Chapter VIII: Appendix: B (1)

COURT PAYMENTS

The body of this appendix contains extracts from the accounts of the Treasurer of the Chamber and the Office of Revels, in which expenditure on plays or masks at court is recorded. But in view of the importance of these documents as sources for the history of court entertainment, it will be well to add something about their general nature and state of preservation to what has already been said about the procedure of the Treasurer of the Chamber in ch. ii and that of the Revels Office in ch. iii.

THE AUDIT OF HOUSEHOLD ACCOUNTS

Most, but not all, of the accounts preserved are records of audit. There is, unfortunately, no systematic history of the Audit Office; but the somewhat scrappy notices in F. S. Thomas, _The Ancient Exchequer of England_ (1848), and H. Hall, _Studies in English Official Historical Documents_ (1908), and _A Formula Book of English Official Historical Documents_, Part II (1909), may be supplemented for the Tudor period by the valuable study of M. D. George, _The Origin of the Declared Account_ (1916, E. H. R. xxxi. 41). The Record Office series of _Lists and Indexes_ includes lists of _Declared Accounts_ (ii) and _Exchequer Accounts_ (xxxv). Normally the auditing of royal expenditure was a function of the mediaeval Exchequer. The procedure was for the officer charged with incurring expenditure to appear as accountant before the Auditor-Baron and his Clerk, and produce detailed statements, known as ‘particulars’, together with vouchers for sums already spent out of any ‘imprest’ or advance that had been made to him, and the warrants under which his expenditure was authorized. From these the Exchequer officers prepared a ‘compotus’ or balance sheet, signed it, when the balance was settled, as a record that the accountant was ‘quietus’ or quit from debt to the Crown, and passed it through the King’s Remembrancer to the Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer, in whose office it was enrolled by the Clerk of the Pipe on the roll of ‘foreign’ or non-revenue accounts. It was then returned to the King’s Remembrancer, who kept it, with the particulars and vouchers as subsidiary documents. It was a lengthy and cumbrous process. Moreover, the Lord Treasurer, like the Lord Chancellor, was one of the high officers of state whose functions came at an early date under the control of the barons, and the same motives, which led the sovereign (cf. ch. ii) to develop in the Wardrobe and Chamber an executive machinery independent of the Lord Chancellor, also led him to desire that his more private expenditure should be withdrawn from the survey of the Exchequer. Thus we find the Treasurer of the Chamber accountable (cf. ch. ii) at the end of the fifteenth century to the King alone, and in the mid-sixteenth century to the Court of Surveyors or to _ad hoc_ auditors specially appointed by the King or the Privy Council. When the Court of Augmentations absorbed the Court of Surveyors in 1553, its establishment included two Auditors of Prests, and although this court was itself merged in the Exchequer under Mary, the more up-to-date methods of auditing were continued by Elizabeth’s appointment in 1560, as themselves Exchequer officers, of two ‘Auditores de lez Prestes et Compotorum forinsecorum nostrorum’. The main difference between the methods of the Auditors of the Prests and that of the Auditor-Baron appears to have been that the personal appearance of the accountant was no longer necessary, who now himself prepared in duplicate a balance sheet known as his Original Account, or Book of Account, of which one copy was signed after examination and returned to him as evidence of his quittance, while the other was kept by the Auditors, who based upon it a summary known as the Declared or Recorded Account, which took the place of the old _Compotus_. This also was in duplicate. Apparently the Auditors kept one copy, on paper, and sent another, on parchment, for preservation, as of record, in the Pipe Office. I understand Miss George, however, to think that the accountant was entitled to the paper copy, if he chose to pay a fee for it, which he very often did not. The amount of detail taken into the Declared Account from the Original Account varied for different offices. The Revels Declared Accounts are very summary; those of the Treasurer of the Chamber, at any rate as regards play-payments, practically duplicates of the Original Accounts, except that, unfortunately, the names of plays, which sometimes appeared in the Original Accounts, are usually omitted. The Auditors also kept the subsidiary documents submitted with the Original Account, and became involved in a controversy, recorded in T. Fanshawe, _The Practice of the Exchequer Court_ (1658), with the King’s Remembrancer, who claimed that they should come to him. The King’s Remembrancer did apparently see the Declared Account on its way to the Pipe Office, and enrolled it, or a further summary of it. About 1603 all the Household accounts appear to have gone before the Auditors of the Prests, except those of the Cofferer, which still followed the old course of the Exchequer. The procedures here described explain the provenance of such Household accounts as belong to the official repositories now united in the Record Office; some others, preserved there or elsewhere, come from the private archives of the accountants themselves, being either the audit duplicates supplied to them, or office copies and drafts of their own Original Accounts, or the journals, pay books, and ledgers from which these were prepared.

CHAMBER ACCOUNTS

The following accounts appear to be extant.

(a) _Mediaeval Period._

A few accounts and subsidiary documents of the reigns of Edward II, Edward III, and Richard II are included in the Foreign Accounts on the Great Rolls of the Exchequer (_P. R. O. Lists and Indexes_, xi. 108, 109), and in the Exchequer Wardrobe and Household Accounts (_L. and I_. xxxv. 376, 379, 380, 382, 386, 391, 392, 396, 540). The earliest are described, with extracts, by J. C. Davies, _The First Journal of Edward II’s Chamber_ (_E. H. R._ xxx. 662).

(b) _Early Tudor Period._

A number of accounts passed from the Augmentation Office to the Exchequer and were amalgamated in 1839 with others from the office of the King’s Remembrancer in a series of Exchequer Accounts, Various. Here they are numbered 413 to 427. They are mainly accounts of revenue and subsidiary documents, but a few accounts of payments presented to the Record Office by the Trevelyan family have been added to the series, and with them are listed as Wardrobe and Household Accounts (_L. and I._ xxxv) some other payment accounts from the Miscellaneous Books of the Treasury of Receipt of the Exchequer, and one from the Miscellaneous Books of the Court of Augmentations. Other payment accounts are in the British Museum and in unofficial collections. It may be the case, as Newton, 359, suggests, that these or some of them were abstracted from the Records by officials of antiquarian tastes, but it must be remembered that duplicates even of audited accounts were often kept by the accountants. These accounts are generally known as The King’s Books of Payments. The following can be traced:

i. _Accounts of John Heron._

Three Books of Payments, for 1505–9, 1509–18, and 1518–21 respectively, with many royal signatures by way of audit, are now in the P. R. O. (_Misc. Books of Treasury of Receipt_, 214, 215, 216). The contents of the Henry VIII books are abstracted in Brewer, ii. 1441; iii. 1533. There must once have been an earlier book, for Collier, i. 49, 52, 76, gives extracts from one for 1492–1505, which he describes as ‘formerly in the Chapter-house, Westminster’, as well as from the three now extant, which he describes as ‘in the Chapter-house’. Possibly this was _Addl. MS._ 21480, which has been traced back (Newton, 359) through the hands of Craven Ord (a friend of Collier) and Thomas Astle to those of Peter Le Neve, a Deputy-Chamberlain of the Exchequer. But _Addl. MS._ 21481, which also came from Le Neve, is a duplicate of the R. O. books for 1505–18, and therefore _Addl. MS._ 21480 may only have been a duplicate of the missing volume. Both the _Addl. MSS._ contain the royal signatures. Craven Ord made some extracts which are now _Addl. MSS._ 7099, 7100, and to these those supplied by Astle to R. Henry, _History of Great Britain_, vi (1793), app., and those in S. Bentley, _Excerpta Historica_ (1831), 85, owe their origin. Collier, i. 49, also cites a small book for 1501–2 kept (perhaps under Heron) by one Robert Fowler, which refers to parallel payments made by Thomas Trollop.

