Chapter VIII: Book I: The Court (5)

[Footnote 228: Baldwin, 450; Percy, 17.]

[Footnote 229: Cheyney, i. 109; Percy, 48.]

[Footnote 230: Cf. ch. ix.]

[Footnote 231: Cf. chh. xiii (Pembroke's, Worcester's), xvi (Theatre, Globe), xvii (Blackfriars).]

III

THE REVELS OFFICE

[Sixteenth-century material is collected by A. Feuillerat,
_Documents relating to the Office of the Revels in the Time of
Queen Elizabeth_ (1908, _Materialien_, xxi), and _Documents
relating to the Office of Revels in the Time of Edward VI and
Mary_ (1914, _Materialien_, xliv), which replace the extracts
from Sir Thomas Cawarden's papers in A. J. Kempe, _The Loseley
Manuscripts_ (1835), and the report by J. C. Jeaffreson in
_Hist. MSS._ vii. 596 (1879), the Audit Office records in P.
Cunningham, _Extracts from the Accounts of the Revels at Court_
(1842), and Sir Henry Herbert's copies of official papers in J.
O. Halliwell-Phillipps, _A Collection of Ancient Documents
respecting the Office of Master of the Revels_ (1870, cited
from its running title as _Dramatic Records_). A study of the
documents is contained in A. Feuillerat, _Le Bureau des
Menus-Plaisirs et la Mise en Scène à la Cour d'Elizabeth_
(1910). Much of my own _Notes on the History of the Revels
Office under the Tudors_ (1906) is incorporated in the present
chapter. Cunningham's book is still useful for the seventeenth
century; the authenticity of some of his documents is discussed
in Appendix B. Of earlier historians of the stage, George
Chalmers, _Apology for the Believers in the Shakespeare-Papers_
(1797), deals most fully with the Revels Office; it is matter
for regret that Sir George Buck's 'particular commentary' of
the 'Art of Revels' has disappeared. In his _Supplementary
Apology_ (1799) Chalmers made many extracts from the office
books, now apparently lost, of Sir Henry Herbert (1623-73).
Others had already been published by Malone (_Variorum_, iii).
These have now been collected with other material, including
the later documents from _Dramatic Records_, in J. Q. Adams,
_The Dramatic Records of Sir Henry Herbert_ (1917, cited as
Herbert).]

One of the 'standing' offices which, from the general oversight exercised over them by the Lord Chamberlain, may also be regarded as 'offices outward of the Chamber' was the Revels Office. This, in its fullest establishment, consisted of a Master, a Clerk Comptroller, and a Clerk, whose services it shared with the analogous Office of Tents, a Yeoman, and a Groom. It was of Tudor origin. The first mention of a Master of Revels is in a Household order of 31 December 1494.[232] But the post appears to have been at this period a purely temporary one, conferred upon some existing officer of the Household, who had been selected to supervise and defray the expenses of the revels for a particular feast. Several of these _ad hoc_ Masters are recorded at the court of Henry VIII; the most prominent was Sir Henry Guildford, who held various offices, including that of Comptroller of the Household. The Masters appear to be distinct from the Lords of Misrule, who were also appointed _pro hac vice_ during the Christmas season, but whose duties were ceremonial and quasi-dramatic, rather than administrative.[233] In dealing with the details of Revels organization, the transitory and fluctuating Masters had, from the beginning of the reign, the assistance of a permanent official, who belonged originally to the establishment of the Wardrobe. It was his business to carry into effect the general directions of the Master; to obtain stuffs from mercers or from the Wardrobe itself, and ornaments from the Jewel House and the Mint; to engage architects, carpenters, painters, tailors and embroiderers; to superintend the actual performances in the banqueting-hall or the tilt-yard, and attempt to preserve the costly and elaborate pageants from the rifling of the guests; to have the custody of dresses, visors, and properties; and finally, to render accounts and obtain payment for expenses from the Exchequer. These duties, with others of like character, were long performed by one Richard Gibson, whose careful accounts, compiled in an execrable orthography, preserve many curious details of forgotten pageantries, including the employment of none other than Hans Holbein in the decoration of a banqueting-hall at Greenwich. Gibson had a double qualification for his functions. In addition to his office as Porter and Yeoman Tailor of the Wardrobe, he had been, as far back as 1494, one of the King's players.[234] He had apparently the art of making himself indispensable, for he gradually accumulated both posts and pensions. He held the ancient office of Pavilionary or Serjeant of Tents, and in this capacity made the arrangements for the Field of the Cloth of Gold in 1520. By 1526 he was one of the royal Serjeants-at-Arms.[235] Machyn, who records the burning of his son for heresy at Smithfield in 1557, describes him as 'sergantt Gybsun, sergantt of armes, and of the reywelles, and of the kynges tenstes'.[236] It is not, however, clear that he held a distinct post as Serjeant of Revels, and when a patent was issued to his successor, John Farlyon, in 1534, it was not as Serjeant, but only as Yeoman.[237] Farlyon also became in course of time Serjeant of Tents, and the traditional connexion between Tents and Revels was never wholly broken.

