detailed chronicle of the fortunes of the company. A new patent was
issued to them on 27 March 1619, probably to secure their right to
perform in the Blackfriars, which was being challenged by the action
of the City.[625] Since 1603 Shakespeare, Phillips, Sly, Cowley,
Armin, and Fletcher have dropped out of the list, and are replaced by
Lowin, Underwood, Tooley, Ecclestone, Gough, and Robinson, together
with Nathan Field, Robert Benfield, and John Shank, who now appear
for the first time as members of the company.[626] Benfield and Field
are last traceable with the Lady Elizabeth’s men in 1613 and 1615
respectively, Shank with the Palsgrave’s men in 1613. The only names
common to both patents are those of Burbadge, Heminges, and Condell.
But in fact Burbadge died on 13 March 1619, while the patent was going
through its stages, and his place was almost immediately taken by
Joseph Taylor, from Prince Charles’s men. About the same time Field
left the company.[627] Heminges, described as ‘stuttering’ in 1613,
cannot be shown to have acted since the _Catiline_ of 1611. He had
probably devoted himself to the business management of the company, in
which he always appears prominent. Condell also seems to have given up
acting about 1619, and during the rest of the history of the company
up to its extinction in 1642, its mainstays were Lowin and Taylor, who
became depositaries of the tradition of the great Shakespearian parts.
John Downes, who was prompter to the Duke of York’s men after the
Restoration, relates how, when Betterton played Hamlet, ‘Sir _William_
[Davenant] (having seen _Mr. Taylor_ of the _Black-Fryers_ Company Act
it, who being instructed by the Author _Mr. Shakespear_) taught _Mr.
Betterton_ in every Particle of it’; and how Davenant was similarly
able to act as Betterton’s tutor for Henry the Eighth, for he ‘had it
from Old _Mr. Lowen_, that had his Instructions from _Mr. Shakespear_
himself’.[628] When Heminges and Condell came to print Shakespeare’s
plays in 1623, they prefixed ‘the names of the principall Actors in
all these playes’ as follows: ‘William Shakespeare, Richard Burbadge,
John Hemmings, Augustine Phillips, William Kempt, Thomas Poope, George
Bryan, Henry Condell, William Slye, Richard Cowly, John Lowine, Samuell
Crosse, Alexander Cooke, Samuel Gilburne, Robert Armin, William Ostler,
Nathan Field, John Underwood, Nicholas Tooley, William Ecclestone,
Joseph Taylor, Robert Benfield, Robert Goughe, Richard Robinson, John
Shancke, John Rice.’ The order is a little puzzling. The first ten
entries may be those of the original members of the Chamberlain’s
company in 1594; and if so, their order does not matter. But it is
difficult to believe that the other sixteen can represent either the
order in which the men began to play for the company, or the order in
which they became sharers. Of course, there may have been comings and
goings known to Heminges and Condell, but not now traceable. Thus Field
and even Taylor may have come for a short while and gone again before
1611. But it seems impossible that Tooley, who was ‘fellow’ to Phillips
in 1605, could really have been junior to the recruits from the Queen’s
Revels in 1609. On the whole, one must suppose that, if Heminges and
Condell aimed at an exact chronology, their memory occasionally failed
them. The omission from the Folio of Duke, Beeston, Sincler, and Sands
may indicate that the list is confined to sharers. It is probable that
Fletcher, who is also omitted, was not a sharer and did not act in any
Shakespearian play.
xxi. THE EARL OF WORCESTER’S AND QUEEN ANNE’S MEN
William Somerset, _nat._ 1526; succ. as 3rd Earl of Worcester,
1548; m. Christian, d. of Edward, 1st Lord North; _ob._ 22 Feb.
1589.
Edward Somerset, s. of William; _nat._ 1553; Lord Herbert of
Chepstow; succ. as 4th Earl, 1589; m. Elizabeth, d. of Francis,
2nd Earl of Huntingdon; Deputy Master of the Horse, Dec. 1597;
Master of the Horse, 21 Apr. 1601; Earl Marshal, 1603; Lord
Privy Seal, 2 Jan. 1616; _ob._ 3 Mar. 1628.
Henry Somerset, s. of Edward; _nat._ 1577; Lord Herbert of
Chepstow from 1589; m. 16 June 1600, Anne, d. of John, Lord
Russell; succ. as 5th Earl, 1628; cr. 1st Marquis of Worcester,
1642.
Anne, d. of Frederick II, King of Denmark and Norway; _nat._ 12
Dec. 1574; m. James VI, King of Scotland, 20 Aug. 1589; Queen
Consort of England, 24 Mar. 1603; _ob._ 2 Mar. 1619.
[_Bibliographical Note._--The records of Worcester’s men in
1602–3 are printed and discussed by W. W. Greg in _Henslowe’s
Diary_ (1904–8). The will of Thomas Greene (1612) was printed
by J. Greenstreet in the _Athenaeum_ (29 August 1895), and the
Bill, Answer, and Orders in the Chancery suit of _Worth et al.
v. Baskerville et al._ (1623–6) by the same in the _Athenaeum_
(11 July and 29 August 1885) and _N. S. S. Trans._ (_1880–6_),
489. Both are reprinted in Fleay, 192, 271. The Court of
Requests suit of _Smith v. Beeston et al._ (1619–20) is printed
by C. W. Wallace in _Nebraska University Studies_, ix. 315.]
The first company under the patronage of this house had a long and
wholly provincial career.[629] The earliest record of it is at
Barnstaple in 1555. On 10 October 1563 it was at Leicester. On 13 and
14 January 1565 it was at Sir George Vernon’s, Haddon Hall, Derbyshire,
under the leadership of one Hamond.[630] It is further traceable in
December 1565 at Newcastle, before Michaelmas 1566 at Leicester,
in 1567–8 at Gloucester, in 1568–9 at Ipswich, Stratford-on-Avon,
and Bath, on 11 August 1569 at Nottingham, in 1569–70 and 1570–1 at
Gloucester and Barnstaple, in 1571 at Leicester and Beverley, on 9
January 1572 at Nottingham, before Michaelmas at Leicester, on 31
December 1572 at Wollaton, Notts. (Francis Willoughby’s), on 6 January
1573 at Nottingham, in 1572–3 at Bath, in 1573–4 at Abingdon, and in
January 1574 at Wollaton again. As the Earl of Worcester’s eldest
son bore the courtesy title of Lord Herbert, it is probably the same
company which appeared at Leicester, after Michaelmas in 1574, as
‘Lorde Harbards’. But it is named as Worcester’s again in 1574–5 at
Stratford-on-Avon, on 28 April 1575 at Nottingham, and after Michaelmas
in the same year at Leicester, in 1575–6 at Coventry, in 1576–7 at
Stratford-on-Avon and Bath, and on 14 June 1577 at Southampton, where
it consisted of ten men. On 19 January 1578 it was at Nottingham, in
1577–8 at Coventry, in 1580–1 and 1581–2 at Stratford-on-Avon, in
1581–2 at Abingdon, on 15 June 1582 at Ipswich, in the same year at
Doncaster.
Two incidents in successive years suggest that Worcester’s men were not
always quite so amenable, as vagrants should have been, to municipal
discipline. The first was at Norwich on 7 June 1583. Here there was a
fear of plague, and the company were given 26_s._ 8_d._, on a promise
not to play. In spite of this they played in their host’s house. The
Corporation ordered ‘that their lord shall be certified of their
contempt’, and that they should never again receive reward in Norwich,
and should presently depart the town on pain of imprisonment. It was
afterwards agreed, however, on submission and earnest entreaty, not to
report the misdemeanour to the Earl of Worcester. The second occasion
was in the following March in Leicester, and the entries in the
Corporation archives are so interesting as to deserve reproduction in
full.[631]
[Sidenote: M^r Mayor
M^r J. Tatam
M^r Morton.]
Tuesdaie the third daie of Marche, 1583, certen playors whoe
said they were the seruants of the Quenes Maiesties Master
of the Revells, who required lycence to play & for there
aucthorytye showed forth an Indenture of Lycense from one M^r
Edmonde Tylneye esquier M^r of her Maiesties Revells of the one
parte, and George Haysell of Wisbiche in the Ile of Elye in the
Countie of Cambridge, gentleman on the other parte.
The which indenture is dated the vj^{th} daie of Februarye in
the xxv^{th} yere of her Maiesties raign &c.
In which Indenture there ys one article that all Justices,
Maiores, Sherifs, Bayllyfs, Constables, and all other her
officers, ministers & subiects whatsoeuer to be aydinge &
assistinge vnto the said Edmund Tilneye, his Deputies &
Assignes, attendinge & havinge due regard vnto suche parsons
as shall disorderly intrude themselves into any the doings and
actions before mencioned, not beinge reformed, qualifyed & bound
to the orders prescribed by the said Edmund Tyllneye. These
shalbee therefore not only to signifye & geve notice vnto all
& euery her said Justices &c. that none of there owne pretensed
aucthoritye intrude themselves & presume to showe forth any
suche playes, enterludes, tragedies, comodies, or shewes in
any places within this Realm, withoute the orderlye allowance
thereof vnder the hand of the sayd Edmund.
NOTA. No play is to bee played, but suche as is allowed by the
sayd Edmund, & his hand at the latter end of the said booke they
doe play.
The forsed Haysell is nowe the chefe playor &c.
Fridaye the 6 of Marche.
Certen players came before M^r Mayor at the Hall there beinge
present M^r John Tatam, M^r George Tatam, M^r Morton & M^r
Worship: who sayed they were the Earle of Wosters men: who sayd
the forsyd playors were not lawfully aucthorysed, & that they
had taken from them there commyssion, but it is untrue, for they
forgat there box at the Inne in Leicester, & so these men gat yt
& they sed the syd Haysell was not here hymself and they sent
the same to Grantom to the syd Haysell who dwellith there.
William Earle of Worcester &c. hath by his wrytinge dated the 14
of Januarye Anno 25^o Eliz. Reginae licensed his Seruants viz.
Robert Browne, James Tunstall, Edward Allen, William Harryson,
Thomas Cooke, Rychard Johnes, Edward Browne, Rychard Andrewes
to playe & goe abrode, vsinge themselves orderly &c. (in theise
words &c.) These are therefore to require all suche her Highnes
offycers to whom these presents shall come, quietly & frendly
within your severall presincts & corporacions to permytt &
suffer them to passe with your furtherance vsinge & demeanynge
themselves honestly & to geve them (the rather for my sake)
suche intertaynement as other noble mens players haue (In Wytnes
&c.)
M^r Mayor
M^r Jo. Heyrycke
M^r Noryce
M^r Ja. Clarke
M^r George Tatam
M^r Morton
M^r Rob^t Heyrycke
M^r Ellys
M^r Newcome.
Memorandum that M^r Mayor did geve the aforesaid playors an
angell towards there dinner & wild them not to playe at this
present: being Fryday the vj^{th} of Marche, for that the tyme
was not conveynyent.
The foresaid playors mett M^r Mayor in the strete nere M^r
Newcomes housse, after the angell was geven abowte a ij howers,
who then craived lycense ageyne to play at there inn, & he told
them they shold not, then they went away & seyd they wold play,
whether he wold or not, & in dispite of hym, with dyvers other
evyll & contemptyous words: Witness here of M^r Newcome, M^r
Wycam, & William Dethicke.
More, these men, contrary to M^r Mayors comandment, went with
their drum & trumppytts thorowe the Towne, in contempt of M^r
Mayor, neyther wold come at his comandment, by his offycer, viz.
Worship.
William Pateson my lord Harbards man }
Thomas Powlton my lord of Worcesters man } these ij
were they which dyd so much abuse M^r Mayor in the aforesayd
words.
NOTA. These sayd playors have submytted them selves, & are sorye
for there words past, & craved pardon, desyeringe his worship
not to write to there Master agayne them, & so vpon there
submyssyn, they are lycensed to play this night at there inn, &
also they have promysed that vppon the stage, in the begynyng of
there play, to shoe vnto the hearers that they are licensed to
playe by M^r Mayor & with his good will & that they are sory for
the words past.
The latter part of this record is intelligible enough; evidently there
was a repetition of the misrule at Norwich. But the earlier part, which
refers to a different matter altogether, is distinctly puzzling. The
‘theys’ in the first sentence of the Corporation minute of 6 March are
complicated, and it has sometimes been supposed that there was really a
company of Master of the Revels’ men, and that it was Worcester’s men
who questioned the licence of these.[632] On the whole, I think that
a different interpretation of the documents is the more natural one.
No doubt Worcester’s men had found it necessary, as a result of the
powers granted to Tilney as Master of the Revels by the patent of 24
December 1581, to renew the authority under which they travelled. In
addition to a fresh warrant from their lord licensing them to travel
as his household servants, and dated 14 January 1583, they obtained
on the following 6 February a further licence from Tilney, issued
under the clause of his commission which appointed him to ‘order and
reforme, auctorise and put downe’ all players in any part of England,
whether they were ‘belonginge to any noble man’ or otherwise.[633]
This licence, but not the other, they left at their inn in Leicester,
while passing through on some previous occasion; and here it was found
by some unlicensed players, who appropriated it, and either through
misunderstanding or through fraud, imposed it upon the Corporation as
an instrument constituting a Master of the Revels’ company. There are
two difficulties in this theory. One is that George Haysell, to whom
Tilney’s licence was issued, is not one of the actors named in the
Earl of Worcester’s warrant. But there are other cases in which the
constitution of a company in the eyes of its lord was not quite the
same as its constitution from the point of view of business relations,
and I should suppose that Haysell, who was evidently not himself
acting at the time, was the financier of the enterprise, and gave the
bonds which Tilney would probably require for the satisfaction of the
covenants of his indenture of licence. The other difficulty is that
Leicester is not the only place in which the presence of a Master of
the Revels’ company is recorded. Such a company was at Ludlow on 7
December 1583 and at Bath in 1583–4.[634] But, after all, this need
mean no more than that the bogus company kept up their fraud for two or
three months before they were exposed. If Tilney had really started a
company of his own, it might have been expected to have a longer life.