ii. _Accounts of Brian Tuke._

A book signed monthly by Henry VIII, with some entries from 31 Dec. 1528 to 30 June 1529, but mainly covering the period from 17 Nov. 1529 to 29 Dec. 1532, was printed by N. H. Nicolas from a MS. then in his possession as _The Privy Purse Expenses of Henry the Eighth_ (1827) and misdescribed as an account of the Treasurer of the Household. Presumably this MS. is identical with that owned by Sir O. Bridgeman in 1634 and now _Addl. MS._ 20030. It overlaps with an account for 1 Oct. 1528 to May 1531, presented by Sir W. C. Trevelyan to the P. R. O. (_Exchequer Accounts, Various_, 420/11); extracts are given in _Trevelyan Papers_ (C. S.), i. 136, and an abstract in Brewer, v. 303. Collier, i. 116, and Nicolas (_ut supra_), xxviii, give extracts from an account for Feb. 1538 to June 1541 in the possession of the Royal Society, presumably a duplicate of the account for the same period in _Arundel MS._ 97, incorrectly catalogued by the B.M. as an account of the Treasurer of the Household, and abstracted in Brewer, xiii. 2. 524; xiv. 2. 303; xvi. 178, 698. An account for May to Sept. 1542 in _Stowe MS._ 554 is abstracted in Brewer, xvii. 474. Collier, i. 117, gives extracts from an account for 1543–4 in Craven Ord’s collection.

iii. _Accounts of William Cavendish._

Account for 31 March 1547 to 31 Sept. 1549, of which extracts are given in _Trevelyan Papers_, i. 191, ii. 13, were presented by Sir W. C. Trevelyan to the P. R. O. (_Exchequer Accounts, Various_, 426/5, 6). _Misc. Exch. Augm._ 439 for 1547–8 is referred to by Newton, 359, as a Chamber account, and is presumably a duplicate.

iv. _Account of Edmund Felton._

A Declared Account for 1 Apr. to 31 Dec. 1557 is in _D. A. Pipe Office_, 541. Stopes, _Hunnis_, 145, cites a ‘Compotus Marie Rither and Edmond Felton’ for 5 and 6 Edw. VI (_Queen’s Remembrancia_, 77/5) as a Chamber Account. It is doubtless a Cofferer’s Account.

(c) _Elizabethan and Jacobean Periods._

i. _Accounts in P. R. O._

The P. R. O. contains Chamber Accounts in four forms. Original Accounts, as submitted for audit, are in _Audit Office, Accounts Various_, 3/127–9. These are no doubt the ‘very incomplete’ set from which extracts are given by Cunningham, xxvii. So far as play-payments are concerned, they do not appear to be more detailed than the Declared Accounts annually drawn up from them by the auditors, of which there are duplicate sets, both nearly complete, belonging respectively to the Audit Office and to the Pipe Office in the Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer’s Department of the Exchequer. They cover the terms of office of Mason (1558–66), Knollys (1566–70), Heneage (1570–95), Killigrew (1595–6), and Stanhope (1596–1617). From the Pipe Office series I supplemented Cunningham’s extracts in _M. L. R._ ii (1906), 1; iv (1909), 153, and give a complete record of play-payments below. The payments are also given for 1558–85 from the Audit Office series in Wallace, i (1912), 210, and very imperfectly from the Pipe Office series for 1559–97 in Stopes, _Hunnis_, 318. Finally, there are Enrolled Accounts in the King’s Remembrancer’s Department (Scargill-Bird^1, liv). A single book for 1569–70 is in the same Department (_Exchequer Accounts, Various_, 430/15). It appears to be an office book, and has some original signatures by way of receipts for payments.

ii. _Accounts in British Museum._

_Harl._ 1641 and 1642 are duplicates of Heneage’s accounts for 1585–6 and 1593–4 as prepared for audit. _Harl._ 1644 is an office book, 1581–3, containing signatures by way of receipts for wages and the like.

iii. _Accounts in Bodleian._

_Rawlinson MS._ A. 204, ff. 212, 269, contains duplicates of Stanhope’s accounts for 1604–5 and 1610–11 as prepared for audit, and _Rawlinson MSS._ A. 239 and 240 (formerly _Pepys MSS._ 78 and 79) are similar duplicates of his accounts for 1612–13 and 1616–17. They are possibly office drafts, with some notes by a checking officer or an auditor, but are not signed either by accountant or auditors. Occasionally they are slightly more detailed as regards play entries than the Declared Accounts. Thus in 1610–11 and 1612–13 they give some dates of performances instead of the mere number for the season, and in 1612–13 they even give the titles of the plays. Extracts of these titles are given in Halliwell-Phillipps, ii. 87, and _N. S. S. Trans._ (1875–6) 419, and more completely below. Similar entries are given by P. Cunningham in _Sh. Soc. Papers_, ii. 123, not direct from the manuscript, but from notes taken therefrom by Vertue and Oldys. These had passed, in the case of the Oldys notes through Percy, to Steevens, and from him to Hazlewood, who had copied them, as Oldys and Steevens had done, into an interleaved Langbaine. Malone had already used Vertue’s notes.

I should add that many ‘declarations’ or memoranda on the business of the Treasurer of the Chamber and the state of his finances from time to time are to be found in the Domestic State Papers, in Lansdowne and other B.M. MSS., and in a volume (_Lord Steward’s Misc._ 301) collected by Sir J. Caesar.

REVELS ACCOUNTS

The following accounts appear to be extant:

(a) _Early Tudor Period._

(i) _Accounts of Richard Gibson._

Brewer, ii. 1490; iii. 35, 1548; iv. 418, 837, 1390, 1392, 1415, 1603, 3073, gives abstracts of a series of accounts, ranging from 1510 to 1530, some or all of which are presumably taken from _Miscellaneous Books of the Treasury of the Receipt of the Exchequer_, 217, 228, 229.

(ii) _Accounts of John Bridges._

It appears from extracts given by Kempe, 69, that some accounts of John Bridges between 1539, when he became Yeoman of the Revels, and 1544, when Cawarden became Master, are at Loseley.

(iii) _Accounts of Sir Thomas Cawarden._

Many of these are at Loseley, often in more than one copy. Kempe, 69, gives a few extracts for the last years of Henry VIII, and the most important documents for the next three reigns, ranging from 1547 to 1559; are printed by A. Feuillerat in _Materialien_, xxi and xliv, with accompanying warrants and other subsidiary documents. From 1547 to 1550 the accounts are mainly office copies of ‘particular’ books, setting out the details and cost of each individual revel, airing, or the like; but for 1550–55, and again for 1555–9, the ‘particular paye bookes’ are brought together with summaries in two great ‘Certificates’ (_Loseley MSS._ 62 and 63), which relate to the Tents as well as the Revels. The second of these includes, as well as money accounts, inventories of the office stuff and notes of its employment in masking and other garments during 1555–60, and a similar record for 1550–5 is in _Loseley MS._ 112. These Certificates, although signed by the Clerk, Clerk Controller, and Yeoman, are not audited. Probably they are office copies of Original Accounts prepared for audit.

