Chapter X: Book V: Plays and Playwrights (4)

1634. The Two Noble Kinsmen: Presented at the Black-friers by the Kings Maiesties servants, with great applause: Written by the memorable Worthies of their time; Mr. John Fletcher, and Mr. William Shakspeare. Gent. _Tho. Cotes for Iohn Waterson._ [Prologue and Epilogue.]

1679. [Part of F_{2} of Beaumont and Fletcher.]

_Editions_ by W. W. Skeat (1875), H. Littledale (1876–85, _N. S. S._), C. H. Herford (1897, _T. D._), J. S. Farmer (1910, _T. F. T._), and with _Works_ of Beaumont and Fletcher, _Sh. Apocrypha_, and sometimes _Works_ of Shakespeare.--_Dissertations_: W. Spalding, _A Letter on Sh.’s Authorship of T. N. K._ (1833; 1876, _N. S. S._); S. Hickson, _The Shares of Sh. and F. in T. N. K._ (1847, _Westminster Review_, xlvii. 59; 1874, _N. S. S. Trans._ 25*, with additions by F. G. Fleay and F. J. Furnivall); N. Delius, _Die angebliche Autorschaft des T. N. K._ (1878, _Jahrbuch_, xiii. 16); R. Boyle, _Sh. und die beiden edlen Vettern_ (1881, _E. S._ iv. 34), _On Massinger and T. N. K._ (1882, _N. S. S. Trans._ 371); T. Bierfreund, _Palamon og Arcite_ (1891); E. H. C. Oliphant (1892, _E. S._ xv. 323); B. Leuschner, _Über das Verhältniss von T. N. K. zu Chaucer’s Knightes Tale_ (1903, _Halle diss._); O. Petersen, _The T. N. K._ (1914, _Anglia_, xxxviii. 213); H. D. Sykes, _The T. N. K._ (1916, _M. L. R._ xi. 136); A. H. Cruickshank, _Massinger and T. N. K._ (1922).

The date of _T. N. K._ is fairly well fixed to 1613 by its adaptation of Beaumont’s wedding mask of Shrovetide in that year; there would be a confirmation in Jonson, _Bartholomew Fair_ (1614), iv. 3,

_Quarlous._ Well my word is out of the _Arcadia_, then: _Argalus_.

_Win-wife._ And mine out of the play, _Palemon_;

did not the juxtaposition of the _Arcadia_ suggest that the allusion may be, not to the Palamon of _T. N. K._ but to the Palaemon of Daniel’s _The Queen’s Arcadia_ (1606). In spite of the evidence of the t.p. attempts have been made to substitute Beaumont, or, more persistently, Massinger, for Shakespeare as Fletcher’s collaborator. This question can only be discussed effectively in connexion with Shakespeare.

_The Honest Man’s Fortune. 1613_

[_MS._] _Dyce MS._ 9, formerly in Heber collection.

1647. The Honest Mans Fortune. [Part of F_{1}. After play, verses ‘Upon an Honest Mans Fortune. By M^r. John Fletcher’, beginning ‘You that can look through Heaven, and tell the Stars’.]

1679. The Honest Man’s Fortune. A Tragicomedie. [Part of F_{2}. ‘The principal actors were Nathan Field, Joseph Taylor, Rob. Benfield, Will Eglestone, Emanuel Read, Thomas Basse.’]

_Dissertation_: K. Richter, _H. M. F. und seine Quellen_ (1905, _Halle diss._).

On the fly-leaf of the MS. is ‘The Honest Man’s Fortune, Plaide in the yeare 1613’, and in another hand at the end of the text, ‘This Play, being an olde one, and the Originall lost was reallow’d by mee this 8 Febru. 1624. Att the intreaty of Mr. .’ The last word is torn off, but a third hand has added ‘Taylor’. The MS. contains some alterations, partly by the licenser, partly by the stage-manager or prompter. The latter include the names of three actors, ‘G[eorge] Ver[non]’, ‘J: R Cro’ and ‘G. Rick’. The ending of the last scene in the MS. differs from that of the Ff. The endorsement is confirmed by Herbert’s entry in his diary (_Variorum_, iii. 229), ‘For the King’s company. An olde play called The Honest Mans Fortune, the originall being lost, was re-allowed by mee at M^r. Taylor’s intreaty, and on condition to give mee a booke [The Arcadia], this 8 Februa. 1624.’ The actor-list suggests that the original performers were Lady Elizabeth’s men, after the Queen’s Revels had joined them in March 1613. Fleay, i. 196, suggests that this is the play by Fletcher, Field, Massinger, and Daborne which is the subject of some of Henslowe’s correspondence and was finally delivered on 5 Aug. 1613 (Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, 65, 90). Attempts to combine this indication with stylistic evidence have led the critics to some agreement that Fletcher is only responsible for V and that Massinger is to be found in III, and for the rest into a quagmire of conjecture amongst the names of Beaumont, Fletcher, Massinger, Field, Daborne, Tourneur, and Cartwright. The appended verses of the Ff. are not in the _Dyce MS._, but they are in _Addl. MS._ 25707, f. 66, and _Bodl. Rawlinson Poet. MS._ 160, f. 20, where they are ascribed to Fletcher, and in Beaumont’s _Poems_ (1653).

_Bonduca. 1609 < > 14_

1647. Bonduca, A Tragedy. [Part of F_{1}.]

1679. [Part of F_{2}. ‘The Principal Actors were Richard Burbadge, Henry Condel, William Eglestone, Nich. Toolie, William Ostler, John Lowin, John Underwood, Richard Robinson.’]

_Dissertations_: B. Leonhardt, _Die Text-Varianten von B. und F.’s B._ (1898, _Anglia_, xx. 421) and _Bonduca_ (_E. S._ xiii. 36).

The actor-list is of the King’s men between 1609–11 or between 1613–14, as these are the only periods during which Ecclestone and Ostler can have played together. The authorship is generally regarded as substantially Fletcher’s; and the occasional use of rhyme in II. i and IV. iv hardly justifies Oliphant’s theory of an earlier version by Beaumont, or the ascription by Fleay and Macaulay of these scenes to Field, whose connexion with the King’s does not seem to antedate 1616.

_Monsieur Thomas. 1610 < > 16_

_S. R._ 1639, Jan. 22 (Wykes). ‘A Comedy called Monsieur Thomas, by master John Fletcher.’ _Waterson_ (Arber, iv. 451).

1639. Monsieur Thomas. A Comedy. Acted at the Private House in Blacke Fryers. The Author, Iohn Fletcher, Gent. _Thomas Harper for John Waterson._ [Epistle to Charles Cotton, signed ‘Richard Brome’ and commendatory verses by the same.]