Whether John Travers, who became Serjeant of Tents on Farlyon's death in 1539, had any supervision over John Bridges, who became Yeoman of Revels, is rather doubtful.[238] But the position becomes quite clear in 1545, when the Serjeantship of Tents was converted into a Mastership, and its holder, Sir Thomas Cawarden, was also appointed, under a separate patent of 11 March 1545, to an entirely new post as a permanent Master of the Revels, to whom the Yeoman naturally became subordinate.[239] This continued to be John Bridges until 1550, when he was succeeded by John Holt, who had acted as his deputy since 1547.[240] Cawarden enlarged the establishment by securing the appointment of a Clerk Comptroller to check and of a Clerk to keep the books, thus leaving the Yeoman free to devote himself to the practical side of the business.[241] Both these officers served, and continued throughout our period to serve, alike for the Tents and the Revels. John Barnard was Clerk Comptroller from 1545 to 1550, when he was succeeded by Richard Lees.[242] The first Clerk was Thomas Philipps, who was appointed in 1546, and held his post until 1560.[243] But from 1551 most of the duties were performed by a deputy, Thomas Blagrave, who succeeded to the Clerkship on 25 March 1560.[244] Blagrave was a personal 'servant' of Cawarden, who probably saw to it that all the subordinate officers appointed after the retirement of Bridges were his own nominees. Each, however, held his post under a patent direct from the Crown, and this arrangement bore the promise of administrative complications when the personal relation with the Master had terminated. The following document illustrates the organization of the office as settled by Cawarden about 1546:[245]

_Constituc_i_ons howe the King's Revells ought to be usyd_:

Fyrst, an Invyntory to be made by the Clarke controwler and
Clarke, by the Survey and apowentinge of the mastyr of the
Revells, Aswell of all and singular masking garments w_i_th all
thear furnyture, as allso of all bards for horsis, coveryng of
bards and bassis of all kynds, w_i_th all and singular the
appurtenances, which Invytory, subscribyd by the yoman and
clarke, ought to remayne in the custody of the Master of the
Offyces and the goodes for the saeffe kepyng.

It_e_m, that no kynd of stuff be bowght, but at the
apowyentment of the Master or his depute Clarke controwler,
being counsell therin, and that he make menc_i_on therof, in
his booke of recept w_hi_ch ought to be subscribyd as afforseyd
by the Master.

It_e_m, that the Cla_r_ke be privey to the cutting of all kynds
of garments, and that he make menc_i_on in his booke of
thyssuing owt howe moche it takyth of all kynds to ev_er_y
maske, revelle, or tryumph, w_hi_ch boke ought to be subscrybyd
as afforseyd by the Master.

It_e_m, that the Clarke kepe check of all daye men working on
the p_re_misses, and to make two lyger boks of all wags and
provisions of all kynd whate so ev_er_, th_e_ one for the paye
master and th_e_ other for the Master.

It_e_m, that no garments forseyd, bards, cov_er_ying of bards,
bassis, or suche lyck, be lent to no man w_i_thout a specyall
comaundment, warrant, or tokyn, from the Kyng's Ma_ies_tie, but
that all be leyd up in feyr stonderds or pressis, and every
presse or stonderd to have two locks a pece, w_i_th sev_er_all
wards, w_i_th two keys, th_e_ one for the Master or Clarke, and
th_e_ other for the yoman, so that non of them cum to the stuff
without th_e_ other.

In Farlyon's time the Revels stuff had been housed at the royal mansion of Warwick Inn in the City.[246] Cawarden moved it in 1547 to the Blackfriars, where various parts of the old Priory buildings served at different times as store-rooms and work-rooms or as residences for the officers.[247] Much material bearing upon the activities of the Revels during 1544-59 is preserved at Loseley Hall, amongst the papers of Cawarden's executor, Sir William More, who also acquired his interest in the Blackfriars. Cawarden lived just long enough to superintend the festivities at Elizabeth's coronation. After his death on 29 August 1559, his offices were distributed.[248] The Mastership of the Tents was given to Henry Sackford of the Privy Chamber. Banqueting houses, however, which had originally been the concern of the Tents, seem now to have been put in charge of the Revels. The Mastership of the Revels was given, by a patent dated 18 January 1560, to Sir Thomas Benger.[249] The Clerk Comptroller and Clerk continued as in former years to be joint officers for the Tents and the Revels. Benger is a somewhat shadowy personage. It is upon record that he gave Elizabeth a ring as a New Year's gift in 1562; that the Westminster boys rehearsed the _Heautontimoroumenos_ and _Miles Gloriosus_ before him in 1564 and spent 6_d._ on 'pinnes and sugar candee'; that he got a licence to export 300 tons of beer in 1566; that he had players of his own at Canterbury in 1569-70; and that the corporation of Saffron Walden spent 3_s._ 6_d._ upon a 'podd' of oysters for him at Elizabeth's visit to Audley End in 1571.[250] Apparently he began his administration with good intentions. The following note is affixed to his first Revels' estimate, that for the Christmas of 1559-60:

'Memorandum, that the chargies for making of maskes cam never
to so little a somme [£227 11_s._ 2_d._] as they do this yere,
for the same did ever amount, as well in the Quenes Highnes
tyme that nowe is, as at all other tymes hertofore, to the
somme of £400 alwaies when it was leaste.

'Mᵐ. also, that it may please the Quenes Maᵗᶦᵉ to appoint some
of her highnes prevy Counsaile, immediatly after Shroftyde
yerely, to survey the state of the saide office, to thintent it
may be knowne in what case I fownd it, and how it hathe byn
since used.

'Mᵐ. also, that the saide Counsailors may have aucthoritie to
appoint suche fees of cast garments as they shall think
resonable, and not the Mʳ. to appoint any, as hertofore he
hathe done; for I think it most for the Mʳˢ. savegarde so to be
used.'[251]

The cast garments were a perquisite of the officers, and were sold by them, doubtless to actors. The change in the Mastership led also to a change in the local habitation of the Revels. It is to be supposed that the buildings with which Cawarden had supplemented the official storehouse were no longer available after they had passed to his executors. In any case, it is clear from the survey of 1586-7 described below that upon Cawarden's death the Office of the Revels was removed to the 'late Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem' in Clerkenwell. Probably the transfer had taken place by 10 June 1560, as an inventory was drawn up on that date of 'certeyne stuff remaynynge in the Black Fryers in London'.[252] The Tents, as well as the Revels, seem to have been moved to St. John's.[253]