(b) _Elizabethan Period._

Eleven Original Accounts of the Masters or Acting Masters of the Revels, with annotations by the Auditors, are in _R. O. Audit Office, Accounts Various_, 3, 907 (formerly 1213). They relate to the periods: (i) Feb. 1571–May 1572; (ii) June 1572–Oct. 1573; (iii) Nov. 1573–Feb. 1574; (iv) March 1574–Feb. 1575; (v) March 1576–Feb. 1577; (vi) Feb. 1578–Oct. 1579; (vii) Nov. 1579–Oct. 1580; (viii) Nov. 1580–Oct. 1581; (ix) Nov. 1582–Oct. 1583; (x) Nov. 1584–Oct. 1585; (xi) Nov. 1587–Oct. 1588. It will be seen that a regular annual system, starting with the opening of the season for revels at All Saints in each year, was ultimately adopted. All these accounts were printed in P. Cunningham, _Extracts from the Accounts of the Revels at Court_ (1842, _Sh. Soc._), but (ii) imperfectly and (xi) from an unaudited duplicate in the same bundle. These vagaries are corrected in the text of Feuillerat (1908, _Materialien_, xxi), who also gives an account for Nov. 1587–Oct. 1589 from _Lansd. MS._ 59, f. 38, which in part duplicates (xi), and much illustrative matter, including an estimate in some detail of the expenditure from Christmas 1563 to Shrovetide 1565 from _S. P. Dom. Eliz._ xxxvi. 22. The Audit Office series of Declared Accounts for the Revels is imperfect, but contains two, printed by Feuillerat, for the years 1581–2 and 1583–4, for which there are no Original Accounts. The Pipe Office series appears to be complete.

(c) _Jacobean Period._

There are only two Original Accounts, for 1604–5 and 1611–12, which are printed by Cunningham. The Pipe Office Declared Accounts are complete. I have not examined those of the Audit Office. The Original Accounts for 1604–5 and 1611–12, and especially the former, have been the subject of a good deal of controversy. The facts are as follows. They were printed in 1842 by Peter Cunningham, then a clerk in the Audit Office, who described them as a separate discovery from the Elizabethan bundle, which he also printed. Twenty-six years afterwards, in 1868, he attempted to sell them to the British Museum, stating that he had found them some thirty years before ‘under the vaults of Somerset House--far under the Quadrangle in a dry and lofty cellar, known by the name of the “Charcoal Repository”’. Their official character was realized, and they were sent to the Record Office, and placed amongst the papers known as _Audit Office, Accounts Various_, 3, 908 (formerly 1214), with a note that Mr. E. A. Bond, Keeper of the Manuscripts in the British Museum, ‘saw reasons for doubting the genuineness of one, at least, of these papers, from the peculiar character of the writing and the spelling’. It is probable that Bond had in mind, wholly or mainly, the play-list of the 1604–5 book, which does use some spellings, such as ‘Shaxberd’ and ‘aleven’, which are unusual although by no means unparalleled, and is, moreover, in a style of handwriting sufficiently different from the rest of the document to have at first sight a suspicious air. But it is an integral part of the book, occupying ff. 2, 2^v of its three small folio sheets, with other matter both on ff. 1, 1^v, and on ff. 5, 5^v, which form the second half of its sheet, and therefore, if a forged insertion, it occupies a long blank conveniently left by the original scribe just where, according to Revels practice, such a list ought to come. Bond’s scepticism was shared by Sir Thomas Duffus Hardy, and although the grounds of it did not extend beyond the play-list in the 1604–5 account, the acceptance of this as a forgery naturally reflected some suspicion upon the corresponding list for 1611–12. The position, however, called for some reconsideration when, in _A Note on Measure for Measure_ (1880) and subsequently in the fifth edition (1885) of his _Outlines_ (ed. 9, ii. 163, 309), Halliwell-Phillipps called attention to evidence that Malone, at some date before his death in 1812, and therefore before Cunningham was born, was acquainted at least with the substance of the 1604–5 list. The Bodleian contains a number of Malone’s note-books, which are believed to have been purchased from Mr. Rodd, a London bookseller, in 1838, and contain material collected after the issue of Malone’s _Shakespeare_ of 1790 with a view to a second edition ultimately produced by Boswell in 1821. With them were a bundle of loose scraps, which have since been mounted and bound as a supplementary volume. One of these scraps (_Malone MS._ 29, f. 69^v) consists of a list of plays headed ‘1604 & 1605 Ed^d. Tylney’, which substantially agrees with the list in the Revels book, even to the unusual spelling ‘Shaxberd’, although it is clearly not a transcript of the Revels list, but merely an abstract of this, or a similar document, in an unknown hand other than Malone’s. One of the plays named in the Revels book, _The Spanish Maze_ of Shrove Monday, is omitted. No use of the scrap had been made by Boswell, although he prints (_Variorum_, iii. 360) extracts made by Malone from the Elizabethan Revels books, together with a letter of 7 Nov. 1591 from Sir William Musgrave, of the Audit Office, inviting Malone to inspect them, and an official memorandum on the ‘State of the Books of Accounts and Records of the Master of the Revels, still remaining in the Office for Auditing the Public Accounts in 1791’. It is, I think, inconceivable that, if the Jacobean as well as the Elizabethan books had then been discovered, no reference should have been made to them either by Musgrave or Malone, and the most probable explanation of the Bodleian scrap is that the Jacobean books turned up later, and that an abstract of the 1604–5 list was then prepared for the use of Malone. It is true that in that case the Jacobean books would naturally have been added to the ‘proper presses’ which Musgrave says that he had provided for the Elizabethan ones, whereas Cunningham found the two sets apart. But as Cunningham also says that he had redeemed the Elizabethan bundle from ‘a destructive oblivion’, it is possible that Musgrave’s successors had been neglectful. Moreover, although the 1604–5 list does not appear in the 1821 _Variorum_, it is difficult to see on what other grounds Malone can have stated of _Othello_ (_Variorum_, ii. 404), ‘We know that it was acted in 1604’. Probably, indeed, he had seen the list, before he abandoned in a note of 1800 to Dryden’s _Grounds of Criticism in Tragedy_ his earlier opinion that _Othello_ was one of Shakespeare’s latest plays. Further, there is similar indirect evidence that he had also come across the 1611–12 list. In 1808 he privately printed and in 1809 published an _Account of the ... Tempest_, written ‘some years ago’. The chief object of this was to fix an inferior date by Shakespeare’s use of a pamphlet of 1610. The superior date he took for granted, saying (p. 31) ‘That it was performed before the middle of 1611, we have already seen’, and adding the foot-note ‘Under a former article’. There was no former article, but in the preface Malone describes the essay as making ‘a part of the Disquisition concerning the order of the plays in an enlarged form’, and no doubt the former article would have been included in the disquisition, had Malone ever completed his own work. Boswell, reprinting the essay in _Variorum_, xv. 414, altered the foot-note to refer to the essay on the Chronological Order of Shakespeare’s Plays in ‘vol. i’. This is in fact in vol. ii, but though Boswell here states (ii. 465) that there is evidence that the _Tempest_ ‘was produced in 1611’, he does not give any evidence beyond the pamphlet of 1610. Probably he did not know everything that Malone knew. But how did Malone arrive at ‘the middle of 1611’, since the 1604–5 list does not take us beyond 1 Nov. 1611? I suppose he assumed that public production preceded performance at court. Later in the essay (_Variorum_, xv. 423) he says that the play ‘had a being and a name in the autumn of 1611’.

