THE SHAKESPEARE ASSOCIATION 
 
 > 
 
 HE SEVENTEENTH CEN- 
 URY ACCOUNTS OF THE 
 ASTERS OF THE REVELS 
 
 BY 
 
 CHARLOTTE CARMICHAEL STOPES 
 
 LONDON 
 
 PUBLISHED FOR THE SHAKESPEARE ASSOCIATION 
 
 BY HUMPHREY MILFORD, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 
 AMEN CORNER, LONDON, E.C. 
 
 1922 
 
 Price Two Shillings net 
 
Shakespeare Association Papers 
 
 1 . Shakespeare Day. Report of Meeting helc 
 on May 3, 1913, to promote the Annua> 
 Observance of Shakespeare Day. 1917 
 i/- net. (Out of print.) 
 
 2. The Problem of c The Merry Wives of 
 Windsor* by the Rt. Hon. J. M. ROBERT- 
 SON, M.P. 1919. 1/6 net. 
 
 3. Shakespeare and his Welsh Characters, by 
 ARTHUR E. Hughes. 1919. (Out of print.) 
 
 4. The Authorship of ^ The Taming of a Shrew J 
 c The Famous Victories of Henry VJ and the 
 additions to Marlowe s c FaustusJ by H. 
 DUGDALE SYKES. 1920. 1/6 net. 
 
 5 . Shakespeare s c Tempest ' as originally pro- 
 duced at Court, by ERNEST LAW. 1920, 
 1/6 net. 
 
 6. The Seventeenth Century Accounts of the 
 Masters of the Revels, by CHARLOTTE CAR- 
 MICHAEL STOPES. 1922. 2/- net. 
 
 7. The Beginnings of the English Secular and 
 Romantic Drama, by ARTHUR W. REED. 
 1922. 2/- net. 
 
 8. Dry den as an Adapter of Shakespeare, by 
 ALLARDYCE NICOLL. 1922. 2/- net. 
 
 PUBLISHED BY HUMPHREY MILFORD, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 AMEN CORNER, LONDON, B.C. 
 
 Of all Booksellers 
 
THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 
 
 ACCOUNTS OF THE MASTERS OF 
 
 THE REVELS 
 
 BY 
 
 MRS. CHARLOTTE CARMICHAEI, STQPES 
 
THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 
 
 ACCOUNTS OF THE MASTERS OF 
 
 THE REVELS. 
 
 THE discussions which have taken place over the 
 genuineness of some of the documents concerning 
 the Revels have hitherto been held in the subjeftive 
 field, that is, the opinion of expert Archivists. These 
 have not been able to agree among themselves. I have 
 therefore asked leave to shift the Cause to another Court, 
 to try it by another method, the objective, working by 
 the force of fafts, in determining the truth of Opinion. 
 Some of the Revels' Accounts for the sixteenth and 
 seventeenth centuries have been preserved, the earlier 
 ones at Loseley, a few at the British Museum, but the 
 bulk of the series remains in the Public Record Office, 
 unfortunately, not by any means complete. Professor 
 Feuillerat of Rennes has done all he could to make them 
 more so, by bringing together, for the use of students, all 
 the papers which refer to them from other departments, 
 in his 'Office of the Revels in the time of Queen 
 Elizabeth.' I attempt first to note a few points in the 
 Sixteenth Century Account Books which throw light 
 on those of the Seventeenth Century. In the Audit 
 Office, Accounts Various, Bundle 1213,' we still can 
 find the following books, clean and clear : 
 
 1. 1570-1 to 1572, bills of expenses, with a list of the names 
 
 of plays 
 
 2. 1572-3, bills of expenses, no list of plays. 
 
 3- I 573-4> a list of plays. 
 
 4- 1 574-5) no list of plays. 
 
 1 Now removed to A. O. Ill, 1907. 
 
4 SEVENTEENTH CENTURY ACCOUNTS 
 
 5. 1576-7, bills of expenses, list of plays. 
 
 6. Feb., 1577-8-9, bills of expenses, list of plays. Tilney. 
 
 7. ist Nov., 1 5 79- ist Nov., 1580, bills of expenses, list of 
 
 plays. 
 
 8. isf Nov., 1580-3151 Oc5l., 1581, bills of expenses, list of 
 
 plays. 
 
 9. ist Nov., 1 582-3 1 st Oct., 1583, bills of expenses, list of 
 
 plays. 
 
 10. 3 ist Oft., 1 5 84-3 ist Oct., 15 , bills of expenses, list of 
 
 plays. 
 
 11. A duplicate of this, not quite so perfect. 
 
 12. (3 ist Oct., 1 5 87-1 st Nov., 1588, no list of plays. 
 
 < A duplicate of this in British Museum, Lansd. MS. 59, 
 ( art. 21. 
 
 Up to number 1 1 these are written on very large folio 
 sheets, No. 12 is little more than half size, and is not 
 so complete. Someone, probably the Auditor, has 
 written against it on the first page, 'The names of the 
 plaies wold be expressed/ and against the last page, 
 'The parcells were wount to be more particularly ex- 
 pressed.' That set of eleven account books give us 
 much information regarding the development of the 
 Court Drama. The advance in the Dramatists, the 
 Plays, the Properties go on together. In the first book 
 John Carow's 'properties' shew traces of some old 
 'miracle play' in his entry. 'Bodyes of men in 
 timber; Dishes for Devil's eyes, Hell and Hell mouth.' 
 In the books not completed by a list of names one 
 can still gather something of the subje6ls performed 
 from the expenses, as in 1572-3, 'For making of a 
 Chariott xiiij foote long and viij foote brode with a 
 blocke upon it and a fountayne therein, with the fur- 
 nishing and garnishing thereof for Apollo and the nine 
 Muses.' Again, '2 speares for the play of Carislea 
 . . . an awlter for Theagenes.' 'A tree of Holly for 
 Dutton's play, . . . and other trees for the Forest.' 
 
OF THE MASTERS OF THE REVELS. 5 
 
 'Comfits for flakes of Yse and Hayle Stones in the 
 Masque of Janus/ 'Arnold the painter for the pifture 
 of Andromeda/ Though none of the books give a list 
 of the poets, the names of some are incidentally men- 
 tioned, as in 1574-5, 'A periwig of haire for King 
 Xerxus his sister, in Farrants play . . .' 'Leashes, 
 doghookes, bawdricks for the Homes in Hunneyes 
 play/ There are even a good many names of plays to 
 be gleaned, as 'When my Lord Chamberlain's players 
 did shew the History of Fedrastus and Phigor and 
 Lucia.' 'When my Lord of Leicesters men shewed the 
 matter of Panecia.' 'When my Lord Clynton's players 
 rehearsed a matter called Pretexiiu* 
 
 The 'book' for the year 1587-8, we have seen, does 
 not yield us the names of its plays nor much other 
 material to infer them. It may have been confused by 
 pressure through the absorption in Armada affairs. Be 
 that as it may, no other account of this series has been 
 preserved until after the death of Elizabeth. It is very 
 remarkable how often records fail us, just when they 
 are most needed, for the Life of Shakespeare ! There 
 is only one personal link which kept up the connexion 
 of those early Court-plays, with later modes under which 
 we know plays to have been performed, only one person 
 who lived through and directed them from the infancy 
 of the Drama, to its ripe perfection under James, and 
 he has been too little noted. Edmund Tilney was ap- 
 pointed Master of the Revels for Life on 24th July, 
 1579 (Pat. Rolls 21, Eliz. p. 7, m. 8). The Master- 
 ship of the Revels was an office of great dignity ; the 
 Heralds placed its holder in order of precedence, to rank 
 with the Lieutenant of the Tower (see Bodleian Library, 
 Tanner MSS. clxviii, p. I2o v ). For his powers see 
 Patent Office Rolls 1606 (Watson's Rolls, m. 34, No. 
 46). For this article it is sufficient to remember that 
 he had to choose, reform, and set on plays ; to superin- 
 tend his inferior officers, The Clerk Comptroller, The 
 
6 SEVENTEENTH CENTURY ACCOUNTS 
 
 Clerk, and the Yeoman, and to check the work and 
 the bills of the different workmen in the various de- 
 partments. He enters, in 1582-3 'Edmund Tyllney 
 Esquire, Master of the Office, being sente for to the 
 Courte by letter from Mr. Secretary dated the loth of 
 Marche 1582-3. To choose out A companie of Players 
 for her Majestic/ and adds 'the expenses of himself and 
 his horse' in executing this commission. 1 This was 
 before the arrival of Shakespeare in London. But 
 Shakespeare did come. No one seems to have thought 
 of noting the important relations which must have 
 existed between these two men, or try to realise their 
 influence upon each other. The power of the Censor 
 was one of the three main external limitations of Shake- 
 speare's tastes and genius, the two others being, the 
 acting powers of his company at the time of his plan- 
 ning a play, and the taste of the audience. 
 
 It is hardly likely that Mr. Tilney knew anything 
 of Shakespeare when the Queen made her progress to 
 Cowdray and Titchfield in 1591, and came to dine with 
 him at Leatherhead on the way home. We know that 
 she did so, because The Treasurer of the Chamber re- 
 cords the expenses of preparation, 'for making ready 
 at Mr. Tilney 's House at Leatherheyde for her Majestic 
 to dine at' (Dec. Ace. Treas. Chamb. Audit Office, 
 Bundle 385, Roll 29). The remainder of the story can 
 be found in my 'Life of Southampton,' page 46 et seq. 
 
