assente and consente of all the worshipfull persones aforesaide, that henceforthe theire shall be no more plays suffered to be played in this our Comon Hall, any use or custome heretofore to the contrary in anywise notwithstandinge.’

Mulcaster, however, found more tolerant critics than his own employers. His first appearance at Court was on 3 February 1573.[219] On 2 February 1574 he presented _Timoclia at the Siege of Thebes_ and on 23 February _Percius and Anthomiris_; at Shrovetide 1575 and on 6 March 1576 plays unnamed; and on 12 February 1583 _Ariodante and Geneuora_. A reminiscence of these performances has been left us by the seventeenth-century judge, Sir James Whitelocke, who entered the school in 1575 and left for St. John’s, Oxford, in 1588:

‘I was brought up at school under M^r Mulcaster, in the famous school of the Merchantaylors in London.... Yeerly he presented sum playes to the court, in which his scholers wear only actors, and I on among them, and by that meanes taughte them good behaviour and audacitye.’[220]

In 1586 Mulcaster quarrelled with the Merchant Taylors and resigned. In 1596 he became High Master of St. Paul’s grammar school, but it is only conjecture that his influence counted for anything in the revival of plays by the choir master, Edward Pearce. Regular plays at Merchant Taylors probably ceased on his withdrawal. When Sir Robert Lee, one of the Company, became Lord Mayor in 1602, a payment was made to Mr. Haines, the Schoolmaster, for a wagon and the apparel of ten scholars, who represented Apollo and the Muses in Cheapside. But when James came to dine at the hall on 16 July 1607, it was thought best to apply for help to Heminges of the King’s men and Nathaniel Giles of the Chapel, on the ground that the Schoolmaster and children were not familiar with such entertainments.[221]

ix. THE EARL OF LEICESTER’S BOYS

Vide ch. xiii (Earl of Leicester’s men).

x. THE EARL OF OXFORD’S BOYS

Vide ch. xiii (Earl of Oxford’s men).

xi. MR. STANLEY’S BOYS

Vide ch. xiii (Earl of Derby’s men).

XIII

THE ADULT COMPANIES

i. The Court Interluders. ii. The Earl of Leicester’s men. iii. Lord Rich’s men. iv. Lord Abergavenny’s men. v. The Earl of Sussex’s men. vi. Sir Robert Lane’s men. vii. The Earl of Lincoln’s (Lord Clinton’s) men. viii. The Earl of Warwick’s men. ix. The Earl of Oxford’s men. x. The Earl of Essex’s men. xi. Lord Vaux’s men. xii. Lord Berkeley’s men. xiii. Queen Elizabeth’s men. xiv. The Earl of Arundel’s men. xv. The Earl of Hertford’s men. xvi. Mr. Evelyn’s men. xvii. The Earl of Derby’s (Lord Strange’s) men. xviii. The Earl of Pembroke’s men. xix. The Lord Admiral’s (Lord Howard’s, Earl of Nottingham’s), Prince Henry’s, and Elector Palatine’s men. xx. The Lord Chamberlain’s (Lord Hunsdon’s) and King’s men. xxi. The Earl of Worcester’s and Queen Anne’s men. xxii. The Duke of Lennox’s men. xxiii. The Duke of York’s (Prince Charles’s) men. xxiv. The Lady Elizabeth’s men.

i. THE COURT INTERLUDERS

Henry VII (22 Aug. 1485--21 Apr. 1509); Henry VIII (22 Apr. 1509--28 Jan. 1547); Edward VI (28 Jan. 1547--6 July 1553); Mary (19 July 1553--24 July 1554); Philip and Mary (25 July 1554--17 Nov. 1558); Elizabeth (17 Nov. 1558--24 Mar. 1603).

The _doyen_ of the Court companies, when Elizabeth came to the throne, was the royal company of Players of Interludes. This had already half a century of history behind it. Its beginnings are probably traceable in the reign of Henry VII. Richard III had entertained a company, as Duke of Gloucester, in 1482; but nothing is known of it during his short reign from 1583 to 1585.[222] Nor is a royal company discoverable amongst the earlier records of Henry VII himself.[223] But from 1493 onwards Exchequer documents testify to the continuous existence of a body of men under the style of _Lusores Regis_, or in the vulgar tongue, Players of the King’s Interludes. In 1494 there were four of them, John English, Edward May, Richard Gibson, and John Hammond, and each had an annual fee, payable out of the Exchequer, of £3 6_s._ 8_d._ In 1503 there were five, William Rutter and John Scott taking the place of Hammond, but the total Exchequer payment to the company of £13 6_s._ 8_d._ a year, seems to have remained unaltered to the end of the reign.[224] They received, however, additional sums from time to time, as ‘rewards’ for performances, which were charged to the separate account of the Chamber.[225] In 1503, under the leadership of John English, they attended the Princess Margaret to Edinburgh, for her wedding with James IV of Scotland. Here they ‘did their devoir’, both on the day of the wedding, 8 August, and on the following days. On 11 August they played after supper, and on 13 August they played ‘a Moralite’ after dinner.[226]

The royal company continued under Henry VIII, who appears to have increased its numbers, and doubled the charge upon the Exchequer.[227] The financial records are, however, a little complicated. The Exchequer officials presumably continued to regard the establishment as consisting of four members drawing fees of ten instead of five marks each.[228] But the individual members were in fact paid on different scales. John English, the leader, got £6 13_s._ 4_d._ Others got £3 6_s._ 8_d._ as before, and others again only two-thirds of this amount, £2 4_s._ 5_d._ By this arrangement, it was possible to maintain an actual establishment of from eight to ten within the limits of the Exchequer allowance. It seems also to have been found convenient to transfer the responsibility for some at least of the payments from the Exchequer to the Treasurer of the Chamber.[229] The same distinction between players of different grades is also reflected in the annual rewards paid by the Treasurer of the Chamber for Christmas performances. These were increased in amount, and for a time the general reward to the players as a whole was supplemented by an additional sum to the ‘old’ players. Ultimately an amalgamated sum of £6 13_s._ 4_d._ became the customary reward for the company.[230] Details of a performance of Henry Medwall’s _Finding of Truth_ on 6 January 1514 are related by Collier from a document which cannot be regarded as free from suspicion.[231] The name of Richard Gibson now disappears from the notices of the company. He may, likely enough, have given up playing on his appointment to be Porter and Yeoman Tailor of the Great Wardrobe.[232] But in his capacity of officer in charge of the Revels he must have maintained close relations with his former fellows, and his Account for 1510 records the delivery to John English of a ‘red satin ladies garment, powdered, with tassels of silver of Kolen’.[233] English remained at the head of the company, and is traceable in the _Chamber Accounts_ up to 1531. John Scott died in 1528–9, in singular circumstances which are detailed by a contemporary chronicler.[234] Other names which come in succession before us are those of Richard Hole, George Maylor, George Birch, John Roll or Roo (_d._ 1539), Thomas Sudbury or Sudborough (_d._ 1546), Robert Hinstock, Richard Parrowe, John Slye, and John Young.[235] Some interesting information is disclosed by two lawsuits, in both of which George Maylor figured. The first of these was a dispute between John Rastell and Henry Walton as to the dilapidations of certain playing garments, during which George Mayler, merchant tailor, aged 40, and George Birch, coriar, aged 32, were called to give evidence as to the value of the garments and their use for a royal banquet at Greenwich in 1527.[236] In the second Mayler was himself a party. He is here described as a glazier, and an agreement of November 1528 is recited between him and one Thomas Arthur, tailor, whom he took as an apprentice for a year, promising to teach him to play and to obtain him admission into the King’s company and the right to the privileges (_libertatem_) thereof and ‘the Kinges bage’. According to Mayler, he found Arthur meat and drink and 4_d._ a day, but after seven weeks Arthur left him, beguiling away three of his covenant servants upon a playing tour in the provinces, out of which they made a profit of £30. He was, adds Mayler, ‘right harde and dull too taike any lernynge, whereby he was nothinge meate or apte too bee in service with the Kinges grace too maike any plaiez or interludes before his highnes’. Arthur, on the other hand, alleged that it was Mayler who had broken the indentures, and sued him before the sheriffs of London for £26 damages. Owing to the accident of Mayler’s being in Ludgate prison and unable to defend himself, the jury found against him for £4, and he appealed to Chancery to remove the action to that court.[237] The King’s men, even apart from their other occupations as Household servants or tradesmen, were not wholly dependent on the royal bounty. The reward at Christmas was supplemented by minor gifts from the Princess Mary, or from lords and ladies of the Court, such as the Duke of Rutland and the Countess of Devon;[238] and the glamour of the King’s badge doubtless added to the liberality of the company’s reception in many a monastery, country mansion, and town hall. They are found during the reign at the priories of Thetford, Dunmow (1531–2), and Durham (1532–3), at the house of the Lestranges at Hunstanton (23 October 1530), at New Romney (1526–7), Shrewsbury (1527, 1533, 1540), Leicester (1531), Norwich (1533), Bristol (1535, 1536, 1537, 1541), Cambridge (1537–8), Beverley (1540–1), and Maldon (1546–7).[239] A private performance by the King’s men forms an episode in the Elizabethan play of _Sir Thomas More_, although the Mason there named cannot be traced amongst their number.

No important change in the status of the company is to be observed under Edward VI. Some of the existing members seem to have retired, and four new ones, Richard Coke, John Birch, Henry Heryot, and John Smyth, were appointed.[240] The first three of these, together with two others, Richard Skinner and Thomas Southey, received a warrant to the Master of the Great Wardrobe on 15 February 1548, for the usual livery assigned to yeomen officers of the household, which consisted of three yards of red cloth, with an allowance of 3_s._ 4_d._ for the embroidering thereon of the royal initials.[241] The fees of these five, and of George Birch and Robert Hinstock, who were survivors from Henry VIII’s time, are traceable, as well as the annual reward of £6 13_s._ 4_d._, in the Chamber Accounts.[242] Each now got £3 6_s._ 8_d._ a year, under a warrant of 24 December 1548. The same names appear in a list of 30 September 1552, with the exception of Robert Hinstock, whose place had probably been taken by John Browne, appointed as from the previous Christmas by a warrant of 9 June 1552, which introduced the innovation of granting him a livery allowance of £1 3_s._ 4_d._ a year instead of the actual livery.[243] If we suppose that John Smith and John Young continued to be borne on the Exchequer pay-roll, the total number of eight interlude-players provided for in fee-lists of Edward’s reign is made up.[244] John Smith is probably to be identified with the ‘disard’ or jester of that name who took part in George Ferrers’s Christmas gambols of 1552–3.[245] John Young may be the ‘right worshipful esquire John Yung’ to whom William Baldwin dedicated his _Beware the Cat_ in 1553. He certainly survived into Elizabeth’s reign and was still drawing an annuity of £3 6_s._ 8_d._ as ‘agitator comediarum’ in 1569–70.[246] I have not noticed any provincial performances by the company during 1547–53, except at Maldon in 1549–50, but they are referred to more than once in the archives of the Revels. The Revels Office made them an oven and weapons of wood at Shrovetide 1548 and a seven-headed dragon at Shrovetide 1549. At Christmas 1551–2 the Privy Council gave them a warrant to borrow ‘apparell and other fornyture’ from the Master, and Lord Darcy gave John Birch and John Browne another for garments to serve in an interlude before the King on 6 January 1552.[247] William Baldwin, in his _Beware the Cat_, relates that during the Christmas of 1552–3, they were learning ‘a play of Esop’s Crowe, wherin the moste part of the actors were birds’.[248] Their only other play of which the name is known is that of _Self Love_, for which Sir Thomas Chaloner gave them 20s. on a Shrove Monday in 1551–3.[249]

The company no doubt took their share in Court revels during the earlier part of Mary’s reign. But when the eclipse of gaiety came upon her later years they travelled. They are noted as the King and Queen’s men in 1555–6 at Ipswich and Gloucester, in 1557 at Bristol, and in 1558 at Barnstaple, and as the Queen’s men in 1555 at Leicester, in 1555–6 at Beverley, in 1556–7 at Beverley, Oxford, Norwich and Exeter, and in 1557–8 at Beverley, Leicester, Maldon, Dover, Lyme Regis, and Barnstaple. The nominal establishment continued to be eight.[250] But Heriot disappears after 1552 and John Birch, Coke, and Southey after 1556, and their vacancies do not seem to have been filled.[251]

Under Elizabeth the interlude players were certainly a moribund folk. They were reappointed ‘during pleasure’ under a warrant of 25 December 1559, and apparently Edmund Strowdewike and William Reading took the place of George Birch and Skinner.[252] They drew their fees of £3 6_s._ 8_d._ and livery allowances of £1 3_s._ 4_d._ from the Treasurer of the Chamber. The eight posts figure on the fee-lists long after there were no holders left.[253] The last ‘reward’ to the company, not improbably for the anti-papal farce of 6 January 1559, is to be found in the Chamber Account for 1558–60. It may be inferred that they never again played at Court. They were allowed to dwindle away. Browne and Reading died in 1563, Strowdewike on 3 June 1568, and Smith survived in solitary dignity until 1580.[254] Up to about 1573 he kept up some sort of provincial organization, doubtless with the aid of unofficial associates, and the Queen’s players are therefore traceable in many municipal Account-books. In October 1559 they were at Bristol and before Christmas at Leicester, in 1559–60 at Gloucester, in 1560–1 at Barnstaple, in 1561 at Faversham,[255] in October–December 1561 at Leicester, in 1561–2 at Gloucester, Maldon, and Beverley, in July 1562 at Grimsthorpe, and on 4 October at Ipswich, in August 1563 at Bristol, in 1563–4 at Maldon, on 12 and 20 March 1564 at Ipswich again, and on 2 August at Leicester, in 1564–5 at Abingdon, Maldon, and Gloucester, in 1565–6 at Maldon, Oxford, and Shrewsbury, in July 1566 at Bristol, before 29 September at Leicester, and on 9 October at Ipswich, in July 1567 at Bristol, in 1567–8 at Oxford and Gloucester, in 1568–9 at Abingdon, Ipswich, and Stratford-upon-Avon, in August 1569 at Bristol, and on 7 December at Oxford, in 1569–70 at Gloucester and Maldon, before 29 September 1570 at Leicester, in 1570–1 at Winchester, and during October-December 1571 at Leicester, in 1571–2 at Oxford, on 23 May 1572 at Nottingham, and on 20 November at Maldon, in 1572–3 at Ipswich, on 7 January 1573 at Beverley, and in 1573 at Winchester. This list is not exhaustive.[256] A reward to ‘the Queens Majesty’s men’ in the Doncaster accounts for 1575 can hardly be assumed to refer to actors.

ii. THE EARL OF LEICESTER’S MEN

Robert Dudley; 5th s. of John, 1st Duke of Northumberland, _nat._ 24 June 1532 or 1533; m. (1) Amy, d. of Sir John Robsart, 4 June 1550, (2) Douglas Lady Sheffield, d. of William, 1st Lord Howard of Effingham, May 1573, (3) Lettice Countess of Essex, d. of Sir Francis Knollys, 1578; Master of the Horse, 11 Jan. 1559; High Steward of Cambridge, 1562; Earl of Leicester, 29 Sept. 1564; Chancellor of Oxford, 31 Dec. 1564; Lord Steward, 1584–8; Absolute Governor of United Provinces, 25 Jan. 1586–12 Apr. 1588; _ob._ 4 Sept. 1588.

The earliest mention of Lord Robert Dudley’s players is in a letter which he wrote in June 1559 to the Earl of Shrewsbury, Lord President of the North, as Lord Lieutenant of Yorkshire, asking licence for them to perform in that county, in accordance with the proclamation of 16 May 1559.[257] The terms of the letter suggest that the company may already have played in London, but it is probable, as nothing is said of a hearing by the Queen, that they had not been at Court. They were there at each Christmas from 1560–1 to 1562–3, and then not for a decade. They were in 1558–9 at Norwich, in 1559–60 at Oxford, Saffron Walden, and Plymouth, in July 1560 at Bristol, in October 1561 at Grimsthorpe, in 1561–2 at Oxford, Maldon, and Ipswich, in September 1562 at Bristol, where they are called ‘Lord Dudley’s’ players, on 12 November 1563 at Leicester, and on 17 November at Ipswich, in 1563–4 at Maldon, on 2 January 1564 at Ipswich, and on 1 July at Leicester. They are also found, as the Earl of Leicester’s, in 1564–5 at Maldon, on 6 April 1565 at York, on 11 August 1569 at Nottingham, in January 1570 at Bristol, on 4 May 1570 at Oxford, and in October-December at Leicester, in 1570–1 at Abingdon, Barnstaple, and Gloucester, on 9 August 1571 at Saffron Walden,[258] in October–December at Leicester, in the same year at Beverley, on 15 July 1572 at Ipswich, and on 20 August at Nottingham. The gap in my records between 1565 and 1569 is bridged in the fuller list covering other towns given by Mr. Murray.[259] Information as to the company in 1572 is derived from the signatures to a letter asking for appointment by Leicester, not merely as liveried retainers but as household servants, in order to meet the terms of the proclamation of 3 January in that year.[260]

To the right honorable Earle of Lecester, their good lord and master.

Maye yt please your honour to understande that forasmuche as there is a certayne Procalmation out for the revivinge of a Statute as touchinge retayners, as youre Lordshippe knoweth better than we can enforme you thereof: We therfore, your humble Servaunts and daylye Oratours your players, for avoydinge all inconvenients that maye growe by reason of the saide Statute, are bold to trouble your Lordshippe with this our Suite, humblie desiringe your honor that (as you have bene alwayes our good Lord and Master) you will now vouchsaffe to reteyne us at this present as your houshold Servaunts and daylie wayters, not that we meane to crave any further stipend or benefite at your Lordshippes hands but our lyveries as we have had, and also your honors License to certifye that we are your houshold Servaunts when we shall have occasion to travayle amongst our frendes as we do usuallye once a yere, and as other noble-mens Players do and have done in tyme past, Wherebie we maye enjoye our facultie in your Lordshippes name as we have done hertofore. Thus beyinge bound and readie to be alwayes at your Lordshippes commandmente we committ your honor to the tuition of the Almightie.

Long may your Lordshippe live in peace, A pere of noblest peres: In helth welth and prosperitie Redoubling Nestor’s yeres.

Your Lordshippes Servaunts most bounden Iames Burbage. Iohn Perkinne. Iohn Laneham. William Iohnson. Roberte Wilson. Thomas Clarke.

Several of these men were to achieve distinction in their ‘quality’; of none of them is there any earlier record, unless John Perkin is to be identified with the Parkins who had been in 1552–3 one of the train of the Lord of Misrule.[261] By 6 December 1571 the company were in London.[262] Three years later they obtained a very singular favour in the patent of 10 May 1574, the general bearings of which have already been discussed.[263]

[Sidenote: pro Iacobo Burbage & aliis de licencia speciali]

Elizabeth by the grace of God quene of England, &c. To all Iustices, Mayors, Sheriffes, Baylyffes, head Constables, vnder Constables, and all other our officers and mynisters gretinge. Knowe ye that we of oure especiall grace, certen knowledge, and mere mocion haue licenced and auctorised, and by these presentes do licence and auctorise, oure lovinge Subiectes, Iames Burbage, Iohn Perkyn, Iohn Lanham, William Iohnson, and Roberte Wilson, seruauntes to oure trustie and welbeloued Cosen and Counseyllor the Earle of Leycester, to vse, exercise, and occupie the arte and facultye of playenge Commedies, Tragedies, Enterludes, stage playes, and such other like as they haue alredie vsed and studied, or hereafter shall vse and studie, aswell for the recreacion of oure loving subiectes, as for oure solace and pleasure when we shall thincke good to see them, as also to vse and occupie all such Instrumentes as they haue alredie practised, or hereafter shall practise, for and during our pleasure. And the said Commedies, Tragedies, Enterludes, and stage playes, to gether with their musicke, to shewe, publishe, exercise, and occupie to their best commoditie during all the terme aforesaide, aswell within oure Citie of London and liberties of the same, as also within the liberties and fredomes of anye oure Cities, townes, Bouroughes &c. whatsoeuer as without the same, thoroughte oure Realme of England. Willynge and commaundinge yow and everie of yowe, as ye tender our pleasure, to permytte and suffer them herein withoute anye yowre lettes, hynderaunce, or molestacion duringe the terme aforesaid, anye acte, statute, proclamacion, or commaundement heretofore made, or hereafter to be made, to the contrarie notwithstandinge. Prouyded that the said Commedies, Tragedies, enterludes, and stage playes be by the master of oure Revells for the tyme beynge before sene & allowed, and that the same be not published or shewen in the tyme of common prayer, or in the tyme of greate and common plague in oure said Citye of London. In wytnes whereof &c. wytnes oure selfe at Westminster the x^{th} daye of Maye. per breve de priuato sigillo

The names in this patent only differ from those in the letter of 1572 by the omission of Thomas Clarke. By the time of its issue Leicester’s men were again a Court company. They had made their reappearance at the Christmas of 1572–3 with three plays, all given before the end of December. They continued to appear in every subsequent year until the formation of the Queen’s men in 1583. The building of the Theatre by James Burbadge in 1576 gave them a valuable head-quarters in London[264]; but they are still found from time to time about the provinces. Their detailed adventures are as follows. In 1572–3 they were at Stratford-on-Avon, on 8 August 1573 at Beverley, on 1 September at Nottingham, and in October at Bristol. On 26 December they played _Predor and Lucia_ at Court, on 28 December _Mamillia_, and on 21 February 1574 _Philemon and Philecia_. In 1573–4 they were at Oxford and Leicester, on 13 June 1574 at Maldon, on 3 December at Canterbury. In 1574 they were also at Doncaster, where they played in the church. For the Court they rehearsed _Panecia_, and this was probably either their play of 26 December in which ‘my Lord of Lesters boyes’ appeared, or that of 1 January 1575, in which there were chimney-sweepers. From 9 to 27 July 1575 Elizabeth paid her historic visit to Kenilworth, and there is no proof, but much probability, that the company were called upon to take their part in her entertainment. Its chronicler, Robert Laneham, may well have been a kinsman of the player. I have not come across them elsewhere this year, except at Southampton. They played at Court on 28 December 1575 and 4 March 1576, and are described in the account for their payment as ‘Burbag and his company’. A record of them at Ipswich in 1575–6 as ‘my Lorde Robertes’ men is probably misdated. On 30 December 1576 they acted _The Collier_ at Court. In 1576–7 they were at Stratford-on-Avon, in September 1577 at Newcastle, and between 13 and 19 October at Bristol, where they gave _Myngo_.[265] In 1577–8 they were also at Bath. They were at Court on 26 December 1577 and were to have performed again on 11 February 1578, but were displaced for Lady Essex’s men. They may have been at Wanstead in May 1578 when Leicester entertained Elizabeth with Sidney’s _The May Lady_. On 1 September they were at Maldon, on 9 September at Ipswich, and on 3 November at Lord North’s at Kirtling. They played _A Greek Maid_ at Court on 4 January 1579.[266] Their play on 28 December 1579 fell through because Elizabeth could not be present, but they played on 6 January 1580. In 1579–80 they were at Ipswich and Durham, and from 15 to 17 May 1580 at Kirtling. Vice-Chancellor Hatcher’s letter of 21 January 1580 to Burghley about Oxford’s men (_vide infra_) shows that Leicester’s had then recently been refused leave to play at Cambridge. They played _Delight_ at Court on 26 December and appeared again on 7 February 1581. That Wilson was still a member of the company in 1581 is shown by the reference to him in the curious Latin letter written by one of Lord Shrewsbury’s players on 25 April of that year.[267] In the following winter they did not come to Court, but on 10 February 1583 they returned with _Telomo_.[268]

The best of Leicester’s men, including Laneham, Wilson, and Johnson, appear to have joined the Queen’s company on its formation in March 1583. Probably the Queen’s also took over the Theatre. James Burbadge himself may have given up acting. Nothing more is heard of Leicester’s men until 1584–5, when players under his name visited Coventry, Leicester, Gloucester, and Norwich. They were at Dover in June 1585, and at Bath as late as August. These may have been either the relics of the old company, or a new one formed to attend the Earl in his expedition to aid the States-General in the Low Countries. He was appointed to the command of the English forces on 28 August, and reached Flushing on 10 December. The pageants in his honour at Utrecht, Leyden, and the Hague were remarkable. Stowe records festivities at Utrecht on St. George’s Day, 23 April 1586. These included an after-dinner show of ‘dauncing, vauting, and tumbling, with the forces of Hercules, which gave great delight to the strangers, for they had not seene it before’.[269] It is a reasonable inference that the performers in _The Forces of Hercules_ were English.[270] And on 24 March 1586 Sir Philip Sidney, writing to Walsingham from Utrecht, says:

‘I wrote to yow a letter by Will, my lord of Lester’s jesting plaier, enclosed in a letter to my wife, and I never had answer thereof ... I since find that the knave deliverd the letters to my ladi of Lester.’[271]

That the ‘jesting plaier’ was William Shakespeare is on the whole less likely than that he was the famous comic actor, William Kempe; and this theory is confirmed by a mention in an earlier letter of 12 November 1585 from Thomas Doyley at Calais to Leicester himself of ‘Mr. Kemp, called Don Gulihelmo’, as amongst those remaining at Dunkirk.[272] Leicester returned to England in November 1586. ‘Wilhelm Kempe, instrumentist’ and his lad ‘Daniell Jonns’ were at the Danish Court at Helsingör in August and September of the same year; and so, from 17 July to 18 September, were five ‘instrumentister och springere’ whose names may evidently be anglicized as Thomas Stevens, George Bryan, Thomas King, Thomas Pope, and Robert Percy (cf. ch. xiv). Some or all of these men are evidently the company of English comedians referred to by Thomas Heywood as commended by the Earl of Leicester to Frederick II of Denmark. Stevens and his fellows, but not apparently Kempe, went on to Dresden. Some of them ultimately became Lord Strange’s men. But it seems to me very doubtful whether, as is usually suggested, they passed direct into his service from that of Leicester.[273] They did not leave Dresden until 17 July 1587. But Leicester’s were at Exeter on 23 March 1586. They played at Court on 27 December 1586, and were in London about 25 January 1587. They were at Abingdon, Bath, Lathom, Coventry, Leicester, Oxford, Stratford-on-Avon, Dover, Canterbury, Marlborough, Southampton, Exeter, Gloucester, and Norwich during 1586–7. Kempe may, of course, have been with them on these occasions; but if Stevens and the rest passed as Leicester’s in the Low Countries, it is likely that they ceased to do so when they went to Denmark.

Finally, Leicester’s men were at Coventry, Reading, Bath, Maidstone, Dover, Plymouth, Gloucester, York, Saffron Walden, and probably Exeter in 1587–8.[274] On 4 September they were at Norwich, and here William Stonage, a cobbler, was committed to prison at their suit, ‘for lewd words uttered against the ragged staff’.[275] As late as 14 September they did not yet know that the lord in whose name they wore this badge was dead, for on that day, unless the records are again in error, they were still playing at Ipswich.[276]

iii. LORD RICH’S MEN

Richard Rich; _nat._ _c._ 1496; cr. 1st Baron Rich, 26 Feb. 1548; Lord Chancellor, 23 Oct. 1548–21 Dec. 1551; m. Elizabeth Jenks; _ob._ 12 June 1567.

Robert, s. of 1st Baron; _nat._ _c._ 1537; succ. as 2nd Baron, 1567; _ob._ 1581.

The company was at Ipswich on 3 May 1564, Saffron Walden in 1563–4, Maldon in 1564–5, York on 6 April 1565, and Ipswich on 31 July 1567. Then it secured a footing in London, and appeared at Court during the Christmas of 1567–8, on 26 December 1568, and on 5 February 1570. On 2 February 1570 it played at the Lincoln’s Inn Candlemas ‘Post Revels’.[277] It was also at Canterbury in 1569, Saffron Walden in 1569–70, and Maldon in 1570. Presumably it was a later company to which Gabriel Harvey referred in 1579 (cf. p. 4), and the death of Lord Rich in 1581 might naturally have led to its disbandment or change of service.

iv. LORD ABERGAVENNY’S MEN

Henry Neville, s. of George, 3rd Lord Abergavenny; succ. as 4th Lord, 1535; _ob._ 1586.

The only London record of this company is a civic licence for it of 29 January 1572 (App. D, No. xxi), but it is found in provincial records at Dover, Canterbury, Leicester, Bristol, and Faversham in 1571 and 1572, and at Ludlow in 1575–6.

v. THE EARL OF SUSSEX’S MEN

Thomas Radcliffe, s. of Henry, 2nd Earl; _nat._ _c._ 1526; m. (1) Elizabeth, d. of Thomas Earl of Southampton, (2) Frances, d. of Sir William Sidney, 26 Apr. 1555; succ. as 3rd Earl, 17 Feb. 1557; Lord Chamberlain, 13 July 1572; _ob._ 9 June 1583.

Henry Radcliffe, s. of Henry, 2nd Earl; _nat._ _c._ 1530; m. Honora, d. of Anthony Pound, before 24 Feb. 1561; succ. as 4th Earl, 1583; _ob._ 14 Dec. 1593.

Robert Radcliffe, s. of 4th Earl; _nat._ _c._ 1569; m. (1) Bridget, d. of Sir Charles Morison, who _ob._ Dec. 1623, (2) Frances Shute; succ. as 5th Earl, 1593; acting Earl Marshal, 1597, 1601; _ob._ 22 Sept. 1629.

The third Earl of Sussex had a company, which proved one of the most long-lived of the theatrical organizations of Elizabeth’s time and held together, now in London and now in the provinces, under no less than three earls. It first makes its appearance at Nottingham on 16 March 1569, at Maldon in 1570, on 28 January 1571, and on 20 August 1572, at Ipswich in 1571–2, at Canterbury and Dover in 1569 and 1570, and in 1569–70 at Bristol, Gloucester, and Ludlow, where it was of six men. Sussex became Chamberlain in July 1572 and in the following winter his company came to the Court, whose Christmases it helped to enliven pretty regularly until the death of its first patron in 1583. As I have shown elsewhere (ch. vi), Sussex seems to have had occasional deputies in Lord Howard of Effingham and Lord Hunsdon during his term of office, but it is probably justifiable to assume that, when the Chamberlain’s men are referred to at any time during 1572–83, Sussex’s men are meant, and in 1577 and 1581 there is clear evidence that the names are used synonymously. Oddly enough, Howard’s men are also referred to in one record of 1577 (cf. p. 134) as the Chamberlain’s, but that is probably a slip. The detailed history of the company during this period is as follows. In 1572–3 they were at Bath, in July 1573 at Leicester, on 14 September at Nottingham, in 1573–4 at Coventry, in 1574, on some date before 29 September, at Leicester again, on 13 July at Maldon, and in September at Wollaton (Francis Willoughby’s). They rehearsed two Court plays for Christmas on 14 December, _Phedrastus_ and _Phigon and Lucia_, but in the end did not give a performance. In 1574–5 they were at Gloucester, in 1575 at Maldon, and before 29 September at Leicester. They played at Court on 2 February 1576. Their payee was John Adams, the only actor whose name is recorded in connexion with the company. In 1575–6 they were at Ipswich, on 27 July 1576 at Cambridge, and between 29 July and 5 August at Bristol, where they played _The Red Knight_. On 2 February 1577 they played _The Cynocephali_ at Court. In 1576–7 they were at Coventry and Bath, on 30 May 1577 at Ipswich, and on 31 August at Nottingham. On 2 February 1578 they played at Court. In 1577–8 they were at Bath, on 15 July 1578 at Maldon, in the same year at Bristol, and in 1578–9 at Bath. Thereafter their activities seem to have been mainly confined to London. They were named by the Privy Council to the Lord Mayor among the Court companies for the Christmas of 1578–9 (App. D, No. xl), and played _The Cruelty of a Stepmother_ on 28 December 1578, _The Rape of the Second Helen_ on 6 January, and _Murderous Michael_ on 3 March 1579. In the following winter their pieces were _The Duke of Milan and the Marquess of Mantua_ on 26 December, _Portio and Demorantes_ on 2 February, and _Sarpedon_ on 16 February 1580.[278] The names of their Court plays on 27 December 1580 and 2 February 1581 are unfortunately not recorded. On 14 September they recur in the provinces, at Nottingham.[279] They missed the next winter at Court, and made their last appearance there for a decade in _Ferrar_ on 6 January 1583.

Either the death of their patron in June 1583, or possibly the formation of the Queen’s men in the previous March, eclipsed them, but in 1585 they reappear as a provincial company, visiting Dover on 15 May, Bath on 22 July and in May 1586, Coventry twice in 1585–6, Ipswich in 1586–7, York in 1587, Leicester before Michaelmas of the same year, and Coventry in September. Here they were playing under the name of the Countess of Sussex. In 1587–8 they were at Coventry and Bath, on 18 April 1588 at Ipswich, on 17 February 1589 at Leicester, on 1 March at Ipswich, on 19 November at Leicester again, in the course of 1589 at Faversham, and in 1588–9 at Aldeburgh. On 17 February 1590 they were at Ipswich. In the spring of 1591 they appear to have made a temporary amalgamation with a group of the Queen’s men (q.v.) and appeared with them on 14 February at Southampton, on 24 March at Coventry, and during 1590–1 at Gloucester. This arrangement probably terminated in May, and on 11 August Sussex’s were alone at Leicester.[280]

They enter the charmed London circle again with a Court performance on 2 January 1592.[281] It is possible that they had attracted the services of Marlowe, for Kyd in a letter, probably to be dated in 1593, speaks of himself as having been in the service of a lord for whose players Marlowe was writing, and there are some traces of connexion between Kyd and the house of Radcliffe. During the plague of 1593 the company were obliged to travel again, and on 29 April the Privy Council Register records the issue of

‘an open warrant for the plaiers, servantes to the Erle of Sussex, authorysinge them to exercyse theire qualitie of playinge comedies and tragedies in any county, cittie, towne or corporacion not being within vij^{en} miles of London, where the infection is not, and in places convenient and tymes fitt.’[282]

The company were at Ipswich, Newcastle, and York in 1592–3. They were at Winchester on 7 December 1593; then came to London under the patronage of the fifth Earl, and, although not at Court, had a season of about six weeks, beginning on 26 December and ending on 6 February, with Henslowe, probably at the Rose. The names and dates of their plays and sums received at each, probably by himself as owner of the theatre, are noted by Henslowe in his diary. The company performed on thirty nights, in twelve plays. Henslowe’s receipts averaged £1 13_s._, amounting to £3 1_s._ on the first night and £3 10_s._ on each of the next two, and thereafter fluctuating greatly, from a minimum of 5_s._ to a maximum of £3 8_s._ This last was at the production of the one ‘new’ play of the season, _Titus Andronicus_, on 24 January. The enterprise was brought to an abrupt termination by a renewed alarm of plague, and a consequent inhibition of plays by the Privy Council on 3 February. _Titus Andronicus_ was played for the third and last time on 6 February, and on the same day the book was entered for copyright purposes in the Stationers’ Register. The edition published in the same year professes to give the play as it was played by ‘the Earle of Darbie, Earle of Pembrooke, and Earle of Sussex their Servants’. I suppose it to have passed, probably in a pre-Shakespearian version, from Pembroke’s to Sussex’s, when the former were bankrupt in the summer of 1593 (cf. _infra_), and to have been revised for Sussex’s by the hand of Shakespeare. If so, it is a plausible conjecture that certain other plays, which were once Pembroke’s and ultimately came to the Chamberlain’s men, also passed through the hands of Sussex’s. Such were _The Taming of A Shrew_, _The Contention of York and Lancaster_, and perhaps the _Ur-Hamlet_, _1 Henry VI_, and _Richard III_. There is no basis for determining whether any of Shakespeare’s work on the York tetralogy was done for Sussex’s; but it is worth noting that one of their productions was _Buckingham_, a title which might fit either _Richard III_ or that early version of _Henry VIII_, the existence of which, on internal grounds, I suspect. Of Sussex’s other plays in this season, one, _George a Greene, the Pinner of Wakefield_, was published as theirs in 1599; another, Marlowe’s _Jew of Malta_, probably belonged to Henslowe, as it was acted in turn by nearly every company which he financed; and of the rest, _God Speed the Plough_, _Huon of Bordeaux_, _Richard the Confessor_, _William the Conqueror_, _Friar Francis_, _Abraham and Lot_, _The Fair Maid of Italy_, and _King Lud_, nothing is known, except for the entry of _God Speed the Plough_ in 1601 and an edifying tale related about 1608 by Thomas Heywood in connexion with an undated performance of _Friar Francis_ by the company at King’s Lynn.[283]

At Easter 1594 Henslowe records another very brief season of eight nights between 1 and 9 April, during which the Queen’s and Sussex’s men played ‘together’. This suggests to Dr. Greg that the companies appeared on different nights, but to me rather that they combined their forces, as they seem to have already done at Coventry in 1591. Henslowe’s receipts averaged £1 17_s._ The repertory included, besides _The Fair Maid of Italy_ and _The Jew of Malta_, _King Leare_, doubtless to be identified with _King Leire and his Three Daughters_ (1605), _The Ranger’s Comedy_, and _Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay_. The latter was published in 1594 as a Queen’s play. Both it and _The Ranger’s Comedy_ were played at a later date by the Admiral’s, and may have belonged to Henslowe. Strange’s had played _Friar Bacon_ in 1592–3.

Thereafter Sussex’s men vanish from the annals; they may have been absorbed in the Queen’s men for travelling purposes. Later players under the same name are recorded at Coventry in 1602–3, Dover in 1606–7, Canterbury in 1607–8, Bristol, Norwich, and Dunwich in 1608–9, Leicester on 31 August 1615, and Leominster in 1618, and it may be these to whom Heywood alludes as visiting King’s Lynn. If so, their possession of _Friar Francis_ suggests some affiliation to the earlier company.

vi. SIR ROBERT LANE’S MEN

Robert Lane, of Horton, Northants; _nat._ _c._ 1528; Kt. 2 Oct. 1553; m. (1) Catherine, d. of Sir Roger Copley, (2) Mary, d. of John Heneage.

I have not come across Sir Robert Lane’s men except at Bristol in August 1570, and at Court during the Christmas of 1571–2. On 27 December 1571 they played _Lady Barbara_ and on 17 February 1572 _Cloridon and Radiamanta_. The first performance was paid for by a warrant of 5 January to Laurence Dutton; the second by a warrant of 26 February, in which, according to the entry in the Privy Council Register, Dutton was again named.[284] But the Treasurer of the Chamber records the payment as made to John Greaves and Thomas Goughe. Probably this company is identical with that found next year in the service of the Earl of Lincoln.

vii. THE EARL OF LINCOLN’S (LORD CLINTON’S) MEN

Edward Fiennes de Clinton; s. of Thomas, 8th Lord Clinton and Saye, _nat._ 1512; m. (1) Elizabeth Lady Talboys, d. of Sir John Blount, 1534, (2) Ursula, d. of William Lord Stourton, _c._ 1540, (3) Elizabeth Lady Browne, ‘the fair Geraldine,’ d. of Gerald, 9th Earl of Kildare, _c._ 1552; succ. as 9th Baron, 1517; Lord High Admiral, 1550–3, and again 13 Feb. 1558; 1st Earl of Lincoln, 4 May 1572; ambassador to France, 1572; Lord Steward, 1581–5; _ob._ 16 Jan. 1585.

Henry Fiennes de Clinton, s. of Edward and Ursula; _nat._ _c._ 1541; m. (1) Catharine, d. of Francis, 2nd Earl of Huntingdon, Feb. 1557, (2) Elizabeth, d. of Sir Richard Morison and wid. of William Norreys, after 1579; Kt. 29 Sept. 1553; succ. as 2nd Earl, 16 Jan. 1585; _ob._ 29 Sept. 1616.

Players serving the Lord Admiral were at Winchester in 1566–7. A company under the name of the Earl of Lincoln and led by Laurence Dutton played at Court during the Christmas of 1572–3, and a company under that of Lord Clinton, and also led by Dutton, in _Herpetulus the Blue Knight and Perobia_ on 3 January 1574, and on 27 December 1574 and 2 January 1575. For 1574–5 they rehearsed three plays, one of which was _Pretestus_. Probably these are the same company transferred by the Lord Admiral to his son. Dutton was with Sir Robert Lane’s men in 1571–2 and with the Earl of Warwick’s in 1575–6. The whole company may have taken service with Lincoln instead of Lane as a result of the statute of 1572 (App. D, No. xxiv), but it does not seem to have been altogether absorbed in Warwick’s, as Lord Clinton’s men are found at Southampton on 24 June 1577, when they were six in number, at Bristol in July, and at Coventry in 1576–7. A later company under the name of the Earl of Lincoln has a purely provincial record in 1599–1604. There is an isolated notice at Norwich in 1608–9.

viii. THE EARL OF WARWICK’S MEN

Ambrose Dudley, 3rd s. of John, 1st Duke of Northumberland; _nat._ _c._ 1528; m. (1) Anne Whorwood, (2) Elizabeth Talboys, _c._ 1553, (3) Anne, d. of Francis, Earl of Bedford, 11 Nov. 1565; Master of Ordnance, 12 Apr. 1560; Earl of Warwick, 26 Dec. 1561; Chief Butler of England, 4 May 1571; Privy Councillor, 5 Sept. 1573; _ob._ 20 Feb. 1590.

Dudley seems to have had players in London in January 1562, when they were rewarded by the Duchess of Suffolk.[285] They are also found in 1559–64 at Oxford, Gloucester, Bristol, Plymouth, Winchester, Dover, Canterbury, and Norwich. Their only Court performances upon record were two during the Christmas of 1564–5. In 1564–5 they were apparently at Canterbury.[286]

After an interval of ten years there are Warwick’s men at Court on 14 February 1575 and also at Stratford in the course of 1574–5, at Lichfield between 27 July and 3 August during the progress,[287] and at Leicester before 29 September 1575. At the following Christmas they gave three plays at Court, on 26 December 1575 and 1 January and on 5 March 1576. John and Laurence Dutton and Jerome Savage were their payees. Laurence Dutton and possibly others of the company had been, a year before, in Lord Clinton’s service. During the next four winters they appeared regularly at Court, and are recorded at Leicester in 1576 and Nottingham on 1 September 1577. On 26 December 1576 they played _The Painter’s Daughter_, and on 18 February 1577 _The Irish Knight_. The names of their plays on 28 December 1577 and 6 January and 9 February 1578 are not preserved. They were notified by the Privy Council to the Lord Mayor as one of the Court companies for the Christmas of 1578–9 (App. D, No. xl), and played _The Three Sisters of Mantua_ on 26 December and _The Knight in the Burning Rock_ on 1 March. A play intended for 2 February was not performed, but payment was made to Jerome Savage. Gabriel Harvey (cf. p. 4) mentions them as a London company in the summer of 1579. On 1 January 1580 they played _The Four Sons of Fabius_. A Winchester record of ‘Lord Ambrose Dudley’s’ men in 1581–2 must be an error.

The Duttons were evidently a restless folk, and the disappearance of Warwick’s men and the appearance of Oxford’s men in 1580 is to be explained by another transfer of their services. This is referred to in the following verses:[288]

_The Duttons and theyr fellow-players forsakyng the Erle of Warwycke theyr mayster, became followers of the Erle of Oxford, and wrot themselves his_ COMOEDIANS, _which certayne Gentlemen altered and made_ CAMOELIONS. _The Duttons, angry with that, compared themselves to any gentleman; therefore these armes were devised for them._

The fyeld, a fart durty, a gybbet crosse-corded, A dauncing Dame Flurty of alle men abhorred; A lyther lad scampant, a roge in his ragges, A whore that is rampant, astryde wyth her legges, A woodcocke displayed, a calfe and a sheepe, A bitch that is splayed, a dormouse asleepe; A vyper in stynche, _la part de la drut_, Spell backwarde this Frenche and cracke me that nut.

Parcy per pillery, perced with a rope, To slythe the more lytherly anoynted with sope; A coxcombe crospate in token of witte, Two eares perforate, a nose wythe slytte. Three nettles resplendent, three owles, three swallowes, Three mynstrellmen pendent on three payre of gallowes, Further sufficiently placed in them A knaves head, for a difference from alle honest men.

The wreathe is a chayne of chaungeable red, To shew they ar vayne and fickle of head; The creste is a lastrylle whose feathers ar blew, In signe that these fydlers will never be trew; Whereon is placed the horne of a gote, Because they ar chast, to this is theyr lotte, For their bravery, indented and parted, And for their knavery innebulated.

Mantled lowsy, wythe doubled drynke, Their ancient house is called the Clynke; Thys Posy they beare over the whole earthe, Wylt please you to have a fyt of our mirthe? But reason it is, and heraultes allowe welle, That fidlers should beare their armes in a towelle.

In 1587–8 tumblers were at Bath under Warwick’s name. I do not understand the entry of his men in the Ipswich accounts, as playing on 10 March 1592. Ambrose Dudley died in 1590, and his doubtfully legitimate nephew, Sir Robert Dudley, does not seem even to have claimed the title until 1597. The Ipswich records are unreliable, but possibly Lady Warwick maintained a company for a while. The Corporation of London were considering some ‘cause’ of hers as to plays in May 1594 (App. D, No. xcviii).

ix. THE EARL OF OXFORD’S MEN

John de Vere, s. of John, 15th Earl of Oxford; _nat._ _c._ 1512; succ. as 16th Earl and Lord Great Chamberlain, 21 Mar. 1540; m. Margaret Golding, 1547; _ob._ 3 Aug. 1562.

Edward de Vere, s. of John, 16th Earl of Oxford; _nat._ 2 Apr. 1550; succ. as 17th Earl and Lord Great Chamberlain, 3 Aug. 1562; m. (1) Anne, d. of William Lord Burghley, Dec. 1571, (2) Elizabeth Trentham, _c._ 1591; _ob._ 24 June 1604. Of his daughters by (1), Elizabeth m. William Stanley, 6th Earl of Derby, 26 Jan. 1595; Bridget m. Francis, Lord Norris; Susan m. Sir Philip Herbert, afterwards Earl of Montgomery, 27 Dec. 1604.

The Earls of Oxford had their players as far back as 1492.[289] A company belonging to the 16th Earl caused a scandal by playing in Southwark at the moment when a dirge was being sung for Henry VIII in St. Saviour’s on 6 February 1547.[290] It is probably the same company which is traceable in 1555–6 at Dover, in 1557–8 at Ipswich, in 1559–60 and 1560–1 at Maldon, and in 1561–2 at Barnstaple, Maldon, and Ipswich. Murray (ii. 63) adds a few notices. There is no sign of it at Court, and it is likely that the 17th Earl discontinued it soon after his succession. The last notices of it are at Leicester, Plymouth, and Ipswich in 1562–3.

At a later date, however, this Earl was clearly interested in things dramatic. He took part in a Shrovetide device at Court in 1579, and is recorded in Francis Meres’s _Palladis Tamia_ (1598) to have been himself a playwright and one of ‘the best for comedy amongst us’ (App. C, No. lii). In 1580 the Duttons and the rest of the Earl of Warwick’s men transferred themselves to his service, and thereby laid themselves open to satire upon their fickleness (cf. _supra_). I do not know whether it was their resentment at this that brought them into trouble, but on 12 April 1580 the Lord Mayor wrote to Sir Thomas Bromley, the Lord Chancellor, about a disorder at the Theatre two days before, which he understood to be already before the Privy Council; and on 13 April we find the Council committing Robert Leveson and Laurence Dutton, servants of the Earl of Oxford, to the Marshalsea for a fray with the Inns of Court. On 26 May the matter was referred to three judges for examination, and on 18 July Thomas Chesson, sometime servant to the Earl, was released on bail (App. D, Nos. xliii, xliv). These notices suggest that the company had arranged, possibly during the absence of Leicester’s men from town, to occupy the Theatre. In view of their disgrace, it was no doubt better for them to travel, and on 21 June John Hatcher, Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge, wrote to Lord Oxford’s father-in-law, Lord Burghley, to acknowledge recommendations received from him, as well as from the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chamberlain Sussex, that Oxford’s men should be allowed to ‘show their cunning in several plays already practised by them before the Queen’s majesty’, and to explain that, in view of pestilence, the need for industry at commencement, a previous refusal to Leicester’s men, and a Privy Council order of 1575 against assemblies in Cambridge, he had thought it better to give them 20_s._, and send them away unheard.[291] They are traceable provincially in 1580–3.[292] At Norwich (1580–1) the payment was made to ‘the Earle of Oxenfordes lads’, and at Bristol (Sept. 1581) there were nine boys and a man. These were probably boys of the Earl’s domestic chapel, travelling either with the Duttons or as a separate company.

The Duttons joined the Queen’s company, John on its first establishment in 1583. It is in the following winter, however, that an Oxford’s company first appears at Court. Here the Earl’s ‘servauntes’ performed on 1 January and 3 March 1584. Their payee was John Lyly, who had probably been for some years in the Earl’s service. Provincial performances continue during 1583–5, and in the records the company are always described as ‘players’ or ‘men’.[293] On 27 December 1584 _Agamemnon and Ulysses_ was played at Court by the Earl of Oxford’s ‘boyes’. For this the payee was Henry Evans, probably the same who in 1600 set up the Chapel plays. I do not feel much doubt that the companies under Lyly and Evans were the same, or that in 1583–4 they in fact consisted of a combination of Oxford’s boys, Paul’s and the Chapel, working under Lyly and Evans at the Blackfriars theatre.[294] This arrangement had, no doubt, to be modified when Sir William More recovered possession of the premises in the spring of 1584, and after the performance of December 1584 Oxford perhaps ceased to maintain boy players and contented himself with another company of his servants, who made an appearance at Court on 1 January 1585, under John Symons, in feats of activity and vaulting. These tumblers had apparently been Lord Strange’s men in 1583, and by 1586 had returned into the service of the Stanley family.

An Oxford’s company did not again perform at Court, but his ‘plaiers’ were at Norwich in 1585–6, and Ipswich in 1586–7,[295] and players under his name were notified to Walsingham amongst others setting up their bills in London on 25 January 1587 (App. D, No. lxxviii). They were at York in June 1587 and Maidstone in 1589–90. Finally, at the end of the reign, comes a letter from the Privy Council to the Lord Mayor on 31 March 1602, which informs him that at the Earl’s suit the Queen has tolerated a new company formed by a combination of his servants and those of the Earl of Worcester, and that they are to play at the Boar’s Head (App. D, No. cxxx). Oxford’s men had probably then been established for some little time, as they are indicated as having played _The Weakest Goeth to the Wall_ (1600, S. R. 23 October 1600) by the title-page, and _The History of George Scanderbarge_ by the entry in the Stationers’ Register (3 July 1601). Meres’s reference to Oxford in 1598 suggests that they may have been in existence still earlier, as it is natural to suppose that he wrote comedies for his own men. Some of the writers, however, with whom Meres groups him belong to the early years of the reign, although others are contemporary. From 1602 the company was no doubt merged in Worcester’s, which in its turn became Queen Anne’s.

x. THE EARL OF ESSEX’S MEN

Walter Devereux, s. of Sir Richard Devereux and g.s. of Walter, Lord Bourchier and 1st Viscount Hereford; _nat._ 1541; succ. as 2nd Viscount Hereford, 1558; m. Lettice, d. of Sir Francis Knollys, _c._ 1561; 1st Earl of Essex, 4 May 1572; _ob._ 22 Sept. 1576.

Lettice, Countess of Essex, b. _c._ 1541; m. (2) Robert, Earl of Leicester, 21 Sept. 1578, (3) Sir Christopher Blount, July 1589; _ob._ 25 Dec. 1634.

Robert Devereux, s. of 1st Earl of Essex; b. 19 Nov. 1566; succ. as 2nd Earl, 1576; m. Frances, Lady Sidney, d. of Sir Francis Walsingham, 1590; Master of the Horse, 23 Dec. 1587; Earl Marshal, 28 Dec. 1597; Chancellor of Cambridge University, 10 Aug. 1598; rebelled, 8 Feb. 1601; executed, 25 Feb. 1601.

The Bourchiers, Earls of Essex, whom the Devereux succeeded through an heiress, had their players well back into the fifteenth century. In fact, the earliest household troop on record is that of Henry Bourchier, first earl of the senior creation, which is found at Maldon in 1468–9 and at Stoke-by-Nayland on 9 January 1482.[296]

Walter Devereux had a company, which visited Bath, Bristol, Gloucester, and Nottingham in 1572–3, Wollaton (Francis Willoughby’s) in July 1574, Coventry on 29 August, and Leicester before 29 September 1574, Gloucester, Dover, and Coventry in 1574–5, Coventry and Leicester in 1575–6, Nottingham in September 1576, and Bristol in September 1577. On the Earl’s death the Countess retained the company, and under her name it appeared at Coventry and Oxford in 1576–7. On 11 February 1578 it gave its only performance at Court, taking the place of Leicester’s men, to whom that day had originally been assigned. It was included in the list of Court companies sent to the Lord Mayor in December 1578 (App. D, No. xl), but gave no play that winter. The Privy Council described it as the Earl of Essex’s men, and it played under that name at Coventry in 1577–8 and at Ipswich in 1579–80; but at Oxford, Coventry, and Stratford-on-Avon in 1578–9, and at Oxford in 1579–80, it is still called the Countess of Essex’s. It could hardly have borne that name after August 1579, when the Countess’s secret marriage with Leicester was revealed to Elizabeth, and doubtless her disgrace debarred it from any further Court favour.

Robert Earl of Essex had a provincial company from 1581 to 1596. In 1581–2 it was at Exeter, in July 1584 at Ludlow, in 1583–4 at Leicester, Stratford-on-Avon, and Ipswich, and in 1584–5 at Bath. On 26 June 1585 it played at Thorpe in Norwich, in spite of a prohibition by the Corporation, and was sentenced to be excluded from civic reward in future. In 1585–6 it was at Coventry and Ipswich, in 1586 before 29 September at Leicester, and possibly about May at Oxford, on 27 February 1587 at York, on 16 July at Leicester, and in the course of the year at Stratford-on-Avon. In 1587–8 it was at Coventry, Ipswich, Saffron Walden, and Leicester, in 1588–9 at Bath, Saffron Walden, and Reading, on 7 September 1589 at Knowsley, on 31 October at Ipswich, and in the same year at Faversham. It was also at Coventry and Faversham in 1589–90, at Maldon in 1590, and twice at Faversham in 1590–1, and is last recorded at Ludlow in April 1596. Murray adds some intermediate dates. A company of Essex’s men which appeared at Coventry in 1600–1 is probably distinct. The execution of Essex on 25 February 1601 must have brought it to a premature end.

xi. LORD VAUX’S MEN

William Vaux, 3rd Lord Vaux; _nat._ _c._ 1542; m. (1) Elizabeth Beaumont, (2) Mary Tresham; _ob._ 20 Aug. 1595.

Edward Vaux, 4th Lord Vaux; _nat._ 1588; _ob._ 1661.

These companies are extremely obscure. Gabriel Harvey mentions the first in 1579 (cf. p. 4); the second was at Leicester in October-December 1601, Coventry in 1603–4 and 1608, and Skipton in 1609.

xii. LORD BERKELEY’S MEN

Henry FitzHardinge Berkeley, Baron Berkeley; succ. 1553; m. Catherine, d. of Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey; _ob._ 1613; father of Thomas Berkeley, _nat._ 11 July 1575; m. Elizabeth, d. of Sir G. Carey, afterwards 2nd Baron Hunsdon, 19 Feb. 1596; _ob._ 22 Nov. 1611.

