printed by Cunningham. The Pipe Office Declared Accounts are complete.
I have not examined those of the Audit Office. The Original Accounts
for 1604–5 and 1611–12, and especially the former, have been the
subject of a good deal of controversy. The facts are as follows. They
were printed in 1842 by Peter Cunningham, then a clerk in the Audit
Office, who described them as a separate discovery from the Elizabethan
bundle, which he also printed. Twenty-six years afterwards, in 1868, he
attempted to sell them to the British Museum, stating that he had found
them some thirty years before ‘under the vaults of Somerset House--far
under the Quadrangle in a dry and lofty cellar, known by the name of
the “Charcoal Repository”’. Their official character was realized,
and they were sent to the Record Office, and placed amongst the papers
known as _Audit Office, Accounts Various_, 3, 908 (formerly 1214),
with a note that Mr. E. A. Bond, Keeper of the Manuscripts in the
British Museum, ‘saw reasons for doubting the genuineness of one, at
least, of these papers, from the peculiar character of the writing and
the spelling’. It is probable that Bond had in mind, wholly or mainly,
the play-list of the 1604–5 book, which does use some spellings, such
as ‘Shaxberd’ and ‘aleven’, which are unusual although by no means
unparalleled, and is, moreover, in a style of handwriting sufficiently
different from the rest of the document to have at first sight a
suspicious air. But it is an integral part of the book, occupying ff.
2, 2^v of its three small folio sheets, with other matter both on ff.
1, 1^v, and on ff. 5, 5^v, which form the second half of its sheet, and
therefore, if a forged insertion, it occupies a long blank conveniently
left by the original scribe just where, according to Revels practice,
such a list ought to come. Bond’s scepticism was shared by Sir Thomas
Duffus Hardy, and although the grounds of it did not extend beyond the
play-list in the 1604–5 account, the acceptance of this as a forgery
naturally reflected some suspicion upon the corresponding list for
1611–12. The position, however, called for some reconsideration when,
in _A Note on Measure for Measure_ (1880) and subsequently in the
fifth edition (1885) of his _Outlines_ (ed. 9, ii. 163, 309),
Halliwell-Phillipps called attention to evidence that Malone, at some
date before his death in 1812, and therefore before Cunningham was
born, was acquainted at least with the substance of the 1604–5 list.
The Bodleian contains a number of Malone’s note-books, which are
believed to have been purchased from Mr. Rodd, a London bookseller,
in 1838, and contain material collected after the issue of Malone’s
_Shakespeare_ of 1790 with a view to a second edition ultimately
produced by Boswell in 1821. With them were a bundle of loose scraps,
which have since been mounted and bound as a supplementary volume.
One of these scraps (_Malone MS._ 29, f. 69^v) consists of a
list of plays headed ‘1604 & 1605 Ed^d. Tylney’, which substantially
agrees with the list in the Revels book, even to the unusual spelling
‘Shaxberd’, although it is clearly not a transcript of the Revels list,
but merely an abstract of this, or a similar document, in an unknown
hand other than Malone’s. One of the plays named in the Revels book,
_The Spanish Maze_ of Shrove Monday, is omitted. No use of the
scrap had been made by Boswell, although he prints (_Variorum_,
iii. 360) extracts made by Malone from the Elizabethan Revels books,
together with a letter of 7 Nov. 1591 from Sir William Musgrave, of
the Audit Office, inviting Malone to inspect them, and an official
memorandum on the ‘State of the Books of Accounts and Records of the
Master of the Revels, still remaining in the Office for Auditing the
Public Accounts in 1791’. It is, I think, inconceivable that, if the
Jacobean as well as the Elizabethan books had then been discovered,
no reference should have been made to them either by Musgrave or
Malone, and the most probable explanation of the Bodleian scrap is
that the Jacobean books turned up later, and that an abstract of the
1604–5 list was then prepared for the use of Malone. It is true that
in that case the Jacobean books would naturally have been added to
the ‘proper presses’ which Musgrave says that he had provided for the
Elizabethan ones, whereas Cunningham found the two sets apart. But as
Cunningham also says that he had redeemed the Elizabethan bundle from
‘a destructive oblivion’, it is possible that Musgrave’s successors had
been neglectful. Moreover, although the 1604–5 list does not appear in
the 1821 _Variorum_, it is difficult to see on what other grounds
Malone can have stated of _Othello_ (_Variorum_, ii. 404),
‘We know that it was acted in 1604’. Probably, indeed, he had seen the
list, before he abandoned in a note of 1800 to Dryden’s _Grounds of
Criticism in Tragedy_ his earlier opinion that _Othello_ was
one of Shakespeare’s latest plays. Further, there is similar indirect
evidence that he had also come across the 1611–12 list. In 1808 he
privately printed and in 1809 published an _Account of the ...