The establishment in 1583 of the Queen’s men makes it the less probable
that he did so.
The list of this provincial company, as it stood in January 1583, is
interesting, because at least four of its members, Robert Browne,
Richard Jones, James Tunstall, and above all Edward Alleyn, then only
a lad of sixteen, were destined to take a considerable share in the
stage history of the future. Edward Browne, too, was afterwards one of
the Admiral’s men. Of the rest, William Harrison, Thomas Cooke, Richard
Andrewes, as well as of George Haysell (cf. ch. xv) and of the two
players who were not named in the warrant, Thomas Powlton and William
Pateson, Lord Herbert’s man, nothing or practically nothing further is
known.[635] It is possible that the escapades of the company at Norwich
and Leicester came, after all, to Worcester’s ears and aroused his
displeasure. Visits are recorded to Coventry and Stratford in 1583–4,
to Maidstone in 1584–5, to York in March 1585, and thereafter no more.
It is also possible that the company passed from Worcester’s service
into that of Lord Howard, when the latter became Lord Admiral in 1585.
If so, a conveyance by Richard Jones to Edward Alleyn on 3 January 1589
of his share in a stock of apparel, play-books, and so forth, held
jointly with Edward and John Alleyn and Robert Browne, must relate, not
to a break up of Worcester’s men shortly before the death of the third
earl, but to some internal change in the organization of the Admiral’s
men.[636] In any case Mr. Fleay’s theory that Worcester’s men, other
than Alleyn, became Pembroke’s in 1589 and only joined the Admiral’s
in 1594 is quite gratuitous, as there is no evidence of the existence
of Pembroke’s men before 1592.[637] Whether there was a Worcester’s
company or not from 1585 to 1589, there was certainly one after the
accession of the fourth earl. It is traceable at Coventry in 1589–90,
at Newcastle in October 1590, at Leicester during the last three months
of the same year, at Coventry and Faversham in 1590–1, at Leicester
on 26 June 1591 and again in the last three months of the year, at
Coventry and Shrewsbury in 1591–2, at Ipswich in 1592–3, twice at
Leicester in 1593, both before and after Michaelmas, twice at Bath in
1593–4, at Leicester before Michaelmas in 1595, at Ludlow on 3 December
1595, at Bath in 1595–6, at Leicester on 1 August 1596, at Bristol in
August 1598, at York in April 1599, and at Coventry on 3 January 1600
and in 1600–1 and 1601–2.[638]
By the end of 1601 the Earl of Worcester was holding the Mastership of
the Horse and other important offices at Court, and may have thought it
consonant with his dignity to have London players under his patronage.
On 3 January 1602 his company was at Court. On 31 March the Privy
Council, after attempting for some years to limit the number of London
companies to two, made an order that Oxford’s and Worcester’s men,
‘beinge ioyned by agrement togeather in on companie’, should be allowed
to play at the Boar’s Head and nowhere else.[639] In the course of 1602
_How a Man may Choose a Good Wife from a Bad_ was published as played
by Worcester’s men. By 17 August the company were in relations, under
the style of ‘my lorde of Worsters players’, with Henslowe, who opened
an account of advances made for their play-books and apparel, on the
same lines as that which he kept during 1597–1603 with the Admiral’s
men.[640] An early entry is of 9_s._ for a supper ‘at the Mermayd when
we weare at owre a grement’. The account was continued until the spring
of 1603, when Henslowe’s famous diary was disused. No theatre is named,
but it is probable that, with or without leave from the Privy Council,
the company moved to the Rose, which had been vacated by the Admiral’s
men on the opening of the Fortune in 1600. Certainly this was so by
May 1603, when an acquittance for an advance entered in the account
refers to a play to be written for ‘the Earle of Worcesters players at
the Rose’.[641] There is no complete list of the company in the diary.
The names of those members incidentally mentioned, as authorizing
payments or otherwise, are John Duke, Thomas Blackwood, William Kempe,
John Thare, John Lowin, Thomas Heywood, Christopher Beeston, Robert
Pallant, and a Cattanes whose first name is not preserved. The payees
for the performance of 1601–2 were Kempe and Heywood. One Underell was
in receipt of wages from the company, together with a tireman, who
made purchases of stuffs for them. It is impossible to say which of
these men had been with Worcester’s and which with Oxford’s before the
amalgamation. Heywood, who was playwright as well as actor, had written
for the Admiral’s from 1596 to 1599, and had bound himself to play in
Henslowe’s house for two years from 25 March 1598. Pallant had been
with Strange’s or the Admiral’s in 1590–1, and Duke, Kempe, and Beeston
with the Chamberlain’s in 1598. Since then Kempe had travelled abroad,
returning in September 1601. It is little more than a guess that some
of these men may have played with Henslowe as Pembroke’s.[642] Several
members of the company borrowed money from Henslowe, in some cases
before their connexion with the Rose began. Duke had a loan as early as
21 September 1600, and Kempe on 10 March 1602.[643] Blackwood and Lowin
borrowed on 12 March 1603 to go into the country with the company.[644]
This was, no doubt, when playing in London was suspended owing to the
illness of Elizabeth. A loan for a similar purpose was made on the same
day to Richard Perkins, and suggests that he too was already one of
Worcester’s men. There is, indeed, an earlier note of 4 September 1602
connecting him with one Dick Syferweste, whose fellows were then in
the country, while Worcester’s were, of course, at the Rose. But this
itself makes it clear that he was interested in a play of Heywood’s,
which can hardly be other than that then in preparation at the Rose,
and perhaps Syferwest was an unfortunate comrade in Oxford’s or
Worcester’s, who had been left out at the reconstruction.[645]
During the seven months of the account Worcester’s men bought twelve
new plays. These were:
_A Medicine for a Curst Wife_ (Dekker).
_Albere Galles_ (Heywood and Smith).
_Marshal Osric_ (Heywood and Smith).
_The Three Brothers_ (Smith).[646]
_1 Lady Jane_, or, _The Overthrow of Rebels_[647] (Chettle,
Dekker, Heywood, Smith, and Webster).
_Christmas Comes but Once a Year_ (Chettle, Dekker, Heywood, and
Webster).
_1 The Black Dog of Newgate_ (Day, Hathaway, Smith, and another).
_The Blind Eats Many a Fly_ (Heywood).
_The Unfortunate General_ (Day, Hathaway, and Smith).
_2 The Black Dog of Newgate_ (Day, Hathaway, Smith, and another).
_A Woman Killed with Kindness_ (Heywood).
_The Italian Tragedy_ (Smith).
As a rule the price was £6 a play; occasionally £1 or £2 more. Dekker
had 10_s._ ‘over & above his price of’ _A Medicine for a Curst Wife_.
This had originally been begun for the Admiral’s and was evidently
transferred to Worcester’s by arrangement. After buying _2 Black Dog
of Newgate_ for £7, the company apparently did not like it, and paid
£2 more for ‘adycyones’. It is possible to verify from the purchase
of properties the performance of nine of the twelve plays. These are
_Albere Galles_ (September), _The Three Brothers_ (October), _Marshal
Osric_ (November), _1 Lady Jane_ (November), _Christmas Comes but
Once a Year_ (December), _1 Black Dog of Newgate_ (January), _The
Unfortunate General_ (January), _2 Black Dog of Newgate_ (February),
and _A Woman Killed with Kindness_ (March). The production of this last
may, however, have been interfered with by Elizabeth’s death. Two plays
of the series are extant, _A Woman Killed with Kindness_, printed in
1607 and described in 1617 as a Queen’s play, and _1 Lady Jane_, which
may be reasonably identified with _Sir Thomas Wyatt_, also printed in
1607 as a Queen’s play, and by Dekker and Webster. Dr. Greg regards Mr.
Fleay’s identification of _Albere Galles_ with _Nobody and Somebody_ as
‘reasonable’; but it appears to rest on little, except the fact that
the latter was also printed as a Queen’s play (S. R. 12 March 1606)
and the conjecture that the title of the former might be a corruption
of _Archigallo_. Payments were made in respect of a few contemplated
plays, which apparently remained incomplete at the end of the season.
These were _2 Lady Jane_ (Dekker), an unnamed tragedy by Chettle, an
unnamed play by Middleton, and another unnamed play by Chettle and
Heywood. The company also produced some plays of earlier date. _Sir
John Oldcastle_ was presumably transferred to them from the Admiral’s
men, for Dekker had £2 10_s._ in respect of new additions to it in
August and September. Heywood also had £1 in September for additions
to a play called _Cutting Dick_, as to the origin of which nothing is
known; and properties were bought in October for _Byron_[648] and for
_Absalom_. Possibly the latter is identical with _The Three Brothers_.
Worcester’s men did not perform at Court in 1602–3, but they must have
expected a summons, as on 1 January they bought head-tires of one
Mrs. Calle ‘for the corte’. Amongst their tradesmen were also Goodman
Freshwater, who supplied ‘a canvas sewt and skenes’, apparently for a
stage dog, and John Willett, mercer, on whose arrest John Duke found
himself in the Clink at the end of the season. Their expenditure was
at a fairly high rate, amounting to a total of £234 11_s._ 6_d._ for
the seven months. Unlike the Admiral’s men, they spent more on apparel
and properties than on play-books. Some of their purchases were costly
enough, ‘a grogren clocke, ij veluet gerkens, ij dubletes and ij hed
tyres’ from Edward Alleyn for £20, ‘a manes gowne of branshed velluet
& a dublett’ from Christopher Beeston for £6, and ‘iiij clothe clockes
layd with coper lace’ from Robert Shaw, formerly of the Admiral’s, for
£16. On this last transaction they had to allow Henslowe £1 as interest
on his money. A ‘flage of sylke’, no doubt for the theatre roof, cost
them £1 6_s._ 8_d._[649] In summing his account, Henslowe made various
errors, whereby he robbed himself of £1 1_s._ 3_d._, and presented a
claim to the company for £140 1_s._ It may be inferred that they had
already repaid him £93 12_s._ 3_d._, but of this there is no record
in the diary. He prepared an acknowledgement to be signed by all the
members of the company, but the only signature actually attached is
Blackwode’s.
On 9 May 1603 Henslowe notes ‘Begininge to playe agayne by the Kynges
licence & layd out sense for my lord of Worsters men as folowethe’;
but the only entry is one of £2 paid in earnest to Chettle and Day for
a play of _Shore’s Wife_. If playing was actually resumed, it was
not long before the plague drove the companies out of London again,
and there is nothing more of Worcester’s men in the diary. Two visits
from them are recorded at Leicester in the course of 1603, and two at
Coventry and one at Barnstaple, whence they departed without playing,
during 1602–3. Early in the new reign the company was taken into the
patronage of Queen Anne.[650] This change was probably effected by
Christmas, and certainly by 19 February 1604, when John Duke obtained
a warrant on account of plays performed before Prince Henry by ‘the
Queenes Majesties players’ on the previous 2 and 13 January. The
Queen’s men are named in the Privy Council letter permitting the
resumption of playing on 9 April 1604, which indicates their house as
the Curtain. A list of players is found amongst other ‘officers to
the Queene’ receiving four and a half yards of red cloth apiece for
the coronation procession of 15 March 1604.[651] The names given are
‘Christopher Beeston, Robert Lee, John Duke, Robert Palante, Richard
Purkins, Thomas Haward, James Houlte, Thomas Swetherton, Thomas Grene,
and Robert Beeston’. Evidently several leading members had left the
company. Kempe was probably dead.[652] Thare and Blackwood were on tour
in Germany; Lowin seems to have joined the King’s men. Of Cattanes and
Underell no more is known. The same ten names are found in a draft
patent for a royal licence to the Queen’s men, of which the text
follows:[653]
Iames, by the grace of God kynge of England, Scotland, Fraunce
and Irelande, defender of the faith &c: To all Iustices _of
peace_, Maiors, Sherryfes, vicechancellours _of any our
vniversities_, _Bailiffes_ [Constables], headboroughes, [and
other our officers] _Constables_, _and to all other our
Officers_, _mynisters_ and lov[e]inge subiectes _to whome it
may appertaine_ Greeting. Knowe yee that wee of our speciall
grace, certaine knowledge, and mere motion haue lycensed and
awthorised, and by these presentes doe lycence and awthorise
Thomas Greene, Christopher Beeston, Thomas Hawood, Richard
Pyrkins, Robert Pallant, Iohn Duke, Thomas Swynerton, I[e]ames
Ho[u]lt, Robert Beeston, & Robert Lee, servauntes vnto our
deare_st_ [and welbeloved] wyfe _the_ Queene Anna, with the
rest of there Associates, freely to vse and exercise the
art and faculty of playinge Comedies, Tragedies, Histories,
Enterludes, Morralls, Pastoralls, Stage plaies, and such other
lyke as they haue already studied, or hereafter shall vse or
stud[d]y, as well for the recreacion of our lovinge subiectes
as for our solace and pleasure, when wee shall thinke good to
see them, during our pleasure; And the said Comedies, Tragedies,
Histories, Enterludes, Morralls, Pastoralls, Stage plaies, and
such like, to shew and exercise publikly, when the infeccion
of the plague shall decrease to the nomber of thirty weekly
within _our Citie_ of London and the liberties _therof_, aswell
within there now vsuall Howsen, called the Curtayne, and the
Bores head, within our County of Middlesex, [or] _as in_ any
other play howse not vsed by others, by the said _Thomas_ Greene
elected, or by him hereafter to be builte, and also within any
Towne Halls, or Mouthalls, or other convenyent places, within
the liberties and freedomes of any Cittie, vniversitie, Towne,
or Boroughe whatsoeuer, within our said Realmes and domynyons:
Willing and Commaundinge yowe and euerie of yowe, as you tender
our pleasure, not only to permytt and suffer them [herein] _to
vse and exercise the said art of playinge_ without any your
Lettes hinderaunces or molestacions, duringe our said pleasure,
but also to be aydinge and assistinge vnto them, yf any wronge
be to them offered, and to allow them such [former] curtesies,
as hath _heretofore_ bene given vnto any men of theire qualitie:
[And also what further favour, any of our subiectes shall shew
to theise our deare and loveinge wyfes servauntes, for our sake,
wee shall take kyndly at your handes. Yeouen at[ extra spaces
]the[ extra spaces ]daye of In the[ extra spaces ]yere of our
Raygne of England: &c:]
_Gyuen &c._
[Endorsed] The Quenes Plaiers.