 One can well imagine Tilney being severe, like 
 Robert Greene, on the young rustic who had begun, 
 after an apprenticeship as a performer, as a patcher of 
 plays ; his intense surprise when this same rustic shewed 
 that he needed no ' borrowed feathers,' but could grow 
 a goodly crop of his own. 'Venus and Adonis' ap- 
 peared, licensed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, 
 patronised by the popular and critical young Earl of 
 
 1 This must have had an enormous influence on the fortunes of the 
 other men's and children's companies. 
 
OF THE MASTERS OF THE REVELS. 7 
 
 Southampton, welcomed by all readers, high and low, 
 scholars and poets alike. Thereafter would certainly 
 set in interesting currents between these two men, and 
 they would be sure to become friends in their great 
 work of teaching the English people what they ought to like. 
 An almost equal surprise would possess Tilney's soul 
 when Meres' Book came out in 1598, comparing the 
 Shakespeare he had reformed with the greatest writers 
 of classical times. They were prepared to work to- 
 gether when James came into power and took the poet 
 into his Royal Service, thus raising him in social status. 
 The accession of James brings us to the 'Seventeenth 
 Century Revels' Books.' These are, unfortunately, even 
 less regularly consecutive than those of the sixteenth 
 century. There are eighteen books in all, consisting of: 
 
 1. 1504-5, with a list of plays, players and poets. 
 
 2. 1611-12, with a list of plays and players. 
 
 3. 1623-4, smaller folio, no lists. 
 
 4. 1630-1, 
 
 5. 1631-2, 
 
 6. 1632-3, 
 
 7- J 633-4? 
 
 8- 1634-5, 
 
 9. 1632-5 (i) Warrant for extra payment for extra work done 
 in September for 3 years. 
 
 (2) List of plays, 1636-7. 
 
 (3) Warrant for payment of these plays. No work- 
 
 men's or other expenses noted. 
 
 10. 1 6 60- 1, smaller folio, no lists. 
 
 11. 1661-2, 
 
 12. 1662-3, 
 
 13. 1663-4, 
 
 14. 1664-5, 
 
 15. 1666-7, 
 
 1 6. 1667-8, 
 
 17. 1668-9, 
 
 1 8. 1669-70, 
 
 None of these are written on large folio sheets like 
 those of the sixteenth century, none of them furnish us 
 
8 SEVENTEENTH CENTURY ACCOUNTS 
 
 with similar gossipy general information, only three 
 of these have lists attached, numbers i and 2, and 
 number 9. But the latter, though it has often been 
 called a 'Revels' Book,' is not a book at all, even in the 
 limited sense in which the other 'Books' can be so 
 distinguished. It contains one warrant dated 1635 and 
 signed by Philip, Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery 
 as Lord Chamberlain, which is not connected by any 
 link with the other two documents. One of these is a 
 loose, unsigned list of twenty-two plays, the other is a 
 warrant also signed by Pembroke and Montgomery, for 
 the payment of the amount allowed for the performance 
 of twenty-two plays. The three were unconnected with 
 each other, when I first saw them. There are so 
 many reasons to suspect the genuineness of these three 
 lists, that I felt I must make a special investigation 
 into facts concerning them. Having done so lately, 
 by spending, for the third time, six months careful 
 work on the subject, it seems worth recording the 
 result, when we remember, that, except in one case, 
 'the proude Mayds,' we have no authority, beyond 
 these lists, for the performances of certain plays at 
 the stated dates, or even at the given seasons. To 
 facilitate understanding, the tables themselves should 
 be reproduced, as far as print allows. 
 
 THE REVELLS BOOKE. ANO. 1605. 
 
 The Accompte of the Office of the 
 Reveles of this whole yeres Charge in 
 Ano 1 604 ; untell the last of Odober 
 1605. 
 
 (i) R The u pl ^ rs - : Hallamas Day being the first of Novem- 
 ber A Play in the Banketinge House 
 at Whithall called The Mour of Veins. 
 
 By the Kings 
 Matis Plaiers. 
 
 (2) By his Matis The Sunday followinge A Play of the 
 Plaiers. Merry wiues of Winsor. 
 
 The Poetes 
 which mayd 
 the plaies. 
 
OF THE MASTERS OF THE REVELS. 9 
 
 his Matis 
 Plaiers. 
 
 (*\ By his Matis 
 Plaiers. 
 
 (5) By the Queens 
 
 Matis Plaiers. 
 
 (6) The Boyes of 
 
 the Chapell. 
 
 (n) By his Matis 
 
 \ / / T\1 * 
 
 Plaiers. 
 
 (8) By his Matis 
 
 (9) By 
 (10) By 
 
 00 
 
 Plaiers. 
 
 his Matis 
 Plaiers. 
 
 his Matis 
 Plaiers. 
 
 (l2) By his Matis 
 
 Plaiers. 
 
 (13) By his Matis 
 
 On St Stiuens night in the Hall A Play 
 called Mesur for Mesur. 
 
 On St Jons night A maske with Musike 
 presented by the Erl of Penbrok, the 
 Lord Willowbie and six Knights more 
 of the Courte. 
 
 On Inosents Night The plaie of Errors. 
 
 On Sunday following A plaie caled How 
 to larne of a woman to woo. 
 
 On Newers Night A playe called All 
 Foulles. 
 
 Betwin Newers Day And Twelfe Day 
 A play of Loues Labours Lost. 
 
 On Twelfe Night The Queens Matis 
 Maske of Moures with Aleuen Lay- 
 dies of Honnor to Accupayney her 
 Matie which cam in great showes of 
 Devises which they satt in with ex- 
 selent musike. 
 
 On the 7 of January ws played the play 
 on Henry the fift. 
 
 The 8 of January A play cauled Euery 
 on out of his Umor. 
 
 On Candlemas night A playe Euery one 
 in his Umor. 
 
 The Sunday following A playe provided 
 and discharged. 
 
 On Shroue Sunday A play of the Mar- 
 thant of veins. 
 
 On Shroue Monday A Tragidye of The 
 
 Plaiers. Spanish Maz : 
 
 (14)' By his Matis | On Shrouetusday A playe cauled The 
 
 Plaiers. 
 
 com- 
 
 Shaxberd. 
 
 Shaxberd. 
 He wood. 
 
 By George 
 Chapman. 
 
 Shaxberd. 
 
 Shaxberd. 
 
 Martchant of Venis Againe 
 manded by the Kings Matie. 
 
 This series of c Revells Books/ being the P Articular or 
 Ledger Books of the Office, enumerating each item in 
 
 1 The numerals are mine for references. 
 
io SEVENTEENTH CENTURY ACCOUNTS 
 
 each department which helped to make up the sum 
 total of the expenses, was each in turn handed over to 
 the Auditors, who engrossed the accounts, modified the 
 language, and declared it upon oat/i, before some great 
 court official, as the Lord Treasurer or the Lord 
 Chancellor, who had power to give them a warrant for 
 payment. The Players being the King's Grooms of the 
 Chamber, seem to have had their accounts declared 
 before a Committee of the Privy Council, who also gave 
 them a warrant for payment. All these warrants were 
 then handed to the Treasurer of the Chamber, who paid 
 them, retaining the warrants. Therefore, when the 
 Treasurer of the Chamber declared his accounts of the 
 money he had spent, they must agree with the State- 
 ments of the Ledger Books. 
 
 The Declared Accounts of the Treasurer of the 
 Chamber are preserved in two forms that of the 
 Audit Office on paper and that of the Pipe Office 
 on parchment. They should agree in every detail. 
 Therefore, they may be used as a means of checking 
 backwards the statements made in the Revels' Office 
 Accounts. Thus in the first entry : 
 
 (i) Stating that The Moor of Venice (supposed to be 
 Othello] was performed in the Banqueting House on the 
 ist November, 1604, we can turn to the payment made 
 for that performance by the Treasurer of the Chamber 
 and some of the others. 
 
 To John Hemmings one of the Kings Majesties players on 
 the Counsells Warrant dated at Whitehall 2ist January, 
 1604-5, for the paynes and expenses of himself and the rest of 
 his company, for presenting 6 interludes or plays before his 
 Majestic viz, on All Saints day at night one, on the Sunday 
 at night following being the 4th of November 1604 one; on 
 St. Stephens day at night ; one on Innocent's Day at night 
 and one on the yth and 8th days of January for euerie play 
 20 nobles the play and his Majesties reward 5 nobles . . . 
 in all 60. 
 
OF THE MASTERS OF THE REVELS, n 
 
 Comparing this list of payments with the Play List 
 above, we see that there was a play performed on 
 ist November that year; there is no further evidence 
 that it was Othello; and proof positive is forthcoming 
 that it was not performed in the Banqueting House. 
 Whenever the King removed, some groom of his 
 chamber was sent in advance of him, to prepare the 
 rooms which he would be using. Their charges, being 
 of the household, were guaranteed by the Lord Cham- 
 berlain direcl, and appear in a separate part of the 
 account. There we can find 
 
 To George Pollard for . . . making ready for the King & 
 Queen at Whitehall, . . . 16 days October, 1604. . . . For 
 making ready the Create Chamber at Whitehall for the King's 
 Majestic to see the plaies ... by the space of two daies 
 mense Nouembris, 1 604 . . . for making readie the Banquet- 
 ing House at Whitehall for the King's Majestie againste the 
 plaie, by the space of four daies mense Nouembris, 1 604. 
 