The only London record of this company is in July 1581, when some of them, including Arthur King and Thomas Goodale, were committed to the Counter after a brawl with Inns of Court men. Lord Berkeley apologized to the Lord Mayor on their behalf, and said that they would go to the country (App. D, Nos. xlix, l). Their other appearances are all in the country, at Bristol between 6 and 12 July 1578, where they played _What Mischief Worketh in the Mind of Man_, at Bath on 11 July 1578 and on another day in 1578–9, at Abingdon in 1579–80, Stratford-on-Avon in 1580–1, Maldon in 1581, Stratford-on-Avon in 1582–3, Barnstaple in 1583–4, and Bath in 1586–7. Long after they, or a later company under the same name, reappear at Coventry in 1597–8, at Leicester in 1598 before Michaelmas, at Saffron Walden in 1598–9, and at Coventry and elsewhere in 1603–10. Lord Berkeley’s name is sometimes misspelt in the account-books as ‘Bartlett’.[297]

xiii. QUEEN ELIZABETH’S MEN

The origin of this company, the most famous of all the London companies during the decade of the ’eighties, can be dated with an extreme minuteness.[298] The Revels Accounts for 1582–3 record an expenditure of 20s. in travelling charges by

‘Edmond Tylney Esquire Master of the office being sente for to the Courte by Letter from M^r. Secreatary dated the x^{th} of Marche 1582. To choose out a companie of players for her majestie.’[299]

The date then was 10 March 1583, and the business was in the hands of Sir Francis Walsingham. Lord Chamberlain Sussex, to whom it would naturally have fallen, was ill in the previous September[300] and died on the following 9 June. Walsingham’s agency in the matter is confirmed in the account of the formation of the company inserted by Edmund Howes in the 1615 and 1631 editions of Stowe’s _Annales_:

‘Comedians and stage-players of former time were very poor and ignorant in respect of these of this time: but being now grown very skilful and exquisite actors for all matters, they were entertained into the service of divers great lords: out of which companies there were twelve of the best chosen, and, at the request of Sir Francis Walsingham, they were sworn the queens servants and were allowed wages and liveries as grooms of the chamber: and until this yeare 1583, the queene had no players. Among these twelve players were two rare men, viz. Thomas Wilson, for a quicke, delicate, refined, extemporall witt, and Richard Tarleton, for a wondrous plentifull pleasant extemporall wit, he was the wonder of his time. He lieth buried in Shoreditch church. [In a note] He was so beloved that men use his picture for their signs.’[301]

Howes is not altogether accurate. ‘Thomas’ is obviously a mistake for ‘Robert’ Wilson. Elizabeth had maintained players before, the Interluders, although they had cut little figure in the dramatic history of the reign, and the last of them had died in 1580. Dr. Greg thinks that the players were not appointed as grooms of the Chamber, on the ground that their names do not appear in a list of these officers appended to a warrant of 8 November 1586.[302] But Tarlton is described as ‘ordenary grome off her majestes chamber’ in the record of his graduation as a master of fence in 1587, and both he and his ‘fellow’, William Johnson, are described as ‘grooms of her majesties chamber’ in his will of 1588. Their absence from Dr. Greg’s list is probably due to their treatment as a special class of grooms of the chamber in ordinary without fee, who were not called upon to perform the ordinary duties of the office, such as helping to watch the palace.[303] That they had liveries, which were red coats, is borne out by the

## particular mention of the fact that they were not wearing them, in the

depositions concerning a very untoward event which took place in the first few months of their service. On the afternoon of 15 June 1583 they were playing at the Red Lion in Norwich. A dispute as to payment arose between a servant of one Mr. Wynsdon and Singer, who, in a black doublet and with a player’s beard on, was acting as gatekeeper. Tarlton and Bentley, who was playing the duke, came off the stage, and Bentley broke the offender’s head with the hilt of his sword. The man fled, pursued by Singer with an arming-sword which he took off the stage, and by Henry Browne, a servant of Sir William Paston. Both of them struck him, and one of the blows, but it was not certain whose, proved mortal.[304]

Several other places, besides Norwich, received a visit from the Queen’s men during the first summer of their existence. In April they were at Bristol, on 9 July at Cambridge, and between 24 July and 29 September at Leicester. Their travels also extended to Gloucester, Aldeburgh, Nottingham, and Shrewsbury.[305] In the winter they returned to London, and on 26 November the Privy Council wrote to the Lord Mayor to bespeak for them permission to play in the City and the liberties upon week-days until Shrovetide. The City accordingly licensed them to play at the Bull and the Bell, but with unwelcome limitations, for on 1 December it was necessary for Walsingham to write a personal letter, explaining that it was not the intention of the Council that the licence to play should be confined to holidays. The City record gives the names of the twelve members of the company as Robert Wilson, John Dutton, Richard Tarlton, John Laneham, John Bentley, Thobye Mylles, John Towne, John Synger, Leonall Cooke, John Garland, John Adams, and William Johnson. The company made its initial appearance at Court on 26 December, and played again on 29 December, and on 3 March 1584. Their public performances probably continued through the spring, but in June there were disturbances in and around the Middlesex theatres, and the City obtained leave from the Council to suppress plays. The Queen’s submitted to an injunction from William Fleetwood, the Recorder; and their leader advised him to send for the owner of the Theatre, who was Lord Hunsdon’s man, and bind him. They travelled again, and are found in 1583–4 at Bath and Marlborough, and in October or November at Dover. When the winter came on, they once more approached the Council and requested a renewal of the previous year’s privilege, submitting articles in which they pointed out that the time of their service was drawing near, and that the season of the year was past to play at any of the houses outside the City. They also asked for favourable letters to the Middlesex justices. The City opposed the concession, and begged that, if it were granted, the number and names of the Queen’s men might be set out in the warrant, complaining that in the previous year, when toleration was granted to this company alone, all the playing-places were filled with men calling themselves the Queen’s players. The records do not show whether the Council assented.[306] The company appeared four times at Court, giving _Phillyda and Corin_ on 26 December, _Felix and Philiomena_ on 3 January 1585, _Five Plays in One_ on 6 January, and an antic play and a comedy on 23 February. They had prepared a fifth performance, of _Three Plays in One_, for 21 February, but it was not called for. Mr. Fleay has conjectured that the _Five Plays in One_ and the _Three Plays in One_ may have been the two parts of Tarlton’s _Seven Deadly Sins_.[307] The payment for this winter’s plays was made to Robert Wilson.

There is no evidence that the company were travelling in 1585. They were at Court again on 26 December and on 1 January and 13 February 1586. During 1586 they were at Maidstone, in July at Bristol, on 22 August and later at Faversham, and before 29 September at Leicester. In 1585–6 they were also at Coventry. On 26 December 1586 and on 1 and 6 January and 28 February 1587 they were at Court, and in the same January a correspondent of Walsingham’s names them amongst other companies then playing regularly in the City (App. D, No. lxxviii). During 1586–7 they were at Bath, Worcester, Canterbury, and Stratford-on-Avon, whence Malone thought that they might have enlisted Shakespeare.[308] They were at Bath again on 13 July 1587, and at Aldeburgh on 20 May and 19 July. Before 29 September they were at Leicester, on 9 September at York, where it is recorded that they ‘cam in her Majesties lyvereys’, twice in September at Coventry, and at Aldeburgh on 16 December. They were at Court on 26 December 1587 and on 6 January and 18 February 1588.

A subsidy list of 30 June 1588 shows that Tarlton, Laneham, Johnson, Towne, Adams, Garland, John Dutton, Singer, and Cooke were then still household players.[309] It can, perhaps, hardly be assumed that the whole of the company is here represented. Mills, Wilson, and Bentley may have dropped out since 1583. But one would have expected to find the name of Laurence Dutton beside that of John, as he was certainly a Queen’s man by 1589. Knell also acted with Tarlton in _The Famous Victories of Henry the Fifth_, and must have belonged to the company. He also may have been dead by 1588. And this must certainly be the case if he is the William Knell whose widow Rebecca John Heminges married on 10 March 1588. There is some reason to suppose that Heminges himself joined the Queen’s men, perhaps in right of his wife. The composition of the list of 1583 generally bears out the statement of Howes, that the Queen’s men were selected as the best out of the companies of divers great lords, for Wilson, Laneham, and Johnson belonged to Leicester’s in 1572, Adams to Sussex’s in 1576, and Dutton, after a chameleon past, to Oxford’s in 1580. Mr. Fleay, who did not know either the list of 1583 or that of 1588, declares that the original members of the company included James Burbadge and William Slaughter, and probably John Perkyn.[310] Of these William Slaughter is merely what the philologists would call a ‘ghost’-name, for there is no evidence that any such actor ever existed.[311] Evidently James Burbadge did not join the Queen’s men. Probably Mr. Fleay was biased by his knowledge that these men acted at the Theatre, which was Burbadge’s property. But this could prove nothing, as the relations between particular companies and particular theatres were much less permanent than Mr. Fleay is apt to suppose. The Queen’s seem to have been acting at the Theatre when Fleetwood suppressed them in June 1584, but the owner of the house, who can hardly be any other than James Burbadge, is specifically described as Lord Hunsdon’s man, which of course does not necessarily signify that he was a player at all. Moreover, it is clear from the official correspondence of the following autumn, not only that, as we know from other sources, the companies regularly moved in from the suburban houses to the City inn-yards at the approach of winter, but also that the Queen’s in particular had in the winter of 1583 dispersed themselves for their public performances over various play-places. The view that they did not exclusively attach themselves to Burbadge’s, or to any other one theatre, is further borne out by the indications in the _Jests_ of Tarlton, which there is no reason to reject, however apocryphal they may be in detail, as evidence of the theatrical conditions under which the famous mime appeared. The _Jests_ frequently speak of Tarlton as a Queen’s man and never mention any other company in connexion with him.[312] And, as it happens, they record performances at the Curtain,[313] the Bell,[314] and the Bull,[315] but none at the Theatre. Nashe, however, tells us that Tarlton made jests of Richard Harvey and his _Astrological Discourse_ of 1583 there;[316] and an entry in the Stationers’ Register makes it possible to add that shortly before his death he appeared at the Bel Savage.[317] The stage-keeper in _Bartholomew Fair_ (1614), Ind. 37, gives us a reminiscence of a scene between Tarlton and John Adams, ‘I am an Asse! I! and yet I kept the _Stage_ in Master _Tarletons_ time, I thanke my starres. Ho! and that man had liu’d to haue play’d in _Bartholmew Fayre_, you should ha’ seene him ha’ come in, and ha’ beene coozened i’ the Cloath-quarter, so finely! And _Adams_, the Rogue, ha’ leap’d and caper’d vpon him, and ha’ dealt his vermine about, as though they had cost him nothing. And then a substantiall watch to ha’ stolne in vpon ’hem, and taken ’hem away, with mistaking words, as the fashion is, in the _Stage_-practice.’

Tarlton’s own talent probably ran more to ‘jigs’ and ‘themes’ than to the legitimate drama. But the palmy days of the Queen’s company were those that intervened between its foundation in 1583 and his death on 3 September 1588. To it belonged the men whom such an actor of the next generation as Thomas Heywood could remember as the giants of the past,[318] and whose reputation Edward Alleyn’s friends were ready to back him to excel.[319] From 1588 the future of the stage lay with Alleyn and the Admiral’s men and Marlowe, and it may reasonably be supposed that the Queen’s men were hard put to it to hold their own against their younger rivals. Adams probably survived Tarlton, and his name appears to be traceable as that of the clowns in _A Looking Glass for London and England_ (_c._ 1590) and _James IV_ (_c._ 1591). In 1587–8 the Queen’s visited Coventry and Exeter, and in 1588 Dover, and on two occasions Faversham. On 19 July and 14 August they were at Bath. The Bath accounts for this year also show a payment ‘to the quenes men that were tumblers’. Owing to Tarlton’s death or to some other reason, the Queen’s men prolonged their travels far into the winter. On 31 October they were at the Earl of Derby’s house at New Park, Lancashire; on 6 November ‘certen of’ them were at Leicester; on 10 December they were at Norwich and on 17 December at Ipswich. But they reached the Court in time for the performance on 26 December, with which they seem to have had the prerogative of opening the Christmas season, and appeared again on 9 February. They must have had some share in the Martin Marprelate controversy, which raged during 1589. In the previous year, indeed, Martin was able to claim Tarlton as an ally who had ‘taken’ Simony ‘in Don John of London’s cellar’, and was himself accused of borrowing his ‘foolery’ from Laneham. But when the bishops determined to meet the Puritans with literary weapons like their own, they naturally turned to the Queen’s men amongst others. About April 1589 _A Whip for an Ape_ bids Martin’s grave opponents to ‘let old Lanam lash him with his rimes’, and although it cannot be assumed that, if the _Maygame of Martinism_ was in fact played at the Theatre, it was the Queen’s men who played it, _Martin’s Month’s Minde_ records in August the chafing of the Puritans at players ‘whom, saving their liveries (for indeed they are hir Majesty’s men ...) they call rogues’. Influence was brought to bear to suppress the anti-Martinist plays. A pamphlet of October notes that _Vetus Comoedia_ has been ‘long in the country’; and this accords with the fact that the provincial performances of the Queen’s men began at an unusually early date in 1589. They are found at Gloucester on 19 April, at Leicester on 20 May, at Ipswich on 27 May, at Aldeburgh on 30 May, and at Norwich on 3 June. On 5 July they were at the Earl of Derby’s at Lathom, and on 6 and 7 September at another house of the Earl’s at Knowsley. On 22 September Lord Scrope wrote from Carlisle to William Asheby, the English ambassador in Scotland, that they had been for ten days in that town. He had heard from Roger Asheton of the King’s desire that they should visit Scotland, and had sought them out from ‘the furthest parte of Langkeshire’.[320] One would be glad to know whether they did in fact visit Scotland. In any case they were back in England and at Bath by November. During 1588–9 they were also at Reading, at Nottingham, and twice at Coventry. Both the Nottingham records and those of Leicester furnish evidence that for travelling purposes they divided themselves into two companies. At Leicester the town account for 1588–9 shows ‘certen of her Maiests playars’ as coming on 6 November, and ‘others moe of her Mayestyes playars’ as coming on 20 May; that of Nottingham for the same year has an entry of ‘Symons and his companie, being the Quenes players’ and another of ‘the Quenes players, the two Duttons and others’. The arrangement was of course natural enough, seeing that even in London the Queen’s men were sufficiently numerous to occupy more than one inn-yard. Laurence Dutton was evidently by now a member of the company with his brother John. It is to be presumed that Symons is the John Symons who on not less than five occasions presented ‘activities’ at Court, in 1582–3 with Strange’s (q.v.), in 1585 with Oxford’s, in 1586 with ‘Mr. Standleyes boyes’, in 1587–8 with a company under his own name, and in 1588–9 either with the Admiral’s or possibly with the Queen’s itself.

Doubtless the incorporation of Symons into the Queen’s service explains the appearance of the Queen’s tumblers at Bath in 1589. Performances at Court, for which John Dutton and John Laneham received payment, took place on 26 December 1589 and 1 March 1590. During 1589–90 the company were at Coventry, Ludlow, Nottingham, Bridgnorth, and Faversham, on 22 April 1590 at Norwich, on 24 June under the leadership of ‘Mr. Dutton’ at Knowsley, and on 30 October at Leicester. Acrobatic feats still formed a part of their repertory, and in these they had the assistance of a Turkish rope-dancer.[321] There were further Court performances on 26 December and on 1, 3, and 6 January, and 14 February 1591. It is to be noted that payment was made for the play of 1 January to ‘John Laneham and his companye her maiesties players’ and for the rest by a separate warrant to ‘Lawrence Dutton and John Dutton her maiesties players and there companye’; and that this distinction indicates some further development of the tendency to bifurcation already observed may be gathered from a study of the provincial records for 1590–1. On the very day of the performance of 14 February Queen’s men were also at Southampton, and the form of the entry indicates that they were there playing in conjunction with the Earl of Sussex’s men. This was the case also at Coventry on 24 March and at Gloucester during 1590–1.[322] At Ipswich during the same year there are two entries, of ‘the Quenes players’ on 15 May 1591 and of ‘another company of the Quenes players’ on 18 May. Obviously two groups were travelling this year and one had strengthened itself by a temporary amalgamation with Sussex’s. Perhaps the normal combination was restored when the two groups found themselves on the same road at the end of May, for Queen’s men are recorded alone at Faversham on 2 June 1591, at Wirkburn on 18 August, and at Coventry on 24 August and 20 October.

It was probably during this summer that Greene, having sold _Orlando Furioso_ to the Queen’s men for twenty nobles, resold it ‘when they were in the country’ to the Admiral’s for as much more. The winter of 1591–2 marks a clear falling-off in the position of the company at Court, since they were only called upon to give one performance, on 26 December, as against six assigned to Lord Strange’s men, with whom at this date Alleyn and the Admiral’s men appear to have been in combination. Yet it was still possible for the City, writing to Archbishop Whitgift on 25 February 1592, to suggest that Elizabeth’s accustomed recreation might be sufficiently served, without the need for public plays, ‘by the privat exercise of hir Ma^{ts} own players in convenient place’.[323] That they were again making use of the Theatre may perhaps be inferred from a passage in Nashe’s _Summer’s Last Will and Testament_ of the following autumn, in which a Welshman is said to ‘goe ae Theater, and heare a Queenes Fice, and he make hur laugh, and laugh hur belly-full’.[324] During 1591–2 they were at Nottingham, Coventry, Stratfordon-Avon, twice at Aldeburgh, and twice at Bath. In 1592 they were at Rochester, on 27 May at Norwich, before 29 September at Leicester, and early in September at Chesterton close to Cambridge. Here they came into conflict with the authorities of Cambridge University, who were apprehensive of infection from the crowds assembled at Sturbridge fair, and forbade them to play. Encouraged by Lord North and by the constables of Chesterton, they disobeyed, set up their bills upon the college gates, and gave their performance. It is interesting to note that ‘one Dutton’ was ‘a principale’, and to remember that, twelve years before, the Duttons had gone to Cambridge as Lord Oxford’s men and had been refused permission to play by the University authorities.[325] The outcome of the present encounter was a formal protest by the Vice-Chancellor and Heads of Houses to the Privy Council for which they requested Burghley’s support as Chancellor of the University. After a further appeal about a year later, they succeeded in obtaining a confirmation of their privileges.[326] Another letter from the University to their Chancellor, written on 4 December 1592, is of a different character. Its object is to excuse themselves from accepting an invitation conveyed through the Vice-Chamberlain to present an English comedy before Elizabeth at Christmas. Sir Thomas Heneage appears to have given it as a reason for his request ‘that her Maiesties owne servantes, in this time of infection, may not disport her Highnes w^{th} theire wonted and ordinary pastimes’.[327]

On 11 October 1592 the Queen’s men were at Aldeburgh, on the same day as, and conceivably in association with, Lord Morley’s men, although the payments are distinct. They did not in fact appear at Court during the Christmas of 1592–3, although both Lord Pembroke’s and Lord Strange’s did. They were at Coventry and Stratford-on-Avon in the course of 1592–3, at Leicester in June 1593 and again after Michaelmas, at Bath on 22 August, and at York in September. On 6 January 1594 they returned to Court and gave what proved to be their last performance there. On 1 April they began to play at one of Henslowe’s theatres ‘to geather’--that is to say, either alternately or in combination--with Sussex’s men, who had already performed there for the six weeks between Christmas and Lent. Possibly this was a renewal of an earlier alliance of 1591. Only eight performances are recorded, and of the five plays given only _King Leire_ can very reasonably be assigned to the repertory of the Queen’s men. The others were _The Jew of Malta_ and _The Fair Maid of Italy_, which Sussex’s men had been playing in the winter, Greene’s _Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay_, which was played for Henslowe by other companies both before and after, and was probably his property, and _The Ranger’s Comedy_, the performances of which were being continued by the Admiral’s men in the following autumn, but which it is possible that they or Henslowe may have acquired from the Queen’s. For there can be no doubt that the Queen’s men, whether because they had ceased to be modish, or because their finances had proved unable to stand the strain of the plague years, were now at the end of their London career. On 8 May 1594 the significant entry occurs in Henslowe’s diary of a loan of £15 to his nephew Francis Henslowe ‘to lay downe for his share to the Quenes players when they broke & went into the contrey to playe’.[328] This by itself would not perhaps be conclusive, as there are other years in which the company began its provincial wanderings as early as May. But from the present journey there is nothing to show that they ever returned, and it may fairly be reckoned as another sign of defeat that while _The Troublesome Reign of King John_ (1591) was the only play certainly theirs which was printed before 1594, no less than nine found their way into the publishers’ hands during that and the following year. These were, besides _Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay_ (1594, S. R. 14 May 1594), with which they probably had only a recent connexion, _A Looking Glass for London and, England_ (1594, S. R. 5 March 1594), _King Leire_ (1594, S. R. 14 May 1594), _James IV_ and _The Famous Victories of Henry V_ (1598, S. R. 14 May 1594), _The True Tragedy of Richard III_ (1594, S. R. 19 June 1594), _Selimus_ (1594), Peele’s _Old Wive’s Tale_ (1595, S. R. 16 April 1595), and _Valentine and Orson_ (S. R. 23 May 1595), of which no copy is known to be extant. Somewhat later came _Sir Clyomon and Clamydes_ (1599).

The Queen’s men were at Coventry on 4 July 1594, at Bristol in August, and at Bath and Barnstaple, where they were unlucky enough to break down the ceiling in the Guildhall, during 1593–4, and thereafter they are traceable right up to the end of the reign, at Coventry, Oxford, and Bath in 1594–5, at Leicester both before and after Michaelmas 1595, twice at Coventry and at Ludlow in 1595–6, at Stratford-on-Avon on 16 and 17 July 1596, at Bristol in August, at Leicester between October and December 1596, and at Faversham and Bridgnorth in the same year, at Coventry, at Dunwich, and twice at Bath in 1596–7, at Bristol again about Christmas 1597, at Nottingham on 8 July 1597, at Bristol about 25 July, at Bath in 1597–8, at Leicester on 9 January 1598, at Maldon in 1598, at Ipswich and Reading in 1598–9, at Maldon in 1599, at Dunwich in 1599–1600, at Ipswich on 2 June 1600, and at Leicester before 29 September in the same year, at Coventry and Bath in 1600–1, at York in July 1602, at Leicester on 30 September 1602, at Belvoir in August or September of the same year, and at Coventry in 1602–3. But little, naturally enough, is known of the _personnel_ of the company during this period of its decay. On 1 June 1595 Francis Henslowe borrowed another £9 from his uncle ‘to laye downe for his hallfe share w^{th} the company w^{ch} he dothe playe w^{th} all’,[329] and I see no particular reason to suppose that this was another company than the Queen’s. The loan is witnessed by William Smyght, George Attewell, and Robert Nycowlles, each of whom is described as ‘player’. It is likely enough that these were now fellows of Francis Henslowe. Attewell had been payee for Lord Strange’s men in 1591. The earlier loan was witnessed by John Towne, Hugh Davis, and Richard Alleyn. Davis and Alleyn appear elsewhere in connexion with Henslowe, but Towne was certainly a Queen’s man. He is in the 1588 list and is described as ‘one of her Majesties plears’ when on 8 July 1597 he obtained a release of debts due to Roger Clarke of Nottingham.[330] The other men of 1588 had nearly all vanished. John Singer had joined the Admiral’s by the autumn of 1594. I should not be surprised, however, to find that John Garland was still with the Queen’s. He was an associate of Francis Henslowe in the Duke of Lennox’s men in 1604, and was then ‘owld’ Garland. Indeed, it seems probable that, when the Queen’s men lost their last shred of claim to a livery on Elizabeth’s death, they made an attempt still to hold together under the patronage of Lennox. John Shank was once a Queen’s man.

xiv. THE EARL OF ARUNDEL’S MEN

Henry Fitzalan, 12th Earl of Arundel; _nat. c._ 1511; m. (1) Katherine, d. of Thomas Grey, Marquis of Dorset, before 1532, (2) Mary, Countess of Sussex, d. of Sir John Arundel, after 1542; succ. Jan. 1544; Lord Chamberlain, 1544; Lord Steward, 1553, and again 1558–64; _ob._ 24 Feb. 1580.

Philip Howard, 13th Earl of Arundel, s. of Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk, attainted 1572, and Mary, d. and h. of 12th Earl; _nat._ 28 June 1557; m. Anne, d. of Thomas, Lord Dacre, 1571; succ. Feb. 1580; sent to Tower, 25 Apr. 1585, and _ob._ there, 19 Oct. 1595.

The Earls of Arundel had players as far back as the fifteenth century.[331] The 12th Earl entertained Elizabeth with a mask at Nonsuch on 5 August 1559. He had players, who were rewarded by the Duchess of Suffolk, apparently during a London visit, in December 1561. The 13th Earl had a company in 1584. It was in London when plays were suppressed in June, and obediently submitted. It seems to have been located at the Curtain. It can be traced at Ipswich on 1 July, at Leicester before 29 September, at Aldeburgh in 1583–4, at Norwich in 1585–6, and thereafter no more.

xv. THE EARL OF HERTFORD’S MEN

Edward Seymour, s. of Edward, Protector and 1st and attainted Duke of Somerset; _nat._ 25 May 1539; cr. Earl of Hertford, 13 Jan. 1559; m. (1) Lady Catherine Grey, d. of Henry, Duke of Suffolk, _c._ Nov. 1560, (2) Frances, d. of William, 1st Lord Howard of Effingham, before 1582, (3) Frances, d. of Thomas, Lord Howard of Bindon and widow of Henry Pranell, Dec. 1600; _ob._ 6 Apr. 1621.

These are among the most obscure of the companies. They appeared at Canterbury in 1582, Faversham in 1586, Newcastle in October 1590, Leicester on 22 November 1590, and Bath, Marlborough, and Southampton in 1591–2. During the progress of 1591 Elizabeth was entertained from 20 to 24 September by the Earl at Elvetham in Hampshire ‘beeing none of the Earles chiefe mansion houses’ (cf. ch. xxiv). This was really a visit of reconciliation, for much of Hertford’s life had been spent in disgrace, owing to his first marriage with the heiress, under Henry VIII’s will, to Elizabeth’s throne. The entertainment was very elaborate, and at its close Elizabeth protested to the Earl that it was so honourable ‘as hereafter he should find the rewarde thereof in her especiall favour’. No doubt Hertford’s players took a part, and shared the ‘largesse’ which she bestowed upon the ‘actors’ of the pastimes before she departed. I think it must have also been their success on this occasion which earned them their only appearance at Court, on the following 6 January 1592. I have elsewhere tried to show that there is a special connexion between this Elvetham entertainment and _A Midsummer-Night’s Dream_,[332] and if any special company is satirized in Bottom and his fellows, I feel sure that it must have been the Earl of Hertford’s and not, as Mr. Fleay thinks, the Earl of Sussex’s.[333]

Probably the company went under in the plague of 1592–4, and in 1595 Hertford was again in disgrace for presuming so far upon his favour as to claim a declaration of the validity of his first marriage. But there were players under his name at Coventry in 1596–7, at Ipswich in 1600–1, and on 8 May 1602, at Norwich in 1601, and at Bath in 1601–2, and this company appeared at Court on 6 January 1603. Their payee was Martin Slater, formerly of the Admiral’s, and since then, possibly, an associate of Laurence Fletcher in his Scottish tours. In 1604–5 they were at Norwich. In 1606 they visited Leicester, on 9 July Oxford, and on 2 December the Earl of Derby wrote to the Mayor of Chester to bespeak for them the use of the town-hall. In 1606–7 they were at Coventry.

xvi. MR. EVELYN’S MEN (1588)

George Evelyn, of Wotton, Surrey; _nat._ 1530; _ob._ 1603.

Collier gives no authority for the following rather puzzling statement:[334]

‘In Feb. 1587, the Earl of Warwick obtained a warrant for the payment of the claim of George Evelyn of Wotton, for provisions supplied to the Tower, and for the reward of actors on Shrove Tuesday for a Play, the title of which is not given nor the name of the company by which it was performed: the whole sum amounted to only 12_s._’

The date intended must be 1588, as in 1587 Shrovetide fell in March. But there is probably some misunderstanding, as no such payment occurs in the Treasurer of the Chamber’s accounts, and the sum named is too small for a reward. Moreover, private gentlemen do not seem to have entertained Court companies at so late a date. The Revels Account for 1587–8 only records seven plays. Of these the Treasurer of the Chamber paid for six, and the seventh was presented by Gray’s Inn.

xvii. THE EARL OF DERBY’S (LORD STRANGE’S) MEN

Henry Stanley, s. of Edward, 3rd Earl of Derby; _nat._ 1531; known as Lord Strange; m. Margaret, d. of Henry, 2nd Earl of Cumberland, 7 Feb. 1555; succ. as 4th Earl, 24 Oct. 1572; Lord Steward, 1588; _ob._ 25 Sept. 1593.

Ferdinando Stanley, 2nd s. of Henry, 4th Earl of Derby; _nat. c._ 1559; m. Alice, d. of Sir John Spencer of Althorp, 1579; summoned to Parliament as Lord Strange, 28 Jan. 1589; succ. as 5th Earl of Derby, 25 Sept. 1593; _ob._ 16 Apr. 1594.

William Stanley, s. of Henry, 4th Earl of Derby; _nat._ 1561; succ. as 6th Earl of Derby, 16 Apr. 1594; m. Elizabeth, d. of Edward, 17th Earl of Oxford, 26 Jan. 1595; _ob._ 29 Sept. 1642.

The companies connected with the great northern house of Stanley present a history perhaps more complicated than that of any other group, partly because it seems to have been not unusual for the heir of the house to entertain players during his father’s lifetime. The 3rd Earl had a company in Henry the Eighth’s reign. His successor had one as Lord Strange, which is only recorded in the provinces, in 1563–70.[335] Four years later he had again a company as Earl of Derby. The earliest mention of it is at Coventry in 1573–4. It was at Dover and Coventry in 1577–8, at Ipswich on 28 May 1578, at Nottingham on 31 August 1578, at Bristol in the same year, and at Bath in 1578–9. In the last three months of 1579 it was at Leicester; and during the following Christmas it made its first appearance at Court with a performance of _The Soldan and the Duke of ---- _ on 14 February 1580. In 1579–80 it was at Stratford-on-Avon, Exeter, and Coventry, on 1 January 1581 at Court, in 1580–1 at Bath, Leicester, Nottingham, Exeter, and Winchester, in 1581–2 at Nottingham, Winchester, and Abingdon, in October to December 1582 at Leicester, and in 1582–3 at Bath, Norwich, and Southampton. Its last appearance at Court was in _Love and Fortune_ on 30 December 1582.

I think that the Earl of Derby’s players must be taken to be distinct from another company, which was performing during much the same period of years under the name of Lord Strange. These men are found in 1576–7 at Exeter, in 1578–9 at Bath, Ipswich, Rochester, Nottingham, Coventry, and Stratford-on-Avon. They also made their first appearance at Court in the winter of 1579–80. Their performance was on 15 January 1580, and they are spoken of, not as players, but as tumblers. On the other hand they appear as players at Bath, side by side with Derby’s men, in 1580–1 and 1582–3, and as players also at Bristol, Canterbury, and Gloucester in 1580–1, Plymouth in 1581–2, and Barnstaple in 1582–3 and 1583–4. With the tumbling at Court in 1580 begins a rather puzzling series of records. There are further Court entries of feats of activity by Lord Strange’s men on 28 December 1581, and of feats of activity and tumbling on 1 January 1583. For this last occasion the payee of the company was John Symons. Two years later Symons and his ‘fellows’ were again at Court with feats of activity and vaulting, but they were then under the patronage, not of Lord Strange, but of the Earl of Oxford. There would be nothing extraordinary about such a transference of service, were it not that during the following Christmas, on 9 January 1586, tumbling and feats of activity are ascribed to John Symons and ‘Mr. Standleyes boyes’, and that by ‘Mr. Standley’ one can hardly help assuming either Ferdinando Stanley, Lord Strange, or some other member of his family to be intended. This inference is confirmed by a mention of Lord Strange’s men at Faversham in 1585–6, and it becomes necessary to assume that, after attaching himself for a year to the Earl of Oxford, Symons thought better of it, and returned to his original master. Symons and his company again showed feats of activity on 28 December 1587. No patron is named on this occasion, but as Strange’s men are traceable at Coventry during 1587–8, it is natural to assume that they were still holding together. Now a new complication comes in. There were activities again at Court in the winter of 1588–9, and Symons certainly took part in them.[336] But the only men companies to whom payments were made were the Queen’s and the Admiral’s, who now reappear at Court after absence during two winters, and it is only in the case of the Admiral’s that the payment is specified to be for activities. If the restless Symons had joined the Admiral’s men, it cannot have been for long, since in the course of 1588–9 he was leading one section of the Queen’s men to Nottingham. Nor had Strange’s yet entirely broken up, for on 5 November 1589, both they and the Admiral’s, evidently playing as distinct companies, were suppressed by the Lord Mayor in the City.[337] Strange’s, who were then at the Cross Keys, played contemptuously, and some of them were imprisoned. A year later, the Admiral’s were with Burbadge at the Theatre, and there I conceive that the residue of Strange’s, deserted by Symons, had joined them. If they were too many for the house, we know that the Curtain was available as an ‘easer’. After the quarrel with Burbadge in May 1591, the two companies probably went together to the Rose. The main evidence for such a theory is that, while the Privy Council record of play-warrants include two for the Admiral’s men in respect of plays and feats of activity on 27 December 1590 and 16 February 1591, the corresponding Chamber payments are to George Ottewell on behalf of Strange’s men.

This amalgamation of Strange’s and the Admiral’s, tentative perhaps in 1588–9, and conclusive, if not in 1589–90, at any rate in 1590–1, lasted until 1594. So far as Court records are concerned, the company seems to have been regarded as Strange’s. But the leading actor, Edward Alleyn, kept his personal status as the Lord Admiral’s servant, and it is to be observed that, for whatever reason, both the Admiral’s and Strange’s continue to appear, not only in combination, but also separately in provincial documents.[338] Of this various explanations are conceivable. One is that the municipal officials were not very precise in their methods, and when an amalgamated company came before them, sometimes entered the name of one lord, sometimes of the other, sometimes of both. Another is that a few of the Admiral’s men may have been left out of the amalgamation and have travelled separately under that name. We know, of course, that Richard Jones and others went abroad in 1592, but they may have spent some time in the provinces first. And thirdly, it is possible that, while the combined company performed as a whole in London, they found it more economical to take their authorities from both lords with them, when they went to the country in the summer, and to unite or divide their forces as convenience prompted. I am the more inclined to this third conjecture, in that the ‘intollerable’ charge of travelling with a great company and the danger of ‘division and separacion’ involved were explicitly put forward by Lord Strange’s men in a petition to the Privy Council for leave to quit Newington Butts, where they had been commanded to play during a long vacation, and return to their normal quarters, doubtless at the Rose, on the Bankside. They particularly wanted to avoid going to the country, but Newington Butts did not pay, and they were backed by the Thames watermen, who lost custom when the Rose was not open. It is not clear whether this petition belongs to 1591 or 1592.[339] The provincial records show that the company probably travelled during 1592, but not 1591. If the petition belongs to 1592, it is obvious that the plague intervened, and I strongly suspect that the company’s fears proved justified, and that the reorganization for provincial work did in fact lead to a ‘division and separacion’, by the splitting off of some members of the combine as Pembroke’s men (q.v.).

This, however, anticipates a little. To Alleyn’s talent must be attributed the remarkable success of the company in the winter of 1591–2, during which they were called upon to give six performances at Court, on 27 and 28 December, 1 and 9 January, and 6 and 8 February, as against one each allotted to the Queen’s, Sussex’s, and Hertford’s men. On 19 February 1592 the company began a season with Philip Henslowe, probably at the Rose, and played six days a week for a period of eighteen weeks, during which they only missed Good Friday and two other days. Henslowe records in his diary the name of the play staged at each of the hundred and five performances, together with a sum of money which probably represents his share of the takings.[340] If so, his average receipts were £1 14_s._ 0_d._; but the daily amounts fluctuated considerably, sometimes falling to a few shillings and again rising to twice the average on the production of a new or popular play or during the Easter or Whitsun holiday. Twenty-three plays in all were given, for any number of days from one to fifteen; the same play was rarely repeated in any one week. Five of the plays are marked in the diary with the letters _ne_, which are reasonably taken to indicate the production of a new piece. These were ‘Harey the vj’, probably Shakespeare’s _1 Henry VI_, _Titus and Vespasian_, probably the play on which was based Shakespeare’s _Titus Andronicus_, the _Second Part_ of _Tamar Cham_, _The Tanner of Denmark_, and _A Knack to Know a Knave_. The eighteen old plays included Marlowe’s _Jew of Malta_, Greene’s _Orlando Furioso_ and _Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay_, Greene and Lodge’s _A Looking Glass for London_; also _Muly Mollocco_ which might be Peele’s _Battle of Alcazar_, _Four Plays in One_, which is conjectured to be a part of Tarlton’s _Seven Deadly Sins_, and _Jeronimo_, which is almost certainly Kyd’s _Spanish Tragedy_. There was also a play, sometimes given on the day before this last, under the varying titles of _Don Horatio_, the _Comedy of Jeronimo_, or _The Spanish Comedy_, which does not appear to have been preserved.[341] The same fate has befallen the other ten plays, of which the names were _Sir John Mandeville_, _Henry of Cornwall_, _Clorys and Orgasto_, _Pope Joan_, _Machiavel_, _Bindo and Richardo_, _Zenobia_, _Constantine_, _Jerusalem_, and _Brandimer_. From the financial point of view, the greatest successes were _Titus and Vespasian_, _The Jew of Malta_, _2 Tamar Cham_, _1 Henry VI_, and _The Spanish Tragedy_. These averaged respectively for Henslowe £2 8_s._ 6_d._ for seven days, £2 3_s._ 6_d._ for ten days, £2 1_s._ 6_d._ for five days, £2 0_s._ 6_d._ for fifteen days, and £1 17_s._ 0_d._ for thirteen days. The _Seven Deadly Sins_ and perhaps also the _Looking Glass_ must have passed in some way into the hands of Strange’s or the Admiral’s, or into Henslowe’s, from the Queen’s.

The performances came to an end on 23 June, for on that day the Privy Council inhibited all plays until Michaelmas. Whether the Newington Butts episode and the watermen’s petition followed or not, at any rate plague intervened in the course of the summer, and the company had to face the disadvantages of travelling. They were afoot by 13 July and still on 19 December. Ten days later, Henslowe resumed his account, and the resemblance of the list of plays to that of the previous spring renders it reasonable to suppose that the actors were the same.[342] The season lasted to the end of January 1593, and a play was given on each of the twenty-six week-days of this period. _Muly Mollocco_, _The Spanish Tragedy_, _A Knack to Know a Knave_, _The Jew of Malta_, _Sir John Mandeville_, _Titus and Vespasian_, _Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay_, _1 Henry VI_, and _2 Tamar Cham_ all made their appearance again. In addition, there were a comedy called _Cosmo_, and two new plays, _The Jealous Comedy_, which may, I think, be _The Comedy of Errors_, and _The Tragedy of the Guise_, which is usually accepted as Marlowe’s _Massacre of Paris_. The first representation of the former yielded Henslowe £2 4_s._ 0_d._, that of the latter £3 14_s._ 0_d._; as in the spring, his daily takings averaged £1 14_s._ 0_d._ Besides their public performances, Strange’s men were called upon for three plays at Court, on the evenings of 27 and 31 December 1592 and 1 January 1593.

The plague made a new inhibition of plays necessary on 28 January, but it does not seem to have been for some months that Strange’s men made up their minds to travel. A special licence issued in their favour by the Privy Council on 6 May is registered in the following terms:

‘Whereas it was thought meet that during the time of the infection and continewaunce of the sicknes in the citie of London there shold no plaies or enterludes be usd, for th’ avoiding of th’ assemblies and concourse of people in anie usual place apointed nere the said cittie, and though the bearers hereof, Edward Allen, servaunt to the right honorable the Lord Highe Admiral, William Kemp, Thomas Pope, John Heminges, Augustine Phillipes and Georg Brian, being al one companie, servauntes to our verie good the Lord the Lord Strainge, ar restrained their exercize of playing within the said citie and liberties thereof, yet it is not therby ment but that they shal and maie in regard of the service by them don and to be don at the Court exercize their quallitie of playing comodies, tragedies and such like in anie other cities, townes and corporacions where the infection is not, so it be not within seaven miles of London or of the Coort, that they maie be in the better readines hereafter for her Majesty’s service whensoever they shalbe therunto called. Theis therfore shalbe to wil and require you that they maie without their lett or contradiccion use their said exercize at their most convenient times and places (the accustomed times of Devine praiers excepted).’[343]

The importance of this document is in the information which it gives as to the composition of the company. Presumably only the leaders are named, and of these Alleyn alone is specially designated as an Admiral’s man. Kempe, at any rate, and probably also Pope and Bryan, were in Leicester’s service in the Low Countries during 1586, and all three were together during the same year in Denmark. Whether they had belonged, as has sometimes been supposed, to Leicester’s long-enduring company of Court players is less certain. Pope and Bryan passed from Denmark to Germany, and may have joined the Admiral’s or Strange’s on their return. They also were acrobats as well as players.[344] Kempe, however, seems to have parted company from the others in Denmark, and may have joined Strange’s independently, presumably before 10 June 1592, when _A Knack to Know a Knave_, in which he played ‘merrimentes’, was produced. Heminges may possibly have been a Queen’s man.

Some details of the 1593 tour and the names of two or three more members of the company are found in the familiar correspondence of Alleyn with his wife, whom he had married on 22 October 1592, and with Philip Henslowe, who was her step-father.[345] On 2 May he writes from Chelmsford, and on 1 August from Bristol. Here he had received a letter by Richard Cowley and he sends his reply by a kinsman of Thomas Pope. At the moment of writing he is ready to play _Harry of Cornwall_. He asks that further letters may be sent to him by the carriers to Shrewsbury, West Chester, or York, ‘to be keptt till my Lord Stranges players com’. He does not expect to be home until All Saints’ Day. A reply from Henslowe and Mrs. Alleyn on 14 August is in fact addressed to ‘Mr. Edwarde Allen on of my lorde Stranges players’. This mentions an illness of Alleyn at Bath during which one of his fellows had had to play his part. With these letters is one written to Mrs. Allen on behalf of a ‘servant’ of Alleyn’s, whose name was Pige or Pyk, by the hand of Mr. Doutone, possibly Edward Dutton, but perhaps more probably Thomas Dowten or Downton, who was later a sharer among the Admiral’s men. The provincial records, subject to the confusion of company nomenclature already noted, appear to confirm the visits to Bath, Shrewsbury, and York, to indicate others to Southampton, Leicester, Coventry, Ipswich, and Newcastle, and to show that some temporary alliance had been entered into with the purely provincial company of Lord Morley.[346] After 25 September 1593 Strange’s men of course became Derby’s men.

I now come to a difficult point. There exists amongst the Dulwich papers a ‘plott’ or prompter’s abstract of a play called _The Second Part of the Seven Deadly Sins_, which an ingenious conjecture of Mr. Fleay has identified on internal evidence with the _Four Plays in One_ included in the Strange’s repertory of 1592.[347] In this leading parts were taken, not only by ‘Mr. Pope’, ‘Mr. Phillipps’, and ‘Mr. Brian’, but also by ‘Richard Burbadge’; lesser ones by Richard Cowley, John Duke, Robert Pallant, John Sincler, Thomas Goodale, William Sly, J. Holland, and three others described only as Harry, Kitt, and Vincent; and female parts by Saunder, Nick, Robert, Ned, Will, and T. Belt, who may be presumed to have been boys.[348] Alleyn, Kempe, and Heminges are not named, but there are several parts to which no actors are assigned. What, however, is the date of the ‘plott’? Not necessarily 1592, for the performance of _Four Plays in One_ in that year was only a revival. The authorship of the _Seven Deadly Sins_ is ascribed to Tarlton, and therefore the original owners were probably the Queen’s men. They are not very likely to have parted with it before Tarlton’s death in 1588 brought the first shock to their fortunes, but clearly it may have come into the possession of Strange’s or the Admiral’s or the combined company before ever they reached the Rose. And surely the appearance of Richard Burbadge suggests that the ‘plott’ was brought from the Theatre, and represents a performance there. He is very unlikely to have joined at the Rose the company which had just been driven there by a quarrel with his father. It is true that in the ‘plott’ of _Dead Man’s Fortune_, which also probably dates from the sojourn of the Admiral’s (q.v.) at the Theatre, he was apparently not playing leading parts but only a messenger. But the wording is obscure, and after all the absence of the prefix ‘Mr.’ from his name in the ‘plott’ of the _Sins_ may indicate, in accordance with the ordinary usage of the Dulwich documents, that he was not yet a sharer when it was drawn up. Apparently, then, at least four of Strange’s men, as we find them in 1593, besides Alleyn, had been playing at the Theatre about 1590–1. These were Pope, Phillips, Bryan, and Cowley. Obviously we cannot say whether it was to the original Admiral’s or the original Strange’s that they belonged. One other point of _personnel_ must not be overlooked. Shakespeare contributed to the repertory of Strange’s in 1592 and perhaps also in 1593. Greene calls him a Shake-scene, but neither the ‘plott’ of 1590, nor the licence of 1593, nor the Alleyn correspondence of the same year, yields his name.[349]

Derby’s men did not appear at Court during the winter of 1593–4. On 16 April 1594 Lord Derby died. On 16 May the company used the Countess’s name at Winchester. It seems clear that during the summer there was some reshuffling of the companies, that Alleyn took the leadership of a new body of Admiral’s men, that several other members of the old combination, including Pope, Heminges, Kempe, and Phillips, joined with Burbadge, Shakespeare, and Sly, under the patronage of the Lord Chamberlain, Henry Lord Hunsdon, and that, after a short period of co-operation with each other and Henslowe, the two companies definitely parted. In the course of 1594 the name of Derby’s men appeared upon the title-page of _Titus Andronicus_, probably because they had played it in its earlier form of _Titus and Vespasian_ in 1592–3, before it passed to Pembroke’s and from them to Sussex’s. In the same year was published _A Knack to Know a Knave_ (S. R. 7 January 1594) as played ‘by Ed. Allen and his companie’ and with ‘merrimentes’ by Kemp. This also belongs to the 1592–3 repertory, of the other plays in which _1 Henry VI_, like _Titus Andronicus_, passed ultimately to the Chamberlain’s men, and a considerable number, either as their own property or that of Henslowe, to the Admiral’s. These included _Tamar Cham_, _The Battle of Alcazar_, _The Spanish Tragedy_, _The Jew of Malta_, _The Massacre of Paris_, _Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay_, and probably _Orlando Furioso_, of Orlando’s part in which a transcript, with alterations in Alleyn’s hand, is preserved at Dulwich.[350] The only play not named in Henslowe’s diary which can be traced to the company is _Fair Em_, which bears the name of Lord Strange’s men on its title-page, but of which the first edition is undated.

It is possible that those of the fifth Earl of Derby’s men who did not take service with the Lord Chamberlain, passed into a provincial period of existence under his successor, the sixth Earl. A company bearing his name was at Norwich on 15 September 1594, at Dunwich in 1594–5 and 1595–6, at Coventry, Bath, and Stratford in 1595–6, at Leicester between October and December 1596, at Bath in 1596–7, at Maldon in 1597, at Coventry twice in 1597–8, at Leicester in 1597–8, and between October and December 1598, at Wollaton (Percival Willoughby’s) on 7 October 1599, and at Leicester again on 16 October 1599. Letters of 30 June 1599 relate that the Earl of Derby was then ‘busy penning comedies for the common players’, and it is perhaps natural to suppose that his own company were chosen as the exponents of his art.[351] This perhaps explains its appearance at Court during the winters of 1599–1600 and 1600–1. Four performances were given, on 3 and 5 February 1600 and 1 and 6 January 1601, and for these Robert Browne, who had been both with Worcester’s men and the Admiral’s, but much of whose dramatic career had been spent in Germany, was the payee. In an undated letter to Sir Robert Cecil, Lady Derby writes, ‘Being importuned by my Lord to intreat your favor that his man Browne, with his companye, may not be bared from ther accoustomed plaing, in maintenance wherof they have consumde the better part of ther substance, if so vaine a matter shall not seame troublesum to you, I could desier that your furderance might be a meane to uphold them, for that my Lord taking delite in them, it will kepe him from moer prodigall courses’.[352] To this company are doubtless to be assigned _Edward IV_, perhaps by Heywood (1600, S. R. 28 August 1599), and the anonymous _Trial of Chivalry_ (1605, S. R. 4 December 1604), both of which are credited to Derby’s men on their title-pages. It again becomes provincial and is traceable at Norwich on 27 February and 9 June 1602, at Ipswich on 4 June 1602, and thereafter up to 1618, chiefly at Coventry and at Gawthorpe Hall, the house of Derby’s neighbours, the Shuttleworths.[353]

John Taylor, the water-poet, returned from his journey to Scotland in 1618 at the Maidenhead Inn, Islington, and here after supper on 14 October ‘we had a play of the Life and Death of Guy of Warwick, played by the Right Honourable the Earl of Derby his men’. Presumably this was Day and Dekker’s play entered on the Stationers’ Register in 1619, which Mr. Bullen declines to identify with the _Guy of Warwick_ published as ‘by B. J.’ in 1661.[354]

xviii. THE EARL OF PEMBROKE’S MEN

Henry Herbert, s. of William, 1st Earl of Pembroke; _nat. c._ 1534; succ. as 2nd Earl, 17 Mar. 1570; m. (1) Catherine, d. of Henry Grey, Duke of Suffolk, 21 May 1553, (2) Catherine, d. of George Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury, 17 Feb. 1563, (3) Mary, d. of Sir Henry Sidney, _c._ Apr. 1577; President of Wales, 1586; residences, Baynard’s Castle, London, Wilton House, Wilts., Ludlow Castle, &c.; _ob._ 9 Jan. 1601.

[_Bibliographical Note._--Halliwell-Phillipps collected provincial records and other notes on Pembroke’s men in _A Budget of Notes and Memoranda_ (1880). The Bill, Answer, and Replication in Shaw _et al._ v. Langley (1597–8, Court of Requests) are in C. W. Wallace, _The Swan Theatre and the Earl of Pembroke’s Servants_ (1911, _E. S._ xliii. 340).]

There is an isolated record of a Pembroke’s company at Canterbury in 1575–6, hardly to be regarded as continuous with that which makes its appearance in the last decade of the century. Fleay, 87, puts the origin of the latter in 1589, and supposes it to be a continuation of Worcester’s men after the death of their original patron in 1589, and to be the company ridiculed by Nashe (iii. 324) for playing _Delphrigus_ and _The King of the Fairies_, in his preface to Greene’s _Menaphon_ (1589). But this Worcester’s company is not in fact traceable during 1585–9, and Fleay’s theory is only based on the allusion to _Hamlet_ in the same preface (iii. 315), and the assumption that the _Ur-Hamlet_, like some other plays, passed to the Chamberlain’s from Pembroke’s, whereas it may just as well have passed to them from Strange’s. As a matter of fact, there is no mention of Pembroke’s before 1592 and no reason to suppose that it had an earlier existence. It will be well to detail the few facts of its history before attempting anything in the nature of conjecture. It was at Leicester in the last three months of 1592 and made its only appearances at Court on 26 December 1592 and 6 January 1593. In the following summer it travelled, and is found at York in June, at Rye in July, and in 1592–3 at Ludlow, Shrewsbury, Coventry, Bath, and Ipswich. But it had little success. Henslowe wrote to Alleyn on 28 September, ‘As for my lorde a Penbrockes w^{ch} you desier to knowe wheare they be they ar all at home and hausse ben this v or sixe weackes for they cane not saue ther carges w^{th} trauell as I heare & weare fayne to pane ther parell for ther carge’.[355] About the same time three of their plays came to the booksellers’ hands. These were Marlowe’s _Edward the Second_ (1594, S. R. 6 July 1593), _The Taming of A Shrew_ (1594, S. R. 2 May 1594), and _The True Tragedy of Richard Duke of York_ (1595). Probably the play to which this last is a sequel, _1 Contention of York and Lancaster_ (1594, S. R. 12 March 1594) was also theirs, although the name of the company is not on the title-page. It is on the title-page of _Titus Andronicus_ (1594), and its position suggests that the play passed to them from Strange’s and from them before publication to Sussex’s. All these plays, with the exception of _Edward II_, seem to have been worked upon by Shakespeare, and probably they ultimately became part of the stock of the Chamberlain’s men. These men were playing _Titus Andronicus_ and _The Taming of The Shrew_ in June 1594, and that they also owned _The Contention_ in its revised form of _2, 3 Henry VI_ is suggested both by its inclusion in the First Folio and by the reference in the Epilogue to _Henry V_ not only to the loss of France but also to the bleeding of England ‘which oft our stage hath shown’.

I now enter a region of conjecture. It seems to me, on the whole, likely that the origin of Pembroke’s men is to be explained by the special conditions of the plague-years 1592–3, and was due to a division for travelling purposes of the large London company formed by the amalgamation of Strange’s and the Admiral’s. Such a division had been foreshadowed as likely to be necessary in the petition sent by Strange’s men to the Privy Council during the summer of 1592 or earlier, and may actually have become necessary when, after all, the plague rendered travelling imperative. If this suggestion is well founded, it becomes not difficult to explain some of the transferences of acting rights in certain plays which seem to have taken place. Thus Strange’s may have handed over _Titus Andronicus_ in its earlier form of _Titus and Vespasian_ to Pembroke’s for the travels of 1593, and may also have handed over _The Contention of York and Lancaster_, if that was originally theirs, as is suggested by their production of _1 Henry VI_, which belongs to the same closely related series. This opens up a more important line of speculation. It is usual to assume that one of the members of Strange’s from 1592 or earlier until its reconstitution as the Chamberlain’s in 1594 was William Shakespeare, and there is no reason to doubt his authorship at any rate of the Talbot scenes, which we know from Nashe to have been staged as part of _1 Henry VI_ in 1592. At the same time, the names of at least seventeen of Strange’s and the Admiral’s men in 1590–3 are otherwise known, and his is not one of them, and in particular his prominence amongst the Chamberlain’s men from the very beginning renders it extremely unlikely that, if he had been a member of the company in 1593, he would not have been mentioned in the Privy Council warrant of 6 May. Further, it seems to me impossible to resist the inference that the attribution to him of _Titus Andronicus_ both by Francis Meres in 1598 and in the First Folio of 1623 can only be explained by his revision under that name of _Titus and Vespasian_, and that this was for the second production of the play as ‘ne’ for Henslowe by Sussex’s men on 24 January 1594. There is, therefore, really some basis for the suggestion made long ago by Halliwell-Phillipps that he is to be looked for during these years in Pembroke’s company until its collapse and then in Sussex’s, and that it was from this rather than directly from Strange’s that he went to the Chamberlain’s.[356] On the other hand, it may be that for a time he was not attached as an actor to any company at all. It is possible that he took advantage of the plague-interval to travel in Italy and only resumed the regular exercise of his profession when the Chamberlain’s company was formed. In any event, it must have been he who revised _The Contention_ as _2, 3 Henry VI_, and the close stylistic relation of these plays to _1 Henry VI_ makes it probable that the work on all three belongs to about the same date. The limitations of conjecture on so intricate a question are obvious, but I can conceive the order of events as being somewhat as follows. Shakespeare’s first dramatic job, which earned him the ill will of Greene, was the writing or re-writing of _1 Henry VI_ for Strange’s, in the early spring of 1592. During the winter of 1592–3 he revised _The Contention_ for Pembroke’s and completed the series of his early histories with _Richard III_, and, as I am inclined to suspect, also an _Ur-Henry VIII_. He also wrote _The Jealous Comedy_ or _Comedy of Errors_ for Strange’s. In the summer of 1593 Sussex’s took over the plays of the bankrupt Pembroke’s, including the Shakespearian histories _Titus and Vespasian_ and _The Taming of A Shrew_. Some at least of these Pembroke’s had themselves derived in 1592 or 1593 from Strange’s. During the winter of 1593–4 Sussex’s played either _Richard III_ or _Henry VIII_ as _Buckingham_, and also _Titus and Vespasian_ revised for them by Shakespeare as _Titus Andronicus_. Alarmed at the further inhibition of plays in February, they allowed the revised _Titus_ and unrevised texts of _The Taming of A Shrew_ and _The Contention_ to get into the hands of the booksellers. Whether Shakespeare had already revised _A Shrew_ or did so later for the Chamberlain’s (q.v.) I am uncertain. Finally, by the transfer of their plays to the Chamberlain’s men, who at once revived _A Shrew_ and _Titus Andronicus_, and by the incorporation of Strange’s men in the same company, the original stock of Strange’s plays, as distinct from the Admiral’s, came together in the same hands once more. On the assumption that Shakespeare never left Strange’s, it is difficult to explain either the fortunes of _Titus Andronicus_, or the absence from the lists of Strange’s plays in Henslowe’s diary of _Richard III_, which must have been written about 1592–4. The silence as regards Strange’s both of the Court records and of Henslowe’s diary during the winter of 1593–4 makes it unlikely that they were in London, and they would surely not produce a new play in the country.