N.D. [_c._ 1661]. Fathers Own Son. A Comedy. Formerly Acted at the Private House in Black Fryers; and now at the Theatre in Vere Street by His Majesties Servants. The Author John Fletcher Gent. _For Robert Crofts._ [Reissue with fresh t.p.]

_Edition_ by R. G. Martin (1912, Bullen, iv).--_Dissertations_: H. Guskar, _Fletcher’s Monsieur Thomas und seine Quellen_ (1905, _Anglia_, xxviii. 397; xxix. 1); A. L. Stiefel, _Zur Quellenfrage von John Fletcher’s Monsieur Thomas_ (1906, _E. S._ xxxvi. 238); O. L. Hatcher, _The Sources of Fletcher’s Monsieur Thomas_ (1907, _Anglia_, xxx. 89).

The title-page printed at the time of the revival by the King’s men of the Restoration enables us to identify _Monsieur Thomas_ with the _Father’s Own Son_ of the Cockpit repertory in 1639, and like the other plays of the Beaumont and Fletcher series in that repertory it was probably written by 1616, and either for the Queen’s Revels or for the Lady Elizabeth’s. An allusion in II. iii. 104 to ‘all the feathers in the Friars’ might indicate production at Porter’s Hall in the Blackfriars about that year. The play cannot be earlier than its source, Part ii (1610) of H. d’Urfé’s _Astrée_, and by 1610 the more permanent Blackfriars house had passed to the King’s, by whom the performances referred to on the original title-page must therefore have been given. Perhaps the explanation is that there had been some misunderstanding about the distribution of the Lady Elizabeth’s men’s plays between the King’s and the Cockpit, and that a revival by the King’s in 1639 led the Cockpit managers to get the Lord Chamberlain’s order of 10 Aug. 1639 (_Variorum_, iii. 159) appropriating their repertory to them. The authorship is ascribed with general assent to Fletcher alone.

_Valentinian. 1610 < > 14_

1647. The Tragedy of Valentinian. [Part of F_{1}. Epilogue.]

1679. [Part of F_{2}. ‘The principal Actors were, Richard Burbadge, Henry Condel, John Lowin, William Ostler, John Underwood.’]

_Edition_ by R. G. Martin (1912, Bullen, iv).

The actor-list is of the King’s men before the death of Ostler on 16 Dec. 1614, and the play must fall between this date and the publication of its source, Part ii (1610) of H. d’Urfé’s _Astrée_. There is general agreement in assigning it to Fletcher alone.

_Wit Without Money, c. 1614_

_S. R._ 1639, April 25 (Wykes). ‘These fiue playes ... Witt without money.’ _Crooke and William Cooke_ (Arber, iv. 464).

1639. Wit Without Money. A Comedie, As it hath beene Presented with good Applause at the private house in Drurie Lane, by her Majesties Servants. Written by Francis Beamount and John Flecher. Gent. _Thomas Cotes for Andrew Crooke and William Cooke._

1661.... The Second Impression Corrected. _For Andrew Crooke._

_Edition_ by R. B. McKerrow (1905, Bullen, ii).

Allusions to the New River opened in 1613 (IV. v. 61) and to an alleged Sussex dragon of Aug. 1614 (II. iv. 53) suggest production not long after the latter date. There is general agreement in assigning the play to Fletcher alone. It passed into the Cockpit repertory and was played there both by Queen Henrietta’s men and in 1637 by Beeston’s boys (_Variorum_, iii. 159, 239). Probably, therefore, it was written for the Lady Elizabeth’s.

_The Scornful Lady. 1613 < > 17_

_S. R._ 1616, March 19 (Buck). ‘A plaie called The scornefull ladie written by Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher.’ _Miles Partriche_ (Arber, iii. 585).

1616. The Scornful Ladie. A Comedie. As it was Acted (with great applause) by the Children of Her Maiesties Reuels in the Blacke-Fryers. Written by Fra. Beaumont and Io. Fletcher, Gent. _For Miles Partriche._

1625.... As it was now lately Acted (with great applause) by the Kings Maiesties seruants, at the Blacke-Fryers.... _For M. P., sold by Thomas Jones._

1630, 1635, 1639, 1651 (_bis_).

_Edition_ by R. W. Bond (1904, Bullen, i).

References to ‘talk of the Cleve wars’ (V. iii. 66) and ‘some cast Cleve captain’ (V. iv. 54) cannot be earlier than 1609 when the wars broke out after the death of the Duke of Cleves on 25 March, and there can hardly have been ‘cast’ captains until some time after July 1610 when English troops first took part. Fleay, i. 181, calls attention to an allusion to the binding by itself of the Apocrypha (I. ii. 46) which was discussed for the A. V. and the Douay Version, both completed in 1610; and Gayley to a reminiscence (IV. i. 341) of _Epicoene_ which, however, was acted in 1609, not, as Gayley thinks, 1610. None of these indications, however, are of much importance in view of another traced by Gayley (III. ii. 17):

I will style thee noble, nay, Don Diego;
I’ll woo thy infanta for thee.

Don Diego Sarmiento’s negotiations for a Spanish match with Prince Charles began on 27 May 1613. The play must therefore be 1613–16. In any case the ‘Blackfriars’ of the title-page must be the Porter’s Hall house of 1615–17. Even if the end of 1609 were a possible date, Murray, i. 153, is wrong in supposing that the Revels were then at Blackfriars. There is fair unanimity in assigning I, the whole or part of II, and V. ii to Beaumont, and the rest to Fletcher, but Bond and Gayley suggest that III. i, at least, might be Massinger’s.

_Thierry and Theodoret (?)_

1621. The Tragedy of Thierry King of France, and his Brother Theodoret. As it was diuerse times acted at the Blacke-Friers by the Kings Maiesties Seruants. _For Thomas Walkley._

1648.... Written by John Fletcher Gent. _For Humphrey Moseley._

1649.... Written by Fracis Beamont and John Fletcher Gent. _For Humphrey Moseley._ [A reissue, with Prologue and Epilogue, not written for the play; cf. Fleay, i. 205.]

_Dissertation_: B. Leonhardt, _Die Text-Varianten von B. und F.’s T. and T._ (1903, _Anglia_, xxvi. 345).

Fleay, i. 205, dates the play _c._ 1617, supposing it to be a satire on the French Court, and the name De Vitry to be that of the slayer of the Maréchal d’Ancre. Thorndike, 79, has little difficulty in disposing of this theory, although it may be pointed out that the Privy Council did in fact intervene to suppress a play about the Maréchal in 1617 (Gildersleeve, 113); but he is less successful in attempting to show any special plausibility in a date as early as 1607. A former conjecture by Fleay (_E. S._ ix. 21) that III and V. i are fragments of the anonymous _Branholt_ of the Admiral’s in 1597 may also be dismissed with Greg (_Henslowe_, ii. 188). Most critics find, in addition to Fletcher, Massinger, as collaborator or reviser, according to the date given to the play, and some add Field or Daborne. Oliphant and Thorndike find Beaumont. So did Macaulay, 196, in 1883, but apparently not in 1910 (_C. H._ vi. 138).