 As the Revels' season began on 3ist O6tober, Pollard 
 might be justified in reckoning his first two days from 
 the morning of 3ist O6lober till the evening of 
 ist November as in November. But by no possible 
 arithmetical process could he squeeze in four days of 
 preparation of the Banqueting House into thrt Novem- 
 ber, so if Othello were played on that day (which is 
 doubtful), it is certain that it was not played in the 
 Banqueting House. Another point may be remembered 
 in the Declared Account, as given above. It always 
 distinguishes between day and night performances. 
 The List, on the contrary, makes no such distinction. 
 It says Hallamas Day. The Declared Accounts say 
 c All Saints Day at night' How were the Treasurers 
 of the Chamber to be supposed to know whether it 
 was an afternoon or evening performance, if the Master 
 of the Revels did not tell them ? 
 
 (2) The Declared Accounts shew that there was a 
 
12 SEVENTEENTH CENTURY ACCOUNTS 
 
 play on the Sunday following, it might have been 'The 
 Merry Wives of Windsor, there is no further proof. 
 But again it may be noted it was not played on 
 Sunday r , but on ' Sonday at night ' following, being the 
 4th November. 
 
 (6) This item requires a double correction. The 
 Choristers of the Chapel were not called ' Boys/ but 
 ' Children ' ; had they then played as ' Children of the 
 Chapel/ the payment would have been made to their 
 Master, Nathaniel Giles, but it was paid to ' Samuel 
 Daniel and Henrie Evans.' . . . for the ' Queen's 
 Majesties Children of the Revels,' and it was paid for 
 ' 2 plaies,' both before the King, one on ' New Yeres 
 Day at night, and the other on the 3rd day of January.' 
 But more is meant than here meets the eye. Contem- 
 porary clerks would know that on 3oth January, 1603-4, 
 Evans, Kirkham, Kendal and others had a license for 
 bringing Children up to be able to perform plays, these 
 Children to be called 'The Children of the Queen's 
 Revels.' Samuel Daniel was to superintend these, to 
 ' allow them.' This syndicate was allowed to use as a 
 nucleus those of the Children of the Chapel Royal who 
 were already trained for afting. The young 'company' 
 performed under their new name on aoth February, 
 1603-4. On 1 7th September, 1604, Nathaniel Giles, in 
 consolation for his losses thereby, had a warrant allowed 
 him 'to take up children' to recruit his choristers. So it 
 is clear the clerk would not deprive the young performers 
 of the glory of their new name, had he really entered this 
 performance. Further, he would not have forgotten 
 that they played a second time on the 3rd January, so 
 this gives us two errors against the scribe. It may be 
 noted that the 3rd January performance displeased the 
 Court, and 'the Children of the Queen's Revels' were 
 inhibited, and never played again ; so that ' Rosseter,' one 
 of the above syndicate, when he wished to utilise 'The 
 Children ' in the following year, boldly calls them then 
 
OF THE MASTERS OF THE REVELS. 13 
 
 'the Children of the Chapel' to steer clear of the 
 inhibited Company's name. 
 
 (7) This entry requires even more serious correftion. 
 No such phrase was ever used in the 'Revels' Books' as 
 this indefinite guess 'betwin' the dates. The De- 
 clared Accounts above show that the King's Players did 
 not play before the King at any date between New 
 Year's Day and Twelfth Night, which was the 6th 
 January. They played on the day after, and the day 
 after that again, that is the yth and 8th January. If 
 they did not play it, no one else dare do so, for Love's 
 Labours Lost was the property of the King's Company. 
 They not only did not play that play, but they did not 
 perform any play, nor did anybody else during that 
 period. This is proved by the very ' Revels' Book ' 
 whose list I am criticising, for in giving the expenses 
 of the men who helped the performers they include 
 'To 6 men on New Yeres Day ; to 6 men on Twelfth 
 Eve and Twelfth Day ; to 4 men on Monday and 
 Tuesday following' i.e. 7th and 8th January. That 
 is, no help was required between the dates of New 
 Year's Day and Twelfth Eve. I did not fail to notice 
 that the same strifture might cover the second perform- 
 ance of the Children of the Queen's Revels, which was 
 on 3rd January, and between these dates. But it is 
 possible that Daniel and Evans might have worked 
 their own performance by the help of other 'children' 
 for themselves. They were at least paid for a perform- 
 ance on that date, and it was not ''Lows Labours Lost.' 
 To save further discussion I must, however, explain 
 that there was a performance of Love's Labours Lost 
 that season, though not before the King and not on 
 that date. The circumstances were peculiar. After a 
 gay season the King's second son was created Duke of 
 York on Twelfth Day, in the evening the Queen dis- 
 played her costly Masque ; the King heard the plays on 
 the 7th and 8th January, and he was exhausted. On 
 
i 4 SEVENTEENTH CENTURY ACCOUNTS 
 
 the gth he wrote the Privy Council that he must have 
 some recreation, and was about to go to Royston to 
 secure it. But he enjoined them to go on with their 
 meetings at the Queen's Court and execute business. 
 A letter in the handwriting of Thomas Phillips on the 
 i oth January implies that the festivities were all over, 
 because the King had left. But the Queen had her 
 brother with her, and wanted to amuse him. Sir 
 Robert Cecil (then Lord Cranborne) and the Earl of 
 Southampton held offices under the Queen, and called 
 themselves her servants. They naturally desired to 
 please her. Walter Cope was trying to help Lord 
 Cranborne to find a suitable play to produce before 
 her, and he wrote the memorable letter: 
 
 To Viscount Cranborne Sir, I haue sent and bene all thys 
 morning huntyng for players juglers, and suche kinde of 
 Creatures, but fynde them hard to finde ; wherefore leauing 
 notes for them to seek me Burbage ys come and sayes there 
 is no new playe that the Queen hath not scene, but they haue 
 reuyued an olde one cawled Loue's Labour Loste which for 
 wytt and mirthe he sayes will please her exceedingly. And 
 thys ys apointed to be playd tomorrowe night at my Lord of 
 Southampton's, unless you send a wrytt to remoue the Corpus 
 cum Causa to your howse in the Strande. Burbage ys my mes- 
 senger ready attending your pleasure. Youers most humbly 
 
 From your Librarye. WALTER COPE. 
 
 To the Right Honourable the Lord Viscount Cranborne at 
 the Court. 1 
 
 This letter is undated, but a date can be found for it. 2 
 Cranborne did not appropriate that play ; it was duly 
 
 1 One objection has been made that Cunningham could not have 
 seen Cope's letter, as it was not known until 1872, 'after his death. 
 That is not the case. It was not printed until then, in the Report of 
 the Historical MSS. Commission. But the Cecil Papers were well 
 known to scholars before that date, as Secretaries superintended the 
 Library at Hatfield and students were admitted to study the reigns of 
 Elizabeth and James. Cunningham might certainly have been among 
 these visitors. (See 'Records of Royalty/ by Charles Jones, 1821, 
 vol. II, p. 156.) 2 i.e., nth January, 1604-5. 
 
OF THE MASTERS OF THE REVELS. 15 
 
 performed at Southampton House. Carleton wrote a 
 letter to Chamberlain dated i5th January, 1604-5. ^ e 
 said he had thought he would have had no news to 
 give his friend. He thought the festivities had been 
 ended 'but for the enclosed': 
 
 it seems we shall have Christmas all the year. . . . The laste 
 night's revels were kept at my Lord Cranborne's where ye 
 Quene with ye Duke of Holstein, and a greate parte of the 
 Court were feasting, and ye like two nights before at my Lord 
 of Southampton's. . . . 
 
 That is, Cranborne's feast was on the I4th January, 
 Southampton's on the I2th. To return to the entry 
 of the play in the Revels' List, purporting to give a 
 list of the plays performed 'before the King,' how could 
 any clerk come to include Loves Labours Lost^ of which 
 the only thing that he knew was that it was not before 
 the King'? He neither knew the date nor the place of 
 its production, and guessed 'betwin New Yeres Day and 
 Twelfth Night.' How could a contemporary Clerk of 
 the Revels, paid handsomely to record the performances 
 before the King, make such an extraordinary blunder ? 
 And what would his chief, the Master of the Revels, 
 say to him on such an occasion ? The Master would 
 have to 'reform' his own books in that case. In regard 
 to the remaining plays, we still have the same uncer- 
 tainty in regard to their names, but on the King's return 
 from Royston, his players performed before him on 
 Candlemas night, that is the and February, said here to 
 have been 'Euery one in his Umor.' 
 
 (11) There is no corroborative evidence that a play 
 was 'provided and discharged' on the 3rd February. 
 On the contrary, there is an entry in the Declared 
 Accounts all to itself: 
 
 To John Heming ... on the Counsells Warrant, dated at 
 the Court at Greenwich 28th day of April 1605 for himself 
 
1 6 SEVENTEENTH CENTURY ACCOUNTS 
 
 and the rest of his company for an enterlude or play performed 
 before the King at Court on jrd February 1604-5. m 
 all 10. 
 