Nothing further is heard of a Pembroke’s company for three or four years.[357] But in 1597 one appeared in London about which we have rather full information, recently increased by Mr. Wallace’s discovery of a Court of Requests suit in which they were concerned. Towards the end of February in that year Robert Shaw, Richard Jones, Gabriel Spencer, William Bird _alias_ Borne, and Thomas Downton, who describe themselves in a suit of the following November as Pembroke’s servants, together with others their ‘accomplices and associates’, entered into an agreement with Francis Langley to play for twelve months ending on 20 February 1598 at the Swan. Each man gave a bond of £100, which was apparently to safeguard Langley against any failure by the company as a whole or of Robert Shaw or a sufficient substitute in particular to perform during this period, or against any performance elsewhere, otherwise than ‘in private places’, within five miles of London. Langley found £300 for apparel and, as he claimed, making ready of the play-house, and was to receive a moiety of the takings of the galleries and to be repaid for the apparel out of the other moiety. Of the men concerned, Jones and Downton had been Admiral’s men during 1594–7, and their transference coincides with a three weeks’ break in the performances of the Admiral’s at the Rose from 12 February onwards. Mr. Wallace (_E. S._ xliii. 357) says that Shaw, Spencer, and Bird were also of the Admiral’s, but of this there is no evidence. If Pembroke’s had any continued life during 1594–7, they may have shared it. But this seems improbable, and on the whole I am inclined to think that they came from the Chamberlain’s (q.v.). Plays were given at the Swan for some months, and Langley took £100 from the galleries, and £100 more for apparel. Then came an inhibition of plays near London on 28 July 1597, caused by the production of _The Isle of Dogs_, as a result of which one of the authors, Nashe, fled, and the other, Jonson, together with Shaw and Spencer, was committed to the Marshalsea. The definite evidence that Shaw and Spencer were Pembroke’s men at the Swan, now produced by Mr. Wallace, confirms my conjecture (_M. L. R._ iv. 411, 511) that _The Isle of Dogs_ was an adventure of that house and not, as has sometimes been thought, of the Rose. Either in anticipation of a prolonged closing of the house or for some other reason, the company now desired to shake off their relations with Langley. Early in August Jones returned to Henslowe and made a new covenant with him. His example was followed by Shaw, Spencer, and Bird, and early in October by Downton. Their prescience was justified, for when in the course of October the chief offenders were released, and the inhibition, which was nominally terminable on 1 November, was in practice relaxed, it proved that, while Henslowe was able to get a new licence for the Rose, Langley could get none for the Swan. He urged them to try their fortunes without a licence, as others of their company were willing to do, but they not unnaturally refused, and Henslowe (i. 54) records, ‘The xj of October begane my lord Admerals and my lord of Penbrockes men to playe at my howsse 1597’. He describes the company under the double name again on 21 and 23 October and 5 November, but on 1 December and thereafter as the Lord Admiral’s (i. 68–70). A study of the Admiral’s repertory for 1597–8 suggests that some or all of the plays _Black Joan_, _Hardicanute_, _Bourbon_, _Sturgflattery_, _Branholt_, _Friar Spendleton_, _Alice Pierce_, and _Dido and Aeneas_ may have been brought in by Pembroke’s men.

The five seceders had not heard the last of Langley. He sued them at common law on the bonds given not to play in a rival house. They successfully applied to have the case transferred to the Court of Requests, and in the course of the pleadings maintained, firstly, that they were prevented from playing at the Swan by the restraint and Langley’s failure to get a licence; secondly, that Langley had orally assented to their transfer to Henslowe; thirdly, that they could not appear at the Swan as a company, since Langley had ‘procured from them’ two (or, as they afterwards said, three) of their associates, to whom he had returned their obligations; and fourthly, that Langley had suffered no damage, since other men were occupying his house. They also complained that Langley had never handed over the apparel for which they had recouped him out of their gallery takings. The negotiations with Langley which they describe seem to have taken place during October. About the covenants entered into with Henslowe as far back as the beginning of August they said nothing, and whether either Langley or the court ever found out about these, and what the ultimate decision of the court on the main issue was, must remain uncertain. But certain loans entered in Henslowe’s diary suggest that in March 1598 Langley was in a position to arrest Bird, and that in September of the same year some kind of agreement was arrived at, under which Langley received £35, as well as £19 or more for a rich cloak (i. 63, 72, 73, 95, 96). It is possible that a ‘sewt agenste Thomas Poope’ of the Chamberlain’s, for which Henslowe (i. 72) made a personal advance of 10_s._ to William Bird on 30 August 1598, may also have been connected with the shiftings of companies in 1597.

The names of the two or three members of the company to whom Langley gave back their bonds are not stated in the pleadings. Perhaps one was Jonson, and the other two might conceivably have been Humphrey and Anthony Jeffes, since the name of ‘Humfrey’ stands with that of ‘Gabriel’ in stage-directions to _3 Henry VI_, and Henslowe’s list of the reconstituted Admiral’s company as it stood in October 1597–January 1598 contains ‘the ij Geffes’, who are not traceable in the 1594–7 company and may well have come in with the five Pembroke’s men. Langley tells us that certain ‘fellows’ of his opponents had taken a more reasonable line than theirs and returned to the Swan. How long these men remained there we do not know, but probably they secured Pembroke’s patronage after the five had been definitely merged in the Admiral’s, for by the end of 1597 there was clearly a distinct Pembroke’s company again. Provincial records yield the name, not only at Bath in 1596–7 and at Bristol in September 1597, which may point to a tour of the undivided Swan company during the period of restraint, but also at Bath in 1598–9, at Bristol in July 1598, at Leicester between October and December, at Dover on 7 October, at Coventry on 12 December, and at Bewdley on 22 December. They were at Norwich in April 1599, at Coventry on 4 July, and at Bristol in July. They were at York on 21 January 1600, Bristol in April, Marlborough in May, and Leicester before Michaelmas. In October they were in relationship with Henslowe, who notes ‘my Lordes of Penbrockes men begane to playe at the Rosse’, and records performances of _Like Unto Like_ and _Roderick_ on 28 and 29 October respectively.[358] The former brought him 11_s._ 6_d._ and the latter 5_s._, and there apparently the experiment ended, and with it, so far as is known, the career of Pembroke’s men. It is just possible that they were merged in Worcester’s company, which arose shortly afterwards. Mr. Fleay expands this possibility into a definite theory that Kempe, Beeston, Duke, and Pallant left the Chamberlain’s men for Pembroke’s in 1599, and ultimately passed from these to Worcester’s. This is improbable as regards Kempe, and unproved as regards the rest.[359]

xix. THE LORD ADMIRAL’S (LORD HOWARD’S, EARL OF NOTTINGHAM’S), PRINCE HENRY’S, AND ELECTOR PALATINE’S MEN

Charles Howard, s. of William, 1st Baron Howard of Effingham, g.s. of Thomas, 2nd Duke of Norfolk; _nat._ 1536; m. (1) Catherine Carey, d. of Henry Lord Hunsdon, Lady of the Privy Chamber, (2) Margaret Stuart, d. of James Earl of Murray, _c._ 1604; succ. as 2nd Baron, 29 Jan. 1573; Deputy Lord Chamberlain, 1574–5; Vice-Admiral, Feb. 1582; Lord Chamberlain, _c._ Dec. 1583; Lord High Admiral, 8 July 1585–1619; Earl of Nottingham, 22 Oct. 1596; Lord Steward, 1597; _ob._ 14 Dec. 1624.

Henry Frederick, s. of James VI of Scotland and I of England; _nat._ 19 Feb. 1594; cr. Duke of Rothesay, 30 Aug. 1594; succ. as Duke of Cornwall, 24 Mar. 1603; cr. Earl of Chester and Prince of Wales, 4 June 1610; _ob._ 6 Nov. 1612.

Frederick, s. of Frederick IV, Count Palatine of the Rhine; _nat._ 19 Aug. 1596; succ. as Frederick V, 1610; m. Princess Elizabeth of England, 14 Feb. 1613; elected King of Bohemia, 1619; _ob._ 1632.

[_Bibliographical Note._--The material preserved amongst the papers of Philip Henslowe and Edward Alleyn at Dulwich has been fully collected and studied by W. W. Greg in _Henslowe’s Diary_ (1904–8) and _Henslowe Papers_ (1907), which replace the earlier publications of Malone, Collier, and others from the same source. I have added a little from Professor Wallace’s researches and elsewhere, and have attempted to give my own reading of the evidence, which differs in a few minor points from Dr. Greg’s.]

It was perhaps his employment as deputy to the Earl of Sussex in the office of Lord Chamberlain which led Lord Howard to encourage players. A company, under the name of Lord Howard’s men, appeared at Court for the first time at the Christmas of 1576–7. On 27 December they played _Tooley_, and on 17 February _The Solitary Knight_.[360] They came again for the last time in the following winter, and performed on 5 January 1578. They were also at Kirtling on 3 December 1577, Saffron Walden in 1577–8, Ipswich on 24 October 1577, in 1578–9, and perhaps on 8 October 1581, Bristol, where they gave _The Queen of Ethiopia_, between 31 August and 6 September 1578, Nottingham on 19 December 1578, and Bath and Coventry in 1578–9.

Howard again had players at Court, after he became Admiral in 1585. The first record of them is at Dover in June 1585. Later in the year they were playing in conjunction with the Lord Chamberlain’s (Lord Hunsdon’s). ‘The Lorde Chamberlens and the Lord Admirall’s players’ were rewarded at Leicester in October-December 1585, and ‘the servants of the lo: admirall and the lo: Chamberlaine’ for a play at Court on 6 January 1586.[361] During the same Christmas, however, the Admiral’s played alone on 27 December 1585, and as Hunsdon’s survived in the provinces, the two organizations may have been amalgamated for one performance only. The Admiral’s were at Coventry, Faversham, Ipswich, and Leicester in 1585–6. They were reported to Walsingham amongst other London companies on 25 January 1587 (App. D, No. lxxviii), although they did not appear at Court during this winter. In 1586–7 they were at Cambridge, Coventry, Bath, York, Norwich, Ipswich, Exeter, Southampton, and Leicester. By November they were back in London, and on the 16th an accident at their theatre is thus related by Philip Gawdy to his father:[362]

‘Yow shall vnderstande of some accydentall newes heare in this towne thoughe my self no wyttnesse thereof, yet I may be bold to veryfye it for an assured troth. My L. Admyrall his men and players having a devyse in ther playe to tye one of their fellowes to a poste and so to shoote him to deathe, having borrowed their callyvers one of the players handes swerved his peece being charged with bullett missed the fellowe he aymed at and killed a chyld, and a woman great with chyld forthwith, and hurt an other man in the head very soore. How they will answere it I do not study vnlesse their profession were better, but in chrystyanity I am very sorry for the chaunce but God his iudgementes ar not to be searched nor enquired of at mannes handes. And yet I fynde by this an old proverbe veryfyed ther never comes more hurte than commes of fooling.’

Possibly the company went into retirement as a result of this disaster; at any rate nothing more is heard of them until the Christmas of 1588–9. They then came to Court, and were rewarded for two interludes and ‘for showinge other feates of activitye and tumblinge’ on 29 December 1588 and 11 February 1589.[363] On 6 November 1589 they were playing in the City, and were suppressed by the Lord Mayor, because Tilney, the Master of the Revels, misliked their plays. Probably they had been concerning themselves with the Marprelate controversy. Strange’s men, who were evidently performing as a separate company, shared their fate. It may have been this misadventure which led the Admiral’s to seek house-room with James Burbadge at the Theatre (q.v.), where some evidence by John Alleyn, who, with James Tunstall, was of their number, locates them in November 1590 and May 1591. A relic of this period may be presumed to exist in the ‘plot’ of _Dead Man’s Fortune_, preserved with other plots belonging to the company at Dulwich, in which Burbadge, doubtless Richard Burbadge, then still a boy, appeared. Certainly there is nothing to connect Burbadge with the company at any other date. Other actors in the piece were one Darlowe, ‘b[oy?] Samme’, and Robert Lee, later of Anne’s men. The Admiral’s again showed ‘feats of activitie’ at Court on 28 December 1589, and a play on 3 March 1590. In 1589–90 they were at Coventry, Ipswich, Maidstone, Marlborough, Winchester, and Gloucester, and in 1590–1 at Winchester and Gloucester. Marlowe’s _Tamburlaine_ was published in 1590 as ‘shewed upon stages in the City of London’ by the Admiral’s men. The Court records for the following winter present what looks at first sight like a curious discrepancy. The accounts of the Treasurer of the Chamber include payments for plays and activities on 27 December 1590 and 16 February 1591 to Lord Strange’s men. The corresponding warrants, however, were made out, according to the Privy Council Register, for the Admiral’s. Probably there is no error here, and the entries are evidence of an amalgamation between the two companies, which possibly dated from as far back as the winter of 1589, and which seems to have endured until the summer of 1594. Technically, it would seem that it was the Admiral’s who were merged in Strange’s men. It is the latter and not the former who generally appear in official documents during this period. I have therefore dealt with its details for both companies, with the question of the precise date of the amalgamation, and with the possibility that the plot of _The Seven Deadly Sins_ and its list of actors also belong to a Theatre performance of about 1590, in my account of Strange’s men, and need only remark here that the name of the Admiral’s does not altogether fall into disuse, especially in provincial records, and that the leading actor, Edward Alleyn, in particular, is shown by an official document to have retained his personal status as an Admiral’s servant.

It is a question of some interest how early Alleyn’s connexion with the Admiral’s may be supposed to have begun. Was he, for example, the original Tamburlaine of 1587, and was it as an Admiral’s man that Nashe referred to him, if it was he to whom Nashe referred, as the Roscius of the contemporary players in his _Menaphon_ epistle of 1589? He is known to have been a member of Worcester’s company in 1583. Dr. Greg is disposed to think that he remained with them until the death of the third Earl of Worcester on 22 February 1589, and then joined the Admiral’s.[364] It is, however, to be observed that there is no trace of Worcester’s men between 1584 and 1590, and that it is in 1585 that the Admiral’s men begin to appear at Court. On the whole, it commends itself to me as the more probable conjecture that the first Earl of Worcester’s company passed into Howard’s service, when he became Admiral in 1585, and that the players of the fourth Earl of Worcester between 1590 and 1596 were distinct from those of his father. The issue concerns others besides Edward Alleyn himself. Amongst the members of Worcester’s company in 1583 were Robert Browne, James Tunstall, and Richard Jones; and all three of these are found concerned with Alleyn in matters of theatrical business during 1589–91. The most important document is a deed of sale by ‘Richarde Jones of London yoman’ to ‘Edwarde Allen of London gent’ for £37 10s. of ‘all and singuler suche share parte and porcion of playinge apparrelles, playe bookes, instrumentes, and other comodities whatsoeuer belonginge to the same, as I the said Richarde Jones nowe haue or of right ought to haue joyntlye with the same Edwarde Allen, John Allen citizen and inholder of London and Roberte Browne yoman’.[365] This is dated 3 January 1589. There are also three deeds of sale to Edward and John Alleyn of theatrical apparel between 1589 and 1591, and to two of these James Tunstall was a witness.[366] On Dr. Greg’s theory as to the date at which Alleyn took service with the Lord Admiral, the organization in whose properties Richard Jones had an interest would naturally be Worcester’s men; on mine it would be the Admiral’s, and it would follow that Jones and Browne, as well as Alleyn, had joined that company. We have seen that James Tunstall had done so by 1590–1. John Alleyn was an elder brother of Edward. There is nothing to connect him with Worcester’s men. He was a servant of Lord Sheffield in November 1580 and of the Lord Admiral in 1589.[367] A letter of one Elizabeth Socklen to Edward Alleyn refers to a time ‘when your brother, my lovinge cozen John Allen, dwelt with my very good lord, Charles Heawarde’, and this rather suggests that his service was in some household capacity, and not merely as player.[368] If so, it may have been through him that Edward Alleyn and his fellows became Admiral’s men. The first period of their activity seems to have lasted from 1585 to 1589, and it was no doubt Edward Alleyn’s genius, and perhaps also his business capacity, which enabled them to offer a serious rivalry to the Queen’s company. I suspect that in 1589 or 1590 they were practically dissolved, and this view is confirmed by the fact that their most important play was allowed to get to the hands of the printers. Alleyn, with the help of his brother, bought up the properties, and allied himself with Lord Strange’s men, and so far as the Admiral’s continued to exist at all for the next few years, it was almost entirely in and through him that it did so. After a financial quarrel with James Burbadge in May 1591, the combined companies moved to the Rose. There is nothing to show whether the Alleyns bought up Robert Browne’s interest as well as that of Richard Jones. At any rate Browne began in 1590 that series of continental tours which occupied most of the rest of his career (cf. ch. xiv). Jones joined him in one of these adventures in 1592, and it is possible that John Bradstreet and Thomas Sackville, who went with them, were also old Admiral’s men. But I do not think that it is accurate to regard this company, as Dr. Greg seems to be inclined to do, as being itself under the Admiral’s patronage. It is true that they obtained a passport from him, but this was probably given rather in his capacity as warden of the seas than in that of their lord. His name is not mentioned in any of the foreign records of their peregrinations. It is not possible to say which, other than Alleyn, of the members of the 1592–3 Strange’s and Admiral’s company, whose names have been preserved, came from each of the two contributing sources. They do not include either John Alleyn or James Tunstall, or Edward Browne, a Worcester’s man of 1583, who reappears with Tunstall among the Admiral’s after 1594. Nor is it possible to say how far the repertory of Strange’s men, as disclosed by the 1592–3 entries in Henslowe’s diary, included plays drawn from the Admiral’s stock. This may have been the case with _The Battle of Alcazar_, which was printed as an Admiral’s play in 1594, and with _Orlando Furioso_, which contemporary gossip represents Greene as selling first to the Queen’s and then to the Admiral’s. And it may have been the case with _1 Tamar Cham_, which passed to the later Admiral’s. Neither _Tamburlaine_ nor _The Wounds of Civil War_, printed like _The Battle of Alcazar_ as an Admiral’s play in 1594, is recorded to have been played by Strange’s.

When the companies settled down again to a London life after the conclusion of the long plague in 1594, the Admiral’s men reconstituted themselves as an independent company with Alleyn at its head, leaving the greater number of their recent comrades of the road to pass, as the Lord Chamberlain’s men, under the patronage of Lord Hunsdon. The personal alliance between Alleyn and Henslowe, whose step-daughter, Joan Woodward, he had married on 22 October 1592, led to the institution of close business relations between the company and the pawnbroker, and the record of these in the famous diary enables us to follow with a singular minuteness the almost daily fortunes of the Admiral’s men during the course of some nine or ten years, broken into two periods by a reconstruction of the company in 1597 and finally closing about the time of their conversion into Prince Henry’s men in 1604. The precise nature of the position occupied by Henslowe has been carefully investigated by Dr. Greg,[369] and has already been briefly considered in these pages (ch. xi). He was not a member of the company, but its landlord, and, probably to an increasing extent, its financier. In the former capacity he received, after every day’s performance, a fluctuating sum, which seems to have represented half the amount received for admission to the galleries of the house; the other half, with the payments for entrance to the standing room in the yard, being divided amongst such of the players as had a share in the profits. Out of this, of course, they had to meet all expenditure other than by way of rent, such as the wages of hired men, payments for apparel and play-books, fees to the Master of the Revels for the licensing of plays, and the like. In practice it became convenient for Henslowe, who was a capitalist, while many of the players lived from hand to mouth, to advance sums to meet such expenditure as it fell due, and to recoup himself from time to time out of the company’s profits. It seems likely that, when the system was in full working, the moiety of the gallery money, which remained after the deduction of the rent, was assigned for the purpose of these repayments. During the period 1597–1604 Henslowe’s entries in his diary are mainly in the nature of a running account of these advances and of the receipts set off against them; for 1594–7 similar entries occur irregularly, but the principal record is a daily list, such as Henslowe had already kept during his shorter associations with Strange’s, the Queen’s, and Sussex’s companies in the course of 1592–4, of each performance given, with the name of the play and of the amount accruing to Henslowe himself in the form of rent. This list renders possible a very interesting analysis, both of the repertory of the company and of some at least of the financial conditions of their enterprise.

The entries start with the heading, ‘In the name of God Amen begininge the 14 of Maye 1594 by my lord Admeralls men’. After three days, during which _The Jew of Malta_, _Cutlack_, and _The Ranger’s Comedy_, all of which are found in the later repertory of the company, were given, they stop abruptly.[370] To about the same date may be assigned a fragmentary account, headed ‘Layd owt for my Lorde Admeralle seruantes as ffoloweth 1594’, and recording expenditure for coming and going to Court and to Somerset House, the residence of the Lord Chamberlain, ‘for mackinge of our leater twise’, and ‘for drinckinge with the jentellmen’, all evidently concerned with the initial business of forming and licensing the company.[371] On 5 June the account of performances is resumed with a fresh heading, ‘In the name of God Amen begininge at Newington my Lord Admeralle men and my Lorde Chamberlen men as ffolowethe 1594’.[372] Henslowe’s takings only averaged 9_s._ for the first ten days, probably on account of the distance of Newington Butts from London.[373] The takings for the three days in May averaged 41_s._, and it may perhaps be inferred that these May performances were at the Rose, and that some fear of renewed plague on the part of the authorities led to their being relegated to a safer quarter. The tentative character of these early performances is shown by the fact that the Admiral’s were still sharing a theatre with the Chamberlain’s. To the repertory of the latter it seems safe to assign three of the seven plays produced, _Titus Andronicus_, _Hamlet_, and _The Taming of A Shrew_, and probably also a fourth, _Hester and Ahasuerus_, as there is no later sign of this amongst the Admiral’s plays. This leaves three others to be regarded as the Admiral’s contribution, _The Jew of Malta_ and _Cutlack_, which they had played in May and were often to play again, and _Belin Dun_, to which are attached the letters ‘ne’, Henslowe’s normal indication of a new play.[374] There is nothing in the order in which the plays were taken to indicate an alternation of the two companies, and it is likely enough that neither was yet fully constituted, and that they actually joined forces in the same performances.

After the tenth play on 15 June, Henslowe drew a line across the page, and although the entries continue without any indication of a change in the conditions under which the performances were given, I can only concur in the conjecture of Mr. Fleay and Dr. Greg that at this point the Admiral’s plays were transferred to the Rose, and the combination with the Chamberlain’s ceased.[375] A sudden rise in the amount of Henslowe’s takings, and the absence from the rest of the list of the four plays named above and of any other attributable to the Chamberlain’s repertory, are alike strongly in favour of this view, which may be treated as a practical certainty. Henceforward the fortunes of the company seem to have followed a smooth course for the space of three years. Their proceedings may be briefly summed up as follows. They played for thirty-nine consecutive weeks from 15 June 1594 to 14 March 1595, appearing at Court during this season on 28 December, 1 January, and 6 January. After a break of thirty-seven days during Lent, opportunity of which was taken to repair the Rose, they played again for ten weeks from Easter Monday, 21 April, to 26 June 1595. Then came a vacation of fifty-nine days, with visits to Bath and Maidstone. They began again in London on 25 August 1595 and played for twenty-seven weeks to 28 February 1596, giving Court performances on 1 January, 4 January, and 22 and 24 February. This took them to the end of the first week in Lent. After forty-three days’ interval, they played for fifteen weeks, from Easter Monday, 12 April, to 23 July 1596. Their summer vacation lasted for ninety-five days, and they are noted during 1595–6 at Coventry, Bath, Gloucester, and Dunwich. In the autumn they started playing on 27 October, but the receipts were low, and if the record is complete, they suspended performances between 15 and 25 November, and then went on to 12 February 1597, making up a season of about fourteen weeks in all. They do not seem to have played at Court at all this winter. This year they rather disregarded Lent, stopping for eighteen days only, during a reconstruction of the company, and then playing three days a week until Easter, and then regularly until the end of July, in all twenty-one weeks. To certain irregularities at the close of this season it will be necessary to refer later. During the three years, then, there were three winter and three summer seasons of London playing, covering about a hundred and twenty-six weeks. Except in Lent or at the beginning or end of a season, or occasionally, probably for climatic reasons, at other times, especially in December, plays were given upon every week-day. It emerges from Dr. Greg’s re-ordering of Henslowe’s very inaccurate dates that there were no plays on Sundays.[376] On the other hand, a summons to play at Court in the evening did not necessarily entail a blank day in the afternoon. The total number of performances during the three years was seven hundred and twenty-eight. It is reasonable to assume that Henslowe’s takings varied roughly with those of the company, although the reserve must be made that different plays might prove the most attractive to the galleries and to the yard respectively. The amounts entered range from a minimum of 3_s._ to a maximum of 73_s._ Dr. Greg calculates the average over ‘certain typical periods of 1595’ as 30_s._;[377] during the first half of 1597 it was 24_s._ The fluctuations are determined, partly by the popularity or novelty of the plays presented, partly by the season of the year, and doubtless the weather and the competition of other amusements. There were generally some high receipts during Christmas, Easter, and Whitsun weeks. Unfortunately there is no means of estimating the proportion which Henslowe’s share bore to that which fell for division among the players. Some light is thrown upon the expenses by the subsidiary accounts of advances, which Henslowe began to keep from time to time in 1596. In May of that year he lent Alleyn ‘for the company’ a total amount of £39 in several instalments, and recovered it by small sums of £1 to £3 at a time during the next three months.[378] A longer account extending from October 1596 to March 1597 reaches, with the aid of a miscalculation, a total of £52. Of this £22 was repaid during the same period, chiefly by deductions from the profits of first nights, and an acknowledgement given for the balance of £30.[379] The advances were made through various members of the company, and the purposes specified include apparel for three new plays, travelling expenses, and fees to playwrights. A third account, if I am right in the interpretation of some very disputable figures, shows an expenditure at the average rate of 31_s._ a day during the six months from 24 January to 28 July 1597, of which, however, nearly half was in fact incurred during the first twenty-four days of the period. In this case only the sums and not the purposes for which they were advanced are entered.[380]

During the three years the Admiral’s men produced new plays to the total number of fifty-five, and at the average rate of one a fortnight. The productions were not at regular intervals, and often followed each other in successive weeks. There is, however, no example of two new productions in the same week.[381] These are the names and dates of the new plays:

_Belin Dun_ (10 June 1594). _Galiaso_ (28 June 1594). _Philipo and Hippolito_ (9 July 1594). _2 Godfrey of Bulloigne_ (19 July 1594). _The Merchant of Emden_ (30 July 1594). _Tasso’s Melancholy_ (13 Aug. 1594). _The Venetian Comedy_ (27 Aug. 1594). _Palamon and Arcite_ (18 Sept. 1594). _The Love of an English Lady_ (26 Sept. 1594). _A Knack to Know an Honest Man_ (23 Oct. 1594). _1 Caesar and Pompey_ (8 Nov. 1594). _Diocletian_ (16 Nov. 1594). _The Wise Man of West Chester_ (3 Dec. 1594). _The Set at Maw_ (15 Dec. 1594). _The French Comedy_ (11 Feb. 1595). _The Mack_ (21 Feb. 1595). _Olympo_ (5 Mar. 1595).[382] _1 Hercules_ (7 May 1595). _2 Hercules_ (23 May 1595). _1 The Seven Days of the Week_ (3 June 1595). _2 Caesar and Pompey_ (18 June 1595). _Longshanks_ (29 Aug. 1595). _Crack me this Nut_ (5 Sept. 1595). _The New World’s Tragedy_ (17 Sept. 1595). _The Disguises_ (2 Oct. 1595). _The Wonder of a Woman_ (16 Oct. 1595). _Barnardo and Fiammetta_ (30 Oct. 1595). _A Toy to Please Chaste Ladies_ (14 Nov. 1595). _Henry V_ (28 Nov. 1595). _Chinon of England_ (3 Jan. 1596). _Pythagoras_ (16 Jan. 1596). _2 The Seven Days of the Week_ (23 Jan. 1596). _The Blind Beggar of Alexandria_ (12 Feb. 1596). _Julian the Apostate_ (29 Apr. 1596). _1 Tamar Cham_ (7 May 1596). _Phocas_ (20 May 1596). _2 Tamar Cham_ (11 June 1596). _Troy_ (25 June 1596). _The Paradox_ (1 July 1596). _The Tinker of Totnes_ (23 July 1596). _Vortigern_, _Valteger_, or _Hengist_ (4 Dec. 1596). _Stukeley_ (10 Dec. 1596). _Nebuchadnezzar_ (18 Dec. 1596). _That Will Be Shall Be_ (30 Dec. 1596). _Jeronimo_ (7 Jan. 1597). _Alexander and Lodowick_ (14 Jan. 1597).[383] _Woman Hard to Please_ (27 Jan. 1597). _Guido_ (21 Mar. 1597). _Five Plays in One_ (7 Apr. 1597). _A French Comedy_ (18 Apr. 1597). _Uther Pendragon_ (29 Apr. 1597). _The Comedy of Humours_ (11 May 1597). _The Life and Death of Henry I_ (26 May 1597). _Frederick and Basilea_ (3 June 1597). _The Life and Death of Martin Swart_ (30 June 1597).

Oblivion has overtaken the great majority of these plays. _Longshanks_ is possibly Peele’s _Edward I_, and _Jeronimo_ certainly Kyd’s _Spanish Tragedy_. The title of _The Wise Man of West Chester_ agrees with the subject of Munday’s _John a Kent_ and _John a Cumber_, the manuscript of which is dated December 1595. One would be more willing to identify _Henry V_ with _The Famous Victories_, if the latter had not been printed in 1598 with the name of the Queen’s men on its title-page. _A Knack to Know an Honest Man_ was printed, as acted ‘about the Citie of London’, but without any company name, in 1596 (S. R. 26 November 1595). _Stukeley_ was also printed without a name, as _The Famous History of the Life and Death of Captain Thomas Stukeley_, in 1605 (S. R. 11 August 1600). _1 Tamar Cham_ and _Frederick and Basilea_ are extant in ‘plots’ alone, and _Belin Dun_, or _Bellendon_, as Henslowe writes it, was entered in the Stationers’ Register on 24 November 1595 as _The true tragicall historie of Kinge Rufus the first with the life and deathe of Belyn Dun the first thief that ever was hanged in England_, but is not known to be extant. The list also contains two of the early works of George Chapman, _The Blind Beggar of Alexandria_ (1598, Admiral’s, S. R. 15 August 1598), and _The Comedy of Humours_, which can be safely identified with _A Humorous Day’s Mirth_ (1599, Admiral’s). Ingenious attempts have been made to trace in some of the remaining titles other plays by Chapman, or by Heywood, Dekker, and the like, or presumed early drafts of these, or the English originals of plays or titles preserved in German versions; but in most cases the material available is so scanty as to render the game a hazardous one.[384] It appears, however, from Henslowe’s notes of advances during 1596–7 that payment was made to Heywood for a book, from which it may be inferred that his activity as a dramatist for the company had already began. Payments to ‘marcum’ and ‘Mr. porter’ perhaps indicate the same of Gervase Markham and Henry Porter.[385]

It is evident that some of the plays marked ‘ne’ by Henslowe cannot have been new in the fullest sense. This applies to _Jeronimo_, which had been played by Strange’s men as an old play during 1592–3, and to _2 Tamar Cham_, which had been produced by the same company on 28 April 1592, and on that occasion also marked ‘ne’ by Henslowe. It applies also to _Longshanks_ and _Henry V_, if these are really the same as _Edward I_ and _The Famous Victories_. And it may, of course, apply also in other cases, which cannot now be distinguished. Two explanations are possible. One is that plays were treated as new, for the purpose of Henslowe’s entries, which were only new to the repertory of the particular company concerned, having been purchased by them or by Henslowe from the stock of some other company. There is, however, no indication that Henslowe received any special financial advantage from the production of a new play, such as would give point to such an arrangement. The other, and perhaps the most plausible, is that an old play was marked ‘ne’ if it had undergone any substantial process of revision before revival. But it must be admitted that the problem set is one that we have hardly the means to solve.

In addition to their new and revised plays, the Admiral’s had a considerable stock of old ones. Some of these they were playing, when they began their first season in June 1594. Several others were revived in the course of that season, and a few at later dates. The only new play of the repertory which reached the stage of revival during the three years was _Belin Dun_, which was originally produced on 10 June 1594, played to the end of the year, then dropped, and afterwards revived for a single performance on 11 July 1596, and for a series in the spring of 1597. But it is not likely that many new plays were written during the plague years, and probably most of the revived plays of 1594–5 were a good deal more than two or three years old. A list of the plays not marked ‘ne’ by Henslowe, nineteen in number, follows. It is, however, possible that some of them are only plays in the list already given, masquerading under different names.

_Cutlack._ _The Ranger’s Comedy._ _The Guise_, or, _The Massacre of Paris._ _The Jew of Malta._ _Mahomet._ _1 Tamburlaine._ _Dr. Faustus._ _The Love of a Grecian Lady_, or, _The Grecian Comedy_.[386] _The French Doctor._ _Warlamchester._ _2 Tamburlaine._ _The Siege of London._ _Antony and Valia._[387] _1 Long Meg of Westminster._[388] _The Welshman._[389] _1 Fortunatus._ _Osric._ _Time’s Triumph and Fortune’s._ _The Witch of Islington._

Five plays of Marlowe’s are conspicuous in the list. _Mahomet_ might be either Greene’s _Alphonsus_, _King of Arragon_ or Peele’s lost _Turkish Mahomet and Hiren the Fair Greek_. _Fortunatus_, as revised by Dekker in 1599, is extant, but it is doubtful whether Dekker was writing early enough to have been the author of the original play. Conjectural identifications of some of the other titles have been attempted.[390] There is, perhaps, a natural inclination to eke out our meagre knowledge of the repertory of the earlier Admiral’s men, as it was constituted before 1590, by the assumption that the old and the revised new plays of 1594–7 belong to that stock. But this can only be proved to be so in the case of _1 and 2 Tamburlaine_, where the title-page of the 1590 edition comes to our assistance. There is no trace between 1594 and 1597 of any of the other three plays, _The Battle of Alcazar_, _The Wounds of Civil War_, and _Orlando Furioso_, which there is independent evidence for connecting with the Admiral’s. And it must be borne in mind that there were several other sources from which a supply of old plays might be drawn. Alleyn seems to have bought up the books and properties of the pre-1590 men, and we do not know how far he also retained rights in some or all of the plays produced during his alliance with Strange’s. Moreover, there were plenty of opportunities for either Alleyn, Henslowe, or the Admiral’s men as a whole, to acquire copies from one or more of the companies, Pembroke’s, the Queen’s, Sussex’s, which went under in the plague years. _Henry V_, if identical with _The Famous Victories_, had certainly been a Queen’s play; _The Ranger’s Comedy_ had been played for Henslowe by the Queen’s and Sussex’s in April 1594; _Jeronimo_ and _The Guise_ had been similarly played by Strange’s in 1592–3; and the fact that Strange’s, the Queen’s, Sussex’s, and the Admiral’s, all in turn played _The Jew of Malta_ leads to a strong suspicion that it was Henslowe’s property and placed by him at the disposal of any company that might from time to time be occupying his theatre.

The Rose was what is now known as a ‘repertory’ house. A very successful play might be repeated on the night after its first production or revival, or in the course of the same week. But as a rule one performance a week was the limit, and after a play had been on the boards a few weeks, the intervals between its appearances rapidly became greater. _The Wise Man of West Chester_, which was presented thirty-two times between December 1594 and July 1597, had a longer life than any other new play during the three years. Next came _A Knack to Know an Honest Man_, with twenty-one performances in two years, _1 Seven Days of the Week_, with twenty-one performances in fifteen months, and _The Blind Beggar of Alexandria_, with twenty-two performances in fourteen months. _Belin Dun_, although not continuously upon the stage for long together, achieved with the aid of its revival a total of twenty-four performances. The only other new plays, that outlived a year, were _2 Godfrey of Bulloigne_ and _A Toy to Please Chaste Ladies_. Even such highly successful plays as _1 and 2 Hercules_ ceased to be heard of after six months. The usual run of a play was anything from six to seventeen nights, but sixteen plays failed to obtain even such a run, and several plays, which apparently did well enough on the first night, were not repeated at all. As a rule the first night of a play brought Henslowe the highest returns; but this was by no means invariably the case, and the success of any play, which held the boards for as many as six nights, can perhaps best be measured by its average returns. By far the most fortunate was _The Comedy of Humours_ which averaged 53_s._ for the eleven nights available before the summer season of 1597 closed. Next came _1 and 2 Hercules_ with 42_s._ and 43_s._ respectively, _1 Seven Days of the Week_ with 35_s._, and _The Wise Man of West Chester_ with 34_s._ On the other hand the average of _Henry I_ was no more than 19_s._ and that of the second _French Comedy_ no more than 16_s._ The highest individual returns were those from the first nights of _1 and 2 Hercules_, _2 Godfrey of Bulloigne_, and _1 Seven Days of the Week_, which yielded 73_s._, 70_s._, 71_s._, and 70_s._ respectively, and that from the sixth night of the _Comedy of Humours_, which was also 70_s._ The booking for this play shows a curious progress, being 43_s._, 55_s._, 58_s._, 64_s._, 66_s._, 70_s._, for the first six nights. Similarly _The Wise Man of West Chester_, which began with a bad first night of 33_s._, rose to a good average, while _2 Godfrey of Bulloigne_, for all its start of 70_s._, ended with an average of only 28_s._ The worst first night taking was the 22_s._ of _Nebuchadnezzar_, and this affords another curious example of box-office fluctuations, for, though it achieved no higher average than 22_s._, it rose on its third night to 68_s._ The worst takings, on other than first nights, were 3_s._ for _Chinon of England_,[391] 4_s._ for _Vortigern_, and for _Olympo_, and 5_s._ twice over for _A Woman Hard to Please_. Probably these were due to weather or other accidents, as each play averaged enough to justify a reasonable run. The success of the old plays followed much the same lines as that of the new ones. They ran for anything from one night to twenty-four, this total being reached by _Dr. Faustus_. The best average returns were the 32_s._ and 38_s._ of _1 and 2 Tamburlaine_, the 30_s._ of _Mahomet_, the 29_s._ of _1 Long Meg of Westminster_, the 27_s._ of _The Guise_, and the 26_s._ of _The Jew of Malta_; the best individual returns the 72_s._ and 71_s._ yielded by the respective first nights of _Dr. Faustus_ and _1 Tamburlaine_. The persistent popularity of Marlowe’s work comes out quite clearly from the statistics; and the success of Chapman’s first attempts is also not to be overlooked.

The _personnel_ of the Admiral’s men during 1594–7 can be determined with some approach to certainty. They were Edward Alleyn, John Singer, Richard Jones, Thomas Towne, Martin Slater, Edward Juby, Thomas Downton, and James Donstone. Their names are found in a list written in the diary, without any explanation of its object, amongst memoranda of 1594–6.[392] There can be little doubt that it represents the principal members of the company, and in most cases corroborative evidence is available. The books of the Treasurer of the Chamber indicate Alleyn, Jones, and Singer as payees for the Court money of 1594–5, and Alleyn and Slater for that of 1595–6. Alleyn, Slater, Donstone, and Juby are noted in Henslowe’s subsidiary accounts for 1596 as responsible for advances made by him on behalf of the company.[393] Another advance was made to Stephen the tireman, and he is doubtless the Stephen Magett who also appears in personal financial relations with Henslowe during 1596.[394] Transactions by way of loan, sale, or pawn are also noted by Henslowe during 1594–7 with Slater, Jones, Donstone, Singer, and Towne, and also with Edward Dutton and Richard Alleyn.[395] These latter were probably not sharers in the company, but can be traced with others amongst its subordinate members by means of the ‘plot’ of _Frederick and Basilea_, which it is reasonable to connect with the performances of the play in June and July 1597, since it was a new play on 3 June, and it is recorded in the diary that Martin Slater, who figures in the ‘plot’, left the company on 18 July. It is to be inferred from the plot that the principal parts in _Frederick and Basilea_ were taken by Mr. Alleyn, Mr. Thomas Towne, Mr. Martin [Slater], Mr. Juby, Mr. Donstone, and R. Alleyn; that minor male parts were taken by Edward Dutton, Thomas Hunt, Robert Ledbetter, Black Dick, Pigge, Sam, Charles, and the ‘gatherers’ or money-takers and other ‘attendants’; and that female parts were taken by Edward Dutton’s boy Dick and two other boys known as Will and Griffen. Apparently the play, although not employing all the principal actors, made considerable demands on the minor staff. Dr. Greg may be right in identifying Sam and Charles with the Samuel Rowley and Charles Massey who became members of the company at a later date.[396] It will be seen that the only name in Henslowe’s undated list which cannot be verified as that of a member of the company during 1594–7 is that of Thomas Downton; but it may safely be accepted. Downton had accompanied Alleyn on the provincial tour with Strange’s men in 1593. So had Pigge or Pyk. Jones and Donstone, who is the same as Tunstall, had belonged to Worcester’s men in 1583, and probably to the Admiral’s men before 1590; Jones had been abroad, as we have seen, during the plague years. John Singer had been a member of the Queen’s men in 1588. The other names now come into the story for the first time. Henslowe’s advances for 1596 included sums ‘to feache Fletcher’ and ‘to feache Browne’.[397] It can only be matter of conjecture whether there is evidence here of negotiations for the incorporation in the company of Robert Browne and of Laurence Fletcher, at a later date a colleague of Slater’s, and if so, whether they led to any fruitful result.

The departure of Martin Slater on 18 July 1597 was only one of several changes which profoundly modified the composition of the company in the course of that year.[398] In February Richard Jones and Thomas Downton went to the Swan as Pembroke’s men, and the disturbance thereby caused probably accounts for the three weeks’ cessation of playing during Lent. The Swan enterprise was brought to a disastrous conclusion after five months by the production of _The Isle of Dogs_, which not only brought personal trouble on the chief offenders, but also led to a restraint of plays at all the theatres. This event synchronizes with the first appearance in the diary of Nashe’s collaborator in _The Isle of Dogs_, Ben Jonson. On 28 July Henslowe lent him no less a sum than £4, and took Alleyn and Singer as witnesses. On the same day he opened an account headed ‘℞ of Bengemenes Johnsones share as ffoloweth’ with a first instalment of 3_s._ 9_d._[399] On this very day of 28 July the Privy Council’s inhibition fell, and Jonson went to prison and paid no more instalments. It is impossible to say whether his ‘share’ was in the Admiral’s company or in Pembroke’s. In any event, although he continued to write for the Admiral’s men after 1597, there is no further sign that he was either a ‘sharer’, or indeed an actor in any capacity.

One result of the restraint was that Jones and Downton not merely returned to the Rose, but brought at least three other of Pembroke’s men, Robert Shaw, Gabriel Spencer, and William Bird, known also by the _alias_ of Borne, with them. Henslowe was thus enabled, almost immediately after playing stopped, to set about the reconstitution of his company, and the memoranda of agreement which he noted in his diary during the next fourteen months are so interesting for the light which they throw upon his relations with the actors, that I think it well, before discussing them, to transcribe them in full. There are in all eleven of them, as follows:[400]

i. (_Thomas Hearne_)

Memorandom that the 27 of Jeuley 1597 I heayred Thomas Hearne with ij pence for to searve me ij yeares in the qualetie of playenge for fyve shellynges a weacke for one yeare & vj^s viij^d for the other yeare which he hath covenanted hime seallfe to searue me & not to departe frome my companey tyll this ij yeares be eanded wittnes to this

John Synger. Jeames Donston. Thomas Towne.

ii. (_John Helle_)

Lent John Helle the clowne the 3 of Aguste 1597 in redy money the some of x^s. At that tyme I bownd hime by ane a sumsett of ij^d to contenew with me at my howsse in playinge tylle Srafte tid next after the date a boue written yf not to forfytte vnto me fortipowndes wittneses to the same

E Alleyn John Synger Jeames Donstall. Edward Jubey Samewell Rowley.

iii. (_Richard Jones_)

Memorandom that the 6 of Aguste 1597 I bownd Richard Jones by & a sumsett of ij^d to contenew & playe with the companye of my lord Admeralles players frome Mihelmase next after the daye a bowe written vntell the eand & tearme of iij yeares emediatly followinge & to playe in my howsse only known by the name of the Rosse & in no other howse a bowt London publicke & yf restraynte be granted then to go for the tyme into the contrey & after to retorne agayne to London yf he breacke this a sumsett then to forfett vnto me for the same a hundreth markes of lafull money of Ingland wittnes to this E Alleyn & John Midelton.

iv. (_Robert Shaw_)

More over Richard Jones at that tyme [6 Aug. 1597] hath tacken one other ij^d of me vpon & asumset to forfet vnto me one hundrethe markes yf one Robart Shaee do not playe with my lordes Admeralles men as he hath covenanted be fore in euery thinge & time to the oter moste wittnes E Alleyn John Midellton.

v. (_William Borne_)

Memorandom that the 10 of Aguste 1597 William Borne came & ofered hime sealfe to come and playe with my lord Admeralles mean at my howsse called by the name of the Rosse setewate one the back after this order folowinge he hath receued of me iij^d vpon & a sumsette to forfette vnto me a hundrethe marckes of lafull money of Ingland yf he do not performe thes thinges folowinge that is presentley after libertie being granted for playinge to come & to playe with my lordes Admeralles men at my howsse aforsayd & not in any other howsse publicke a bowt London for the space of iij yeares beginynge imediatly after this restraynt is recaled by the lordes of the cownsell which restraynt is by the meanes of playinge the Jeylle of Dooges yf he do not then he forfettes this asumset afore or ells not wittnes to this E Alleyn & Robsone.

vi. (_Thomas Downton_)

Memorandom that the 6 of October 1597 Thomas Dowton came & bownd him seallfe vnto me in xxxx^{ll} in & a somesett by the receuing of iij^d of me before wittnes the covenant is this that he shold frome the daye a bove written vntell Sraftid next come ij yeares to playe in my howsse & in no other a bowte London publickely yf he do with owt my consent to forfet vnto me this some of money a bove written wittnes to this

E Alleyn W^m Borne Dicke Jonnes Robarte Shawe John Synger

vii. (_William Kendall_)

Memorandum that this 8^{th} of December 1597 my father Philyp Hinshlow hierd as a covenauant servant Willyam Kendall for ij years after the statute of Winchester with ij single penc a to geue hym for his sayd servis everi week of his playng in London x^s & in the cuntrie v^s for the which he covenaunteth for the space of those ij years to be redye att all tymes to play in the howse of the sayd Philyp & in no other during the said terme.

Wittnes my self the writer of this E Alleyn.

viii. (_James Bristow_)

Bought my boye Jeames Brystow of William Agusten player the 18 of Desember 1597 for viij^{li}.

ix. (_Richard Alleyn_)

Memorandom that this 25 of Marche 1598 Richard Alleyne came & bownde hime seallfe vnto me for ij yeares in & asumsette as a hiered servante with ij syngell pence & to contenew frome the daye aboue written vnto the eand & tearme of ij yeares yf he do not performe this covenant then he to forfette for the breache of yt fortye powndes & wittnes to this

W^m Borne. Thomas Dowton. Gabrell Spencer. Robart Shawe. Richard Jonnes.

x. (_Thomas Heywood_)

Memorandom that this 25 of Marche 1598 Thomas Hawoode came and hiered hime seallfe with me as a covenante searvante for ij yeares by the receuenge of ij syngell pence acordinge to the statute of Winshester & to begine at the daye a boue written & not to playe any wher publicke a bowt London not whille these ij yeares be expired but in my howsse yf he do then he doth forfett vnto me by the receuinge of these ij^d fortie powndes & wittnes to this

Antony Monday Gabrell Spencer Robart Shawe Richard Alleyn. W^m Borne Thomas Dowton Richard Jonnes.

xi. (_Charles Massey and Samuel Rowley_)

Memorandom that this 16 of November 1598 I hired as my covenant servantes Charles Massey & Samewell Rowley for a yeare & as mvche as to Sraftide begenynge at the daye a bove written after the statute of Winchester with ij syngell pence & for them they haue covenanted with me to playe in my howes & in no other howsse dewringe the thime publeck but in mine yf they dooe with owt my consent yf they dooe to forfett vnto me xxxx^{li} a pece wittnes Thomas Dowton Robart Shawe W^m Borne Jubey Richard Jonnes.

Evidently the position of James Bristow is distinct from that of the other players. He was a ‘boy’ or apprentice, whose indentures had been transferred to Henslowe for a consideration by his former master. In the rest of the cases, the essence of the agreement appears to be the undertaking by the player under bond to play only with the Admiral’s men at Henslowe’s house. It is interesting to notice that in the agreement with Hearne Henslowe calls the company ‘my company’; and the fact that its members were constituted Henslowe’s covenant servants seems to argue a closer personal relation between the organization and its financier, than might on other grounds have been inferred. Dr. Greg, indeed, draws a distinction between the agreements with Jones, Shaw, Borne, and Downton, whom he regards as merely ‘binding themselves to play at Henslowe’s house like other sharers’, and those with the rest, whom he regards as ‘placing themselves in the position of covenant servants to him, which would seem to imply that they were merely hired men’.[401] But I do not think that there is any justification for this theory in the terms of the documents, and it immediately gets Dr. Greg into difficulties about Massey and Rowley, who, as we shall see, were in fact on the footing of full members of the company even before the date of their agreement. I do not mean that I deny the distinction between sharers and hired men, which is of course important, but that I do not think that it is relevant to the contractual relations set up by the agreements. I am not quite clear whether Henslowe’s memoranda, which are written throughout, including the names of the witnesses, in his own hand or Alleyn’s, constitute the formal instruments under which the agreements were effected, or are merely notes for his own information. But in either event their terminology is loose. They are not always expressed as being agreements of hiring, or for service, even in the cases of those men whom Dr. Greg does not suppose to have been sharers, and they are not careful to specify the considerations, other than the formal 2_d._ or 3_d._, which the actors were to receive. Wages are, in fact, provided for only in the agreements with Hearne and Kendall, and it is quite possible that, if we had the full terms before us, we should find that, while some of the others were also to receive wages, some were to find their recompense in a share of such profits as the company might make. It is probable that, even where Henslowe undertook to pay wages, the general agreement between him and the company provided for the shifting of that liability to them. They certainly had to pay him, at the rate of 3_s._ a week, for the services of his boy Bristow.[402] To a slightly later date belongs an agreement with an unnamed actor, in which the hirer is not Henslowe but Thomas Downton, and this I add in order to complete the series.[403]

xii.

Thomas Downton the 25 of Janewary 1599 ded hire as his couenante servante ---- for ij yers to begyne at Shrofe Tewesday next & he to geue hime viij^s a wecke as longe as they playe & after they lye stylle one fortnyght then to geue hime hallfe wages [ extra spaces ]wittnes P H & Edward Browne & Charlles Masey.

The appearance of Jones as guarantee for Shaw is due to the fact that, as a result of _The Isle of Dogs_, the latter was languishing with Gabriel Spencer and Ben Jonson in the Marshalsea. Meanwhile some at least of the company travelled. Henslowe lent Alleyn 40_s._ for John Singer and Thomas Towne ‘when they went into the contrey’ and noted that this was ‘at ther last cominge’. There is another entry of a small loan to Singer on 9 August, so they cannot have started before that; and they must have been back by 6 October, when Singer witnessed the agreement with Thomas Downton. Possibly Edward Dutton and Richard Alleyn, who also borrowed money from Henslowe, went with them.[404] The Privy Council warrants for the release of the prisoners in the Marshalsea were signed on 3 October,[405] and a few days later Henslowe, more successful than Langley of the Swan in getting the licence for his house renewed, even before the formal expiration of the restraint on 1 November, was in a position to resume his play list with the heading, ‘The xj of Octobe begane my lord Admerals & my lorde of Penbrockes men to play at my howsse 1597’.[406] The entries of plays are few and irregular up to 5 November, and then stop. A note is appended that on 26 November the Master of the Revels was paid for four weeks. The performances included one new play, _Friar Spendleton_, and five old ones, _Jeronimo_, _The Comedy of Humours_, _Dr. Faustus_, _Hardicanute_, and _Bourbon_, of which the last two do not belong to the 1594–7 repertory, and may have been contributed by Pembroke’s men. The diary also contains an account of weekly receipts running from 21 October 1597 to 4 March 1598, under the heading, ‘A juste a cownte of all suche monye as I haue receyed of my lord Admeralles & my lord of Penbrocke men as foloweth be gynynge the 21 of October 1597’, and some notes of individual advances and repayments, mainly through Robert Shaw and Thomas Downton, on behalf of the company, from 23 October to 12 December.[407] In the course of these the company is again described on 23 October and 5 November as ‘the company of my lord Admeralles men & my lord Penbrockes’, but on 1 December as ‘the companey of my lord Admeralles men’; and the substance of the whole of these advances is set out again, without any reference to Pembroke’s men, at the beginning of a continuous account from 21 October onwards, which is headed, ‘A juste a cownt of all suche money as I haue layd owt for my lord Admeralles players begynyng the xj of October whose names ar as foloweth Borne Gabrell Shaw Jonnes Dowten Jube Towne Synger & the ij Geffes’.[408] Nothing very certain is known of the previous career of Humphrey and Anthony Jeffes, but if the former is the ‘Humfrey’ who appears with ‘Gabriel’ [Spencer] in the stage-directions to _3 Henry VI_ it is most likely that these men also came from Pembroke’s.[409]

The responsible members of the Admiral’s company at the beginning of the third period of their existence were, then, so far as their relations to Henslowe were concerned, Thomas Downton, Richard Jones, Edward Juby, Thomas Towne, John Singer, Robert Shaw, William Borne, who seems to have had the regular _alias_ of William Bird, Gabriel Spencer, Humphrey Jeffes, and Anthony Jeffes. To these must probably be added a number of hired men, including Thomas Hearne, John Helle, William Kendall, Richard Alleyn, Thomas Heywood, and probably Charles Massey, Samuel Rowley, Thomas Hunt, and Stephen Maget the tireman, and of apprentices, including James Bristow and Pigge. Of the sharers Downton, Jones, Juby, Towne, and Singer had alone belonged to the earlier Admiral’s men. Slater’s departure involved the company in a lawsuit, the nature of which is not stated in the diary. Professor Wallace, however, has found an independent record of a Queen’s Bench action by Thomas Downton to recover £13 6_s._ 8_d._, the value of a playbook which Downton had lost in the parish of St. Mary le Bow on 1 December 1597, and Slater had ‘found’, refused to surrender, and was alleged to have disposed of for his own profit. Damages of £10 10_s._ were awarded on 3 November 1598.[410] Donstone also seems to have dropped out or may have been dead; he witnessed Helle’s agreement on 3 August 1597, and thereafter no more is heard of him. But incomparably the greatest loss was that of Edward Alleyn, who now retired from the stage and did not return to it for a period of three years.[411] From 29 December 1597 to 8 November 1598 Henslowe made notes of playing goods bought ‘sence my sonne Edward Allen leafte [p]laynge’, and it would appear that the company acknowledged a debt of £50 in respect of his interest on retirement.[412] In place of Alleyn, it would seem that the lead was taken by Robert Shaw and Thomas Downton, perhaps as representing the two elements of which the company was made up. These two were joint payees for the Court money of both 1597–8 and 1598–9. For 1599–1600 Shaw was sole payee. It was, moreover, most often, although by no means always, to one or other of these men that Henslowe’s advances on behalf of the company were made. It must be added that some of the new-comers appear to have sought private assistance from Henslowe in order to enable them to take up their shares. On 14 January 1598, he opened an account of sums received ‘of Humfreye Jeaffes hallfe share’, entered seven instalments up to 4 March, amounting to a total of 60_s._ 6_d._, and then noted, ‘This some was payd backe agayne vnto the companey of my lord Admeralles players the 8 of Marche 1598, & they shared yt amonste them’. There is a later account, running from 29 April to 21 July 1598, and amounting by small instalments to 35_s._, of ‘all such money as I dooe receue for Umfrey Jeaffes and Antoney Jeaffes ... of the companey’.[413] Possibly the brothers only held a single share between them. A similar transaction took place with Gabriel Spencer. On 20 April 1598 this actor gave an acknowledgement for £4 and between 6 April and 24 June Henslowe carried to an account headed ‘℞ of Gabrell Spencer at severall tymes of his share in the gallereyes’ a total of 25_s._ 6_d._, of which 5_s._ 6_d._ was paid over to Downton.[414] In addition, personal loans were negotiated from time to time by various members of the company, and the reasons given for these indicate that in the course of 1598, besides the dispute of the ex-Pembroke’s men with Langley, Bird and perhaps the company as a whole were engaged in litigation with Thomas Pope, presumably the actor in the Chamberlain’s company.[415]

There does not seem to have been much further change in the composition of the Admiral’s men during 1597–1600. An acknowledgement of the state of their account with Henslowe between 8 and 13 March 1598 bears the signatures of ‘J. Singer, Thomas Downton, William Birde, Robt Shaa, Richard Jones, Gabriell Spenser, Thomas Towne, Humfry Jeffes, Charles Massye, and Samuell Rowlye’.[416] The last two had evidently become sharers in the course of the year. Juby and Anthony Jeffes do not sign, but this is probably due to an accident, as they were certainly sharers both in 1597 and in 1600.[417] Gabriel Spencer was killed by Ben Jonson (cf. ch. xxiii) on 22 September 1598. On 26 September Henslowe wrote to Alleyn at the Brill in Sussex, ‘Now to leat you vnderstand newes I will teall you some but yt is for me harde & heavey. Sence you weare with me I haue loste one of my company which hurteth me greatley; that is Gabrell, for he is slayen in Hogesden fylldes by the handes of Bengemen Jonson bricklayer’.[418] No doubt Henslowe wrote from the heart. Probably Spencer’s share was not yet paid for, and in addition small personal loans to the amount of 66_s._ stand undischarged against him in the diary, of which the last was on 19 May ‘to bye a plume of feathers which his mane Bradshawe feched of me’. Richard Bradshaw was an actor and may have played as a hired man with the company. A fragmentary ‘plot’ of _Troilus and Cressida_, probably to be dated in April 1599, yields the names of ‘Mr. Jones’ and his ‘boy’, Thomas Hunt, Stephen, Proctor, and Pigge. Mr. Jones’s boy is shown by a note of 17 November 1599 in the diary to have been called James.[419] Of Proctor no more is known. Stephen is probably Stephen Magett, the tireman, and Pigge was with Alleyn on the tour of Strange’s men in 1593. He is also mentioned, with Dobe, Whittcombe, and Anderson, who may have been actors, in some inventories of properties belonging to Alleyn or to the company in March 1598.[420] Thomas Downton also had in June 1600 a ‘boye’ who played in _Cupid and Psyche_.[421] Another acknowledgement of account, dated on 10 July 1600, only differs from the former one by the omission of Spencer’s name and the inclusion of those of Juby and Anthony Jeffes.[422] The alleged manuscript notes to a copy of Dekker’s _Shoemaker’s Holiday_ (q.v.), produced in January 1600, which are discredited by Dr. Greg, give the cast as composed of ‘Jones, H. Jeffes, Rowley, Shawe, Massy, Dowton, Singer, Jewby, Towne, A. Jeffes, Birde, Wilson, Flower, Price, Day, Dowton’s boy Ned and Alleine’; the last for a female part. Certainly nothing is known of Day or Wilson as actors for the Admiral’s, or of Price at any such early date, or of Flower at all. But if the document is a forgery, it is a very pointless, and at the same time a very cautious one. And how did the forger, unless he were Collier or Cunningham, know that Day was an actor at all?