In accordance with Benger's request, a survey of the Revels was undertaken, under a warrant from the Privy Council of 27 April 1560, by Sir Richard Sackville and Sir Walter Mildmay, the Under Treasurer and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and a draft of a document submitted to them is preserved at Loseley.[254] This contains a detailed account of the transactions of the Office since the last audit in 1555, as a result of which Cawarden's executors established a claim for a balance or 'surplusage' of £740 13_s._ 10½_d._ against the Exchequer. The total expenditure of the Office for the period covering Elizabeth's coronation and first Christmas had been £602 11_s._ 10_d._ To the account are appended inventories showing the sets of masking garments which existed in 1555, the materials since issued from the Wardrobe, the use made of both of these in the fashioning of new garments and the 'translation' of old ones, and the sets found in the Office at the time of the survey. These are marked as either 'serviceable' or 'not serviceable' or 'chargeable', but 'fees', and the warrant from the Council instructs the commissioners that cast garments 'being fees incydente to the saide office may be taken by yᵉ Master of yᵉ Revelles & dystributed in soche sorte as haue bene accostomed'. Probably the officers sold them to players.[255] No further detailed accounts are available until the last year of Benger's Mastership, but there are summaries which show an average annual expenditure of about £570.[256] For some reason, there was a great increase of cost in 1571-2, which is the first of a series of years for which elaborate accounts exist in the Record Office. These are of a detailed nature, much like that of Cawarden's accounts at Loseley, and arranged more or less under heads. Schedules of the plays and masks given during the periods to which they relate are in some cases attached. A brief analysis of the account for 1571-2 will show the general character of the entries. I can only dwell here upon those which relate to the organization of the Revels Office, and not upon those of merely dramatic or scenic interest. The main account runs from the end of Shrovetide, 1571, to the end of Shrovetide, 1572, and covers, firstly, a period of nine months from March to November, during which the occupation of the Office was limited to the airing and safeguard of 'stuff' and attendance upon the Master during the progress, and, secondly, an active three months of revels and preparation for revels, from December to February. This expenditure is accounted for under two main heads, _Wages and Allowances_ and _Emptions and Provisions_. It may be abstracted as follows:

A. WAGES AND ALLOWANCES.

(i.) _March to November._

£ _s._ _d._ £ _s._ _d._

Tailors and Attendants 26 0 0
Attendants (9) on Progress 13 19 0
Porter (60 days) 3 0 0
Diet of Officers (60 days) 30 0 0
Necessaries bought by Yeoman 3 13 0 76 12 0

(ii.) _December to February._

Tailors and Attendants 113 8 8
Property-makers, Embroiderers,
Haberdashers 39 1 2
Painters 35 18 2
Porter (80 days, 15 nights) 4 15 0
Diet of Officers (80 days, 15 nights) 47 10 0 240 13 0

B. EMPTIONS AND PROVISIONS.

(i.) _March to November._ Nil.

(ii.) _December to February._

Mercers (4) 938 8 7
Draper 52 15 3
Upholster 32 5 8
Silkwomen (Joan Bowll and another) 74 14 4½
Petty Cash (Comptroller) 1 0 0
Petty Cash (Yeoman) 80 11 2
Implements for Properties 14 11 1
Furrier 2 2 6
Colours 13 16 1
Wiredrawer 6 16 0
Vizards (Thomas Giles) 4 5 0
Necessaries for Hunters 1 1 8
Device for Thunder and Lightning 1 2 0
Chandler 5 15 5
Hire of Armour 3 9 8
Buskin-maker 0 11 4
Brian Dodmer (travelling expenses,
&c.) 3 0 0
Boat-hire, &c., for Comptroller 1 0 0
" " Clerk (_per_
John Drawater) 1 0 0
Green cloth, &c., for Clerk 3 6 8 1,241 12 5½

_Summa Totalis._

£ _s._ _d._
Wages and Allowances 317 5 0
Emptions and Provisions 1,241 12 5½
------------------
£1,558 17 5½
==================

In many cases reference is made to the bills of the tradesmen for further details. At the end of the account is appended a supplementary account, amounting to £26 3_s._ 2_d._, for the three months from March to May, 1572, during which a further airing took place. The airings involved an elaborate process of what would now be called the 'spring-cleaning' of all the stuff in the office. There is also a list of six plays and six masks performed during Christmas and Shrovetide. The plays were acted by companies of men or children who were 'apparelled and ffurnished', and provided with 'apt howses, made of canvasse, fframed, ffashioned and paynted accordingly' by the Revels Office. It is noted that the six plays were 'chosen owte of many and ffownde to be the best that then were to be had; the same also being often perused and necessarely corrected and amended by all the afforeseide officers'. Four of the masks were new; the other two 'were but translated and otherwise garnished being of the former number by meanes wherof the chardge of workmanshipp and attendaunce is cheefely to be respected'. It will be observed that the Account does not include any items for the fees of the officers or for the hire of lodgings or storehouses. The former were payable under their patents at the Exchequer, the latter provided in the royal house of St. John's. The officers get an allowance for diet when on active duty, either in the time of airings or in that of revels; and this is fixed, for each day or night, at 4_s._ for the Master, 2_s._ for the Clerk Comptroller, 2_s._ for the Clerk, and 2_s._ for the Yeoman. There is a similar allowance of 1_s._ for a Porter, described more fully in a later account as the Porter of St. John's Gate. His name was John Dauncy.[257] The Account discloses some changes in the establishment since 1559. Thomas Blagrave is still Clerk. Richard Lees had been succeeded as Clerk Comptroller on 30 December 1570 by Edward Buggin.[258] During the earlier part of the period John Holt is still Yeoman, but exercises his functions through a deputy, William Bowll, a Yeoman of the Chamber; he was replaced by John Arnold on 11 December 1571.[259] There is a letter to Cecil from William Bowll, written at some date after March 1571, in which he recites that he has recently delivered to Cecil letters from the Lord Treasurer (the Marquis of Winchester), Sir Thomas Benger, and John Holt, for a joint grant of the Yeomanship to himself and John Holt; that he has long served as Holt's deputy and paid him money on a composition as well as meeting some of the debts of the Office; that Holt is now dead and that he and his family will be undone unless Cecil procures him the post.[260] His suit, however, was obviously unsuccessful. Holt's tenure of the Yeomanship had thus extended from 1547 to 1571. He may himself have been an actor, if, as seems likely, he is the 'John Holt, momer', who received rewards for attendance on the Westminster boys at a pageant in 1561.