 I am aware that there was a possibility that some play 
 by some other company had been ready for the occasion, 
 and had been countermanded on the Lord Chamberlain 
 hearing there was 'some offence in it,' while the ever- 
 ready Burbage and his company had some other inter- 
 lude ready, even on the spur of the moment, to take 
 its place. But if it were so, any real Clerk of the Revels, 
 entering items to be presented to the Paymaster would 
 have selefted the one that was really performed, and 
 really was to be paid for. So this must be entered as 
 among the scribe's errors. 
 
 Some notice may be taken of the third column of 
 the Play List of 1604-5, that of 'The Poets which mayd 
 the playes.' No such list ever appeared, before or since, 
 in the 'Revels' Books.' The Master of the Revels had 
 nothing to do with the plays but to choose them, to 
 reform them, to produce them. Neither he nor the 
 Treasurer of the Chamber paid the poets, their own 
 companies paid them. So what was the use of recording 
 their names in their bills? It may be remembered 
 that the officers of the Revels were chosen from well- 
 educated gentlemen, the Master of the Revels ranked 
 with the Lieutenant of the Tower. They were in 
 Court life. The Court spelling of Shakespeare's name 
 was always the modern one, as they had read it on 
 his poems, as all Court entries of the time were spelt, 
 in the Declared Accounts for 1594, in the patent for 
 the King's Players in 1603 ; in the grant of red cloth 
 for the King's Coronation in the Lord Chamberlain's 
 books. It is true that in some of the Stratford records 
 we find the name spelt sometimes Shaxsper, once even 
 Chacksper in rustic phonetics. In no case, anywhere, 
 is there a terminal dental sound. I know that Sir 
 E. Maunde Thompson bravely tries to accept the ' d ' 
 
OF THE MASTERS OF THE REVELS. 17 
 
 as a possible flourish of a terminal ' e/ but I do not 
 think he really means this. To me, the affefted rusticity 
 of the style gives a strong proof against the genuineness 
 of the document. 
 
 No other ' Revels Booke ' is preserved until that of 
 1611-12, and that runs: 
 
 The Chardges betwine the last of October 1611 . . . untell 
 the first of November 1612. . . . The names of the playes 
 And by what company played them hereafter followeth As 
 also what Maskes and Triumphes at the Tilts were presented 
 before the Kings Majestic in this year 1612. 
 
 By the Kings players Hallamas nyght was presented att Whitehall 
 before the Kinges Majestic A play called 
 The Tempest. 
 
 The 5th of November A play called ye 
 Winters nights Tayle. 
 
 On St. Stivenes night A play called a King 
 or no King, and running at ye Ring. 
 
 St. Johns night A play called The City 
 gallant. 
 
 The Sunday followinge a play called The 
 Almanack. 
 
 On New Yeres night, a Play called The 
 Twinnes Tragidie and running at the Ring. 
 
 The Sunday following, A play called Cupid's 
 Revenge. 
 
 Twelfe Night The Princes Maske performed 
 by Gentlemen of his Houseold and running 
 at the Ring. This day the King and the 
 Prince with diuers of his noblemen did 
 run at the Ring for a Prize. 
 
 (2) The Kings players 
 
 (3) The Kings players 
 
 (4) The Queen's players 
 (f ) The Princes players 
 
 (6) The King's Players 
 
 (7) The Children of 
 Whitefriars. 
 
 (8) By the Queens Players 
 and the Kings Players 
 
 (9) By the Queens Players 
 (lo) By the Kings Players 
 
 The Sunday following at Grinwidge, before 
 the Queen and the prince was played The 
 Silver Aiedg and ye next night following 
 Lucrecia. 
 
 Candlemas night a play called Tu Coque. 
 Shroue Sonday A playe called The Nobleman. 
 
1 8 SEVENTEENTH CENTURY ACCOUNTS 
 
 (ll) By the Duck of Yorks 
 players 
 
 l'l2) By the Lady Elizabeths 
 ' Players 
 
 Shroue Monday A playe called Himens 
 H all day. 
 
 Shroue Teuesday A play called The Proud 
 Mayds Tragedie. 
 
 On the 24th March a Triumph etc. 
 
 It may be noted that there are no names of Poets on 
 this occasion, though two of Shakespeare's plays are 
 included. The expenses of Masques and Triumphs 
 were always given on a separate Bill. The perform- 
 ances of the King's Players before the King are given 
 in the Declared Accounts : 
 
 To John Hemings . . . and his fellowes the Kings seruants 
 on a warrant dated Whitehall ist June, 1612, for 6 plays before 
 his Majestic, one upon the last of October, one upon the ist 
 of Nouember, one upon the 5th of Nouember, one upon the 
 26th of December, one upon the 5th of January, and one 
 upon Shroue Sunday at night, being the 23rd of February. . . . 
 
 We see there that the season started with an unnamed 
 play on the 3 ist October, not entered at all by the 
 Clerk of the Revels (or his substitute) ! How, then, 
 did the Treasurer of the Chamber come to know of it, 
 and to pay for it ? This must be reckoned one error 
 against the scribe that year. 
 
 (1) The first play of the list, which should have been 
 the second, is here called The Tempest. There is no 
 corroborative support to this statement. 
 
 (2) Though there is no support to the date of this 
 performance, there is proof that The Winter s Tale was 
 in existence. Simon Forman saw it at the Globe in 
 the spring before, on I5th May. 
 
 (5) The Prince's Players did play on ' the Sunday 
 following,' which was the agth December. But they 
 played not once, but twice ', and that on consecutive 
 nights. The Declared Accounts say : ' To Edward 
 Jubye . . . and the Prince's Players ... for 2 playes 
 
OF THE MASTERS OF THE REVELS. 19 
 
 . . . before his Majestic, one on the 2 8th December 
 last, and one on the 2gth December.' So this is another 
 play short in the bill and another error against the 
 scribe. How did the Treasurer of the Chamber come 
 to know of it and pay for it ? 
 
 (6) The King's Players did not play at all on New 
 Year's Day or Night that year, as may be seen from 
 the Declared Account. But they did play on the 
 5th January, which was the Sunday following. So this 
 is another error against the scribe, if not two. 
 
 (7) The Children of Whitefriars did not play before 
 the King that night, and this particular night, we have 
 seen above, was booked to the King's Players. A further 
 error must, therefore, be noted. 
 
 (8) The Prince's Masque being performed on Twelfth 
 Night (a separate performance) the list states that the 
 Queen's men and the King's men played together at 
 Greenwich * the Sunday following The Silver Age of 
 Heywood.' That Sunday was the 1 2th January. Hey- 
 wood does state that it took both these companies to 
 perform some of his plays, but he is referring to public 
 stages. As the list we are discussing ostensibly records 
 only the performances before the King (and Queen), 
 this one should not have been entered at all, as it was 
 said to be performed before 'the Queen and Prince' 
 only. That, therefore, is an error. Further, there is 
 no record from the Declared Accounts of any payments 
 being given to either the Queen's men or the King's 
 men on that occasion. There is even a more serious 
 objection; neither the Queen nor the Prince was at 
 Greenwich at that date to hear any play. The Queen 
 had gone to Greenwich the previous November, and 
 had only left the Palace there on aoth December to go 
 back to Whitehall to meet the King coming back from 
 Royston for the Christmas performances. She had 
 something else to do before she hurried back again to 
 Greenwich so soon, and others had to do something. 
 
20 SEVENTEENTH CENTURY ACCOUNTS 
 
 Among the expenses of the preparing grooms in the 
 Declared Account we find that: 
 
 Peter Franck was paid c for making ready the Queen's 
 Majesty s lodgings at Greenwich by the space of 12 dayes, 
 Mense Januarii 1 611-12 . . . to making ready the Kings 
 Majestys lodgings for her Majesty by the space of 8 days 
 more ' c then he started making readie rooms for the Princess 
 Elizabeth over the Kings lodgings' all in January. Peter 
 Franck also c made ready The Chappie and the Closet for her 
 Majesty at Greenwich, and for altering the great Chamber for 
 a play ... in February ' he also made c ready Lord's Suffolk's 
 Lodgings for the King to see a play in February.' 
 
 Noting these points we may turn to the Queen's arrange- 
 ments. There is no proof that Peter Frank started 
 cleaning right off on New Year's Day ; during twelve 
 days there are two Sundays on which his men would 
 not work. (They were not Revels Men.) The Queen 
 would not think of travelling on Sunday 1 2th to see a 
 play that night, even if her rooms were ready for her. 
 The earliest possible day for her to start would be the 
 1 4th January. I was inclined to reckon it later, from 
 the amount of preparation, but here a new authority 
 comes in. Chamberlain wrote one of his gossipy letters 
 on the 1 5th January, very much dilapidated now, it is 
 true, having lost an inch off the right-hand margin. 
 But he seems to say: 'The Q(ueen) is gon already 
 tow(ards Greenwich). So her progress could not have 
 started later. Franck would have her own rooms ready 
 for her, but he had made no preparations in any hall or 
 chamber for any play before that date. Heywood's play, 
 with its numerous characters and extra staging, would 
 have required extra preparation, trouble and expense. 
 Chamberlain could not possibly have written a Court 
 Letter on the I5th without alluding to such a remark- 
 able performance. So altogether it seems logically 
 proved that Heywood's play was not performed that 
 night, and the scribe in error again. 
 