The records kept by Henslowe for the period 1597–1600 differ considerably in character from those for 1594–7. The diurnal list of plays performed and of rent-takings disappears altogether. On the other hand, the records of advances made, for the books and licensing of plays, for costumes and properties, and for certain miscellaneous items of expenditure, become full and systematic. A _per contra_ account is also kept of weekly sums received by Henslowe in repayment of such advances, and from time to time a balance is struck, and the hands of the company taken to a settlement or acknowledgement of debt. Henslowe’s book-keeping, however, if not exactly faulty, is not always sufficiently lucid to make the whole of the financial transactions perfectly clear. In the absence of the daily entries of performances, the weekly records of repayments make it possible to determine roughly the periods covered by the theatrical seasons.[423] The company played for twenty continuous weeks from 11 October 1597 to about 4 March 1598, apparently with some irregularity at the beginning and again about Christmas time. Their Court plays were on 27 December and 28 February. In Lent they had a three weeks’ interval, during the course of which they met to read a book in New Fish Street, and ‘played in Fleatstreet pryuat’.[424] Playing was resumed about 25 March and lasted for some fifteen weeks, until about 8 July, making thirty-five weeks in all for the year 1597–8. The company only took two weeks’ vacation in the summer and are not likely to have travelled, although on 27 September, after the new season had begun, Borne is found riding to the Lord Admiral at Croydon at the time of the Queen’s visit there.[425] They played for thirty-one weeks from about 22 July to 24 February 1599, with performances at Court on 27 December, 6 January and 18 February, and stopped for three weeks in Lent. The summer season lasted for eleven weeks from about 19 March to 3 June, making forty-four weeks playing for 1598–9. On Easter Eve Towne and Richard Alleyn went to Court for some unspecified purpose. About the same time Anthony Jeffes was making purchases against St. George’s Day.[426] The interval of this summer was seventeen weeks, but I have no evidence of any travelling. The next season was one of nineteen weeks from about 29 September 1599 to 10 February 1600, with Court performances on 27 December and 1 January, and was followed by a Lenten interval of about four weeks. At the beginning of February they bought a drum and trumpets ‘when to go into the contry’.[427] Whether these were for use during the short break in Lent or not until the following summer must remain uncertain; at any rate the purchase confirms the view that there had been no provincial tour since 1596.[428] Finally they played for nineteen weeks from about 2 March to 13 July, thus completing thirty-six weeks for 1599–1600. Apparently the summer season was diversified by a visit to Windsor for the Garter installation of Henri IV of France on 27 April.[429] In all they seem to have played for about 115 weeks or something under 690 days in 1597–1600, as compared with 728 days in 1594–7.

The entries of sums paid for plays usually give the names of the authors as well as those of the plays, and therefore furnish a good deal of material for reconstituting the literary side of the company’s

## activity. Henslowe’s terminology is neither precise nor uniform, but

it is clear that, while the payments were always entered as loans to the company, they were often made direct by him to the playwrights, on the ‘appointment’ of one or more of its members. Sometimes they are expressed as being ‘to bye a boocke of’ a play; that is to say, for the purchase outright of an old or even a new manuscript. But a new play was generally commissioned, upon the strength of a sample or of an outline of the plot, and in such cases payment was made by instalments, of which the earlier ones were ‘lent upon’ or ‘in earneste of’ or ‘in parte paymente of’, and the last ‘in full paymente of’ the book. Portions of the manuscript were handed over as security for the earlier payments. Production was very rapid, and a play put together in two or three weeks often represented the collaboration of as many as four or even five or six authors. The procedure, which prevailed during the whole of the period covered by the diary, is illustrated by a small group of letters preserved amongst the miscellaneous papers found at Dulwich. Thus on 8 November 1599 Shaw writes with regard to _2 Henry Richmond_, ‘Mr. Henshlowe, we haue heard their booke and lyke yt. Their pryce is eight poundes, which I pray pay now to Mr. Wilson, according to our promysse’; and accordingly Henslowe includes in his account, by an entry written and signed by Wilson, a sum of £8 ‘by a note vnder the hand of Mr. Rob: Shaw’.[430] On 14 June 1600 Shaw writes again, ‘I pray you, Mr. Henshlowe, deliuer vnto the bringer hereof the some of fyue & fifty shillinges to make the 3^{ll} fyue shillinges which they receaued before full six poundes in full payment of their booke called the fayre Constance of Roome, whereof I pray you reserue for me Mr. Willsons whole share which is xj^s. which I to supply his neede deliuered him yesternight.’ The diary duly records the payment to Drayton, Hathway, Munday, and Dekker ‘at the a poyntment of Roberte Shawe’ of 44_s._[431] Similarly Samuel Rowley writes on 4 April 1601, ‘Mr. Hinchloe, I haue harde fyue shetes of a playe of the Conqueste of the Indes & I dow not doute but it wyll be a verye good playe; tharefore I praye ye delyuer them fortye shyllynges in earneste of it & take the papers into your one hands & on Easter eue thaye promyse to make an ende of all the reste’. The earnest and several supplementary earnests were paid to Day, Haughton, and Smith, but the completion of the play lagged until the following September.[432] An undated letter of Rowley’s relates to the withdrawal of a play, ‘Mr. Hynchlo, I praye ye let Mr. Hathwaye haue his papars agayne of the playe of John a Gante & for the repayement of the monye back agayne he is contente to gyue ye a byll of his hande to be payde at some cartayne tyme as in your dyscressyon yow shall thinke good; which done ye may crose it oute of your boouke & keepe the byll; or else wele stande so much indetted to you & kepe the byll our selues’. Henslowe appears to have thought it safer to adopt the second alternative, as incomplete payments to the amount of £1 19_s._ 0_d._ for _The Conquest of Spain by John of Gaunt_ still stand in his ‘boouke’.[433] Other letters of the same kind concern _Six Yeomen of the West_, and _Too Good to be True_.[434] The normal price for a new play during 1597–1601 seems to have been £6, but sometimes it fell to £5 or possibly even £4, and sometimes the playwrights succeeded in squeezing out a few shillings more. One or two of them, notably Chapman, were able to secure a higher rate from the beginning; and about 1599 a general tendency towards a higher scale of prices becomes discernible. The ‘book’ of an old play could generally be purchased for about £2.

In attempting to estimate the actual ‘output’ of the company, one is faced by the difficulty that some of the plays commissioned are not shown by the diary to have reached the stage of payment in full, and that it must, therefore, remain doubtful whether they were ever completed. It is possible that, as Dr. Greg thinks,[435] some of the payments were made direct by the company, instead of through Henslowe. But the correspondence just quoted rather suggests that any such arrangement would be exceptional; and it would not be inconsistent with human nature, if the extremely out-at-elbows men of letters who hung about the Rose occasionally found it profitable to take their ‘earnest’ for a play, and then to find plausible reasons for indefinitely delaying its completion. Probably in the long run they had to account for the advance, but the example of _The Conquest of Spain_ shows that such a repayment would not necessarily find its way into Henslowe’s account. This view is borne out by an examination of the affairs of one of the most impecunious of them all, Henry Chettle, during 1598–9. During the first six months of the year, he had a hand in half a dozen plays, all of which were completed and paid for in full. But on one of these, _1 Black Bateman of the North_, Henslowe appears, perhaps by an oversight, to have paid him £1 too much. At the beginning of May £1 was lent to Chettle upon this play, and the loan does not appear to have been considered when, on 22 May, a further sum of £6 was laid out upon ‘a boocke called Blacke Battmane of the North ... which coste sixe powndes’. On 24 June Chettle borrowed 10_s._, not apparently on any particular play, and Henslowe seems then to have recalled the overpayment, and noted against Chettle’s name in the diary, ‘All his parte of boockes to this place are payde which weare dew unto hime & he reastes be syddes in my deatte the some of xxx^s.’ Chettle collaborated in several other plays, which got completed during the year, but no deduction seems to have been made from his share of the fees in respect of this debt. In addition he had £5 upon _A Woman’s Tragedy_, upon condition ‘eather to deliver the playe or els to paye the mony with in one forthnyght’; he had 5_s._ in earnest upon _Catiline’s Conspiracy_; and he had £1 14_s._ 0_d._ in earnest upon _Brute_, probably a continuation of an older _1 Brute_ bought by the company. When the last payment on _Brute_ was made on 16 September Henslowe noted, ‘Hary Cheattell vntell this place owes vs viij^{li} ix^s dew al his boockes & recknynges payd’. This amount is precisely made up of the 30_s._ due on 24 June and the sums paid on account of these three plays. By 22 October Chettle had completed _2 Brute_ and managed somehow to get £6 for it in full. On the same day he gave Henslowe an acknowledgement of a debt, not of £8 9_s._ 0_d._, but of £9 9_s._ 0_d._ In November he got an earnest of £1 for _Tis no Deceit to Deceive the Deceiver_, and £1 for ‘mending’ _Robin Hood_, and in January 1599 30_s._ ‘to paye his charges in the Marshallsey’. Small loans of a shilling or two are also noted in the margin of the book, and appear to be quite distinct from the company’s account with him, and to indicate private generosities of Henslowe. In February 1599 Chettle had finished _Polyphemus_, and it is recorded that in full payment of £6 he got £2 10_s._ down, ‘& strocken of his deatte which he owes vnto the companey fyftye shelenges more’. A separate entry in the diary indicates that he paid off yet another 10_s._ out of his fee for _The Spencers_ in March.[436] Material is not available for the further tracing of this particular chain of transactions, but the inference that credit obtained for an unfinished play had sometimes to be redeemed out of the profits of a finished one is irresistible. Chettle, at least, does not seem to have been hardly treated, but obviously the unbusinesslike methods of the playwrights kept down the price of plays, and a familiar device of the modern Barabbas was anticipated when Henry Porter was obliged, on the receipt of an earnest, to give Henslowe ‘his faythfulle promysse that I shold haue alle the boockes which he writte ether him sellfe or with any other’.[437] Whatever Henslowe’s precise financial relations with the company may have been, by the way, he seems to have been in a position to pose as paymaster, so far as the poets were concerned.

On the whole, I think it must be concluded that, if the diary fails to record payments to the amount of at least £5 for a new play, there is _prima facie_ evidence that that play never got itself finished. Occasionally, of course, apparently incomplete payments may be explained by the fact that the same play is entered under more than one name. Occasionally, also, a particular play may have been tacitly debited with payments not specifically expressed in the diary to have been made in respect of that play. Thus a sum of £2 paid on 4 February 1598 ‘to dise charge Mr. Dicker owt of the cownter in the Powltrey’ was probably treated as an instalment of the price of _Phaethon_ on which Dekker was then working, and for which otherwise only £4 is entered. Another sum of £3 10_s._ paid on 30 January 1599 ‘to descarge Thomas Dickers frome the a reaste of my lord Chamberlens men’ seems similarly to have gone towards _The First Introduction of the Civil Wars of France_. And Haughton probably got 10_s._ less than he would otherwise have done for _Ferrex and Porrex_, because he had required a loan of that amount on 10 March 1600, ‘to releace him owt of the Clyncke’.[438] The record, again, for a few plays is most likely rendered imperfect by the loss of a leaf or two from the manuscript, which once contained entries for the end of April and beginning of May 1599.[439] When these factors have been taken into consideration, the resultant total of possibly unfinished plays is not a very large one, amounting for 1597–1600 on my calculation to not more than twenty as against fifty-six new plays duly completed and paid for in full. Of these twenty it is very likely that some were in fact finished, either for other companies, or for the Admiral’s men themselves, later than the period covered by the diary. It is, however, consonant with the literary temperament to suppose that some at least remained within the category of unrealized projects. The most puzzling problem is that of Haughton’s _A Woman will have her Will_. For this it is impossible to trace payments beyond £2 10_s._, and these are not stated to be in full. Yet the play is not only now extant but was certainly extant in 1598. In this case I see no alternative to Dr. Greg’s theory of direct payments by the company.

Henslowe’s notes of advances to authors are not the sole material which is available for drawing up an account of the repertory of the Admiral’s men. There are also entries of the purchase of costumes and properties for certain plays, and of fees for the licensing of plays by the Master of the Revels. And there is a valuable series of inventories, formerly preserved at Dulwich, and dating from 1598, which record respectively the stock of apparel and properties in the hands of the Admiral’s men during the second week of March, their play-books at the same date, and the additions made out of Henslowe’s purchases up to about the following August.[440] The theory that some of the plays recorded in the diary were never finished receives confirmation from the absence of any corroborative proof of their existence in these subsidiary entries and documents, whereas such evidence exists in the case of a very large proportion of the plays for which the diary records payment in full. It must not, however, be assumed, either that every play completed necessarily got produced, although it is not likely that many were withheld, or that a play was necessarily not produced, because no special apparel or properties were bought for it, since it may have been quite possible to mount some plays out of the company’s existing stock. The number of fees paid for licensing is so small in proportion to the number of plays certainly produced, that these fees cannot all be supposed to have passed through Henslowe’s hands.

Subject to the difficulties discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, I think that the following is a fairly accurate account of the repertory of the company for the three years now in question.[441] During 1597–8 they purchased seventeen new plays. These, with the names of their authors, were:

_Mother Redcap_ (Drayton and Munday). _Phaethon_ (Dekker). _1 Robin Hood_ (Munday). _2 Robin Hood_ (Chettle and Munday). _The Triangle of Cuckolds_ (Dekker).[442] _The Welshman’s Prize_, or, _The Famous Wars of Henry I and the Prince of Wales_ (Chettle, Dekker, and Drayton).[443] _1 Earl Godwin and his Three Sons_ (Chettle, Dekker, Drayton, and Wilson). _2 Earl Godwin and his Three Sons_ (Chettle, Dekker, Drayton, and Wilson). _King Arthur_ (Hathway). _Love Prevented_ (Porter).[444] _A Woman will have her Will_ (Haughton). _1 Black Bateman of the North_ (Chettle, Dekker, Drayton, and Wilson). _2 Black Bateman of the North_ (Chettle and Wilson). _The Madman’s Morris_ (Dekker, Drayton, and Wilson). _The Funeral of Richard Cœur de Lion_ (Chettle, Drayton, Munday, and Wilson). _Hannibal and Hermes_ (Dekker, Drayton, and Wilson).[445] _Valentine and Orson_ (Hathway and Munday).

There is evidence of the actual performance of _Mother Redcap_, _Phaethon_ (January), _1 and 2 Robin Hood_ (March), _1 Earl Godwin_ (April), _King Arthur_ (May), _2 Earl Godwin_ (June), _1 Black Bateman_ (June). Properties were bought for _The Madman’s Morris_ in July, and the next season probably opened with it. To the new plays must be added _Friar Spendleton_, produced as ‘ne’ on 31 October, and _Dido and Aeneas_. A loan of 30_s._ on 8 January ‘when they fyrst played Dido at nyght’ suggests a supper, not a night performance. Either play may have been purchased at the end of 1596–7, or may have come from Pembroke’s stock. The same applies to _Branholt_ and _Alice Pierce_, which were probably new when properties were purchased for them in November and December. The company also bought on 12 December two jigs from two young men, for which they paid 6_s._ 8_d._ Hardly any of the 1597–8 new plays are extant. The two parts of _Robin Hood_ are _The Downfall of Robert Earl of Huntingdon_, and _The Death of Robert Earl of Huntingdon_, printed without Munday’s name as Admiral’s plays in 1601. Haughton’s _A Woman will have her Will_ was entered on the Stationers’ Register on 3 August 1601, and printed with the alternative title of _Englishmen for my Money_ in 1616. _Phaethon_ probably underlies Dekker and Ford’s _The Sun’s Darling_, and it is a plausible conjecture of Mr. Fleay’s that _Love Prevented_ may be _1 The Two Angry Women of Abingdon_, printed as an Admiral’s play in 1599, and not to be traced elsewhere in the diary. The payments for four plays during the year, besides the puzzling _A Woman will have her Will_, were incomplete. I take it that the £2 paid to Chettle, Dekker, Drayton, and Wilson for _Pierce of Exton_ was transferred to the account for _2 Earl Godwin_, which otherwise lacks just that amount of the full £6; that Chettle failed to deliver _A Woman’s Tragedy_; that Chapman’s _Isle of a Woman_ was held over until 1598–9; and that a projected tragedy of Ben Jonson’s was similarly held over, and then indefinitely postponed owing to the tragedy in real life of Spencer’s death. There are two entries with regard to this. On 3 December 1597, Henslowe lent Jonson 20_s._ ‘vpon a boocke which he showed the plotte vnto the company which he promysed to deliver vnto the company at Cryssmas next’. On 23 October 1598, a month after the duel, not Jonson, but Chapman, received £3 ‘one his playe boocke & ij ectes of a tragedie of Bengemenes plotte’. I think that Chapman’s own play was _The Four Kings_ and that he finished it in 1599; but I see no sign that he ever did anything with ‘Bengemenes plotte’.

Of older plays the Admiral’s revived at the beginning of the year Chapman’s success of the previous spring, _The Comedy of Humours_; also the perennial _Dr. Faustus_, and two pieces which, as they formed no part of the 1594–7 repertory, may have been brought in by Pembroke’s men, _Hardicanute_ and _Bourbon_. They bought for £8 from Martin Slater _1 and 2 Hercules_, _Phocas_, _Pythagoras_, and _Alexander and Lodowick_, all of which had been produced between May 1595 and January 1597, and had evidently been retained by Slater when he left the company. These books presumably do not include that which became the subject of the lawsuit between Slater and the Admiral’s men, and as they had afterwards to buy back some of their old books in a precisely similar way from Alleyn, it is probable that a retiring member of the company had a right to claim a partition of the repertory. They also bought _The Cobler of Queenhithe_,[446] and from Robert Lee, formerly of the Admiral’s men and afterwards of Queen Anne’s, _The Miller_. But of these seven purchased plays, the only one that they can be proved to have revived is one of the _Hercules_ plays, for which they bought properties in July. The book-inventory shows that they had plays called _Black Joan_ and _Sturgflattery_,[447] also possibly from Pembroke’s stock; and the property-inventories that they had properties and clothes, if not in all cases books,[448] for _The Battle of Alcazar_[449] and for a number of pieces staged during 1594–7, including _Mahomet_,[450] _Tamburlaine_,[451] _The Jew of Malta_,[452] _1 Fortunatus_,[453] _The Siege of London_,[454] _Belin Dun_,[455] _Tasso’s Melancholy_,[456] _1 Caesar and Pompey_,[457] _The Wise Man of West Chester_,[458] _The Set at Maw_,[459] _Olympo_,[460] _Henry V_,[461] _Longshanks_,[462] _Troy_,[463] _Vortigern_,[464] _Guido_,[465] _Uther Pendragon_.[466] To these must be added _Pontius Pilate_,[467] revived in 1601 and perhaps from the Pembroke’s stock, and others now unidentifiable.[468] As the company revived _The Blind Beggar of Alexandria_ in 1601 they probably had this also.[469]

The new plays purchased in 1598–9 were twenty-one in number:

_Pierce of Winchester_ (Dekker, Drayton, and Wilson). _Hot Anger Soon Cold_ (Chettle, Jonson, and Porter). _Chance Medley_ (Chettle or Dekker, Drayton, Munday, and Wilson).[470] _Worse Afeared than Hurt_ (Dekker and Drayton).[471] _1 Civil Wars of France_ (Dekker and Drayton). _The Fount of New Fashions_ (Chapman).[472] _2 The Conquest of Brute_, or, _Brute Greenshield_ (Chettle).[473] _Connan, Prince of Cornwall_ (Dekker and Drayton). _2 Civil Wars of France_ (Dekker and Drayton). _3 Civil Wars of France_ (Dekker and Drayton). _The Four Kings_ (Chapman).[474] _War without Blows and Love without Suit_ (Heywood).[475] _First Introduction of the Civil Wars of France_ (Dekker). _2 Two Angry Women of Abingdon_ (Porter). _Joan as Good as my Lady_ (Heywood) _Friar Fox and Gillian of Brentford_ (Anon.). _The Spencers_ (Chettle and Porter). _Troy’s Revenge and the Tragedy of Polyphemus_ (Chettle). _Troilus and Cressida_ (Chettle and Dekker). _Agamemnon_, or, _Orestes Furious_ (Chettle and Dekker).[476] _The World Runs on Wheels_, or, _All Fools but the Fool_ (Chapman).[477]

The property and licence entries only make it possible to trace the actual performance during the year of _Pierce of Winchester_ (October), _1 and 2 Civil Wars of France_ (October and November), _The Fount of New Fashions_ (November), _2 Angry Women of Abingdon_ (February), _2 Conquest of Brute_ (March), _The Four Kings_ (March), _The Spencers_ (April), and _Agamemnon_ (June). Probably, in view of the extant fragment of a ‘plot’ _Troilus and Cressida_ should be added. The production of _Troy’s Revenge_ was deferred until the following October. No one of this year’s new plays is extant, unless, as is possible, _All Fools but the Fool_ was an early form of Chapman’s _All Fools_.[478] Earnests were paid in the course of 1598–9 for _Catiline’s Conspiracy_ (Chettle), _Tis no Deceit to Deceive the Deceiver_ (Chettle), _William Longsword_[479] (Drayton), _Two Merry Women of Abingdon_ (Porter), and an unnamed pastoral tragedy by Chapman, but there is no reason to suppose that any one of these was ever finished. On 9 August 1598 Munday had 10s. in earnest of an unnamed comedy ‘for the corte’ and Drayton gave his word for the book to be done in a fortnight, but the project must have been dropped, as the entry was cancelled. Of old plays the company revived in August _Vayvode_, in November _The Massacre at Paris_, in which Bird played the Guise,[480] in December _1 The Conquest of Brute_, bought from John Day, and in March _Alexander and Lodowick_, bought from Martin Slater in the preceding year. As to _Vayvode_, the entries are rather puzzling. In August Chettle received £1 ‘for his playe of Vayvode’, and the purchase of properties show that the production took place. But in the following January there was a payment of £2 to Alleyn ‘for the playe of Vayvod for the company’. Possibly Alleyn had some rights in the manuscript, which were at first overlooked. On 25 November Chettle had 10_s._ ‘for mendinge of Roben Hood for the corte’. Either _1_ or _2_ _Robin Hood_ was therefore probably the play given on 6 January 1599. At the beginning of the year the company bought _Mulmutius Dunwallow_ from William Rankins and another old play called _Tristram of Lyons_, but it must be uncertain whether they played them. A reference in Guilpin’s _Skialetheia_ suggests that _The Spanish Tragedy_ may have been on the boards of the Rose not long before September 1598.[481]

The new plays completed during 1599–1600, twenty in all, were:

_The Gentle Craft_ (Dekker).[482] _Bear a Brain_ (Dekker).[483] _Page of Plymouth_ (Dekker and Jonson). _Robert II_, or, _The Scot’s Tragedy_ (Chettle, Dekker, Jonson, and Marston).[484] _The Stepmother’s Tragedy_ (Chettle and Dekker). _1 Sir John Oldcastle_ (Drayton, Hathway, Munday, and Wilson). _Cox of Collumpton_ (Day and Haughton). _2 Henry Richmond_ (Wilson). _2 Sir John Oldcastle_ (Drayton, Hathway, Munday, and Wilson). _Patient Grissell_ (Chettle, Dekker, and Haughton). _The Whole History of Fortunatus_ (Dekker). _Thomas Merry_, or, _Beech’s Tragedy_ (Day and Haughton). _Jugurtha_ (Boyle).[485] _The Seven Wise Masters_ (Chettle, Day, Dekker, and Haughton). _Ferrex and Porrex_ (Haughton). _Cupid and Psyche_, or, _The Golden Ass_ (Chettle, Day, and Dekker). _Damon and Pythias_ (Chettle). _Strange News out of Poland_ (Haughton and Pett). _1 Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green_ (Chettle and Day). _1 Fair Constance of Rome_ (Dekker, Drayton, Hathway, Munday, and Wilson).

It is possible to verify the actual performance of _Page of Plymouth_ (September), _1 Sir John Oldcastle_ (November),[486] Fortunatus (December), _The Gentle Craft_ (January), _Thomas Merry_ (January), _Patient Grissell_ (January), _2 Sir John Oldcastle_ (March), _The Seven Wise Masters_ (March), _Ferrex and Porrex_ (May), _Damon and Pythias_ (May), _Strange News out of Poland_ (May), _Cupid and Psyche_ (June). _Sir John Oldcastle_ must of course be regarded as a counterblast to the _Henry IV_ plays of the Chamberlain’s men, in which the character of Falstaff originally bore the name of the Lollard hero. One infers that it had a considerable success, for the company gave 10s. for ‘Mr. Mundaye and the reste of the poets at the playnge of Sr John Oldcastell the ferste tyme’, and Henslowe notes in the margin that this was ‘as a gefte’. It is with some hesitation that I have included _Fortunatus_ in the list of new plays, because it is impossible to suppose that it was not based upon the earlier _Fortunatus_, already an old play in 1596, of the properties of which the Admiral’s men certainly retained possession. But Dekker was paid on the scale of a new play, for he got a full £6 in the course of November for the book, together with an additional £1 ‘for the altrenge of the boocke’ and £2 a fortnight later ‘for the eande of Fortewnatus for the corte’. I take it that this was the Court play of 27 December. That of 1 January was another of Dekker’s, _The Gentle Craft_, also called _The Shoemaker’s Holiday_, which was published in the year ‘1600’ as played before the Queen ‘on New Year’s Day at night last’ by the Admiral’s men. _Fortunatus_, _1 Sir John Oldcastle_,[486] _Patient Grissell_, and _1 Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green_ have also been preserved, while the publication, also in the course of the twelve months ending on 24 March 1601, of _Look About You_ as an Admiral’s play must surely render plausible the hypothesis, rejected by Dr. Greg, of its identity with _Bear a Brain_. It would seem that _Thomas Merry_ furnishes one of the two parallel plots of Robert Yarington’s _Two Lamentable Tragedies_, and a notice by Simon Forman suggests that _Cox of Collumpton_ was ultimately finished.[487] An outline of the opening scenes of _2 Henry Richmond_ is among the Dulwich papers.[488] Publication was a form of popularity which the actors were apt to resent. The Admiral’s men spent £2 on 18 March 1600 ‘to geue vnto the printer to staye the printing of Patient Gresell’. This did not prevent the play being entered on the Stationers’ Register on 28 March, but does perhaps explain why the earliest known edition is dated 1603. The unfinished plays of 1599–1600 were _The Poor Man’s Paradise_ (Haughton), _The Orphans’ Tragedy_ (Chettle),[489] an unnamed Italian tragedy by Day, _The Arcadian Virgin_ (Chettle and Haughton), _Owen Tudor_ (Drayton, Hathway, Munday, and Wilson), _Truth’s Supplication to Candlelight_ (Dekker),[490] _The Spanish Moor’s Tragedy_ (Day, Dekker, and Haughton),[491] _The English Fugitives_ (Haughton), _The Devil and his Dame_ (Haughton),[492] _The Wooing of Death_ (Chettle), _Judas_ (Haughton),[493] _2 Fair Constance of Rome_ (Hathway), and an unnamed play by Chettle and Day.[494] Except in so far as _Fortunatus_ was an old play, I find no trace of a revival during 1599–1600, but it may be assumed that some of the productions of the last two years still held the boards.

The year 1600 was another turning-point in the history of the company. Probably at some date between 14 August, when the first entry in a fresh account was made, and 28 October, when Pembroke’s men were in occupation of the Rose, they crossed the river, and took up their quarters at Alleyn’s recently built Fortune, on the north-west boundary of the City. A more important event still was the return of Alleyn himself to the stage, from which he had been absent for three years. It is suggested in the Privy Council letter of 8 April 1600 to the Middlesex justices in favour of the Fortune project, that this step was determined by the personal wish of the Queen to see the great actor at Court with his fellows again.[495] It is not quite clear on what terms he rejoined the company. There was a ‘composicion’ or agreement, in connexion with which a payment of £4 was made to him on 11 November. The next entry, which is undated, runs, ‘P^d vnto my sonne Alleyn for the firste weckes playe the xj parte of xvij^{ll} ix^s which came to therti & ij shellinges’. There are no further entries of the same kind until the date of a reckoning in February 1602, when Henslowe paid Alleyn 27_s._ 6_d._ ‘dew to my sone out of the gallery money’. Probably this was a share of some small residue, the origin of which cannot now be traced. The earlier payment suggests that Alleyn received one full share of the actors’ takings, for, if I am right in supposing that the brothers Jeffes only held half a share each, there would have been just ten sharers besides himself. Or possibly his share may have been limited to the actors’ moiety of the gallery takings, and the outgoings may all have been charged to the receipts from the yard. Certainly Alleyn does not seem to have had any responsibility for these outgoings. His name is never put with those of other sharers to Henslowe’s periodical reckonings, and if his play-books were used, they were bought from him. On the other hand, he sometimes, although not so often as some of his fellows, ‘appointed’ payments, and he received the Court money for the company, alike in 1601, 1602, and 1603. That his share did not pass through Henslowe’s hands after the date of the first instalment is perhaps explained by the assumption that, as the owner and joint occupier with Henslowe of the Fortune, the appointment of a ‘gatherer’ for the gallery money may naturally have fallen to him.

Some such change in the financial arrangements may also account for the fact that, while Henslowe’s record of advances continues on the same lines as that for 1597–1600, the notes of weekly repayments are now discontinued. As a result it is no longer possible to determine with any exactness the length of the theatrical seasons, since, naturally enough, the outgoings did not altogether stop while the house was closed. Their course, however, suggests intervals in February and March 1601, February to April 1602, August 1602 and January and February 1603. It is possible, although not very likely, that there was no cessation of playing during the summer of 1601. I find no evidence of further provincial travels before the end of the reign. These were, I think, years of prosperity. The players still required small personal advances from time to time, and Thomas Towne was reduced to pawning a pair of stockings on 13 March 1602.[496] But it is noticeable that about the previous June Henslowe opened an account under the heading, ‘Begininge to receue of thes meane ther privet deates which they owe vnto me’, and was able to enter in it a series of repayments by Jones, Downton, Bird, and Shaw.[497] Bird, however, still owed £10 10_s._ on 12 March 1602, and Henslowe noted, ‘He is cleere of all debtes & demaundes except theis debtes and such stocke & covenentes as I maie clayme & challendge of him by reason of his coniunction with the companie’.[498] Whether the playwrights reaped any benefit may be doubted. The tendency to a rise of prices which showed itself in 1599 was hardly maintained. Some of them were still impecunious enough. The company had, on more than one occasion to redeem a play which the unfortunate Chettle had pawned with one Bromfield, a mercer; and in March 1602 he seems to have followed Porter’s example and put his hand, for a consideration of £3, to an instrument binding him to write for them alone.[499] There were some legal troubles in the course of 1601. A sum of £21 10_s._ had to be paid on a bond to a Mr. Treheren during March, and in August there were fees to a jury and a clerk of assizes. The company had also to find 10_s._ in May ‘to geatte the boye into the ospetalle which was hurt at the Fortewne’.[500] Information as to the composition of the company at some time between Alleyn’s return and February 1602 is given by the ‘plot’ of _The Battle of Alcazar_, although, as this is mutilated, it must not be treated as negative evidence, and in particular the names of W. Borne and John Singer are missing.[501] All the other sharers, however, are found in it--‘Mr. Ed. Allen, Mr. Doughton, Mr. Juby, Mr. Shaa, Mr. Jones, Mr. Towne, Antony Jeffes, H. Jeffes, Mr. Charles [Massey], and Mr. Sam [Rowley]’. There are also Mr. Rich. Allen and Mr. Hunt, who were not sharers, but whose long service had apparently earned them the dignity of the ‘Mr.’, W. Kendall, Jeames, who was possibly Henslowe’s apprentice James Bristow and possibly Jones’s boy of the same name, and Dob, who was probably the Dobe of the 1598 inventory. The remaining names, all of which are new, are those of W. Cartwright, who, however, had witnessed a loan for Henslowe as far back as 21 April 1598,[502] Dick Jubie, Ro. Tailor, George Somerset, Tho. Drum, [Thomas] Parsons, Harry, and the ‘boys’ of Mr. Allen and Mr. Towne. The only important woman’s part, that of Callipolis, is assigned by the ‘plot’ to Pisano, which does not look like an actor’s name and may be a mistake. The services of Bristow were evidently leased out by Henslowe to the company or some one of its members, at a rate of 3_s._ a week. Antony Jeffes paid two weeks’ arrears ‘for my boyes Jeames wages’ in August 1600, and Henslowe charged the company £6 10_s._ on the same account in the following February.[503] Another boy attached to the company about the same time must have been ‘Nick’, for whom hose ‘to tumbell in be fore the quen’ were bought on 25 December 1601. Hugh Davis, for the mending of whose tawny coat ‘which was eatten with the rattes’ 6_s._ 7_d._ was paid in November 1601, was perhaps a hired man. A list of the responsible members of the company is attached by Henslowe to a reckoning cast between 7 and 23 February 1602. They were then ‘John Singer, Thomas Downton, William Byrd, Edward Juby, Thomas Towne, Humphrey Jeffs, Anthony Jeffs, Samuel Rowley, and Charles Massy’.[504] A note is added that £50 had been advanced ‘to geve vnto Mr. Jonnes & Mr. Shaw at ther goinge a waye’. This departure must have been quite recent. Shaw had been agent for the company on the previous 21 January, and the list of continuing members is in fact in his handwriting. The last instalment of Jones’s private debt had been paid off on 1 November. His three years’ agreement with Henslowe had expired at Michaelmas 1600. Richard Alleyn must have died in September 1602, for on the 19th of that month his widow borrowed £5 10_s._ to take her mantle and sheet and face-cloth out of pawn.[505] Neither Shaw nor Jones nor Richard Alleyn is in the plot of _1 Tamar Cham_, which may reasonably be assigned to a date in the vicinity of the purchase of the book from Alleyn on 2 October 1602. This is of interest, partly because it is complete, and partly because there was a procession in the play, and the number of supernumeraries required must have tried the resources of the establishment to their utmost. All the principal members of the company appeared--‘Mr. Allen, Mr. Denygten, Mr. Boorne, Mr. Towne, Mr. Singer, Mr. Jubie, H. Jeffs, A. Jeffs, Mr. Charles [Massey], and Mr. Sam [Rowley]’; and in addition Dick Jubie, W. Cart[wright], George [Somerset], Tho. Parsons, and Jeames [Bristow], who were in _The Battle of Alcazar_, and W. Parr, Tho. Marbeck, Jack Grigorie, Gedion, Gibbs, Tho. Rowley, Rester, ‘old Browne’, Ned Browne, ‘the red fast fellow’ and several boys, described, perhaps in some cases twice over, as Jack Jones, ‘little Will’, ‘little Will Barne’, who do not seem to be identical, ‘Gils his boy’, ‘Mr. Denyghtens little boy’, perhaps the same already recorded in 1600, and ‘the other little boy’. ‘Old Browne’ can hardly be Robert Browne, who seems to have been in Germany; but Ned Browne may be the Edward Browne who, like Robert, was a member of Worcester’s company in 1583. Little is added by the only other extant ‘plot’, the fragmentary one of _2 Fortune’s Tennis_. This is difficult to date, but it must be later than Dekker’s _1 Fortune’s Tennis_ of September 1600, and may not improbably be Munday’s _Set at Tennis_ of December 1602. The few names which it contains--Mr. Singer, Sam, Charles, Geo[rge Somerset], R. Tailor, W. Cartwright, Pavy--suggest proximity to _The Battle of Alcazar_ and _1 Tamar Cham_. The only fresh one is that of Pavy, who may or may not be connected with the Salathiel Pavy of Ben Jonson’s epitaph. Both _1 Tamar Cham_ and _2 Fortune’s Tennis_ must be earlier than January 1603, a month which saw the retirement of the old Queen’s man, John Singer. So at least may be inferred from the fact that he makes no further appearance in the diary after 13 January, when he received £5 ‘for his play called Syngers Vallentarey’. I take ‘vallentarey’ to mean ‘valediction’. His name is absent from the next list of the company, which belongs to 1604. He probably left to become an ordinary Groom of the Chamber in the royal household, a post which he is found occupying at the time of Elizabeth’s funeral.[506]

The succession of new plays was not quite so rapid during 1600–3 as in previous periods. I can only trace thirty-one in all, as against fifty-five in 1594–7 and sixty-two in 1599–1600. It may well have been the case that Alleyn, who had ‘created’ parts in the ’eighties and early ’nineties, had a tendency towards revivals. For 1600–1 the company bought only seven new books. These were:

_1 Fortune’s Tennis_ (Dekker). _Hannibal and Scipio_ (Hathway and Rankins). _Scogan and Skelton_ (Hathway and Rankins). _All is not Gold that Glisters_ (Chettle). _2 Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green_ (Day and Haughton). _The Six Yeomen of the West_ (Day and Haughton). _King Sebastian of Portugal_ (Chettle and Dekker).

None of these plays is extant, but the purchase of properties testifies to the performance of _2 Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green_ in April and _The Six Yeomen of the West_ in July. Moreover, Day received a bonus of 10_s._ between 27 April and 2 May ‘after the playinge of’ the former piece. Only £1 was paid for _1 Fortune’s Tennis_, but the existence of a ‘plot’ for _2 Fortune’s Tennis_ suggests that it must have been completed. Probably it was a short topical overture designed to celebrate the opening of the Fortune.[507] Unfinished plays were _Robin Hood’s Pennyworths_ (Haughton)[508] and _The Conquest of Spain by John of Gaunt_ (Hathway and Rankins). The revivals included _Phaethon_ (January), _The Blind Beggar of Alexandria_ (May), and _The Jew of Malta_ (May). Dekker had £2 for ‘alterynge of’ _Phaethon_ for the Court, and this was therefore the Admiral’s play of 6 January 1601. They also appeared on 28 December and 2 February. _Dr. Faustus_ was entered on 7 January; the earliest print (1604) bears their name. The new books of 1601–2 were fourteen in number, as follows:[509]

_The Conquest of the West Indies_ (Day, Haughton, and Smith). _3 Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green_ (Day and Haughton). _The Life of Cardinal Wolsey_ (Chettle).[510] _1 The Six Clothiers_ (Hathway, Haughton, and Smith). _The Rising of Cardinal Wolsey_ (Chettle, Drayton, Munday, and Smith). _Friar Rush and the Proud Woman of Antwerp_ (Chettle, Day, and Haughton). _Judas_ (Bird and Rowley).[511] _Too Good to be True_ (Chettle, Hathway, and Smith). _Malcolm King of Scots_ (Massey). _Love Parts Friendship_ (Chettle and Smith). _Jephthah_ (Dekker and Munday). _Tobias_ (Chettle). _The Bristol Tragedy_ (Day). _Caesar’s Fall_, or, _The Two Shapes_ (Dekker, Drayton, Middleton, Munday, and Webster).

At least ten of these appear to have been played: _2 Cardinal Wolsey_ (August), _3 Blind Beggar of Bethnal Green_ (September), _Judas_ (January), _The Conquest of the West Indies_ (January), _Malcolm King of Scots_ (April), _Love Parts Friendship_ (May), _1 Cardinal Wolsey_ (June), _Jephthah_ (July), and at uncertain dates, _Tobias_ and probably _The Bristol Tragedy_.[512] None is now extant. The unfinished plays were _The Humorous Earl of Gloucester with his Conquest of Portugal_ (Wadeson), _2 Tom Dough_[513] (Day and Haughton), _The Orphan’s Tragedy_ (Chettle),[514] _2 The Six Clothiers_ (Hathway, Haughton, and Smith),[515] _The Spanish Fig_ (Anon.),[516] _Richard Crookback_ (Jonson),[517] _A Danish Tragedy_ (Chettle),[518] and _A Medicine for a Curst Wife_ (Dekker).[519] There was considerable

## activity of revival during the year. Six old plays belonging to the

1594–7 repertory, for some of which the company already held the properties,[520] were bought from Alleyn at £2 each, _Mahomet_ in August, _The Wise Man of West Chester_ in September, _Vortigern_ in November, and _The French Doctor_, _The Massacre at Paris_, and _Crack Me this Nut_ in January. The first and the last three of these certainly were played, and the revival of _The Massacre at Paris_ appears to have caused annoyance to Henri IV.[521] In addition, properties were bought for one of the _Hercules_ plays in December, Dekker got 10_s._ for a prologue and epilogue to _Pontius Pilate_[522] in January, and Jonson wrote additions to _The Spanish Tragedy_, possibly those now extant, in September, although it may be doubted whether the further additions contemplated in the following June were ever made. There is nothing to show what was selected, other than Nick’s tumbling, for the Admiral’s only Court play of 1601–2, which took place on 27 December.

The season of 1602–3 was, of course, shortened by the death of Elizabeth and the outbreak of plague. The new plays numbered nine. They were:

_Samson_ (Anon.). _Felmelanco_ (Chettle and Robinson). _Joshua_ (Rowley). _Randal Earl of Chester_ (Middleton). _Merry as May Be_ (Day, Hathway, and Smith). _The Set at Tennis_ (Munday). _1 The London Florentine_ (Chettle and Heywood). _Singer’s Voluntary_ (Singer). _The Boss of Billingsgate_ (Day, Hathway, and another).[523]

It must be added that in September properties were bought for a ‘new playe’ called _The Earl of Hertford_, which it seems impossible to identify with any of the pieces bought. This looks like one of the rare cases in which payment did not pass through Henslowe’s hands. This and _Samson_ are the only new plays of the year, the actual performance of which can be verified; and none of these plays is extant.[524] I suspect, however, that Munday’s _Set at Tennis_ is the _2 Fortune’s Tennis_ of which a ‘plot’ survives. The payment, of only £3, was ‘in full’, and it may, like _1 Fortune’s Tennis_, have been a short piece of some exceptional character, motived by the name of the theatre in which it was presented. Unfinished plays at the end of the season were _The Widow’s Charm_ (Munday or Wadeson),[525] _William Cartwright_ (Haughton), _Hoffman_ (Chettle),[526] _2 London Florentine_ (Chettle and Heywood), _The Siege of Dunkirk and Alleyn the Pirate_ (Massey). The revival of old plays continued. Costumes for _Vortigern_, one of those bought from Alleyn in the previous year, were in preparation during September, and Alleyn’s stock yielded three more, _Philip of Spain_ and _Longshanks_ in August and _Tamar Cham_, probably the second part, as the extant ‘plot’ testifies, in October. The last two of these belonged to the Admiral’s repertory of 1594–7, but the origin of _Philip of Spain_ is unknown. A book of _The Four Sons of Aymon_, for which £2 was paid to Robert Shaw, was probably also old, and was bought on condition that Shaw should repay the £2, unless the play was used by the Admiral’s or some other company with his consent by Christmas 1604. Bird and Rowley had £4 in September for additions to _Dr. Faustus_. Dekker completed some alterations of _Tasso’s Melancholy_, another 1594–7 play, in December, and in the same month Middleton wrote ‘for the corte’ a prologue and epilogue to Greene’s _Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay_, which I should suppose to have been Henslowe’s property, as it was played by Strange’s men in 1592–3 and the Queen’s and Sussex’s in 1594. This probably served for the first of the three appearances made by the Admiral’s at Court, on 27 December. The other two were on 6 March and on a date unspecified. For one of these occasions Chettle was writing a prologue and epilogue at the end of December, but the play is not named.[527] One of the new plays, _Merry as May Be_, was intended for Court, when the first payment on account of it was made on 9 November.

On 12 March 1603 Henslowe practically closes the detailed record which he had kept continuously in his diary since October 1597 of his financial transactions, otherwise than by way of rent, with the Admiral’s men. A brief review of these is not without interest.[528] His advances from 21 October 1597 to 8 March 1598 amounted to £46 7_s._ 3_d._, and to this he took the signatures of the company, with the note, ‘Thes men dothe aknowlege this deat to be dewe by them by seatynge of ther handes to yette’. By 28 July a further amount of £120 15_s._ 4_d._ had been incurred, making a total of £166 17_s._ 7_d._ for 1597–8.[529] During the same period he entered weekly receipts from the company to a total of £125. These must have gone to an old debt, for he did not balance them with the payments for the year, but carried on the whole debit of £166 17_s._ 7_d._ to 1598–9. Apparently, however, he was not satisfied with the way in which expenditure was outstripping income, for he headed a new receipts account, ‘Here I begyne to receue the wholle gallereys frome this daye beinge the 29 of July 1598’, and the weekly entries become about double what they were during 1597–8. On the other hand, there is also a considerable increase in the rate of expenditure. It is an ingenious and, I think, sound conjecture of Dr. Greg’s, that throughout 1594–1603 Henslowe was taking half the gallery money for rent, and that, at different times, he also took either the other half, or another quarter only, to recoup himself for his advances.[530] The outgoings entered during 1598–9 reach £435 7_s._ 4_d._, but some items for March and April 1599 are probably missing, owing to a mutilation of the manuscript.[531] The receipts for the same period were £358 3_s._ On 13 October 1599, about a fortnight after the beginning of the 1599–1600 season, a balance was struck. Henslowe credited the company with the £358 received from the gallery money, and debited them with £632 advanced by him. This includes £166 17_s._ 7_d._ for 1597–8, £435 7_s._ 4_d._ for 1598–9, and £29 15_s._ 1_d._, which may reasonably be taken as the sum of the missing entries for March and April 1599. The balance of £274 remained as a debt from the company. They did not, however, set their hands to a reckoning until the end of the next year, on 10 July 1600. During 1599–1600 a fresh account had been running, on which Henslowe’s receipts were £202 10_s._ and his payments £222 5_s._ 6_d._ At the reckoning the company’s indebtedness is calculated at £300, and is admitted by the formula, ‘which some of three hundred powndes we whose names are here vnder written doe acknowledge our dewe debt & doe promyse payment’. To this their signatures are appended. There is, however, an unexplained discrepancy of £6 4_s._ 6_d._, as the old debt of £274 and the 1599–1600 debit balance of £19 15_s._ 6_d._ only make up £293 15_s._ 6_d._

From 1600 onwards there are no records of receipts. A continuous account of payments is kept up to 7 February 1602. The total amounts to £304 10_s._ 4_d._, but Henslowe sums it in error as £308 6_s._ 4_d._, and notes, ‘Frome ther handes to this place is 308^{ll}-06^s-04^d dewe vnto me & with the three hundred of owld is £608-06-04^d’. He then adds the £50 paid to Jones and Shaw on retirement, ‘which is not in this recknynge’. Above this summary comes a list of names, said by Dr. Greg to be in Shaw’s hand, of those sharers who were continuing in the company, headed by the figures ‘211. 9. 0.’ I think the interpretation is that £386 17_s._ 4_d._ of the £608 6_s._ 4_d._ was paid out of gallery money or other sources, leaving £211 9_s._, together with the £50 for Jones and Shaw, chargeable on the company. This is borne out by the remnant of the accounts, which is headed, ‘Begininge with a new recknyng with my lord of Notingames men the 23 daye of Febreary 1601 as foloweth’. The expenditure on this new reckoning up to 12 March 1603 was, as calculated by Henslowe, £188 11_s._ 6_d._, and he adds to this total a sum of £211 9_s._ ‘vpon band’, being evidently the residue of the debt as it stood at the close of the old reckoning, and makes a total of £400 0_s._ 6_d._ This, with the £50 for Jones and Shaw, was no doubt what the company owed when the detailed account in the diary closed. There was, however, an unstated amount of gallery receipts during 1602–3 to set against it; and in fact a retrospect of the whole series of figures shows that there would have been a pretty fair equivalence of gallery money and advances throughout, but for the exceptionally heavy expenditure of 1598–9, £465 2_s._ 5_d._ in all, which left the company saddled with an obligation which they never quite overtook. This expenditure was more than half the total expenditure of £854 5_s._ 6_d._ for the _triennium_ 1597–1600, and nearly as much as the whole expenditure of £493 1_s._ 10_d._ for the _triennium_ 1600–3, during which it may be suspected that the business capacities of Alleyn brought about considerable economies.

The accounts may be looked at from another point of view. If the unanalysable sum of £29 15_s._ 1_d._ for the missing items of March and April 1599 be neglected, there was a total expenditure for the six years of £1,317 11_s._ 3_d._ Of this £652 13_s._ 8_d._, being about half, went in payments in respect of play-books; £561 1_s._ 1_d._ for properties and apparel; and £103 16_s._ 6_d._ in miscellaneous outgoings, such as licensing fees, legal charges, musical instruments, travelling expenses, merry-makings and the like. Thus, if the company supped together at Mr. Mason’s of the Queen’s Head, or met to read a ‘book’ at the Sun in New Fish Street, Henslowe would put his hand into his pocket to pay the score, and would not forget afterwards to debit the company with the amount in his diary.[532] It must, of course, be borne in mind that only part of this miscellaneous expenditure was incurred through Henslowe. He certainly did not, for example, pay all the fees for the licensing of new plays by the Master of the Revels. And of course there were many matters, in particular the wages of hired actors and servitors, for which the company had regularly to find funds in other ways. It is probable that only play-books, properties, and apparel were normally charged to his account, although the convenience of an occasional extension of his functions can readily be understood. Dr. Greg may be right in thinking that his position as agent for the company in its purchases was a natural development of his pawnbroking business.[533] But during the period under review he did not, as a rule, supply them with goods himself. A sale of ‘A shorte velluett clocke wraght with bugell & a gearcken of velluet layd with brade coper sylver lace’ for £4 on 28 November 1598 was exceptional. Usually the payments are to tradesmen, to the mercers Stone, Richard Heath, and Robert Bromfield, to ‘him at the Eagell and Chylld’ for armour, to Mrs. Gosson for head-tires, and for wigs to one Father Ogle, who is mentioned also in the Revels Accounts and in the play of _Sir Thomas More_. Sometimes ready-made garments, new or second-hand, were bought. A doublet and hose of sea-water green satin cost £3 and a doublet and ‘venesyons’ of cloth of silver wrought with red silk £4 10_s._ But often stuffs were obtained in piece and made up by tailors, of whom the company employed two, Dover and Radford, the latter known, for the sake of distinction, as ‘the little tailor’. These and William White, who made the crowns, probably worked at the theatre, in the tiring-house. The company gave 6_s._ a yard for russet broadcloth and the same for murrey satin, 12_s._ for other satins, 12_s._ 6_d._ for taffeties, and no less than £1 for ‘ij pylle velluet of carnardyn’. Laces cost 1_d._ each; copper lace anything from 4_s._ a pound to 1_s._ 2_d._ an ounce. Of this they used quantities, and in the summer of 1601 they had run up a considerable ‘old debt’ to the copper lace-man, as well as another to Heath the mercer, which had to be paid off by degrees. The more expensive garments, such as a rich cloak bought of Langley for £19, were, of course, an investment on the part of the company, and were worn in their time by many sharers and hired men in different parts. But the principal actors had also, as Alleyn’s inventory shows, their private wardrobes. Henslowe was prepared to furnish these on the instalment system. Thus Richard Jones bought in 1594 ‘a manes gowne of pechecoler in grayne’ for £3 payable in weekly sums of 5_s._, and Thomas Towne in 1598 ‘a blacke clothe clocke layd with sylke lace’ for 26_s._ 8_d._ at 1_s._ weekly. It was as hard to keep these glories as to procure them. On one occasion the company came to the rescue and lent Thomas Downton £12 10_s._, to fetch out of pawn two cloaks, ‘which they exsepted into the stock’. The one was ‘ashecolerd velluet embradered with gowld’, the other ‘a longe black velluet clocke layd with sylke lace’.[534]

The termination of the record of advances after 12 March 1603 indicates an interruption of performances, probably due to the increasing illness of Elizabeth, who died on the following 24 March. Thereafter there are only a few winding-up entries in the diary. The company must have immediately begun to travel under the leadership of Thomas Downton, who in the course of 1602–3 received a gift for them from the Corporation of Canterbury, ‘because it was thought fitt they should not play at all, in regard that our late Queene was then very sicke or dead as they supposed’. London playing, if resumed at all, must have very soon been stopped again by the plague. There was some further small expenditure, of which the details are not given, before Henslowe noted that, in addition to the bond for £211 9_s._, ‘Ther reasteth dew vnto me to this daye beinge the v daye of Maye 1603 when we leafte of playe now at the Kynges cominge all recknynges abated the some of a hundred fowerscore & sevntenepowndes & thirteneshellynges & fowerpence I saye dew--£197 13_s._ 4_d._ the fyftye powndes which Jonnes & Shawe had at ther goinge a way not reconed’. The company travelled again during the plague, being traceable as the Admiral’s men in 1602–3 at Bath and York and on 18 August 1603 at Leicester, and as the Earl of Nottingham’s in 1602–3 at Coventry. The tour was over by 21 October, on which date Joan Alleyn wrote to her husband at the house of Mr. Chaloner in Sussex, telling him amongst other things that ‘all of your owne company ar well at theyr owne houses’, that all the other companies had returned, that ‘Nicke and Jeames be well’, and that ‘Browne of the Boares head’ had not gone into the country at all, and was now dead, ‘& dyed very pore’. This might be either Edward Browne, or the ‘old Browne’ who appeared with him in _1 Tamar Cham_ in the previous autumn. In any case, it is clear from the reference to him that he was not a regular member of Alleyn’s company. ‘Jeames’ is no doubt James Bristow, who, as Henslowe’s apprentice, would be likely to form part of his household; and ‘Nicke’, who seems to have been in the same position, may be supposed to be the Nick who tumbled before the Queen at Christmas 1601.