Since Halliwell-Phillipps’s discovery the prevalent view, suggested by him, has been that if the lists, or at any rate that of 1604–5, are forged, the forger had before him a genuine original. More recently, however, the matter has been fully investigated by Mr. Ernest Law, who stimulated the Record Office to a minute examination of the 1604–5 document, including chemical and microscopical tests of the ink conducted by Professor J. J. Dobbie at the Government Laboratories. As a result, Mr. Law’s own view that the list is genuine is confirmed by such high palaeographical authorities as Sir George Warner of the British Museum and Sir Henry Maxwell Lyte, Mr. Scargill-Bird, and other officers of the Record Office, as well as by Professor Feuillerat, than whom no one knows the Revels documents better, and Professor Wallace. Mr. Law set out the evidence and the whole history of the case in _Some Supposed Shakespeare Forgeries_ (1911). His view was controverted in a review and a number of subsequent communications in the _Athenaeum_ for 1911 (i. 638; ii. 101, 131, 421) and 1912 (i. 469, 654; ii. 142) by a writer using the signature ‘Audi Alteram Partem’, whose rather amazing contentions Mr. Law disposed of in the same periodical (1911, ii. 297, 324, 388; 1912, i. 390, 470) and in _More about Shakespeare Forgeries_ (1913). A recent controversy between Mrs. C. C. Stopes, Mr. Law, and Sir E. M. Thompson (_T. L. S._ 2, 23, 30 Dec. 1920; 27 Jan., 10, 24 Feb. 1921) has led to no different result.

I do not think that, in view of the palaeographical investigation, it is any longer possible to reject the genuineness of the 1604–5 list, and although that of 1611–12 has not been so minutely tested, it is pretty obviously of a piece with the ‘Book’ of which it forms a part, and had it stood alone, probably no suspicion would have fallen upon it. In fact, it would really be more plausible--although this also is not in the least plausible--to take the whole documents as forgeries, than to take the lists as forged insertions in genuine accounts.

It must be added that there are some singular things about the substance of the books, with which Mr. Law does not seem to me quite to grapple. On the whole, that of 1604–5 is rather less perplexing than that of 1611–12. But the scribe has been oddly confused about his dates. On f. 1^v he has written ‘iij^o’, instead of ‘ij^o’ for the regnal year. And at the top of f. 2 he has apparently written ‘1605’ and then corrected it to ‘1604’. The Queen’s Revels are called by their obsolete name of ‘The Boyes of the Chapell’, which is odd in an official document, but so they are, much later, in the Treasurer of the Chamber’s account for 1612–13. It is more important that, while the Treasurer of the Chamber records payments for two plays to the Queen’s Revels, one on 1 Jan. and the other on 3 Jan., the Revels list omits the play on 3 Jan. altogether, and instead records a performance of _Love’s Labour’s Lost_ by the King’s men ‘betwin Newers Day and Twelfe Day’. No complete explanation of this is possible. The most that can be said is that there is independent evidence of a performance of _Love’s Labour’s Lost_ in Jan. 1605, but at a date after and not before Twelfth Night. This is derived from two letters. The first is from Sir Walter Cope to Robert Cecil, Viscount Cranborne, preserved at Hatfield (_Hist. MSS._ iii. 148) and printed by Halliwell-Phillipps, ii. 83:

‘I have sent and bene all thys morning huntyng for players
juglers and such kinde of creaturs, but fynde them harde to
fynde; wherfore, leavinge notes for them to seeke me, Burbage
ys come, and sayes ther ys no new playe that the Quene hath not
seene, but they have revyved an olde one cawled _Loves Labore
lost_, which for wytt and mirthe he sayes will please her
excedingly. And thys ys apointed to be playd tomorowe night
at my Lord of Sowthamptons, unless yow send a wrytt to remove
the corpus cum causa to your howse in Strande. Burbage ys my
messenger ready attendyng your pleasure.’

The letter is undated, but endorsed ‘1604’. Cecil’s title was Viscount Cranborne from 20 Aug. 1604 to 4 May 1605. A second letter, from Dudley Carleton to John Chamberlain on 15 Jan. 1605 (_S. P. D. Jac. I_, xii. 13) gives within near limits the date of the performance. Carleton says,

‘It seems we shall have Christmas all the yeare and therefore I
shall never be owt of matter. The last nights revels were kept
at my Lord of Cranbornes, where the Q. with the D. of Holst and
a great part of the Court were feasted, and the like two nights
before at my Lord of Southamptons. The Temples have both of them
done somewhat since Twelftide but nothing memorable, save that
it was observed on Friday last at night the greatest part of the
femal audience was the sisterhoode of Blackfriers.’

Mr. Law (_More about S. F._ 50) rightly rejects the suggestion of ‘Audi Alteram Partem’ that the ‘last night’ referred to was necessarily 14 Jan., the night before the date of Carleton’s letter; but I think he is wrong in taking it as the last night of Christmas. This, of course, was traditionally Twelfth Night, the day in 1605 of Jonson’s _Mask of Blackness_. But surely Carleton’s whole point lies in the exceptional prolongation of the Christmas festivities of this year beyond Twelfth Night, and I feel clear that all the revels he here refers to fell between 6 and 15 Jan. On 7 and 8 Jan. came _Hen. V_ and _E. M. O._ Putting the facts together, we get a performance, either at Southampton’s house or Cranborne’s, between 8 and 15 Jan. of _Love’s Labour’s Lost_, which the Queen had not seen before. It is not therefore at all likely that there had been another performance of the same play at court between 1 and 6 Jan. It is true that the Queen might by some accident have missed such a performance. But that would not have prevented the Treasurer of the Chamber from paying for it, whereas he would not pay for a performance ordered as part of an entertainment given by Southampton or Cranborne. Nor would it have been the duty of the Revels Office to attend such a performance, which makes it rather mystifying that they should have confused it with the second Queen’s Revels performance at court some days earlier, which it would have been their duty to attend. The vagueness of the phrase ‘betwin Newers Day and Twelfe Day’, suggesting that the list was prepared retrospectively from memory, when the account was made up in the autumn of 1605, may perhaps help to explain an error. On the other hand, a forger, presumably knowing nothing of Cope’s letter, which first came to light in 1872, could hardly have guessed at a revival of _Love’s Labour’s Lost_ in 1605.