This draft is undated. But it was prepared during a plague, and located
the Queen’s men at the Boar’s Head; and as they may reasonably be
supposed to have exchanged the Boar’s Head for the Red Bull (q.v.)
before the plague of 1606 began, it may be conjecturally assigned to
that of 1603–4. Probably it never passed the Great Seal, for if it had
there would have been no necessity, so far as one can judge, for a
later patent of 15 April 1609, which is on the rolls, and which closely
follows the earlier draft in its terms, except that it omits the
reference to the plague, names the Red Bull instead of the Boar’s Head
as one of the company’s regular houses, and adds a saving clause for
the rights of the Master of the Revels. Here is the text:[654]
[Sidenote: De concessione licentie Thome Greene et aliis.]
Iames by the grace of God &c. To all Iustices, Mayors,
Sheriffes, Baylieffes, Constables, head-borrowes and other our
Officers and lovinge Subiectes Greetinge. Knowe yee that wee of
our especiall grace certayne knowledge and meere mocion have
lycenced and aucthorised and by these presentes doe lycence and
aucthorize Thomas Greene, Christofer Beeston, Thomas Haywood,
Richard Pirkyns, Richard Pallant, Thomas Swinnerton, Iohn Duke,
Robert Lee, Iames Haulte, and Roberte Beeston, Servantes to
our moste deerely beloved wiefe Queene Anne, and the reste of
theire Associates, to vse and exercise the arte and faculty of
playinge Comedies, Tragedies, historyes, Enterludes, Moralles,
Pastoralles, Stageplayes and suche other like, as they have
already studied or heareafter shall vse or studye, aswell
for the recreacion of our loving Subiectes as for our solace
and pleasure when wee shall thinke good to see them, during
our pleasure. And the said Comedies, Tragedies, histories,
Enterludes, Moralles, Pastoralles, Stageplayes and suche like
to shewe and exercise publiquely and openly to theire beste
commoditye, aswell within theire nowe vsuall houses called the
Redd Bull in Clarkenwell and the Curtayne in Hallowell, as
alsoe within anye Towne halles, Mouthalles and other convenient
places within the libertye and freedome of any other Citty,
vniuersitye, Towne or Boroughe whatsoever within our Realmes and
Domynions. Willing and Commaundinge you and every of you, as you
tender our pleasure, not only to permitt and suffer them herein
without any your lettes hinderances or molestacions during our
said pleasure, but alsoe to be aydinge [and] assistinge vnto
them, yf anye wronge be to them offered, and to allowe them
suche former curtesies as hath byn given to men of theire place
and qualitye, and alsoe what favoure you shall shewe to them
for our sake wee shall take kyndly at your handes. Prouided
alwaies and our will and pleasure is that all aucthoritye,
power, priuiledges, and profyttes whatsoeuer belonginge and
properly appertayninge to Master of Revelles in respecte of his
Office and everye Cause, Article or graunte contayned within
the lettres Patentes or Commission, which have byn heretofore
graunted or directed by the late Queene Elizabeth our deere
Sister or by our selues to our welbeloued Servant Edmond Tylney
Master of the Office of our said Revelles or to Sir George Bucke
knighte or to eyther of them in possession or revercion, shalbe
remayne and abyde entyer and full in effecte, force, estate and
vertue as ample sorte as if this our Commission had never byn
made. In witnes wherof &c. Witnes our selfe at Westminster the
fifteenth daye of Aprill.
per breve de priuato sigillo &c.
It will be observed that the documents quoted disclose no change in the
composition of the Queen’s official servants between 1604 and 1609.
But the question of _personnel_ is not really quite so simple as this,
since the members of a company under a trade agreement were not always
the same as those named in the authority under which it performed.
Before discussing this complication, it will be simplest first to
set out separately the notices of the Queen’s men, which have been
preserved in London and in provincial records respectively.
Queen’s men played at Court on 30 December 1605, in Heywood’s _How to
Learn of a Woman to Woo_, which is not extant. They played also on 27
December 1606. For both years their payee was, as in 1604, John Duke.
During 1607 Dekker and Webster’s _Sir Thomas Wyatt_ and Day, Wilkins,
and Rowley’s _Travels of Three English Brothers_ were printed with
their name on the title-pages. The latter play, according to the entry
of 29 June 1607 in the Stationers’ Register, was acted at the Curtain.
But it is shown by a passage in _The Knight of the Burning Pestle_
to have been also on the stage of the Red Bull. In this house Thomas
Swinnerton, one of the men named in the patents, acquired an interest
between 24 March 1605 and 23 March 1606, and all the evidence is in
favour of a continuous sojourn of Queen’s men there until 1617. The
first quarto of Heywood’s _A Woman Killed with Kindness_, also printed
in 1607, does not bear their name, but it is on that of the ‘third
edition’ of 1617. They are not named as playing at Court during the
winter of 1607–8, but in the course of 1608 Heywood’s _Rape of Lucrece_
was printed, as played by them at the Red Bull. They gave five plays at
Court in the winter of 1608–9, one on 27 December 1609, three on 10 and
one on 27 December 1610. Heywood’s _Golden Age_ was printed, as played
by them at the Red Bull, in 1611. The Court records of 1611–12 are a
little confused.[655] But they appear to have played Cooke’s _City
Gallant_ on 27 December, his _Tu Quoque_, which is in fact the same
play, on 2 February, to have joined with the King’s men in performances
of Heywood’s _Silver Age_ and _Rape of Lucrece_ on 12 and 13 January,
and to have played unnamed pieces on 21 and 23 January. From 1609
to 1612 their payee was Thomas Greene. Webster’s _White Devil_ and
Dekker’s _If It be not Good, the Devil is in It_, were printed as
theirs in 1612, the former with a laudation of the acting of ‘my freind
Maister Perkins’, the latter as played at the Red Bull. They did not
play at Court during the winter of 1612–13, but did on 24 December
1613 and 5 January 1614. _Tu Quoque_ was printed as theirs in 1614.
In the winter of 1614–15 they gave three plays at Court. Heywood’s
_Four Prentices of London_ was printed in 1615 as played by them at the
Red Bull, and their name is also on _The Honest Lawyer_, registered
on 14 August 1615 and printed in 1616. They gave four plays at Court
during the winter of 1615–16. For all their Court plays from 1613–16
Robert Lee was payee, but Ellis Worth replaces him for a Somerset
House performance before Queen Anne on 17 December 1615. When they
were called with other companies before the Privy Council on 29 March
1615 to answer for playing in Lent, they were represented by Lee and
Christopher Beeston. The records of the Middlesex justices contain a
note of 4 October 1616 that Beeston and the rest of the players at the
Red Bull were in arrears to the extent of £5 on an annual rate of £2
agreed to by them for the repair of the highways.
Provincial visits of Queen’s men are recorded in November 1605 at
Dover; in 1605 at Leicester; in 1605–6 at Bath, Coventry, Saffron
Walden, and Weymouth; on 25 July 1606 at Ipswich; on 4 September 1606
at Ludlow; in 1606 at York; in 1606–7 at Bath (twice), Coventry,
Exeter, and Ipswich; on 14 August 1607 at Oxford; on 12 September 1607
at Belvoir (Earl of Rutland’s);[656] in 1607 at Barnstaple, Leicester,
and Reading; in 1607–8 at Coventry, Oxford, Reading, and Shrewsbury;
on 6 June and 26 September 1608 at Leicester;[657] in 1608–9 at
Coventry,[658] Marlborough, and Shrewsbury; between 8 July and 9 August
1609 at Dover; on 15 October 1609 at Norwich; in 1609 at Canterbury; in
1609–10 at Shrewsbury and Stafford; about 23 March 1610 at Maidstone;
on 2 November 1610 at Ipswich; on 31 December 1610 at Leicester; in
1610–11 at Shrewsbury and Southampton; on 27 February 1611 (for a week)
at Norwich; between 11 April and 9 May and between 29 August and 29
September 1612 at Dover; on 14 June and 26 October 1612 at Leicester;
in 1611–12 at Saffron Walden; in 1612–13 at Barnstaple, Coventry
(perhaps twice), and Ipswich; on 18 February 1613 at Marlborough; on
16 March 1613 at Leicester; between 13 April and 15 May 1613 at Dover;
on 2 November 1613 at Marlborough; on 22 December 1613 at Leicester;
in 1613–14 at Saffron Walden, Marlborough, Oxford, and Shrewsbury;
on 27 April 1614 (for three days) at Norwich;[659] between 3 and
29 September 1614 at Dover; in 1614–15 at Barnstaple and Doncaster
(perhaps twice); on 15 April 1615 at Coventry; in April or May 1615 at
Leicester; on 6 May 1615 at Norwich;[660] on 16 October 1615 and again
later in 1615 and on 22 February 1616 at Leicester;[661] on 7 November
1615 at Marlborough; in 1615–16 at Barnstaple, Dunwich (thrice),
Southampton, and Weymouth; in January 1616 at Nottingham; between 20
January and 17 February 1616 and between 11 May and 8 June at Dover; on
17 February 1616 at Coventry; on 22 February 1616 at Leicester; between
1 and 6 April (four days) and on 29 May 1616 at Norwich;[662] on 26
October 1616 at Marlborough; and on 6 February 1617 and again later in
1617 at Leicester.[663]
There were thus tours in each year, which sometimes extended over
periods during which the London theatres must have been open. The
Leicester notices of 1608, 1615, and 1617 suggest that more than
one company was at work, and the explanation certainly is that some
of the players named in the patent, instead of joining the London
organization, had recourse to making up companies of their own for
provincial purposes. Of this there is further evidence. The Southampton
archives contain a copy of the following warrant from Queen Anne
herself, dated on 7 March 1606:[664]
‘Warrant from the Queenes Majestie of her Players. Anna Regina.
Anne by the grace of God Queene of England, Scottland, Fraunce,
and Ireland. To all Justices of the Peace, Maiors, Sheriffs,
Bayliffes, and all other his Majestes Officers and loving
subiectes to whom yt shall or may appertaine greetinge, Know
yee that of our speciall grace and favour, Wee are well pleased
to authorize under our hand and signett the bearers hereof our
sworne servauntes Robert Lee, Martin Statier and Roger Barfield
with theyr fellowes and associates being our Commedians vppon
theyr humble Suite unto us for theyr better mainetenaunce, Yf
att annie time they should have occasion to travell into anie
parte of his Majestes Dominions to playe Tragedyes, historyes,
commedies and pastoralls as well in anie about the Cittye of
London, and in all other cittyes vniversities and townes at all
time anie times (the time of divine seruice onlye excepted)
Theise are therefore to will and requier you uppon the sight
hereofe quiettlye and favourably with your best favours, to
permitt and suffer them, to use theyr sayd qualitye within your
Jurisdiccions without anie of your molestacions or troubles, and
also to affourd them your Townehalls and all other such places
as att anie time have been used by men of theyr qualitye, That
they maye be in the better readiness for our seruise when they
shalbe thereunto commaunded, Nott doubtinge butt that our sayd
servauntes shall find the more favour for our sake in your best
assistaunce, Wherein you shall doe unto us acceptable pleasure.
Given att the Court of Whitehall, the seaventh daye of Marche
1605.’
Of these three men, Lee, and Lee alone, appears in the London lists
of 1603, 1604, and 1609. Of Barfield’s career nothing more is known.
Martin Slater, whose name can be divined under that of Statier, had
left the Admiral’s in 1597. He was probably in Scotland during 1599,
and if so his patronage by Anne may be analogous to the patronage by
James, which brought Laurence Fletcher’s name into the King’s men’s
patent. In 1603 he was payee for Hertford’s men. Presumably the
enterprise of 1606 did not last long, for in the spring of 1608 Slater
became manager for the King’s Revels. His place in the provinces may
have been taken by Thomas Swinnerton, who was leading a company of
Queen’s men at Coventry in 1608–9, and whose departure from the London
company is perhaps indicated by the fact that at about the same time
he sold a share, which he had held in the house of the Red Bull.
Swinnerton was travelling again in 1614–16 and using an exemplification
of the patent of 1609. In 1616 he was accompanied by Robert Lee, who
for two years before had been acting as payee for the London company.
Lee came again with the exemplification to Norwich on 31 May 1617, and
it was then noted to have been taken out on 7 January 1612. A few days
later, on 4 June 1617, a copy was entered in the Norwich court books
of a warrant by the Lord Chamberlain of 16 July 1616, condemning the
use of such exemplifications, and specifying amongst others two taken
out by Thomas Swinnerton and Martin Slater, ‘beinge two of the Queens
Maiesties company of Playors hauing separated themselves from their
said Company’.[665] Slater had, therefore, returned to the provincial
field, and there were now two travelling companies of Queen’s men. I
take it that in 1617 the Lord Chamberlain succeeded in suppressing
them, and that the Queen’s men who continued to appear in the provinces
up to Anne’s death on 2 March 1619 were the London company.[666] Lee
joined the Queen’s Revels as reorganized under a licence of 31 October
1617. Slater, about the same time, joined the Children of Bristol,
for whom, with John Edmonds and Nathaniel Clay, he got letters of
assistance in April 1618. In these all three are described as her
Majesty’s servants. Swinnerton apparently succeeded in keeping on foot
a company of his own, which visited Leicester in 1619.[667] The Bristol
company was in fact under Anne’s patronage, but Lee and Swinnerton,
no less than Slater and Edmonds, remained technically the Queen’s
servants, and are included with the London men in a list of the players
who received mourning at her funeral on 13 May 1619.[668] These were
Robert Lee, Richard Perkins, Christopher Beeston, Robert Pallant,
Thomas Heywood, James Holt, Thomas Swinnerton, Martin Slater, Ellis
Wroth, John Comber, Thomas Basse, John Blaney, William Robinson, John
Edmonds, Thomas Drewe, Gregory Sanderson, and John Garret.