Tempest_, written ‘some years ago’. The chief object of this was
to fix an inferior date by Shakespeare’s use of a pamphlet of 1610.
The superior date he took for granted, saying (p. 31) ‘That it was
performed before the middle of 1611, we have already seen’, and adding
the foot-note ‘Under a former article’. There was no former article,
but in the preface Malone describes the essay as making ‘a part of
the Disquisition concerning the order of the plays in an enlarged
form’, and no doubt the former article would have been included in
the disquisition, had Malone ever completed his own work. Boswell,
reprinting the essay in _Variorum_, xv. 414, altered the foot-note
to refer to the essay on the Chronological Order of Shakespeare’s Plays
in ‘vol. i’. This is in fact in vol. ii, but though Boswell here states
(ii. 465) that there is evidence that the _Tempest_ ‘was produced
in 1611’, he does not give any evidence beyond the pamphlet of 1610.
Probably he did not know everything that Malone knew. But how did
Malone arrive at ‘the middle of 1611’, since the 1604–5 list does not
take us beyond 1 Nov. 1611? I suppose he assumed that public production
preceded performance at court. Later in the essay (_Variorum_, xv.
423) he says that the play ‘had a being and a name in the autumn of
1611’.
Since Halliwell-Phillipps’s discovery the prevalent view, suggested by
him, has been that if the lists, or at any rate that of 1604–5, are
forged, the forger had before him a genuine original. More recently,
however, the matter has been fully investigated by Mr. Ernest Law, who
stimulated the Record Office to a minute examination of the 1604–5
document, including chemical and microscopical tests of the ink
conducted by Professor J. J. Dobbie at the Government Laboratories.
As a result, Mr. Law’s own view that the list is genuine is confirmed
by such high palaeographical authorities as Sir George Warner of the
British Museum and Sir Henry Maxwell Lyte, Mr. Scargill-Bird, and other
officers of the Record Office, as well as by Professor Feuillerat,
than whom no one knows the Revels documents better, and Professor
Wallace. Mr. Law set out the evidence and the whole history of the
case in _Some Supposed Shakespeare Forgeries_ (1911). His view
was controverted in a review and a number of subsequent communications
in the _Athenaeum_ for 1911 (i. 638; ii. 101, 131, 421) and 1912
(i. 469, 654; ii. 142) by a writer using the signature ‘Audi Alteram
Partem’, whose rather amazing contentions Mr. Law disposed of in the
same periodical (1911, ii. 297, 324, 388; 1912, i. 390, 470) and in
_More about Shakespeare Forgeries_ (1913). A recent controversy
between Mrs. C. C. Stopes, Mr. Law, and Sir E. M. Thompson (_T. L.
S._ 2, 23, 30 Dec. 1920; 27 Jan., 10, 24 Feb. 1921) has led to no
different result.
I do not think that, in view of the palaeographical investigation, it
is any longer possible to reject the genuineness of the 1604–5 list,
and although that of 1611–12 has not been so minutely tested, it is
pretty obviously of a piece with the ‘Book’ of which it forms a part,
and had it stood alone, probably no suspicion would have fallen upon
it. In fact, it would really be more plausible--although this also is
not in the least plausible--to take the whole documents as forgeries,
than to take the lists as forged insertions in genuine accounts.