The discrepancies between the Revels list of 1611–12 and the corresponding accounts of the Treasurer of the Chamber are rather numerous. The Revels list records thirteen plays from 1 Nov. to 25 Feb. ‘before the Kinges Maiestie’, including two which, although, I suppose, ordered for the King, were in fact only given before the Queen and Prince. The Treasurer paid for only ten plays as before the King, and for many others before the younger members of the royal family only, with which the Revels would not normally be concerned. The two records agree as to 1 and 5 Nov., 26, 27, and 29 Dec., and 2, 23, and 25 Feb. On 28 Dec. the Treasurer notes a play by the Prince’s men which the Revels list does not. On 1 Jan. the Revels list notes a play by the King’s men, which the Treasurer does not. The play on 5 Jan. is assigned by the Treasurer to the King’s men, and by the Revels list to the Whitefriars. The plays on 12 and 13 Jan. appear from the Revels list to have been joint performances by the King’s and Queen’s men, but the Treasurer notes the play on 12 Jan. only, assigns that to the Duke of York’s men, and refers to Henry but not to the Queen as present. He also paid for one play by the King’s men before Henry, of which he does not give the date, and which may be that of 13 Jan. Both records note a play by the Duke of York’s men on 24 Feb., but while the Revels list does not indicate that James was absent, the Treasurer treats the performance as one before the royal children only. I do not know that all this is beyond the blundering of the clerks concerned, especially perhaps the Clerk of the Revels, at a time when the functions of the office in relation to court plays had become trivial. On the other hand, I am not clear that plays ordered by the Queen and paid for out of her privy purse, instead of by the Treasurer of the Chamber, may not sometimes have been produced under Revels Office auspices; if so, some of the discrepancies might be thus accounted for. But obviously the facts necessitate some caution in the use of the 1611–12 list.

ABSTRACT OF PAYMENTS

I now give in tabular form an abstract of all entries in the Chamber and Revels accounts, which enable us to establish the succession of court performances during 1558–1616. These are arranged under years running from Michaelmas to Michaelmas. Four columns are devoted to the Chamber Accounts. Col. 1 records the dates of the performances, as recorded in the Declared Accounts. Any correction or closer information as to date derivable from other sources is added in square brackets. For the Jacobean period I also show the personages before whom the performances were given, K. standing for James, Q. for Anne, H. for Henry, C. for Charles, E. for the Princess Elizabeth, and F. for the Elector Palatine. Col. 2 contains the verbatim descriptions in the accounts of the companies performing and their payees, and in a very few cases of the nature of the performances. A few miscellaneous entries are inserted in this column. Probably an exhaustive examination of the records of the subordinate royal households during 1603–16 might enable a few additions to be made. It is also possible that an occasional play, perhaps on a progress, may have been rewarded out of the Privy Purse. But the main series of performances provided for the regular winter ‘solace’ of the sovereign appears to be fairly complete. Col. 3 shows the amounts of the rewards. Col. 4 adds the dates of the warrants for payment as given in the Declared Accounts and in brackets the places where they were made out, W. for Westminster, H. for Hampton Court, G. for Greenwich, R. for Richmond, J. for St. James’s, Wi. for Windsor. I add references to the parallel extracts of Cunningham from the Original Chamber Accounts (C.), and to the notes of the signing of warrants in the Privy Council Register (D.) where these exist. A fifth column, for certain years, adds the relevant extracts from such Revels Accounts as survive. The references are to Feuillerat’s edition. Any discrepancies of importance between Chamber, Privy Council, and Revels records are dealt with in foot-notes. The variant dates of warrants in the ill-kept Privy Council Register are not important.

CHAMBER ACCOUNTS. REVELS ACCOUNTS.

_Perfor- _Payees._ _Amount._ _Warrant._
mance._

=1558–60= (_Pipe Office, Declared Accounts, Roll 541, mm. 17, 22_).

-- ‘Quenes ... £6 13_s._ 4_d._ F. 34 (_1555–60_).
enterlude players [779] ‘ffurnisshinge a
for her hyghnes pley by the
accustomed rewarde children of the
dewevnto them at Chapple.’
Newe yerestyde.’

-- ‘to players of £13 6_s._ 8_d._ F. 79 (_1558–9_).
enterludes.’ ‘playes and other
pastymes sett
forthe and shewen
in her Maiesties
presence.’

=1560–1= (_D. A. 541, m. 28_).

Xmas. ‘Lorde Robte £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 21 Jan. (W.);
Dudleyes C. xxvii.
players.’

Xmas. ‘Sebastiane £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 21 Jan. (W.);
Westcott M^r of C. xxvii.
the Children of
Polles.’

=1561–2= (_D. A. 541, m. 37_).

Xmas. ‘Lorde Robert £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 6 Jan.
Dudeleys
playo^{rs}.’

Xmas. ‘Sebestiane £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 6 Jan.
Westcote M^r of
the Children of
Powles.’

-- ‘Sebastiane £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 9 Mar. (W.);
Westecote M^r of C. xxvii.
the Children of
Powles.’

=1562–3= (_D. A. 541, m. 47_).

Xmas. ‘playo^{res} of £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 10 Jan. (W.);
the Lorde Robte C. xxviii;
Duddeley.’ D. vii. 134.

Xmas. ‘M. of the £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 10 Jan. (W.);
children of C. xxviii;
Poles.’[780] D. vii. 134.

=1563–4= (_no entry in D. A._).

F. 116. ‘Charges
agaynst Cristmas
and Candelmas ffor
iij plays at
Wyndsor.’[781]

=1564–5= (_D. A. 541, m. 67_).

Xmas ‘therle of £13 6_s._ 8_d._ 18 Jan. (W.); (2 plays).Warwickes C. xxviii; players.’ D. vii. 187.

Xmas. ‘Sebastian £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 18 Jan. (W.); F. 117. ‘in
Westcote M^r of [782] C. xxviii; Ienevery ffor
the Children of D. vii. 187. cayrtene playes by
Powles.’ the gramar skolle
of Westmynster and
the childerne of
Powles.’

2 Feb ‘Sebastian £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 9 Mar. (W.);
Westcott M^r of C. xxviii;
the Children of D. vii. 204.
Poles.’ F. 116. ‘Cristmas
... ffor a maske
and a showe and a
play by the
childerne of the
Chaple.’

[_In margin_]
‘Edwardes tragedy’.

F. 117. ‘The
xviij^{th} of
februerie ... for
a play maid by Sir
Percivall Hartts
sones with a maske
of huntarsand
diuers devisses
and a rocke or
hill ffor the ix
musses to singe
vppone with a
vayne of sarsnett
dravven vpp and
downe before
them.’

F. 117. ‘Shroftid
[4–6 March] ...
new and diuers
showes made by the
gentillmen of
Greys Ine.’

[_In margin_]
‘Gentillmenne of
y^e Innes of
Court. Diana,
Pallas.’

=1565–6= (_D. A. 541, m. 76_).

Xmas ‘Sebastian £20 3 Jan. (W.).
(3 plays) Westcote M^r of
the Children of
Powles ... for
two seūall playes
... at the Courte
... and one other
also before her
Ma^{tie} at the
Ladye Cecilias
Lodging at the
Savoye.’