The Jacobean records of the company seem meagre in the absence of Henslowe’s detailed register of proceedings. About Christmas 1603 they were taken into the service of Prince Henry, and are hereafter known as the Prince’s players.[535] They are entered amongst other ‘Officers to the Prince’ as receiving four and a half yards of red cloth apiece as liveries for the coronation procession on 15 March 1604, and their names are given as ‘Edward Allen, William Bird, Thomas Towne, Thomas Dowton, Samuell Rowley, Edward Jubie, Humfry Jeffes, Charles Massey, and Anthony Jeffes’.[536] Alleyn, even if not a ‘sharer’, was therefore a member of the company in its official capacity. He is also named as the Prince’s servant, both in the printed account of the entertainment at which, dressed as a Genius, he delivered a speech, and in Stowe’s description of a bear-baiting which formed part of the festivities.[537] It may, however, be inferred that he took an early opportunity of leaving a profession to which he had only been recalled by the personal whim of the late Queen.[538] He was joint payee with Juby in the warrant of 19 February, but Juby’s name stands alone in another of 17 April and in those of all subsequent years up to 1615. And when the company received a formal licence by patent on 30 April 1606, Alleyn’s name was omitted, and does not appear in any further list of its members. It is true that as late as 11 May 1611 he is still described in a formal document as the Prince’s servant, but he may have held some other appointment, actual or honorific, in the household.[539] A note of his resources about 1605, however, includes ‘my share of aparell, £100’.[540] And he certainly remained interested in the company. They were his tenants at the Fortune, although an unexecuted draft of a lease to Thomas Downton dated in 1608 suggests that he may have taken steps to transfer the whole or a share of his direct interest to them. Under this lease Downton was to receive during thirteen years a thirty-second part of the daily profits accruing to Henslowe and Alleyn, and in return to pay £27 10_s._, a rent of 10_s._ annually and his proportionate share of repairs, and to bind himself to play in the house and not elsewhere without consent.[541] On 11 April 1612 Robert Browne is found writing to Alleyn on behalf of one Mr. Rose, lately ‘entertayned amongst the princes men’, to request his interest as one ‘who he knowes can strike a greter stroke amongst them then this’ to procure him a ‘gathering place’ for his wife.[542] Another letter from Bird to Alleyn, also about a gatherer, is amusing enough to quote in full. It is undated.

‘Sir there is one Jhon Russell, that by yowr apoyntment was made a gatherer w^{th} vs, but my fellowes finding often falce to vs, haue many tymes warnd him ffrom taking the box. And he as often, with moste damnable othes, hath vowde neuer to touch, yet not with standing his execrable othes, he hath taken the box, & many tymes moste vnconsionablye gathered, for which we haue resolued he shall neuer more come to the doore; yet for your sake, he shall haue his wages, to be a nessessary atendaunt on the stage, and if he will pleasure himself and vs, to mend our garmentes, when he hath leysure, weele pay him for that to. I pray send vs word if this motion will satisfie you; for him his dishonestye is such we knowe it will not, Thus yealding our selues in that & a farr greater matter to be comaunded by you I committ you to god. Your loving ffrend to comaunde. W Birde.’[543]

With the exception of Alleyn, all the players of the 1604 list and no others appear in the patent of 1606, the text of which follows:[544]

[Sidenote: De concessione licenciae pro Thoma Downton et aliis.]

Iames by the grace of God &c. To all Iustices, Maiors, Sheriffes, bailiffes, Constables, headboroughes and other our officers and loving subiectes greeting. Knowe ye that wee of our especiall grace, certaine knowledge, and meere mocion haue licenced and auctorized, and by theis presentes doe licence and auctorize Thomas Downton, Thomas Towne, William Byrde, Edwarde Iuby, Samuell Rowle, Humfrey Ieffes, Charles Massey, and Anthonie Ieffes, Servauntes to our dearest sonne the Prince, and the rest of theire Associates to vse and exercise the arte and facultie of playing Commedies, Tragedies, Histories, Enterludes, Moralls, Pastoralls, Stageplayes, and such other like as they haue alreadie studied or hereafter shall vse or studie, aswell for the recreacion of our loving subiectes, as for our solace and pleasure when wee shall thincke good to see them, during our pleasure, And the said Commedies, Tragedies, histories, Enterludes, Moralls, pastoralls, stageplaies, and suche like to shewe and exercise publiquelie to their best Commoditie, aswell within theire nowe vsuall house called the Fortune within our Countie of Middlesex, as alsoe within anie Towne halls or Moutehalls or other convenient places within the libertie and ffredome of anie other Cittie, vniversitie, Towne, or Boroughe whatsoever, within our Realmes and Domynions, willing and Commaunding you and everie of you, as you tender our pleasure, not onelie to permitt and suffer them herein without anie your lettes, hindraunces, or molestacions during our saide pleasure, but alsoe to be aiding and assisting vnto them yf anie wrong be to them offered, And to allowe them such former curtesies as hath been given to men of theire place and quallitie, And alsoe what further favour you shall shewe vnto them for our sake wee shall take kindelie at your handes. Prouided alwaies, and our will and pleasure ys, that all auctoritie, power, priuiledges, and profittes whatsoever belonging and properlie appertaining to the Maister of our Revells in respecte of his office, and everie Clause, article, or graunte conteined within the letteres patentes or Commission, which haue heretofore been graunted or directed by the late Queene Elizabeth our deere Sister, or by our selves, to our welbeloued servantes Edmonde Tilney, Maister of the office of our said Revells, or to Sir George Bucke knighte, or to either of them in possession or reversion, shall be remayne and abide entire, and in full force estate and vertue, and in as ample sorte as yf this our Commission had never been made. In witnesse whereof etc. Witnesse our selfe at Westminster the Thirtith daie of Aprill. per breve de priuato sigillo.

Between 1606 and 1610 it seems to have been thought desirable to strengthen the composition of the company by the introduction of new blood. A list of ‘Comedyanes and Playores’, included in the establishment book drawn up when Henry formed his own Household as Prince of Wales in 1610, contains six names in addition to the eight of the patent.[545] They are ‘Edward Colbrande, Wm. Parre, Rychard Pryore, William Stratford, Frauncys Grace, and John Shanke’. Of these William Parr, who is in the plot of _1 Tamar Cham_ in 1602, is alone traceable in the earlier records of the company. Shank had been of Pembroke’s and Queen Elizabeth’s men.

Henslowe entered two more advances in his diary, one for ‘facynge of a blacke grogren clocke with taffytye’, the other to Dekker and Middleton in earnest of _The Patient Man and the Honest Whore_. This was entered in the Stationers’ Register on 9 November 1604, and printed as _The Honest Whore_ during the year. The name of Towne is in a stage-direction. On 14 March ‘1604’, which may have been either 1604 or 1605, Henslowe had a final reckoning with the company and noted ‘Caste vp all the acowntes frome the begininge of the world vntell this daye beinge the 14 daye of Marche 1604 by Thomas Dowghton & Edward Jube for the company of the prynces men & I Phillipe Henslow so ther reasteth dew vnto me P Henslow the some of xxiiij^{li} all reconynges consernynge the company in stocke generall descarged & my sealfe descarged to them of al deates’.[546] With this, so far as the extant book goes, the record of his transactions with the company practically ceases. The only exception is a note of receipts at the Fortune during the three days next after Christmas in 1608, which amounted to 25_s._, 45_s._, and 44_s._ 9_d._ respectively.[547] Something of the career of the Prince’s men may be gleaned from other sources. They played at Court before James on 21 January and 20 February 1604, and before Henry on 4, 15, and 22 January; and during the following Christmas before Anne on 23 November 1604 and before Henry on 24 November, 14 and 19 December, and on 15 and 22 January and 5 and 19 February 1605. On 8 February 1605 their play of _Richard Whittington_, of which nothing further is known, was entered on the Stationers’ Register.[548] In the same year Samuel Rowley’s _When You See Me, You Know Me_, was printed as played by them. During the Christmas of 1605–6 they gave three plays before James and three before Henry.[549] In 1604–5 they were at Maidstone and Winchester, in 1605–6 at Bath, on 17 July 1606 at Oxford, and on 17 October at Ipswich. During the Christmas of 1606–7 they gave six plays before James. Dekker’s _Whore of Babylon_ was entered on the Stationers’ Register on 20 April 1607 and printed as theirs in the same year. In 1606–7 they were at Bath. During the Christmas of 1607–8 they gave four plays before James and Henry. In 1607–8 they were at Maidstone and Saffron Walden, and on 1 October 1608 they were at Leicester; but a visit of the same year from ‘the Princes players of the White Chapple, London’ is rather to be assigned to the Duke of York’s men (q.v.). They gave three plays before James and Henry during the Christmas of 1608–9, four before James during that of 1609–10, and four before James during that of 1610–11. Middleton and Dekker’s _The Roaring Girl_ was printed in 1611 as lately played by them at the Fortune, and Field’s _Amends for Ladies_ (_c._ 1610–11) names ‘Long Meg and the Ship’ as in their repertory. Presumably their _Long Meg of Westminster_ of 1595 still held the boards.[550] In 1608–9 they were at Shrewsbury and Saffron Walden, in 1609–10 at Shrewsbury and Hereford, in 1610–11 at Shrewsbury and Winchester.

They played at Court before James on 28 and 29 December 1611, giving on the second night _The Almanac_, and before Henry in February and Elizabeth in April 1612. On 1 October 1612 the lewd jigs, songs, and dances at the Fortune are recited in an order of the Middlesex justices as tending to promote breaches of the peace. One of these may have been the occasion on which an obscure actor, Garlick by name, made himself offensive to the more refined part of his audience.[551] On the following 7 November Henry died and on 7 December his players figured in his funeral procession.[552]

They found a new patron in the Elector Palatine, then in England, and on entering his service got a new patent, which bears date 11 January 1613 and closely follows in its terms that of 1606.[553] The house specified for them was again the Fortune, which they had no doubt continuously occupied since its opening in 1600. The players named were ‘Thomas Downton, William Bird, Edward Juby, Samuell Rowle, Charles Massey, Humfrey Jeffs, Frank Grace, William Cartwright, Edward Colbrand, William Parr, William Stratford, Richard Gunnell, John Shanck, and Richard Price’. Possibly Price may be the Pryor of the 1610 list. Cartwright and Gunnell are new since that list, but Cartwright had been in _The Battle of Alcazar_ and _1 Tamar Cham_ plots of 1601 and 1602. These two must be supposed to have taken the places of Thomas Towne and Antony Jeffes. Thomas Towne had enjoyed an annuity of £12 out of Alleyn’s manor of Dulwich from 28 October 1608 to 15 January 1612, but on 5 November 1612 ‘widow Towne’ is mentioned,[554] and further evidence of his death is supplied by a letter from Charles Massey to Alleyn, not dated, but from internal evidence written not very long after the prince’s death, to which reference is made. Massey is in debt and wants £50. He offers two things as security. One is ‘that lyttell moete I have in the play hovsses’; from which it may be inferred that, like Downton, he had obtained an interest in the Fortune, although what the second house may have been can hardly be conjectured. The other is his interest under ‘the composisions betwene ovre compenye that if any one give over with consent of his fellowes, he is to receve three score and ten poundes (Antony Jefes hath had so much) if any on dye his widow or frendes whome he appoyntes it tow reseve fyfte poundes (M^res Pavie and M^res Tovne hath had the lyke)’. In order to be in a position to repay the loan at the end of the year he undertakes to get Mr. Jube to reserve ‘my gallery mony and my quarter of the hovse mony’ for the purpose, and should it prove at the end of six months that this will be insufficient, he will be prepared to surrender his whole share, with the exception of 13_s._ 4_d._ a week for household expenses.[555] From this letter it may also be gathered that Antony Jeffes had retired, and apparently that Pavy, whose name is found in the plot of _2 Fortune’s Tennis_, which I assign to 1602–3, had at some time become a sharer in the company. One other player, originally in 1597 a hired man, had evidently reached some prominence between that date and 1614. William Fennor, in the course of a rhyming controversy with John Taylor, makes the following boast of his histrionic talent:

And let me tell thee this to calme thy rage, I chaleng’d Kendall on the Fortune stage; And he did promise ‘fore an audience, For to oppose me. Note the accidence: I set up bills, the people throngd apace, With full intention to disgrace, or grace; The house was full, the trumpets twice had sounded, And though he came not, I was not confounded, But stept upon the stage, and told them this, My aduerse would not come: not one did hisse, But flung me theames: I then _extempore_ Did blot his name from out their memorie, And pleasd them all, in spight of one to braue me, Witnesse the ringing plaudits that they gaue me.[556]

As the Elector Palatine’s men the company played at Court during the winter of 1613–14, twice before James and once before Charles. They were amongst the companies which performed irregularly in the Lent of 1615, and Humphrey Jeffes and Thomas Downton were summoned before the Privy Council to account for their misdoing. One of the irregular licences condemned by the Lord Chamberlain on 16 July 1616 was an exemplification of the patent of 1613, taken out by Charles Marshall, Humphrey Jeffes, and William Parr for provincial purposes.

xx. THE LORD CHAMBERLAIN’S (LORD HUNSDON’S) AND KING’S MEN

Henry Carey, s. of William Carey and Mary, sister of Anne Boleyn; _nat. c._ 1524; cr. 1st Lord Hunsdon, 13 Jan. 1559; m. Anne, d. of Sir Thomas Morgan; Warden of East Marches and Governor of Berwick, Aug. 1568; Lord Chamberlain, 4 July 1585; lived at Hunsdon House, Herts., and Somerset House, London; _ob._ 22 July 1596.

George Carey, s. of Henry, 1st Lord Hunsdon; _nat._ 1547; Kt. 18 May 1570; m. Elizabeth, d. of Sir John Spencer of Althorp; Captain-General of Isle of Wight, 1582; succ. as 2nd Baron, 22 July 1596; Lord Chamberlain, 17 Mar. 1597; lived at Carisbrooke Castle, Hunsdon House, Drayton, and Blackfriars; _ob._ 9 Sept. 1603.

A company of Lord Hunsdon’s men was at Leicester in the last three months of 1564, at Norwich and Maldon in 1564–5, at Plymouth before Michaelmas in 1565, at Canterbury in the autumn of 1565, at Gloucester and Maldon in 1565–6, at Bristol in July 1566, and at Canterbury in the spring of 1567. Another makes its appearance at Ludlow on 13 July 1581, and at Doncaster in 1582. In the winter Lord Hunsdon was apparently deputy for the Earl of Sussex as Lord Chamberlain, and took occasion to bring his men to Court, where they acted _Beauty and Housewifery_ on 27 December 1582. They did not again appear at Court, but when plays were temporarily suppressed on 14 June 1584 the owner of the Theatre, presumably James Burbadge, made a claim to be Lord Hunsdon’s man. Meanwhile ‘my L. Hunsdouns and my Lords Morleis players being bothe of one companye’ are recorded at Bristol in March 1583, and Lord Hunsdon’s alone at Norwich in 1582–3, Bath in June 1583, and Exeter in July 1583. Hunsdon became Lord Chamberlain on 4 July 1585. Between October and December of that year, a visit was paid to Leicester by ‘the Lord Chamberlens and the Lord Admiralls players’, and on 6 January 1586 ‘the servants of the lo: Admirall and the lo: Chamberlaine’ gave a play at Court. These entries suggest an amalgamation of Hunsdon’s men with those of Lord Admiral Howard, both of whom had perhaps been weakened by the formation of the Queen’s men in 1583. But if so, it was only a partial or temporary one, for while the Admiral’s men established themselves in London, the Chamberlain’s are traceable in the provinces, at Coventry in 1585–6, at Saffron Walden in 1587–8, and at Maidstone in 1589–90.

An interval of four or five years renders improbable any continuity between this company and the famous Lord Chamberlain’s company, which first emerged on the resorting of the plague-stricken mimes in 1594, passed under royal patronage in 1603, and prolonged an existence illumined by the genius of Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, Beaumont and Fletcher, Massinger and Shirley, until the closing of the theatres in 1642. The first notice of the new organization is in June 1594, when ‘my Lord Admeralle men and my Lorde Chamberlen men’ played from the 3rd to the 13th of the month, either in combination or separately on allotted days, for Henslowe at Newington Butts.[557] Some of the plays given during this period can be traced to the subsequent repertory of the Admiral’s men; others, which cannot, may be assigned to the Chamberlain’s. They are _Hester and Ahasuerus_, _Titus Andronicus_, _Hamlet_, and _Taming of A Shrew_, which, although so described, may of course have been really the _Taming of The Shrew_, Shakespeare’s adaptation of the older play entered in the Stationers’ Register on the previous 2 May. It is ingeniously, and I think rightly, inferred from a line drawn in Henslowe’s account after 13 June, that from that date all the performances recorded are by the Admiral’s men, probably at the Rose, and that his relations with the Chamberlain’s men had ceased. The company is found at Marlborough about September, and on 8 October Lord Hunsdon wrote to the Lord Mayor, asking permission for ‘my nowe companie’ to continue an occupation of the Cross Keys,[558] on which it seems to have already entered. Henceforward the company was regularly established in London, took the lead annually at Court, and except for brief periods of inhibition in 1596, 1597, and possibly 1601, does not appear to have travelled during the remainder of Elizabeth’s reign. Whether Hunsdon’s men got the Cross Keys for the winter or not, they probably had from the beginning the use of the Theatre for the summer seasons, for Richard Burbage, the son of the owner, was one of their leading members, and on 15 March 1595 appears as joint payee with William Kempe and William Shakespeare for two plays given at Court on 26 and 28 December 1594. These plays cannot be identified, but Shakespeare’s _Love’s Labour’s Lost_ and _Romeo and Juliet_ may well have been produced this winter.[559] Most likely the date 28 December was entered in the payment warrant by mistake for 27 December, for the Admiral’s men are also recorded as playing at Court on 28 December, and on the same night ‘a company of base and common fellows’, with whom one is bound to identify the Chamberlain’s men, played ‘a Comedy of Errors’ as part of the Christmas revels of the Prince of Purpoole at Gray’s Inn.[560] There seems to be some echo of _Romeo and Juliet_ in the Pyramus and Thisbe interlude of _A Midsummer-Night’s Dream_, which may very well have been given at Greenwich or Burghley House for the wedding of William Stanley, Earl of Derby, and Elizabeth Vere, daughter of the Earl of Oxford, on 26 January 1595. Another possible occasion for the production, however, is the wedding of Elizabeth, daughter of Sir George Carey and grand-daughter of Lord Hunsdon, to Thomas, son of Henry Lord Berkeley on 19 February 1596. This took place at Blackfriars, presumably in Sir George Carey’s house there.[561]

To 1595 or thereabouts I also assign Shakespeare’s _Two Gentlemen of Verona_ and _King John_ and _Richard II_.[562] The company played at Court on 26, 27, and 28 December 1595 and 6 January and 22 February 1596. In the warrant for their fees, dated on 21 December 1596, and made payable to John Heminges and George Bryan, they are described as ‘servauntes to the late Lord Chamberlayne and now servauntes to the Lorde Hunsdon’. It is clear that, when the first Lord Hunsdon died on 22 July 1596, the players had been retained by his son and heir, Sir George Carey. The Lord Chamberlainship passed to Lord Cobham; but he died on 5 March 1597, and on 17 March the post was given to the second Lord Hunsdon. The company, then, was properly known as Lord Hunsdon’s men from 22 July 1596 to 17 March 1597; before and after that period it was the Lord Chamberlain’s men.

To 1596 I assign Shakespeare’s _Merchant of Venice_. Evidence of the occupation of the Theatre about this time by the company is to be found in Lodge’s allusion to a revival of _Hamlet_ there, for this play is not likely to have been in other hands.[563] It is not an unreasonable conjecture that James Burbadge destined to their use the play-house in the Blackfriars, which he purchased in February, and had converted for ‘publique’ use by November of this year. If so, he and they were disappointed, for a petition of the inhabitants, amongst the signatories to an alleged copy of which Lord Hunsdon himself is somewhat oddly found, led to an intervention of the Privy Council, who forbade plays to be given within the liberty.[564] At this time also the Corporation seem to have succeeded in finally and permanently expelling the players from the City inns which had long been their head-quarters, and Nashe connects this persecution with the loss of ‘their old Lord’, by whom he doubtless means Henry Lord Hunsdon. It is possible that plays were inhibited altogether during the summer of 1596, although no formal order to that effect is preserved, for Hunsdon’s went to Faversham, and Nashe himself was disappointed of ‘an after harvest I expected by writing for the stage and for the presse’.[565]

In the following winter the company played at Court on 26 and 27 December 1596 and on 1 and 6 January and 6 and 8 February 1597. Their payees, for this and for the next two years, were Thomas Pope and John Heminge. In 1597 began the printing of plays written by Shakespeare for this company, with a ‘bad’ quarto of _Romeo and Juliet_, bearing on its title-page the name of Lord Hunsdon’s men and ‘good’ quartos of _Richard II_ and _Richard III_, bearing that of the Lord Chamberlain’s.[566] From the text of _Richard II_ was omitted the deposition scene, which did not appear in print until after the death of Elizabeth. The only Shakespearian productions that can be plausibly ascribed to this year are those of the two parts of _Henry IV_. The presentation of Sir John Oldcastle in the original versions of these seems to have led to a protest, and the character was renamed Sir John Falstaff. It is not improbable that the offence taken was by Lord Chamberlain Cobham, whose ancestress, Joan Lady Cobham, Oldcastle had married.[567] It is impossible to say whether either this scandal or any possible interpretation of disloyalty put upon _Richard II_ contributed to the inhibition of plays on 28 July, of which the main exciting cause was certainly the performance of _The Isle of Dogs_ at the Swan on the Bankside.[568] For the second time since their formation in 1594 the company had to travel. They are traceable at Rye in August, at Dover between 3 and 20 September, at Marlborough, Faversham, and Bath during 1596–7, and at Bristol about 29 September. This inhibition was removed early in October. There is some reason to believe that, when the Chamberlain’s men resumed playing, it was not at the Theatre, as to the renewal of the lease of which the Burbadges were disputing with their ground landlord, but at the Curtain. Marston, in one and the same passage of his _Scourge of Villainy_, entered in the Stationers’ Register on 8 September 1598, alludes to the acting of _Romeo and Juliet_ and to ‘Curtaine plaudeties’, while almost simultaneously Edward Guilpin in his _Skialetheia_, entered on 15 September, speaks of ‘the unfrequented Theater’. The transfer may, however, not have taken place until 1598.[569]

The company played at Court on 26 December 1597 and on 1 and 6 January and 26 February 1598. It is conceivable that one of these plays may have been a revised version of _Love’s Labour’s Lost_, which was printed as ‘newly corrected and augmented’ and ‘as it was presented before her Highnes this last Christmas’ in 1598. On the other hand, it is also possible that this print may have been intended to replace an earlier ‘bad’ quarto, not now preserved, and if so, the reference to the representation may have been carried on from the earlier title-page. In 1598 were also printed _1 Henry IV_, and the anonymous _Mucedorus_, which may have already belonged to the Chamberlain’s repertory, as it was certainly revised for them about 1610. _The Merchant of Venice_ was entered in the Stationers’ Register on 22 July, but with a proviso that it must not be printed ‘without lycence first had from the Right honorable the lord chamberlen’. On 7 September 1598 was entered in the Stationers’ Register the _Palladis Tamia_ of Francis Meres, with its list of Shakespeare’s plays up to date, including the mysterious _Love’s Labours Won_, which I incline to identify with the _Taming of the Shrew_.[570] The earliest play not mentioned by Meres is probably _Much Ado about Nothing_, which may belong to 1598 itself. Another production of this year was Jonson’s _Every Man In his Humour_, which was still a new play about 20 September, when an Almain in the audience lost 300 crowns. Possibly John Aubrey has this period in mind when he says that 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 towardes Shoreditch or Clarkenwell’.[571] Jonson, however, was in prison soon after the production of the play for the manslaughter of Gabriel Spencer on 22 September in Hoxton Fields, and there is no other evidence that he ever acted with the Chamberlain’s men. His own name is not in the list of the original ‘principall Comoedians’ affixed to the text of _Every Man In his Humour_ in the folio of 1616. This is of great value, as being the earliest extant list of the company. The ten names given are:

Will. Shakespeare. Aug. Philips. Hen. Condel. Will. Slye. Will. Kempe. Ric. Burbage. Joh. Flemings. Tho. Pope. Chr. Beeston. Joh. Duke.

It must not, of course, be assumed, either that the list is in itself quite complete, or that there had been no changes amongst the Chamberlain’s men between 1594 and 1598; but as those named include five out of the six payees for that period, they may perhaps be taken, with the sixth payee, George Bryan, who does not reappear after 1596, and was by 1603 an ordinary groom of the Chamber of the royal Household, as fairly representing the original constitution of the company.[572] And an inference to its origin at once becomes possible, for of these eleven men five (Kempe, Pope, Heminges, Phillips, and Bryan) formed, with Edward Alleyn, the company of Lord Strange’s men to whom Privy Council letters of assistance were granted in 1593, and at least six (Pope, Phillips, Bryan, Burbadge, Duke, and Sly) are to be found in the cast of _2 Seven Deadly Sins_ as performed by Strange’s or the Admiral’s or the two together about 1590–1. It will be remembered that the Strange’s company of 1593, known as the Earl of Derby’s after 25 September 1593, was apparently formed by a combination of the earlier Strange’s and Admiral’s men somewhere near the time of this performance, if not earlier, and that its composite character never wholly disappeared, Alleyn in particular, who was its leading member, retaining his personal status as an Admiral’s man. It seems clear that in 1594 the combination broke up, that Alleyn became the nucleus of a new Admiral’s company at the Rose, and that the group with whom he had been travelling took fresh service with the Lord Chamberlain. It is not, I think, quite accurate to treat this transaction as a mere continuance of Lord Derby’s men under the style of Lord Chamberlain’s, entailing no reconstruction other than a change of patron following upon Lord Derby’s death on 16 April 1594. On the one hand a Derby’s company continued in existence, and is traceable under the sixth earl from 1594 to 1617. On the other hand, while we do not know what business reconstruction there may have been, a very fundamental change is involved in the replacement of Alleyn as principal actor by Richard Burbadge, who is not at all likely to have played with Strange’s men after the break between the Admiral’s and his father at the Theatre in 1591. Except for Alleyn, all the more important members of the company, as it existed in 1593, seem to have been included in the transfer to Lord Hunsdon. It is, however, little more than conjecture that finds Henry Condell and Christopher Beeston in the ‘Harry’ and ‘Kitt’, or Alexander Cooke, Nicholas Tooley, and Robert Gough, who were numbered amongst the King’s men at a later date, in the ‘Saunder’, ‘Nick’, and ‘R. Go.’ of the _2 Seven Deadly Sins_ plot. Alleyn’s correspondence of 1593 adds Richard Cowley to the list of Lord Strange’s men, and, as we shall find him acting as a payee for the Chamberlain’s men in 1601, he may have been one of them from the beginning. In any case he had joined them by 1598, as the stage-directions of _Much Ado about Nothing_ show that he played Verges to Kempe’s Dogberry.[573]

There is, of course, one conspicuous Chamberlain’s man who is not discoverable either in the Privy Council letter of 1593 or in the _2 Seven Deadly Sins_ of 1590–1. Even the audacity of Mr. Fleay has not attempted to identify the ‘Will’ of the plot with Will Shakespeare. Some relations, if only as author, Shakespeare must have had with Lord Strange’s men, when they produced _1 Henry VI_ on 3 March 1592, and Greene’s satire of him as a ‘Shake-scene’ in the same year must indicate that he was an actor as well as an author.[574] He may have stood aside altogether during the period of the provincial tours, and devoted himself to poetry, and perhaps, although this is very conjectural, to travel abroad. Or he may, as I have already suggested, have joined Lord Pembroke’s men (q.v.), whom I suspect to have been an offshoot for provincial purposes of the Strange’s combination, and have passed from them to Lord Sussex’s, ultimately rejoining his old fellows in 1594. The possibility of identifying certain minor members of the Chamberlain’s company is also affected by this somewhat obscure problem of Pembroke’s men. The most obvious of these is John Sincler or Sincklo, who was in the cast of _2 Seven Deadly Sins_ as played by the Admiral’s or Strange’s about 1590–1, and must have ultimately joined the Chamberlain’s, as his name occurs in a stage-direction to Q_{1} of _2 Henry IV_ (1600), and in the induction to _The Malcontent_ (1604). It also occurs in stage-directions to _3 Henry VI_ and the _Taming of The Shrew_ in the Folio of 1623.[575] These both happen to be plays which passed through the hands of Pembroke’s, and the inference may be that Sincler had also passed through this company. But this is far from being conclusive. It is the revised and not the unrevised texts that yield the name, and although I think it likely, on stylistic grounds, that the revision of _3 Henry VI_ was done for Pembroke’s (q.v.), it is probable from the reference in _Henry V_, epil. 12, to the loss of France and the civil wars, ‘which oft our stage hath shown’, that the play was revived by the Chamberlain’s, and it may have been in such a revival that Sincler took part. As to the _Shrew_, it is impossible to say whether Shakespeare’s work upon it was before or after its transfer to the Chamberlain’s. In any case the Chamberlain’s were playing it in some form on 13 June 1594, so that here again the appearance of Sincler’s name cannot ear-mark him as Pembroke’s. We can now go a step farther. The stage-directions to _3 Henry VI_ contain not only Sincler’s name, but those of a certain ‘Gabriel’ and a certain ‘Humfrey’, not common Elizabethan names even separately, and certainly suggesting, when found in combination, the Gabriel Spencer and Humphrey Jeffes, who were fellows of the Admiral’s in 1597. Now Spencer, and very likely also Jeffes, had come from Pembroke’s, the short-lived Pembroke’s of 1597 at the Swan. Had they been Pembroke’s men ever since 1593? If so, it would be difficult to resist the conclusion that the performance which brought their names into the text of _3 Henry VI_, and with theirs John Sincler’s, was one by Pembroke’s about that date. The obstacle is that there is no known evidence, in provincial records or elsewhere, for any continuous existence of Pembroke’s between 1593 and 1597. Pending the discovery of any such evidence, it seems better to assume that Sincler, Spencer, and Jeffes were all Chamberlain’s men before 1597, and that it was from a combination of discontented elements in that company and in the Admiral’s that the Pembroke’s of the Swan arose. If so, the rest of the Pembroke’s men not traceable as coming from the Admiral’s, namely Robert Shaw, William Bird _alias_ Borne, and probably Anthony Jeffes, may also have come from the Chamberlain’s; and such an origin might explain the suit with Thomas Pope in which Bird was entangled in 1598.[576] Two other minor actors in the company about 1597 were probably Harvey and Rossill, whose names appear to have got into the text of _1 Henry IV_ in place of those of Bardolph and Peto, whom they represented.[577] The list of actors in Shakespeare’s plays given by the editors of the First Folio includes Samuel Crosse, of whom nothing more is known except that he was of an early generation. As the list in the Folio appears to be limited to Chamberlain’s and King’s men, excluding for example Alleyn, who certainly acted in Shakespearian plays, e.g. _1 Henry VI_, it may be that Crosse was for a short time a member of the company soon after 1594.

It is hardly possible to carry the analysis of origins any further with profit, or to assume that the groups which segregated themselves from the Strange-Admiral’s combination in 1594 bore any close correspondence to the respective contributions of Strange’s and the Admiral’s to that combination in 1589 or 1590. The only name that can be connected with Strange’s men before 1588 is John Symons and neither he nor George Attewell, their payee in 1591, became a Chamberlain’s man. Hypotheses have been framed, mainly in the hope of affiliating Shakespeare to Lord Leicester’s men, who are supposed to have carried him away from Stratford-on-Avon when they visited it in 1586–7, and ultimately to have become Lord Strange’s men.[578] So far as Shakespeare is concerned, the first record of him on the boards is in 1592, and the interval since his hegira from Stratford may have been quite otherwise spent. The proof of continuity between Leicester’s men and Strange’s altogether fails, since the latter made their appearance a decade before the former came to an end. The only member of the Lord Chamberlain’s company of 1594 who can be traced to Leicester’s service was Kempe, and he had left Leicester’s men by the summer of 1586 and was in Denmark. With him were Bryan and Pope, who afterwards spent a year in Germany, and may have joined either Strange’s or the Admiral’s on their return. The only other Chamberlain’s man, who can be assigned to an earlier company than Strange’s, is Heminges, who was probably at some time a Queen’s man.

The Chamberlain’s men evidently started business in 1594 with something of a repertory derived by inheritance or purchase from antecedent companies. Our knowledge of this is mainly confined to plays with which Shakespeare was concerned as author or reviser. They certainly did not get all the plays produced by Strange’s men at the Rose during 1592 and 1593. Some of these were Henslowe’s property; others passed with Alleyn to the Admiral’s men. But they got _The Jealous Comedy_, if I am right in identifying this with _The Comedy of Errors_. They probably got _1 Henry VI_, for although the appearance of a Shakespearian play in the 1623 Folio is not perhaps, in view of the composition of the 1647 ‘Beaumont and Fletcher’ Folio, absolute proof that the King’s men possessed the copy, their stage had often shown both the loss of France and the bleeding of England before _Henry V_ was produced in 1599.[579] And they got _Titus and Vespasian_, as revised, after passing through the hands of Pembroke’s men, for production by Sussex’s under the title of _Titus Andronicus_. Three other of Pembroke’s men’s plays came to them, _The Taming of A Shrew_ and _2 and 3 Henry VI_, and probably _Hamlet_ belongs to the same group. It is of course only a guess of mine that these also went with Shakespeare to Sussex’s men and came thence with him. _Titus Andronicus_ and _A Shrew_, indeed, became available in print during 1594, but not _Hamlet_, and not _Henry VI_, except in the obsolete version called _The Contention of York and Lancaster_. I think Shakespeare must also have brought _Richard III_ and possibly an early version of _Henry VIII_, and that one or other of these had already been played by Sussex’s as _Buckingham_. Of the _provenance_ of _Hester and Ahasuerus_ nothing can be said. It is not necessary to suppose that the Chamberlain’s acquired any plays from the stock of the Queen’s men. It is true that Shakespeare subsequently made some use of _The Troublesome Reign of King John_, _The Famous Victories of Henry V_, and _King Leire_, but these were all in print before he needed them.[580] _Alphonsus, Emperor of Germany_, published in 1654 as a play the King’s men at the Blackfriars is believed by some to be an early play, possibly by Peele, and if so, may belong to the repertory of 1594.

I now return to the chronicle of the Chamberlain’s men from 1598 onwards. The restriction of the London companies by the action of the Privy Council to two had left them in direct rivalry with the Admiral’s at the Rose. Disputes broke out. Henslowe made a loan to William Bird of the Admiral’s on 30 August 1598 to follow a ‘sewt agenste Thomas Poope’, and another to Thomas Downton on 30 January 1599, ‘to descarge Thomas Dickers [Dekker] from the areaste of my lord chamberlens men’.[581] The company played at Court on 26 December 1598 and 1 January and 20 February 1599. During this winter they undertook the enterprise of finding a new head-quarters on the Bankside. The disputes between landlord and tenants as to the lease of the Theatre had reached a crisis, and in December or January the Burbadges removed the timber of the house across the Thames, to serve as material for the construction of the Globe. The lease of the new site was signed on 21 February 1599. Under it one moiety of the interest was retained by Richard Burbadge and his brother Cuthbert, who was not himself an actor; the other was assigned to Shakespeare, Pope, Phillips, Heminges, and Kempe.[582] Shortly afterwards Kempe made over his share to the other four. Presumably he now quitted the company, having first, as a stage-direction shows, played Peter in the revised version of _Romeo and Juliet_ printed in 1599. His place was probably taken by Robert Armin, formerly of Lord Chandos’s men, who describes himself in two successive issues of his _Fool upon Fool_ (1600 and 1605), first as ‘clonnico del Curtanio’, and then as ‘clonnico del Mondo’, and who had therefore probably joined the Chamberlain’s men before their actual transfer to the Globe. As the Theatre had to be built, this is not likely to have taken place until the autumn of 1599, and it must therefore remain doubtful which house was the ‘wooden O’ of _Henry V_, produced during the absence of Essex in Ireland between 27 March and 28 September 1599. It was, however, certainly at the Globe that Thomas Platter saw _Julius Caesar_ on 21 September.[583] ‘This fair-filled Globe’, too, is named in the epilogue to Jonson’s _Every Man Out of his Humour_, which is ascribed in the Folio of 1606 to 1599, although if this be correct, an apparent allusion to Kempe’s journey to Norwich in the spring of 1600 must, on the assumption that it is a real allusion, be an interpolation. The ‘principall Comoedians’ in this play were Burbadge, Heminges, Phillips, Condell, Sly, and Pope. Four of the 1598 names are missing. Shakespeare evidently stood aside. Kempe had gone. Beeston and Duke may have gone also, although it is only a conjecture of Mr. Fleay’s that they and Kempe now seceded to Pembroke’s men at the Rose, and they are not definitely heard of again until they are found with Worcester’s men in August 1602.[584] Mr. Fleay thinks that another Worcester’s man, Robert Pallant, had accompanied them; but, although Pallant was with Strange’s or the Admiral’s about 1590, there is no evidence that he was ever a Chamberlain’s man. Conceivably he may have joined the King’s men about 1619, but that is another matter.[585] About November 1599 was published _A Warning for Fair Women_, which belonged to the company.

The Court plays called for from the Chamberlain’s men during the following winter were on 26 December 1599 and on 6 January and 3 February 1600. Heminges was sole payee, and occupied the same position in every subsequent year, up to and beyond 1616, except in 1600–1, when Richard Cowley was associated with him, and for a special payment made to Burbadge in 1604. On 6 March 1600 the company had an opportunity of rendering direct service to their patron Lord Hunsdon, by playing _Henry IV_, still oddly called _Sir John Oldcastle_, after a dinner which he gave to the Flemish ambassador, Ludovic Verreyken, presumably at his house in the Blackfriars.[586] To 1600 I assign Shakespeare’s _Merry Wives of Windsor_, not improbably prepared for performance, with the aid of the boys of Windsor Chapel, at the Garter Feast on 23 April, and also _As You Like It_. This was a year of some activity among the publishers and, as in 1598, the company had to take steps to protect their interests. In May John Roberts was prevented from printing their moral of _Cloth Breeches and Velvet Hose_, until he could bring proper authority, and in August a note was made in the Stationers’ Register to stay the printing of _As You Like It_, _Henry V_, and _Much Ado about Nothing_.[587] The last two of these, but not the first, were in fact printed during the year, and so were _A Midsummer-Night’s Dream_, _The Merchant of Venice_, _2 Henry IV_, _Every Man Out of his Humour_, and _An Alarum for London_, all plays belonging to the company.

The Chamberlain’s men played at Court on 26 December 1600 and on 6 January and 24 February 1601. Shortly before this last performance, they had been involved in one of the tragedies of history. This was the abortive _coup d’état_ of 8 February 1601 in which the Earl of Essex, smarting under the disgrace which his failure in Ireland had brought upon him, attempted to secure his position and get rid of Sir Walter Raleigh and other enemies by taking forcible possession of the person of Elizabeth and the palace of Whitehall. Some of his followers seem to have conceived the idea of predisposing the mind of the populace to their cause by a dramatic representation of the dangers of evil counsellors and the possible remedy of a deposition, as illustrated in the case of Elizabeth’s predecessor Richard II, in whom for some obscure reason the political thought of the time was fond of finding an analogue to the Queen. Saturday, 7 February, the day before the outbreak, was chosen for the performance, and the players applied to were the Chamberlain’s. A deposition by Augustine Phillips, taken before Chief Justice Popham and Justice Fenner during the subsequent inquiries, records the transaction.[588]

‘The Examination of Augustine Phillips, servant unto the L. Chamberlain and one of his players, taken the xviij^{th} of February, 1600, upon his oath.

‘He saith that on Friday last was sennight or Thursday Sir Charles Percy Sir Josceline Percy and the Lord Mounteagle with some three more spoke to some of the players in the presence of this Examinate to have the play of the deposing and killing of King Richard the Second to be played the Saturday next, promising to get them xl_s._ more than their ordinary to play it. Where this Examinate and his fellows were determined to have played some other play, holding that play of King Richard to be so old and so long out of use that they should have small or no company at it. But at their request this Examinate and his fellows were content to play it the Saturday and had their xl^{_s._} more than their ordinary for it, and so played it accordingly.’

The fact that Phillips speaks of the play as old and long out of use, which becomes in the narrative of Camden ‘exoleta tragoedia’, hardly justifies the suggestion that it was something earlier than Shakespeare’s _Richard II_. This, if produced in 1596, may well have been off the boards by 1601.

A good deal of misunderstanding has gathered round the connexion of the Chamberlain’s men with this affair. Mr. Fleay is responsible for the theory that they fell into disgrace, had to travel, and were excluded from the Court festivities of the following Christmas.[589] As a matter of fact they played four times during that winter. This Mr. Fleay did not know, as he only had before him Cunningham’s incomplete extracts from the accounts of the Treasurer of the Chamber. But he ought to have noticed that their last performance for 1600–1 was itself some days later than the examination of Augustine Phillips. Nor is any evidence that the company travelled in 1601 forthcoming from the provincial archives. Mr. Fleay’s identification of them with Laurence Fletcher’s Scottish company of that year merely rests upon the presence of Fletcher’s name in the patent of 1603, and this will not bear the strain of the argument.[590] Thus remains, however, the possibly autobiographical passage in _Hamlet_, ii. 2. 346, which assigns an ‘inhibition by the means of the late innovation’ as a cause of the travelling of players to Elsinore. The date of _Hamlet_ may well be 1601, since the same passage refers to the theatrical competition set up by the establishment of boy companies at St. Paul’s in 1599 and at the Chapel Royal in 1600. But it must be borne in mind that this competition is the only reason given for the travelling in the 1603 edition of the play. In the 1604 edition the only reason is the inhibition, while in the text of the 1623 Folio both reasons stand somewhat inconsistently side by side.[591] No doubt the text of 1603 is an imperfect piratical reprint. On the other hand that of 1604 almost certainly represents a revised version of the play, and the ‘inhibition’ cited, if it had an historical existence at all, may be that of 1603, during which certainly the company travelled. I suppose that ‘innovation’ might mean the accession of a new sovereign, although it does not seem a very obvious term. But then it does not seem a very obvious term for a seditious rising either.[592] On the whole, there is no reason to suppose that any serious blame was attached to the Chamberlain’s men for lending themselves to Sir Gilly Meyrick’s intrigue. It is certainly absurd to suggest, as has been suggested, that the ‘adorned creature’, whose ingratitude instigated the comparison between Elizabeth and Richard, was not Essex but Shakespeare.[593] At the same time the company may, of course, have been told to leave London for a few weeks. At some time, as the 1603 title-page tells us, they took _Hamlet_ both to Oxford and to Cambridge, and it is at least tempting to find a reminiscence of the Cambridge visit in the scene from _2 Return from Parnassus_ cited below. It is possible that Phillips and his fellows, and even their relation to the Essex crisis itself, may be glanced at in the satirical picture of the Roman actors in Jonson’s _Poetaster_, produced by the Chapel boys in the course of 1601.[594] Certainly the play betrays its author’s knowledge of a counter-attack which the Chamberlain’s men were already preparing for him in Dekker’s _Satiromastix_. This play, in which Dekker may have had some help from Marston, was entered in the Stationers’ Register on 11 November 1601, and had probably been on the stage not long before. It is noteworthy that it was produced by the Paul’s boys, as well as by the Chamberlain’s men. It was actually published in 1602. Another play which may reasonably be assigned to 1601 is _Twelfth Night_.

In the following winter the company played at Court on 26 and 27 December 1601 and on 1 January and 14 February 1602. They also gave _Twelfth Night_ at the Middle Temple feast on 2 February;[595] and I have very little doubt that it was they who furnished the play at which Elizabeth and her maids of honour were present in the Blackfriars after dining with Lord Hunsdon on 31 December.[596] The alleged production of _Othello_ before the Queen when Sir Thomas Egerton entertained her at Harefield from 31 July to 2 August 1602 rests on a forgery by Collier.[597] It is possible that, as Professor Wallace conjectures, the play was on the capture of Stuhl-Weissenburg, seen by the Duke of Stettin on 13 September 1602, may have been a Globe production.[598] _Sir Thomas Cromwell_, a play of unknown authorship belonging to the company, was published in the course of 1602, with an ascription on the title-page to W. S., and to this year I assign Shakespeare’s _All’s Well that Ends Well_ and _Troilus and Cressida_. If so, the portrait of Ajax in the latter play cannot very well have been the ‘purge’ administered by Shakespeare to Jonson, to which reference is made in _2 Return from Parnassus_. This is a Cambridge Christmas piece, probably of 1601–2, and in it Burbadge and Kempe are introduced as in search of scholars to write for them. Perhaps the Cambridge author did not know that Kempe had ceased to be the ‘fellow’ of Burbadge and Shakespeare in 1599, and was at the time playing with Worcester’s men at the Rose. It is, however, just possible that after returning from his continental tour and before throwing in his lot with Worcester’s, he may have rejoined the Chamberlain’s for a while, and may have accompanied them to Cambridge, if they did travel in 1601.[599]

The last performances of the company before Elizabeth took place on 26 December 1602 and 2 February 1603, and on the following 24 March the Queen died. Playing immediately ceased in London. Strictly speaking, the Chamberlain’s men must have again become Lord Hunsdon’s men for a month or so, for the Household appointments naturally lapsed with the death of the sovereign, and Hunsdon, being in failing health, was relieved of his duties on 6 April. On 9 September he died.[600] The company, however, had already passed under royal patronage.

A contemporary panegyrist records the graciousness of James in ‘taking to him the late Lord Chamberlaines servants, now the Kings acters’.[601] The appointment was by letters patent dated 19 May 1603, of which the text follows.[602]

[Sidenote: Commissio specialis pro Laurencio Fletcher & Willelmo Shackespeare et aliis]

Iames by the grace of god &c. To all Iustices, Maiors, Sheriffes, Constables, hedborowes, and other our Officers and louinge Subiectes greetinge. Knowe yee that Wee of our speciall grace, certeine knowledge, & mere motion haue licenced and aucthorized and by theise presentes doe licence and aucthorize theise our Servauntes Lawrence Fletcher, William Shakespeare, Richard Burbage, Augustyne Phillippes, Iohn Heninges, Henrie Condell, William Sly, Robert Armyn, Richard Cowly, and the rest of theire Assosiates freely to vse and exercise the Arte and faculty of playinge Comedies, Tragedies, histories, Enterludes, moralls, pastoralls, Stage-plaies, and Suche others like as theie haue alreadie studied or hereafter shall vse or studie, aswell for the recreation of our lovinge Subjectes, as for our Solace and pleasure when wee shall thincke good to see them, duringe our pleasure. And the said Commedies, tragedies, histories, Enterludes, Morralles, Pastoralls, Stageplayes, and suche like to shewe and exercise publiquely to theire best Commoditie, when the infection of the plague shall decrease, aswell within theire nowe vsual howse called the Globe within our County of Surrey, as alsoe within anie towne halls or Moute halls or other conveniente places within the liberties and freedome of anie other Cittie, vniversitie, towne, or Boroughe whatsoever within our said Realmes and domynions. Willinge and Commaundinge you and everie of you, as you tender our pleasure, not onelie to permitt and suffer them herein without anie your lettes hindrances or molestacions during our said pleasure, but alsoe to be aidinge and assistinge to them, yf anie wronge be to them offered, And to allowe them such former Curtesies as hath bene given to men of theire place and quallitie, and alsoe what further favour you shall shewe to theise our Servauntes for our sake wee shall take kindlie at your handes. In wytnesse whereof &c. witnesse our selfe at Westminster the nyntenth day of May per breve de priuato sigillo &c.

Of the nine players named, eight are recognizable as the principal members of the Lord Chamberlain’s company as it stood at the end of Elizabeth’s reign. Only Thomas Pope is not included. He was near his end. He made his will on 22 July 1603, and it was proved on 13 February 1604. In it he names none of his fellows, unless Robert Gough, who has a legacy, was already of the company; his interest in the house of the Globe passed to legatees and was thus alienated from the company. Laurence Fletcher, on the other hand, whose name heads the list in the patent, is not discernible as a Chamberlain’s man. His inclusion becomes readily intelligible, when it is recalled that he had headed English actors on tour in Scotland, and had already been marked by the personal favour of James.[603] Whether he ever joined the company in the full sense, that is to say, the association of actors as distinct from the body of royal servants, seems to me very doubtful. His name is not in the _Sejanus_ list, or in the Folio list of Shakespearian players, and that he was described as a ‘fellow’ by Phillips in 1605 hardly takes the matter further. He may have held a relation to the King’s men analogous to that of Martin Slater to Queen Anne’s men. After 1605 nothing is heard of him.[604]

The terms of the patent imply that it was issued during a suspension of playing through plague. Probably this had followed hard upon the suspension at Elizabeth’s death. The company travelled, being found at Bath, Coventry, and Shrewsbury in the course of 1602–3. A misplaced Ipswich entry of 30 May 1602 may belong to 1603. The visits to Oxford and Cambridge referred to on the title-page of the 1603 edition of _Hamlet_ must also have taken place in this year, if they did not take place in 1601. On 2 December 1603 the company were summoned from Mortlake to perform before the King at Lord Pembroke’s house of Wilton.[605]

During the winter of 1603–4 the company gave eight more plays at Court, a larger number than Elizabeth had ever called for. They took place on 26, 27, 28, and 30 December 1603 and on 1 January and 2 and 19 February 1604. On New Year’s Day there were two performances, one before James, the other before Prince Henry. The plague had not yet subsided by 8 February, and James gave his men £30 as a ‘free gifte’ for their ‘mayntenaunce and releife’ till it should ‘please God to settle the cittie in a more perfecte health’. One of the plays of this winter was _The Fair Maid of Bristow_. Another, produced before the end of 1603, was probably Ben Jonson’s _Sejanus_. For alleged popery and treason in this play Jonson was haled before the Privy Council by the Earl of Northampton, but there is nothing to show that the players were implicated. The principal actors in _Sejanus_ were Burbadge, Shakespeare, Phillips, Heminges, Sly, Condell, John Lowin, and Alexander Cooke. This is Shakespeare’s last appearance in the cast of any play. He may have ceased to act, while remaining a member of the company and its poet. The names of Lowin and Cooke are new. Lowin had been with Worcester’s men in 1602–3. Cooke had probably begun his connexion with the company as an apprentice to Heminges. The identification of him with the ‘Sander’ of Strange’s men in 1590 is more than hazardous. The Induction to Marston’s _Malcontent_, published in 1604, records the names of Burbadge, who played Malevole, Condell, Sly, Lowin, Sincler, and a Tire-man. Sincler was probably still only a hired man. Nothing further is heard of him. This Induction seems to have been written by John Webster to introduce the presentation by the King’s men of _The Malcontent_, which was really a Chapel play. The transaction is thus explained:[606]

_Sly._ I wonder you would play it, another company having interest in it?

_Condell._ Why not Malevole in folio with us, as Jeronimo in decimo-sexto with them? They taught us a name for our play; we call it _One for Another_.

The play of _Jeronimo_, which the Chapel are here accused of taking, cannot be _The Spanish Tragedy_, which was an Admiral’s play, and is not very likely to have been the ‘comedy of Jeronimo’ which Strange’s men had in 1592, and which was evidently related to _The Spanish Tragedy_ and may be expected to have remained with it. It might be the extant _First Part of Jeronimo_, written perhaps for the Chamberlain’s men about 1601–2, when Jonson was revising _The Spanish Tragedy_ for the Admiral’s. A reference in T. M.’s _Black Book_ shows that _The Merry Devil of Edmonton_, which belonged to the company, was already on the stage by 1604.[607]

The coronation procession of James, deferred on account of the plague, went through London on 15 March 1604, and the Great Wardrobe furnished each of the King’s players with four and a half yards of red cloth. The same nine men are specified in the warrant as in the patent of 1603, and their names stand next those of various officers of the Chamber. They did not, however, actually walk in the procession.[608] From 9 to 27 August 1604, they were called upon in their official capacity as Grooms of the Chamber to form part of the retinue assigned to attend at Somerset House upon Juan Fernandez de Velasco, Duke of Frias and Constable of Castile, who was in England as Ambassador Extraordinary for the negotiation of a peace with Spain. The descriptions of his visit, which have been preserved, do not show that any plays were given before him.[609]

The company were at Oxford between 7 May and 16 June 1604. About 18 December they had got into trouble through the production of a tragedy on _Gowry_, always a delicate subject with James.[610] But this did not interfere with a long series of no less than eleven performances which they gave at Court between 1 November 1604 and 12 February 1605, and of which the Revels Accounts fortunately preserve the names.[611] The series included one play, _The Spanish Maze_, of which nothing is known; two by Ben Jonson, _Every Man In his Humour_ and _Every Man Out of his Humour_; and seven by Shakespeare, _Othello_, _The Merry Wives of Windsor_, _Measure for Measure_, _The Comedy of Errors_, _Henry V_, _Love’s Labour’s Lost_, and _The Merchant of Venice_, which was given twice. _Othello_ and _Measure for Measure_ had probably been produced for the first time during 1604, but the rest of the list suggests that opportunity was being taken to revive a number of Elizabethan plays unknown to the new sovereigns. This is borne out by the terms of a letter from Sir Walter Cope to Lord Southampton with regard to the performance of _Love’s Labour ’s Lost_.[612]

Between 4 May 1605, when he made his will, and 13 May, when it was proved, died Augustine Phillips. Unlike Pope, he was full of kindly remembrances towards the King’s men. He appointed Heminges, Burbadge, and Sly overseers of the will. He left legacies to his ‘fellows’ Shakespeare, Condell, Fletcher, Armin, Cowley, Cooke, and Nicholas Tooley; to the hired men of the company; to his ‘servant’ Christopher Beeston; to his apprentice James Sands, and to his late apprentice Samuel Gilburne. We have here practically a full list of the company. The name of Nicholas Tooley is new, unless indeed he was the ‘Nick’ of Strange’s men in 1592. He speaks of Richard Burbadge in his will as his ‘master’ and may have been his apprentice. The use of the term ‘fellow’ suggests that Tooley and Cooke were now sharers in the company. On the other hand Lowin, who is not named among the ‘fellows’, may still have been only a hired man. Beeston’s legacy is doubtless in memory of former service as hired man or apprentice; he was in 1605 and for long after with the Queen’s men. Samuel Gilburne is recorded as a Shakespearian actor in the 1623 Folio, but practically nothing is known of him or of James Sands. The exact legal disposal of the interest held by Phillips in the Globe subsequently became matter of controversy, but in effect it remained from 1605 to 1613 with his widow and her second husband, and was thus alienated from the company.

On some date before Michaelmas in 1605 the King’s men visited Barnstaple, and on 9 October they were at Oxford. This year saw the publication of _The Fair Maid of Bristow_ and of _The London Prodigal_, which was assigned on its title-page to Shakespeare. To it I also assign Shakespeare’s _Macbeth_ and _King Lear_.

Ten Court plays were given in the winter of 1605–6, but the dates are not recorded. Three more were given in the summer of 1606 during the visit of the King of Denmark to James, which lasted from 7 July to 11 August, and then the company seem to have gone on tour. They were at Oxford between 28 and 31 July, at Leicester in August, at Dover between 6 and 24 September, at Saffron Walden and Maidstone during 1605–6, and at Marlborough in 1606. To this year I assign Shakespeare’s _Antony and Cleopatra_ and _Coriolanus_, and to the earlier part of it Ben Jonson’s _Volpone_, in which the principal actors were Burbadge, Condell, Sly, Heminges, Lowin, and Cooke.

Nine Court plays were given during the winter of 1606–7, on 26 and 29 December 1606, and on 4, 6, and 8 January and 2, 5, 15, and 27 February 1607. The entry in the Stationers’ Register for _King Lear_ and the title-page of Barnes’ _The Devil’s Charter_, both dated in 1607, show these to have been the plays selected for 26 December and 2 February respectively. In the same year were also published Tourneur’s _The Revenger’s Tragedy_ and Wilkins’ _The Miseries of Enforced Marriage_, and to it I assign the production of _Timon of Athens_. On 16 July 1607 Heminges lent his boy John Rice to appear as an angel of gladness with a taper of frankincense, and deliver an eighteen-verse speech by Ben Jonson as part of the entertainment of James by the Merchant Taylors at their hall.[613] During the summer the company travelled to Barnstaple, to Dunwich, to Oxford, where they were on 7 September, and possibly to Cambridge. _Volpone_ had probably been given in both Universities before its publication about February 1607 or 1608.