It must be added that there are some singular things about the
substance of the books, with which Mr. Law does not seem to me quite
to grapple. On the whole, that of 1604–5 is rather less perplexing
than that of 1611–12. But the scribe has been oddly confused about his
dates. On f. 1^v he has written ‘iij^o’, instead of ‘ij^o’ for the
regnal year. And at the top of f. 2 he has apparently written ‘1605’
and then corrected it to ‘1604’. The Queen’s Revels are called by
their obsolete name of ‘The Boyes of the Chapell’, which is odd in an
official document, but so they are, much later, in the Treasurer of the
Chamber’s account for 1612–13. It is more important that, while the
Treasurer of the Chamber records payments for two plays to the Queen’s
Revels, one on 1 Jan. and the other on 3 Jan., the Revels list omits
the play on 3 Jan. altogether, and instead records a performance of
_Love’s Labour’s Lost_ by the King’s men ‘betwin Newers Day and
Twelfe Day’. No complete explanation of this is possible. The most that
can be said is that there is independent evidence of a performance
of _Love’s Labour’s Lost_ in Jan. 1605, but at a date after
and not before Twelfth Night. This is derived from two letters. The
first is from Sir Walter Cope to Robert Cecil, Viscount Cranborne,
preserved at Hatfield (_Hist. MSS._ iii. 148) and printed by
Halliwell-Phillipps, ii. 83:
‘I have sent and bene all thys morning huntyng for players
juglers and such kinde of creaturs, but fynde them harde to
fynde; wherfore, leavinge notes for them to seeke me, Burbage
ys come, and sayes ther ys no new playe that the Quene hath not
seene, but they have revyved an olde one cawled _Loves Labore
lost_, which for wytt and mirthe he sayes will please her
excedingly. And thys ys apointed to be playd tomorowe night
at my Lord of Sowthamptons, unless yow send a wrytt to remove
the corpus cum causa to your howse in Strande. Burbage ys my
messenger ready attendyng your pleasure.’
The letter is undated, but endorsed ‘1604’. Cecil’s title was Viscount
Cranborne from 20 Aug. 1604 to 4 May 1605. A second letter, from Dudley
Carleton to John Chamberlain on 15 Jan. 1605 (_S. P. D. Jac. I_,
xii. 13) gives within near limits the date of the performance. Carleton
says,
‘It seems we shall have Christmas all the yeare and therefore I
shall never be owt of matter. The last nights revels were kept
at my Lord of Cranbornes, where the Q. with the D. of Holst and
a great part of the Court were feasted, and the like two nights
before at my Lord of Southamptons. The Temples have both of them
done somewhat since Twelftide but nothing memorable, save that
it was observed on Friday last at night the greatest part of the
femal audience was the sisterhoode of Blackfriers.’
Mr. Law (_More about S. F._ 50) rightly rejects the suggestion of
‘Audi Alteram Partem’ that the ‘last night’ referred to was necessarily
14 Jan., the night before the date of Carleton’s letter; but I think
he is wrong in taking it as the last night of Christmas. This, of
course, was traditionally Twelfth Night, the day in 1605 of Jonson’s
_Mask of Blackness_. But surely Carleton’s whole point lies in
the exceptional prolongation of the Christmas festivities of this year
beyond Twelfth Night, and I feel clear that all the revels he here
refers to fell between 6 and 15 Jan. On 7 and 8 Jan. came _Hen. V_
and _E. M. O._ Putting the facts together, we get a performance,
either at Southampton’s house or Cranborne’s, between 8 and 15 Jan. of
_Love’s Labour’s Lost_, which the Queen had not seen before. It
is not therefore at all likely that there had been another performance
of the same play at court between 1 and 6 Jan. It is true that the
Queen might by some accident have missed such a performance. But that
would not have prevented the Treasurer of the Chamber from paying for
it, whereas he would not pay for a performance ordered as part of an
entertainment given by Southampton or Cranborne. Nor would it have been
the duty of the Revels Office to attend such a performance, which makes
it rather mystifying that they should have confused it with the second
Queen’s Revels performance at court some days earlier, which it would
have been their duty to attend. The vagueness of the phrase ‘betwin
Newers Day and Twelfe Day’, suggesting that the list was prepared
retrospectively from memory, when the account was made up in the autumn
of 1605, may perhaps help to explain an error. On the other hand, a
forger, presumably knowing nothing of Cope’s letter, which first came
to light in 1872, could hardly have guessed at a revival of _Love’s
Labour’s Lost_ in 1605.