If Arnold was appointed in the winter of 1571, it was against him, rather than against Holt or his deputy Bowll, that a complaint was lodged with Burghley about a year later by one Thomas Giles. Giles was one of the tradesmen of the Revels. He is described in the Accounts as a haberdasher, and purchases of vizards were made from him. The burden of his complaint was that the officers of the Revels, and particularly the Yeoman, who had the custody of the masking garments, were in the habit of letting these out on hire, to their manifest deterioration, and, one fears, also to the injury of Giles's business. He enumerates twenty-one occasions upon which masks, including the new cloth of gold, black and white, and murrey satin ones, made for the Queen's delectation during the previous Christmas, had been so let out to lords, lawyers, and citizens, in town and country, between January and November 1572.[261]

It is probable that Burghley, who became Lord Treasurer in July 1572, took early steps to look into the administration of the Revels Office, for which the death of Sir Thomas Benger about June of the same year afforded an opportunity.[262] Certainly there was no possibility of bringing about any immediate economy, for the embassy of the Duc de Montmorency from France had already caused a great increase of cost. The Revels bill for 1572-3 amounted to £1,427 12_s._ 6½_d._ or very little less than that for 1571-2. Of this about £1,000 was directly due to Montmorency's visit. Moreover, the greater part of the expenditure upon revels was not directly defrayed through the Office. They bought some stuff in the open market, and employed some workmen. But they had also large supplies from the Great Wardrobe, while the structure of banqueting-houses and the like was undertaken by the Office of Works. The total cost, therefore, for any one year would have to be pieced together from the accounts of all three offices. This task has never been essayed, but on Montmorency's coming an imprest of £200 was made to Lewis Stocket, Surveyor of the Works, and another of £300 to John Fortescue, Master of the Great Wardrobe, while a memorandum in Burghley's papers cites a warrant of 12 July 1572 which authorizes the delivery by Fortescue to Benger of stuffs to no less value than £1,757 8_s._ 1½_d._[263]

Pending Burghley's investigation no patent was issued for a successor to Benger. During the Christmas of 1573, the oversight of the Office was committed jointly to Fortescue and to Henry Sackford, the Master of the Tents, and the whole of the account for the period from 1 June 1572 to 31 October 1573 is signed by them, together with the inferior officers of the Revels. There are signs of an ambition towards economy in entries showing that on several occasions during the year claims upon the Office were reduced after examination by the Comptroller and other officers.[264] The auditors in their turn had an eye upon the Office. A sum of £50 was originally included in the account with the explanation:

'Item more for new presses to be made thorowowte the whole
storehowse for that the olde were so rotten that they coulde by
no meanes be repayred or made any waye to serve agayne. The
Queenes Maiesties store lyeng now on the ffloore in the store
howse which of necessitie must preasently be provyded for
before other workes can well beginne. Whiche presses being made
as is desyred by the Officers wilbe a greate safegarde to the
store preasently remayning and lyke-wise of the store to coome
whereby many things may be preserved that otherwyse wilbe
vtterly lost and spoyled contynually encreasing her Maiesties
charge.'

To this is appended a note:

'Not allowid for so moche as the said presseis ar not
begonn.'[265]

It may be admitted that the cost of the Revels would have been less if the officers had been in a position to pay for the goods supplied to them in ready money. They probably got small 'imprests' or advances at the beginning of the year when they could, but for the most part they had to obtain credit and satisfy their tradesmen with debentures, redeemable when the accounts had been audited and a warrant under the privy seal for the payment of the certified expenses issued. Elizabeth succeeded to an exchequer already burdened with the debt of past reigns, and the issue of these warrants was often delayed. William Bowll had made it part of his claim to be appointed Yeoman in succession to John Holt that he had made advances for 'payment to the workemen and other poore creditors for mony due unto them in the said office, accordinge to thear necessities before any warant graunted, only for to mayntayn the credit of the said office'. An undated letter is preserved amongst Burghley's papers in which he makes an attempt to recover a sum of £236 due to him for goods supplied over a period of two years and nine months.[266] A similar letter, written on behalf of the creditors and artificers serving the office, and signed by 'Poore Bryan Dodmer a creditour, to saue the labour of a great number whose exclamacion is lamentable', refers specifically to the unpaid balance of the office account on 28 February 1574, which stood at £1,550 5_s._ 8_d._[267] Bryan Dodmer had received a legacy from Sir Thomas Cawarden in 1559, and is shown by the account of 1571-2 to have been at that time occupied in the affairs of the Revels Office, although not on the establishment. To 1573 and 1574 may be ascribed three memoranda, which were evidently prepared for Burghley's assistance in considering schemes of reform. Two of these, although longer than can be printed here, are singularly illuminating to students of departmental history. One, in particular, gives a very capable summary of the situation, and is informed by a good deal of sound administrative sense.[268] It begins with a short historical notice of the origin and foundation of the Revels and a suggestion for a fresh amalgamation of the Mastership with those of the Tents and Toils. The writer then considers the possibility of either farming out the office, or fixing a definite allowance for all ordinary charges, and rejects both proposals as impracticable. Nor does he see much room for economy in the 'airings', or in a reduction in the number of officers; on the contrary, he is in favour of supplementing the Master, who must give attendance at Court, by a working head of the Office with the rank of Serjeant. He lays stress on the importance of co-operation amongst the officers, and while not prepared to abrogate the quasi-independence of the Master which the appointment of the inferior officers by patent gave them, submits an elaborate draft of new ordinances provisionally dated in the regnal year 1572-3, and intended to replace those which he understands to have been delivered 'before my time' to some of the Queen's Privy Council.[269] This deals, not only with the functions of each officer, but also with the time-table of the year's work, the control of the artificers, the economical employment of wardrobe stuff, the books to be kept, and the avoidance of debt by a liberal imprest. An historian of the stage can wish that the suggestion had been adopted for order to be annually given 'to a connynge paynter to enter into a fayer large ligeard booke in the manner of limnynge the maskes and shewes sett fourthe in that last seruice, to thende varyetye may be vsed from tyme to tyme'. I think that the author of this document was probably Buggin, the Clerk Comptroller, since the two other memoranda are clearly on internal evidence the work of Blagrave, the Clerk, and one of the Yeomen, and Burghley is likely to have given each officer a chance of expressing his views. It might, however, have been Henry Sackford, in view of the suggestion for amalgamation with the Tents, and in any case Buggin probably had Sackford's interests in mind, not to speak of his own chances of obtaining the contemplated Serjeanty. Blagrave's proposals are in matters of detail not unlike Buggin's, but he does not endorse the suggestion of a Serjeant, and is less skilful in keeping his personal ambitions in the background.[270]