_The Nightwalker or The Little Thief (?)_

_S. R._ 25 April 1639 (Wykes). ‘These fiue playes ... Night walters.... _Crooke and William Cooke_ (Arber, iv. 464).

1640. The Night-Walker, or the Little Theife. A Comedy, As it was presented by her Majesties Servants, at the Private House in Drury Lane. Written by John Fletcher. Gent. _Tho. Cotes for Andrew Crooke and William Cooke._ [Epistle to William Hudson, signed ‘A. C.’.]

1661. _For Andrew Crook._

Herbert licensed this as ‘a play of Fletchers corrected by Sherley’ on 11 May 1633 and it was played at Court by Queen Henrietta’s men on 30 Jan. 1634 (_Variorum_, iii. 236). The only justification for placing Fletcher’s version earlier than 1616 is the suspicion that the only plays of Beaumont or Fletcher which passed to the Cockpit repertory were some of those written for the Queen’s Revels or the Lady Elizabeth’s before that date.

_Four Plays in One (?)_

1647. Four Plays, or Moral Representations in One. [Part of F_{1}. Induction with 2 Prologues, The Triumph of Honour, the Triumph of Love with Prologue, the Triumph of Death with Prologue, the Triumph of Time with Prologue, Epilogue.]

_Dissertation_: W. J. Lawrence, _The Date of F. P. in O._ (_T. L. S._ 11 Dec. 1919).

This does not seem to have passed to the King’s men or the Cockpit, and cannot be assigned to any particular company. It has been supposed to be a boys’ play, presumably because it has much music and dancing. It has also much pageantry in dumb-shows and so forth and stage machinery. Conceivably it might have been written for private performance in place of a mask. _Time_, in particular, has much the form of a mask, with antimask. But composite plays of this type were well known on the public stage. There is no clear indication of date. Fleay, i. 179, suggested 1608 because _The Yorkshire Tragedy_, printed that year, is also described in its heading as ‘one of the Four Plays in One’, but presumably it belonged to another series. Thorndike, 85, points out that the antimask established itself in Court masks in 1608. Gayley, 301, puts _Death_ and _Time_ in 1610, because he thinks that they fall stylistically between _The Faithfull Shepherdess_ and _Philaster_, and the rest in 1612, because he thinks they are Field’s and that they cannot be before 1611, since they are not mentioned, like _Amends for Ladies_, as forthcoming in the epistle to _Woman a Weathercock_ in that year. This hardly bears analysis, and indeed Field is regarded as the author of the Induction and _Honour_ only by Oliphant and Gayley and of _Love_ only by Gayley himself. All these are generally assigned to Beaumont, and _Death_ and _Time_ universally to Fletcher. Lawrence’s attempt to attach the piece to the wedding festivities of 1612–13 does not seem to me at all convincing.

_Love’s Cure; or, The Martial Maid_ (?)

1647. Loves Cure, or the Martial Maid. [Part of F_{1}. A Prologue at the reviving of this Play. Epilogue.]

1679. Loves Cure, or the Martial Maid A Comedy. [Part of F_{2}.]

_Dissertation_: A. L. Stiefel, _Die Nachahmung spanischer Komödien in England_ (1897, _Archiv_, xcix. 271).

The prologue, evidently later than Fletcher’s death in 1625, clearly assigns the authorship to Beaumont and Fletcher, although the epilogue, of uncertain date, speaks of ‘our author’. This is the only sound reason for thinking that the original composition was in Beaumont’s lifetime. The internal evidence for an early date cited by Fleay, i. 180, and Thorndike, 72, becomes trivial when we eliminate what merely fixes the historic time of the play to 1604–9, and proves nothing as to the time of composition. On the other hand, II. ii,

the cold Muscovite ...
That lay here lieger in the last great frost,

points to a date later than the winter of 1621, as I cannot trace any earlier great frost in which a Muscovite embassy can have been in London (_S. P. D. Jac. I_, cxxiii, 11, 100; cxxiv. 40). Further, the critics seem confident that the dominant hand in the play as it exists is Massinger’s, and that Beaumont and Fletcher show, if at all, faintly through his revision. The play belonged to the repertory of the King’s men by 1641 (_M. S. C._ i. 364).

_Wit at Several Weapons_ (?)

1647. Wit at several weapons. A Comedy. [Part of F_{1}. The epilogue at the reviving of this Play.]

1679. [Part of F_{2}.]

The history of the play is very obscure. It is neither in the Cockpit repertory of 1639 nor in that of the King’s in 1641, and the guesses of Fleay, i. 218, that it may be _The Devil of Dowgate or Usury Put to Use_, licensed by Herbert for the King’s on 17 Oct. 1623, and _The Buck is a Thief_, played at Court by the same men on 28 Dec. 1623, are unsupported and mutually destructive. The epilogue, clearly written after the death of Fletcher, tells us that ‘’twas well receiv’d before’ and that Fletcher ‘had to do in’ it, and goes on to qualify this by adding--

that if he but writ
An Act, or two, the whole Play rose up wit.

The critics find varying amounts of Fletcher, with work of other hands, which some of them venture to identify as those of Middleton and Rowley. Oliphant, followed by Thorndike, 87, finds Beaumont, and the latter points to allusions which are not inconsistent with, but certainly do not prove, 1609–10, or even an earlier date. Macaulay, 196, also found Beaumont in 1883, but seems to have retired upon Middleton and Rowley in 1910 (_C. H._ vi. 138).

_The Faithful Friends_ (?)

[_MS._] _Dyce MS._ 10, formerly in the Heber collection.

_S. R._ 1660, June 29. ‘The Faithfull Friend a Comedy, by Francis Beamont & John Fletcher’. _H. Moseley_ (Eyre, ii. 271).

_Edition_ by A. Dyce in _Works_ (1812).