The list of seventeen names includes seven of the ten patentees of
1609. I do not know what had become of John Duke and Robert Beeston.
Thomas Greene had died in August 1612, having made on 25 July a will,
amongst the witnesses to which were Christopher Beeston, Heywood, and
Perkins. The disposal of his property led many years afterwards to a
lawsuit, which gives valuable information as to both the _personnel_
and the organization of the London company. After providing for his
family and making some small legacies, including one to John Cumber,
and 40_s._ to ‘my fellowes of the house of the Redd Bull, to buy gloves
for them’, he left the residue to his widow and executrix, Susanna
Greene, formerly wife of one Browne.[669] In June 1613 she took a
third husband, James Baskervile. The following is her account in 1623
of certain transactions with the company. Shortly before Greene’s
death had died George Pulham, a ‘half sharer’ in the company, which
is described as being in 1612 ‘the companie of the actors or players
of the late queenes majestie Queene Anne, then vsuallie frequentinge
and playinge att the signe of the Redd Bull in St. Johns Street, in
Clerkenwell parishe, in the county of Middlesex’. His representatives
received £40 from the company in respect of his half-share. This was
under an agreement formerly made amongst the company ‘concerninge the
part and share of euerie one of the sharers and half sharers of the
said companie according to the rate and proporcion of their shares
or half shares in that behalfe’. Under the same agreement Susanna
Greene, whose husband was ‘one of the principall and cheif persons of
the said companie, and a full adventurer, storer and sharer of in and
amongst them’, claimed £80, together with £37 laid out by him before
his death in ‘diuers necessarie prouisions’ for the company. In order
to get satisfaction she had to appeal to Viscount Lisle, Chamberlain
of the Queen’s Household, ‘who hadd a kind of gouernment and suruey
ouer the said players’. It was arranged that Mrs. Greene should receive
a half-share in the profits until the debt was paid. By the time,
however, of her marriage with Baskervile, she had only received £6.
In June 1615 negotiations took place between the Baskerviles and the
company, who then included Worth, Perkins, and Christopher Hutchinson,
_alias_ Beeston, by which the Baskerviles agreed to invest £57 10_s._
in the enterprise and to accept in discharge of their claims a pension
for their joint lives of 1_s._ 8_d._ a day ‘for euerye of sixe daies
in the weeke wherin they should play’. The company defaulted, and
in June 1616 a second settlement was made, whereby the Baskerviles
invested another £38, a further pension of 2_s._ a day was established,
and the life of Susan’s son, Francis Browne (or Baskervile), was
substituted for her husband’s. The players were Christopher Beeston,
Thomas Heywood, Ellis Worth, John Cumber, John Blaney, Francis Walpole,
Robert Reynolds, William Robins, Thomas Drewe, and Emanuel Read.[670]
Again they defaulted, and moreover fell into arrear for the wages of
another of Susan Baskervile’s sons, William Browne, who played with
them as a hired man. A third settlement, reassuring the pensions,
and substituting William Browne for Francis, who was now dead, was
made on 3 June 1617, when the company were ‘now comme, or shortlie to
comme from the said Playhowse called the Redd Bull to the Playhowse
in Drurie Lane called the Cockpitt’; and to this the parties, so
far as the company were concerned, were Beeston, Heywood, Worth,
Cumber, Walpole, Blaney, Robins, and Drewe. Apparently Reynolds and
Read, and also Perkins and Thomas Basse, although their names were
recited in the deed, refused to seal. Some further light is thrown
on this by allegations of Worth, Cumber, and Blaney, in opposition
to those of Mrs. Baskervile in 1623. The company of 1617 contained
some members ‘new come into’ it, ‘which were of other companyes at
the tyme of graunting the first annuity’. The terms of the agreement
were carefully looked into, and were found to bind the company to
procure the subscription of any future new members to its terms. This
was inconsistent with a proviso of 1616 that the pensions should only
last so long as four of those then signing should play together; and
therefore, while some of the company signed and gave bonds by way of
security on an oral promise by Mrs. Baskervile that this proviso should
in fact hold good, others refused to do so. These were the wiser, for
in 1623, when Worth, Cumber, and Blaney were the only three of the 1617
signatories who still held together, Mrs. Baskervile sued them on their
bonds, and although they applied to Chancery for equitable enforcement
of the alleged oral promise, Chancery held that the agreement, being
made between players, was ‘vnfitt to be releeued or countenaunced in a
courte of equitie’. In some other respects the players’ account of the
transactions differs from Mrs. Baskervile’s, and in particular they
alleged that the Baskerviles had secured their interest by bribing
Beeston, to whom ‘your oratours and the rest of thier fellowes at
that tyme and long before and since did put the managing of thier
whole businesses and affaires belonging vnto them ioyntly as they were
players in trust’, so that she knew well that whatever he promised
the rest ‘would allowe of the same’. This Mrs. Baskervile repudiates
as regards the bribe, and does not wholly accept as regards Beeston’s
position in the company, although she admits that both before and
after her husband’s death they ‘did putt much affiance in the said
Huttchinson alias Beeston, concerninge the managing of their affaires’.
I am afraid that Beeston’s character does not come altogether
unstained out of another suit brought by one John Smith in the Court
of Requests during 1619 for a sum of £46 5_s._ 8_d._ in respect of
‘tinsell stuffes and other stuffe’ delivered on Beeston’s order to
Worth, Perkins, Cumber, and others at the Red Bull between 27 June
1612 and 23 February 1617, since when they had ‘fallen at variance and
strife amongst themselves and separated and devided themselves into
other companies.’ He accuses these four men of conspiring to keep him
out of payment. Worth, Perkins, and Cumber asserted that the liability
was Beeston’s. The company had ‘required divers officers and that
every of the said actors should take vpon them some place & charge’.
Beeston was charged with the provision of furniture and apparel, which
needed ‘a thriueing man & one that was of abilitie & meanes’. He was
to ‘defaulke outt of the colleccions and gatheringes which were made
continually when-soeuer any playe was acted a certen some of money as a
comon stock.’ to pay for purchases out of this, and to account to the
company for the balance. No one else was privy to his transactions. The
arrangement lasted for seven or eight years, and they believe that he
‘much enritched himself and rendered a false account for expenditure
of £400. He is now conspiring with Smith and hoping for a chance to
‘exclayme on’ them. If he incurred debt, he had certainly taken funds
to meet it. From the beginning he had ‘a greater care for his owne
privatt gaine’. Now he has ‘of late given over his coate & condicion &
separated and devided himself’ from the company, carrying away all the
furniture and apparel. Beeston says that he has long been ill. On Queen
Anne’s death he left the company and joined Prince Charles’s men. The
Queen’s had ten sharers, and sometimes one, sometimes another, provided
the clothes. He denies liability. Several witnesses, including William
Freshwater, merchant tailor and ‘a workman to the said company’, spoke
to Beeston’s liability.[671] One John King says that the company
allowed Beeston ‘one half of the profitt that came of the gallyryes’,
and that they began to break up about three years ago. At a hearing on
16 June 1620 Beeston got the case deferred on the ground that Emanuel
Read, a material witness, was in Ireland until Michaelmas. Elizabeth,
the wife of Richard Perkins, said that Read had been there for two or
three years, was over at Easter, and was not expected again. Smith
got in a blow at Beeston’s credit with an affidavit that he had said
‘it was nothing for him to put in a false answere into the Court of
Requestes, for that it was not punishable’. The result of the suit is
unknown.
We may perhaps reach the following conclusions as to the composition
of the London company after the deaths in 1612 of Pulham, presumably
a recent comer since 1609, and Greene. Their nucleus consisted of two
of the patented men, Christopher Beeston and Heywood, who probably
remained with them throughout. Of the other patentees, Swinnerton kept
to the provinces. Lee had rejoined them from the provinces by 1613
or 1614, and went back to the provinces about May 1616. Perkins was
apparently not of their number in June 1616, but was in June 1617.
Holt is not traceable; perhaps he also went to the provinces. Pallant
joined the Lady Elizabeth’s in 1614 and had passed to Prince Charles’s
by 1616. All these five men, however, appear with Beeston and Heywood
as Anne’s servants at her funeral. Here too are Slater and Edmonds,
then of the Bristol, and apparently never of the London company; also
Worth, Cumber, Blaney, Drewe, and Robinson, presumably identical with
Robins, all of whom had joined the London company by June 1616, Basse,
formerly of the Lady Elizabeth’s, who joined it between June 1616
and June 1617, and Gregory Sanderson and John Garret, who, if they
belonged to the London company at all, must have joined it after June
1617.[672] The list does not contain the names of two men who belonged
to the company in 1616 and 1617. One was Emanuel Read, who joined it
from the Lady Elizabeth’s in 1613 or later; the other, Robert Reynolds,
whose attachment to the company must have been rather loose, as he was
travelling in Germany in July 1616 and again in 1618. Evidently, as the
lawsuits suggest, the organization of the Queen’s men during its later
years was rather unstable. Into its attempts to hold together after
Anne’s death and the after-careers of its members, it is not necessary
to go.
In June 1617 the Queen’s were come, or shortly to come, from the Red
Bull to the Cockpit. In fact they were at the Cockpit, then a new
house, on 4 March 1617, when it was sacked by prentices in a Shrovetide
riot.[673] But they may have returned to the Red Bull for a time, while
the Cockpit was being repaired, as they did again after they lost it
on the separation from Christopher Beeston, who seems to have been its
owner, in 1619.
xxii. THE DUKE OF LENNOX’S MEN
Ludovic Stuart, s. of Esmé, 1st Duke of Lennox; cousin and
until 1594 heir presumptive of James; _nat._ 29 Sept. 1574;
succ. as 2nd Duke, 26 May 1583; Gentleman of Bedchamber, 1603;
Earl of Richmond, 6 Oct. 1613; Lord Steward, Nov. 1615; Duke of
Richmond, 17 Aug. 1623; o.s.p. 16 Feb. 1624.
The first notice of Lennox’s men is on 13 October 1604, when he gave
an open warrant of assistance in their behalf addressed to mayors,
justices, and other local officers, some of whom had apparently refused
the company permission to play (App. D, no. cxxxvii). On 16 March
1605 Francis Henslowe gave his uncle Philip a bond of £60 to observe
articles of an agreement he had entered into with John Garland and
Abraham Savere ‘his ffellowes, servantes to the most noble Prince the
duke of Lennox’; and on 1 March 1605 Savere had given Francis Henslowe
a power of attorney to recover £40 on a forfeited bond from John
Garland of ‘the ould forde’, securing delivery of a warrant made to
Savere by Lennox (_Henslowe Papers_, 62). Some other traces point to
a connexion between Savere and Francis Henslowe, which was ended by
the latter’s death in the middle of 1606 (Henslowe, ii. 277), and an
undated loan of £7 by Philip Henslowe to his nephew ‘to goyne with owld
Garlland and Symcockes and Saverey when they played in the duckes nam
at ther laste goinge owt’ (Henslowe, i. 160) makes it possible to add
one more to the list of the company. It does not seem to have played in
London, but is traceable at Canterbury in 1603–4, Barnstaple, Coventry,
and Norwich in 1604–5, and Coventry again in 1607–8. Both Garland and
Henslowe had been Queen Elizabeth’s men, and it is possible that,
when these men were left stranded by her death in 1603, they found a
new patron in Lennox. John Garland had joined the Duke of York’s men
by 1610, and it has been suggested that this company may have been a
continuation of Lennox’s.
xxiii. THE DUKE OF YORK’S (PRINCE CHARLES’S) MEN
_The Duke of York’s Men (1608–12); The Prince’s Men (1612–16)_
Charles, 2nd s. of James I; _nat._ 19 Nov. 1600; Duke of Albany,
23 Dec. 1600; Duke of York, 16 Jan. 1605; Prince of Wales, 3
Nov. 1616; afterwards (27 Mar. 1625) Charles I.
[_Bibliographical Note._--The documents bearing on the relations
of the Duke of York’s men with Alleyn are printed by W. W. Greg
in _Henslowe Papers_ (1907); the Bill and Answers in the equity
suit of _Taylor v. Hemynges_ (1612) by C. W. Wallace in _Globe
Theatre Apparel_ (p.p., 1909).]
A company under the patronage of Prince Charles, then Duke of York,
first makes its appearance during 1608, and in the provinces. A visit
of ‘the younger princes’ men to Ipswich is recorded on 20 October.
During 1608–9 the company was also at Bath, and it is at least possible
that it was ‘the Princes players of the White Chapple London’ rewarded
at Leicester in 1608. The Boar’s Head (q.v.) may have been roughly
spoken of as in Whitechapel, and although there is no proof that the
Duke of York’s men occupied it after the Queen’s moved to the Red Bull,
there is nothing to connect them during the earlier years of their
career with any of the better-known London houses. On 30 March 1610
they received, like other London companies, a patent, of which the
following are the terms:[674]
[Sidenote: De licentia agendi Tragedias &c. pro Johanne Garland & aliis.]