If it please her highnes to bestowe the M_aste_rship of the
office vpon me (as I trust myne experience by acquayntaunce
w_i_t_h_ those thaffaires and contynuall dealing therein by the
space of xxvij or xxviij yeres deserveth, being also the
auncient of the office by at the leaste xxiiij of those yeres;
otherwise I wolde be lothe hereafter to deale nor medle
w_i_t_h_ it nor in it further then apperteyneth to the clerke,
whose allowaunce is so small as I gyve it holy to be discharged
of the toyle and attendaunce). I haue hetherto w_i_t_h_oute
recompence to my greate chardge and hynderaunce borne the
burden of the M_aste_r, and taken the care and paynes of that,
others haue had the thankes and rewarde for, w_hi_ch I trust
her Ma_ies_tie will not put me to w_i_t_h_oute the fee,
alowaunce, and estimac_i_on longing to it, nor if her highnes
vouchesafe not to bestowe it vpon me to let me passe
w_i_t_h_oute recompence for that is done and paste.

If the Fee and allowaunce be thought to muche, then let what
her Ma_ies_tie and Honerable counsaile shall thinke mete for
any man that shall supplie that burden and place to haue
toward_es_ his chardg_es_ be appointed of certeyntie, and I
will take that, and serve for as litle as any man that meanes
to Deale truly, so I be not to greate a loser by it.

The Yeoman's _Memorandum_ is short enough to be given in full.[271]

A note of sarten thing_es_ which are very nedefull to be
Redressed in the offys of the Revelles.

1. Fyrste the Romes or Loging_es_, where the garments and other
thing_es_, as hedpeces and suche lyke, dothe lye, Is in suche
decaye for want of rep_a_racions, that it hath by that meanes
perished A very greate longe wall, which parte thereof is falne
doune and hath broke undoune A greate presse, which stoode all
Alongest the same, by w_hi_ch meanes I ame fayne to laye the
garment_es_ vppon the grounde, to the greate hurt of the same,
so as if youre honoure ded se the same it woolde petye you to
see suche stoffe so yll bestowed.

2. Next there is no convenyent Romes for the Artifycers to
wourke in, but that Taylours, Paynters, Proparatiue makers,
and Carpenders are all fayne to wourke in one rome, which is A
very greate hinderaunce one to Another, w_hi_ch thinge nedes
not for theye are slacke anowe of them selves.

3. More, there ys two whole yeares charg_es_ be hinde vn payde,
to the greate hinderaunce of the poore Artyfycers that wourke
there. In so mvche that there be A greate parte of them that
haue byn dryven to sell there billes or debentars for halfe
that is dewe vnto them by the same.

4. More, yt hath broughte the offyce in suche dyscredet with
those that dyd delyver wares into the offyce, that theye will
delyuer yt in for A thirde parte more then it is woorthe, or
ellce we can get no credet of them for the same, which thinge
is A very greate hinderaunce to the Queenes ma_ies_tie and A
greate discredet to those that be offecers in that place, which
thinge for my parte I Ame very sory to see.

This is endorsed,

'For the Reuels. Matters to be redressed there.'

The documents are proposals for reform rather than statements of existing practice; but proposals for reform made by permanent officials are not generally very sweeping, and I think it may be taken that we get a pretty fair notion of the actual working of a Government department in the sixteenth century, not without certain hints of jealousies and disputes between the various officers as to their respective functions and privileges, which in those days as in these occasionally tended to interfere with the smooth working of the machine. The determination of these functions and privileges by regulation; the keeping of regular books, inventories, journals, and ledgers; the institution of a system of finance which would avoid the necessity of employing credit; the prohibition of the hiring-out of Revels stuff; these are amongst the improvements in organization which suggested themselves to practical men who were not in the least likely to suggest the transference of the duties of their own rather superfluous Office to the Office of Works or the Wardrobe. Both Buggin and Blagrave ask that the hands of the officers might be strengthened by a commission; that is, apparently, a warrant entitling them to enforce service on behalf of the Crown, such as the Master of the Children of the Chapel had to 'take up' singing-boys, and other departments of the Household, including probably the Tents, had for the purveyance of provisions and cartage. Probably the Revels had already enjoyed this authority upon special occasions. The _Account_ for the banqueting house of 1572 includes an item for 'flowers of all sortes taken up by comyssion and gathered in the feeldes'.[272] At the bottom of the documents there is a feeling that the weak point in the organization is the Mastership. The Master had to be a courtier, dancing attendance on the Queen and the Lord Chamberlain, and was likely to have the qualities and failings of a courtier; and then he came to the office, and gave instructions to people who knew their own business much better than he did.