Fleay in 1889 (_E. S._ xiii. 32) saw evidence of a date in 1614 in certain possible allusions (I. i. 45–52, 123–6) to the Earl of Somerset and his wedding on 26 Dec. 1613, and suggested Field and Daborne as the authors. In 1891 (i. 81, 201) he gave the whole to Daborne, except IV. v, which he thought of later date, and supposed it to be the subject of Daborne’s letter of 11 March 1614 to Henslowe, which was in fact probably _The Owl_ (Greg, _Henslowe Papers_, 82). Oliphant thinks it a revision by Massinger and Field in 1614 of a play by Beaumont and Fletcher, perhaps as early as 1604. With this exception no critic seems much to believe in the presence of Beaumont or Fletcher, and Boyle, who suggests Shirley, points out that the allusion in I. i. 124 to the relation between Philip III and the Duke of Lerma as in the past would come more naturally after Philip’s death in 1621 or at least after Lerma’s disgrace in 1618. The MS. is in various hands, one of which has made corrections. Some of these seem on internal evidence to have been due to suggestions of the censor, others to play-house exigencies.

_Lost Play_

Among plays entered in S. R. by Humphrey Moseley on 29 June 1660 (Eyre, ii. 271) is ‘The History of Madon King of Brittain, by F. Beamont’. Madan is a character in _Locrine_, but even Moseley can hardly have ascribed that long-printed play to Beaumont.

_Inner Temple and Gray’s Inn Mask. 20 Feb. 1613_

_S. R._ 1613, Feb. 27 (Nidd). ‘A booke called the [description] of the maske performed before the kinge by the gent. of the Myddle temple and Lincolns Inne with the maske of Grayes Inne and the Inner Temple.’ _George Norton_ (Arber, iii. 516).

N.D. The Masque of the Inner Temple and Grayes Inn: Grayes Inne and the Inner Temple, presented before his Maiestie, the Queenes Maiestie, the Prince, Count Palatine and the Lady Elizabeth their Highnesses, in the Banquetting-house at Whitehall on Saturday the twentieth day of Februarie, 1612. _F. K. for George Norton._ [Epistle to Sir Francis Bacon and the Benchers.]

N.D. ... By Francis Beaumont, Gent. _F. K. for George Norton._

1647. [Part of F_{1}.]

1653. Poems: by Francis Beaumont, Gent. [&c.] _for Laurence Blaiklock_. [The Masque is included.]

1653. Poems ... _for William Hope_. [A reissue.]

1660. Poems. The golden remains of those so much admired dramatick poets, Francis Beaumont & John Fletcher, Gent. [&c.] _for William Hope_. [A reissue.]

1679. [Part of F_{2}.]

The texts of 1647–79 give a shorter description than the original Q_{q}, and omit the epistle.

_Edition_ in Nichols, _James_ (1828), ii. 591.

For general notices of the wedding masks, see ch. xxiv and the account of Campion’s _Lords’ Mask_; but it may be noted that the narrative in the _Mercure François_ gives a very inaccurate description of Beaumont’s work as left to us, introducing an Atlas and an Aletheia who find no places in the text.

The maskers, in carnation, were fifteen knights of Olympia; the musicians twelve priests of Jove; the presenters Mercury and Iris. There were two antimasks, Mercury’s of four Naiads, five Hyades, four Cupids, and four Statues, ‘not of one kinde or liverie (because that had been so much in use heretofore)’, and Iris’s of a ‘rurall company’ consisting of a Pedant, a May Lord and Lady, a Servingman and Chambermaid, a Country Clown or Shepherd and Country Wench, a Host and Hostess, a He Baboon and She Baboon, and a He Fool and She Fool ‘ushering them in’.

The locality was the Banqueting House at Whitehall. The Hall was originally appointed, and on Shrove-Tuesday, 16 Feb., the mask came by water from Winchester House in the royal barge, attended by many gentlemen of the Inns in other barges. They landed at the Privy Stairs, watched by the King and princes from the Privy Gallery, and were conducted to the Vestry. But the actual mask was put off until 20 Feb., in view of the press in the Hall, and then given in Banqueting House. Beaumont’s description passes lightly over this _contretemps_, but cf. _infra_.

The ‘fabricke’ was a mountain, with separate ‘traverses’ discovering its lower and its higher slopes. From the former issued the presenters and antimasks, whose ‘measures’ were both encored by the King, but unluckily ‘one of the Statuaes by that time was undressed’. The latter bore the ‘maine masque’ in two pavilions before the altar of Jupiter. The maskers descended, danced two measures, then took their ladies to dance galliards, durets, corantoes, &c., then danced ‘their parting measure’ and ascended.

Phineas Pett, Master of the Shipwrights’ Company in 1613, relates (_Archaeologia_, xii. 266) that he was

‘intreated by divers gentlemen of the inns of business, whereof
Sir Francis Bacon was chief, to attend the bringing of a mask
by water in the night from St. Mary Over’s to Whitehall in some
of the gallies; but the tide falling out very contrary and the
company attending the maskers very unruly, the project could not
be performed so exactly as was purposed and expected. But yet
they were safely landed at the plying stairs at Whitehall, for
which my paines the gentlemen gave me a fair recompence.’

Chamberlain (Birch, i. 227) says:

‘On Tuesday it came to Gray’s Inn and the Inner Temple’s turn to
come with their mask, whereof Sir Francis Bacon was the chief
contriver; and because the former came on horseback and in open
chariots, they made choice to come by water from Winchester
Place, in Southwark, which suited well with their device, which
was the marriage of the river of Thames to the Rhine; and their
show by water was very gallant, by reason of infinite store
of lights, very curiously set and placed, and many boats and
barges, with devices of light and lamps, with three peals of
ordnance, one at their taking water, another in the Temple
garden, and the last at their landing; which passage by water
cost them better than three hundred pounds. They were received
at the Privy Stairs, and great expectation there was that they
should every way excel their competitors that went before them;
both in device, daintiness of apparel, and, above all, in
dancing, wherein they are held excellent, and esteemed for the
properer men. But by what ill planet it fell out, I know not,
they came home as they went, without doing anything; the reason
whereof I cannot yet learn thoroughly, but only that the hall
was so full that it was not possible to avoid it, or make room
for them; besides that, most of the ladies were in the galleries
to see them land, and could not get in.

But the worst of all was, that the King was so wearied and
sleepy, with sitting up almost two whole nights before, that he
had no edge to it. Whereupon, Sir Francis Bacon adventured to
entreat of his majesty that by this difference he would not, as
it were, bury them quick; and I hear the King should answer,
that then they must bury him quick, for he could last no longer,
but withal gave them very good words, and appointed them to come
again on Saturday. But the grace of their mask is quite gone,
when their apparel hath been already showed, and their devices
vented, so that how it will fall out God knows, for they are
much discouraged and out of countenance, and the world says it
comes to pass after the old proverb, the properer man the worse
luck.’

In a later letter (Birch, i. 229) Chamberlain concludes the story:

‘And our Gray’s Inn men and the Inner Templars were nothing
discouraged, for all the first dodge, but on Saturday last
performed their parts exceeding well and with great applause and
approbation, both from the King and all the company.’