Iames by the grace of God &c. To all Iustices, Mayors,
Sheriffes, Baylies, Constables, hedboroughes and other our
loveing subiectes and officers greetinge. Knowe ye that wee of
our especyall grace, certen knowledge, and meere mocion haue
lycensed and aucthorized, and by theis presentes doe lycence
and authorise Iohn Garland, Willyam Rowley, Thomas Hobbes,
Robert Dawes, Ioseph Taylor, Iohn Newton, and Gilbert Reason,
alreadye sworne servauntes to our deere sonne the Duke of
York and Rothesay, with the rest of their company, to vse and
exercise the arte and quality of playing Comedyes, Tragedies,
histories, Enterludes, Moralles, Pastoralles, Stagplayes, and
such other like as they haue already studdied or hereafter
shall studye or vse, aswell for the recreacion of our loveing
subiectes, as for our solace and pleasure when wee shall thinke
good to see them, and the said Enterludes or other to shewe
and execise publiquely to their best aduantage and commoditie,
aswell in and about our Cittye of London in such vsuall howses
as themselues shall provide, as alsoe within anye Townehalles,
Mootehalles, Guildhalles, Schoolehowses, or other convenient
places within the lybertye and freedome of any other Cittye,
vniversity, Towne, or Boroughe whatsoever within our Realmes and
Domynions, willing and comaundinge you and everie of you, as
you tender our pleasure, not onlye to permitt and suffer them
herein without any your lettes, hindraunces, molestacions or
disturbances during our said pleasure, but alsoe to be ayding
and assisting vnto them, if any wronge be vnto them offered, and
to allowe them such former curtesies as hath byne given to men
of their place and quality, And alsoe what further favor you
shall shewe them for our sake wee shall take yt kyndlye at your
handes. Prouided alwaies and our will and pleasure is that all
authority, power, priviledg, and proffitt whatsoever belonging
and properly apperteyninge to the Master of our Revelles in
respect of his Office and everie article and graunt contayned
within the lettres patentes or Commission, which haue byne
heretofore graunted or directed by the late Queene Elizabeth our
deere sister or by our selfe to our welbeloved servantes Edmond
Tillney Master of the said Office of the said Revelles, or to
Sir George Bucke knight, or to eyther of them, in possession or
Revercion, shall remayne and abyde entire and in full force,
estate and vertue and in as ample sort as if this our commission
had never bene made. Witnes our selfe att Westminster the
thirtith daye March.
per breve de priuato sigillo &c.
The only member of the Duke of York’s men, of whose previous history
anything is known, is John Garland. He was of the Duke of Lennox’s men
in 1605. Perhaps the whole company was taken over from the Duke of
Lennox. Mr. Fleay says that the Duke of York’s men arose ‘immediately
after the disappearance of the King’s Revels Children’,[675] and
appears to suggest a continuity between the two companies; but he
must have overlooked the fact that the Duke of York’s were already
performing in the provinces, while the King’s Revels were in all
probability still at Whitefriars.[676]
Some reconstruction doubtless took place about the date of the issue
of the patent, for the pleadings in the equity suit of _Taylor v.
Hemynges_ in 1612 recites an agreement of 15 March 1610, which
provided for the continuance of fellowship during three years and the
forfeiture of the interest in a common stock of ‘apparrell goodes
money and other thinges’ of any member, who left without the consent
of the rest. It was made between Garland on the one side and Taylor,
Rowley, Dawes, and Hobbes on the other, and these four gave Garland a
bond of £200 as security. On 8 May the five bought some ‘olde clothes
or apparrell which formerly weare players clothes or apparrell’ from
John Heminges of the King’s men for £11, and gave a bond of £20 for
payment. Apparently payment had not been made by Easter 1611, when
Taylor ‘by the licence and leave of his said Master the Duke vpon some
speciall reason ... did give over and leave to play in the company’.
Under the agreement the apparel passed to his fellows, and according
to Taylor they paid Heminges the £11 or otherwise satisfied him, and
then ‘havinge conceaued some vndeserued displeasure’ against Taylor
for leaving them, conspired with Heminges to defraud him of £20 on the
bond. According to Heminges no payment was made, and he sued Taylor
as ‘the best able to paye and discharge the same’. Taylor was arrested
and in February 1612 brought his suit in equity to stay the common law
proceedings. The result is unknown.
The company frequently played at Court, but, as it would seem, only
before the younger members of the royal family. Their first appearance
was before Charles and Elizabeth on 9 February 1610. In 1610–11 they
were at Saffron Walden. They came before Charles and Elizabeth on 12
and 20 December 1610 and 15 January 1611, and before Henry, Charles,
and Elizabeth on 12 and 28 January and 13 and 24 February 1612. On
this last occasion they played William Rowley’s _Hymen’s Holiday,
or Cupid’s Vagaries_. After Henry’s death, on 7 November 1612, they
became entitled to the designation of the Prince’s players. In 1612–13
they were at Barnstaple and Ipswich. On 2 and 10 March 1613 they gave
the two parts of _The Knaves_, perhaps by Rowley, before Charles,
Elizabeth, and the Palsgrave. In 1613–14 they were at Barnstaple,
Dover, Saffron Walden, and Coventry. They were not at Court for the
winter of 1613–14. In November 1614 they were at Oxford, Leicester,
and Nottingham. At the Christmas of 1614–15 they gave six plays before
Charles, and on 11 February they were at Youghal in Ireland. Ten days
later R. A.’s _The Valiant Welshman_ was entered and in the course of
the year published as theirs. Their leader seems to have been Rowley.
He both wrote plays for them and acted as payee for all their court
rewards from 1610 to 1614. In 1611 they lost Taylor and in 1614 Dawes
to the Lady Elizabeth’s men; and these transferences seem to have led
to a temporary amalgamation of the two companies, which Mr. Fleay
and Dr. Greg place in 1614, but for which their distinct appearances
at Court in the following winter suggest 1615 as the more likely
date.[677] On 29 March 1615 William Rowley and John Newton were called
with representatives of other companies before the Privy Council to
answer for playing in Lent. No separate representation of the Lady
Elizabeth’s is indicated by the list. In 1614–15 the Prince’s were
at Norwich, Coventry, Winchester, and Barnstaple. In the winter of
1615–16 they gave four plays before Prince Charles, and the payee was
not Rowley, but Alexander Foster, formerly of the Lady Elizabeth’s.
Rosseter’s patent of 3 June 1615 for a second Blackfriars theatre
contemplates its use by the Prince’s men and the Lady Elizabeth’s, as
well as by the Queen’s Revels, and Field’s _Amends for Ladies_ was
actually played in the Blackfriars, probably in this house before it
was suppressed, by the two first-named companies. After Henslowe’s
death on 6 January 1616, the combination, whatever its nature, was
probably broken up, and separate companies of Prince’s men and Lady
Elizabeth’s men were again formed. But both of the original companies
continued to be represented in one which remained at the Hope. This
is shown by an agreement entered into with Alleyn and Meade on 20
March 1616, and signed in the presence of Robert Daborne and others
by William Rowley, Robert Pallant, Joseph Taylor, Robert Hamlen, John
Newton, William Barksted, Thomas Hobbes, Antony Smith, William Penn,
and Hugh Attwell.[678] This recites that the signatories and others had
given bonds to Henslowe and Meade for the repayment of sums lent them
by Henslowe, for a stock of apparel worth £400, and for the fulfilment
of certain Articles of Agreement; and that at their entreaty Alleyn
had agreed to accept £200 in discharge of their full liabilities. They
covenant to pay the £200 by making over to Alleyn one-fourth of the
daily takings of the whole galleries at the Hope or any house in which
they may play, and to carry out the Articles with Alleyn and Meade by
so playing. Alleyn and Meade agree to cancel the bonds when the £200
is paid, except any which may relate to private debts of any of the
men to Henslowe, and also to make over to them any apparel which they
had received from Henslowe, Alleyn, or Meade. The rights of Alleyn and
Meade against any bondsmen not taking part in the new agreement are
to remain unaffected. That the signatories to this document used the
name of Prince Charles’s men seems pretty clear from the reappearance
of several of their names in two later lists of the Prince’s men, one
in Rowley and Middleton’s _Mask of Heroes_ (1619), the other in the
records of King James’s funeral on 20 May 1625.[679] This last contains
also the name of Gilbert Reason, who is not one of the signatories of
1616, but was in that year travelling the provinces with an irregularly
obtained exemplification of the 1610 patent.[680] An undated letter
from Pallant, Rowley, Taylor, Newton, Hamlen, Attwell, and Smith to
Alleyn, which may belong to some time in 1616 or 1617, shows that, in
spite of the easy terms which the company seem to have received by the
agreement, the subsequent relations were not altogether smooth. They
write to excuse their removal from the Bankside, where they had stood
the intemperate weather, until ‘more intemperate Mr. Meade thrust vs
over, taking the day from vs w^{ch} by course was ours’. They ask
Alleyn to find them a house and in the meantime to lend them £40, on
the security that ‘we haue to receiue from the court (w^{ch} after
Shrouetide wee meane to pursue w^{th} best speede) a great summe of
monie’, amounting to more than twice the loan desired.[681] It is to be
presumed that the ‘course’ to which they refer was some distribution of
days between playing and bear-baiting. In 1619 the company was joined
by Christopher Beeston, formerly of the Queen’s, and his house of the
Cockpit became available for their use.
xxiv. THE LADY ELIZABETH’S MEN
Elizabeth, e. d. of James I; _nat. c._ 19 Aug. 1596; m.
Frederick V, Elector Palatine (Palsgrave), 14 Feb. 1613; Queen
of Bohemia, 7 Nov. 1619; known as Queen of Hearts; _ob._ 13 Feb.
1662.
[_Bibliographical Note._--Nearly all the material is to be found
among the extracts from the Dulwich MSS. printed by W. W. Greg
in _Henslowe Papers_ (1907) and summarized in Henslowe, ii. 137.]
This company seems to have come into existence in 1611 under the
following patent of 27 March:[682]
[Sidenote: De licencia speciali pro Iohanne Townsend & Iosepho Moore &
aliis.]
Iames by the grace of god &c. To all Iustices, Maiors,
Sheriffes, Bailiffes, Constables hedborroughes, and other our
lovinge Subiectes and officers greetinge. Knowe ye that wee of
our especiall grace, certayne knowledge, and meere mocon have
licenced and authorised, and by these presente do licence and
authorize Iohn Townsend and Joseph Moore, sworne servantes to
our deere daughter the ladie Elizabeth, with the rest of theire
Companie, to vse and exercise the Arte and qualitie of playinge
Comedies, histories, Enterludes, Morralls, pastoralls, stage
playes, and such other like as they haue alreadie studied or
hereafter shall studie or vse, aswell for the recreacion of
our lovinge Subiectes, as for our solace and pleasure when wee
shall thinke good to see them, And the said enterludes or other
to shewe and exercise publiquelie to their best commoditie
in and about our Cittie of London in such vsuall howses as
themselues shall prouide, And alsoe within anie Towne halles,
mootehalles, Guyld-halles, Schoolehowses or other convenient
places within the libertye and freedome of anie other Cittie,
vniuersitie, Towne or Burroughe whatsoeuer within our Realmes
and Domynions, willinge and comaundinge you and everie of you,
as you tender our pleasure, not onelie to permitt and suffer
them herein without any your lettes, hinderances, molestacions
or disturbances during our said pleasure, but alsoe to be
ayding and assistinge vnto them, if anie wronge be vnto them
offred, And to allowe them such former curtesies as hath byne
given to men of their place and qualitie, And alsoe what
further fauour you shall shewe them for our sake wee shall
take yt kindelie at your handes. Prouided alwayes and our will
and pleasure is that all authoritie, power, priveledge, and
profitt whatsoever belonginge or properlie apperteyning to the
maister of the Revelles in respecte of his office and euerie
Article and graunte conteyned within the letters Pattentes or
Comission, which haue byne heretofore graunted or directed by
the late queene Elizabeth our deere sister or by our selfe to
our welbeloued Servantes Edwarde Tylney Maister of the saide
Revells, or to Sir George Bucke knighte, or to eyther of them,
in possession or reuercon, shall remayne and abide entire and
in full force, effecte and vertue, and in as ample sorte as if
this our Comission had neuer byne made In witnesse wherof &c.
Witnesse our selfe at Westminster the seaven and Twentith daye
of Aprill.
per breve de priuato sigillo &c.
The company is first traceable in the country, at Bath during 1610–11
and at Ipswich on 28 May 1611. The names of Moore and Townsend render
possible its identification with an unnamed company, which on 29 August
1611 gave duplicate bonds of £500 to Henslowe for the observance of
certain articles of agreement of the same date. Unfortunately the
articles themselves are not preserved, but it is likely that they
contained an arrangement for the housing and financing of the company
by Henslowe.[683] The signatories to both bonds include John Townsend,
Joseph Taylor, William Ecclestone, Thomas Hunt, John Rice, Robert
Hamlen, Joseph Moore, William Carpenter, Thomas Basse, and Alexander
Foster. To these one adds Giles Gary and William Barksted and the
other Francis Waymus. The names recited in the bodies of the documents
agree with the signatures, except that Gary appears in both. Several
of these men now come into London theatrical history for the first
time, but Gary is probably the Giles Cary who with Barksted played in
_Epicoene_ for the Queen’s Revels in 1609, Taylor came from the Duke
of York’s, and Rice from the King’s. One Hunt, whose Christian name is
unknown, was with the Admiral’s in 1601. Alexander Foster received
payment on behalf of the Lady Elizabeth’s men for three plays given
at Court during the Christmas of 1611–12. The first was on 19 January
1612 before Elizabeth and Henry; the second was _The Proud Maid’s
Tragedy_, on 25 February before James; and the third was on 11 March,
again before Elizabeth and Henry. In 1611–12 the company were at Dover
and Coventry, and on 30 July 1612 at Leicester. On 20 October they
played before Elizabeth and the Palsgrave, shortly after the latter’s
arrival in England, in the Cockpit. This was perhaps the play paid for
out of the private funds of Elizabeth, as the result of a wager with
Mr. Edward Sackville.[684] During Christmas they played twice before
Charles, Elizabeth, and the Palsgrave, showing Marston’s _The Dutch
Courtesan_ on 25 February and _Raymond Duke of Lyons_ on 1 March. For
1612–13 Joseph Taylor was payee.
The names of Taylor and Ecclestone are found in another document in
the Dulwich collection, which pretty clearly belongs to the Lady
Elizabeth’s men, and which shows that about the spring of 1613 their
business relations with Henslowe entered upon a somewhat troubled
phase. This is shown by internal evidence to have been written in the
course of 1615. It is here reproduced:[685]
Articles of [ ]uaunce against
M[ ] Hinchlowe
Imprimis in March 1612 vppon M^r. Hynchlowes Joyninge Companes
with M^r. Rosseter the Companie borrowed 80^[ll] of one M^r.