Blagrave's ambitions to become Master of the Office were not wholly gratified. He was allowed to act as Master for some years, but he never received a patent, and after Benger's death he had the mortification of seeing the post given to another, while he was left to content himself with his much despised Clerkship. His regency lasted from November 1573 until Christmas 1579, and his signature stands alone or heads those of the other officers upon the Accounts relating to that period, with the exception of the last, on which the name of the incoming Master appears.[273] His appointment was presumably from year to year. It is stated in the Account for 1573-4 to have been made by 'her Majestie's pleasure signefyed by the right honorable L. Chamberlaine', and in that for 1574-5 to appear from 'sundry letters from the Lorde Chamberlayne'. And the vacancy emphasized the dependence of the Revels upon that great branch of the tripartite Household, the Chamber, over which the Lord Chamberlain presided. All Blagrave's activities were subject to control by his superior officer. He and his subordinates were constantly going by boat or horse to Richmond, or wherever the Court might be, to take instructions from the Lord Chamberlain, to submit patterns of masks and alterations of plays, and to obtain payment of expenses.[274] Blagrave himself had a house at Bedwyn in Wiltshire, and couriers were sometimes sent after him when his presence in London was urgently needed.[275] Upon his entrance into office the officers were called together 'for colleccion and showe of eche thinge prepared for her Maiesties regall disporte and recreacion as also the store wherewith to ffurnish, garnish and sett forth the same; wherof, as also of the whole state of the office the L. Chamberlayne according to his honours appointment was throughly advertised'.[276] The store was also carefully perused and the inventories checked upon the death of John Arnold the Yeoman, and the appointment on 29 January 1574 of Walter Fish in his room.[277] The Accounts continue to include allowances for the diet of the Clerk as well as that of the Master. I have no doubt that Blagrave was quite capable of drawing them both; but it is also likely enough that some unestablished person undertook the duties of 'Acting' Clerk. If so, this was most probably Bryan Dodmer, who was very useful on financial business during 1573-4 and 1574-5. After this year he disappears from the Accounts and his place is apparently taken by John Drawater. William Bowll, the ex-Deputy-Yeoman and silkweaver, and Thomas Giles, the haberdasher, in spite of their complaints against the Office, continue to supply it with goods.[278]

The general character of the Accounts, both under Fortescue and Sackford, and under Blagrave, is much the same as that of the one, already analysed, for 1571-2. Periods of activity, mainly at Christmas and Shrovetide, still alternate with periods of quiescence, stock-taking, and 'airing'. Occasionally the Office has to bestir itself to accompany a progress.[279] Some unusually detailed entries in 1576-7 give interesting information as to the rates of wages ordinarily paid to workmen. The head tailor got 20_d._ for each day or night, and other tailors 12_d._ Carpenters got 16_d._; the Porter and other attendants 12_d._ Painters, haberdashers, property-makers, joiners, carvers, and wire-drawers were paid 'at sundrie rates'. In a later year, 1579-80, the first and second painter got 2_s._ and 20_d._ respectively, and the rest 18_d._ The first wire-drawer got 20_d._, and the rest 16_d._[280] The payments for night-work really represent double wages for overtime, since we learn from Buggin and Blagrave that the length of a night was reckoned at about half that of a day. The workmen who waited on the mask before Montmorency in 1572 got extra rewards, because they 'had no tyme to eat theyer supper'; and while the banqueting-house was building Bryan Dodmer had to buy bread and cheese 'to serve the plasterers that wroughte all the nighte and mighte not be spared nor trusted to go abrode to supper'.[281] An important function of the Office consisted in 'calling together of sundry players and pervsing, fitting and reformyng theier matters (otherwise not convenient to be showen before her Maiestie)'.[282] Dodmer paid 40_s._ in 1574-5 for 'paynes in pervsing and reformyng of playes sundry tymes as neede required for her Maiestie's lyking', and it is a pity that the name of the payee is left blank in the Account.[283] When the plays had been chosen and knocked into shape, they had to be rehearsed. Now and then they were taken before the Lord Chamberlain for this purpose; but as a rule the rehearsals went on in the presence of the officers at St. John's. Here were a 'greate chambere where the workes were doone and the playes rezited', a storehouse, and the mansions of the officers. The Clerk had an office with a nether room next the yard.[284] Fish complains of the inconvenience of having only one room for every kind of artificer to work in. Items for yellow cotton to line 'the Monarkes gowne' and for his jerkin and hose perhaps point to the use of a lay figure.[285] One Nicholas Newdigate was extremely useful in hearing and training the children who frequently performed.[286] Naturally these gave a good deal of trouble. At Shrovetide 1574 nine of them were employed for a mask at Hampton Court. They had diet and lodging at St. John's, 'whiles thay learned theier partes and jestures meete for the mask'. They were taken from Paul's Wharf to Hampton Court in a barge with six oars and two 'tylt whirreys'. They arrived on Monday, but the Queen would not see them until the Tuesday, and they were lodged for the two nights at Mother Sparo's at Kingston. An Italian woman and her daughter were employed to dress their heads. When they got back to London on Ash-Wednesday, 'sum of them being sick and colde and hungry', fire and victuals were provided at Blackfriars. Each child received a reward of 1_s._[287] Trouble was caused also sometimes by the behaviour of the courtiers who took part in festivities. Six horns garnished with silver were provided at a cost of 18_s._, for a mask of hunters on 1 January 1574, and there is a note in the Account that these horns 'the maskers detayned and yet dooth kepe them against the will of all the officers'. This sort of difficulty was traditional. It was already perplexing the worthy Gibson more than half a century before.[288] That the practice of lending out the Revels stuff was not wholly abandoned is shown by an application from Magdalen College, Oxford, to Tilney in 1592 for furniture for a play.[289] Finance was also a cause of trouble. On his appointment in 1573 Blagrave succeeded in obtaining a 'prest' of £200 to begin the year upon. In 1574 he did the same, but not until Dodmer had applied in vain to the Lord Chamberlain, the Lord Treasurer, and Mr. Secretary Walsingham, and was finally 'after long attendaunce (and that none of the afore-named coulde get the Queenes Maiestie to resolve therin) dryven to trouble her Maiestie himselfe and by special peticion obtayned as well the grawnt for ccˡᶦ in prest as the dettes to be paid'. At the end of each year there were formalities and delays to be gone through before the bills could be paid. The accounts had to be made up, to be passed by the auditors, and to be declared before the Lord Treasurer and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Then a royal warrant had to be obtained for a privy seal, then the privy seal itself, and finally actual payment at the Exchequer. All these processes necessitated constant fees and gratuities. In 1579 the estimated charges for audit and payment amounted to £8. For his considerable financial services in 1574-5 Bryan Dodmer demanded £13 6_s._ 8_d._, but this was ruthlessly cut down by the officers to £6 13_s._ 4_d._ They in their turn found the auditor disallowing a small payment because it had been entered in the books after the sum had been cast, and was not properly certified. Dodmer had advanced the money, but he could not be repaid until the following year.[290]