In a third letter, to Winwood (iii, 435), he describes the adventures of the mask more briefly, and adds the detail that the performance was

‘in the new bankquetting house, which for a kind of amends was
granted to them, though with much repining and contradiction of
their emulators.’

Chamberlain refers to the ‘new’ room of 1607, and not to that just put up for the wedding. This was used for the banquet. Foscarini reports (_V. P._ xii. 532) that:

‘After the ballet was over their Majesties and their Highnesses
passed into a great Hall especially built for the purpose, where
were long tables laden with comfits and thousands of mottoes.
After the King had made the round of the tables, everything was
in a moment rapaciously swept away.’

The records of the Inns throw light on the finance and organization of the mask. From those of the Inner Temple (Inderwick, ii. 72, 76, 81, 92, 99) we learn that the Inn’s share of the cost was ‘not so little as 1200^{li}’, that there were payments to Lewis Hele, Nicholas Polhill, and Fenner, and for ‘scarlet for the marshal of the mask’, that there was a rehearsal for the benchers at Ely House, and that funds were raised up to 1616 by assessments of £2 and £1 and by assigning the revenue derived from admission fees to chambers. Those of Gray’s Inn (Fletcher, 201–8) contain an order for such things to be bought ‘as M^r. Solicitor [Bacon] shall thinke fitt’. One Will Gerrard was appointed Treasurer, and an assessment of from £1 to £4 according to status was to be made for a sum equal to that raised by the Inner Temple. There was evidently some difficulty in liquidating the bills. In May 1613 an order was made ‘that the gent. late actors in the maske at the court shall bring in all ther masking apparrel w^{ch} they had of the howse charge ... or else the value therof’. In June a further order was drafted and then stayed, calling attention to the ‘sad contempts’ of those affected by the former, ‘albeit none of them did contribute anything to the charge’. Each suit had cost 100 marks. The offenders were to be discommonsed. In November and again in the following February it was found necessary to appropriate admission fees towards the debt.

RICHARD BERNARD (1568–1641).

The translator was born at Epworth, Lincolnshire, took his M.A. from Christ’s, Cambridge, in 1598, and became incumbent successively of Worksop, Notts., and Batcombe, Somerset.

_Terence in English > 1598_

1598. Terence in English. Fabulae comici facetissimi et elegantissimi poetae Terentii omnes Anglice factae primumque hac nova forma nunc editae: opera ac industria R. B. in Axholmiensi insula Lincolnsherii Epwortheatis. _John Legat, Cambridge._ [Epistle to Christopher and other sons of Sir W. Wray and nephews of Lady Bowes and Lady St. Paul, signed by ‘Richard Bernard’, and dated from Epworth, 30 May; Epistle to Reader. Includes _Adelphi_, _Andria_, _Eunuchus_, _Heautontimorumenus_, _Hecyra_, _Phormio_.]

1607.... Secunda editio multo emendatior ... _John Legat_.

1614, 1629, 1641.

WILLIAM BIRD (> 1597–1619 <).

One of the Admiral’s men (cf. ch. xiii), who collaborated with S. Rowley (q.v.) in _Judas_ (1601) and in additions to _Dr. Faustus_ in 1602.

RICHARD BOWER (?-1561).

On his Mastership of the Chapel, cf. ch. xii. He has been supposed to be the R. B. who wrote _Apius and Virginia_, and his hand has also been sought in the anonymous _Clyomon and Clamydes_ and _Common Conditions_.

SAMUEL BRANDON (?-?).

Beyond his play, nothing is known of him.

_The Virtuous Octavia. 1594 < > 8_

_S. R._ 1598, Oct. 5. ‘A booke, intituled, The Tragicomoedye of the vertuous Octavia, donne by Samuell Brandon.’ _Ponsonby_ (Arber, iii. 127).

1598. The Tragicomoedi of the vertuous Octauia. Done by Samuel Brandon. _For William Ponsonby._ [Verses to Lady Lucia Audelay; _All’autore_, signed ‘Mia’; _Prosopopeia al libro_, signed ‘S. B.’; Argument. After text, Epistle to Mary Thinne, signed ‘S. B.’; Argument; verse epistles _Octavia to Antonius_ and _Antonius to Octavia_.’]

_Editions_ by R. B. McKerrow (1909, _M. S. R._) and J. S. Farmer (1912, _S. F. T._).

This is in the manner of Daniel’s _Cleopatra_ (1594), and probably a closet drama.

NICHOLAS BRETON (_c._ 1545–_c._ 1626).

A poet and pamphleteer, who possibly contributed to the Elvetham entertainment (cf. ch. xxiv, C) in 1591.

ANTHONY BREWER (_c._ 1607).

Nothing is known of Brewer beyond his play, unless, as is possible, he is the ‘Anth. Brew’ who was acting _c._ 1624 at the Cockpit (cf. F. S. Boas, _A Seventeenth Century Theatrical Repertoire_ in _3 Library_ for July 1917).

_The Lovesick King. c. 1607_

_S. R._ 1655, June 20. ‘A booke called The Lovesick King, an English tragicall history with the life & death of Cartis Mundy the faire Nunne of Winchester. Written by Anthony Brewer, gent.’ _John Sweeting_ (Eyre, i. 486).

1655. The Lovesick King, An English Tragical History: With The Life and Death of Cartesmunda, the fair Nun of Winchester. Written by Anth. Brewer, Gent. _For Robert Pollard, and John Sweeting._

1680. The Perjured Nun.

_Editions_ by W. R. Chetwood (1750, _S. C._) and A. E. H. Swaen (1907, _Materialien_, xviii).--_Dissertation_: A. E. H. Swaen, _The Date of B.’s L. K._ (1908, _M. L. R._ iv. 87).

There are small bits of evidence, in the use of Danish names from _Hamlet_ and other Elizabethan plays, and in a jest on ‘Mondays vein to poetize’ (l. 548), to suggest a date of composition long before that of publication, but a borrowing from _The Knight of the Burning Pestle_ makes it improbable that this can be earlier than 1607. The amount of Newcastle local colour and a special mention of ‘those Players of Interludes that dwels at _Newcastle_’ (l. 534) led Fleay, i. 34, to conjecture that it was acted in that town.

_Doubtful Plays_

Anthony Brewer has been confused with Thomas Brewer, or perhaps with more than one writer of that name, who wrote various works of popular literature, and to whom yet others bearing only the initials T. B. are credited, between 1608 and 1656. Thus _The Country Girl_, printed as by T. B. in 1647, is ascribed in Kirkman’s play-lists of 1661 and 1671 to Antony Brewer, but in Archer’s list of 1656 to Thomas. Oliphant (_M. P._ viii. 422) points out that the scene is in part at Edmonton, and thinks it a revision by Massinger of an early work by Thomas, who published a pamphlet entitled _The Life and Death of the Merry Devil of Edmonton_ in 1608.