OF THE MASTERS OF THE REVELS. 21 
 
 It is certain that the Prince was not in Greenwich 
 on the 1 2th inst. as the list says. We know from the 
 Declared Accounts, that he was that night in London, 
 listening, with his brother and sister, to the Duke 
 of York's Players under William Rowley. From his 
 ' Book of Expenses ' we know that on the 1 3th, he 
 received in London 200 in ready money. From 
 Chamberlain's letter of the 1 5th we learn : c The Prince 
 went thither on Monday ' probably to Greenwich. 
 Preparations for and performances of plays are recorded 
 later there. Now this one entry gives us quite a crop 
 of errors to record against the scribe. No doubt further 
 study would result in further discoveries, but these errors 
 are sufficient, to my mind, to prove that no contem- 
 porary Clerk of the Revels could have made them. It 
 is only fair to record that Edmund Tilney died in 1610,' 
 the accounts of that year being drawn up by his executor 
 Thomas Tilney, and that Sir George Bue was a new 
 hand at the job. Having tried to put the case against 
 these two lists as dispassionately as possible, it is neces- 
 sary for a full understanding, to go back and follow this 
 ' Battle of the Books' point by point. 
 
 Discussion rose hot in the early part of the nineteenth 
 century over the dates of some of Shakespeare's plays. 
 Malone, who in former years had considered The Tempest 
 one of Shakespeare's earlier plays, had come to believe 
 that it was not only written, but performed, in 1611. 
 He sets his reasons forth in a little booklet, published 
 1808, called 'some particulars concerning The Tempest^ 
 in which he confesses that the discovery and reading of 
 Sylvesters Jourdan's c Tra6t on the Storm at Bermudas' 
 and the ' True Declaration Concerning the state of the 
 Colony there,' both dated 1610, made it certain that 
 Shakespeare wrote this special play at once. He refers 
 to a previous essay of his own, in which he had proved 
 (to his own satisfaction) that it was also performed in the 
 
 1 See his Will, p. 35. 
 
22 SEVENTEENTH CENTURY ACCOUNTS 
 
 year 1 6 1 1 . A careful examination of all Malone's works 
 and editions, up to the Variorum Edition of 1821, has 
 not helped me to find that essay, or even meet ' the 
 proof' in any other article. Miss Latham kindly did 
 the work over again for my help, with but the same 
 results. 
 
 Into the inner circle of the 'Scholars' there arose a 
 young man Peter Cunningham, with special oppor- 
 tunities of testing Shakespeare questions. He had been 
 given a post in The Audit Office in 1834, he was a 
 member of the Shakespeare Society, sometime a secre- 
 tary. His doings may be gleaned from the 'Transac- 
 tions.' He threw himself with zest into all its interests, 
 and in 1842 one of his works was published by the 
 Society, entitled 'Extracts from the Revels Accounts.' 
 The bulk of it concerned the Sixteenth Century Revels' 
 Books, and was fairly, not absolutely, accurate. His 
 great novelty lay in three new Revels' Books of the 
 seventeenth century, which he claimed to have '-found* 
 lying about neglected in the underground receptacles 
 then used for old records. These three papers were the 
 two above discussed and a third one. They seemed to 
 still all dispute about the dates of Shakespeare's plays. 
 So things went on until 1860, Cunningham, though 
 resigning from the Audit Office, rising in Shakespearian 
 lore as a recognised critic. Then something happened. 
 He had kept these three documents in his own posses- 
 sion, and though 'found' within the precincts of the 
 Record Office, he had never fitted them into the niche 
 they should have held there. It is said he had taken 
 to drink and wanted money. He offered the third 
 document to Mr. Waller, a bookseller in the Strand, 
 who purchased it. He offered the two more important 
 'Books' to the British Museum for sale. They asked 
 how much he wanted. He seems to have referred to 
 his friend John Payne Collier (who lived next door), 
 and to have asked 60. The British Museum Officials 
 
OF THE MASTERS OF THE REVELS. 23 
 
 however, considering the circumstances, thought it 
 right to impound them, and hand them over to the 
 authorities at the Record Office to deal with. They 
 kept them, and recorded the event in the Historical 
 Manuscript Commission Report for that year. 
 
 A storm of comment ran through the literary socie- 
 ties and papers, and Mr. Waller came forward to restore 
 to the Record Office the document he had purchased. 
 The authorities of the date enclosed the three in a sheet 
 of blue office paper, recording the fact that these docu- 
 ments having been out of their possession for so long 
 a time, and on other accounts, could not be held as 
 authoritative. The suggested suspicion demanded a 
 succession of examinations by careful scholars, and they 
 were unanimously pronounced to be forgeries. Cun- 
 ningham shortly after died. In that stage I first saw 
 them. But a new stir arose when, in 1879, Halliwell 
 Phillipps discovered among the Malone MSS. at the 
 Bodleian, a note which seemed to support the state- 
 ments of the 1604-5 Play- List. He was in a fever of 
 perplexity, and did the best thing possible, he printed 
 the note first in one of his little booklets, then in the 
 fifth edition of his 'Outlines of the Life of Shakespeare/ 
 
 'Malone's Scrap' runs as follows: 
 
 1604 and 1605. Ed. Tylney Sunday after Hallowmas Merry 
 Wyues of Wyndsor perf by the Kings players. Hallamas in 
 the Banqueting Ho s at Whitehall the Moor of Veins perfd 
 by the K.s players. On St Stephens night Mesur for Mesur 
 by Shaxberd perfd by the K's players. On Innocent's night 
 Errors by Shaxberd perfd by the K's players. On Sunday 
 following c How to learn of a woman to wooe by Hewood 
 perfd by the Q's players. On New Years night All Fools by 
 G. Chapman perfd by the Boyes of the Chapel. 
 
 Bet New Yrs day and Twelfth day Loues Labour Lost perfd 
 by the K's players. On the 7 th Jan Kg Hen the fifth perfd 
 by the K's players. On Jan 9 th Euery one out of his Humour 
 On Shroue Sunday the Marchant of Veins by Shaxberd perfd 
 by the K's P rs the same repeated on Shroue Tuesd by the 
 
24 SEVENTEENTH CENTURY ACCOUNTS 
 
 K's command. (The play on Shrove Monday is omitted.) 
 Malone MS. 29. 
 
 It was stuck into an album about 1875, where it occu- 
 pies the centre of a sheet of paper, p. 69, No. 107. 
 It is not in Malone's handwriting, but many notes were 
 sent him, or copied for him, so that is not surprising. 
 
 It was generally believed at first to have reached the 
 Bodleian in 1821, when the bulk of his papers went 
 there, and it seemed very bewildering. I went down 
 to the Bodleian on purpose to see it, and Mr. Madan 
 kindly loosened it from its page that I might see the 
 back. There was no mark of any kind there ; the paper 
 was half of a large folio sheet, the watermark was cut 
 in two, and there was no watermark expert in the 
 Bodleian to gain anything from it. It had been told 
 me that the transcript had been made so carefully that 
 the dot over the i in 'Venis' followed the Revels' List 
 in writing it as 'Veins.' That, however, was soon dis- 
 proved, for though on the whole the same, the note is 
 contrafted, slightly altered, one entry, the first, put out 
 of order and one omitted altogether. So the dot merely 
 points to some habit of the writer, and may be accounted 
 for in more than one way. Mr. Madan comforted me 
 not a little by shewing me his catalogue of Additions 
 to the Western MSS., and by saying that no notice had 
 been taken of this, among the other MSS., before Halli- 
 well Phillipps saw it, that it did not seem to have come 
 among the early MSS. in 1821, but was more likely to 
 have been among those purchased in 1838 from Mr. 
 Thomas Rodd, a bookseller with antiquarian tastes in 
 London. That sheds light on confused ideas, and makes 
 it possible that the same hand, or at least brain, was 
 responsible for the writing of both documents, and that 
 it might have been 'planted' among Mr. Rodd's lot. 
 
 The next stage in the history of these three ' Revels' 
 Books' commenced in 1911 when Mr. Ernest Law, 
 desirous of clearing the character of Peter Cunningham 
 
OF THE MASTERS OF THE REVELS. 25 
 
 and the trustworthiness of his 'extrafts/ brought out a 
 small quarto volume called ' Some Supposed Shakespeare 
 Forgeries/ in which he states that some great hand- 
 writing experts had agreed with him and pronounced 
 these three papers 'genuine/ I am glad that I had the 
 courage, even then, to come forward alone in support 
 of my opinion that they were not. Hence followed a 
 discussion in the 'Athenseum/ during the last half of 
 1911 and 1912, between Mr. Ernest Law and myself 
 (writing, for a special reason, under the name of Audi 
 Alterant Partem). I could not expect to be accepted 
 by anybody as an 'expert* on handwriting, but I had 
 fortified my opinion by matters of faff. Unfortunately 
 I made a mistake, just where I least deserved to do so, 
 in discussing the third document. I had been through 
 all the Lord Chamberlain's books and his accounts (un- 
 fortunately lost for the Shakespearian period). I had 
 already sent to the 'Shakespeare Jahr-Buch' two articles, 
 one which appeared in 1910 'Shakespeare's Fellows and 
 Followers/ and a companion paper ' Dramatic Notices 
 from the Privy Council Register/ which appeared in 
 the following year. I knew that Charles I had allowed 
 his players extra payment when they performed at 
 Hampton Court, on account of their greater expenses 
 and losses. 1 
 
 But I forgot, temporarily, that 1636-7 was a plague- 
 year, and the arrangements of the players, as well as of 
 others, disorganized thereby. They were obliged to 
 live near Hampton Court, to avoid bringing infection. 
 The King paid for their expense incurred thereby, so 
 they did not receive 'extra money for Hampton Court/ 
 I discovered this on 25th July, 1911, and wrote off at 
 once to the Editor, asking him to correct the second 
 part of my first letter. He decided that it was fairer 
 to wait until Mr. Law had reached that point, which 
 he did not do until 29th April, 1912. Then the Editor 
 1 See D.S.S.P., CAR. I, cccxxxvii (33) 3ist December, 1636. 
 