Griffin and the same was put into M^r. Hinchlowes debt which
made itt sixteene score poundes; whoe [a]fter the receipt of the
same or most parte thereof in March 1613 hee broke the saide
Comp[any a]gaine and Ceazed all the stocke, vnder Culler to
satisfie what remayned due to [him]; yet perswaded M^r. Griffyne
afterwardes to arest the Companie for his 80^{ll}, whoe are
still in daunger for the same; Soe nowe there was in equitie due
to the Companie 80^{ll}:
Item M^r. Hinchlowe having lent one Taylor 30^{ll} and 20^{ll}
to one Baxter fellowes of the Companie Cunninglie put theire
said privat debts into the generall accompt by which meanes hee
is in Conscience to allowe them 50^{ll}:
Item havinge the stock of Apparell in his handes to secure his
debt he sould tenn poundes worth of ould apparrell out of the
same without accomptinge or abatinge for the same; heare growes
due to the Companie 10^{ll}:
Also vppon the departure of one Eglestone a ffellowe of the
Companie hee recovered of him 14^{ll} towardes his debt which is
in Conscience likewise to bee allowed to the Companie 14^{ll}:
In March 1613 hee makes vpp a Companie and buies apparrell of
one Rosseter to the value of 63^{ll}, and valued the ould stocke
that remayned in his handes at 63^{ll}, likewise they vppon his
word acceptinge the same at that rate, which being prized by
M^r. Daborne iustlie, betweene his partner Meade and him, Came
but to 40^{ll}: soe heare growes due to the Companie 23^{ll}:
Item hee agrees with the said Companie that they should enter
bond to plaie with him for three yeares att such house and
houses as hee shall appointe and to allowe him halfe galleries
for the said house and houses, and the other halfe galleries
towardes his debt of 126^{ll}, and other such moneys as hee
should laie out for playe apparrell duringe the space of the
said 3 yeares, agreeinge with them in Consideration theareof to
seale each of them a bond of 200^{ll} to find them a Convenient
house and houses, and to laie out such moneies as fower of the
sharers should think fitt for theire vse in apparrell, which att
the 3 yeares, being paid for, to be deliuered to the sharers;
whoe accordinglie entered the said bondes; but M^r. Henchlowe
and M^r. Mead deferred the same, an[d] in Conclusion vtterly
denied to seale att all.
Item M^r. Hinchlowe havinge promised in Consideracion of the
Companies lying still one daie in forteene for his baytinge to
give them 50^s, hee havinge denied to bee bound as aforesaid
gave them onlie 40^s, and for that M^r. Feild would not Consent
therevnto hee gave him soe much as his share out of 50^{ll}
would have Come vnto; by which meanes hee is dulie indebted to
the Companie x^{ll}:
In June followinge the said agreement, hee brought in M^r.
Pallant and short[l]ie after M^r. Dawes into the said Companie,
promisinge one 12^s a weeke out of his part of the galleries,
and the other 6^s a weeke out of his parte of the galleries;
and because M^r. Feild was thought not to bee drawne therevnto,
hee promissed him six shillinges weekelie alsoe; which in
one moneth after vnwilling to beare soe greate a Charge, he
Called the Companie together, and told them that this 24^s was
to bee Charged vppon them, threatninge those which would not
Consent therevnto to breake the Companie and make vpp a newe
without the[m]. Whearevppon knowinge hee was not bound, the
three-quarters sharers advauncinge them selves to whole shares
Consented therevnto, by which meanes they are out of purse
30^{ll}, and his parte of the galleries bettred twise as much
30^{ll}:
Item havinge 9 gatherers more then his due itt Comes to this
yeare from the Companie 10^{ll}:
Item the Companie paid for [Arra]s and other properties 40^{ll},
which Mr. Henchlow deteyneth 40^{ll}:
In Februarie last 1614 perceav[ing]e the Companie drewe out of
his debt and Called vppon him for his accompts hee brooke the
Companie againe, by withdrawinge the hired men from them, and
selles theire stocke (in his hands) for 400^{ll}, givinge vnder
his owne hand that hee had receaved towardes his debt 300^{ll}:
Which with the iuste and Conscionable allowances before named
made to the Companie, which Comes to ... 267^{ll}, makes
567^{ll}:
Articles of oppression against
M^r. Hinchlowe.
Hee Chargeth the stocke with ... 600^{ll}: and odd, towardes
which hee hath receaved as aforesaid ... 567^{ll} of vs; yet
selles the stocke to strangers for fower hundred poundes, and
makes vs no satisfacion.
Hee hath taken all boundes of our hired men in his owne name,
whose wages though wee have truly paid yet att his pleasure hee
hath taken them a waye, and turned them over to others to the
breaking of our Companie.
For lendinge of vj^{ll} to p[ay] them theire wages, hee made vs
enter bond to give him the profitt of a warraunt of tenn poundes
due to vs att Court.
Alsoe hee hath taken right gould and silver lace of divers
garmentes to his owne vse without accompt to vs or abatement.
Vppon everie breach of the Companie hee takes newe bondes for
his stocke and our securitie for playinge with him; Soe that
hee hath in his handes bondes of ours to the value of 5000^{ll}
and his stocke to; which hee denies to deliuer and threatens to
oppresse us with.
Alsoe havinge apointed a man to the seeinge of his accomptes in
byinge of Clothes (hee beinge to have vi^s a weeke) hee takes
the meanes away and turnes the man out.
The reason of his often breakinge with vs hee gave in these
wordes ‘Should these fellowes Come out of my debt, I should have
noe rule with them’.
Alsoe wee have paid him for plaie bookes 200^{ll} or
thereaboutes and yet hee denies to give vs the Coppies of any
one of them.
Also within 3 yeares hee hath broken and dissmembred five
Companies.
It is not quite possible to trace all the five breakings of companies
referred to in the closing sentence; but the statement is sufficient
to give a fairly clear outline of the history of the Lady Elizabeth’s
men during the years which it covers, and, as it happens, there is a
good deal of other evidence from which to supplement it. It appears
that in March 1613 Henslowe joined companies with Rosseter; that is
to say, that an amalgamation took place between the Lady Elizabeth’s
men and the Children of the Queen’s Revels, who had been acting at the
Whitefriars under the patent to Rosseter and others of 4 January 1610.
One of these children was Robert Baxter, if he is the Baxter named
in the Articles of Grievance as a fellow of the company with Taylor
between March 1613 and March 1614.[686] During the same period it
appears that William Ecclestone left the company. He afterwards joined
the King’s men. But, before he went, he took a part in _The Honest
Man’s Fortune_, which is stated in the _Dyce MS._ to have been played
in 1613, while its ‘principal actors’ are named in the 1679 folio of
Beaumont and Fletcher as ‘Nathan Field, Robert Benfield, Emanuel Read,
Joseph Taylor, Will. Eglestone and Thomas Basse’. This particular
combination seems to point clearly to the Lady Elizabeth’s men as the
original producers of the play. A very similar cast is assigned in the
same folio to _The Coxcomb_, namely, ‘Nathan Field, Joseph Taylor,
Giles Gary, Emanuel Read, Richard Allen, Hugh Atawell, Robert Benfeild,
and William Barcksted’; and I think that this also must belong to a
performance by the Lady Elizabeth’s men about 1613. _The Coxcomb_ had
certainly been played at Court by the Queen’s Revels in 1612, but
it seems impossible that Taylor can then have been a member of that
company.[687] The new blood brought in from Rosseter’s company will,
then, have included Field, Attwell, Richard Allen, Benfield, Reade, and
perhaps Robert Baxter, of whom the first three had played in Jonson’s
_Epicoene_ for the Revels in 1609. When it is remembered that Cary and
Barksted had been in the same cast, it will be realized that the Lady
Elizabeth’s men, as constituted in 1613, were very much the Queen’s
Revels over again.
I think there can be no doubt that the Lady Elizabeth’s men was
the company principally referred to in the long series of letters
from Robert Daborne to Henslowe, which runs from 17 April 1613 to
31 July 1614.[688] Daborne had been one of the patentees for the
Queen’s Revels in 1609, and some letters apparently belonging to the
same series show Field as interested, either as writer or actor, in
some of the plays which Henslowe was purchasing from Daborne, with
a view to reselling them to this company. Further confirmation is
to be obtained for this view from the signature of Hugh Attwell as
witness to one of Henslowe’s advances to Daborne,[689] and from the
mention of Benfield,[690] of Pallant who, as will be seen, joined the
company in 1614,[691] and of _Eastward Ho!_ which their repertory
had inherited from that of the Queen’s Revels.[692] That ‘Mr. Allin’
was hearing Daborne’s plays with Henslowe in May 1613 need cause no
difficulty.[693] It is true that Edward Alleyn is not known to have
had any relations with the Lady Elizabeth’s men, but John Alleyn, a
nephew of Edward, is amongst Henslowe’s witnesses about this time,[694]
and Richard Allen, who may not have belonged to the same family, was
himself one of the Lady Elizabeth’s men, and perhaps served as their
literary adviser. The correspondence makes it possible to recover
the names of a series of plays on which Daborne was engaged, either
alone or in collaboration with others, during the period over which it
extends, and all of which seem to have been primarily meant for the
Lady Elizabeth’s men, although he occasionally professes, as an aid to
his chaffering, to have an alternative market with the King’s men.[695]
From April to June 1613 he was writing a tragedy of _Machiavel and the
Devil_, and this is probably the ‘new play’, of which he suggests the
performance on Wednesday in August, to follow one of _Eastward Ho!_ on
the Monday.[696] For this Henslowe covenanted to pay him £20. In June
he was also completing _The Arraignment of London_, of which he had
given an act to Cyril Tourneur to write; and to this _The Bellman of
London_, for which he and a colleague, perhaps again Tourneur, asked
no more than £12 and ‘the overplus of the second day’ in August, was
probably a sequel.[697] This may be the play which he had delivered to
Henslowe about the beginning of December. About July he seems also to
have been occupied upon a play in collaboration with Field, Fletcher,
and Massinger. This is not named, and Mr. Fleay’s identification of it
with _The Honest Man’s Fortune_ is rather hazardous.[698] In December
he began _The Owl_, for which his price fell to £10; and on 11 March
1614 he had finished this, and was beginning _The She Saint_ and asking
‘but 12^l a play till they be playd.’ The correspondence has a gap
between the middle of August and the middle of October 1613. Probably
the company were on tour; they are found at Coventry, Shrewsbury, and
Marlborough in 1612–13, Canterbury on 4 July 1613, Dover between 12
July and 7 August, and Leicester on 13 October. In the spring they had
been at Bristol and Norwich. On 12 December they repeated one of their
plays of the preceding winter, Marston’s _The Dutch Courtesan_, before
Charles, and on 25 January 1614 gave _Eastward Ho!_ which they had been
playing in public during the summer, before James. Taylor was again
their payee for this Christmas.
The statement of grievances indicates another reconstruction of the
company in March 1614. In this transaction, which apparently involved
the buying out of Rosseter’s interest, Meade was in partnership with
Henslowe, and Field was presumably in some position of authority on
behalf of the players, as it is alleged that Henslowe bribed him, in
order to obtain his assent to the modification of a covenant under
which he was to make an allowance for a withdrawal of the theatre once
a fortnight for baiting. The terms recited agree with those of an
undated and mutilated agreement between Henslowe and Jacob Meade on one
side and Field on behalf of an unnamed company of players on the other.
The text of this follows:[699]
Articles of agreement made, concluded, and agreed vppon,
and which are on the parte and behalfe of Phillipp Henslowe
Esquier and Jacob Meade Waterman to be perfourmed, touchinge
& concerninge the Company of players which they haue lately
raised, viz^t.
Imprimis the saide Phillipp Henslowe and Jacob Meade doe for
them, their executours and administratours, Covenante, promise,
and graunt by theis presentes to and with Nathan Feilde gent.,
That they the saide Phillipp Henslowe and Jacob Meade or one
of them shall and will duringe the space of Three yeares at
all tymes (when noe restraynte of playinge shalbe) at their
or some of their owne proper costes and charges fynde and
provide a sufficient howse or howses for the saide Company
to play in, And also shall and will at all tymes duringe the
saide tearme disburse and lay out all suche somme & sommes of
monny, as ffower or ffive Shareres of the saide Company chosen
by the saide Phillipp and Jacob shall thinck fittinge, for
the furnishinge of the said Company with playinge apparrell
towardes the settinge out of their newe playes, And further
that the saide Phillipp Henslowe and Jacob Meade shall and will
at all tymes duringe the saide tearme, when the saide Company
shall play in or neare the Cittie of London, furnish the saide
Company of players, aswell with suche stock of apparrell & other
properties as the said Phillipp Henslowe hath already bought, As
also with suche other stock of apparrell as the saide Phillipp
Henslowe and Jacob Meade shall hereafter provide and buy for
the said Company duringe the saide tearme, And further shall
and will at suche tyme and tymes duringe the saide tearme, as
the saide Company of Players shall by meanes of any restraynte
or sicknes goe into the Contrey, deliuer and furnish the saide
Company with fitting apparrell out of both the saide stockes of
apparrell. And further the saide Phillipp Henslowe and Jacob
Meade doe for them, their executours and administratours,
convenante and graunt to and with the saide Nathan Feilde by
theis presentes in manner and fourme followinge, that is to say,
That they the saide Phillipp Henslowe and Jacob Meade or one of
them shall and will from tyme to tyme duringe the saide tearme
disburse and lay out suche somme or sommes of monny as shalbe
thought fittinge by ffower or ffive of the Shareres of the saide
Company, to be chosen by the saide Phillipp & Jacob or one of
them, to be paide for any play which they shall buy or condicion
or agree for; Soe alwaies as the saide Company doe and shall
truly repaye vnto the saide Phillipp and Jacob, their executores
or assignes, all suche somme & sommes of monny, as they shall
disburse for any play, vppon the second or third daie wheron the
same play shalbe plaide by the saide Company, without fraude
or longer delay; And further that the saide Phillipp Henslowe
and Jacob Meade shall and will at all tymes, vppon request made
by the Maior parte of the Sharers of the saide Company v[nder
their] handes, remove and putt out of the saide Company any of
the saide Company of playeres, if the saide Phillipp Henslowe
and Jacob Meade shall fynde [the s]aide request to be iust and
that ther be noe hope of conformety in the partie complayned
of; And further that they the saide Phillipp Henslowe and Jacob
Mea[de shall] and [will] at all tymes, vppon request made by
the saide Company or the maior parte therof, pay vnto them all
suche somes of monny as shall comme vnto their handes v[ppon [
extra spaces ]of]any forfectures for rehearsalles or suche like
paymentes; And also shall and will, vppon the request of the
said Company or the maior parte of the[m], sue [ extra spaces ]
ar[ extra spaces ] persons by whom any forfecture shalbe made
as aforesaid, and after or vppon the recovery and receipte
th[ero]f (their charges disbursed about the recovery [[ extra
spaces ]b]einge first deducted and allowed) shall and will make
satisfaccion of the remaynder therof vnto the said Company
without fraude or guile.