ARTHUR BROOKE (_ob._ 1563).

In 1562 he was admitted to the Inner Temple without fee ‘in consideration of certain plays and shows at Christmas last set forth by him’ (Inderwick, _Inner Temple Records_, i. 219). Possibly he refers to one of these plays when he says in the epistle to his _Romeus and Juliet_ (1562), ‘I saw the same argument lately set foorth on stage with more commendation then I can looke for: (being there much better set forth then I have or can dooe)’; but if so, he clearly was not himself the author.

SAMUEL BROOKE (_c._ 1574–1631).

Brooke was of a York family, and, like his brother Christopher, the poet, a friend of John Donne, whose marriage he earned a prison by celebrating in 1601. He entered Trinity, Cambridge, _c._ 1592, took his B.A. in 1595 and his M.A. in 1598. He became chaplain to Prince Henry, and subsequently Gresham Professor of Divinity and chaplain successively to James and Charles. In 1629 he became Master of Trinity, and in 1631, just before his death, Archdeacon of Coventry.

_Adelphe. 27 Feb. 1613_

[_MSS._] _T. C. C. MS._ R. 3. 9. ‘Comoedia in Collegii Trin. aula bis publice acta. Authore D^{no} D^{re} Brooke, Coll. Trin.’; _T. C. C. MS._ R. 10. 4, with prologue dated 1662.

The play was produced on 27 Feb. 1613 and repeated on 2 March 1613 during the visit of Charles and the Elector Frederick to Cambridge.

_Scyros. 3 March 1613_

[_MSS._] _T. C. C. MS._ R. 3. 9. ‘Fabula Pastoralis acta coram Principe Charolo et comite Palatino mensis Martii 30 A. D. 1612. Authore D^{re} Brooke Coll. Trin.’; _T. C. C. MSS._ R. 3. 37; R. 10. 4; R. 17. 10; O. 3. 4; _Emanuel, Cambridge, MS._ iii. i. 17; _Cambridge Univ. Libr. MS._ Ee. v. 16.

This also was produced during the visit of Charles and Frederick to Cambridge. As pointed out by Greg, _Pastoral_, 251, the ‘Martii 30’ of the MSS. is an error for ‘Martii 3^o’. The play is a version of the _Filli di Sciro_ (1607) of G. Bonarelli della Rovere.

_Melanthe. 10 March 1615_

1615, March 27. Melanthe Fabula pastoralis acta cum Jacobus, Magnae Brit. Franc. & Hiberniae Rex, Cantabrigiam suam nuper inviseret, ibidemque Musarum atque eius animi gratia dies quinque commoraretur. Egerunt Alumni Coll. San. et Individuae Trinitatis. Cantabrigiae. _Cantrellus Legge._

The ascription to Brooke is due to the _Dering MS._ (_Gent. Mag._ 1756, p. 223). Chamberlain (Birch, i. 304) says that the play was ‘excellently well written, and as well acted’.

WILLIAM BROWNE (1591–1643?).

Browne was born at Tavistock, educated at the Grammar School there and at Exeter College, Oxford, and entered the Inner Temple from Clifford’s Inn in Nov. 1611. He is known as a poet, especially by _Britannia’s Pastorals_ (1613, 1616), but beyond his mask has no connexion with the stage. In later life he was of the household of the Herberts at Wilton.

_Ulysses and Circe. 13 Jan. 1615_

[_MSS._] (_a_) Emmanuel College, Cambridge, with title, ‘The Inner Temple Masque. Presented by the gentlemen there. Jan. 13, 1614.’ [Epistle to Inner Temple, signed ‘W. Browne’.]

(_b_) Collection of H. Chandos Pole-Gell, Hopton Hall, Wirksworth (in 1894).

_Editions_ with Browne’s _Works_ by T. Davies (1772), W. C. Hazlitt (1868), and G. Goodwin (1894).

The maskers, in green and white, were Knights; the first antimaskers, with an ‘antic measure’, two Actaeons, two Midases, two Lycaons, two Baboons, and Grillus; the second antimaskers, ‘to a softer tune’, four Maids of Circe and three Nereids; the musicians Sirens, Echoes, a Woodman, and others; the presenters Triton, Circe, and Ulysses.

The locality was the hall of the Inner Temple. Towards the lower end was discovered a sea-cliff. The drawing of a traverse discovered a wood, in which later two gates flew open, disclosing the maskers asleep in an arbour at the end of a glade. Awaked by a charm, they danced their first and second measures, took out ladies for ‘the old measures, galliards, corantoes, the brawls, etc.’, and danced their last measure.

The Inner Temple records (Inderwick, ii. 99) mention an order of 21 April 1616 for recompense to the chief cook on account of damage to his room in the cloister when it and its chimney were broken down at Christmas twelvemonth ‘by such as climbed up at the windows of the hall to see the mask’.

SIR GEORGE BUCK (_ob._ 1623).

He was Master of the Revels (cf. ch. iii). For a very doubtful ascription to him, on manuscript authority alleged by Collier, of the dumb-shows to _Locrine_, cf. ch. xxiv.

JAMES CALFHILL (1530?-1570).

Calfhill was an Eton and King’s College, Cambridge, man, who migrated to Oxford and became Student of Christ Church in 1548 and Canon in 1560. He was in Orders and was Rector of West Horsley when Elizabeth was there in 1559. After various preferments, he was nominated Bishop of Worcester in 1570, but died before consecration.

On 6 July 1564 Walter Haddon wrote to Abp. Parker (_Parker Correspondence_, 218) deprecating the tone of a sermon by Calfhill before the Queen, and said ‘Nunquam in illo loco quisquam minus satisfecit, quod maiorem ex eo dolorem omnibus attulit, quoniam admodum est illis artibus instructus quas illius theatri celebritas postulat’. No play by Calfhill is extant, but his Latin tragedy of _Progne_ was given before Elizabeth at Christ Church on 5 Sept. 1566 (cf. ch. iv), and appears from Bereblock’s synopsis to have been based on an earlier Latin _Progne_ (1558) by Gregorio Corraro.

THOMAS CAMPION (1567–1620).