A letter of 8 April 1577 from Leicester to Burghley reminds him that a certain suit of Sir Jerome Bowes and others 'touching plays' had been referred to them, together with the Lord Chamberlain, by the Queen for consideration. They had 'myslyked of the perpetuytie they sutors desierd', but a report still had to be made.[291] There is nothing to show the nature of this 'suit', but it is not unnatural to conjecture that it arose in some way out of the vacancy in the Mastership. No more, however, is heard of Sir Jerome Bowes in this connexion. It was not until seven years after Benger's death that Blagrave met with the rebuff of finding himself passed over in favour of an outsider, and reduced to his former position of Clerk, with its subordinate duties and its miserable allowances for the 'ordynary grene cloth, paper, incke, counters, deskes, standishes', and so forth. The new Master was Edmund Tilney, who had dedicated to Elizabeth, in 1568, a dialogue on matrimony under the title of _The Flower of Friendship_. Tilney was a connexion of Lord Howard of Effingham, to whose influence at Court he probably owed his appointment. His patent is dated on 24 July 1579, but the fee was to run from the previous Christmas, and he may therefore have formally assumed his duties at that period. His signature is attached with those of Blagrave and the other officers to the Account for the whole of the period from 14 February 1578 to 31 October 1579, but the details do not afford any evidence that he took a personal share in the work of the Office.[292] In 1581 he was spoken of as a possible ambassador to Spain, but this does not appear to have led to anything.[293]

Only a few detailed Accounts belonging to Tilney's Mastership are in existence. These are made up regularly from each 1 November to the following 31 October. They do not disclose any noteworthy change in the previous routine of the Office. On 8 August 1580 Thomas Sackford, a Master of the Requests, and Sir Owen Hopton, the Lieutenant of the Tower, were instructed by the Council to take a view of the Revels stuff upon the appointment of the new Master, and to deliver inventories of the same to Tilney. Accordingly, a charge of 40_s._ 'for the ingrossinge of three paire of indentid inventories' appears in the Account.[294] Blagrave appears to have sulked at first, for in 1581 the employment of a professional scribe to make up the accounts was explained by the absence of a clerk. The auditors, very properly, made a marginal note of surprise, and Blagrave resumed his duties.[295] In 1582-3 considerable repairs were required at the Revels Office, owing to the fact that a chamber which formed part of Blagrave's lodging had fallen down. An office and a chamber for the Master seem for a time to have been provided at Court during the attendance of the Master, and warmed with billets and coals at the expense of the Revels, but by 1587-8 they had been crowded out, and an allowance of 10_s._ was made for the hire of rooms.[296] Another entry for 1582-3 marks an epoch of some importance in the history of the Elizabethan stage. On 10 March 1583 Tilney was summoned to Court by a letter from Mr. Secretary [Walsingham] 'to choose out a companie of players for her Ma_ies_tie'. Horse hire and charges on the journey cost him 20_s._[297] Outside the Accounts there is one document of considerable interest belonging to the early years of Tilney's rule. This is a patent, dated 24 December 1581, and giving to the Master of the Revels such a 'commission' or grant of exceptional powers over the subjects of the realm, as had been stated in the _Memoranda_ of 1573 to be eminently desirable in the interests of the office.[298] The Master is authorized to take and retain such workmen 'at competent wages', and take such 'stuff, ware, or merchandise', 'at price reasonable', together with such 'carriages', by land and by water, as he may consider to be necessary or expedient for the service of the Revels. He or his deputy may commit recalcitrant persons to ward. He may protect his workmen from arrest, and they are not to be liable to forfeit if their service in the Revels obliges them to break outside contracts for piece-work. The licensing powers also conferred upon the Master by this patent are considered elsewhere.[299]