Mr. Fleay and Dr. Greg think that at the time of this reconstruction
the company was further strengthened by the incorporation of the Duke
of York’s, now the Prince’s, men.[700] This I doubt, as the Prince’s
men continued to play at Court, as a company quite distinct from the
Lady Elizabeth’s, during the winter of 1614–15. It is true that Robert
Dawes, who had been one of the Duke of York’s in 1610, joined the Lady
Elizabeth’s, but it was precisely one of the grievances that this man
and Robert Pallant were introduced by Henslowe, by means of a financial
adjustment unfavourable to the sharers, in June 1614. Pallant had
passed through several companies, and is traceable with Queen Anne’s
men in 1609. He was still technically a servant of the Queen at her
death in 1619.[701] A letter from Daborne on 28 March 1614 shows that
he was then expecting an answer to some proposal made to Henslowe,
which the latter had neglected.[702] Articles between Robert Dawes and
Henslowe and Meade are on record, and bear the date 7 April 1614.[703]
The following is the text:
Articles of Agreement,] made, concluded, and agreed uppon, and
which are to be kept & performed by Robert Dawes of London,
Gent. unto and with Phillipp Henslowe Esq^{re} and Jacob [Meade
Waterman] in manner and forme followinge, that is to say
Imprimis. The said Robert Dawes for him, his executors, and
administrators doth covenante, promise, and graunt to and with
the said Phillipp Henslowe and Jacob Meade, their executors,
administrators, and assynes, in manner and formme followinge,
that is to saie, that he the said Robert Dawes shall and will
plaie with such company, as the said Phillipp Henslowe and
Jacob Meade shall appoynte, for and during the tyme and space
of three yeares from the date hereof for and at the rate of one
whole share, accordinge to the custome of players; and that he
the said Robert Dawes shall and will at all tymes during the
said terme duly attend all suche rehearsall, which shall the
night before the rehearsall be given publickly out; and if that
he the saide Robert Dawes shall at any tyme faile to come at
the hower appoynted, then he shall and will pay to the said
Phillipp Henslowe and Jacob Meade, their executors or assignes,
Twelve pence; and if he come not before the saide rehearsall
is ended, then the said Robert Dawes is contented to pay Twoe
shillings; and further that if the said Robert Dawes shall not
every daie, whereon any play is or ought to be played, be ready
apparrelled and ---- to begyn the play at the hower of three of
the clock in the afternoone, unles by sixe of the same company
he shall be lycenced to the contrary, that then he, the saide
Robert Dawes, shall and will pay unto the said Phillipp and
Jacob or their assignes Three [shillings]; and if that he, the
saide Robert Dawes, happen to be overcome with drinck at the
tyme when he [ought to] play, by the judgment of ffower of the
said company, he shall and will pay Tenne shillings; and if he,
[the said Robert Dawes], shall [faile to come] during any plaie,
having noe lycence or just excuse of sicknes, he is contented
to pay Twenty shillings; and further the said Robert Dawes,
for him, his executors, and administrators, doth covenant and
graunt to and with the said Phillipp Henslowe and Jacob Meade,
their executors, administrators, and asignes, by these presents,
that it shall and may be lawfull unto and for the said Phillipp
Henslowe and Jacob Meade, their executors or assignes, during
the terme aforesaid, to receave and take back to their own
proper use the part of him, the said Robert Dawes, of and in one
moyetie or halfe part of all suche moneyes, as shal be receaved
at the Galleries & tyring howse of such house or howses wherein
he the saide Robert Dawes shall play, for and in consideration
of the use of the same howse and howses; and likewis shall
and may take and receave his other moyetie ...[ extra spaces
] the moneys receaved at the galleries and tiring howse dues,
towards the pa[ying] to them, the saide Phillip Henslowe and
Jacob Meade, of the some of one hundred twenty and fower pounds,
being the value of the stock of apparell furnished by the saide
company by the saide Phillip Henslowe and Jacob Meade ...[ extra
spaces ] the one part of him the saide Robert Dawes or any other
somes ...[ extra spaces ] to them for any apparell hereafter
newly to be bought by the [said Phillip Henslowe and Jacob
Meade, until the saide Phillip Henslowe and Jacob Meade] shall
therby be fully satisfied, contented, and paid. And further
the said Robert Dawes doth covenant, [promise, and graunt to
and with the said Phillip Henslowe and Jacob Meade, that if
he, the said Robert Dawes], shall at any time after the play
is ended depart or goe out of the [howse] with any [of their]
apparell on his body, or if the said Robert Dawes [shall carry
away any propertie] belonging to the said company, or shal be
consentinge [or privy to any other of the said company going
out of the howse with any of their apparell on his or their
bodies, he, the said] Robert Dawes, shall and will forfeit and
pay unto the said Phillip and Jacob, or their administrators
or assignes, the some of ffortie pounds of lawfull [money of
England] ...[ extra spaces ] and the said Robert Dawes, for
him, his executors, and administrators doth [covenant promise
and graunt to with the said] Phillip Henslowe and Jacob Meade,
their executors, and administrators [and assigns] [ extra spaces
] that it shall and may be lawfull to and for the said Phillip
Henslowe and Jacob Meade, their executors, and assignes, to have
and use the playhows so appoynted [for the said company [ extra
spaces ] one day of] every fower daies, the said daie to be
chosen by the said Phillip and [Jacob] [ extra spaces ] Monday
in any week, on which day it shalbe lawful for the said Phillip
[and Jacob, their administrators], and assignes, to bait their
bears and bulls ther, and to use their accustomed sport and
[games] [ extra spaces ] and take to their owne use all suche
somes of money, as thereby shall arise and be receaved
And the saide Robert Dawes, his executors, administrators, and
assignes, [do hereby covenant, promise, and graunt to and with
the saide Phillip and Jacob,] allowing to the saide company
daye the some of ffortie shillings money of England ... [In
testimony] for every such whereof, I the saide Robert Dawes haue
hereunto sett my hand and seal this [sev]enth daie of April 1614
in the twelfth yeare [of the reign of our sovereign lord &c.]
Robert Dawes.
It must be mainly matter of conjecture at what theatres the Lady
Elizabeth’s had played from 1611 to 1614. Possibly they may have begun
at the Swan. Middleton’s _A Chaste Maid in Cheapside_ was published as
‘often acted at the Swan on the Bankeside by the Lady Elizabeth her
Seruants’, and although this publication was not until 1630, it is
rather tempting to identify the play with _The Proud Maid_ of 1611–12.
Probably the association of the company with Henslowe led to a transfer
to the Rose; and after the joining of forces with Rosseter in March
1613, the Whitefriars must have been available for the combination.
That there were alternatives open in 1613 is shown by two passages
in Daborne’s letters.[704] On 5 June he says that the company were
expecting Henslowe to conclude ‘about thear comming over or goinge
to Oxford’, and by ‘comming over’ may most naturally be understood
crossing the Thames. On 9 December he claims that a book he is upon
will ‘make as good a play for your publique howse as ever was playd’,
and the inference is that at the time Henslowe was interested in a
‘private’ as well as in a ‘public’ house. Certainly the Watermen’s
complaint in the spring of 1614 indicates that there were then no plays
on Bankside, and both the Swan and the Rose must therefore have been
deserted. But by the autumn the Lady Elizabeth’s men were in the Clink,
occupying the newly built Hope on the site of the old Bear-garden; and
that the use of this theatre was contemplated in the agreements of the
previous spring is shown both by the presence of Meade, who is not
known to have been interested in any other house, as a party, and by
the reservation of one day in fourteen for the purpose of baiting.[705]
It was at the Hope that William Fennor failed to appear to try his
challenge with John Taylor on 7 October, and the Lady Elizabeth’s men
were presumably the players--
And such a company (I’ll boldly say)
That better (nor the like) ne’er played a play--
who came to the rescue and saved the occasion from fiasco. And it was
at the Hope and by the Lady Elizabeth’s men, as the Induction and the
title-page show, that Jonson’s _Bartholomew Fair_ was produced on 31
October. There is a reference in the text of the play to Taylor’s
adventure,[706] and a compliment to Field, which puts him on a level
with Burbadge of the King’s men.[707] _Bartholomew Fair_ was presented
on the very next day before James at Court. This performance, for which
Field was payee on 11 June, was the only one by the company during the
winter festivities of 1614–15. In February 1615 there was a breach
between Henslowe and the company, as a result of which the Articles of
Grievance were drawn up. According to the Articles Henslowe ‘brooke
the companie’; but it is not quite clear what exactly took place. In
some form the Lady Elizabeth’s men certainly continued to exist. They
visited Nottingham in March 1615, and a letter from Lord Coke to the
Mayor of Coventry shows that they also contemplated a visit to that
town in the same month.[708] My impression is that they subsequently
patched up another reconstruction with Henslowe, and that on this
occasion the process did entail some kind of amalgamation with Prince
Charles’s men. Field, however, probably now joined the King’s men. The
Lady Elizabeth’s do not appear to have been separately represented
when the Privy Council called the London companies before them for a
breach of Lent on 29 March 1615. It is true that they may have been
alone in not offending, but it is more probable that William Rowley
and John Newton, who were summoned, answered for the amalgamation. The
Prince’s men are recorded as playing at Court during the Christmas of
1615–16 and the Lady Elizabeth’s men are not. Yet the payee for their
four plays, of which the dates are not specified, was Alexander Foster,
who had been a Lady Elizabeth’s man and not a Prince’s man. But it
is probable that both this amalgamation and the earlier one between
the Lady Elizabeth’s and the Queen’s Revels, although effective as a
business operation from Henslowe’s point of view, did not amount to a
complete merging of identities, such as would entail a surrender of
one or other of the official patents. Certainly the Lady Elizabeth’s,
the Prince’s and the Revels were in some sense distinct, and yet in
the closest relationship in 1615. So much is clear from Rosseter’s
patent of 3 June to build in the Blackfriars, which contemplated that
all three companies would share in the use of the new house. That
the joint user extended also to plays is suggested by the title-page
of Field’s _Amends for Ladies_ (1618) which declares it to have been
‘acted at the Blacke-Fryers, both by the Princes Seruants and the Lady
Elizabeths’. Perhaps this indicates alternative rather than combined
playing. Whatever the arrangement, it was probably altered again on or
before Henslowe’s death on 6 January 1616.[709] A company containing
many of the former Lady Elizabeth’s men remained at the Hope. But they
went under Prince Charles’s patronage, and it is not until 1622, when
we find them at Christopher Beeston’s house of the Cockpit or Phoenix,
that we can be sure of the presence of Lady Elizabeth’s men in London
once more.[710] But they had held together in the provinces. Possibly
the nucleus of the provincial company had been formed of men left out
by the Henslowe-Rosseter negotiations of 1613–14. They first appear
at Norwich on 2 March 1614 under Nicholas Long, who in 1612 had been
travelling with Queen’s Revels boys. They came again on 27 May 1615
with an exemplification of the 1611 patent dated 31 May 1613, and again
on 5 June 1616 under John Townsend, and again on 7 June 1617 under
Henry Sebeck. In the same year Joseph Moore was acting as an agent of
the Lord Chamberlain and Master of the Revels in clearing the provinces
of irregularly licensed players, not improbably in the interests of
the Lady Elizabeth’s themselves, whose original patent was now set
free, through changes in London, for provincial use in place of a mere
exemplification.[711] The company is also traceable at Leicester,
Coventry, Nottingham, Marlborough, and elsewhere from 1614,[712] and on
11 July 1617 Townsend and Moore received a warrant for £30 in respect
of three plays given before James during his journey to Scotland.[713]
On 20 March 1618 Townsend and Moore, with Alexander Foster and Francis
Waymus, obtained a new licence under the royal signet.[714] This
authorized them to play in London, and their actual return there may
have been earlier than 1622.
XIV
INTERNATIONAL COMPANIES
i. ITALIAN PLAYERS IN ENGLAND
[_Bibliographical Note._--The wanderings of the Italian
companies in Italy itself and in France are recounted in A.
D’Ancona, _Origini del Teatro Italiano_ (ed. 2, 1891), and A.
Baschet, _Les Comédiens italiens à la Cour de France_ (1882),
but without much knowledge of the few English records. W.
Smith, _Italian and Elizabethan Comedy_ (_M. P._ v. 555) and
_The Commedia dell’ Arte_ (1912), deals more fully with these.
The literary influence of Italian comedy is discussed by L. L.
Schücking, _Die stofflichen Beziehungen der englischen Komödie
zur italienischen bis Lilly_ (1901), and R. W. Bond, _Early
Plays from the Italian_ (1911).]