Thomas, son of John Campion, a Chancery clerk of Herts. extraction, was born on 12 Feb. 1567, educated at Peterhouse, Cambridge, where he took no degree, and admitted on 27 April 1586 to Gray’s Inn, where he took part as Hidaspis and Melancholy in the comedy of 16 Jan. 1588 (cf. ch. vii). He left the law, and probably served in Essex’s expedition of 1591 to France. He first appeared as a poet, anonymously, in the appendix to Sidney’s _Astrophel and Stella_ (1591), and has left several books of songs written as airs for music, often of his own composition, as well as a collection of Latin epigrams and _Observations in the Art of English Poesie_ (1602). I do not know whether he can be the ‘Campnies’ who performed at the Gray’s Inn mask of Shrovetide 1595 at Court (cf. s.v. _Gesta Grayorum_), but one of the two hymns in that mask, _A Hymn in Praise of Neptune_ is assigned to him by Francis Davison, _Poetical Rhapsody_ (1602), sig. K 8, and it is possible that the second hymn, beginning ‘Shadows before the shining sun do vanish’, which Davison does not himself appear to claim, may also be his. By 1607 he had taken the degree of M.D., probably abroad, and he practised as a physician. Through Sir Thomas Monson he was entangled, although in no very blameworthy capacity, in the Somerset scandals of 1613–15. On 1 March 1620 he died, probably of the plague, naming as his legatee Philip Rosseter, with whom he had written _A Booke of Airs_ in 1601.

Campion is not traceable as a writer for the stage, although his connexion with Monson and Rosseter would have made it not surprising to find him concerned with the Queen’s Revels syndicate of 1610. But his contribution to the _Gesta Grayorum_ foreshadowed his place, second only to Jonson’s, who wrote a _Discourse of Poesie_ (Laing, 1), now lost, against him, in the mask-poetry of the Jacobean period. In addition to his acknowledged masks he may also be responsible for part or all of the Gray’s Inn _Mountebanks Mask_ of 1618, printed by Nichols, _Eliz._ iii. 320, as a second part of the _Gesta Grayorum_, and by Bullen, _Marston_, iii. 417, although the ascription to Marston is extremely improbable.

_Collections_

1828. J. Nichols. _Progresses [&c.] of James the First_, ii. 105, 554, 630, 707. [The four masks.]

1889. A. H. Bullen, _Works of T. C._ [English and Latin.]

1903. A. H. Bullen, _Works of T. C._ [English only.]

1907. P. Vivian, _Poetical Works (in English) of T. C._ (_Muses’ Library_).

1909. P. Vivian, _C.’s Works_.

_Dissertation._--T. MacDonagh, _T. C. and the Art of English Poetry_ (1913).

_Lord Hay’s Mask. 6 Jan. 1607_

_S. R._ 1607, Jan. 26 (Gwyn). ‘A booke called the discription of A maske presented before the Kings maiestie at Whitehall on Twelf-night last in honour of the Lord Haies and his bryde Daughter and heire to the right honorable the Lord Denny, their mariage havinge ben at Court the same day solemnised.’ _John Browne_ (Arber, iii. 337).

1607. The discription of a Maske, Presented before the Kinges Maiestie at White-Hall, on Twelfth Night last, in honour of the Lord Hayes, and his Bride, Daughter and Heire to the Honourable the Lord Dennye, their Marriage hauing been the same Day at Court solemnized. To this by occasion other small Poems are adioyned. Inuented and set forth by Thomas Campion Doctor of Phisicke. _John Windet for John Browne._ [Engraving of the maskers’ habit; Verses to James, Lord De Walden and Lord and Lady Hay.]

The maskers, in carnation and silver, concealed at first in a ‘false habit’ of green leaves and silver, were nine Knights of Apollo; the torchbearers the nine Hours of Night; the presenters Flora, Zephyrus, Night, and Hesperus; the musicians Sylvans, who, as the mask was predominantly musical, were aided by consorts of instruments and voices above the scene and on either side of the hall.

The locality was the ‘great hall’ at Whitehall. At the upper end were the cloth and chair of state, with ‘scaffolds and seats on either side continued to the screen’. Eighteen feet from the screen was a stage, which stood three feet higher than the ‘dancing-place’ in front of it, and was enclosed by a ‘double veil’ or vertically divided curtain representing clouds. The Bower of Flora stood on the right and the House of Night on the left at the ends of the screen, and between them a grove, behind which, under the window, rose hills with a Tree of Diana. In the grove were nine golden trees which performed the first dance, and then, at the touch of Night’s wand, were drawn down by an engine under the stage, and cleft to reveal the maskers. After two more ‘new’ dances, they took out the ladies for ‘measures’. Then they danced ‘their lighter dances as corantoes, levaltas and galliards’; then a fourth ‘new’ dance; and then ‘putting off their vizards and helmets, made a low honour to the King, and attended his Majesty to the banqueting place’.

The mask was given, presumably by friends of the bridegroom, in honour of the wedding of James Lord Hay and Honora, daughter of Lord Denny. The maskers were Lord Walden, Sir Thomas Howard, Sir Henry Carey, Sir Richard Preston, Sir John Ashley, Sir Thomas Jarret, Sir John Digby, Sir Thomas Badger, and Mr. Goringe. One air for a song and one for a song and dance were made by Campion, two for dances by Mr. Lupo, and one for a dance by Mr. Thomas Giles.

Few contemporary references to the mask exist. It is probably that described in a letter, which I have not seen, from Lady Pembroke to Lord Shrewsbury, calendared among other _Talbot MSS._ of 1607 in Lodge, App. 121. No ambassadors were invited--‘_Dieu merci_’--says the French ambassador, and Anne, declaring herself ill, stayed away (La Boderie, ii. 12, 30). Expenditure on preparing the hall appears in the accounts of the Treasurer of the Chamber and the Office of Works (Reyher, 520).

_The Lords’ Mask. 14 Feb. 1613_

1613. _For John Budge._ [Annexed to _Caversham Entertainment_ (q.v.).]

This was for the wedding of Elizabeth. The men maskers, in cloth of silver, were eight transformed Stars, the women, also in silver, eight transformed Statues; the torchbearers sixteen Fiery Spirits; the antimaskers six men and six women Frantics; the presenters Orpheus, Mania, Entheus, Prometheus, and Sibylla.

The locality was the Banqueting House at Whitehall. The lower part of the scene, when discovered, represented a wood, with the thicket of Orpheus on the right and the cave of Mania on the left. After the ‘mad measure’ of the antimask, the upper part of the scene was discovered ‘by the fall of a curtain’. Here, amidst clouds, were eight Stars which danced, vanishing to give place to the eight men maskers in the House of Prometheus. The torchbearers emerged below, and danced. The maskers descended on a cloud, behind which the lower part of the scene was turned to a façade with four Statues in niches. These and then a second four were transformed to women. Then the maskers gave their ‘first new entering dance’ and their second dance, and took out the bridal pair and others, ‘men women, and women men’. The scene again changed to a prospective of porticoes leading to Sibylla’s trophy, an obelisk of Fame. A ‘song and dance triumphant’ followed, and finally the maskers’ ‘last new dance’ concluded all ‘at their going out’.