The discrepancies between the Revels list of 1611–12 and the
corresponding accounts of the Treasurer of the Chamber are rather
numerous. The Revels list records thirteen plays from 1 Nov. to 25
Feb. ‘before the Kinges Maiestie’, including two which, although, I
suppose, ordered for the King, were in fact only given before the Queen
and Prince. The Treasurer paid for only ten plays as before the King,
and for many others before the younger members of the royal family
only, with which the Revels would not normally be concerned. The two
records agree as to 1 and 5 Nov., 26, 27, and 29 Dec., and 2, 23, and
25 Feb. On 28 Dec. the Treasurer notes a play by the Prince’s men which
the Revels list does not. On 1 Jan. the Revels list notes a play by
the King’s men, which the Treasurer does not. The play on 5 Jan. is
assigned by the Treasurer to the King’s men, and by the Revels list to
the Whitefriars. The plays on 12 and 13 Jan. appear from the Revels
list to have been joint performances by the King’s and Queen’s men, but
the Treasurer notes the play on 12 Jan. only, assigns that to the Duke
of York’s men, and refers to Henry but not to the Queen as present.
He also paid for one play by the King’s men before Henry, of which he
does not give the date, and which may be that of 13 Jan. Both records
note a play by the Duke of York’s men on 24 Feb., but while the Revels
list does not indicate that James was absent, the Treasurer treats the
performance as one before the royal children only. I do not know that
all this is beyond the blundering of the clerks concerned, especially
perhaps the Clerk of the Revels, at a time when the functions of the
office in relation to court plays had become trivial. On the other
hand, I am not clear that plays ordered by the Queen and paid for out
of her privy purse, instead of by the Treasurer of the Chamber, may not
sometimes have been produced under Revels Office auspices; if so, some
of the discrepancies might be thus accounted for. But obviously the
facts necessitate some caution in the use of the 1611–12 list.
ABSTRACT OF PAYMENTS
I now give in tabular form an abstract of all entries in the Chamber
and Revels accounts, which enable us to establish the succession of
court performances during 1558–1616. These are arranged under years
running from Michaelmas to Michaelmas. Four columns are devoted to the
Chamber Accounts. Col. 1 records the dates of the performances, as
recorded in the Declared Accounts. Any correction or closer information
as to date derivable from other sources is added in square brackets.
For the Jacobean period I also show the personages before whom the
performances were given, K. standing for James, Q. for Anne, H. for
Henry, C. for Charles, E. for the Princess Elizabeth, and F. for the
Elector Palatine. Col. 2 contains the verbatim descriptions in the
accounts of the companies performing and their payees, and in a very
few cases of the nature of the performances. A few miscellaneous
entries are inserted in this column. Probably an exhaustive examination
of the records of the subordinate royal households during 1603–16
might enable a few additions to be made. It is also possible that an
occasional play, perhaps on a progress, may have been rewarded out of
the Privy Purse. But the main series of performances provided for the
regular winter ‘solace’ of the sovereign appears to be fairly complete.
Col. 3 shows the amounts of the rewards. Col. 4 adds the dates of the
warrants for payment as given in the Declared Accounts and in brackets
the places where they were made out, W. for Westminster, H. for Hampton
Court, G. for Greenwich, R. for Richmond, J. for St. James’s, Wi. for
Windsor. I add references to the parallel extracts of Cunningham from
the Original Chamber Accounts (C.), and to the notes of the signing of
warrants in the Privy Council Register (D.) where these exist. A fifth
column, for certain years, adds the relevant extracts from such Revels
Accounts as survive. The references are to Feuillerat’s edition. Any
discrepancies of importance between Chamber, Privy Council, and Revels
records are dealt with in foot-notes. The variant dates of warrants in
the ill-kept Privy Council Register are not important.
CHAMBER ACCOUNTS. REVELS ACCOUNTS.
_Perfor- _Payees._ _Amount._ _Warrant._
mance._
=1558–60= (_Pipe Office, Declared Accounts, Roll 541, mm. 17, 22_).
-- ‘Quenes ... £6 13_s._ 4_d._ F. 34 (_1555–60_).
enterlude players [779] ‘ffurnisshinge a
for her hyghnes pley by the
accustomed rewarde children of the
dewevnto them at Chapple.’
Newe yerestyde.’
-- ‘to players of £13 6_s._ 8_d._ F. 79 (_1558–9_).
enterludes.’ ‘playes and other
pastymes sett
forthe and shewen
in her Maiesties
presence.’
=1560–1= (_D. A. 541, m. 28_).