Tilney's accession to office coincided with the beginning of the period of heightened splendour in Court entertainments, due to the negotiations for Elizabeth's marriage with the Duke of Anjou.[300] A magnificent banqueting-house was built at Whitehall, and Sidney, Fulke Greville, and others, equipped as the Foster Children of Desire, besieged the Fortress of Perfect Beauty in the tilt-yard. One might have expected to find a considerably larger expenditure accounted for by the officers of the Revels. But this was not so, except for the one winter of Anjou's visit. The cost of the Office, which in 1571-3 had grown to about £1,500 a year, rapidly fell again. In 1573-4 it was about £670; in 1574-5 about £580; and thereafter it generally stood at not more than from £250 to £350. In 1581-2, however, it reached £630.[301] It is probable that the figures do not point to any real reduction of expenditure, but only mean that, after the experience of John Fortescue, the Master of the Wardrobe, as Acting Master of the Revels in 1572-3, it was found economical to supply the needs of the Office, to a greater extent even than in the past, through the organization of the Wardrobe and the Office of Works, instead of by the direct purchase of goods or employment of labour in the open market. Stowe records, for example, that the banqueting-house of 1581 cost £1,744 19_s._, but no part of this appears in the Revels Account, although the banqueting-house of 1572 had cost the Office £224 6_s._ 10_d._[302] Probably it was all met by the Office of Works. About 1596 a further reform in the interests of economy was attempted, by the establishment of a fixed annual allowance for expenses, including the 'wages' or 'diet' hitherto allowed to the officers for each day or night of actual attendance at 'airings' or at the rehearsals or performances of plays. The last payment under the old system was made on 30 May 1594 by a warrant to Tilney for a sum of £311 2_s._ 2_d._ in respect of works and wares and officers' wages for 1589-92, together with an imprest of £100 for 1592-3.[303] The next warrant was made out on 25 January 1597, and directed the payment of £200 for 1593-6, together with an annual payment of £66 6_s._ 8_d._, 'as composition for defraying the charges of the office for plays only, according to a rate of a late reformation and composition for ordinary charges there'.[304] The amount of £311 2_s._ 2_d._ paid for the three years 1589-92 is so small as to suggest that the distinction between 'ordinary' and 'extraordinary' charges may have already existed during the period, and may thus have preceded the reduction of 'ordinary' charges to a 'composition'. The warrant of 25 January 1597, however, never became operative. There is an entry of it in the Docquet Book of the Signet Office, and in the margin are the notes 'Remanet: neuer passed the Seales' and 'Staid by the L_ord_ Thre_a_s_ore_r: vacat'. Fortunately we are able to trace the causes which led to this interposition by Burghley. It will perhaps be remembered that Edward Buggin, in his _Memorandum_ of 1573, had considered a possible reform of the administration of the Revels Office on lines very similar to those now adopted, and had decided that it was impracticable.[305] Doubtless the same view was held by the officers of 1597, and after the manner of permanent officials they took steps to ensure that it should be impracticable. Disputes arose between the Master and the inferior officers as to the distribution of the sum allowed for ordinary charges, and, pending a settlement of these, all payments out of the Office were suspended. The result was a memorial to Burghley from the 'creditors and servitors' of the Revels, which called attention to the fact that five years' arrears due to them were withheld 'only throughe the discention amoungest the officers'.[306]

This was in the first instance referred to Tilney for his observations, and he writes:

All _tha_t I can saye Is, _tha_t _th_er Is a Composition layd
vppo_n_ me by Quens ma_ies_te and signed by her self, rated
verbatimly by certayn orders sett down by my L_ord_ Treasorer
vnder his L_ordshippes_ Hand, whervnto I haue appealed, because
_th_e other officers will nott be satisficed w_ith_ ayni
reason, whert_o_ I am now teyd & nott vnto there friuilus
demandes. Wherefore lett _th_em sett down In writtinge _th_e
speciall Causes why they shuld reiect _th_e forsayd orders and
_th_e Compositio_n_ gronded theron, Then am I to reply vnto
_th_e same as I can, for tell then _th_es petitioners can nott
be satisfied.

Ed. Tyllney.

The document was then referred to Burghley, with the following summary of its contents:

5 November 1597.

They shewe _tha_t theie are vnpaid theise five yeares last past
for wares deliuered and service done in _th_e office of _th_e
Revells, throughe _th_e dissencion amongest _th_e officers to
_the_ir greate hinderance theise deare yeares beeinge poore
men.

Vppon _thei_r_e_ mocion to _th_e m_aste_r of _th_e office, his
answere is, _tha_t _th_e faulte is not in him, but he is redy
to satisfie _th_em all such allowances as are dew vnto _the_m,
either by yo_u_r L_ordshippes_ former order, or in righte theie
can challeng, vppon _whi_ch order _th_e m_aste_r doth wholly
relie but _th_e other reiect _th_e same.

for _tha_t _the_re is no licklyhood of _thei_re agreem_en_t,
whereby _th_e petecioners may be satisfied, Theie Humbly pray
yo_u_r L_ordshippe_ to Command som order for _th_e releving
_thei_re poore estates.

Burghley then gave this direction:

One of the Awdito_u_rs of the prest w_i_th one of the Barons of
_th_e Eschecqr to heare the officers of the Revels, and thes
petitioners, and either to ende the questions betwene them, or
to certefie theyre opinions.

W. Burghley.

The document is then further endorsed with the report of Burghley's referees:

quinto Januarii 1597 [1597/8].

Pleaseth it yo_u_r good Lordeship to be advertized that, after
longe travaile and paines taken betwene the M_aste_r of the
Revells and the Officers thereof, It is agreed by o_u_r
entreaty that, out of the xlˡᶦ by yeare allowed for Fees or
wage for their attendaunces, the M_aste_r of the Revell_es_
shall yearely allowe and paye the severall Somes of mony
vnd_e_r written, viz.

To the Clarke Comptroller of that office viijˡᶦ
To the Yeoman of the Revell_es_ viijˡᶦ
To the Groome of the Office xlˢ
To the Porter of St. Johns xxˢ

whereof xxˢ, p_ar_cell of the saide viijˡᶦ allowed to the
yeoman, is to be aunswered by the same yeoman after this yeare
to the said Groome.

Which yf it may stande w_i_th yo_u_r good Lordshippes lyking,
wee truste will bring contynuall quietnes and dutifull service
to her ma_ies_tie.

John Sotherton.
Jo. Conyers.

Hereon Burghley comments:

My desire is to be better satisfied howe the Credito_u_rs shall
be payd.

W. Burghley.