The England of Elizabeth and James was a lender rather than a borrower
of players. No records have been disinterred of French actors in this
country between 1495 and 1629;[715] and although there are a few of
Italian actors, their visits seem to have been confined to a single
brief period.[716] The head-quarters of Italian comedy during the
middle of the sixteenth century was at the Court of Mantua, and when
Lord Buckhurst went as ambassador to congratulate Charles IX of France
on his wedding, it was by Louis Gonzaga, Duke of Nevers and brother
of the Duke of Mantua, that he was entertained on 4 March 1571 ‘with
a comedie of Italians that for the good mirth and handling thereof
deserved singular comendacion’.[717] In the following year the Earl of
Lincoln was at Paris from 8 to 22 June in order to conclude a treaty,
and letters relate how he saw at the Louvre ‘an Italian playe, and
dyvers vauters and leapers of dyvers sortes verie excellent’, and how
later, when he visited the King at the Chateau de Madrid, ‘he had some
pastyme showed him by Italian players, which I was at with hym’.[718]
It may perhaps have been encouragement from one or both of these
nobles, which led an Italian company not long afterwards to make its
way across the Channel. The first notice of it is at Nottingham in
September 1573, when a reward was ‘gevin to the Italyans for serteyne
pastymes that they shewed before Maister Meare and his brethren’.[719]
In 1574 the Revels Accounts include expenditure ‘for the Italyan
players that ffollowed the progresse and made pastyme fyrst at Wynsor
and afterwardes at Reading’. Elizabeth was at Windsor on 11 and 12
July; on 15 July she removed to Reading and remained there to 22 July.
At Windsor the Italians used ‘iij devells cotes and heades & one olde
mannes fries cote’; at Reading, where they performed on 15 July, the
provisions included staves, hooks, and lambskins for shepherds, arrows
for nymphs, a scythe for Saturn, and ‘horstayles for the wylde mannes
garment’. Professor Feuillerat appears to suggest that they may have
been playing Tasso’s _Aminta_, produced at Ferrara on 31 July 1573.
But there were other pastorals.[720] The Italians are probably the
comedians commended to the Lord Mayor on 22 July, and in November
Thomas Norton calls special attention to ‘the unchaste, shamelesse and
unnaturall tomblinge of the Italian weomen’. How long this company
remained in England is unknown. There was an Italian acrobat at the
Kenilworth festivities on 14 July 1575, but the description suggests
that he was a solitary performer.[721] The Treasurer of the Chamber
paid ‘Alfruso Ferrabolle and the rest of the Italian players’ for
a play at Court on 27 February 1576, to the consideration of which
I shall return. In April 1577 there was an Italian play before the
Council at Durham Place.[722] Finally, on 13 January 1578, the Privy
Council addressed a letter to the Lord Mayor, requiring him to permit
‘one Drousiano, an Italian, a commediante and his companye’, to play
until the first week of the coming Lent. I take it that the company
was also at Court, since the Chamber Accounts for 1577–8 include an
item ‘for a mattres hoopes and boardes with tressells for the Italian
Tumblers’. The company to which the visit of 1573–4 was due cannot be
identified with any certainty. Presumably it came through France, and
ought to have left signs there. There seem to have been three Italian
companies in France during 1571. The first, in February, was that of
Giovanni Tabarin. The second, that seen by Lord Buckhurst in Paris,
was the famous Compagnia de’ Gelosi, of which one Signora Vittoria, of
Ferrara, known on the stage as Fioretta, was the prima donna. This,
however, had returned to Milan by the spring of 1572 and its subsequent
movements hardly render a visit to England in 1573 plausible. A third
company, that of Alberto Ganassa, a Zanni or clown from Bergamo,
reached Paris in the autumn of 1571.[723] It was sent away by the
Parlement on account of its high charges for admission, but returned
in 1572 and played at the wedding of Henri of Navarre and Marguerite
of Valois on 18 August. Nothing is heard of Ganassa in France after
October 1572, but during the summer of 1574 he seems to have been in
Madrid; so he also is not available for the English visit. It may
very likely have been his company which the Earl of Lincoln saw. But
it may also have been that led by Soldino of Florence and Anton Maria
of Venice, which was performing ‘commedies et saults’ before Charles
IX at Blois on 25 March 1572, and subsequently made its way to Paris.
My authorities say nothing further about Soldino and Anton Maria, so
we are at liberty to believe that Lincoln invited them to try their
fortune across the sea.[724]
The ‘Drousiano’ of 1578 offers less difficulty. He must have been
Drusiano, son of Francisco Martinelli, of Mantua, who in after years
won a considerable reputation, although less than that of his brother
Tristano Martinelli, as Arlecchino in the _commedia dell’ arte_.[725]
There is no other notice of him before 1580, when he subscribes himself
as ‘marito di M^a Angelica’, who appears to have been one Angelica
Alberghini, and the company with which he was associated in 1578 is not
known.[726] But it may very well have been the Gelosi. This company
paid in 1577 their second visit to France, upon the invitation of Henri
III, and remained there at least until July. They seem to have been in
Florence fairly early in 1578, but some or all of them may have found
time for an English trip in the interval. Direct proof that Drusiano
Martinelli ever belonged to the Gelosi is lacking. But they are the
only Italian company known to have been in France in the summer of
1577, and players are not likely to have passed from Italy to England
without leaving some traces of their presence in France.[727]
The professional Italian actors of the second half of the sixteenth
century played both the popular _commedia dell’ arte_ and the literary
_commedia erudita_, or _commedia sostenuta_. The former, with its more
or less improvised dialogue upon scenarii, which revolved around the
amorous and ridiculous adventures of the _zanni_, the _arlecchino_, the
_dottore_, and other standing types, was probably best adapted to the
methods of wandering mimes in an alien land.[728] The latter was common
to professionals and amateurs. And I suspect that the Court play of 27
February 1576, although it earned its reward from the Treasurer of the
Chamber, was an amateur performance. The ‘Alfruso Ferrabolle’ of the
account-book can hardly be other than a clerical perversion of the name
of Alfonso Ferrabosco, the first of three generations of that name,
father, son, and grandson, who contributed in turn to the gaiety of
the English Court. The eldest Ferrabosco was certainly in this country
by 1562 when he was granted an annuity of 100 marks. His service
terminated after various interruptions in 1578.[729] He is doubtless
the ‘Mr. Alphonse’ who took part in the preparation of a mask in June
1572.[730] In connexion with the same mask, a reward was paid to one
‘Petrucio’, while for a later mask of 11 January 1579 ‘Patruchius
Ubaldinas’ was employed to translate speeches into Italian and write
them out fair in tables.[731] This was Petruccio Ubaldini, another of
Elizabeth’s Italian pensioners, who was both a literary man and an
illuminator, and made his residence in England from 1562 to 1586.[732]
It is quite possible that the performance of 1576 may be referred to in
the following undated letter from Ubaldini to the Queen, in which he
makes mention of Ferrabosco.[733] If so, it came off after all.
Sacra Serenissima Maiesta,
Perché à i giorni passati io haveva promesso à M. Claudio
Cavallerizzo, et à M. Alfonso Ferrabosco, d’esser contento di
recitare ad una piacevol Comedia Italiana; per compiacere alla
Maiesta Vostra; et non si trovando di poi altri, che tre ò
quattro, che fusser contenti d’accettar tal carico; ho voluto
che l’Altezza Vostra conosca da me stesso il pronto animo,
ch’ io ho per la mia parté di servirla, et di compiacerla in
ogni attioné, che me sia comandata ò da lei, ò in suo nomé,
non solamente comé servitore giurato, ch’io gli sono; ma comé
desiderosissimo di far conoscere, che la divotioné, ch’io
porto allé sue Reali qualità, supera ogn’ altro rispetto;
desiderandogli io contentezza, et felicità non meno, che
qualunqué altro suo servitore gli desideri: la cui bontà Dio ci
prosperi.
Di Vostra Sacra Serenissima Maiesta.
Of Claudio Cavallerizzo I regret to say that I know nothing.
A statement that Venetian actors were in England in 1608 rests upon a
misreading of a record.[734]
ii. ENGLISH PLAYERS IN SCOTLAND
The interlude players of Henry VII, under John English, accompanied the
Princess Margaret to Scotland for her wedding with James IV in 1503,
and ‘did their devoir’ before the Court at Edinburgh.[735] It is the
best part of a century before any similar adventure is recorded. In the
interval came the Scottish reformation, which was no friend to courtly
pageantry. Yet in Scotland, as elsewhere, Kirk discipline had to make
some compromise with the drama. In 1574 the General Assembly, while
utterly forbidding, not for the first time, ‘clerk playes, comedies or
tragedies maid of ye cannonicall Scriptures’, went on to ordain ‘an
article to be given in to sick as sitts upon ye policie yat for uther
playes comedies tragedies and utheris profaine playes, as are not maid
upon authentick pairtes of ye Scriptures, may be considerit before
they be exponit publictlie and yat they be not played uppon ye Sabboth
dayes’.[736] It was once more a royal wedding that led to a histrionic
courtesy between England and Scotland. In the autumn of 1589 James VI
was expecting the arrival of his bride Anne of Denmark, a sensuous
and spectacle-loving lady, who had already had experience of English
actors at her father’s Court in 1586.[737] And being then, two years
after his mother’s execution, actively engaged in promoting friendly
relations with Elizabeth, he sent a request through one Roger Ashton
to Lord Scrope, the Warden of the English West Marches, ‘for to have
her Majesties players for to repayer into Scotland to his grace’. In
reply Scrope wrote from Carlisle on 20 September to William Ashby, the
English ambassador at Edinburgh, begging him to notify the King, that
he had sent a servant to them, ‘wheir they were in the furthest parte
of Langkeshire, whervpon they made their returne heather to Carliell,
wher they are, and have stayed for the space of ten dayes’.[738] After
all, the Lapland witches and their winds delayed Anne’s crossing for
some months, and James had himself to join her in Denmark. It is, I
think, only a conjecture that the players whose ‘book’ was submitted on
3 June 1589 for the licence of the Kirk Session at Perth, in accordance
with the order of 1574, were Englishmen.[739] But certainly ‘Inglis
comedianis’ were in Scotland in 1594, probably for the baptism of Henry
Frederick on 30 August, and received from James the generous gift of
£333 6_s._ 8_d._ out of ‘the composicioun of the escheit of ye laird
of Kilcrewch and his complices’.[740] Probably Laurence Fletcher was
at the head of this expedition, for on 22 March 1595 George Nicolson,
the English agent at Edinburgh, wrote to Robert Bowes, treasurer
of Berwick, that, ‘The King heard that Fletcher, the player, was
hanged, and told him and Roger Aston so, in merry words, not believing
it, saying very pleasantly that if it were true he would hang them
also’.[741] In any case, Fletcher appears to have been the leader of
a company whose peregrinations in Scotland a few years later, much
favoured by James, were also much embarrassed by the critical relations
which then existed between the Sovereign and the Kirk. It is only a
conjecture that this was the company which was refused leave to play at
St. Andrews on 1 October 1598.[742] But of greater troubles, which took
place at Edinburgh a year later, we are very well informed. They are
detailed from the Kirk point of view in the more or less contemporary
chronicle of David Calderwood.[743]
_The King Chargeth the Kirk of Edinburgh to Rescind an Act._
Some English comedians came to this countrie in the moneth of
October. After they had acted sindrie comedeis in presence of
the King, they purchassed at last a warrant or precept to the
bailliffes of Edinburgh, to gett them an hous within the toun.
Upon Moonday, the 12^{th} of November, they gave warning by
trumpets and drummes through the streets of Edinburgh, to all
that pleased, to come to the Blacke Friers’ Wynd to see the
acting of their comedeis. The ministers of Edinburgh, fearing
the profanitie that was to ensue, speciallie the profanatioun
of the Sabbath day, convocated the foure sessiouns of the Kirk.
An act was made by commoun consent, that none resort to these
profane comedeis, for eshewing offence of God, and of evill
exemple to others; and an ordinance was made, that everie
minister sould intimat this act in their owne severall pulpits.
They had indeid committed manie abusses, speciallie upon the
Sabboth, at night before. The King taketh the act in evill part,
as made purposelie to crosse his warrant, and caused summoun
the ministers and foure sessiouns, _super inquirendis_, before
the Secreit Counsell, They sent doun some in commissioun to
the King, and desired the mater might be tryed privatlie, and
offered, if they had offended, to repair the offence at his
owne sight; and alledged they had the warrant of the synod
presentlie sitting in the toun. The King would have the mater to
come in publict. When they went doun, none was called upon but
M^r. Peter Hewat and Henrie Nisbit. After that they were heard,
the sentence was givin out against all the rest unheard, and
charge givin to the ministers and foure sessiouns to conveene,
within three houres after, to rescind their former ordinance,
and to the ministers, to intimat the contrarie of that which
they intimated before. They craved to be heard. Loath was the
King, yitt the counsell moved him to heare them. M^r. Johne
Hall was appointed to be their mouth. ‘We are summouned, Sir,’
said M^r. Johne, ‘and crave to understand to what end.’ ‘It is
true’, said the King, ‘yee are summouned, and I have decerned
alreadie.’ M^r. Johne made no reply. M^r. Robert Bruce said, ‘If
it might stand with your good pleasure, we would know wherefore
this hard sentence is past against us.’ ‘For contraveening of
my warrant,’ said the King. ‘We have fulfilled your warrant,’
said M^r. Robert, ‘for your warrant craved no more but an hous
to them, which they have gottin.’ ‘To what end, I pray you,
sought I an hous,’ said the King, ‘but onlie that the people
might resort to their comedeis?’ ‘Your warrant beareth not that
end,’ said M^r. Robert, ‘and we have good reasoun to stay them
from their playes, even by your owne acts of parliament.’ The
King answered, ‘Yee are not the interpreters of my lawes.’ ‘And
farther, the warrant was intimated but to one or two,’ said
M^r. Robert, and, therefore, desired the King to retreate the
sentence. The King would alter nothing. ‘At the least, then,’
said M^r. Robert, ‘lett the paine strike upon us, and exeeme
our people.’ The King bade him make away. So, in departing,
M^r. Robert turned, and said, ‘Sir, please you, nixt the regard
we ow to God, we had a reverent respect to your Maiestie’s
royall person, and person of your queene; for we heard that the
comedians, in their playes, checked your royall person with
secreit and indirect taunts and checkes; and there is not a man
of honour in England would give such fellowes so much as their
countenance’. So they departed.