During the winter of 1607–8 the company gave thirteen Court plays, on 26, 27, and 28 December 1606, and on 2, 6, 7, 9, 17, and 26 January, and 2 and 7 February 1607. On each of the nights of 6 and 17 January there were two plays. In 1608 was published _A Yorkshire Tragedy_, with Shakespeare’s name on the title-page, and to it I assign the production of _Pericles_, in which Shakespeare probably had Wilkins for a collaborator. About May the company had to find their share of the heavy fine necessary to buy off the inhibition due to the performance of Chapman’s _Duke of Byron_ by the Queen’s Revels.[614] The year was in many ways an eventful one for the King’s men. They had, I suspect, to face a growing detachment of Shakespeare from London and the theatre; and the loss was perhaps partly supplied by the establishment of relations with Beaumont and Fletcher, whose earliest play for the company, _Philaster_, may be of any date from 1608 to 1610. About 16 August died William Sly, leaving his interest in the Globe to his son Robert and legacies to Cuthbert Burbadge and James Sands. Both he and Henry Condell had been admitted to an interest at some date subsequent to November 1606, the moiety of the lease not retained by the Burbadges having been redistributed into sixths to allow of this. The deserts of Pope, Phillips, and Sly are all commemorated in the _Apology_ of Thomas Heywood, which, though not published until 1612, was probably written in 1608.[615] Sly’s death complicated an important transaction in which the King’s men were engaged. This was the acquisition of the Blackfriars, of which the freehold already belonged to the Burbadges, but which had been leased since 1600 to Henry Evans and occupied by the Children of the Revels. About July 1608 Evans was prepared to surrender his lease, and the Burbadges decided to take the opportunity of providing the King’s men with a second house on the north side of the Thames, suitable for a winter head-quarters. As in the case of the Globe, they shared their interest as housekeepers with some of the leading members of the company. New leases were executed on 9 August 1608, by which the house was divided between a syndicate of seven, of whom five were Richard Burbadge, Shakespeare, Heminges, Condell, and Sly, while the other two, Cuthbert Burbadge and Thomas Evans, were not King’s men. When Sly’s death intervened, his executrix surrendered his interest and the number of the syndicate was reduced to six. Probably, however, the King’s men did not enter upon the actual occupation of the Blackfriars until the autumn of the following year.[616] In fact the plague kept the London theatres closed from July 1608 to December 1609. The King’s men were at Coventry on 29 October 1608 and at Marlborough in the course of 1607–8. The plague did not prevent them from appearing at Court during the winter of 1608–9, and they gave twelve plays on unspecified dates. But their difficulties are testified to by a special reward ‘for their private practise in the time of infeccion’, which had rendered their Christmas service possible.

The plague led to an early provincial tour. The company were at Ipswich on 9 May, at Hythe on 16 May, and at New Romney on 17 May 1609. Their winter season was again interfered with, and a further grant was made in respect of six weeks of private practice. Amongst the plays so practised may, I think, have been _Cymbeline_. They gave thirteen plays at Court on unspecified dates during the holidays of 1609–10.[617] One of these may have been _Mucedorus_, the edition of which with the imprint 1610 represents a revised version performed at Court on the previous Shrove Sunday. This might be either 18 February 1610 or 3 February 1611. The epilogue contains an apology for some recent indiscretion of the company in a play of which no more is known, but which might conceivably be Daborne’s _A Christian Turned Turk_, since this certainly brought its players into some disgrace. By April the company were at the Globe, playing _Macbeth_ on 20 April, _Cymbeline_ probably shortly before, and _Othello_ on 30 April.[618] To this year I assign _The Winter’s Tale_ and Beaumont and Fletcher’s _The Maid’s Tragedy_. It also saw the production of Jonson’s _Alchemist_, with a cast including Burbadge, Lowin, Condell, Cooke, Armin, Heminges, William Ostler, John Underwood, Tooley, and William Ecclestone. This is the last mention of Armin in connexion with the King’s men, but it is sufficient to show that the production of his _Two Maids of Moreclack_ by the King’s Revels about 1608 did not involve any breach with his old company. Of Ecclestone’s origin nothing is known.[619] Ostler and Underwood came from the Queen’s Revels, probably when the Blackfriars was taken over in 1609. In fact an account of the transaction given by the Burbadges in 1635 suggests that the desire to acquire these boys was its fundamental motive. They say:

‘In processe of time, the boyes growing up to bee men, which were Underwood, Field, Ostler, and were taken to strengthen the King’s service; and the more to strengthen the service, the boyes dayly wearing out, it was considered that house would bee as fitt for ourselves, and soe purchased the lease remaining from Evans with our money, and placed men players, which were Heminges, Condall, Shakspeare, &c.’

This narrative seems, however, to have antedated matters as regards Field. Or, if he did come to the King’s men in 1609, he almost immediately returned to the Queen’s Revels at Whitefriars, joining the King’s again about 1616.[620]

About 8 May 1610 some superfluous apparel of the company was sold by Heminges on their behalf to the Duke of York’s men (q.v.). On 31 May Burbadge and Rice were employed by the City to make speeches on fish-back at the civic pageant of welcome to Prince Henry.[621] The autumn travelling took the company to Dover between 6 July and 4 August 1610, to Oxford in August, and to Shrewsbury and Stafford in 1609–10. During the following winter they gave fifteen Court plays on unspecified days. They were playing a piece on the story of Richard II, not now extant, at the Globe on 30 April 1611, and _A Winter’s Tale_ on 15 May.[622] During 1611 Jonson’s _Catiline_ was produced, with a cast similar to that of _The Alchemist_, except that Armin was replaced by Richard Robinson, whose earlier history is unknown. Robinson, playing a female part, and Robert Gough also appear in the stage directions of _The Second Maiden’s Tragedy_, licensed for the stage by Sir George Buck on 31 October 1611. Gough was probably one of Strange’s men in 1592. He appears in the wills of Pope in 1603 and of Phillips, who was his brother-in-law, in 1605, but with no indication that he belonged to the King’s men. Beaumont and Fletcher’s _A King and No King_ was also licensed by Buck in 1611, and to this year I assign Shakespeare’s _Tempest_. On 25 August 1611 the interest in the Blackfriars originally intended for Sly was assigned to Ostler. Ecclestone, on the other hand, later in the year than the production of _Catiline_, but before 29 August, left the company for the Lady Elizabeth’s men.

The only provincial visit by the King’s men recorded in 1610–11 was to Shrewsbury. They gave twenty-two plays at Court during a rather prolonged winter season extending from 31 October 1611 to 26 April 1612. Two of these, on 12 and 13 January, were joint performances with the Queen’s men, and the plays used, Heywood’s _Silver Age_ and _Rape of Lucrece_, were from the repertory of the latter.[623] The King’s men also gave _The Tempest_ and _A Winter’s Tale_, _A King and No King_, Tourneur’s _The Nobleman_, and _The Twins’ Tragedy_. On 20 February 1612 the actors’ moiety of the Globe was again redistributed, into sevenths, so as to allow of the admission as a housekeeper of Ostler, who had married a daughter of Heminges. From the statement of the interests held by the parties to this transaction, it is to be inferred that Heminges and Condell had between them bought out since 1608 the representatives of Sly. On 21 April 1612 the company was at New Romney and at some date during 1611–12 at Winchester. Heminges received a payment for services to the Lord Mayor’s pageant of this year, which was Dekker’s _Troja Nova Triumphans_.[624]

The actor-list attached to _The Captain_ in the Beaumont and Fletcher Folio of 1679 probably belongs to the original production of the play between 1609 and 1612. It names Burbadge, Condell, Cooke, and Ostler. It was one of the plays selected for the Court season of 1612–13, during which, on 14 February, took place the wedding of the Elector Palatine Frederick and the Princess Elizabeth, and which was therefore singularly rich in plays, notwithstanding the interruption of the festivities due to the death of Prince Henry on 7 November 1612. Heminges lent a boy for Chapman’s mask on 15 February. The twenty plays given this winter by the King’s men, the exact dates of which are not upon record, were Shakespeare’s _Much Ado about Nothing_ (performed twice), _The Tempest_, _A Winter’s Tale_, _Julius Caesar_, _Othello_, and _1 and 2 Henry IV_, Jonson’s _Alchemist_, Beaumont and Fletcher’s _Philaster_ (also performed twice), _The Maid’s Tragedy_, _A King and No King_, _The Captain_ and the lost play of _Cardenio_, Tourneur’s _Nobleman_, and four plays of unknown authorship, _The Merry Devil of Edmonton_, _The Knot of Fools_, _The Twins’ Tragedy_, and _A Bad Beginning Makes a Good Ending_. On 8 June there was a special performance of _Cardenio_ for the Savoyan ambassador. Some unknown cause seems to have brought Shakespeare back in 1613 to the assistance of his fellows, and he collaborated with Fletcher in _The Two Noble Kinsmen_ and in _Henry VIII_ or _All is True_, possibly a revision of the _Buckingham_ which formed part of the repertory of Sussex’s men in 1594. During a performance of _Henry VIII_, on 29 June 1613, the Globe was burnt to the ground. Some contemporary verses mention Burbadge, Heminges, and Condell as present on this occasion. A levy was called for from the housekeepers to meet the cost of rebuilding, and owing to the inability of the representatives of Augustine Phillips to meet the call upon them, Heminges was enabled to recover one of the alienated interests, which he divided with Condell.

The company was at Oxford before November in 1613, and also visited Shrewsbury, Stafford, and Folkestone during 1612–13. They played sixteen times at Court in the winter of 1613–14, on 1, 4, 5, 15, and 16 November and 27 December 1613, and on 1, 4, and 10 January, 2, 4, 8, 10, and 18 February and 6 and 8 March 1614. The rebuilding of the Globe was complete by 30 June 1614, and in the course of 1613–14 the company visited Coventry. Cooke died in February 1614, being then a sharer. Ostler died on 16 December, and his interests in the Globe and Blackfriars became matter of dispute between his widow and her father, John Heminges. The ascertained dates of Ostler’s career render it possible to assign to 1609–14, the period of his connexion with the King’s men, three plays in which he took part. These are Webster’s _Duchess of Malfi_, at the first production of which, if the actor-list of the 1623 edition is rightly interpreted, the parts of Ferdinand, the Cardinal, and Antonio were played respectively by Burbadge, Condell, and Ostler, Fletcher’s _Valentinian_, played by Burbadge, Condell, Lowin, Ostler, and Underwood, and his _Bonduca_, played by Burbadge, Condell, Lowin, Ostler, Underwood, Tooley, Ecclestone, and Robinson. _Bonduca_ must be either earlier than Ecclestone’s departure for the Lady Elizabeth’s men in 1611, or after he quitted that company and presumably rejoined the King’s in 1613.

The King’s men gave eight plays at Court on unspecified days during the winter of 1614–15. On 29 March 1615 they were in trouble with other companies for playing in Lent, and Heminges and Burbadge appeared on their behalf before the Privy Council. In April 1615 they were at Nottingham. They gave fourteen plays at Court between 1 November 1615 and 1 April 1616, and again the precise dates are not specified. They also appeared before Anne at Somerset House on 21 December 1615.

Shakespeare died on 23 April 1616, and with this event I must close my detailed chronicle of the fortunes of the company. A new patent was issued to them on 27 March 1619, probably to secure their right to perform in the Blackfriars, which was being challenged by the action of the City.[625] Since 1603 Shakespeare, Phillips, Sly, Cowley, Armin, and Fletcher have dropped out of the list, and are replaced by Lowin, Underwood, Tooley, Ecclestone, Gough, and Robinson, together with Nathan Field, Robert Benfield, and John Shank, who now appear for the first time as members of the company.[626] Benfield and Field are last traceable with the Lady Elizabeth’s men in 1613 and 1615 respectively, Shank with the Palsgrave’s men in 1613. The only names common to both patents are those of Burbadge, Heminges, and Condell. But in fact Burbadge died on 13 March 1619, while the patent was going through its stages, and his place was almost immediately taken by Joseph Taylor, from Prince Charles’s men. About the same time Field left the company.[627] Heminges, described as ‘stuttering’ in 1613, cannot be shown to have acted since the _Catiline_ of 1611. He had probably devoted himself to the business management of the company, in which he always appears prominent. Condell also seems to have given up

## acting about 1619, and during the rest of the history of the company

up to its extinction in 1642, its mainstays were Lowin and Taylor, who became depositaries of the tradition of the great Shakespearian parts. John Downes, who was prompter to the Duke of York’s men after the Restoration, relates how, when Betterton played Hamlet, ‘Sir _William_ [Davenant] (having seen _Mr. Taylor_ of the _Black-Fryers_ Company Act it, who being instructed by the Author _Mr. Shakespear_) taught _Mr. Betterton_ in every Particle of it’; and how Davenant was similarly able to act as Betterton’s tutor for Henry the Eighth, for he ‘had it from Old _Mr. Lowen_, that had his Instructions from _Mr. Shakespear_ himself’.[628] When Heminges and Condell came to print Shakespeare’s plays in 1623, they prefixed ‘the names of the principall Actors in all these playes’ as follows: ‘William Shakespeare, Richard Burbadge, John Hemmings, Augustine Phillips, William Kempt, Thomas Poope, George Bryan, Henry Condell, William Slye, Richard Cowly, John Lowine, Samuell Crosse, Alexander Cooke, Samuel Gilburne, Robert Armin, William Ostler, Nathan Field, John Underwood, Nicholas Tooley, William Ecclestone, Joseph Taylor, Robert Benfield, Robert Goughe, Richard Robinson, John Shancke, John Rice.’ The order is a little puzzling. The first ten entries may be those of the original members of the Chamberlain’s company in 1594; and if so, their order does not matter. But it is difficult to believe that the other sixteen can represent either the order in which the men began to play for the company, or the order in which they became sharers. Of course, there may have been comings and goings known to Heminges and Condell, but not now traceable. Thus Field and even Taylor may have come for a short while and gone again before 1611. But it seems impossible that Tooley, who was ‘fellow’ to Phillips in 1605, could really have been junior to the recruits from the Queen’s Revels in 1609. On the whole, one must suppose that, if Heminges and Condell aimed at an exact chronology, their memory occasionally failed them. The omission from the Folio of Duke, Beeston, Sincler, and Sands may indicate that the list is confined to sharers. It is probable that Fletcher, who is also omitted, was not a sharer and did not act in any Shakespearian play.

xxi. THE EARL OF WORCESTER’S AND QUEEN ANNE’S MEN

William Somerset, _nat._ 1526; succ. as 3rd Earl of Worcester, 1548; m. Christian, d. of Edward, 1st Lord North; _ob._ 22 Feb. 1589.

Edward Somerset, s. of William; _nat._ 1553; Lord Herbert of Chepstow; succ. as 4th Earl, 1589; m. Elizabeth, d. of Francis, 2nd Earl of Huntingdon; Deputy Master of the Horse, Dec. 1597; Master of the Horse, 21 Apr. 1601; Earl Marshal, 1603; Lord Privy Seal, 2 Jan. 1616; _ob._ 3 Mar. 1628.

Henry Somerset, s. of Edward; _nat._ 1577; Lord Herbert of Chepstow from 1589; m. 16 June 1600, Anne, d. of John, Lord Russell; succ. as 5th Earl, 1628; cr. 1st Marquis of Worcester, 1642.

Anne, d. of Frederick II, King of Denmark and Norway; _nat._ 12 Dec. 1574; m. James VI, King of Scotland, 20 Aug. 1589; Queen Consort of England, 24 Mar. 1603; _ob._ 2 Mar. 1619.

[_Bibliographical Note._--The records of Worcester’s men in 1602–3 are printed and discussed by W. W. Greg in _Henslowe’s Diary_ (1904–8). The will of Thomas Greene (1612) was printed by J. Greenstreet in the _Athenaeum_ (29 August 1895), and the Bill, Answer, and Orders in the Chancery suit of _Worth et al. v. Baskerville et al._ (1623–6) by the same in the _Athenaeum_ (11 July and 29 August 1885) and _N. S. S. Trans._ (_1880–6_), 489. Both are reprinted in Fleay, 192, 271. The Court of Requests suit of _Smith v. Beeston et al._ (1619–20) is printed by C. W. Wallace in _Nebraska University Studies_, ix. 315.]

The first company under the patronage of this house had a long and wholly provincial career.[629] The earliest record of it is at Barnstaple in 1555. On 10 October 1563 it was at Leicester. On 13 and 14 January 1565 it was at Sir George Vernon’s, Haddon Hall, Derbyshire, under the leadership of one Hamond.[630] It is further traceable in December 1565 at Newcastle, before Michaelmas 1566 at Leicester, in 1567–8 at Gloucester, in 1568–9 at Ipswich, Stratford-on-Avon, and Bath, on 11 August 1569 at Nottingham, in 1569–70 and 1570–1 at Gloucester and Barnstaple, in 1571 at Leicester and Beverley, on 9 January 1572 at Nottingham, before Michaelmas at Leicester, on 31 December 1572 at Wollaton, Notts. (Francis Willoughby’s), on 6 January 1573 at Nottingham, in 1572–3 at Bath, in 1573–4 at Abingdon, and in January 1574 at Wollaton again. As the Earl of Worcester’s eldest son bore the courtesy title of Lord Herbert, it is probably the same company which appeared at Leicester, after Michaelmas in 1574, as ‘Lorde Harbards’. But it is named as Worcester’s again in 1574–5 at Stratford-on-Avon, on 28 April 1575 at Nottingham, and after Michaelmas in the same year at Leicester, in 1575–6 at Coventry, in 1576–7 at Stratford-on-Avon and Bath, and on 14 June 1577 at Southampton, where it consisted of ten men. On 19 January 1578 it was at Nottingham, in 1577–8 at Coventry, in 1580–1 and 1581–2 at Stratford-on-Avon, in 1581–2 at Abingdon, on 15 June 1582 at Ipswich, in the same year at Doncaster.

Two incidents in successive years suggest that Worcester’s men were not always quite so amenable, as vagrants should have been, to municipal discipline. The first was at Norwich on 7 June 1583. Here there was a fear of plague, and the company were given 26_s._ 8_d._, on a promise not to play. In spite of this they played in their host’s house. The Corporation ordered ‘that their lord shall be certified of their contempt’, and that they should never again receive reward in Norwich, and should presently depart the town on pain of imprisonment. It was afterwards agreed, however, on submission and earnest entreaty, not to report the misdemeanour to the Earl of Worcester. The second occasion was in the following March in Leicester, and the entries in the Corporation archives are so interesting as to deserve reproduction in full.[631]

[Sidenote: M^r Mayor M^r J. Tatam M^r Morton.]

Tuesdaie the third daie of Marche, 1583, certen playors whoe said they were the seruants of the Quenes Maiesties Master of the Revells, who required lycence to play & for there aucthorytye showed forth an Indenture of Lycense from one M^r Edmonde Tylneye esquier M^r of her Maiesties Revells of the one parte, and George Haysell of Wisbiche in the Ile of Elye in the Countie of Cambridge, gentleman on the other parte.

The which indenture is dated the vj^{th} daie of Februarye in the xxv^{th} yere of her Maiesties raign &c.

In which Indenture there ys one article that all Justices, Maiores, Sherifs, Bayllyfs, Constables, and all other her officers, ministers & subiects whatsoeuer to be aydinge & assistinge vnto the said Edmund Tilneye, his Deputies & Assignes, attendinge & havinge due regard vnto suche parsons as shall disorderly intrude themselves into any the doings and

## actions before mencioned, not beinge reformed, qualifyed & bound

to the orders prescribed by the said Edmund Tyllneye. These shalbee therefore not only to signifye & geve notice vnto all & euery her said Justices &c. that none of there owne pretensed aucthoritye intrude themselves & presume to showe forth any suche playes, enterludes, tragedies, comodies, or shewes in any places within this Realm, withoute the orderlye allowance thereof vnder the hand of the sayd Edmund.

NOTA. No play is to bee played, but suche as is allowed by the sayd Edmund, & his hand at the latter end of the said booke they doe play.

The forsed Haysell is nowe the chefe playor &c.

Fridaye the 6 of Marche.

Certen players came before M^r Mayor at the Hall there beinge present M^r John Tatam, M^r George Tatam, M^r Morton & M^r Worship: who sayed they were the Earle of Wosters men: who sayd the forsyd playors were not lawfully aucthorysed, & that they had taken from them there commyssion, but it is untrue, for they forgat there box at the Inne in Leicester, & so these men gat yt & they sed the syd Haysell was not here hymself and they sent the same to Grantom to the syd Haysell who dwellith there.

William Earle of Worcester &c. hath by his wrytinge dated the 14 of Januarye Anno 25^o Eliz. Reginae licensed his Seruants viz. Robert Browne, James Tunstall, Edward Allen, William Harryson, Thomas Cooke, Rychard Johnes, Edward Browne, Rychard Andrewes to playe & goe abrode, vsinge themselves orderly &c. (in theise words &c.) These are therefore to require all suche her Highnes offycers to whom these presents shall come, quietly & frendly within your severall presincts & corporacions to permytt & suffer them to passe with your furtherance vsinge & demeanynge themselves honestly & to geve them (the rather for my sake) suche intertaynement as other noble mens players haue (In Wytnes &c.)

M^r Mayor M^r Jo. Heyrycke M^r Noryce M^r Ja. Clarke M^r George Tatam M^r Morton M^r Rob^t Heyrycke M^r Ellys M^r Newcome.

Memorandum that M^r Mayor did geve the aforesaid playors an angell towards there dinner & wild them not to playe at this present: being Fryday the vj^{th} of Marche, for that the tyme was not conveynyent.

The foresaid playors mett M^r Mayor in the strete nere M^r Newcomes housse, after the angell was geven abowte a ij howers, who then craived lycense ageyne to play at there inn, & he told them they shold not, then they went away & seyd they wold play, whether he wold or not, & in dispite of hym, with dyvers other evyll & contemptyous words: Witness here of M^r Newcome, M^r Wycam, & William Dethicke.

More, these men, contrary to M^r Mayors comandment, went with their drum & trumppytts thorowe the Towne, in contempt of M^r Mayor, neyther wold come at his comandment, by his offycer, viz. Worship.

William Pateson my lord Harbards man } Thomas Powlton my lord of Worcesters man } these ij

were they which dyd so much abuse M^r Mayor in the aforesayd words.

NOTA. These sayd playors have submytted them selves, & are sorye for there words past, & craved pardon, desyeringe his worship not to write to there Master agayne them, & so vpon there submyssyn, they are lycensed to play this night at there inn, & also they have promysed that vppon the stage, in the begynyng of there play, to shoe vnto the hearers that they are licensed to playe by M^r Mayor & with his good will & that they are sory for the words past.

The latter part of this record is intelligible enough; evidently there was a repetition of the misrule at Norwich. But the earlier part, which refers to a different matter altogether, is distinctly puzzling. The ‘theys’ in the first sentence of the Corporation minute of 6 March are complicated, and it has sometimes been supposed that there was really a company of Master of the Revels’ men, and that it was Worcester’s men who questioned the licence of these.[632] On the whole, I think that a different interpretation of the documents is the more natural one. No doubt Worcester’s men had found it necessary, as a result of the powers granted to Tilney as Master of the Revels by the patent of 24 December 1581, to renew the authority under which they travelled. In addition to a fresh warrant from their lord licensing them to travel as his household servants, and dated 14 January 1583, they obtained on the following 6 February a further licence from Tilney, issued under the clause of his commission which appointed him to ‘order and reforme, auctorise and put downe’ all players in any part of England, whether they were ‘belonginge to any noble man’ or otherwise.[633] This licence, but not the other, they left at their inn in Leicester, while passing through on some previous occasion; and here it was found by some unlicensed players, who appropriated it, and either through misunderstanding or through fraud, imposed it upon the Corporation as an instrument constituting a Master of the Revels’ company. There are two difficulties in this theory. One is that George Haysell, to whom Tilney’s licence was issued, is not one of the actors named in the Earl of Worcester’s warrant. But there are other cases in which the constitution of a company in the eyes of its lord was not quite the same as its constitution from the point of view of business relations, and I should suppose that Haysell, who was evidently not himself

## acting at the time, was the financier of the enterprise, and gave the

bonds which Tilney would probably require for the satisfaction of the covenants of his indenture of licence. The other difficulty is that Leicester is not the only place in which the presence of a Master of the Revels’ company is recorded. Such a company was at Ludlow on 7 December 1583 and at Bath in 1583–4.[634] But, after all, this need mean no more than that the bogus company kept up their fraud for two or three months before they were exposed. If Tilney had really started a company of his own, it might have been expected to have a longer life. The establishment in 1583 of the Queen’s men makes it the less probable that he did so.

The list of this provincial company, as it stood in January 1583, is interesting, because at least four of its members, Robert Browne, Richard Jones, James Tunstall, and above all Edward Alleyn, then only a lad of sixteen, were destined to take a considerable share in the stage history of the future. Edward Browne, too, was afterwards one of the Admiral’s men. Of the rest, William Harrison, Thomas Cooke, Richard Andrewes, as well as of George Haysell (cf. ch. xv) and of the two players who were not named in the warrant, Thomas Powlton and William Pateson, Lord Herbert’s man, nothing or practically nothing further is known.[635] It is possible that the escapades of the company at Norwich and Leicester came, after all, to Worcester’s ears and aroused his displeasure. Visits are recorded to Coventry and Stratford in 1583–4, to Maidstone in 1584–5, to York in March 1585, and thereafter no more. It is also possible that the company passed from Worcester’s service into that of Lord Howard, when the latter became Lord Admiral in 1585. If so, a conveyance by Richard Jones to Edward Alleyn on 3 January 1589 of his share in a stock of apparel, play-books, and so forth, held jointly with Edward and John Alleyn and Robert Browne, must relate, not to a break up of Worcester’s men shortly before the death of the third earl, but to some internal change in the organization of the Admiral’s men.[636] In any case Mr. Fleay’s theory that Worcester’s men, other than Alleyn, became Pembroke’s in 1589 and only joined the Admiral’s in 1594 is quite gratuitous, as there is no evidence of the existence of Pembroke’s men before 1592.[637] Whether there was a Worcester’s company or not from 1585 to 1589, there was certainly one after the accession of the fourth earl. It is traceable at Coventry in 1589–90, at Newcastle in October 1590, at Leicester during the last three months of the same year, at Coventry and Faversham in 1590–1, at Leicester on 26 June 1591 and again in the last three months of the year, at Coventry and Shrewsbury in 1591–2, at Ipswich in 1592–3, twice at Leicester in 1593, both before and after Michaelmas, twice at Bath in 1593–4, at Leicester before Michaelmas in 1595, at Ludlow on 3 December 1595, at Bath in 1595–6, at Leicester on 1 August 1596, at Bristol in August 1598, at York in April 1599, and at Coventry on 3 January 1600 and in 1600–1 and 1601–2.[638]

By the end of 1601 the Earl of Worcester was holding the Mastership of the Horse and other important offices at Court, and may have thought it consonant with his dignity to have London players under his patronage. On 3 January 1602 his company was at Court. On 31 March the Privy Council, after attempting for some years to limit the number of London companies to two, made an order that Oxford’s and Worcester’s men, ‘beinge ioyned by agrement togeather in on companie’, should be allowed to play at the Boar’s Head and nowhere else.[639] In the course of 1602 _How a Man may Choose a Good Wife from a Bad_ was published as played by Worcester’s men. By 17 August the company were in relations, under the style of ‘my lorde of Worsters players’, with Henslowe, who opened an account of advances made for their play-books and apparel, on the same lines as that which he kept during 1597–1603 with the Admiral’s men.[640] An early entry is of 9_s._ for a supper ‘at the Mermayd when we weare at owre a grement’. The account was continued until the spring of 1603, when Henslowe’s famous diary was disused. No theatre is named, but it is probable that, with or without leave from the Privy Council, the company moved to the Rose, which had been vacated by the Admiral’s men on the opening of the Fortune in 1600. Certainly this was so by May 1603, when an acquittance for an advance entered in the account refers to a play to be written for ‘the Earle of Worcesters players at the Rose’.[641] There is no complete list of the company in the diary. The names of those members incidentally mentioned, as authorizing payments or otherwise, are John Duke, Thomas Blackwood, William Kempe, John Thare, John Lowin, Thomas Heywood, Christopher Beeston, Robert Pallant, and a Cattanes whose first name is not preserved. The payees for the performance of 1601–2 were Kempe and Heywood. One Underell was in receipt of wages from the company, together with a tireman, who made purchases of stuffs for them. It is impossible to say which of these men had been with Worcester’s and which with Oxford’s before the amalgamation. Heywood, who was playwright as well as actor, had written for the Admiral’s from 1596 to 1599, and had bound himself to play in Henslowe’s house for two years from 25 March 1598. Pallant had been with Strange’s or the Admiral’s in 1590–1, and Duke, Kempe, and Beeston with the Chamberlain’s in 1598. Since then Kempe had travelled abroad, returning in September 1601. It is little more than a guess that some of these men may have played with Henslowe as Pembroke’s.[642] Several members of the company borrowed money from Henslowe, in some cases before their connexion with the Rose began. Duke had a loan as early as 21 September 1600, and Kempe on 10 March 1602.[643] Blackwood and Lowin borrowed on 12 March 1603 to go into the country with the company.[644] This was, no doubt, when playing in London was suspended owing to the illness of Elizabeth. A loan for a similar purpose was made on the same day to Richard Perkins, and suggests that he too was already one of Worcester’s men. There is, indeed, an earlier note of 4 September 1602 connecting him with one Dick Syferweste, whose fellows were then in the country, while Worcester’s were, of course, at the Rose. But this itself makes it clear that he was interested in a play of Heywood’s, which can hardly be other than that then in preparation at the Rose, and perhaps Syferwest was an unfortunate comrade in Oxford’s or Worcester’s, who had been left out at the reconstruction.[645]

During the seven months of the account Worcester’s men bought twelve new plays. These were:

_A Medicine for a Curst Wife_ (Dekker). _Albere Galles_ (Heywood and Smith). _Marshal Osric_ (Heywood and Smith). _The Three Brothers_ (Smith).[646] _1 Lady Jane_, or, _The Overthrow of Rebels_[647] (Chettle, Dekker, Heywood, Smith, and Webster). _Christmas Comes but Once a Year_ (Chettle, Dekker, Heywood, and Webster). _1 The Black Dog of Newgate_ (Day, Hathaway, Smith, and another). _The Blind Eats Many a Fly_ (Heywood). _The Unfortunate General_ (Day, Hathaway, and Smith). _2 The Black Dog of Newgate_ (Day, Hathaway, Smith, and another). _A Woman Killed with Kindness_ (Heywood). _The Italian Tragedy_ (Smith).

As a rule the price was £6 a play; occasionally £1 or £2 more. Dekker had 10_s._ ‘over & above his price of’ _A Medicine for a Curst Wife_. This had originally been begun for the Admiral’s and was evidently transferred to Worcester’s by arrangement. After buying _2 Black Dog of Newgate_ for £7, the company apparently did not like it, and paid £2 more for ‘adycyones’. It is possible to verify from the purchase of properties the performance of nine of the twelve plays. These are _Albere Galles_ (September), _The Three Brothers_ (October), _Marshal Osric_ (November), _1 Lady Jane_ (November), _Christmas Comes but Once a Year_ (December), _1 Black Dog of Newgate_ (January), _The Unfortunate General_ (January), _2 Black Dog of Newgate_ (February), and _A Woman Killed with Kindness_ (March). The production of this last may, however, have been interfered with by Elizabeth’s death. Two plays of the series are extant, _A Woman Killed with Kindness_, printed in 1607 and described in 1617 as a Queen’s play, and _1 Lady Jane_, which may be reasonably identified with _Sir Thomas Wyatt_, also printed in 1607 as a Queen’s play, and by Dekker and Webster. Dr. Greg regards Mr. Fleay’s identification of _Albere Galles_ with _Nobody and Somebody_ as ‘reasonable’; but it appears to rest on little, except the fact that the latter was also printed as a Queen’s play (S. R. 12 March 1606) and the conjecture that the title of the former might be a corruption of _Archigallo_. Payments were made in respect of a few contemplated plays, which apparently remained incomplete at the end of the season. These were _2 Lady Jane_ (Dekker), an unnamed tragedy by Chettle, an unnamed play by Middleton, and another unnamed play by Chettle and Heywood. The company also produced some plays of earlier date. _Sir John Oldcastle_ was presumably transferred to them from the Admiral’s men, for Dekker had £2 10_s._ in respect of new additions to it in August and September. Heywood also had £1 in September for additions to a play called _Cutting Dick_, as to the origin of which nothing is known; and properties were bought in October for _Byron_[648] and for _Absalom_. Possibly the latter is identical with _The Three Brothers_. Worcester’s men did not perform at Court in 1602–3, but they must have expected a summons, as on 1 January they bought head-tires of one Mrs. Calle ‘for the corte’. Amongst their tradesmen were also Goodman Freshwater, who supplied ‘a canvas sewt and skenes’, apparently for a stage dog, and John Willett, mercer, on whose arrest John Duke found himself in the Clink at the end of the season. Their expenditure was at a fairly high rate, amounting to a total of £234 11_s._ 6_d._ for the seven months. Unlike the Admiral’s men, they spent more on apparel and properties than on play-books. Some of their purchases were costly enough, ‘a grogren clocke, ij veluet gerkens, ij dubletes and ij hed tyres’ from Edward Alleyn for £20, ‘a manes gowne of branshed velluet & a dublett’ from Christopher Beeston for £6, and ‘iiij clothe clockes layd with coper lace’ from Robert Shaw, formerly of the Admiral’s, for £16. On this last transaction they had to allow Henslowe £1 as interest on his money. A ‘flage of sylke’, no doubt for the theatre roof, cost them £1 6_s._ 8_d._[649] In summing his account, Henslowe made various errors, whereby he robbed himself of £1 1_s._ 3_d._, and presented a claim to the company for £140 1_s._ It may be inferred that they had already repaid him £93 12_s._ 3_d._, but of this there is no record in the diary. He prepared an acknowledgement to be signed by all the members of the company, but the only signature actually attached is Blackwode’s.

On 9 May 1603 Henslowe notes ‘Begininge to playe agayne by the Kynges licence & layd out sense for my lord of Worsters men as folowethe’; but the only entry is one of £2 paid in earnest to Chettle and Day for a play of _Shore’s Wife_. If playing was actually resumed, it was not long before the plague drove the companies out of London again, and there is nothing more of Worcester’s men in the diary. Two visits from them are recorded at Leicester in the course of 1603, and two at Coventry and one at Barnstaple, whence they departed without playing, during 1602–3. Early in the new reign the company was taken into the patronage of Queen Anne.[650] This change was probably effected by Christmas, and certainly by 19 February 1604, when John Duke obtained a warrant on account of plays performed before Prince Henry by ‘the Queenes Majesties players’ on the previous 2 and 13 January. The Queen’s men are named in the Privy Council letter permitting the resumption of playing on 9 April 1604, which indicates their house as the Curtain. A list of players is found amongst other ‘officers to the Queene’ receiving four and a half yards of red cloth apiece for the coronation procession of 15 March 1604.[651] The names given are ‘Christopher Beeston, Robert Lee, John Duke, Robert Palante, Richard Purkins, Thomas Haward, James Houlte, Thomas Swetherton, Thomas Grene, and Robert Beeston’. Evidently several leading members had left the company. Kempe was probably dead.[652] Thare and Blackwood were on tour in Germany; Lowin seems to have joined the King’s men. Of Cattanes and Underell no more is known. The same ten names are found in a draft patent for a royal licence to the Queen’s men, of which the text follows:[653]

Iames, by the grace of God kynge of England, Scotland, Fraunce and Irelande, defender of the faith &c: To all Iustices _of peace_, Maiors, Sherryfes, vicechancellours _of any our vniversities_, _Bailiffes_ [Constables], headboroughes, [and other our officers] _Constables_, _and to all other our Officers_, _mynisters_ and lov[e]inge subiectes _to whome it may appertaine_ Greeting. Knowe yee that wee of our speciall grace, certaine knowledge, and mere motion haue lycensed and awthorised, and by these presentes doe lycence and awthorise Thomas Greene, Christopher Beeston, Thomas Hawood, Richard Pyrkins, Robert Pallant, Iohn Duke, Thomas Swynerton, I[e]ames Ho[u]lt, Robert Beeston, & Robert Lee, servauntes vnto our deare_st_ [and welbeloved] wyfe _the_ Queene Anna, with the rest of there Associates, freely to vse and exercise the art and faculty of playinge Comedies, Tragedies, Histories, Enterludes, Morralls, Pastoralls, Stage plaies, and such other lyke as they haue already studied, or hereafter shall vse or stud[d]y, as well for the recreacion of our lovinge subiectes as for our solace and pleasure, when wee shall thinke good to see them, during our pleasure; And the said Comedies, Tragedies, Histories, Enterludes, Morralls, Pastoralls, Stage plaies, and such like, to shew and exercise publikly, when the infeccion of the plague shall decrease to the nomber of thirty weekly within _our Citie_ of London and the liberties _therof_, aswell within there now vsuall Howsen, called the Curtayne, and the Bores head, within our County of Middlesex, [or] _as in_ any other play howse not vsed by others, by the said _Thomas_ Greene elected, or by him hereafter to be builte, and also within any Towne Halls, or Mouthalls, or other convenyent places, within the liberties and freedomes of any Cittie, vniversitie, Towne, or Boroughe whatsoeuer, within our said Realmes and domynyons: Willing and Commaundinge yowe and euerie of yowe, as you tender our pleasure, not only to permytt and suffer them [herein] _to vse and exercise the said art of playinge_ without any your Lettes hinderaunces or molestacions, duringe our said pleasure, but also to be aydinge and assistinge vnto them, yf any wronge be to them offered, and to allow them such [former] curtesies, as hath _heretofore_ bene given vnto any men of theire qualitie: [And also what further favour, any of our subiectes shall shew to theise our deare and loveinge wyfes servauntes, for our sake, wee shall take kyndly at your handes. Yeouen at[ extra spaces ]the[ extra spaces ]daye of In the[ extra spaces ]yere of our Raygne of England: &c:]

_Gyuen &c._

[Endorsed] The Quenes Plaiers.

This draft is undated. But it was prepared during a plague, and located the Queen’s men at the Boar’s Head; and as they may reasonably be supposed to have exchanged the Boar’s Head for the Red Bull (q.v.) before the plague of 1606 began, it may be conjecturally assigned to that of 1603–4. Probably it never passed the Great Seal, for if it had there would have been no necessity, so far as one can judge, for a later patent of 15 April 1609, which is on the rolls, and which closely follows the earlier draft in its terms, except that it omits the reference to the plague, names the Red Bull instead of the Boar’s Head as one of the company’s regular houses, and adds a saving clause for the rights of the Master of the Revels. Here is the text:[654]

[Sidenote: De concessione licentie Thome Greene et aliis.]

Iames by the grace of God &c. To all Iustices, Mayors, Sheriffes, Baylieffes, Constables, head-borrowes and other our Officers and lovinge Subiectes Greetinge. Knowe yee that wee of our especiall grace certayne knowledge and meere mocion have lycenced and aucthorised and by these presentes doe lycence and aucthorize Thomas Greene, Christofer Beeston, Thomas Haywood, Richard Pirkyns, Richard Pallant, Thomas Swinnerton, Iohn Duke, Robert Lee, Iames Haulte, and Roberte Beeston, Servantes to our moste deerely beloved wiefe Queene Anne, and the reste of theire Associates, to vse and exercise the arte and faculty of playinge Comedies, Tragedies, historyes, Enterludes, Moralles, Pastoralles, Stageplayes and suche other like, as they have already studied or heareafter shall vse or studye, aswell for the recreacion of our loving Subiectes as for our solace and pleasure when wee shall thinke good to see them, during our pleasure. And the said Comedies, Tragedies, histories, Enterludes, Moralles, Pastoralles, Stageplayes and suche like to shewe and exercise publiquely and openly to theire beste commoditye, aswell within theire nowe vsuall houses called the Redd Bull in Clarkenwell and the Curtayne in Hallowell, as alsoe within anye Towne halles, Mouthalles and other convenient places within the libertye and freedome of any other Citty, vniuersitye, Towne or Boroughe whatsoever within our Realmes and Domynions. Willing and Commaundinge you and every of you, as you tender our pleasure, not only to permitt and suffer them herein without any your lettes hinderances or molestacions during our said pleasure, but alsoe to be aydinge [and] assistinge vnto them, yf anye wronge be to them offered, and to allowe them suche former curtesies as hath byn given to men of theire place and qualitye, and alsoe what favoure you shall shewe to them for our sake wee shall take kyndly at your handes. Prouided alwaies and our will and pleasure is that all aucthoritye, power, priuiledges, and profyttes whatsoeuer belonginge and properly appertayninge to Master of Revelles in respecte of his Office and everye Cause, Article or graunte contayned within the lettres Patentes or Commission, which have byn heretofore graunted or directed by the late Queene Elizabeth our deere Sister or by our selues to our welbeloued Servant Edmond Tylney Master of the Office of our said Revelles or to Sir George Bucke knighte or to eyther of them in possession or revercion, shalbe remayne and abyde entyer and full in effecte, force, estate and vertue as ample sorte as if this our Commission had never byn made. In witnes wherof &c. Witnes our selfe at Westminster the fifteenth daye of Aprill. per breve de priuato sigillo &c.

It will be observed that the documents quoted disclose no change in the composition of the Queen’s official servants between 1604 and 1609. But the question of _personnel_ is not really quite so simple as this, since the members of a company under a trade agreement were not always the same as those named in the authority under which it performed. Before discussing this complication, it will be simplest first to set out separately the notices of the Queen’s men, which have been preserved in London and in provincial records respectively.

Queen’s men played at Court on 30 December 1605, in Heywood’s _How to Learn of a Woman to Woo_, which is not extant. They played also on 27 December 1606. For both years their payee was, as in 1604, John Duke. During 1607 Dekker and Webster’s _Sir Thomas Wyatt_ and Day, Wilkins, and Rowley’s _Travels of Three English Brothers_ were printed with their name on the title-pages. The latter play, according to the entry of 29 June 1607 in the Stationers’ Register, was acted at the Curtain. But it is shown by a passage in _The Knight of the Burning Pestle_ to have been also on the stage of the Red Bull. In this house Thomas Swinnerton, one of the men named in the patents, acquired an interest between 24 March 1605 and 23 March 1606, and all the evidence is in favour of a continuous sojourn of Queen’s men there until 1617. The first quarto of Heywood’s _A Woman Killed with Kindness_, also printed in 1607, does not bear their name, but it is on that of the ‘third edition’ of 1617. They are not named as playing at Court during the winter of 1607–8, but in the course of 1608 Heywood’s _Rape of Lucrece_ was printed, as played by them at the Red Bull. They gave five plays at Court in the winter of 1608–9, one on 27 December 1609, three on 10 and one on 27 December 1610. Heywood’s _Golden Age_ was printed, as played by them at the Red Bull, in 1611. The Court records of 1611–12 are a little confused.[655] But they appear to have played Cooke’s _City Gallant_ on 27 December, his _Tu Quoque_, which is in fact the same play, on 2 February, to have joined with the King’s men in performances of Heywood’s _Silver Age_ and _Rape of Lucrece_ on 12 and 13 January, and to have played unnamed pieces on 21 and 23 January. From 1609 to 1612 their payee was Thomas Greene. Webster’s _White Devil_ and Dekker’s _If It be not Good, the Devil is in It_, were printed as theirs in 1612, the former with a laudation of the acting of ‘my freind Maister Perkins’, the latter as played at the Red Bull. They did not play at Court during the winter of 1612–13, but did on 24 December 1613 and 5 January 1614. _Tu Quoque_ was printed as theirs in 1614. In the winter of 1614–15 they gave three plays at Court. Heywood’s _Four Prentices of London_ was printed in 1615 as played by them at the Red Bull, and their name is also on _The Honest Lawyer_, registered on 14 August 1615 and printed in 1616. They gave four plays at Court during the winter of 1615–16. For all their Court plays from 1613–16 Robert Lee was payee, but Ellis Worth replaces him for a Somerset House performance before Queen Anne on 17 December 1615. When they were called with other companies before the Privy Council on 29 March 1615 to answer for playing in Lent, they were represented by Lee and Christopher Beeston. The records of the Middlesex justices contain a note of 4 October 1616 that Beeston and the rest of the players at the Red Bull were in arrears to the extent of £5 on an annual rate of £2 agreed to by them for the repair of the highways.

Provincial visits of Queen’s men are recorded in November 1605 at Dover; in 1605 at Leicester; in 1605–6 at Bath, Coventry, Saffron Walden, and Weymouth; on 25 July 1606 at Ipswich; on 4 September 1606 at Ludlow; in 1606 at York; in 1606–7 at Bath (twice), Coventry, Exeter, and Ipswich; on 14 August 1607 at Oxford; on 12 September 1607 at Belvoir (Earl of Rutland’s);[656] in 1607 at Barnstaple, Leicester, and Reading; in 1607–8 at Coventry, Oxford, Reading, and Shrewsbury; on 6 June and 26 September 1608 at Leicester;[657] in 1608–9 at Coventry,[658] Marlborough, and Shrewsbury; between 8 July and 9 August 1609 at Dover; on 15 October 1609 at Norwich; in 1609 at Canterbury; in 1609–10 at Shrewsbury and Stafford; about 23 March 1610 at Maidstone; on 2 November 1610 at Ipswich; on 31 December 1610 at Leicester; in 1610–11 at Shrewsbury and Southampton; on 27 February 1611 (for a week) at Norwich; between 11 April and 9 May and between 29 August and 29 September 1612 at Dover; on 14 June and 26 October 1612 at Leicester; in 1611–12 at Saffron Walden; in 1612–13 at Barnstaple, Coventry (perhaps twice), and Ipswich; on 18 February 1613 at Marlborough; on 16 March 1613 at Leicester; between 13 April and 15 May 1613 at Dover; on 2 November 1613 at Marlborough; on 22 December 1613 at Leicester; in 1613–14 at Saffron Walden, Marlborough, Oxford, and Shrewsbury; on 27 April 1614 (for three days) at Norwich;[659] between 3 and 29 September 1614 at Dover; in 1614–15 at Barnstaple and Doncaster (perhaps twice); on 15 April 1615 at Coventry; in April or May 1615 at Leicester; on 6 May 1615 at Norwich;[660] on 16 October 1615 and again later in 1615 and on 22 February 1616 at Leicester;[661] on 7 November 1615 at Marlborough; in 1615–16 at Barnstaple, Dunwich (thrice), Southampton, and Weymouth; in January 1616 at Nottingham; between 20 January and 17 February 1616 and between 11 May and 8 June at Dover; on 17 February 1616 at Coventry; on 22 February 1616 at Leicester; between 1 and 6 April (four days) and on 29 May 1616 at Norwich;[662] on 26 October 1616 at Marlborough; and on 6 February 1617 and again later in 1617 at Leicester.[663]

There were thus tours in each year, which sometimes extended over periods during which the London theatres must have been open. The Leicester notices of 1608, 1615, and 1617 suggest that more than one company was at work, and the explanation certainly is that some of the players named in the patent, instead of joining the London organization, had recourse to making up companies of their own for provincial purposes. Of this there is further evidence. The Southampton archives contain a copy of the following warrant from Queen Anne herself, dated on 7 March 1606:[664]

‘Warrant from the Queenes Majestie of her Players. Anna Regina. Anne by the grace of God Queene of England, Scottland, Fraunce, and Ireland. To all Justices of the Peace, Maiors, Sheriffs, Bayliffes, and all other his Majestes Officers and loving subiectes to whom yt shall or may appertaine greetinge, Know yee that of our speciall grace and favour, Wee are well pleased to authorize under our hand and signett the bearers hereof our sworne servauntes Robert Lee, Martin Statier and Roger Barfield with theyr fellowes and associates being our Commedians vppon theyr humble Suite unto us for theyr better mainetenaunce, Yf att annie time they should have occasion to travell into anie parte of his Majestes Dominions to playe Tragedyes, historyes, commedies and pastoralls as well in anie about the Cittye of London, and in all other cittyes vniversities and townes at all time anie times (the time of divine seruice onlye excepted) Theise are therefore to will and requier you uppon the sight hereofe quiettlye and favourably with your best favours, to permitt and suffer them, to use theyr sayd qualitye within your Jurisdiccions without anie of your molestacions or troubles, and also to affourd them your Townehalls and all other such places as att anie time have been used by men of theyr qualitye, That they maye be in the better readiness for our seruise when they shalbe thereunto commaunded, Nott doubtinge butt that our sayd servauntes shall find the more favour for our sake in your best assistaunce, Wherein you shall doe unto us acceptable pleasure. Given att the Court of Whitehall, the seaventh daye of Marche 1605.’

Of these three men, Lee, and Lee alone, appears in the London lists of 1603, 1604, and 1609. Of Barfield’s career nothing more is known. Martin Slater, whose name can be divined under that of Statier, had left the Admiral’s in 1597. He was probably in Scotland during 1599, and if so his patronage by Anne may be analogous to the patronage by James, which brought Laurence Fletcher’s name into the King’s men’s patent. In 1603 he was payee for Hertford’s men. Presumably the enterprise of 1606 did not last long, for in the spring of 1608 Slater became manager for the King’s Revels. His place in the provinces may have been taken by Thomas Swinnerton, who was leading a company of Queen’s men at Coventry in 1608–9, and whose departure from the London company is perhaps indicated by the fact that at about the same time he sold a share, which he had held in the house of the Red Bull. Swinnerton was travelling again in 1614–16 and using an exemplification of the patent of 1609. In 1616 he was accompanied by Robert Lee, who for two years before had been acting as payee for the London company. Lee came again with the exemplification to Norwich on 31 May 1617, and it was then noted to have been taken out on 7 January 1612. A few days later, on 4 June 1617, a copy was entered in the Norwich court books of a warrant by the Lord Chamberlain of 16 July 1616, condemning the use of such exemplifications, and specifying amongst others two taken out by Thomas Swinnerton and Martin Slater, ‘beinge two of the Queens Maiesties company of Playors hauing separated themselves from their said Company’.[665] Slater had, therefore, returned to the provincial field, and there were now two travelling companies of Queen’s men. I take it that in 1617 the Lord Chamberlain succeeded in suppressing them, and that the Queen’s men who continued to appear in the provinces up to Anne’s death on 2 March 1619 were the London company.[666] Lee joined the Queen’s Revels as reorganized under a licence of 31 October 1617. Slater, about the same time, joined the Children of Bristol, for whom, with John Edmonds and Nathaniel Clay, he got letters of assistance in April 1618. In these all three are described as her Majesty’s servants. Swinnerton apparently succeeded in keeping on foot a company of his own, which visited Leicester in 1619.[667] The Bristol company was in fact under Anne’s patronage, but Lee and Swinnerton, no less than Slater and Edmonds, remained technically the Queen’s servants, and are included with the London men in a list of the players who received mourning at her funeral on 13 May 1619.[668] These were Robert Lee, Richard Perkins, Christopher Beeston, Robert Pallant, Thomas Heywood, James Holt, Thomas Swinnerton, Martin Slater, Ellis Wroth, John Comber, Thomas Basse, John Blaney, William Robinson, John Edmonds, Thomas Drewe, Gregory Sanderson, and John Garret.

The list of seventeen names includes seven of the ten patentees of 1609. I do not know what had become of John Duke and Robert Beeston. Thomas Greene had died in August 1612, having made on 25 July a will, amongst the witnesses to which were Christopher Beeston, Heywood, and Perkins. The disposal of his property led many years afterwards to a lawsuit, which gives valuable information as to both the _personnel_ and the organization of the London company. After providing for his family and making some small legacies, including one to John Cumber, and 40_s._ to ‘my fellowes of the house of the Redd Bull, to buy gloves for them’, he left the residue to his widow and executrix, Susanna Greene, formerly wife of one Browne.[669] In June 1613 she took a third husband, James Baskervile. The following is her account in 1623 of certain transactions with the company. Shortly before Greene’s death had died George Pulham, a ‘half sharer’ in the company, which is described as being in 1612 ‘the companie of the actors or players of the late queenes majestie Queene Anne, then vsuallie frequentinge and playinge att the signe of the Redd Bull in St. Johns Street, in Clerkenwell parishe, in the county of Middlesex’. His representatives received £40 from the company in respect of his half-share. This was under an agreement formerly made amongst the company ‘concerninge the part and share of euerie one of the sharers and half sharers of the said companie according to the rate and proporcion of their shares or half shares in that behalfe’. Under the same agreement Susanna Greene, whose husband was ‘one of the principall and cheif persons of the said companie, and a full adventurer, storer and sharer of in and amongst them’, claimed £80, together with £37 laid out by him before his death in ‘diuers necessarie prouisions’ for the company. In order to get satisfaction she had to appeal to Viscount Lisle, Chamberlain of the Queen’s Household, ‘who hadd a kind of gouernment and suruey ouer the said players’. It was arranged that Mrs. Greene should receive a half-share in the profits until the debt was paid. By the time, however, of her marriage with Baskervile, she had only received £6. In June 1615 negotiations took place between the Baskerviles and the company, who then included Worth, Perkins, and Christopher Hutchinson, _alias_ Beeston, by which the Baskerviles agreed to invest £57 10_s._ in the enterprise and to accept in discharge of their claims a pension for their joint lives of 1_s._ 8_d._ a day ‘for euerye of sixe daies in the weeke wherin they should play’. The company defaulted, and in June 1616 a second settlement was made, whereby the Baskerviles invested another £38, a further pension of 2_s._ a day was established, and the life of Susan’s son, Francis Browne (or Baskervile), was substituted for her husband’s. The players were Christopher Beeston, Thomas Heywood, Ellis Worth, John Cumber, John Blaney, Francis Walpole, Robert Reynolds, William Robins, Thomas Drewe, and Emanuel Read.[670] Again they defaulted, and moreover fell into arrear for the wages of another of Susan Baskervile’s sons, William Browne, who played with them as a hired man. A third settlement, reassuring the pensions, and substituting William Browne for Francis, who was now dead, was made on 3 June 1617, when the company were ‘now comme, or shortlie to comme from the said Playhowse called the Redd Bull to the Playhowse in Drurie Lane called the Cockpitt’; and to this the parties, so far as the company were concerned, were Beeston, Heywood, Worth, Cumber, Walpole, Blaney, Robins, and Drewe. Apparently Reynolds and Read, and also Perkins and Thomas Basse, although their names were recited in the deed, refused to seal. Some further light is thrown on this by allegations of Worth, Cumber, and Blaney, in opposition to those of Mrs. Baskervile in 1623. The company of 1617 contained some members ‘new come into’ it, ‘which were of other companyes at the tyme of graunting the first annuity’. The terms of the agreement were carefully looked into, and were found to bind the company to procure the subscription of any future new members to its terms. This was inconsistent with a proviso of 1616 that the pensions should only last so long as four of those then signing should play together; and therefore, while some of the company signed and gave bonds by way of security on an oral promise by Mrs. Baskervile that this proviso should in fact hold good, others refused to do so. These were the wiser, for in 1623, when Worth, Cumber, and Blaney were the only three of the 1617 signatories who still held together, Mrs. Baskervile sued them on their bonds, and although they applied to Chancery for equitable enforcement of the alleged oral promise, Chancery held that the agreement, being made between players, was ‘vnfitt to be releeued or countenaunced in a courte of equitie’. In some other respects the players’ account of the transactions differs from Mrs. Baskervile’s, and in particular they alleged that the Baskerviles had secured their interest by bribing Beeston, to whom ‘your oratours and the rest of thier fellowes at that tyme and long before and since did put the managing of thier whole businesses and affaires belonging vnto them ioyntly as they were players in trust’, so that she knew well that whatever he promised the rest ‘would allowe of the same’. This Mrs. Baskervile repudiates as regards the bribe, and does not wholly accept as regards Beeston’s position in the company, although she admits that both before and after her husband’s death they ‘did putt much affiance in the said Huttchinson alias Beeston, concerninge the managing of their affaires’.

I am afraid that Beeston’s character does not come altogether unstained out of another suit brought by one John Smith in the Court of Requests during 1619 for a sum of £46 5_s._ 8_d._ in respect of ‘tinsell stuffes and other stuffe’ delivered on Beeston’s order to Worth, Perkins, Cumber, and others at the Red Bull between 27 June 1612 and 23 February 1617, since when they had ‘fallen at variance and strife amongst themselves and separated and devided themselves into other companies.’ He accuses these four men of conspiring to keep him out of payment. Worth, Perkins, and Cumber asserted that the liability was Beeston’s. The company had ‘required divers officers and that every of the said actors should take vpon them some place & charge’. Beeston was charged with the provision of furniture and apparel, which needed ‘a thriueing man & one that was of abilitie & meanes’. He was to ‘defaulke outt of the colleccions and gatheringes which were made continually when-soeuer any playe was acted a certen some of money as a comon stock.’ to pay for purchases out of this, and to account to the company for the balance. No one else was privy to his transactions. The arrangement lasted for seven or eight years, and they believe that he ‘much enritched himself and rendered a false account for expenditure of £400. He is now conspiring with Smith and hoping for a chance to ‘exclayme on’ them. If he incurred debt, he had certainly taken funds to meet it. From the beginning he had ‘a greater care for his owne privatt gaine’. Now he has ‘of late given over his coate & condicion & separated and devided himself’ from the company, carrying away all the furniture and apparel. Beeston says that he has long been ill. On Queen Anne’s death he left the company and joined Prince Charles’s men. The Queen’s had ten sharers, and sometimes one, sometimes another, provided the clothes. He denies liability. Several witnesses, including William Freshwater, merchant tailor and ‘a workman to the said company’, spoke to Beeston’s liability.[671] One John King says that the company allowed Beeston ‘one half of the profitt that came of the gallyryes’, and that they began to break up about three years ago. At a hearing on 16 June 1620 Beeston got the case deferred on the ground that Emanuel Read, a material witness, was in Ireland until Michaelmas. Elizabeth, the wife of Richard Perkins, said that Read had been there for two or three years, was over at Easter, and was not expected again. Smith got in a blow at Beeston’s credit with an affidavit that he had said ‘it was nothing for him to put in a false answere into the Court of Requestes, for that it was not punishable’. The result of the suit is unknown.