26 SEVENTEENTH CENTURY ACCOUNTS 
 
 printed my self-corre<5tion in the same issue as Mr. Law's. 
 The whole number of letters (should any one care to 
 follow) : 
 
 'Athenaeum' July 22nd and 29th, 1911, Audi A. P. Sep- 
 tember 9th, 1 6th and 3Oth, 1911, pp. 291, 324, 388, E. Law. 
 October yth, 1911, Audi, etc., p. 422. April 6th, 1912, p. 
 390, E. Law. April 27th, 1912, p. 469, Audi. Same issue, 
 p. 470, E. Law. August loth, 1912, p. 143, Audi. 
 
 The Editor then closed the discussion. 
 
 In 1920 when I had completed and handed over to 
 the Press my ' Life of Southampton,' I returned to 
 Shakespeare-Study proper. I found that Mr. Law had 
 written a second quarto volume nominally reporting 
 the discussion, called ' More About Some Supposed 
 Shakespeare Forgeries.' This was so full of miscon- 
 ceptions that I felt it necessary for the benefit of other 
 students to restate my case, calmly, clearly, without 
 personalities, or irrelevances which always cloud air 
 which should be kept clear for the keen eyes of critical 
 readers. I spent six months in going through all the 
 details again, chiefly in the Record Office, and my 
 Statement appeared in 'The Times Literary Supple- 
 ment,' 2nd December, 1920, and on 24th February, 
 1921. Between these dates Mr. Law wrote on 23rd 
 and 3oth December, 1920, and on i /th January, 1921. 
 I had not written to discuss Mr. Law's books ; but to 
 point out to fellow-students the discrepancies between 
 the c Revels' Books ' and faffs. 
 
 One list remains to be considered. The Editor of 
 c The Times Literary Supplement ' thought my State- 
 ment quite long enough, and refused to include the 
 third 'Revels' Book,' that of 1636-7. This is much 
 less important than the other two, because it refers to a 
 period after Shakespeare's death, and only throws light 
 on his continued popularity. But it was important to 
 discuss it nobody else had done so and it remains a 
 
OF THE MASTERS OF THE REVELS. 27 
 
 peculiar relic of past literary history. It also was one 
 of the three documents 'found' by and associated with 
 Mr. Peter Cunningham. This third document, formerly 
 called loosely a 'Revels' Book' had much less right to 
 the title than the other two. It consisted of three 
 documents, loose, which had never been attached to 
 each other (at the time I first saw them). The first is 
 a genuine warrant, signed by Philip, Earl of Pembroke 
 and Montgomery as Lord Chamberlain, granting the 
 players extra payment for extra service, their work 
 having begun for the three previous years, 1632-5, in 
 September, instead of on the 3ist October, as they had 
 been wont to do. This warrant is dated 25th May, 
 1636. Another is a genuine Warrant, signed by the 
 same nobleman, to pay to Lowen and Taylor for them- 
 selves and the other members of the King's company 
 for performing 21 plays, at 10 each, and one play, 
 called 'The Royal Slave,' for which they were to receive 
 the large allowance of 30, in all 240. On this paper 
 is signed Eyllardt Swanston's signature for three part- 
 payments, the whole not having been received by him 
 until 5th June, 1638. The third document is a list 
 purporting to give the names of these 22 plays (the 
 name of only one being mentioned in the warrant). 
 
 There is a remarkable paucity of material concern- 
 ing the stage during the particular year of 1636-7. 
 Chroniclers fail to take notice of it, their attention 
 being absorbed by greater things, the old gossipy corre- 
 spondents seemed to have died out, and few successors 
 followed. The declared Accounts of the Treasurer of 
 Chamber are lost in both departments, the Pipe Office 
 and the Audit Office, the first for the whole period, the 
 second for that special year. Ordinary diarists failed 
 to notice the points we now want. But we find one 
 successor of Chamberlain, White, and Pory in Edward 
 Rossingham ; one notice in Archbishop's Laud's 
 Diary ; one source of information of the greatest 
 
28 SEVENTEENTH CENTURY ACCOUNTS 
 
 importance which has never been worked through 
 for this purpose, I mean The MS. Registers of the 
 Privy Council now at the Record Office. And there is 
 one which should have told us more than it does. Sir 
 Henry Herbert, the afting Master of the Revels for 
 many years, afterwards the real 'Master' with all the 
 dignities of the office, kept a very rough diary of notes 
 of the performances. Malone saw this and included its 
 materials, saying 'Herbert does not furnish us with a 
 regular list of plays, but such as he gave, I give' 
 Var. Ed., 1821, Prol. Ill, pp. 228, 239). After that 
 Herbert's Diary was lost. 1 
 
 The List of the c Revels' Book ' differs materially 
 from that gleaned from Herbert by Malone. It may 
 be read in Peter Cunningham's ' Extracts from the 
 Revels' Accounts,' 1842. But it is difficult to point 
 out discrepancies without having a transcript before 
 our eyes ; so that I provide one, as I did with the other 
 Lists, adding my own numerals for reference, and dis- 
 tinguishing the plays not mentioned by Herbert by 
 printing them in italics. No 'Account' is associated 
 with its paper, and the performances recorded do not 
 begin on the 3ist O6lober as they were wont to do, not 
 even in September (the new date), but from the Spring 
 of 1636, probably because these had been left unpaid. 
 The list is separated into three parts by two horizontal 
 lines, the first following the 5th May, 1636, the second 
 following 24th January, 1636-7: 
 
 PLAYES ACTED BEFORE THE KING AND QUEEN, THIS PRESENT 
 YEAR OF THE LORD, 1636. 
 
 (1) Easter Monday, at the Cockpitt the first part of Arviragus. 
 
 (2) Easter Tuesday at the Cockpitt the second part of Arviragus. 
 
 (3) The 2U/ April at the Cockpit^ The Silent Woman. 
 
 1 Malone's Preface, p. 410, thanks Francis Ingram of Ribbesford, 
 Esq., for this valuable book and several other curious papers. 
 
OF THE MASTERS OF THE REVELS. 29 
 
 (4) The $th of May at the Blackfriars for the Queen and the Prince 
 
 Elector Alfonso. 
 
 (5) The 17 th Nouember at Hampton Court The Coxcombe. 
 
 (6) The iqth of Nouember at Hampton Court Beggars Bushe. 
 
 (7) The ityh of Nouember at Hampton Court The Maid's Tragedy. 
 
 (8) The 6th of December at Hampton Court The Loyall SubjeR. 
 
 (9) The 8th of December at Hampton Court the Moore of Fenise. 
 (10) The i6th December at Hampton Court Louis Pilgrimage. 
 
 (n)St. Stephen's Daye at Hampton Court the ist Part of 
 
 Arviragus. 
 
 (12) St. Johns Daye at Hampton Court the 2nd Part of Arviragus. 
 
 (13) ist Day of January at Hampton Court Loue and Honor. 
 
 (14) 5th January at Hampton Court The Elder Brother. 
 
 (15) loth January at Hampton Court the King or no King. 
 
 ( 1 6) The 1 2th January at Hampton Court The new play from 
 
 Oxford called The Royal Slaue. 
 
 (17) The I'-jth January at Hampton Court Rollo. 
 
 (18) The 24th January at Hampton Court Hamlett. (really Rollo.) 
 
 (19) The 3 ist January at St. James The Tragidie of Cesar. 
 
 (20) The 9th February at St. James The wife for a month. 
 
 (21) The 1 6th February at St. James The Gouernor. (Herbert 
 
 says it was on the 17 th.} 
 
 (22) The 2 ist February at St. James, Philaster. 
 
 Those entries italicised do not appear in Herbert's note- 
 book, and are not supported by any other authority. 
 Herbert gives the two first as on the i8th and igth 
 April, 1636, which were Easter Monday and Tuesday, 
 and that they were before the King, Queen, Princes, 
 and Prince Eleftor. He does not mention the entry of 
 the 2 ist April or that of 5th May, possibly because 
 neither were before the King. The latter is here stated 
 to have been before the Queen and Prince Eleftor, the 
 former may also have been so. 
 
3 o SEVENTEENTH CENTURY ACCOUNTS 
 
 It is remarkable that Herbert skips all the others 
 down to the : 
 
 (i i) C 26th of December, The first part of Arviragus' again. 
 
 (13) Herbert says c Loue and Honor on New years night* Sunday 
 
 'The Revels' List' says 'Day.' 
 