=1566–7= (_D. A. 541, m. 92_).

Xmas ‘Sebastyan £13 6_s._ 8_d._ 11 Jan. (W.);
(2 plays) Westcote M^r of D. vii.
the children of 322 (12 Jan.).
Powles.’

Shrove- ‘John Taylor M^r £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 13 Feb. (W.); tide of the Children D. vii. 327. (9–11 of Westm^{r}.’ Feb.).

Shrove- ‘Richarde £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 16 Feb.; tide Farraunte M^r of D. vii. 331 (9–11 the children of (W. 17 Feb.). Feb.) Windsore.’ [11 Feb.]. [783]

=1567–8= (_D. A. 541, mm. 102–3_).

Xmas. ‘John Tailer M^r £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 10 Jan. (W.). F. 119. ’ theis
of the Children playes Tragides
at Westm^r.’ and Maskes ...
Xmas ‘The Lord Ryches £13 6_s._ 8_d._ 11 Jan. (W.). viz. ... seven
(2 plays).Plaiers.’ playes, the firste
namede as playne
Xmas ‘Sebastian £13 6_s._ 8_d._ 13 Jan. (W.). as canne be, The
(2 plays).Westcote M^r of seconde the
the Children of paynfull
Powles.’ plillgrimage, The
thirde Iacke and
Shrove- ‘William Hunnys £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 3 Mar. (W.). Iyll, The forthe
tide M^r of the sixe fooles, The
(29 Feb. Children of the fiveth callede
-2 Mar.). Quenes Ma^{tes} witte and will,
Chappell ... for The sixte callede
... a Tragedie’. prodigallitie, The
sevoenth of
Shrove- ‘Richarde £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 1 Mar. (W.). Orestes diuers
tide. Ferrante M^r of howses, ...
the children of as Stratoes and a
Windesore.’ Tragedie of the
Kinge of Scottes,
to y^e whiche
belonged howse,
Gobbyns howse,
Orestioes howse
Rome, the Pallace
of prosperitie
Scotlande and a
gret Castell one
thothere side.’
[784]
F. 123. ‘Revelles
vppon
Shrovesonday and
Shroftuisday at
nighte.’

=1568–9= (_D. A. 541, m. 113_).

26 Dec. ‘the Lorde Riches £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 28 Dec. (H.);
players.’ C. xxix.

1 Jan. ‘Sebastian £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 2 Jan.;
Westecote m^r of C. xxix.
the Children of
Powles.’

22 Feb. ‘Richard £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 25 Feb. (W.);
Ferraunte Scole C. xxix.
m^r of the
Children of
Windesore.’

=1569–70= (_D. A. 541, m. 115_).

27 Dec. ‘Richarde £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 2 Jan. (Wi.);
Ferrante Schole C. xxix.
m^r to the
Children of
Windesore.’

6 Jan. ‘Willm Hun̄ys m^r £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 7 Jan. (Wi.);
of the children C. xxix.
of her ma^{tes}
Chappell.’

5 Feb. ‘the Lorde Riches £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 7 Feb. (H.);
playo^{res}.’ C. xxix.

=1570–1= (_D. A. 541, m. 127_).

28 Dec. ‘Sebastian £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 22 Feb.
Westecote M^r of
the Children of
Powles.’

Shrove- ‘Willm̄ Honnyes, £20 28 Feb.
tide (25 Richarde
–7 Feb.) Farraunte and
(3 plays).Sebastian
Westcote M^{rs}
of the Children
of the Q ma^{tes}
Chapple Royall
Windsore and
Powles.’

=1571–2= (_D. A. 541, m. 137_).

27 Dec. ‘Lawrence Dutton £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 5 Jan. (W.); F. 144. ‘Lady
and his D. viii. 61 Barbara showen on
fellowes.’[785] (12 Jan.). Saint Iohns day at
nighte by Sir
Robert Lanes Men.’

28 Dec. ‘Sebastian £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 9 Jan. (W.); ‘Effiginia A
Westcott M^r of D. viii. 62 Tragedye showen on
the Children of (12 Jan.). the Innosentes
Powles.’ daie at nighte by
the Children of
Powles.’

1 Jan. ‘Richard Farrant £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 5 Jan. (W.); ‘Aiax and vlisses
gent M^r of the D. viii. 62 showen on New
Children of (12 Jan.). Yeares daie at
Windsor.’ nighte by the
Children of
Wynsor.’

6 Jan. ‘Willm̄ Hunnys £6 13_s._ 4_d._ N.D.; D. viii.‘Narcisses showen
M^r of the 62 (12 Jan., on Twelfe daye at
childer of the ‘John’ Nighte by the
Chappell.’ Hunnis). Children of the
Chappell.’

17 Feb. ‘John Greaves and £13 6_s._ 8_d._ 26 Feb. (W.); ‘Cloridon and
Thomas Goughe D. viii. 71 Radiamanta showen
servauntes to Sr (29 Feb.). on Shrove sundaye
Robt. Lane at Nighte by Sir
Knighte.’[786] Robert Lanes Men.’

19 Feb. ‘John £13 6_s._ 8_d._ 22 Feb. (W.); ‘Paris and Vienna
Billingesley.’ D. viii. 71 showen on
[787] (29 Feb.). Shrovetewsdaie at
Nighte by the
Children of
Westminster.’

=1572–3= (_D. A. 541, m. 150_).

Xmas ‘Therle of Leic. £30, ‘videlt. 1 Jan. (H.). F. 174. Scattered
(3 plays).players.’ for eūye playe entries refer to
vj^l xiij^s all these
iiij^d and for companies except
a more rewarde Sussex’s and to--
by hirMa^{tes} ‘the play of
owne comaundem^t Cariclia’,
x^lIn all xxx^l.’ ‘Theagines’,
‘the picture of
Andromadas’,
‘the monster’,
‘the playe of
fortune’.

1 Jan. ‘Richarde £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 2 Jan. (H.).
Farrante M^r of
the children at
Wyndesore.’

-- ‘Sebastian £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 7 Jan. (H.).
Westecote M^r of
the Children of
Polles.’

6 Jan. ‘Elderton and the £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 7 Jan. (H.).
Children of
Eyton.’

-- ‘Therle of Sussex £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 7 Feb.
players.’

-- ‘Laurence Dutton £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 10 Feb.
s^runte to therle
of Lincoln.’

3 Feb. ‘M^r Moncaster.’ £20, ‘vj^l 10 Feb.
xiij^s iiij^d
and for a more
rewarde by her
Ma^{tes} owne
comaundem^t
xiij^l vj^s
viij^d.’

=1573–4= (D. A. 541, _mm_. 165–6).

Xmas ‘Therle of £20, ‘xiij^l 9 Jan. (W.); F. 193. ‘Predor: &
(2 plays) Leicestres vj^s viij^d and D. viii. 177 Lucia, played by
[26, 28 players.’ by waye of (8 Jan.). Therle of
Dec.] speciall Leicesters
rewarde for servauntes vpon
theyre chardges Saint stevens
cunyng[788] and daye.’
skill shewed ‘Mamillia, playde
therein vj^l by therle of
xiij^s iiij^d.’ Leicesteres
seruauntes on
Innosentes daye.’