This was a mask of lords and ladies, at the cost of the Exchequer. The only names on record are those of the Earls of Montgomery and Salisbury, Lord Hay, and Ann Dudley (_vide infra_). Campion notes the ‘extraordinary industry and skill’ of Inigo Jones in ‘the whole invention’, and particularly his ‘neat artifice’ in contriving the ‘motion’ of the Stars.

The wedding masks were naturally of special interest to the Court gossips. Chamberlain wrote to Winwood (iii. 421) on 9 Jan.: ‘It is said the Lords and Ladyes about the court have appointed a maske upon their own charge; but I hear there is order given for £1500 to provide one upon the King’s cost, and a £1000 for fireworks. The Inns of Court are likewise dealt with for two masks against that time, and mean to furnish themselves for the service.’ On 29 Jan. he added (iii. 429), ‘Great preparations here are of braverie, masks and fireworks against the marriage.’ On 14 Jan. one G. F. Biondi informed Carleton (_S. P. D. Jac. I_, lxxii. 12) that the Earls of Montgomery and Salisbury and Lord Hay were practising for the wedding mask. On 20 Jan. Sir Charles Montagu wrote to Sir Edward Montagu (_H. M. C. Buccleugh MSS._ i. 239): ‘Here is not any news stirring, only much preparations at this wedding for masks, whereof shall be three, one of eight lords and eight ladies, whereof my cousin Ann Dudley one, and two from the Inner Courts, who they say will lay it on.’

The Lords’ mask is certainly less prominent than those of the Inns of Court (_vide sub_ Beaumont and Chapman) in the actual descriptions of the wedding. All three are recorded in Stowe, _Annales_, 916, in _Wilbraham’s Journal_ (_Camden Misc._ x), 110, in reports of the Venetian ambassador (_V. P._ xii. 499, 532), and in the contemporary printed accounts of the whole ceremonies (cf. ch. xxiv). These do not add much to the printed descriptions of the mask-writers, on which, indeed, they are largely based. The fullest unofficial account was given by Chamberlain to Alice and Dudley Carleton in three letters (Birch, i. 224, 229; _S. P. D. Jac. I_, lxxii. 30, 31, 48). On 18 Feb. he wrote: ‘That night [of the wedding] was the Lords’ mask, whereof I hear no great commendation, save only for riches, their devices being long and tedious, and more like a play than a mask.’ This criticism he repeated in a letter to Winwood (iii. 435). To Alice Carleton he added, after describing the bravery of the Inns of Court: ‘All this time there was a course taken, and so notified, that no lady or gentlewoman should be admitted to any of these sights with a vardingale, which was to gain the more room, and I hope may serve to make them quite left off in time. And yet there were more scaffolds, and more provision made for room than ever I saw, both in the hall and banqueting room, besides a new room built to dine and dance in.’ On 25 February, when all was over, he reported: ‘Our revels and triumphs within doors gave great contentment, being both dainty and curious in devices and sumptuous in show, specially the inns of court, whose two masks stood them in better than £4000, besides the gallantry and expense of private gentlemen that were but _ante ambul[at]ores_ and went only to accompany them.... The next night [21 Feb.] the King invited the maskers, with their assistants, to the number of forty, to a solemn supper in the new marriage room, where they were well treated and much graced with kissing her majesty’s hand, and every one having a particular _accoglienza_ from him. The King husbanded this matter so well that this feast was not at his own cost, but he and his company won it upon a wager of running at the ring, of the prince and his nine followers, who paid £30 a man. The King, queen, prince, Palatine and Lady Elizabeth sat at table by themselves, and the great lords and ladies, with the maskers, above four score in all, sat at another long table, so that there was no room for them that made the feast, but they were fain to be lookers on, which the young Lady Rich took no great pleasure in, to see her husband, who was one that paid, not so much as drink for his money. The ambassadors that were at this wedding and shows were the French, Venetian, Count Henry [of Nassau] and Caron for the States. The Spaniard was or would be sick, and the archduke’s ambassador being invited for the second day, made a sullen excuse; and those that were present were not altogether so well pleased but that I hear every one had some punctilio of disgust.’ John Finett, in a letter of 22 Feb. to Carleton (_S. P. D. Jac. I_, lxxii. 32), says the mask of the Lords was ‘rich and ingenious’ and those of the Inns ‘much commended’. His letter is largely taken up with the ambassadorial troubles to which Chamberlain refers. Later he dealt with these in _Philoxenis_ (1656), 1 (cf. Sullivan, 79). The chief marfeast was the archiducal ambassador Boiscot, who resented an invitation to the second or third day, while in the diplomatic absence through sickness of the Spaniard the Venetian ambassador was asked with the French for the first day. Finett was charged with various plausible explanations. James did not think it his business to decide questions of precedence. It was customary to group Venice and France. The Venetian had brought an extraordinary message of congratulation from his State, and had put his retinue into royal liveries at great expense. The wedding was a continuing feast, and all its days equally glorious. In fact, whether at Christmas or Shrovetide, the last day was in some ways the most honourable, and it had originally been planned to have the Lords’ mask on Shrove-Tuesday. But Boiscot could not be persuaded to accept his invitation. The ambassadors who did attend were troublesome, at supper, rather than at the mask. The French ambassador ‘made an offer to precede the prince’. His wife nearly left because she was placed below, instead of above, the Viscountesses. The Venetian claimed a chair instead of a stool, and a place above the carver, but in vain. His rebuff did not prevent him from speaking well of the Lords’ mask, which he called ‘very beautiful’, specially noting the three changes of scene.

Several financial documents relating to the mask are preserved (Reyher, 508, 522; Devon, 158, 164; Collier, i. 364; Hazlitt, _E. D. S._ 43; _Archaeologia_, xxvi. 380). In _Abstract_ 14 the charges are given as £400, but the total charges must have been much higher. Chamberlain (_vide supra_) spoke of £1,500 as assigned to them. A list of personal fees, paid through Meredith Morgan, alone (Reyher, 509) amounts to £411 6_s._ 8_d._ Campion had £66 13_s._ 4_d._, Jones £50, the dancers Jerome Herne, Bochan, Thomas Giles and Confess £30 or £40 each, the musicians John Cooper, Robert Johnson, and Thomas Lupo £10 or £20 each. One Steven Thomas had £15, ‘he that played to y^e boyes’ £6 13_s._ 4_d._, and ‘2 that played to y^e Antick Maske’ £11; while fees of £1 each went to 42 musicians, 12 mad folks, 5 speakers, 10 of the King’s violins and 3 grooms of the chamber. The supervision of ‘emptions and provisions’ was entrusted to the Lord Chamberlain and the Master of the Horse.

_The Caversham Entertainment. 27–8 April 1613_