 (14) Herbert says 'The Elder Brother' on Thursday the 5th 
 
 January. 
 
 (i6)The Royal Slaue on Thursday the I2th of January, Oxford 
 Play, Cartright's. The King gave him 40. 
 
 Herbert gives no play on lyth January and only 
 
 (18) 'Rollo the 24th Janua.' No allusion to Hamlet, and no name 
 of place. 
 
 The four last Herbert supports, though he (or Malone) 
 gives 1 7th instead of i6th. Herbert adds two plays by 
 Beeston's Boys which would not have been included in 
 the list of the King's Players performances before him- 
 self. It is, therefore, only possible for us further to 
 discuss here the entries not made in italics (though 
 something even may be said of them). There are, there- 
 fore, only thirteen out of twenty-two. Through the 
 Register of the Privy Council we can glean some details 
 as to where the King was at given dates. We know 
 thence that after his progress in the summer and autumn 
 of 1636, while the Queen was still at Oatlands, the King 
 went over for three days to Windsor Castle to be present 
 there at a Council Meeting, apparently arranging to 
 travel the day before, to leave a whole day free for the 
 meeting and to leave the day after. He afterwards spent 
 the close of September and the whole of Oftober at 
 Windsor Castle (with a flying visit to Newmarket). 
 In normal years the season of 'performances' might have 
 begun by that time. We do not know whether there 
 were facilities for such festivities at Windsor, or if any 
 took place there. It is probable some did. We do 
 know that the Privy Council met at Windsor on the 
 5th November, the King being present^ on the 6th and 
 
OF THE MASTERS OF THE REVELS. 31 
 
 jth, on 1 3th November the King being present. A 
 Royal Grant was dated at Hampton Court on the 
 i gth November, but the Index of the Privy Signed 
 Bills is lost, and the ordinary Royal Seal might have 
 been used by permission c for the King.' Such grants 
 were issued all that year at least 'from Westminster 1 
 whether the King was there or not. On the 2/th 
 November the King was present at a Council at 
 Windsor, and business overflowed into the three follow- 
 ing days. On 4th and 5th December the King was 
 present at a meeting there, the business going on again 
 until the gth, there. The first Council Meeting at 
 Hampton Court was on the iith December, the King 
 being absent. Nicholas, the Secretary of State, wrote 
 a letter from Windsor on the I4th, saying that he was 
 going to Hampton Court on the I7th for the Council 
 Meeting. The first at which the King was recorded 
 as present was that on the i8th at Hampton Court. 
 All these affecT: the entries in the Play List. They 
 cannot all be correffi. From Secretary Nicholas's letters 
 we see that a Council Meeting meant three days at 
 least (p. 128). In those short days, though the two 
 palaces were not far off, the King evidently did not 
 risk driving or riding about on the bad roads in the 
 dark, even to see a play. 
 
 At this Council Meeting of the i8th December at 
 Hampton Court the King put off all business till 
 Twelfth Day, but there seems to have been a minor 
 Council Meeting on the 3151 December at Hampton 
 Court. While throwing doubt on the earlier entries 
 in Cunningham's documents, the Privy Council makes 
 possible those of Herbert's note-book, who gives none 
 on the i /th January, and on the 24th gives no locality 
 and Rollo instead of Hamlet. We must go back to 
 another even more important discrepancy concerning 
 Twelfth Night. There was a Council Meeting on that 
 day, where the press of business was carried over to the 
 
32 SEVENTEENTH CENTURY ACCOUNTS 
 
 8th, gth, and roth. Here I must make a long 
 digression into the fortunes of the special play they 
 were all waiting to see. Though the diarists of the 
 the time are few, Archbishop Laud was one of them, 
 and concerned himself with that special play. He was 
 Chancellor of the University of Oxford when the King 
 and Queen went thither on their summer progress of 
 
 1636. The University presented before their Majesties 
 a play called The Persian Slave, or The Royal Slave, by 
 Cartwright. The Queen liked it so well, that she 
 begged the loan of the play, and the dresses, to see 
 if her own players would perform it so well. The 
 University was very unwilling to do this, but the 
 Archbishop persuaded them to yield, and sent the play, 
 the clothes, and the Perspectives of the Stage to the Queen. 
 Laud says that the play was performed at Hampton 
 Court in November, and that all said 'that the Queen's 
 Players came short of the University a<5tors.' ' 
 
 Though I humbly desired of the King and Queen that 
 neither the Play, nor Clothes, nor Stage, might come in the 
 hands and use of the common players abroad. 
 
 Doubtless that aroused the King's men to wish to try 
 if they could not succeed better. Evidently the King 
 gave them the chance to do so, for he allowed them 
 154 for extra expenses, dancers, and other attractions. 
 The exact date is given in the Lord Chamberlain's 
 Accounts and the Royal Warrants, April, 1637.* 
 
 Though, as I noticed, the old news- writers had gone, 
 others had risen up. One of them, George Garrard, 
 writing to Lord Deputy Wentworth, on 7th February, 
 
 1637, says: 
 
 Edward Rossingham is successor to John Pory and is the 
 best-known writer of news we have, a very honest man, as 
 
 1 Laud's Diary ii, 104, 2 D.S.S.P. ccclii, 53. 
 
OF THE MASTERS OF THE REVELS. 33 
 
 your Lordship knows. It seems he was, and is employed by 
 Sir Thomas Puckering. 1 
 
 Now this very Edward Rossingham, writing to Sir 
 Thomas Puckering at York on nth January, 1636-7, 
 
 says: 
 
 On Tuesday (the 3rd) this last week their Majesties came 
 to Somerset House to lodge there. Wednesday the 4th 
 Morning the King went to Arundel House to see the rarities 
 brought from Germany. . . . Upon Twelfth Night the 6th 
 The Royal Slave . . . brought from Oxford, was acted by the 
 King's Players at Hampton Court. 
 
 This Edward Rossingham was a man who might have 
 made mistakes in his prognostications as to what the 
 King was about to do (for he and the Queen often 
 changed their plans), but he was in a position to be 
 perfectly certain about what they had publicly done. 
 So we may say we know that the King had seen 'The 
 Royal Slave on Twelfth Night/ But the Play List 
 says that he saw it on the I2th January, and Rossing- 
 ham writes on the i ith(?) : 'I know there is a double 
 difficulty here/ Malone, transcribing Herbert's Diary, 
 also says it was 'played on the I2th of January/ We 
 can hardly expect that Herbert himself could have 
 made that statement, but we could very well believe 
 it of Malone. Cunningham frequently complains of 
 Malone's inaccuracies towards the end of his life, when 
 he began to lose his sight. He very well might have 
 misread Twelfth Night into Twelfth January. The 
 strong logic of contemporary events supports Rossing- 
 ham. The King was certainly at Hampton Court on 
 Twelfth Night, tired with a heavy day's Council work, 
 and needing recreation. He had been accustomed to 
 see a play on that night. The players were accustomed 
 to play then (they were not accustomed to play on 
 
 1 B. M. MS. 7042, i b also end. See also Birch's MSS., Sloane MS. 
 4297. 
 
34 SEVENTEENTH CENTURY ACCOUNTS 
 
 'Twelfth January') and their great play would be ready 
 for the notable night. 
 
 The next Council Meeting was on the 1 2th January, 
 1636-7, the place not being noted in the Register. But 
 there was another Council Meeting the next day, the 
 1 3th January, and that is definitely stated to have been 
 in The Star Chamber, London. It is more than likely 
 the two consecutive meetings were held in the same 
 place, and that the King came up to London on the 
 iith to be ready for the I2th and I3th, at which he 
 was noted as 'present.' 
 
 The discrepancies concerning these performances 
 (gleaned so laboriously) make me feel anew that no 
 contemporary writer could have invented them; and 
 that the third Play List of the seventeenth century comes 
 into the same category as the first and second. 
 
 It may be said Cut Bono? I felt that I owed it to 
 succeeding students, who got into Doubting Castle, to 
 give them the key by which alone they could escape, 
 and find their way back into the straight path of work. 
 One good scholar, Mr. F. Gard Fleay, has already 
 borne the strain. In his c History of Dramatic Litera- 
 ture,' edition 1590, p. 173, he says of the writers of 
 the seventeenth century Play Lists : ' I wish that those 
 who blame, may not waste years of work, as I have 
 done, in unravelling their tangled web of deceit.' Un- 
 fortunately he did not give his method or his discoveries 
 to the world, and I have had to do it over again. 
 
 The need is great. Many writers have followed 
 Cunningham. Among the chief, I may note that Mr. 
 Lawrence discussing with Mr. Greg wrote ('Times 
 Literary Supplement,' 26th February, 1920). 'Com- 
 panies sometimes united to save doubling. The Revels' 
 Account will shew him that in January, 1612, the 
 King's men and the Queen's men united to play The 
 Silver Age at Court. On this score I would draw his 
 attention to Professor Quincy Adams' important paper 
 
OF THE MASTERS OF THE REVELS. 35 
 
 on "Shakespeare, Hey wood, and the Classics" in 
 "Modern Language Notes" for June, 1919, which satis- 
 factorily substantiates Mr. Ernest Law's arguments as 
 to the genuineness of the Revels' Documents of 1612.' 
 
 My closing question is : Are we justified in accept- 
 ing as sole evidence in a highly controversial question, 
 the testimony of one part of a document when other 
 parts of that document have been proved to be false ? 
 