27 Dec. ‘Sebastian £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 10 Jan. (W.); ‘Alkmeon, played
Westcote M^r of D. viii. 178. by the Children of
the Children of Powles on Saint
Powles.’ Iohns daye.’

1 Jan. ‘Willm̄ £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 10 Jan. (W.); ‘Truth,
Elderton.’ D. viii. 178. ffaythfullnesse, &
Mercye, playde by
the Children of
Westminster for
Elderton vpon
New yeares daye.’

3 Jan. ‘Laurence Dutton £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 11 Jan. (W.); ‘Herpetulus the
and the rest of D. viii. 178 blew knighte &
his Fellowes (10 Jan.). perobia playde by
s^runtes to the my Lorde Klintons
L Clinton.’ servantes the
third of Ianuary.’

6 Jan. ‘Richarde Ferant £10, ‘vj^l 10 Jan. (W.); ‘Quintus ffabius
Scholem^r.’ xiij^s iiij^d D. viii. 178. played by the
and in respecte Children of
of his chardges Wyndsor ffor M^r
coming hyther ffarrant on Twelfe
lxvj^s viij^d.’ daye.’

2 Feb.} ‘Richarde £26 13_s._ 4_d._, 18 Mar. (G.); F. 206. ‘ffor
23 Feb.} Moncaster.’ ‘xiij^l vj^s D. viii. 210. ... Timoclia at
viij^d and the sege of Thebes
further her by Alexander
Ma^{tes} speciall showen ... by M^r
rewarde for suche Munkesters
costes and Children.’
chardges as he F. 213. ‘Percius &
was at for the Anthomiris playde
same xiij^l vj^s by Munkesters
viij^d.’ Children on
Shrovetewsdaye.’

21 Feb. ‘Therle of Leic £10, ‘vj^l 22 Feb. (H.); ‘Philemon &
[789] his plaiers.’ xiij^s iiij^d D. viii. 198. Philecia play by
and forther by the Erle of
waye of her Lecesters men on
highnes rewarde Shrove Mundaye.’
for suche chardges F. 227. ‘Italyan
as they had Players at Wynsor
furniture of bene & Reding ... the
at for the the xv^{th} of July
same lxvj^s 1574.’
viij^d.’

=1574–5= (_D. A._ 541, _m._ 178).

26 Dec. ‘Therle of £10. 9 Jan.; F. 239. 27 Dec.
Lecesters C. xxx. ‘gloves for my
players.’ Lord of Lesters
boyes y^t plaied
at thecoorte.’
F. 244. 25 Dec.
‘my Lord of
Leicesters menns
playe.’

1 Jan. ‘the Erle of £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 9 Jan.; F. 239. 1 Jan.
Leic’ players.’ C. xxx. ‘chymney sweepers
in my Lord of
Leycesters mennes
playe & for mosse
& styckes.’

27 Dec. ‘the lord Clynton £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 11 Jan.; F. 244. 27 Dec.
players.’ C. xxx. ‘the Duttons
playe.’

2 Jan. ‘the lord Clinton £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 11 Jan.;
players.’ C. xxx.

6 Jan. ‘Richard Farrante £13 6_s._ 8_d._ 23 Jan. (H.); F. 244. ‘King
m^r of the C. xxx. Xerxces syster in
children of the ffarrantes playe,
chapell of ... cariage ...
Wyndsor.’ for the playe ...
on twelfe nighte.’

2 Feb. ‘Sebastian £13 6_s._ 8_d._ 16 Feb.;
Westecote M^r of C. xxxi.
the Children of
Powles.’

13 Feb. ‘William Hunys £13 6_s._ 8_d._ 16 Feb. (R.); F. 244. 13 Feb.
m^r of the C. xxxi. ‘M^r Hvnnyes his
children of her playe.’
ma^{tes}
Chappell.’

13 Feb. ‘Richarde £13 6_s._ 8_d._, 17 Feb. (R.). [F. 238. The
[15 Feb. Moncaster.’ ‘vj^l. xiij^s. following
?]. iiij^d and for a rehearsals took
reward gyven by place: 14 Dec. ‘my
her heignes vj^l. Lord Chamberlens
xiij^s. iiij^d’. players did show
the history of
Phedrastus &
Phigon and Lucia
together.’
18 Dec. ‘my Lord
of Leicesters
menne showed
theier matter of
Panecia.’
20 Dec. ‘my lord
Clyntons players
rehearsed a matter
called Pretestus.’
21 Dec. ‘the
showed ij other
playes.’]

13 Feb. ‘Therle of £10. 16 Feb. (R.); [14 Feb.].Warwickes C. xxxi. [790] players.’

=1575–6= (_D. A. 541, mm. 195–6_).

26 Dec.} ‘John Dutton, £20. 2 Jan. (H.);
1 Jan. } Lawrence Dutton, D. ix. 68.
Jerome Savage,
etc. Thearle of
Warwickes
players.’

27 Dec. ‘Richard Farraunt £10. 30 Dec. (H.);
M^r of the D. ix. 67
children of the (29 Dec.).
Chappell at
Wyndsore.’

28 Dec. ‘Thearle of £10. 30 Dec. (H.);
Leicestre D. ix. 68
players.’ (29 Dec.)

6 Jan. ‘Sebasten £10. 7 Feb. (H.);
Westcott M^r of D. ix. 71
the children of (7 Jan.).
Powles.’

2 Feb. ‘John Adams and £10. 4 Feb. (H.);
the rest of my D. ix. 81
Lorde (-- Jan.).
Chamberlaynes
servaunt players.’

27 Feb. ‘Alfruso £10. 12 Mar. (W.).
Ferrabolle and
the rest of the
Italyan players.’

4 Mar.? ‘to ---- Burbag £10. 14 Mar. (W.).
[791] and his company
Servauntes to
thearle of
Leicester.’

5 Mar. ‘Lawraunce Dutton £10. 8 Mar. (W.);
[792] and the rest of D. ix. 95
his company (11 Mar.).
Servauntes to
thrighte
honourable Thearle
of Warwicke.

6 Mar. ‘Richard £10. 11 Mar. (W.);
Moulcastre to D. ix. 94.
hime.’

[Sept. ‘Richarde -- 11 Nov. 1577.
-Oct.] Farrant, M^r of
the Children of
her Ma^{tes}
chappell of
Winsore viz. for
the chardges of
xv of the singinge
men of the said
chappell and sixe
of the children
repayringe thither
to Readynge at her
ma^{tes} laste
being there.’

=1576–7= (_Audit Office, Declared Accounts, Roll xv, Bundle 382_) [Pipe Office
missing].