We may perhaps reach the following conclusions as to the composition of the London company after the deaths in 1612 of Pulham, presumably a recent comer since 1609, and Greene. Their nucleus consisted of two of the patented men, Christopher Beeston and Heywood, who probably remained with them throughout. Of the other patentees, Swinnerton kept to the provinces. Lee had rejoined them from the provinces by 1613 or 1614, and went back to the provinces about May 1616. Perkins was apparently not of their number in June 1616, but was in June 1617. Holt is not traceable; perhaps he also went to the provinces. Pallant joined the Lady Elizabeth’s in 1614 and had passed to Prince Charles’s by 1616. All these five men, however, appear with Beeston and Heywood as Anne’s servants at her funeral. Here too are Slater and Edmonds, then of the Bristol, and apparently never of the London company; also Worth, Cumber, Blaney, Drewe, and Robinson, presumably identical with Robins, all of whom had joined the London company by June 1616, Basse, formerly of the Lady Elizabeth’s, who joined it between June 1616 and June 1617, and Gregory Sanderson and John Garret, who, if they belonged to the London company at all, must have joined it after June 1617.[672] The list does not contain the names of two men who belonged to the company in 1616 and 1617. One was Emanuel Read, who joined it from the Lady Elizabeth’s in 1613 or later; the other, Robert Reynolds, whose attachment to the company must have been rather loose, as he was travelling in Germany in July 1616 and again in 1618. Evidently, as the lawsuits suggest, the organization of the Queen’s men during its later years was rather unstable. Into its attempts to hold together after Anne’s death and the after-careers of its members, it is not necessary to go.

In June 1617 the Queen’s were come, or shortly to come, from the Red Bull to the Cockpit. In fact they were at the Cockpit, then a new house, on 4 March 1617, when it was sacked by prentices in a Shrovetide riot.[673] But they may have returned to the Red Bull for a time, while the Cockpit was being repaired, as they did again after they lost it on the separation from Christopher Beeston, who seems to have been its owner, in 1619.

xxii. THE DUKE OF LENNOX’S MEN

Ludovic Stuart, s. of Esmé, 1st Duke of Lennox; cousin and until 1594 heir presumptive of James; _nat._ 29 Sept. 1574; succ. as 2nd Duke, 26 May 1583; Gentleman of Bedchamber, 1603; Earl of Richmond, 6 Oct. 1613; Lord Steward, Nov. 1615; Duke of Richmond, 17 Aug. 1623; o.s.p. 16 Feb. 1624.

The first notice of Lennox’s men is on 13 October 1604, when he gave an open warrant of assistance in their behalf addressed to mayors, justices, and other local officers, some of whom had apparently refused the company permission to play (App. D, no. cxxxvii). On 16 March 1605 Francis Henslowe gave his uncle Philip a bond of £60 to observe articles of an agreement he had entered into with John Garland and Abraham Savere ‘his ffellowes, servantes to the most noble Prince the duke of Lennox’; and on 1 March 1605 Savere had given Francis Henslowe a power of attorney to recover £40 on a forfeited bond from John Garland of ‘the ould forde’, securing delivery of a warrant made to Savere by Lennox (_Henslowe Papers_, 62). Some other traces point to a connexion between Savere and Francis Henslowe, which was ended by the latter’s death in the middle of 1606 (Henslowe, ii. 277), and an undated loan of £7 by Philip Henslowe to his nephew ‘to goyne with owld Garlland and Symcockes and Saverey when they played in the duckes nam at ther laste goinge owt’ (Henslowe, i. 160) makes it possible to add one more to the list of the company. It does not seem to have played in London, but is traceable at Canterbury in 1603–4, Barnstaple, Coventry, and Norwich in 1604–5, and Coventry again in 1607–8. Both Garland and Henslowe had been Queen Elizabeth’s men, and it is possible that, when these men were left stranded by her death in 1603, they found a new patron in Lennox. John Garland had joined the Duke of York’s men by 1610, and it has been suggested that this company may have been a continuation of Lennox’s.

xxiii. THE DUKE OF YORK’S (PRINCE CHARLES’S) MEN

_The Duke of York’s Men (1608–12); The Prince’s Men (1612–16)_

Charles, 2nd s. of James I; _nat._ 19 Nov. 1600; Duke of Albany, 23 Dec. 1600; Duke of York, 16 Jan. 1605; Prince of Wales, 3 Nov. 1616; afterwards (27 Mar. 1625) Charles I.

[_Bibliographical Note._--The documents bearing on the relations of the Duke of York’s men with Alleyn are printed by W. W. Greg in _Henslowe Papers_ (1907); the Bill and Answers in the equity suit of _Taylor v. Hemynges_ (1612) by C. W. Wallace in _Globe Theatre Apparel_ (p.p., 1909).]

A company under the patronage of Prince Charles, then Duke of York, first makes its appearance during 1608, and in the provinces. A visit of ‘the younger princes’ men to Ipswich is recorded on 20 October. During 1608–9 the company was also at Bath, and it is at least possible that it was ‘the Princes players of the White Chapple London’ rewarded at Leicester in 1608. The Boar’s Head (q.v.) may have been roughly spoken of as in Whitechapel, and although there is no proof that the Duke of York’s men occupied it after the Queen’s moved to the Red Bull, there is nothing to connect them during the earlier years of their career with any of the better-known London houses. On 30 March 1610 they received, like other London companies, a patent, of which the following are the terms:[674]

[Sidenote: De licentia agendi Tragedias &c. pro Johanne Garland & aliis.]

Iames by the grace of God &c. To all Iustices, Mayors, Sheriffes, Baylies, Constables, hedboroughes and other our loveing subiectes and officers greetinge. Knowe ye that wee of our especyall grace, certen knowledge, and meere mocion haue lycensed and aucthorized, and by theis presentes doe lycence and authorise Iohn Garland, Willyam Rowley, Thomas Hobbes, Robert Dawes, Ioseph Taylor, Iohn Newton, and Gilbert Reason, alreadye sworne servauntes to our deere sonne the Duke of York and Rothesay, with the rest of their company, to vse and exercise the arte and quality of playing Comedyes, Tragedies, histories, Enterludes, Moralles, Pastoralles, Stagplayes, and such other like as they haue already studdied or hereafter shall studye or vse, aswell for the recreacion of our loveing subiectes, as for our solace and pleasure when wee shall thinke good to see them, and the said Enterludes or other to shewe and execise publiquely to their best aduantage and commoditie, aswell in and about our Cittye of London in such vsuall howses as themselues shall provide, as alsoe within anye Townehalles, Mootehalles, Guildhalles, Schoolehowses, or other convenient places within the lybertye and freedome of any other Cittye, vniversity, Towne, or Boroughe whatsoever within our Realmes and Domynions, willing and comaundinge you and everie of you, as you tender our pleasure, not onlye to permitt and suffer them herein without any your lettes, hindraunces, molestacions or disturbances during our said pleasure, but alsoe to be ayding and assisting vnto them, if any wronge be vnto them offered, and to allowe them such former curtesies as hath byne given to men of their place and quality, And alsoe what further favor you shall shewe them for our sake wee shall take yt kyndlye at your handes. Prouided alwaies and our will and pleasure is that all authority, power, priviledg, and proffitt whatsoever belonging and properly apperteyninge to the Master of our Revelles in respect of his Office and everie article and graunt contayned within the lettres patentes or Commission, which haue byne heretofore graunted or directed by the late Queene Elizabeth our deere sister or by our selfe to our welbeloved servantes Edmond Tillney Master of the said Office of the said Revelles, or to Sir George Bucke knight, or to eyther of them, in possession or Revercion, shall remayne and abyde entire and in full force, estate and vertue and in as ample sort as if this our commission had never bene made. Witnes our selfe att Westminster the thirtith daye March. per breve de priuato sigillo &c.

The only member of the Duke of York’s men, of whose previous history anything is known, is John Garland. He was of the Duke of Lennox’s men in 1605. Perhaps the whole company was taken over from the Duke of Lennox. Mr. Fleay says that the Duke of York’s men arose ‘immediately after the disappearance of the King’s Revels Children’,[675] and appears to suggest a continuity between the two companies; but he must have overlooked the fact that the Duke of York’s were already performing in the provinces, while the King’s Revels were in all probability still at Whitefriars.[676]

Some reconstruction doubtless took place about the date of the issue of the patent, for the pleadings in the equity suit of _Taylor v. Hemynges_ in 1612 recites an agreement of 15 March 1610, which provided for the continuance of fellowship during three years and the forfeiture of the interest in a common stock of ‘apparrell goodes money and other thinges’ of any member, who left without the consent of the rest. It was made between Garland on the one side and Taylor, Rowley, Dawes, and Hobbes on the other, and these four gave Garland a bond of £200 as security. On 8 May the five bought some ‘olde clothes or apparrell which formerly weare players clothes or apparrell’ from John Heminges of the King’s men for £11, and gave a bond of £20 for payment. Apparently payment had not been made by Easter 1611, when Taylor ‘by the licence and leave of his said Master the Duke vpon some speciall reason ... did give over and leave to play in the company’. Under the agreement the apparel passed to his fellows, and according to Taylor they paid Heminges the £11 or otherwise satisfied him, and then ‘havinge conceaued some vndeserued displeasure’ against Taylor for leaving them, conspired with Heminges to defraud him of £20 on the bond. According to Heminges no payment was made, and he sued Taylor as ‘the best able to paye and discharge the same’. Taylor was arrested and in February 1612 brought his suit in equity to stay the common law proceedings. The result is unknown.

The company frequently played at Court, but, as it would seem, only before the younger members of the royal family. Their first appearance was before Charles and Elizabeth on 9 February 1610. In 1610–11 they were at Saffron Walden. They came before Charles and Elizabeth on 12 and 20 December 1610 and 15 January 1611, and before Henry, Charles, and Elizabeth on 12 and 28 January and 13 and 24 February 1612. On this last occasion they played William Rowley’s _Hymen’s Holiday, or Cupid’s Vagaries_. After Henry’s death, on 7 November 1612, they became entitled to the designation of the Prince’s players. In 1612–13 they were at Barnstaple and Ipswich. On 2 and 10 March 1613 they gave the two parts of _The Knaves_, perhaps by Rowley, before Charles, Elizabeth, and the Palsgrave. In 1613–14 they were at Barnstaple, Dover, Saffron Walden, and Coventry. They were not at Court for the winter of 1613–14. In November 1614 they were at Oxford, Leicester, and Nottingham. At the Christmas of 1614–15 they gave six plays before Charles, and on 11 February they were at Youghal in Ireland. Ten days later R. A.’s _The Valiant Welshman_ was entered and in the course of the year published as theirs. Their leader seems to have been Rowley. He both wrote plays for them and acted as payee for all their court rewards from 1610 to 1614. In 1611 they lost Taylor and in 1614 Dawes to the Lady Elizabeth’s men; and these transferences seem to have led to a temporary amalgamation of the two companies, which Mr. Fleay and Dr. Greg place in 1614, but for which their distinct appearances at Court in the following winter suggest 1615 as the more likely date.[677] On 29 March 1615 William Rowley and John Newton were called with representatives of other companies before the Privy Council to answer for playing in Lent. No separate representation of the Lady Elizabeth’s is indicated by the list. In 1614–15 the Prince’s were at Norwich, Coventry, Winchester, and Barnstaple. In the winter of 1615–16 they gave four plays before Prince Charles, and the payee was not Rowley, but Alexander Foster, formerly of the Lady Elizabeth’s. Rosseter’s patent of 3 June 1615 for a second Blackfriars theatre contemplates its use by the Prince’s men and the Lady Elizabeth’s, as well as by the Queen’s Revels, and Field’s _Amends for Ladies_ was actually played in the Blackfriars, probably in this house before it was suppressed, by the two first-named companies. After Henslowe’s death on 6 January 1616, the combination, whatever its nature, was probably broken up, and separate companies of Prince’s men and Lady Elizabeth’s men were again formed. But both of the original companies continued to be represented in one which remained at the Hope. This is shown by an agreement entered into with Alleyn and Meade on 20 March 1616, and signed in the presence of Robert Daborne and others by William Rowley, Robert Pallant, Joseph Taylor, Robert Hamlen, John Newton, William Barksted, Thomas Hobbes, Antony Smith, William Penn, and Hugh Attwell.[678] This recites that the signatories and others had given bonds to Henslowe and Meade for the repayment of sums lent them by Henslowe, for a stock of apparel worth £400, and for the fulfilment of certain Articles of Agreement; and that at their entreaty Alleyn had agreed to accept £200 in discharge of their full liabilities. They covenant to pay the £200 by making over to Alleyn one-fourth of the daily takings of the whole galleries at the Hope or any house in which they may play, and to carry out the Articles with Alleyn and Meade by so playing. Alleyn and Meade agree to cancel the bonds when the £200 is paid, except any which may relate to private debts of any of the men to Henslowe, and also to make over to them any apparel which they had received from Henslowe, Alleyn, or Meade. The rights of Alleyn and Meade against any bondsmen not taking part in the new agreement are to remain unaffected. That the signatories to this document used the name of Prince Charles’s men seems pretty clear from the reappearance of several of their names in two later lists of the Prince’s men, one in Rowley and Middleton’s _Mask of Heroes_ (1619), the other in the records of King James’s funeral on 20 May 1625.[679] This last contains also the name of Gilbert Reason, who is not one of the signatories of 1616, but was in that year travelling the provinces with an irregularly obtained exemplification of the 1610 patent.[680] An undated letter from Pallant, Rowley, Taylor, Newton, Hamlen, Attwell, and Smith to Alleyn, which may belong to some time in 1616 or 1617, shows that, in spite of the easy terms which the company seem to have received by the agreement, the subsequent relations were not altogether smooth. They write to excuse their removal from the Bankside, where they had stood the intemperate weather, until ‘more intemperate Mr. Meade thrust vs over, taking the day from vs w^{ch} by course was ours’. They ask Alleyn to find them a house and in the meantime to lend them £40, on the security that ‘we haue to receiue from the court (w^{ch} after Shrouetide wee meane to pursue w^{th} best speede) a great summe of monie’, amounting to more than twice the loan desired.[681] It is to be presumed that the ‘course’ to which they refer was some distribution of days between playing and bear-baiting. In 1619 the company was joined by Christopher Beeston, formerly of the Queen’s, and his house of the Cockpit became available for their use.

xxiv. THE LADY ELIZABETH’S MEN

Elizabeth, e. d. of James I; _nat. c._ 19 Aug. 1596; m. Frederick V, Elector Palatine (Palsgrave), 14 Feb. 1613; Queen of Bohemia, 7 Nov. 1619; known as Queen of Hearts; _ob._ 13 Feb. 1662.

[_Bibliographical Note._--Nearly all the material is to be found among the extracts from the Dulwich MSS. printed by W. W. Greg in _Henslowe Papers_ (1907) and summarized in Henslowe, ii. 137.]

This company seems to have come into existence in 1611 under the following patent of 27 March:[682]

[Sidenote: De licencia speciali pro Iohanne Townsend & Iosepho Moore & aliis.]

Iames by the grace of god &c. To all Iustices, Maiors, Sheriffes, Bailiffes, Constables hedborroughes, and other our lovinge Subiectes and officers greetinge. Knowe ye that wee of our especiall grace, certayne knowledge, and meere mocon have licenced and authorised, and by these presente do licence and authorize Iohn Townsend and Joseph Moore, sworne servantes to our deere daughter the ladie Elizabeth, with the rest of theire Companie, to vse and exercise the Arte and qualitie of playinge Comedies, histories, Enterludes, Morralls, pastoralls, stage playes, and such other like as they haue alreadie studied or hereafter shall studie or vse, aswell for the recreacion of our lovinge Subiectes, as for our solace and pleasure when wee shall thinke good to see them, And the said enterludes or other to shewe and exercise publiquelie to their best commoditie in and about our Cittie of London in such vsuall howses as themselues shall prouide, And alsoe within anie Towne halles, mootehalles, Guyld-halles, Schoolehowses or other convenient places within the libertye and freedome of anie other Cittie, vniuersitie, Towne or Burroughe whatsoeuer within our Realmes and Domynions, willinge and comaundinge you and everie of you, as you tender our pleasure, not onelie to permitt and suffer them herein without any your lettes, hinderances, molestacions or disturbances during our said pleasure, but alsoe to be ayding and assistinge vnto them, if anie wronge be vnto them offred, And to allowe them such former curtesies as hath byne given to men of their place and qualitie, And alsoe what further fauour you shall shewe them for our sake wee shall take yt kindelie at your handes. Prouided alwayes and our will and pleasure is that all authoritie, power, priveledge, and profitt whatsoever belonginge or properlie apperteyning to the maister of the Revelles in respecte of his office and euerie Article and graunte conteyned within the letters Pattentes or Comission, which haue byne heretofore graunted or directed by the late queene Elizabeth our deere sister or by our selfe to our welbeloued Servantes Edwarde Tylney Maister of the saide Revells, or to Sir George Bucke knighte, or to eyther of them, in possession or reuercon, shall remayne and abide entire and in full force, effecte and vertue, and in as ample sorte as if this our Comission had neuer byne made In witnesse wherof &c. Witnesse our selfe at Westminster the seaven and Twentith daye of Aprill. per breve de priuato sigillo &c.

The company is first traceable in the country, at Bath during 1610–11 and at Ipswich on 28 May 1611. The names of Moore and Townsend render possible its identification with an unnamed company, which on 29 August 1611 gave duplicate bonds of £500 to Henslowe for the observance of certain articles of agreement of the same date. Unfortunately the articles themselves are not preserved, but it is likely that they contained an arrangement for the housing and financing of the company by Henslowe.[683] The signatories to both bonds include John Townsend, Joseph Taylor, William Ecclestone, Thomas Hunt, John Rice, Robert Hamlen, Joseph Moore, William Carpenter, Thomas Basse, and Alexander Foster. To these one adds Giles Gary and William Barksted and the other Francis Waymus. The names recited in the bodies of the documents agree with the signatures, except that Gary appears in both. Several of these men now come into London theatrical history for the first time, but Gary is probably the Giles Cary who with Barksted played in _Epicoene_ for the Queen’s Revels in 1609, Taylor came from the Duke of York’s, and Rice from the King’s. One Hunt, whose Christian name is unknown, was with the Admiral’s in 1601. Alexander Foster received payment on behalf of the Lady Elizabeth’s men for three plays given at Court during the Christmas of 1611–12. The first was on 19 January 1612 before Elizabeth and Henry; the second was _The Proud Maid’s Tragedy_, on 25 February before James; and the third was on 11 March, again before Elizabeth and Henry. In 1611–12 the company were at Dover and Coventry, and on 30 July 1612 at Leicester. On 20 October they played before Elizabeth and the Palsgrave, shortly after the latter’s arrival in England, in the Cockpit. This was perhaps the play paid for out of the private funds of Elizabeth, as the result of a wager with Mr. Edward Sackville.[684] During Christmas they played twice before Charles, Elizabeth, and the Palsgrave, showing Marston’s _The Dutch Courtesan_ on 25 February and _Raymond Duke of Lyons_ on 1 March. For 1612–13 Joseph Taylor was payee.

The names of Taylor and Ecclestone are found in another document in the Dulwich collection, which pretty clearly belongs to the Lady Elizabeth’s men, and which shows that about the spring of 1613 their business relations with Henslowe entered upon a somewhat troubled phase. This is shown by internal evidence to have been written in the course of 1615. It is here reproduced:[685]

Articles of [ ]uaunce against M[ ] Hinchlowe

Imprimis in March 1612 vppon M^r. Hynchlowes Joyninge Companes with M^r. Rosseter the Companie borrowed 80^[ll] of one M^r. Griffin and the same was put into M^r. Hinchlowes debt which made itt sixteene score poundes; whoe [a]fter the receipt of the same or most parte thereof in March 1613 hee broke the saide Comp[any a]gaine and Ceazed all the stocke, vnder Culler to satisfie what remayned due to [him]; yet perswaded M^r. Griffyne afterwardes to arest the Companie for his 80^{ll}, whoe are still in daunger for the same; Soe nowe there was in equitie due to the Companie 80^{ll}:

Item M^r. Hinchlowe having lent one Taylor 30^{ll} and 20^{ll} to one Baxter fellowes of the Companie Cunninglie put theire said privat debts into the generall accompt by which meanes hee is in Conscience to allowe them 50^{ll}:

Item havinge the stock of Apparell in his handes to secure his debt he sould tenn poundes worth of ould apparrell out of the same without accomptinge or abatinge for the same; heare growes due to the Companie 10^{ll}:

Also vppon the departure of one Eglestone a ffellowe of the Companie hee recovered of him 14^{ll} towardes his debt which is in Conscience likewise to bee allowed to the Companie 14^{ll}:

In March 1613 hee makes vpp a Companie and buies apparrell of one Rosseter to the value of 63^{ll}, and valued the ould stocke that remayned in his handes at 63^{ll}, likewise they vppon his word acceptinge the same at that rate, which being prized by M^r. Daborne iustlie, betweene his partner Meade and him, Came but to 40^{ll}: soe heare growes due to the Companie 23^{ll}:

Item hee agrees with the said Companie that they should enter bond to plaie with him for three yeares att such house and houses as hee shall appointe and to allowe him halfe galleries for the said house and houses, and the other halfe galleries towardes his debt of 126^{ll}, and other such moneys as hee should laie out for playe apparrell duringe the space of the said 3 yeares, agreeinge with them in Consideration theareof to seale each of them a bond of 200^{ll} to find them a Convenient house and houses, and to laie out such moneies as fower of the sharers should think fitt for theire vse in apparrell, which att the 3 yeares, being paid for, to be deliuered to the sharers; whoe accordinglie entered the said bondes; but M^r. Henchlowe and M^r. Mead deferred the same, an[d] in Conclusion vtterly denied to seale att all.

Item M^r. Hinchlowe havinge promised in Consideracion of the Companies lying still one daie in forteene for his baytinge to give them 50^s, hee havinge denied to bee bound as aforesaid gave them onlie 40^s, and for that M^r. Feild would not Consent therevnto hee gave him soe much as his share out of 50^{ll} would have Come vnto; by which meanes hee is dulie indebted to the Companie x^{ll}:

In June followinge the said agreement, hee brought in M^r. Pallant and short[l]ie after M^r. Dawes into the said Companie, promisinge one 12^s a weeke out of his part of the galleries, and the other 6^s a weeke out of his parte of the galleries; and because M^r. Feild was thought not to bee drawne therevnto, hee promissed him six shillinges weekelie alsoe; which in one moneth after vnwilling to beare soe greate a Charge, he Called the Companie together, and told them that this 24^s was to bee Charged vppon them, threatninge those which would not Consent therevnto to breake the Companie and make vpp a newe without the[m]. Whearevppon knowinge hee was not bound, the three-quarters sharers advauncinge them selves to whole shares Consented therevnto, by which meanes they are out of purse 30^{ll}, and his parte of the galleries bettred twise as much 30^{ll}:

Item havinge 9 gatherers more then his due itt Comes to this yeare from the Companie 10^{ll}:

Item the Companie paid for [Arra]s and other properties 40^{ll}, which Mr. Henchlow deteyneth 40^{ll}:

In Februarie last 1614 perceav[ing]e the Companie drewe out of his debt and Called vppon him for his accompts hee brooke the Companie againe, by withdrawinge the hired men from them, and selles theire stocke (in his hands) for 400^{ll}, givinge vnder his owne hand that hee had receaved towardes his debt 300^{ll}:

Which with the iuste and Conscionable allowances before named made to the Companie, which Comes to ... 267^{ll}, makes 567^{ll}:

Articles of oppression against M^r. Hinchlowe.

Hee Chargeth the stocke with ... 600^{ll}: and odd, towardes which hee hath receaved as aforesaid ... 567^{ll} of vs; yet selles the stocke to strangers for fower hundred poundes, and makes vs no satisfacion.

Hee hath taken all boundes of our hired men in his owne name, whose wages though wee have truly paid yet att his pleasure hee hath taken them a waye, and turned them over to others to the breaking of our Companie.

For lendinge of vj^{ll} to p[ay] them theire wages, hee made vs enter bond to give him the profitt of a warraunt of tenn poundes due to vs att Court.

Alsoe hee hath taken right gould and silver lace of divers garmentes to his owne vse without accompt to vs or abatement.

Vppon everie breach of the Companie hee takes newe bondes for his stocke and our securitie for playinge with him; Soe that hee hath in his handes bondes of ours to the value of 5000^{ll} and his stocke to; which hee denies to deliuer and threatens to oppresse us with.

Alsoe havinge apointed a man to the seeinge of his accomptes in byinge of Clothes (hee beinge to have vi^s a weeke) hee takes the meanes away and turnes the man out.

The reason of his often breakinge with vs hee gave in these wordes ‘Should these fellowes Come out of my debt, I should have noe rule with them’.

Alsoe wee have paid him for plaie bookes 200^{ll} or thereaboutes and yet hee denies to give vs the Coppies of any one of them.

Also within 3 yeares hee hath broken and dissmembred five Companies.

It is not quite possible to trace all the five breakings of companies referred to in the closing sentence; but the statement is sufficient to give a fairly clear outline of the history of the Lady Elizabeth’s men during the years which it covers, and, as it happens, there is a good deal of other evidence from which to supplement it. It appears that in March 1613 Henslowe joined companies with Rosseter; that is to say, that an amalgamation took place between the Lady Elizabeth’s men and the Children of the Queen’s Revels, who had been acting at the Whitefriars under the patent to Rosseter and others of 4 January 1610. One of these children was Robert Baxter, if he is the Baxter named in the Articles of Grievance as a fellow of the company with Taylor between March 1613 and March 1614.[686] During the same period it appears that William Ecclestone left the company. He afterwards joined the King’s men. But, before he went, he took a part in _The Honest Man’s Fortune_, which is stated in the _Dyce MS._ to have been played in 1613, while its ‘principal actors’ are named in the 1679 folio of Beaumont and Fletcher as ‘Nathan Field, Robert Benfield, Emanuel Read, Joseph Taylor, Will. Eglestone and Thomas Basse’. This particular combination seems to point clearly to the Lady Elizabeth’s men as the original producers of the play. A very similar cast is assigned in the same folio to _The Coxcomb_, namely, ‘Nathan Field, Joseph Taylor, Giles Gary, Emanuel Read, Richard Allen, Hugh Atawell, Robert Benfeild, and William Barcksted’; and I think that this also must belong to a performance by the Lady Elizabeth’s men about 1613. _The Coxcomb_ had certainly been played at Court by the Queen’s Revels in 1612, but it seems impossible that Taylor can then have been a member of that company.[687] The new blood brought in from Rosseter’s company will, then, have included Field, Attwell, Richard Allen, Benfield, Reade, and perhaps Robert Baxter, of whom the first three had played in Jonson’s _Epicoene_ for the Revels in 1609. When it is remembered that Cary and Barksted had been in the same cast, it will be realized that the Lady Elizabeth’s men, as constituted in 1613, were very much the Queen’s Revels over again.

I think there can be no doubt that the Lady Elizabeth’s men was the company principally referred to in the long series of letters from Robert Daborne to Henslowe, which runs from 17 April 1613 to 31 July 1614.[688] Daborne had been one of the patentees for the Queen’s Revels in 1609, and some letters apparently belonging to the same series show Field as interested, either as writer or actor, in some of the plays which Henslowe was purchasing from Daborne, with a view to reselling them to this company. Further confirmation is to be obtained for this view from the signature of Hugh Attwell as witness to one of Henslowe’s advances to Daborne,[689] and from the mention of Benfield,[690] of Pallant who, as will be seen, joined the company in 1614,[691] and of _Eastward Ho!_ which their repertory had inherited from that of the Queen’s Revels.[692] That ‘Mr. Allin’ was hearing Daborne’s plays with Henslowe in May 1613 need cause no difficulty.[693] It is true that Edward Alleyn is not known to have had any relations with the Lady Elizabeth’s men, but John Alleyn, a nephew of Edward, is amongst Henslowe’s witnesses about this time,[694] and Richard Allen, who may not have belonged to the same family, was himself one of the Lady Elizabeth’s men, and perhaps served as their literary adviser. The correspondence makes it possible to recover the names of a series of plays on which Daborne was engaged, either alone or in collaboration with others, during the period over which it extends, and all of which seem to have been primarily meant for the Lady Elizabeth’s men, although he occasionally professes, as an aid to his chaffering, to have an alternative market with the King’s men.[695] From April to June 1613 he was writing a tragedy of _Machiavel and the Devil_, and this is probably the ‘new play’, of which he suggests the performance on Wednesday in August, to follow one of _Eastward Ho!_ on the Monday.[696] For this Henslowe covenanted to pay him £20. In June he was also completing _The Arraignment of London_, of which he had given an act to Cyril Tourneur to write; and to this _The Bellman of London_, for which he and a colleague, perhaps again Tourneur, asked no more than £12 and ‘the overplus of the second day’ in August, was probably a sequel.[697] This may be the play which he had delivered to Henslowe about the beginning of December. About July he seems also to have been occupied upon a play in collaboration with Field, Fletcher, and Massinger. This is not named, and Mr. Fleay’s identification of it with _The Honest Man’s Fortune_ is rather hazardous.[698] In December he began _The Owl_, for which his price fell to £10; and on 11 March 1614 he had finished this, and was beginning _The She Saint_ and asking ‘but 12^l a play till they be playd.’ The correspondence has a gap between the middle of August and the middle of October 1613. Probably the company were on tour; they are found at Coventry, Shrewsbury, and Marlborough in 1612–13, Canterbury on 4 July 1613, Dover between 12 July and 7 August, and Leicester on 13 October. In the spring they had been at Bristol and Norwich. On 12 December they repeated one of their plays of the preceding winter, Marston’s _The Dutch Courtesan_, before Charles, and on 25 January 1614 gave _Eastward Ho!_ which they had been playing in public during the summer, before James. Taylor was again their payee for this Christmas.

The statement of grievances indicates another reconstruction of the company in March 1614. In this transaction, which apparently involved the buying out of Rosseter’s interest, Meade was in partnership with Henslowe, and Field was presumably in some position of authority on behalf of the players, as it is alleged that Henslowe bribed him, in order to obtain his assent to the modification of a covenant under which he was to make an allowance for a withdrawal of the theatre once a fortnight for baiting. The terms recited agree with those of an undated and mutilated agreement between Henslowe and Jacob Meade on one side and Field on behalf of an unnamed company of players on the other. The text of this follows:[699]

Articles of agreement made, concluded, and agreed vppon, and which are on the parte and behalfe of Phillipp Henslowe Esquier and Jacob Meade Waterman to be perfourmed, touchinge & concerninge the Company of players which they haue lately raised, viz^t.

Imprimis the saide Phillipp Henslowe and Jacob Meade doe for them, their executours and administratours, Covenante, promise, and graunt by theis presentes to and with Nathan Feilde gent., That they the saide Phillipp Henslowe and Jacob Meade or one of them shall and will duringe the space of Three yeares at all tymes (when noe restraynte of playinge shalbe) at their or some of their owne proper costes and charges fynde and provide a sufficient howse or howses for the saide Company to play in, And also shall and will at all tymes duringe the saide tearme disburse and lay out all suche somme & sommes of monny, as ffower or ffive Shareres of the saide Company chosen by the saide Phillipp and Jacob shall thinck fittinge, for the furnishinge of the said Company with playinge apparrell towardes the settinge out of their newe playes, And further that the saide Phillipp Henslowe and Jacob Meade shall and will at all tymes duringe the saide tearme, when the saide Company shall play in or neare the Cittie of London, furnish the saide Company of players, aswell with suche stock of apparrell & other properties as the said Phillipp Henslowe hath already bought, As also with suche other stock of apparrell as the saide Phillipp Henslowe and Jacob Meade shall hereafter provide and buy for the said Company duringe the saide tearme, And further shall and will at suche tyme and tymes duringe the saide tearme, as the saide Company of Players shall by meanes of any restraynte or sicknes goe into the Contrey, deliuer and furnish the saide Company with fitting apparrell out of both the saide stockes of apparrell. And further the saide Phillipp Henslowe and Jacob Meade doe for them, their executours and administratours, convenante and graunt to and with the saide Nathan Feilde by theis presentes in manner and fourme followinge, that is to say, That they the saide Phillipp Henslowe and Jacob Meade or one of them shall and will from tyme to tyme duringe the saide tearme disburse and lay out suche somme or sommes of monny as shalbe thought fittinge by ffower or ffive of the Shareres of the saide Company, to be chosen by the saide Phillipp & Jacob or one of them, to be paide for any play which they shall buy or condicion or agree for; Soe alwaies as the saide Company doe and shall truly repaye vnto the saide Phillipp and Jacob, their executores or assignes, all suche somme & sommes of monny, as they shall disburse for any play, vppon the second or third daie wheron the same play shalbe plaide by the saide Company, without fraude or longer delay; And further that the saide Phillipp Henslowe and Jacob Meade shall and will at all tymes, vppon request made by the Maior parte of the Sharers of the saide Company v[nder their] handes, remove and putt out of the saide Company any of the saide Company of playeres, if the saide Phillipp Henslowe and Jacob Meade shall fynde [the s]aide request to be iust and that ther be noe hope of conformety in the partie complayned of; And further that they the saide Phillipp Henslowe and Jacob Mea[de shall] and [will] at all tymes, vppon request made by the saide Company or the maior parte therof, pay vnto them all suche somes of monny as shall comme vnto their handes v[ppon [ extra spaces ]of]any forfectures for rehearsalles or suche like paymentes; And also shall and will, vppon the request of the said Company or the maior parte of the[m], sue [ extra spaces ] ar[ extra spaces ] persons by whom any forfecture shalbe made as aforesaid, and after or vppon the recovery and receipte th[ero]f (their charges disbursed about the recovery [[ extra spaces ]b]einge first deducted and allowed) shall and will make satisfaccion of the remaynder therof vnto the said Company without fraude or guile.

Mr. Fleay and Dr. Greg think that at the time of this reconstruction the company was further strengthened by the incorporation of the Duke of York’s, now the Prince’s, men.[700] This I doubt, as the Prince’s men continued to play at Court, as a company quite distinct from the Lady Elizabeth’s, during the winter of 1614–15. It is true that Robert Dawes, who had been one of the Duke of York’s in 1610, joined the Lady Elizabeth’s, but it was precisely one of the grievances that this man and Robert Pallant were introduced by Henslowe, by means of a financial adjustment unfavourable to the sharers, in June 1614. Pallant had passed through several companies, and is traceable with Queen Anne’s men in 1609. He was still technically a servant of the Queen at her death in 1619.[701] A letter from Daborne on 28 March 1614 shows that he was then expecting an answer to some proposal made to Henslowe, which the latter had neglected.[702] Articles between Robert Dawes and Henslowe and Meade are on record, and bear the date 7 April 1614.[703] The following is the text:

Articles of Agreement,] made, concluded, and agreed uppon, and which are to be kept & performed by Robert Dawes of London, Gent. unto and with Phillipp Henslowe Esq^{re} and Jacob [Meade Waterman] in manner and forme followinge, that is to say

Imprimis. The said Robert Dawes for him, his executors, and administrators doth covenante, promise, and graunt to and with the said Phillipp Henslowe and Jacob Meade, their executors, administrators, and assynes, in manner and formme followinge, that is to saie, that he the said Robert Dawes shall and will plaie with such company, as the said Phillipp Henslowe and Jacob Meade shall appoynte, for and during the tyme and space of three yeares from the date hereof for and at the rate of one whole share, accordinge to the custome of players; and that he the said Robert Dawes shall and will at all tymes during the said terme duly attend all suche rehearsall, which shall the night before the rehearsall be given publickly out; and if that he the saide Robert Dawes shall at any tyme faile to come at the hower appoynted, then he shall and will pay to the said Phillipp Henslowe and Jacob Meade, their executors or assignes, Twelve pence; and if he come not before the saide rehearsall is ended, then the said Robert Dawes is contented to pay Twoe shillings; and further that if the said Robert Dawes shall not every daie, whereon any play is or ought to be played, be ready apparrelled and ---- to begyn the play at the hower of three of the clock in the afternoone, unles by sixe of the same company he shall be lycenced to the contrary, that then he, the saide Robert Dawes, shall and will pay unto the said Phillipp and Jacob or their assignes Three [shillings]; and if that he, the saide Robert Dawes, happen to be overcome with drinck at the tyme when he [ought to] play, by the judgment of ffower of the said company, he shall and will pay Tenne shillings; and if he, [the said Robert Dawes], shall [faile to come] during any plaie, having noe lycence or just excuse of sicknes, he is contented to pay Twenty shillings; and further the said Robert Dawes, for him, his executors, and administrators, doth covenant and graunt to and with the said Phillipp Henslowe and Jacob Meade, their executors, administrators, and asignes, by these presents, that it shall and may be lawfull unto and for the said Phillipp Henslowe and Jacob Meade, their executors or assignes, during the terme aforesaid, to receave and take back to their own proper use the part of him, the said Robert Dawes, of and in one moyetie or halfe part of all suche moneyes, as shal be receaved at the Galleries & tyring howse of such house or howses wherein he the saide Robert Dawes shall play, for and in consideration of the use of the same howse and howses; and likewis shall and may take and receave his other moyetie ...[ extra spaces ] the moneys receaved at the galleries and tiring howse dues, towards the pa[ying] to them, the saide Phillip Henslowe and Jacob Meade, of the some of one hundred twenty and fower pounds, being the value of the stock of apparell furnished by the saide company by the saide Phillip Henslowe and Jacob Meade ...[ extra spaces ] the one part of him the saide Robert Dawes or any other somes ...[ extra spaces ] to them for any apparell hereafter newly to be bought by the [said Phillip Henslowe and Jacob Meade, until the saide Phillip Henslowe and Jacob Meade] shall therby be fully satisfied, contented, and paid. And further the said Robert Dawes doth covenant, [promise, and graunt to and with the said Phillip Henslowe and Jacob Meade, that if he, the said Robert Dawes], shall at any time after the play is ended depart or goe out of the [howse] with any [of their] apparell on his body, or if the said Robert Dawes [shall carry away any propertie] belonging to the said company, or shal be consentinge [or privy to any other of the said company going out of the howse with any of their apparell on his or their bodies, he, the said] Robert Dawes, shall and will forfeit and pay unto the said Phillip and Jacob, or their administrators or assignes, the some of ffortie pounds of lawfull [money of England] ...[ extra spaces ] and the said Robert Dawes, for him, his executors, and administrators doth [covenant promise and graunt to with the said] Phillip Henslowe and Jacob Meade, their executors, and administrators [and assigns] [ extra spaces ] that it shall and may be lawfull to and for the said Phillip Henslowe and Jacob Meade, their executors, and assignes, to have and use the playhows so appoynted [for the said company [ extra spaces ] one day of] every fower daies, the said daie to be chosen by the said Phillip and [Jacob] [ extra spaces ] Monday in any week, on which day it shalbe lawful for the said Phillip [and Jacob, their administrators], and assignes, to bait their bears and bulls ther, and to use their accustomed sport and [games] [ extra spaces ] and take to their owne use all suche somes of money, as thereby shall arise and be receaved

And the saide Robert Dawes, his executors, administrators, and assignes, [do hereby covenant, promise, and graunt to and with the saide Phillip and Jacob,] allowing to the saide company daye the some of ffortie shillings money of England ... [In testimony] for every such whereof, I the saide Robert Dawes haue hereunto sett my hand and seal this [sev]enth daie of April 1614 in the twelfth yeare [of the reign of our sovereign lord &c.] Robert Dawes.

It must be mainly matter of conjecture at what theatres the Lady Elizabeth’s had played from 1611 to 1614. Possibly they may have begun at the Swan. Middleton’s _A Chaste Maid in Cheapside_ was published as ‘often acted at the Swan on the Bankeside by the Lady Elizabeth her Seruants’, and although this publication was not until 1630, it is rather tempting to identify the play with _The Proud Maid_ of 1611–12. Probably the association of the company with Henslowe led to a transfer to the Rose; and after the joining of forces with Rosseter in March 1613, the Whitefriars must have been available for the combination. That there were alternatives open in 1613 is shown by two passages in Daborne’s letters.[704] On 5 June he says that the company were expecting Henslowe to conclude ‘about thear comming over or goinge to Oxford’, and by ‘comming over’ may most naturally be understood crossing the Thames. On 9 December he claims that a book he is upon will ‘make as good a play for your publique howse as ever was playd’, and the inference is that at the time Henslowe was interested in a ‘private’ as well as in a ‘public’ house. Certainly the Watermen’s complaint in the spring of 1614 indicates that there were then no plays on Bankside, and both the Swan and the Rose must therefore have been deserted. But by the autumn the Lady Elizabeth’s men were in the Clink, occupying the newly built Hope on the site of the old Bear-garden; and that the use of this theatre was contemplated in the agreements of the previous spring is shown both by the presence of Meade, who is not known to have been interested in any other house, as a party, and by the reservation of one day in fourteen for the purpose of baiting.[705] It was at the Hope that William Fennor failed to appear to try his challenge with John Taylor on 7 October, and the Lady Elizabeth’s men were presumably the players--

And such a company (I’ll boldly say) That better (nor the like) ne’er played a play--

who came to the rescue and saved the occasion from fiasco. And it was at the Hope and by the Lady Elizabeth’s men, as the Induction and the title-page show, that Jonson’s _Bartholomew Fair_ was produced on 31 October. There is a reference in the text of the play to Taylor’s adventure,[706] and a compliment to Field, which puts him on a level with Burbadge of the King’s men.[707] _Bartholomew Fair_ was presented on the very next day before James at Court. This performance, for which Field was payee on 11 June, was the only one by the company during the winter festivities of 1614–15. In February 1615 there was a breach between Henslowe and the company, as a result of which the Articles of Grievance were drawn up. According to the Articles Henslowe ‘brooke the companie’; but it is not quite clear what exactly took place. In some form the Lady Elizabeth’s men certainly continued to exist. They visited Nottingham in March 1615, and a letter from Lord Coke to the Mayor of Coventry shows that they also contemplated a visit to that town in the same month.[708] My impression is that they subsequently patched up another reconstruction with Henslowe, and that on this occasion the process did entail some kind of amalgamation with Prince Charles’s men. Field, however, probably now joined the King’s men. The Lady Elizabeth’s do not appear to have been separately represented when the Privy Council called the London companies before them for a breach of Lent on 29 March 1615. It is true that they may have been alone in not offending, but it is more probable that William Rowley and John Newton, who were summoned, answered for the amalgamation. The Prince’s men are recorded as playing at Court during the Christmas of 1615–16 and the Lady Elizabeth’s men are not. Yet the payee for their four plays, of which the dates are not specified, was Alexander Foster, who had been a Lady Elizabeth’s man and not a Prince’s man. But it is probable that both this amalgamation and the earlier one between the Lady Elizabeth’s and the Queen’s Revels, although effective as a business operation from Henslowe’s point of view, did not amount to a complete merging of identities, such as would entail a surrender of one or other of the official patents. Certainly the Lady Elizabeth’s, the Prince’s and the Revels were in some sense distinct, and yet in the closest relationship in 1615. So much is clear from Rosseter’s patent of 3 June to build in the Blackfriars, which contemplated that all three companies would share in the use of the new house. That the joint user extended also to plays is suggested by the title-page of Field’s _Amends for Ladies_ (1618) which declares it to have been ‘acted at the Blacke-Fryers, both by the Princes Seruants and the Lady Elizabeths’. Perhaps this indicates alternative rather than combined playing. Whatever the arrangement, it was probably altered again on or before Henslowe’s death on 6 January 1616.[709] A company containing many of the former Lady Elizabeth’s men remained at the Hope. But they went under Prince Charles’s patronage, and it is not until 1622, when we find them at Christopher Beeston’s house of the Cockpit or Phoenix, that we can be sure of the presence of Lady Elizabeth’s men in London once more.[710] But they had held together in the provinces. Possibly the nucleus of the provincial company had been formed of men left out by the Henslowe-Rosseter negotiations of 1613–14. They first appear at Norwich on 2 March 1614 under Nicholas Long, who in 1612 had been travelling with Queen’s Revels boys. They came again on 27 May 1615 with an exemplification of the 1611 patent dated 31 May 1613, and again on 5 June 1616 under John Townsend, and again on 7 June 1617 under Henry Sebeck. In the same year Joseph Moore was acting as an agent of the Lord Chamberlain and Master of the Revels in clearing the provinces of irregularly licensed players, not improbably in the interests of the Lady Elizabeth’s themselves, whose original patent was now set free, through changes in London, for provincial use in place of a mere exemplification.[711] The company is also traceable at Leicester, Coventry, Nottingham, Marlborough, and elsewhere from 1614,[712] and on 11 July 1617 Townsend and Moore received a warrant for £30 in respect of three plays given before James during his journey to Scotland.[713] On 20 March 1618 Townsend and Moore, with Alexander Foster and Francis Waymus, obtained a new licence under the royal signet.[714] This authorized them to play in London, and their actual return there may have been earlier than 1622.

XIV

INTERNATIONAL COMPANIES

i. ITALIAN PLAYERS IN ENGLAND

[_Bibliographical Note._--The wanderings of the Italian companies in Italy itself and in France are recounted in A. D’Ancona, _Origini del Teatro Italiano_ (ed. 2, 1891), and A. Baschet, _Les Comédiens italiens à la Cour de France_ (1882), but without much knowledge of the few English records. W. Smith, _Italian and Elizabethan Comedy_ (_M. P._ v. 555) and _The Commedia dell’ Arte_ (1912), deals more fully with these. The literary influence of Italian comedy is discussed by L. L. Schücking, _Die stofflichen Beziehungen der englischen Komödie zur italienischen bis Lilly_ (1901), and R. W. Bond, _Early Plays from the Italian_ (1911).]

The England of Elizabeth and James was a lender rather than a borrower of players. No records have been disinterred of French actors in this country between 1495 and 1629;[715] and although there are a few of Italian actors, their visits seem to have been confined to a single brief period.[716] The head-quarters of Italian comedy during the middle of the sixteenth century was at the Court of Mantua, and when Lord Buckhurst went as ambassador to congratulate Charles IX of France on his wedding, it was by Louis Gonzaga, Duke of Nevers and brother of the Duke of Mantua, that he was entertained on 4 March 1571 ‘with a comedie of Italians that for the good mirth and handling thereof deserved singular comendacion’.[717] In the following year the Earl of Lincoln was at Paris from 8 to 22 June in order to conclude a treaty, and letters relate how he saw at the Louvre ‘an Italian playe, and dyvers vauters and leapers of dyvers sortes verie excellent’, and how later, when he visited the King at the Chateau de Madrid, ‘he had some pastyme showed him by Italian players, which I was at with hym’.[718] It may perhaps have been encouragement from one or both of these nobles, which led an Italian company not long afterwards to make its way across the Channel. The first notice of it is at Nottingham in September 1573, when a reward was ‘gevin to the Italyans for serteyne pastymes that they shewed before Maister Meare and his brethren’.[719] In 1574 the Revels Accounts include expenditure ‘for the Italyan players that ffollowed the progresse and made pastyme fyrst at Wynsor and afterwardes at Reading’. Elizabeth was at Windsor on 11 and 12 July; on 15 July she removed to Reading and remained there to 22 July. At Windsor the Italians used ‘iij devells cotes and heades & one olde mannes fries cote’; at Reading, where they performed on 15 July, the provisions included staves, hooks, and lambskins for shepherds, arrows for nymphs, a scythe for Saturn, and ‘horstayles for the wylde mannes garment’. Professor Feuillerat appears to suggest that they may have been playing Tasso’s _Aminta_, produced at Ferrara on 31 July 1573. But there were other pastorals.[720] The Italians are probably the comedians commended to the Lord Mayor on 22 July, and in November Thomas Norton calls special attention to ‘the unchaste, shamelesse and unnaturall tomblinge of the Italian weomen’. How long this company remained in England is unknown. There was an Italian acrobat at the Kenilworth festivities on 14 July 1575, but the description suggests that he was a solitary performer.[721] The Treasurer of the Chamber paid ‘Alfruso Ferrabolle and the rest of the Italian players’ for a play at Court on 27 February 1576, to the consideration of which I shall return. In April 1577 there was an Italian play before the Council at Durham Place.[722] Finally, on 13 January 1578, the Privy Council addressed a letter to the Lord Mayor, requiring him to permit ‘one Drousiano, an Italian, a commediante and his companye’, to play until the first week of the coming Lent. I take it that the company was also at Court, since the Chamber Accounts for 1577–8 include an item ‘for a mattres hoopes and boardes with tressells for the Italian Tumblers’. The company to which the visit of 1573–4 was due cannot be identified with any certainty. Presumably it came through France, and ought to have left signs there. There seem to have been three Italian companies in France during 1571. The first, in February, was that of Giovanni Tabarin. The second, that seen by Lord Buckhurst in Paris, was the famous Compagnia de’ Gelosi, of which one Signora Vittoria, of Ferrara, known on the stage as Fioretta, was the prima donna. This, however, had returned to Milan by the spring of 1572 and its subsequent movements hardly render a visit to England in 1573 plausible. A third company, that of Alberto Ganassa, a Zanni or clown from Bergamo, reached Paris in the autumn of 1571.[723] It was sent away by the Parlement on account of its high charges for admission, but returned in 1572 and played at the wedding of Henri of Navarre and Marguerite of Valois on 18 August. Nothing is heard of Ganassa in France after October 1572, but during the summer of 1574 he seems to have been in Madrid; so he also is not available for the English visit. It may very likely have been his company which the Earl of Lincoln saw. But it may also have been that led by Soldino of Florence and Anton Maria of Venice, which was performing ‘commedies et saults’ before Charles IX at Blois on 25 March 1572, and subsequently made its way to Paris. My authorities say nothing further about Soldino and Anton Maria, so we are at liberty to believe that Lincoln invited them to try their fortune across the sea.[724]

The ‘Drousiano’ of 1578 offers less difficulty. He must have been Drusiano, son of Francisco Martinelli, of Mantua, who in after years won a considerable reputation, although less than that of his brother Tristano Martinelli, as Arlecchino in the _commedia dell’ arte_.[725] There is no other notice of him before 1580, when he subscribes himself as ‘marito di M^a Angelica’, who appears to have been one Angelica Alberghini, and the company with which he was associated in 1578 is not known.[726] But it may very well have been the Gelosi. This company paid in 1577 their second visit to France, upon the invitation of Henri III, and remained there at least until July. They seem to have been in Florence fairly early in 1578, but some or all of them may have found time for an English trip in the interval. Direct proof that Drusiano Martinelli ever belonged to the Gelosi is lacking. But they are the only Italian company known to have been in France in the summer of 1577, and players are not likely to have passed from Italy to England without leaving some traces of their presence in France.[727]

The professional Italian actors of the second half of the sixteenth century played both the popular _commedia dell’ arte_ and the literary _commedia erudita_, or _commedia sostenuta_. The former, with its more or less improvised dialogue upon scenarii, which revolved around the amorous and ridiculous adventures of the _zanni_, the _arlecchino_, the _dottore_, and other standing types, was probably best adapted to the methods of wandering mimes in an alien land.[728] The latter was common to professionals and amateurs. And I suspect that the Court play of 27 February 1576, although it earned its reward from the Treasurer of the Chamber, was an amateur performance. The ‘Alfruso Ferrabolle’ of the account-book can hardly be other than a clerical perversion of the name of Alfonso Ferrabosco, the first of three generations of that name, father, son, and grandson, who contributed in turn to the gaiety of the English Court. The eldest Ferrabosco was certainly in this country by 1562 when he was granted an annuity of 100 marks. His service terminated after various interruptions in 1578.[729] He is doubtless the ‘Mr. Alphonse’ who took part in the preparation of a mask in June 1572.[730] In connexion with the same mask, a reward was paid to one ‘Petrucio’, while for a later mask of 11 January 1579 ‘Patruchius Ubaldinas’ was employed to translate speeches into Italian and write them out fair in tables.[731] This was Petruccio Ubaldini, another of Elizabeth’s Italian pensioners, who was both a literary man and an illuminator, and made his residence in England from 1562 to 1586.[732] It is quite possible that the performance of 1576 may be referred to in the following undated letter from Ubaldini to the Queen, in which he makes mention of Ferrabosco.[733] If so, it came off after all.

Sacra Serenissima Maiesta,

Perché à i giorni passati io haveva promesso à M. Claudio Cavallerizzo, et à M. Alfonso Ferrabosco, d’esser contento di recitare ad una piacevol Comedia Italiana; per compiacere alla Maiesta Vostra; et non si trovando di poi altri, che tre ò quattro, che fusser contenti d’accettar tal carico; ho voluto che l’Altezza Vostra conosca da me stesso il pronto animo, ch’ io ho per la mia parté di servirla, et di compiacerla in ogni attioné, che me sia comandata ò da lei, ò in suo nomé, non solamente comé servitore giurato, ch’io gli sono; ma comé desiderosissimo di far conoscere, che la divotioné, ch’io porto allé sue Reali qualità, supera ogn’ altro rispetto; desiderandogli io contentezza, et felicità non meno, che qualunqué altro suo servitore gli desideri: la cui bontà Dio ci prosperi.

Di Vostra Sacra Serenissima Maiesta.

Of Claudio Cavallerizzo I regret to say that I know nothing.