 Terminal Abstract only (see p. 21). 
 
 THE WILL OF EDMUND TYLNEY ESQ. OF LEATHERHEAD, 
 Surrey, Master of the Revels to King James (Wingfield 
 no P.C.C.) ist day of July 1610. After the usual religious 
 forms devoutly expressed, he leaves his body to be buried in 
 the Parish Church of Streatham in the said county of Surrey, 
 near to the monument of my father, who was buried there 
 long since. I wish to be buried without any pomp, but a 
 funeral sermon for which is to be paid forty shillings to the 
 preacher and forty shillings to the Church. A monument is 
 to be erected on the place which 1 have fixed with the parson 
 and the Churchwardens. It was agreed to be finished within 
 six months after my decease and fixed at the cost of 20 marks, 
 as I have agreed with the stonecutter near Charing Cross to 
 pay him. I bequeath 'all my apparel, on which I have spent 
 much money very vainly which might have been better em- 
 ployed,' I will my overseers to sell to their best value, and 
 the money distributed among the poor of their parishes of 
 Leatherhead and Streatham. To thirteen poor old men and 
 women whom I have hitherto helped weekly, I leave a black 
 frieze gown and five shillings in money. Whereas I stand 
 bound in a bond of ^100 to pay to Margaret Cartwright 
 widow, an annuity of jio, if she survive me, I will that my 
 executors pay her 50 down and take a receipt. If she die 
 before me, 1 will that the said ^50 be paid to Anne Hassard, 
 wife of Robert Hassard, Junior, for her care and kindness to 
 me during my sickness. And 1 bequeath unto my said cousin 
 Robert Hassard and her 100 between them, and to her the 
 whole furniture of the bedroom which she ordinarily used with 
 bed and bed hangings and bed furniture and a suitable allow- 
 ance of pewter and silver and linen for their housekeeping, and 
 
36 THE MASTERS OF THE REVELS. 
 
 I bequeathe to their son my godson Edmond Hassard 60, 
 and their daughter Anne Hassard 20, by way of legacy. 1 
 bequeath unto the reparacion of the Stone Bridge at Leather- 
 head jioo to be paid if they are finished within one year after 
 my decease, or else, as the Sessions of Kingston have laid the 
 re-edification of the bridge upon the whole shire, in the 
 manner decided on by a properly impanelled jury. I bequeathe 
 unto Frederick Tylney my godson son of Thomas Tylney 
 200, to be employed by his mother on his behalf, until he 
 come of age. And I bequeath to Mr. Rabbit, Parson of 
 Streatham, and Mr. Griffith Vaughan, Parson of Ashstead by 
 Leatherhead my two overseers for their pains, all my Books to 
 be divided between them and a great Silver bowl with a cover 
 to each of them. To all my old Servants a years wages apiece, 
 and to Roger Chambers, who waiteth on me in my Chamber 
 five pounds in money. I will that the house I dwell in at 
 Leatherhead, with all its appurtances and furniture and all the 
 grounds belonging thereto, shall be sold to its best value for 
 these uses, and beyond any legacies that I may make on my 
 deathbed by word of mouth, before two witnesses, all the 
 remainder of the plate and the money that shall belong to me 
 to the will and use of Thomas Tylney Esquire of Shelley co. 
 Suffolk, whom I make my Executor, and for his aid and 
 assistance Thomas Goodman of Leatherhead to whom I leave 
 for his pains 40 ounces of Silver Plate. Proved by Thomas 
 Tylney Executor before the proper authorities the iyth day 
 of Oftober, 1610. 
 
 This becomes intensely important to us, not only in 
 regard to the man who was so much concerned with 
 the Revels, but in regard to him who had the duty of 
 reforming Shakespeare's plays. 
 
 The De La More Press Ltd., 10 Clifford St., Bond St., W. i 
 
PUBLISHED BY HUMPHREY MILFORD, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 
 THE SHAKESPEARE LIBRARY 
 
 Under the General Editorship of SIR ISRAEL GOLLANCZ 
 
 The Shakespeare Classics 
 
 Being reprints of the sources and originals of Shakespeare's plays. 8vo (7 x 5^). 
 Quarter bound, antique grey boards. 35. 6d. net each. 
 
 1. THE CHRONICLE HISTORY OF KING LEIR; edited 
 
 by Sir SIDNEY LEE. 
 
 2. THE TAMING OF A SHREW ; edited by F. S. BOAS. 
 3,4. SHAKESPEARE'S PLUTARCH; edited by Professor 
 
 C. F. TUCKER BROOKE. (2 vols.) 
 
 5. THE SOURCES 6f ANALOGUES OF A MIDSUMMER 
 
 NIGHT'S DREAM; edited by FRANK SIDGWICK. 
 
 6. LODGE'S ROSALYNDE ; edited by W. W. GREG. 
 
 7. GREENE'S PANDOSTO, OR DORASTUS Gf FAWNIA; 
 
 edited by P. G. THOMAS. 
 
 8. BROOKE'S ROMEUS Ssf JULIET; edited by J. J. MUNRO. 
 
 9. THE TROUBLESOME REIGN OF KING JOHN; 
 
 edited by F. J. FURNIVALL and J. J. MUNRO. 
 
 10. THE MENAECHMI : The Latin Text together with the 
 
 Elizabethan Translation; edited by W. H. D. ROUSE, Litt.D. 
 
 11. RICH'S APOLONIUS 6f SILLA ; edited by MORTON LUCK. 
 
 12. THE LEGEND OF HAMLET; by Sir I. GOLLANCZ. With 
 
 the story of Hamlet as told by Saxo Grammaticus and Belforest. The originals 
 with English translations. Nearly ready. 
 
 The Old Spelling Shakespeare 
 
 Being the Works of Shakespeare in the Spelling of the best Quarto and Folio 
 Texts. Edited by F. J. FURNIVALL and W. G. BOSWELL-STONE. 8vo (8^ x 6J). 
 Parchment, 53. net each. Cloth, 2s. 6d. net each. 17 volumes now ready. 
 
 The Lamb Shakespeare for the Young 
 
 Based on Lamb's Tales, with Passages and Scenes inserted from the Plays, 
 
 and Songs set to Music ; illustrated by HELEN STRATTON. 8vo (7^ x 5^). 
 
 Leather, 2s. 6d. net each ; Cloth, is. 6d. net each ; Limp Cloth, is. net each. 
 
 io volumes now ready. 
 
 ROBERT LANEHAM'S LETTER : describing a part of 
 
 the Entertainment unto Queen Elizabeth at the Castle of Kenilworth in 1575. 
 Edited with an Introduction by F. J. FURNIVALL. 8vo (9 x 6). 53. net. 
 
 Full Prospectus on application to the publishers, Oxford University Press, 
 Amen Corner, London, E.C. Of all Booksellers, 
 
THE SHAKESPEARE 
 ASSOCIATION 
 
 INCORPORATING 
 
 THE SHAKESPEARE DAY COMMITTEE 
 
 President : H.E. The Hon. Col. GEORGE HARVEY, American Ambassador 
 Hon. Treasurer : Sir CHARLES WAKEFIELD, Bart. 
 Chairman : Sir ISRAEL GOLLANCZ, Litt.D., F.B.A. 
 
 THE Shakespeare Association was founded in 
 connection with the Shakespeare Tercentenary, 
 1916, its purpose being to maintain and strengthen 
 some of the efforts put forth on that occasion not- 
 withstanding the pre-occupations of the time. 
 
 The aims of the Association are : 
 
 (i) To promote the study and interpretation of 
 Shakespeare. 
 
 (ii) To further the appreciation of Shakespeare in 
 the life of the nation and the English-speaking 
 peoples, and in other countries. 
 
 (iii) To advance Shakespearian research, and to help 
 forward investigations in dramatic and other 
 literature, history, bibliography, and the 
 various branches of learning bearing on the 
 Poet and his work. 
 
 (iv) To record the progress of studies and activities 
 
 relating to Shakespeare, 
 (v) To hold meetings for discussions and to publish 
 
 papers and monographs on Shakespearian 
 
 subjects. 
 
 (vi) To promote the observance of an Annual 
 Shakespeare Day in the Schools and other 
 institutions, and generally. 
 
 The Meetings are usually held at King's College, Strand, the 
 headquarters of tM Association. The Annual Subscription is 
 5/-, or ^i for four years. The Composition Fee for life 
 membership is ^5. Forms for membership may be obtained 
 from the Honorary Secretaries, 
 
 KING'S COLLEGE, ELEANOR CALVERT, 
 
 STRAND, W.C. 2. ALLARDYCE NICOLL. 
 
RETURN TO the circulation desk of any 
 University of California Library 
 
 or to the 
 
 NORTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 Bldg. 400, Richmond Field Station 
 University of California 
 Richmond, CA 94804-4698 
 
 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS 
 
 2-month loans may be renewed by calling 
 (510)642-6753 
 
 1-year loans may be recharged by bringing 
 books to NRLF 
 
 Renewals and recharges may be made 4 
 days prior to due date. 
 
 DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 
 
 JUL021997 
 
 1 .HIM Q s r/ 
 
 12,000(11/95) 
 
 lt>T* ' y \ 
 
 1 
 
 ( 1 8 ^ MOV