Chapter XXVII: Introduction: The Public Theatres (9)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOOTNOTES:

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

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

[3] Cf. ch. xi.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[10] _Archaeologia_, lxii. 1. 220.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[18] _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 380.

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

[20] _Chamber Accounts_ (1545).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[27] _Mediaeval Stage_, ii. 196.

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

[29] Hennessy, 61.

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

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

[32] Dasent, ix. 56.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[47] Cf. ch. xi.

[48] V. i. 102.

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

[50] Cf. ch. xxiv.

[51] Cf. _infra_ (Queen’s Revels).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[61] Cf. ch. ii.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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