A statement that Venetian actors were in England in 1608 rests upon a misreading of a record.[734]

ii. ENGLISH PLAYERS IN SCOTLAND

The interlude players of Henry VII, under John English, accompanied the Princess Margaret to Scotland for her wedding with James IV in 1503, and ‘did their devoir’ before the Court at Edinburgh.[735] It is the best part of a century before any similar adventure is recorded. In the interval came the Scottish reformation, which was no friend to courtly pageantry. Yet in Scotland, as elsewhere, Kirk discipline had to make some compromise with the drama. In 1574 the General Assembly, while utterly forbidding, not for the first time, ‘clerk playes, comedies or tragedies maid of ye cannonicall Scriptures’, went on to ordain ‘an article to be given in to sick as sitts upon ye policie yat for uther playes comedies tragedies and utheris profaine playes, as are not maid upon authentick pairtes of ye Scriptures, may be considerit before they be exponit publictlie and yat they be not played uppon ye Sabboth dayes’.[736] It was once more a royal wedding that led to a histrionic courtesy between England and Scotland. In the autumn of 1589 James VI was expecting the arrival of his bride Anne of Denmark, a sensuous and spectacle-loving lady, who had already had experience of English actors at her father’s Court in 1586.[737] And being then, two years after his mother’s execution, actively engaged in promoting friendly relations with Elizabeth, he sent a request through one Roger Ashton to Lord Scrope, the Warden of the English West Marches, ‘for to have her Majesties players for to repayer into Scotland to his grace’. In reply Scrope wrote from Carlisle on 20 September to William Ashby, the English ambassador at Edinburgh, begging him to notify the King, that he had sent a servant to them, ‘wheir they were in the furthest parte of Langkeshire, whervpon they made their returne heather to Carliell, wher they are, and have stayed for the space of ten dayes’.[738] After all, the Lapland witches and their winds delayed Anne’s crossing for some months, and James had himself to join her in Denmark. It is, I think, only a conjecture that the players whose ‘book’ was submitted on 3 June 1589 for the licence of the Kirk Session at Perth, in accordance with the order of 1574, were Englishmen.[739] But certainly ‘Inglis comedianis’ were in Scotland in 1594, probably for the baptism of Henry Frederick on 30 August, and received from James the generous gift of £333 6_s._ 8_d._ out of ‘the composicioun of the escheit of ye laird of Kilcrewch and his complices’.[740] Probably Laurence Fletcher was at the head of this expedition, for on 22 March 1595 George Nicolson, the English agent at Edinburgh, wrote to Robert Bowes, treasurer of Berwick, that, ‘The King heard that Fletcher, the player, was hanged, and told him and Roger Aston so, in merry words, not believing it, saying very pleasantly that if it were true he would hang them also’.[741] In any case, Fletcher appears to have been the leader of a company whose peregrinations in Scotland a few years later, much favoured by James, were also much embarrassed by the critical relations which then existed between the Sovereign and the Kirk. It is only a conjecture that this was the company which was refused leave to play at St. Andrews on 1 October 1598.[742] But of greater troubles, which took place at Edinburgh a year later, we are very well informed. They are detailed from the Kirk point of view in the more or less contemporary chronicle of David Calderwood.[743]

_The King Chargeth the Kirk of Edinburgh to Rescind an Act._

Some English comedians came to this countrie in the moneth of October. After they had acted sindrie comedeis in presence of the King, they purchassed at last a warrant or precept to the bailliffes of Edinburgh, to gett them an hous within the toun. Upon Moonday, the 12^{th} of November, they gave warning by trumpets and drummes through the streets of Edinburgh, to all that pleased, to come to the Blacke Friers’ Wynd to see the

## acting of their comedeis. The ministers of Edinburgh, fearing

the profanitie that was to ensue, speciallie the profanatioun of the Sabbath day, convocated the foure sessiouns of the Kirk. An act was made by commoun consent, that none resort to these profane comedeis, for eshewing offence of God, and of evill exemple to others; and an ordinance was made, that everie minister sould intimat this act in their owne severall pulpits. They had indeid committed manie abusses, speciallie upon the Sabboth, at night before. The King taketh the act in evill part, as made purposelie to crosse his warrant, and caused summoun the ministers and foure sessiouns, _super inquirendis_, before the Secreit Counsell, They sent doun some in commissioun to the King, and desired the mater might be tryed privatlie, and offered, if they had offended, to repair the offence at his owne sight; and alledged they had the warrant of the synod presentlie sitting in the toun. The King would have the mater to come in publict. When they went doun, none was called upon but M^r. Peter Hewat and Henrie Nisbit. After that they were heard, the sentence was givin out against all the rest unheard, and charge givin to the ministers and foure sessiouns to conveene, within three houres after, to rescind their former ordinance, and to the ministers, to intimat the contrarie of that which they intimated before. They craved to be heard. Loath was the King, yitt the counsell moved him to heare them. M^r. Johne Hall was appointed to be their mouth. ‘We are summouned, Sir,’ said M^r. Johne, ‘and crave to understand to what end.’ ‘It is true’, said the King, ‘yee are summouned, and I have decerned alreadie.’ M^r. Johne made no reply. M^r. Robert Bruce said, ‘If it might stand with your good pleasure, we would know wherefore this hard sentence is past against us.’ ‘For contraveening of my warrant,’ said the King. ‘We have fulfilled your warrant,’ said M^r. Robert, ‘for your warrant craved no more but an hous to them, which they have gottin.’ ‘To what end, I pray you, sought I an hous,’ said the King, ‘but onlie that the people might resort to their comedeis?’ ‘Your warrant beareth not that end,’ said M^r. Robert, ‘and we have good reasoun to stay them from their playes, even by your owne acts of parliament.’ The King answered, ‘Yee are not the interpreters of my lawes.’ ‘And farther, the warrant was intimated but to one or two,’ said M^r. Robert, and, therefore, desired the King to retreate the sentence. The King would alter nothing. ‘At the least, then,’ said M^r. Robert, ‘lett the paine strike upon us, and exeeme our people.’ The King bade him make away. So, in departing, M^r. Robert turned, and said, ‘Sir, please you, nixt the regard we ow to God, we had a reverent respect to your Maiestie’s royall person, and person of your queene; for we heard that the comedians, in their playes, checked your royall person with secreit and indirect taunts and checkes; and there is not a man of honour in England would give such fellowes so much as their countenance’. So they departed.

They were charged, at two houres, by sound of trumpet, the day following, at the publict Croce, about ten houres, to conveene themselves, and rescind the acts, or ellis to passe to the horne immediatly after. The foure sessiouns conveene in the East Kirk. They asked the ministers’ advice. The ministers willed them to advise with some advocats, seing the mater tuiched their estate so neere. M^r. William Oliphant and M^r. Johne Schairp, advocats, came to the foure sessiouns. The charge was read. The advocats gave their counsell to rescind the act, by reasoun the King’s charge did not allow slanderous and undecent comedeis; and farther, shewed unto them, that the sessiouns could doe nothing without their ministers, seing they were charged as weill as the sessiouns, and the mater could not passe in voting, but the moderator and they being present. They were called in, and after reasouning they came to voting. M^r. Robert Bruce being first asked, answered ‘His Majestie is not minded to allow anie slanderous or offensive comedeis; but so it is that their comedeis are slanderous and offensive; therefore, the king, in effect, ratifieth our act. The rest of the ministers voted after the same maner. The elders, partlie for feare of their estats, partlie upon informatioun of the advocats, voted to the rescinding of the act. It was voted nixt, whether the ministers sould intimat the rescinding of the act? The most part voted they sould. The ministers assured them they would not. Henrie Nisbit, Archibald Johnstoun, Alexander Lindsey, and some others, tooke upon them to purchasse an exemptioun to the ministers. They returned with this answere, that his Majestie was content the mater sould be passed over lightlie, but he would have some mentioun made of the annulling of the act. They refuse. Their commissioners went the second tyme to the king, and returned with this answere, ‘Lett them nather speeke good nor evill in that mater, but leave it as dead.’ The ministers conveened apart to consult. M^r. Robert Bruce said it behoved them ather to justifie the thing they had done, or ellis they could not goe to a pulpit. Some others said the like. Others said, Leave it to God, to doe as God would direct their hearts. So they dissolved. M^r. Robert, and others that were of his minde, justified it the day following, in some small measure, and yitt were not querrelled.

Several other documents confirm this narrative. The Privy Council register contains an order of 8 November for an officer at arms to call upon the sessions by proclamation to rescind their resolution and a further proclamation of 10 November reciting the submission made by the sessions.[744] The Lord High Treasurer’s accounts contain payments to Walter Forsyth, the officer employed, as well as gifts to ‘ye Inglis comedianis’ of £43 6_s._ 8_d._ in October, of £40 in November ‘to by tymber for ye preparatioun of ane house to thair pastyme’, and of a further £333 6_s._ 8_d._ in December.[745] It is George Nicolson, in a letter of 12 November forwarding the proclamation of 8 November to Sir Robert Cecil, who identifies the players for us as ‘Fletcher and Mertyn with their company’.[746] The bounty of James, although it must be borne in mind that the sums were reckoned in pounds Scots, probably left them disinclined to quit Edinburgh in a hurry. Another gift of £400 reached them through Roger Ashton in 1601;[747] and on 9 October in the same year they visited Aberdeen with a letter of recommendation from the King, and with the style of his majesty’s servants, and the town council gave them £22 and spent £3 on their supper ‘that nicht thaye plaid to the towne’. Nay, more, another entry in the burgh register tells us that the players came in the train of ‘Sir Francis Hospital of Haulszie, Knycht, Frenschman’, and one of those ‘admittit burgesses’ with the foreign visitor was ‘Laurence Fletcher, comediane to his Majesty’.[748]

Laurence Fletcher’s name stands first in the English patent of 1603 to the King’s men, and the inferences have been drawn that the company at Aberdeen was the Chamberlain’s men, that their visit was due to a proscription from London on account of their participation in the Essex ‘innovation’, that Shakespeare was with them, and that he picked up local colour, to the extent of ‘a blasted heath’ for _Macbeth_.[749] To this it may be briefly replied that, as the Chamberlain’s men were at Court as usual in the winter of 1602, any absence from London, which their unlucky performance of _Richard II_ may have rendered discreet, can only have been of short duration; that the most plausible reading of the Scottish evidence is that Fletcher’s company were in the service of James as Court comedians from 1599 to 1601; and that there is nothing whatever to indicate that Fletcher ever belonged to the Chamberlain’s company at all. In fact, very little is known of him outside Scotland, although it is just possible that he may have been the object of two advances made by Henslowe to the Admiral’s men about October 1596, and described respectively as ‘lent vnto Martyne to feache Fleatcher’ and ‘lent the company to geue Fleatcher’.[750] If Fletcher was the King’s man in Scotland, it was not unnatural that he should retain that status when James came to England; and it is very doubtful whether the insertion of his name in the patent in any way entailed his being taken into business relations with his ‘fellows’. I strongly suspect that his companion at Edinburgh, Martin, was put into a precisely similar position amongst Queen Anne’s men, for who can Martin be but Martin Slater, who is often, as in the passage quoted above, called Martin _tout court_ in Henslowe’s _Diary_, and who certainly left the Admiral’s men in 1597?

iii. ENGLISH PLAYERS ON THE CONTINENT

[_Bibliographical Note._--The earliest comprehensive study of the foreign travels of English actors is that of A. Cohn, _Shakespeare in Germany in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries_ (1865). Much material has been collected, mostly since Cohn wrote, in a number of local histories and special studies, of which the most important are: C. M. Plümicke, _Entwurf einer Theatergeschichte von Berlin_ (1781); D. C. von Rommel, _Geschichte von Hessen_ (1820–38); J. E. Schlager, _Über das alte Wiener Hoftheater_ in _Sitzungsberichte der phil.-hist. Classe der Kaiserlichen Akad. der Wissenschaften_, vi (1851), 147; M. Fürstenau, _Zur Geschichte der Musik und des Theaters am Hofe der Kurfürsten von Sachsen_ (1861); E. Mentzel, _Geschichte der Schauspielkunst in Frankfurt am Main_ (1882); O. Teuber, _Geschichte des Prager Theaters_ (1883); J. Meissner, in _Shakespeare-Jahrbuch_, xix. 113 (Austria), and _Die englischen Comoedianten zur Zeit Shakespeares in Oesterreich_ (1884); K. Trautmann in _Archiv für Litteraturgeschichte_, xii. 319 (Munich, Augsburg); xiii. 34 (Suabia), 315 (Ulm); xiv. 113 (Nuremberg), 225 (Suabia); xv. 209 (Ulm, Stuttgart, Tübingen); in _Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Litteraturgeschichte_, vii (Rothenburg); and in _Jahrbuch für Münchener Geschichte_, iii. 259; J. Crüger in _Archiv für Litteraturgeschichte_, xv. 113 (Strassburg); Duncker, _Landgraf Moritz von Hessen und die englischen Komödianten in Deutsche Rundschau_, xlviii (1886), 260; A. Cohn in _Shakespeare-Jahrbuch_, xxi. 245 (Cologne); J. Bolte in _Shakespeare-Jahrbuch_, xxiii. 99 (Denmark and Sweden), and _Das Danziger Theater im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert_ (1893); J. Wolter in _Zeitschrift des Bergischen Geschichtsvereins_, xxxii. 90 (Cologne); A. Wormstall in _Zeitschrift für vaterländische Geschichte und Altertumskunde Westfalens_, lvi (1898), 75 (Münster); G. Witkowzski in _Euphorion_, xv. 441 (Leipzig). A collection of records from the earlier of these and from more scattered sources is in K. Goedeke, _Grundriss der deutschen Dichtung aus den Quellen_^2 (1886), ii. 524, and valuable summaries are given in W. Creizenach, _Schauspiele der englischen Komödianten_ (1889), and E. Herz, _Englische Schauspieler und englisches Schauspiel zur Zeit Shakespeares in Deutschland_ (1903). The excursus of F. G. Fleay in _Life and Work of Shakespeare_ (1886), 307, is misleading. Additional material, which has become available since Herz wrote, is recorded by C. F. Meyer in _Shakespeare-Jahrbuch_, xxxviii. 196 (Wolgast), and C. Grabau in _Shakespeare-Jahrbuch_, xlv. 311 (Leipzig). Useful special studies are by C. Harris, _The English Comedians in Germany before the Thirty Years’ War: the Financial Side_ (_Publ. of Modern Language Association_, xxii. 446), A. Dessoff, _Über englische, italienische und spanische Dramen in den Spielverzeichnissen deutscher Wandertruppen_ (1901, _Studien für vergleichende Litteraturgeschichte_, i), and on the problem of staging (cf. ch. xx) C. H. Kaulfuss-Diesch, _Die Inszenierung des deutschen Dramas an der Wende des sechzehnten und siebzehnten Jahrhunderts_ (1905). A collection of plays and jigs, in German, but belonging to the repertory of an English company, appeared as _Engelische Comedien und Tragedien_ (1620); some of the plays have been edited by J. Tittmann, _Die Schauspiele der englischen Komödianten in Deutschland_ (1880), and the jigs by J. Bolte, _Die Singspiele der englischen Komödianten und ihrer Nachfolger in Deutschland, Holland und Scandinavien_ (1893). German plays written under English influences are to be found in J. Tittmann, _Die Schauspiele des Herzogs Heinrich Julius von Braunschweig_ (1880), and A. von Keller, _Jacob Ayrers Dramen_ (1865). Cohn prints, with translations, Ayrer’s _Sidea_ and _Phaenicia, Julio and Hyppolita_ and _Titus Andronicus_ from the 1620 volume, and early German versions of _Hamlet_ (_Der bestrafte Brudermord_) and _Romeo and Juliet_ from manuscripts. The literary records and remains of the English players are fully discussed by Creizenach and Herz, and their relation to Ayrer by W. Wodick, _J. Ayrers Dramen in ihrem Verhältniss zur einheimischen Literatur und zum Schauspiel der englischen Komödianten_ (1912).

The material for the Netherlands, some of which was gathered by Cohn, may be studied in J. A. Worp, _Geschiedenis van het Drama en van het Tooneel in Nederland_ (1904–8), who also deals with the Dutch versions of English dramas. The contemporary stage conditions in France are best treated by E. Rigal, _Le Théâtre français avant la période classique_ (1901), and those in Spain by H. A. Rennert, _The Spanish Stage in the Time of Lope de Vega_ (1909), who uses the results of recent researches by C. Pérez Pastor, which have added much to the information furnished by C. Pellicer, _Tratado histórico sobre el origen y progresos de la Comedia y del Histrionismo en España_ (1804).]

Thomas Heywood records, about 1608, that ‘the King of Denmarke, father to him that now reigneth, entertained into his service a company of English comedians, commended unto him by the honourable the Earl of Leicester’.[751] This King of Denmark was Frederick II (1559–88), father of Christian IV (1588–1648), and of Queen Anne of England. English ‘instrumentister’, Johann Krafftt, Johann Personn, Johann Kirck or Kirckmann, and Thomas Bull, were at the Danish Court as early as 1579–80, and in 1585 certain unnamed English played (_lechte_) in the courtyard of the town-hall at Elsinore, when the press of folk was such that the wall broke down. These may be the same men who played and vaulted at Leipzig on 19 July 1585, and are the earliest English players yet traced in Germany.[752] But the particular comedians referred to by Heywood were probably another company who had accompanied Leicester to Holland, when he took the command of the English forces in 1585, and had given a show, half dramatic, half acrobatic, of _The Forces of Hercules_ at Utrecht on 23 April 1586. Certainly Leicester had in his train one Will, a ‘jesting plaier’, who is now usually identified with William Kempe, and in August and September 1586 the Household Accounts of the Danish Court record the presence of ‘Wilhelm Kempe instrumentist’, and of his boy Daniell Jonns. It is not clear what were the precise relations between Kempe and five other ‘instrumentister och springere’, Thomas Stiwens, Jurgenn Brienn, Thomas Koning, Thomas Pape, and Robert Persj, who were at Court from 17 June to 18 September 1586, and for whom the same accounts record a payment to Thomas Stiuens of six thalers a month apiece, at the end of that period. If he had, as is probable, been their fellow up to that point, he did not accompany them in their further peregrinations.[753] These took them to the Court of Frederick’s nephew, Christian I, Elector of Saxony (1586–91), as a result of correspondence, still extant, between the sovereigns, in which the offer of salaries at the annual rate of 100 thalers overcame the reluctance of the Englishmen to face the perils of an unknown tongue. They started with an interpreter on 25 September, and shortly after their arrival at Waidenhain on 16 October received instructions from Christian to follow him with mourning clothes to Berlin, where he was then sojourning. Christian’s own capital was Dresden, and here they held a formal appointment in his service, under which they were bound to follow him in his travels, and to entertain him with performances after his banquets, and with music and ‘Springkunst’, and were entitled, beyond their pay, to board, livery, and travelling expenses, and a lodging allowance of forty thalers each. The Dresden archives give their names as Tomas Konigk, Tomas Stephan or Stephans, George Beyzandt, Tomas Papst, and Rupert Persten. Their departure from Court is recorded on 17 July 1587.[754] In all these notices music and acrobatic feats are to the fore, but that the men were actors there can be no doubt, for two of them, Thomas Pope and George Bryan, reappear amongst Strange’s men, and thereafter as fellows of Shakespeare in the Chamberlain’s company. Of Stevens, King, and Percy no more is known. Kempe was abroad again, in Italy and Germany, during 1601, and returned to England on 2 September. It is not certain whether he took a company with him, or went as a solitary morris dancer. But it is noteworthy that on the following 26 November an English company, under one Johann Kemp, reached Münster, after a tour which had taken them to Amsterdam, Cologne, Redberg, and Steinfurt. They played in English, and had a clown who pattered in German between the acts.[755]

The man, however, who did most to acclimatize the English actors in Germany was Robert Browne, who paid several visits to the country, and spent considerable periods there between 1590 and 1620. With him he took relays of actors, some of whom split off into independent associations, and account for most, although not all, of the groups of ‘Engländer’ who became familiar figures at the Frankfort spring and autumn fairs and even in out-of-the-way corners of northern Europe. Of some of these groups the wanderings can be traced in outline, although the frequent failure of the archives to record individual names is responsible for many _lacunae_, which the conjectural ingenuity of literary historians has done its best to fill. Many of these anonymous performances I must pass over in silence.

Robert Browne first appears as one of Worcester’s men, with Edward Alleyn, in 1583, and in 1589 these two, probably as Admiral’s men, still held a common stock of apparel with John Alleyn and Richard Jones.[756] His career abroad begins with a visit to Leyden in October 1590.[757] This was perhaps only tentative, for in February 1592 he was preparing to cross the seas again, and to this end obtained for himself, John Bradstreet, Thomas Sackville, and Richard Jones, the following passport to the States-General of the Netherlands from the Lord Admiral:

Messieurs, comme les présents porteurs, Robert Browne, Jehan Bradstriet, Thomas Saxfield, Richard Jones, ont deliberé de faire ung voyage en Allemagne, avec intention de passer par le païs de Zelande, Hollande et Frise, et allantz en leur dict voyage d’exercer leurs qualitez en faict de musique, agilitez et joeux de commedies, tragedies et histoires, pour s’entretenir et fournir à leurs despenses en leur dict voyage. Cestes sont partant vous requerir monstrer et prester toute faveur en voz païs et jurisdictions, et leur octroyer en ma faveur vostre ample passeport soubz le seel des Estatz, afin que les Bourgmestres des villes estantz soubs voz jurisdictions ne les empeschent en passant d’exercer leurs dictes qualitez par tout. Enquoy faisant, je vous demeureray à tous obligé, et me treuverez très appareillé à me revencher de vostre courtoisie en plus grand cas. De ma chambre à la court d’Angleterre ce x^{me} jour de Febvrier 1591.

Vostre tres affecsionné à vous fayre plaisir et sarvis, C. Howard.[758]

Presumably the Lord Admiral gave this passport in his official capacity, as responsible for the high seas, and it is not necessary to infer that the travellers were in 1592 his servants.[759]

There are not many clear notices of Browne and his company during this tour. They were at Arnhem, with a licence from Prince Maurice of Orange-Nassau, in 1592.[760] Thereafter they may have gone into residence at some Court, Wolfenbüttel or another. They can hardly have been the English ‘comoedianten und springer’ who came to Nyköping in Sweden for the wedding of Duke Karl of Sweden and Princess Christina of Holstein on 28 August 1592[761]; for it was only two days later that Browne approached the Frankfort magistrates for leave to play at the autumn fair, where they gave _Gammer Gurton’s Needle_ and some of Marlowe’s plays.[762] It was on this occasion that Fynes Moryson, the traveller, visited the fair and noted the great vogue of the English actors amongst the merchants.[763] Englishmen played at Cologne in October and November 1592,[764] and at Nuremberg in August 1593;[765] but in view of the Nyköping company it can hardly be assumed that these were Browne and his fellows, and indeed the leader at Nuremberg is called ‘Ruberto Gruen’, which may, but on the other hand may not, be a blunder for Browne’s name. The Cologne players are anonymous. At any rate ‘Robert Braun, Thomas Sachsweil, Johan Bradenstreit und consorten’ were all at Frankfort in August 1593,[766] where they played scriptural dramas, including _Abraham and Lot_ and _The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha_. Thereafter the company seems to have broken up. Richard Jones certainly went home before 2 September 1594, when he bought a gown ‘of pechecoler in grayne’ from Henslowe.[767] He had doubtless already joined the Admiral’s men.

Thomas Sackville and John Bradstreet probably went to Wolfenbüttel. This was the capital of Henry Julius, Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel (1589–1613), himself the author of plays, mostly printed during 1593 and 1594, in which an English influence is perceptible. The Duke married Elisabeth, daughter of Frederick II of Denmark, and his wedding at Copenhagen in February 1590 was attended by his brother-in-law, afterwards James I of England. It is possible that his earliest play, _Susanna_, was written either for this occasion or for the repetition of his wedding ceremony at Wolfenbüttel. In this piece the jester, a conventional personage, bears the name ‘Johan Clant’, in the later plays ‘Johan Bouset’; and in the _Ehebrecherin_ (1594) Bouset says, quite irrelevantly to his dramatic character, ‘Ich bin ein Englisch Mann’. Both names are in fact of English origin, from the words ‘clown’ and ‘posset’ respectively. Evidently the Duke must in some way have been in touch with the English stage at a date even earlier than Browne’s second German visit in 1592. It is not, therefore, necessary to conjecture, as has been conjectured, that Wolfenbüttel was the first objective of this visit.[768] Unfortunately the Brunswick household accounts for 1590–1601 are missing, and with them all direct evidence of the first formation of his English company by the Duke has probably gone. The company existed by 1596, when the ‘furstelige comoedianten och springers’ of the Duke paid a month’s visit to Copenhagen for the coronation of his brother-in-law, Christian IV of Denmark, on 29 August.[769] In the following year we find ‘Jan Bosett und seine Gesellen’ at Nuremberg, ‘Thomas Sackfeil und Consorten’ at Augsburg in June, ‘Johann Busset’ and Jakob Behel at Strassburg in July and August, and ‘Thomas Sackville, John Bouset genannt’, Johann Breitenstrasse and Jacob Biel at the Frankfort autumn fair.[770] The identity of this company with the Wolfenbüttel court comedians may perhaps be inferred from Sackville’s use of John Bouset as a stage name, and from a reference, in this same year 1597, to ‘Thomas Sackefiel, princely servant at Wolfenbüttel’. Another member of the company may have been Edward Wakefiel, with whom Sackville, also in 1597, had a brawl in a Brunswick tavern.[771] No more is heard of them until 1601, when John Bouset was expected to join his old friend Robert Browne for the Frankfort Easter fair.[772] The Brunswick household accounts are extant for 1602 and 1608, and from 1614 onwards. Thomas Sackville appears frequently. On 30 August 1602 he took a payment for the English comedians. Later references to him from 1 October 1602 to 1617 are mainly in connexion with purchases for the ducal wardrobe. It seems clear that, while remaining a ducal servant, and possibly even an actor, he went into business and prospered therein.[773] He is said to have been selling silk at Frankfort in 1604, and in 1608 Thomas Coryat, the Odcombian traveller and oddity, records:

‘The wealth that I sawe here was incredible. The goodliest shew of ware that I sawe in all Franckford, saving that of the Goldsmithes, was made by an Englishman one Thomas Sackfield a Dorsetshire man, once a servant of my father, who went out of England but in a meane estate, but after he had spent a few yeares at the Duke of Brunswicks Court, hee so inriched himselfe of late that his glittering shewe of ware in Franckford dit farre excell all the Dutchmen, French, Italians, or whomsoever else.’[774]

John Bradstreet’s name appears in 1604 with that of Sackville in the album of Johannes Cellarius of Nuremberg. He died in 1618 and Sackville in 1628, leaving a library of theology and English literature. Edward Wakefield reappears in the Brunswick accounts for 1602, not specifically as a player. But certainly the playing company continued to exist. The accounts mention it in 1608, and Thomas Heywood notes its existence about the same date. There were English players at Wolfenbüttel in May 1615 and at Brunswick in 1611 and 1617, but no names are recorded, and it can hardly be assumed that these were the original ducal company. Henry Julius himself died in 1613.[775]

Robert Browne’s own movements are uncertain after the break-up of his company in 1593. He is not traceable for a year or so either in Germany or in England, where his wife and all her children and household died of plague in Shoreditch about August 1593.[776] But sooner or later he found his way to Cassel. This was another of the literary courts of Germany, the capital of Maurice the Learned, Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel (1592–1627). Maurice himself wrote an ‘_Anglia_ Comoedia’ and other plays in Terentian Latin, which were performed by the pupils of the _Collegium Mauritianum_, but are unfortunately not preserved. He also composed music and, like the Duke of Brunswick, gave a welcome to John Dowland on one of his several foreign tours.[777] Possibly Dowland was one of the two lutenists who are recorded to have spent fifteen weeks at Cassel in 1594.[778] In the following year there were performances by players and acrobats at Maurice’s castle of Wilhelmsburg at Schmalkalden, and in the same year Maurice wrote to his agent at Prague to give assistance to his comedians in the event of their visiting that city.[779] To 1594 or 1595 may, therefore, be plausibly ascribed undated warrants by which Robert Browne and Philip Kiningsmann receive appointments from the Landgrave, undertaking to do him service with their company in vocal and instrumental music and in plays to be supplied either by Maurice or by themselves, and not to leave Cassel without his permission.[780] Certainly Browne was the Landgrave’s man by 16 April 1595, when a warrant was issued allowing the export of a consignment of bows and arrows which he had been sent over to bring from England to Cassel.[781] The ‘fürstlich hessische Diener und Comoetianten’ were at Nuremberg on 5 July 1596, and a company under Philip Konigsman were at Strassburg in the following August.[782] Festivities were now in preparation at Cassel for the christening of Maurice’s daughter, one of whose godmothers was Queen Elizabeth, on 24 August 1596. Brown and one John Webster were on duty at Cassel during the visit of the Earl of Lincoln, who came from England to stand proxy for Elizabeth.[783] Payments to the English comedians and performances by them at Melsungen, Weissenstein, and Rothenburg, in the Landgrave’s territory, are recorded in the Cassel archives during 1597 and 1598. A proposed loan of them in 1597 to Landgrave Louis of Marburg seems to have fallen through, but in 1598 they left Cassel for the Court of the Palsgrave Frederic IV at Heidelberg, with a liberal _Abfertigung_ or vail of 300 thalers and a travelling allowance of 20 thalers, which was entrusted to George Webster.[784] From Heidelberg they went to Frankfort towards the end of 1599, but were refused leave to play, owing to the prevalence of plague.[785] Robert Browne, Robert Kingman, and Robert Ledbetter were then of the company. Ledbetter must have recently joined them, as he is in the cast of _Frederick and Basilea_ as played by the Admiral’s men in 1597. Frankfort having failed them, they fell back upon Strassburg, and here they seem to have remained until the spring of 1601.[786] Browne was their leader at their arrival, but he then seems to have left them and returned to England, where he came to Court as manager of the Earl of Derby’s men during the winters of 1599–1600 and 1600–1.[787] By Easter 1601, however, he had started on his fourth tour, and appeared once more at Frankfort, possibly in Kyd’s _Spanish Tragedy_. With him were Robert Kingmann and Robert Ledbetter, and they were expecting to be joined by ‘Johannen Buscheten und noch andere in unsere Companie gehörige Comödianten’. The old association of 1592 between Robert Browne and Thomas Sackville was, therefore, still in some sense alive.[788]

Meanwhile, Maurice of Hesse had not been wholly without English actors, since Browne and his fellows left Cassel in 1598. It would seem that George Webster returned from Heidelberg, or perhaps from Strassburg, to his service. The ‘fürstlich-hessischen Komödianten und Musikanten’ were at Frankfort in March, at Nuremberg in April 1600, and at Frankfort again at Easter 1601. The names recorded are those of George Webster, John Hill or Hüll, Richard Machin, and at Nuremberg Bernhardt Sandt.[789] Upon his second visit to Frankfort Webster would have met his old leader, now become his rival, Robert Browne. The Hessian company were for a third time at Frankfort in the autumn of 1601.[790] In the following year they left the Landgrave’s service, not altogether to the regret of some of his subjects, who resented a patronage of foreign arts at the cost of their pockets.[791] Webster and Machin, with whom was then one Ralph Reeve, were still using their former master’s name when they visited Frankfort at Easter 1603.[792] Thereafter they dropped it. Of Webster no more is heard. Machin is conjectured to have joined for a short time an English company in the service of Margrave Christian William, a younger son of the Elector Joachim Frederick of Brandenburg, which came to Frankfort for the Easter and autumn fairs of 1604.[793] The Margrave was administrator of the diocese of Magdeburg, and kept his Court at Halle. His company is traceable from 1604 to 1605, but I do not find any evidence of Machin’s connexion with it. In May 1605 he appeared at Strassburg, and there claimed as his credentials only his four years’ service with Maurice of Hesse.[794] Shortly before, he had been at the Frankfort Easter fair with Reeve, and the two returned to Frankfort in the autumn, and again at Easter 1606.[795]

Robert Browne, for some years after the opening of his fourth tour at Frankfort in the spring of 1601, does not appear to have attached himself to any particular Court. He is found at Frankfort, with Robert Jones, in September 1602, at Augsburg in the following November and December, at Nuremberg in February 1603, and at Frankfort for the Easter fair of the same year.[796] With him were then, but it would seem only temporarily, Thomas Blackwood and John Thare, late of Worcester’s men, who had doubtless just come out from England, when Elizabeth’s illness and death closed the London theatres.[797] He is probably the ‘alte Komödiant’, whose identity seems to have been thought sufficiently described by that term at Frankfort in the autumn of 1604.[798] He returned to Frankfort on 26 May 1606, and was at Strassburg in the following June and July.[799] Here he was accompanied by John Green. On this or some other visit to Strassburg, the company probably lost Robert Kingman, who, like Thomas Sackville, found business more profitable than strolling. He became a freeman of Strassburg in 1618, and in that year was able to befriend his old ‘fellow’ Browne, and in 1626 other actors on their visits to the city.[800] In the course of 1606 Browne seems to have entered the service of Maurice of Hesse, who in the previous year had built a permanent theatre, the _Ottonium_, at Cassel, and had now again an English company for the first time since 1602. This is to be inferred from an application for leave to play submitted to the Frankfort town council on 26 August 1606, and signed by ‘Robert Braun’, ‘Johann Grün’, and ‘Robert Ledbetter’ as ‘Fürstlich Hessische Comödianten’. Earlier in August the same men had been at Ulm.[801] They visited Nuremberg with a letter of recommendation from their lord in November, and then settled down at Cassel for the winter.[802] But their service did not last long. On 1 March 1607 a household officer wrote to the Landgrave that the English found their salaries inadequate, and after performing the comedy of _The King of England and Scotland_ had declared, either in jest or earnest, that it was their last play in Cassel.[803] Probably they were in earnest. Browne and Green went to Frankfort, for the last time as the Hessian comedians, on 17 March.[804] Browne’s name now disappears from German records for a decade. In 1610 he was a member of the Queen’s Revels syndicate in London, and on 11 April 1612 he wrote a letter to Edward Alleyn from Clerkenwell.[805] But whether Browne left them or not, the company held together for a while longer. Green was at Danzig and Elbing in the course of 1607.[806] Thereafter it seems probable that he tried a bold flight, and penetrated to the heart of Catholic Germany in Austria. In November 1607 an English company was with the archducal court of Ferdinand and Maria Anna at Gräz in Styria. A performance by them of _The King of England and the Goldsmith’s Wife_ is recorded.[807] They followed Ferdinand to Passau, where they gave _The Prodigal Son_ and _The Jew_, and possibly also to the Reichstag held in January 1608 at Regensburg. By 6 February they were back at Gräz, and a letter from Ferdinand’s sister, the Archduchess Maria Magdalena, then just betrothed to the Grand Duke Cosimo II of Florence, gives a lively account of their performances and of the assistance which they rendered in the revels danced at Court.[808] Their repertory included _The Prodigal Son_, _A Proud Woman of Antwerp_, _Dr. Faustus_, _A Duke of Florence and a Nobleman’s Daughter_, _Nobody and Somebody_, _Fortunatus_, _The Jew_, _King Louis and King Frederick of Hungary_, _A King of Cyprus and a Duke of Venice_, _Dives and Lazarus_.[809] It is not absolutely certain that the company referred to in these notices was Green’s. No name is in fact mentioned. But the probability suggested by the resemblance of the above play-list to those of 1620 and 1626, with which Green was certainly connected, is confirmed by the existence of a German manuscript of _Nobody and Somebody_ with a dedication by Green to Ferdinand’s brother the Archduke Maximilian, who was certainly present at the Gräz performances, and by a letter which tells us that a company visiting Austria in 1617 was the same as that which had played at Gräz in the lifetime of the Archduchess Maria, who died in 1608. Unfortunately the identification of this company of 1617 with Green’s is itself a matter of high probability, rather than of absolute certainty.[810] The end of the visit to Gräz was marked by a duel in which one of the English actors, ‘the man with long red hair, who always played a little fiddle’, killed a Frenchman.[811] Green now, like Browne, drops for some years out of the German records.

The Court functions at Cassel surrendered by Browne in 1607 were resumed by his predecessors, in whose leadership Reeve had now succeeded Machin; and the appearance of the Hessian company is recorded at Frankfort during both the fairs of 1608 and 1609, the Easter fair of 1610, the autumn fair of 1612, and the Easter fair of 1613. A proposed appearance for the coronation of the Emperor Mathias in June 1612 was prohibited, because the mourning for his predecessor Rudolph II was not yet over.[812] It is perhaps something of an assumption that the company was the same one throughout all these years. Reeve was in charge up to the autumn of 1609; after that no individual name is mentioned. The intervals between the fairs were presumably spent in the main at Cassel. In the summer of 1609 the company visited Stuttgart and Nuremberg and possibly other places, with a letter of recommendation from their lord.[813] In the autumn of the same year John Sigismund, Elector of Brandenburg (1608–19), who often entertained a company of his own, but appears to have been temporarily without one, wrote to Maurice to borrow them for the wedding of his brother at Berlin.[814] In April 1610 they may not improbably, though there is no evidence of the fact, have followed Maurice to the Diet at Prague.[815] In 1611 they are said to have been at Darmstadt.[816] They certainly played at the wedding of the Margrave Joachim Ernest, uncle of the Elector of Brandenburg, at Anspach in October 1612, and later in the same month paid a visit to Nuremberg.[817] No more is heard of them, or of any other English actors in the service of Maurice of Hesse-Cassel, after 1613.[818] Reeve was a member of Rosseter’s syndicate for the building of the Porter’s Hall theatre at Blackfriars in 1615, and with him were associated Philip Kingman and Robert Jones, the last notices of whom in Germany are as ‘fellows’ of Robert Browne in 1596 and 1602 respectively.

The appearance of Blackwood and Thare, late of Worcester’s men, in company with Browne at the Frankfort Easter fair of 1603, has already been noted. The only further record of either of them is of Thare at Ulm and Augsburg in the following December.[819] But by a series of conjectures, to which I hesitate to subscribe, they have been identified with a company which came to Stuttgart in September 1603 in the train of Lord Spencer and Sir William Dethick, ambassadors from England carrying the insignia of the Garter to Frederick Duke of Württemberg, and there gave a play of _Susanna_[820]; with a company which visited Nördlingen and other places in January 1604 under the leadership of one Eichelin, apparently a German, but with a repertory which included a _Romeo and Juliet_ and a _Pyramus and Thisbe_[821]; with a company which held letters of recommendation from the Duke of Würtemberg at Nuremberg in February 1604;[822] and with a company which took a repertory closely resembling the Nördlingen one to Rothenburg in 1604 and 1606.[823] This is all very ingenious guesswork.[824]

All trace of John Green is lost for several years after 1608. An isolated notice at Utrecht in November 1613 suggests that he may have spent part of this interval in the Netherlands.[825] A year or two later he returned to Germany. He was at Danzig in July 1615 and again, with Robert Reinolds, late of Queen Anne’s men, in July 1616, having paid an intermediate visit to Copenhagen.[826] In 1617 he was at Prague for the coronation of the Archduke Ferdinand as King of Bohemia, and in July of the same year at Vienna.[827] The comparative infrequency with which English actors visited Austrian territory perhaps justifies the assumption that his is the company mentioned in a letter of recommendation sent by Ferdinand’s brother, the Archduke Charles, at Neiss to the Bishop of Olmütz on 18 March 1617, as having played at Gräz before his mother the Archduchess Maria, who died in 1608, and having recently spent some months at the Court of Poland in Warsaw.[828] In 1618 Green’s old leader, the indefatigable veteran Robert Browne, came out with a new company on his fifth and last visit to the Continent. He is first noted at Nuremberg on 28 May.[829] My impression is that the two men joined forces. Green’s name does not appear in the records for a couple of years. But Reinolds, who had been with him at Danzig in 1616, was with Browne at Strassburg in June and July 1618.[830] Later in the year Browne was at the autumn fair at Frankfort.[831] There is no definite mention of him during the next twelve months, but it is not improbable that the combined company was that which visited Rostock in May and Danzig in July 1619.[832] At any rate Browne appeared at Cologne in October;[833] and then went for the winter to Prague, where the Elector Palatine and the Lady Elizabeth of England, now King and Queen of Bohemia, had set up their Court.[834] They were but a winter King and Queen. In 1620 the Thirty Years’ War broke out, and Germany had other things to think of than English mumming. Browne was at Nuremberg in February and at Frankfort for the Easter fair.[835] That is the last we hear of him. But Green reached Cologne and Utrecht later in April, and was probably discreetly taking the company home.[836] In 1626 he came out again with Robert Reinolds, who made a reputation as a clown under the name of Pickleherring.[837] The details of this later tour lie beyond the scope of the present inquiry. Pickleherring is the clown-name also in a volume of _Engelische Comedien und Tragedien_, printed in 1620, which probably represents an attempt of Browne and Green to turn to profit with the printers their repertory of 1618–20, now rendered useless by their return to England.[838] The plays contained in this volume, in addition to two farces and five jigs, in most of which Pickleherring appears, are _Esther and Haman_, _The Prodigal Son_, _Fortunatus_, _A King’s Son of England and a King’s Daughter of Scotland_, _Nobody and Somebody_, _Sidonia and Theagenes_, _Julio and Hyppolita_, and _Titus Andronicus_.[839] The first five of these reappear in a list of plays forming the repertory of Green at Dresden during the visit of 1626 referred to above. If the titles can be trusted, two of the plays in this list had already been played by Browne at Frankfort and Cassel in 1601 and 1607, three by an unknown company, possibly that of Blackwood and Thare, at Nördlingen and Rothenburg in 1604 and 1606, and eight by Green himself at Passau and Gräz in the winter of 1607–8.[840] They number thirty in all, as follows: _Christabella_, _Romeo and Juliet_,[841] _Amphitryo_,[842] _The Duke of Florence_,[843] _The King of Spain and the Portuguese Viceroy_,[844] _Julius Caesar_, _Crysella_,[845] _The Duke of Ferrara_,[846] _Nobody and Somebody_,[847] _The Kings of Denmark and Sweden_,[848] _Hamlet_,[849] _Orlando Furioso_,[850] _The Kings of England and Scotland_,[851] _Hieronymo the Spanish Marshal_,[852] _Haman and Esther_,[853] _The Martyr Dorothea_,[854] _Doctor Faustus_,[855] _The King of Arragon_,[856] _Fortunatus_,[857] _Joseph the Jew of Venice_,[858] _The Clever Thief_,[859] _The Duke of Venice_,[860] _Barabbas Jew of Malta_, _The Dukes of Mantua and Verona_, _Old Proculus_, _Lear King of England_, _The Godfather_, _The Prodigal Son_,[861] _The Count of Angiers_, _The Rich Man_.[862]

The lists of 1620 and 1626 do not bear out Fleay’s assumption that the repertories they represent were wholly made up of plays taken out by Browne in 1592.[863]

Another member of Browne’s last expedition can perhaps be identified. With him in 1592 had been Richard Jones, who afterwards became one of the Admiral’s men in 1594 and left that company in 1602. He was again associated with Browne in Rosseter’s Queen’s Revels syndicate of 1610. The following undated letter to Edward Alleyn is preserved at Dulwich:[864]

M^r Allen, I commend my love and humble duty to you, geving you thankes for your great bounty bestoed vpon me in my sicknes, when I was in great want, God blese you for it, Sir, this it is, I am to go over beyond the seeas with M^r Browne and the company, but not by his meanes, for he is put to half a shaer, and to stay hear, for they ar all against his goinge. Now good Sir, as you have ever byne my worthie frend, so healp me nowe. I have a sut of clothes and a cloke at pane for three pound, and if it shall pleas you to lend me so much to release them I shalbe bound to pray for you so longe as I leve, for if I go over and have no clothes, I shall not be esteemed of, and by godes help the first mony that I gett I will send it over vnto you, for hear I get nothinge, some tymes I have a shillinge a day, and some tymes nothinge, so that I leve in great poverty hear, and so I humbly take my leave, prainge to god I and my wiffe for your health and mistris Allenes, which god continew, Your poor frend to command Richard Jones.

[_Endorsed_] Receved of master Allen the [ extra spaces ] of February the somme of [ extra spaces ] [_and by Alleyn_] M^r Jones his letter wher on I lent hym 3^l.

This has generally been dated 1592. But Alleyn’s first recorded marriage was in October of that year, and the reference to Browne as not going with the company has always been a puzzle. I suspect that it was written in or near 1615, and that Jones was one of the actors who started in advance of Browne under John Green. That he did travel about this time is shown by two other letters to Alleyn about a lease of the Leopard’s Head in Shoreditch held by his wife.[865] The first, from Jones himself, is not dated, but a mention of Henslowe shows that it was written before the latter’s death on 6 January 1616, or at least before Jones had heard of that event. The writer and his wife were then out of England. The second, from Harris Jones, was written from Danzig on 1 April 1620. Mrs. Jones was then expecting to join her husband, who was with ‘the prince’, whoever this may have been. If Jones had travelled with Browne’s men, he cut himself adrift from them on their return, for in 1622 he entered as a musician the service of Philip Julius, Duke of Wolgast in Pomerania (1592–1625), who had twice visited England, and whose presence at more than one London theatre is recorded in 1602.[866] Two petitions from Jones are in the Stettin archives.[867] On 30 August 1623 he asked permission, with his fellows Johan Kostrassen and Robert Dulandt (Dowland?), to return from Wolgast to England. Behind them they appear to have left Richard Farnaby, son of the better-known composer Giles Farnaby.[868] On 10 July 1624 Jones wrote to the Duke that his hopes of profitable employment under the Prince in England had been disappointed, and asked to be taken back into his service.

All the groups of actors hitherto dealt with seem to have had their origin, more or less directly, in the untiring initiative of Robert Browne. There is, however, another tradition, almost as closely associated with the houses of Brandenburg and Saxony, as the former with those of Hesse-Cassel and Brunswick. Some give and take between Cassel and the Courts of some of the Brandenburg princes has from time to time been noted.[869] But Berlin, where the successive Electors of Brandenburg, Joachim Frederick (1598–1608) and John Sigismund (1608–9), had their capital, was during a long period of years the head-quarters from which an Englishman, John Spencer, undertook extensive travels, both in Protestant and in Catholic Germany. Of Spencer’s stage-career in London, if he ever had one, nothing is known. Possibly he betook himself to the Brandenburg Court during the English plague-year of 1603. At any rate, comedians holding a recommendation given by the Elector on 10 August 1604 and confirmed by the Stadtholder of the Netherlands, Maurice Prince of Orange Nassau, in the following December, were at Leyden in January and The Hague in May 1605.[870] It is reasonable to identify them with the company under John Spencer, who received a recommendation from the Electress Eleonora of Brandenburg to the Elector Christian II of Saxony (1591–1611) in the same year.[871] At Dresden they possibly remained for some time, for although there are several anonymous appearances, including the famous ones at Gräz in the winter of 1607–8, which can be conjecturally assigned to them,[872] they do not clearly emerge until April 1608, when a visit of the Electoral players of Saxony is recorded at Cologne.[873] Subsequently they waited upon Francis, Duke of Stettin and by him were recommended to the new Elector of Brandenburg, John Sigismund, who passed them on once more to the Elector of Saxony on 14 July 1609.[874] Being in need of comedians for his brother’s wedding in the same year, he applied, as has been noted, for a loan of those of Maurice of Hesse.[875] Dresden remained the head-quarters of Spencer’s men again during the next two years, but in 1611 they were back in John Sigismund’s service. Christian II of Saxony died in this year. In July and August they visited Danzig and Königsberg, and in October and November they attended the Elector to Ortelsburg and Königsberg for the ceremonies in connexion with the acknowledgement of him as heir to his father-in-law, Duke Albert Frederick of Prussia. On this occasion Spencer was at the head of not less than nineteen actors and sixteen musicians, and produced an elaborate Turkish ‘Triumph-comedy’.[876] In April 1613 Spencer left Berlin on a tour which was to take him to Dresden once more.[877] The company were at Nuremberg in June, still using the name of the Elector of Brandenburg and playing _Philole and Mariana_, _Celinde and Sedea_, _The Fall of Troy_, _The Fall of Constantinople_, and _The Turk_.[878] In July and August they were at Augsburg, and in September they returned to Nuremberg, now describing themselves as the Elector of Saxony’s company.[879] This Elector was John George I (1611–56), the third of his house to entertain an English company. In October they played The _Fall of Constantinople_ at the Reichstag held by the Emperor Mathias at Regensburg. Spencer was their leader, but they no longer claimed any courtly status.[880] After an unsuccessful attempt to pay a third visit for the year to Nuremberg, they went to Rothenburg, and so to Heidelberg, whither the Elector Palatine Frederick V had just brought his English bride. Here they spent the winter, and left to attend the Frankfort fair of Easter 1614.[881] In May their service with the Elector of Brandenburg, although now none of the most recent, helped them to get a footing in Strassburg, where they stayed until July and again played _The Fall of Constantinople_, as well as a play of _Government_.[882] In August they were at Augsburg and possibly Ulm.[883] In October they projected a return visit to Strassburg, but were rejected, ‘so dies Jar hie lang genug super multorum opinionem gewessen’.[884] Possibly they fell back upon Stuttgart.[885] In February 1615 they were in Cologne, and here a queer thing happened. The whole company, with Spencer’s wife and children, was converted to Catholicism by the eloquence of a Franciscan friar. The event is recorded in the town archives and also in a manuscript Franciscan chronicle preserved in the British Museum:[886]

‘Twentie fowre stage players arrive out of Ingland at Collen: all Inglish except one Germanian and one Dutchman. All Protestants. Betwixt those and father Francis Nugent disputation was begunne and protracted for the space of 7 or eight dayes consecutively; all of them meeting at one place together. The chiefe among them was one N. Spencer, a proper sufficient man. In fine, all and each of them beeing clearlie convinced, they yielded to the truth; but felt themselves so drie and roughharted that they knew not how to pass from the bewitching Babylonian harlot to their true mother the Catholic church, that always pure and virginal spouse of the lamb.’

It need hardly be said that in so Catholic a city as Cologne this singular act of grace gave the performances of the English comedians an extraordinary vogue. In June and July 1615 Spencer was at Strassburg, in company with one Christopher Apileutter, who may have been the Germanian or the Dutchman of the Cologne notice.[887] He attended the autumn fair at Frankfort, using an imperial patent, perhaps given him at Regensburg in 1613.[888] During the winter of 1615–16 he was again in Cologne, still profiting by his conversion.[889] This, however, had not made of him such a bigot, as to be unable to render acceptable duty in the Protestant courts where his earliest successes had been won. For a year his movements became obscure. But in August 1617 he was playing before the Elector of Saxony and the Emperor Matthias at Dresden.[890] And in the following year he once more entered the Brandenburg service. During the interval which had elapsed since 1613, John Sigismund had entertained another company. Early in 1614 he engaged William, Abraham, and Jacob Pedel, Robert Arzschar, Behrendt Holzhew, and August Pflugbeil.[891] The names hardly sound English; but Jacob Pedel is probably the Jacob Behel or Biel who was travelling with Sackville in 1597, William Pedel appeared as an English pantomimist at Leyden in November 1608, and Arzschar, whose correct name was doubtless Archer, is also described as an Englishman at Frankfort in the autumn of 1608.[892] He was then in company with Heinrich Greum and Rudolph Beart. A Burchart Bierdt appeared as ‘Englischer Musicant’ at Cologne in December 1612.[893] Archer perhaps came from Nuremberg. He was at Frankfort again in the autumn of 1610, and at the Reichstag held by the Emperor Matthias at Regensburg in September 1613.[894] It must have been this new company under Archer which visited Wolfenbüttel in September 1614 and Danzig in 1615, styling themselves the Brandenburg comedians.[895] The only names given at Danzig are Johann Friedrich Virnius and Bartholomeus Freyerbott, and in fact the Pedels, Holzhew, and Pflugbeil left Berlin at Easter 1615. Archer himself remained with the Elector until May 1616. The field, then, was clear at Berlin for the enterprise of Spencer. On 17 March 1618 John Sigismund made a payment ‘to one Stockfisch’ for bringing the English comedians from Elbing. Further payments to the English are recorded in the following November, and in June 1619 for plays at Königsberg and Balge in Prussia, of which the Elector had become Duke on the death of his father-in-law Albert Frederick in the preceding August.[896] In July 1619 the Elector of Brandenburg’s comedians are heard of at Danzig.[897] On 23 December 1619 John Sigismund himself died, and in 1620 Hans Stockfisch addressed an appeal for certain arrears of salary to Count Adam von Schwartzenberg, an officer at the court of the new Elector George William (1619–40), in which he claimed to have enjoyed the Count’s protection for more than fifteen years. In reply George William describes the petitioner as ‘den Englischen Junkher Hans Stockfisch, wie er sich nennet’.[898] There can be little doubt that Hans Stockfisch was none other than John Spencer, for the period of fifteen years precisely takes us back to his first appearance as a Brandenburg comedian in 1605. His fish name corresponds to, and was perhaps motived by, that of Pickleherring adopted by Robert Reinolds of the chief rival English company about the same date. Both had their prototype in Sackville’s John Bouset.[899] The Elector George William was no friend to actors, and to Spencer, as to others, the Thirty Years’ War closed many doors. In February 1623 he came to Nuremberg with Sebastian Schadleutner, but was not allowed to play.[900] And that is the last that is heard of him.

A few isolated records indicate the presence from time to time in northern Europe of players not yet mentioned, and not obviously connected either with the Browne or with the Spencer tradition. An English company under Peter de Prun of Brussels visited Nuremberg in April 1594. The name of the leader does not sound very English, and a company, not improbably the same, is described as ‘niederländische’ at Ulm in the following August. Heywood, however, speaks of an English company as in the pay of the Cardinal and Archduke Albert, Governor of the Spanish Netherlands, about 1608.[901] Maurice of Orange-Nassau, Stadtholder of the Dutch Netherlands (1584–1625), who gave a recommendation to Spencer in 1605, had also an English company of his own, which visited Frankfort at Easter 1611, and then claimed to be strange in Germany.[902] To Augsburg in June 1602 came Fabian Penton and his company;[903] to Leyden in September 1604 John Woods and his company,[904] and to Leipzig in April 1613 Hans Leberwurst with his boys.[905] Of none of these is anything further known, nor of William Alexander Blank, a Scottish dancer, who performed at Cologne in April 1605.[906]

Traces of English players in southern Europe are few and far between. That Kempe’s travels of 1601 took him to Italy has already been noted.[907] There were some English acrobats at Madrid in January 1583.[908] On 25 May 1598 the Confrères de la Passion leased their theatre in Paris, the Hôtel de Bourgogne, to ‘Jehan Sehais comédien Anglois’, and on 4 June obtained judgement in the court of the Châtelet, ‘tant pour raison du susdit bail que pour le droit d’un écu par jour, jouant lesdits Anglais ailleurs qu’audit Hôtel’.[909] I do not know whether I am justified in finding under the French disguise of ‘Jehan Sehais’ the name of one John Shaa or Shaw, conceivably related to Robert Shaw of the Admiral’s men, who witnessed an advance by Henslowe to Dekker on 24 November 1599.[910] In 1604 another English company was in France, and gave a performance on 18 September in the great hall at Fontainebleau, the effect of which upon the imagination of the future Louis XIV, then a child of four, is minutely described in the singular diary of his tutor and physician, Jean Héroard.[911]

‘Mené en la grande salle neuve ouïr une tragédie représentée par des Anglois; il les écoute avec froideur, gravité et patience jusques à ce qu’il fallut couper la tête à un des personnages.’

On 28 September, Louis was playing at being an actor, and on 29 September, says Héroard:

‘Il dit qu’il veut jouer la comédie; “Monsieur,” dis-je, “comment direz-vous?” Il repond, “Tiph, toph,” en grossissant sa voix. À six heures et demie, soupé; il va en sa chambre, se fait habiller pour masquer, et dit: “Allons voir maman, nous sommes des comédiens.”’

Finally, on 3 October:

‘Il dit, “Habillons-nous en comédiens,” on lui met son tablier coiffé sur la tête; il se prend à parler, disant: “Tiph, toph, milord” et marchant à grands pas.’

It has been suggested on rather inadequate grounds that the play seen by Louis may have been _2 Henry IV_. Possibly the princely imagination had merely been smitten by some comic rough and tumble.[912] But it is also conceivable that the theme may have been the execution of John Tiptoft, Earl of Worcester, at the restoration of Henry VI in 1470.[913]

It would be rash to assume that these records of 1598 and 1604 represent all the visits of English actors to France during the Elizabethan period; and it is not improbable that a search in the municipal archives of Picardy and Normandy, as thorough as that which has been carried out for Germany, might yield notable results. Some general evidence that tours in France did take place can be cited. John Green, dedicating his version of _Nobody and Somebody_ to the Archduke Maximilian about 1608, says that he had been in that country.[914] His, indeed, so far as dates go, might have been the company of 1604. And France, no less than Germany, is referred to as scoured by the English comedians about 1613.[915]

XV

ACTORS

[_Bibliographical Note._--I include a few managers who were not necessarily themselves actors. The earlier studies of stage biography were mainly concerned with the Chamberlain’s and King’s men in the list of ‘The Names of the Principall Actors in all these Playes’, prefixed to the Shakespearian F_{1} of 1623. The statements about them in [J. Roberts] _Answer to Mr. Pope’s Preface to Shakespeare_ (1729) are conjectural and not, as sometimes supposed, traditional. A good deal was collected from wills and registers by E. Malone (_Variorum_, iii. 182), G. Chalmers (ibid. iii. 464), and J. P. Collier, _Memoirs of the Principal Actors in the Plays of Shakespeare_ (1846, _Sh. Soc._ revised edition in _H. E. D. P._ iii. 255), and is summarized by K. Elze, _William Shakespeare_ (tr. 1888), 246. New ground was broken by F. G. Fleay, _On the Actor Lists, 1578–1642_ (_R. Hist. Soc. Trans._ ix. 44), and in the list in _Chronicle History of the London Stage_ (1890), 370. Here he criticizes Collier’s claim to have a list of 500 actors, as he cannot find ‘that any list at all was found among his papers’, and suggests that a forgery was planned. I am glad to have an opportunity for once of defending Collier, even if it is only against Fleay. The fifth report (1846) of the _Sh. Soc._ shows that ‘a volume of the original actors in plays by writers other than Shakespeare was in preparation, and _Bodl. MS._ 29445 contains a number of rough extracts made by Collier and P. Cunningham from London parochial registers, with a digest of these and other material, entitled ‘Old Actors. Collections for the Biography of, derived from Old Books & MSS. Alphabetically arranged’. I have used this manuscript and cite it as ‘Bodl.’ or ‘B.’. The information is mainly from the registers of St. Saviour’s, Southwark, St. Andrew’s Wardrobe, St. Anne’s, Blackfriars, St. Leonard’s, Shoreditch, St. Giles’, Cripplegate, and other churches. It appears to be reliable, except perhaps in one or two points. One would, of course, prefer to have the registers themselves in print, but with the exception of those of St. James’s, Clerkenwell (_Harl. Soc._), and A. W. C. Hallen’s _Registers of St. Botolph’s, Bishopsgate_, the published London Registers, as shown by A. M. Burke, _Key to the Ancient Parish Registers of England and Wales_ (1908), are precisely those of least theatrical interest. The Southwark registers in particular, and the other records of that parish, including the ‘token-books’ or annual lists, street by street, of communicants, ought to be made available. Some notes from them are in W. Rendle, _Bankside_ (1877, Harrison,