Xmas ‘Therle of £16 13_s._ 4_d._ 20 Jan. (H.); F. 256, 269. ‘The
holidays. Warwickes D. ix. 270. Paynters Daughter
[26 Dec.] players.’ ... on S^t Stevens
27 Dec. ‘the Lord £10. 12 Jan. (H.). daie ... by therle
Howardes of Warwickes
players.’ seruauntes ... the
Xmas ‘Therle of £16 13_s._ 4_d._ 20 Jan. (H.); Duttons plaie.’
holidays. Leicesters D. ix. 270. F. 256. ‘Toolie
[30 Dec.] players.’ ... on St. Iohns
Xmas ‘Sebastian £16 13_s._ 4_d._ 20 Jan. (H.); daie ... by the
holidays Westcote m^r of D. ix. 270. Lord Howardes
[1 Jan.] the Children of seruantes.’
Powles.’ F. 256. ‘The
Xmas ‘Richard Farrante £16 13_s._ 4_d._ 20 Jan. (H.); historie of the
holidays. m^r of the D. ix. 270. Collyer ... on the
[6 Jan.] children of the Sundaie folowing
Chappell.’ [30 Dec.] ... by
th’ erle of
Leicesters men.’
F. 266. ‘ffor
cariadge ... for
the Earle of
Leicesters to the
court 28^o
Decembris.’
F. 266. ‘for that
their
[Leicester’s?]
plaie was deferred
until the Sundaie
folowing [30 Dec.].’
folowing [30
F. 256. ‘The
historie of Error
... on Newyeres
daie ... by the
Children of
Powles.’
F. 256. ‘The
historye of
Mutius Sceuola ...
by the on Twelf
daie ... Children
of Windsore and
the Chappell.’

2 Feb. ‘Therle of £16 13_s._ 4_d._ 3 Feb. (H.); F. 256. ‘The
Sussexes D. ix. 280. historye of
players.’ the Cenofalles
... on Candelmas
daie ... by the
Lord Chamberleyn
his men.’

17 Feb. ‘The Lord £10. 20 Feb. (W.); F. 270. ‘The
Howardes D. ix. 293 Historie of
players.’[794] the Solitarie
Knight ... on
Shrove-sundaie
... by the
Lord Howardes
seruauntes.’

18 Feb. ‘Therle of £10. 20 Feb. (W.); F. 270. ‘The
Warwikes D. ix. 293 Irisshe Knyght
players.’ ... on
Shrovemundaie ...
by the Earle of
Warwick his
seruauntes.’

17 Feb. ‘Sebastian £10. 20 Feb. (W.); F. 270. ‘The
[9 Feb.] Westcote.’ D. ix. 293. historye of Titus
[795] and Gisippus ...
on Shrove-tuysdaie
... by the Children
of Pawles.’

April. ‘Durham Place (an N.D.
Italian playe [‘Apparelling
their done before charge.’]
her ma^{tes}
Privy Council).’

=1577–8= (_D. A. 541, mm. 209–12_).

26 Dec. ‘The Earle of £10.[796] 9 Jan. (H.);
Leicesters D. x. 138.
seruantes.’

27 Dec. ‘Richarde £10. 20 Jan. (H.). F. 277. Probably
Farrante m^r of for a rehearsal,
the children of ‘the cariadge of
her ma^{tes} the partes of y^e
chappell.’ well counterfeit
from the Bell
in Gracious strete
to St. Iohns to be
performed for the
play of Cutwell.’

8 Dec. ‘The Earle of £10. 12 Jan. (H.).
Warwickes
players.’

30 Dec. ‘Sebastian £10. 31 Jan. (H.).
Westcott.’

5 Jan. ‘The Lorde £10. 9 Jan. (H.);
[797] Howarde baron of D. x. 138.
Effingham his
players.’

6 Jan. ‘Earle of £10. 12 Jan. (H.).
Warwickes
players.’

2 Feb. ‘The Lorde £10. 15 Mar. (G.),
Chamblaynes in duplicate;
players.’ D. x. 185
(14 Mar.).

9 Feb. ‘The Earle of £10. 18 Feb. (H.).
Warwickes
players.’

11 Feb. ‘The Countes of £10. 14 Feb. (H.).
Essex players.’

(11 Feb.) ‘The Earle of £6 13_s._ 4_d._, 18 Feb. (H.).
Leicesters ‘for makinge
players.’ their repaire to
the Courte w^{th}
their whole
company and
furniture to
presente a
playe before her
ma^{tie} uppon
Shrove-tuesdaye
at nighte in
consideracon of
their chardgies
for that purpose
although the
plaie by her
ma^{ties}
comaundement
was supplyed
by others.’

-- ‘for a mattres N.D. [‘Apparelling
hoopes and charge’]
boardes with
tressells for
the Italian
Tumblers.’

=1578–9= (_d. a. 541, m. 222_).

26 Dec. ‘Therle of £10. 16 Jan.; F. 286. ‘An
Warwicke D. xi. 21 Inventyon or playe
sr^auntes.’ (R.). of the three
Systers of Mantua
... on St Stephens
daie ... by thearle
of Warwick his
servauntes.’

28 Dec. ‘y^e lord £10. 16 Jan.; F. 286. ‘An history
Chamblaynes D. xi. 21 of the creweltie of
players.’ (R.). A Stepmother ... on
Innocentes daie ...
by the Lord
Chamberlaynes
servauntes.’

6 Jan. ‘y^e sayd lord £10. 16 Jan.; F. 286. ‘The
Chamblaynes D. xi. 21 historie of the
sr^auntes.’ (R.). Rape of the second
Helene ... on Twelf
daie.’

F. 299. 6 Jan. ‘my
Lord Chamberleynes
players second
plaie.’

1 Jan. ‘ye M^r of ye £10. 16 Jan.; F. 286. ‘A Morrall
[798] Children at D. xi. 21 of the marryage of
Pawles.’ (R.). Mynde and Measure
... on the sondaie
next after Newe
yeares daie ... by
the children of
Pawles.’

4 Jan. ‘Therle of £10. 16 Jan.; F. 286. ‘A
Leicestres D. xi. 21 pastorell or
players.’ (R.). historie of A
Greeke maide ... on
the sondaie next
after Newe yeares
daie ... by the
Earle of Leicester
hisservauntes.’

6 Jan. ‘M^r Ferr^aunte £10. 16 Jan.; F. 286. ‘The
[27 Dec.] M^r of the D. xi. 21 historie of ---- ...
[799] Children of her (R.). on St Iohns daie ...
Ma^{tes} by the children of
chappell.’ the Quenes maiesties
chappell.’
F. 298. 27 Dec. ‘for
cariage of the
stuffe that served
the plaie for the
children of the
chappell to the
courte and back
agayne.’

(2 Feb.) ‘Jerome Savage £6 13_s._ 4_d._, 11 Mar.; F. 303. ‘The history
and his companye ‘in consideracon D. xi. 81 of ---- provided to
sr^auntes to of a playe (W. 18 have ben shewen ...
Therle of w^{ch} was in Mar.). on candlemas daie
Warwickes.’ readynes to have ... by the Earle of
bene presented Warwickes
before her servauntes.... Being
Ma^{tie} on in redines at y^e
Candlemas night place to have
last paste’. enacted the same.
But the Quenes
maiestie wold not
come to heare the
same and therefore
put of.’

1 Mar. ‘therle of £10. 13 Mar.; F. 303. ‘The history
Warwickes D. xi. 75 of the Knight in the
sr^auntes.’ (W.). Burnyng Rock ... on
shrovesundaie ... by
the Earle of
Warwickes
servauntes.’