Xmas. ‘Lorde Robte £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 21 Jan. (W.);
Dudleyes C. xxvii.
players.’
Xmas. ‘Sebastiane £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 21 Jan. (W.);
Westcott M^r of C. xxvii.
the Children of
Polles.’
=1561–2= (_D. A. 541, m. 37_).
Xmas. ‘Lorde Robert £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 6 Jan.
Dudeleys
playo^{rs}.’
Xmas. ‘Sebestiane £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 6 Jan.
Westcote M^r of
the Children of
Powles.’
-- ‘Sebastiane £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 9 Mar. (W.);
Westecote M^r of C. xxvii.
the Children of
Powles.’
=1562–3= (_D. A. 541, m. 47_).
Xmas. ‘playo^{res} of £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 10 Jan. (W.);
the Lorde Robte C. xxviii;
Duddeley.’ D. vii. 134.
Xmas. ‘M. of the £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 10 Jan. (W.);
children of C. xxviii;
Poles.’[780] D. vii. 134.
=1563–4= (_no entry in D. A._).
F. 116. ‘Charges
agaynst Cristmas
and Candelmas ffor
iij plays at
Wyndsor.’[781]
=1564–5= (_D. A. 541, m. 67_).
Xmas ‘therle of £13 6_s._ 8_d._ 18 Jan. (W.);
(2 plays).Warwickes C. xxviii;
players.’ D. vii. 187.
Xmas. ‘Sebastian £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 18 Jan. (W.); F. 117. ‘in
Westcote M^r of [782] C. xxviii; Ienevery ffor
the Children of D. vii. 187. cayrtene playes by
Powles.’ the gramar skolle
of Westmynster and
the childerne of
Powles.’
2 Feb ‘Sebastian £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 9 Mar. (W.);
Westcott M^r of C. xxviii;
the Children of D. vii. 204.
Poles.’ F. 116. ‘Cristmas
... ffor a maske
and a showe and a
play by the
childerne of the
Chaple.’
[_In margin_]
‘Edwardes tragedy’.
F. 117. ‘The
xviij^{th} of
februerie ... for
a play maid by Sir
Percivall Hartts
sones with a maske
of huntarsand
diuers devisses
and a rocke or
hill ffor the ix
musses to singe
vppone with a
vayne of sarsnett
dravven vpp and
downe before
them.’
F. 117. ‘Shroftid
[4–6 March] ...
new and diuers
showes made by the
gentillmen of
Greys Ine.’
[_In margin_]
‘Gentillmenne of
y^e Innes of
Court. Diana,
Pallas.’
=1565–6= (_D. A. 541, m. 76_).
Xmas ‘Sebastian £20 3 Jan. (W.).
(3 plays) Westcote M^r of
the Children of
Powles ... for
two seūall playes
... at the Courte
... and one other
also before her
Ma^{tie} at the
Ladye Cecilias
Lodging at the
Savoye.’
=1566–7= (_D. A. 541, m. 92_).
Xmas ‘Sebastyan £13 6_s._ 8_d._ 11 Jan. (W.);
(2 plays) Westcote M^r of D. vii.
the children of 322 (12 Jan.).
Powles.’
Shrove- ‘John Taylor M^r £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 13 Feb. (W.);
tide of the Children D. vii. 327.
(9–11 of Westm^{r}.’
Feb.).
Shrove- ‘Richarde £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 16 Feb.;
tide Farraunte M^r of D. vii. 331
(9–11 the children of (W. 17 Feb.).
Feb.) Windsore.’
[11 Feb.].
[783]
=1567–8= (_D. A. 541, mm. 102–3_).
Xmas. ‘John Tailer M^r £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 10 Jan. (W.). F. 119. ’ theis
of the Children playes Tragides
at Westm^r.’ and Maskes ...
Xmas ‘The Lord Ryches £13 6_s._ 8_d._ 11 Jan. (W.). viz. ... seven
(2 plays).Plaiers.’ playes, the firste
namede as playne
Xmas ‘Sebastian £13 6_s._ 8_d._ 13 Jan. (W.). as canne be, The
(2 plays).Westcote M^r of seconde the
the Children of paynfull
Powles.’ plillgrimage, The
thirde Iacke and
Shrove- ‘William Hunnys £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 3 Mar. (W.). Iyll, The forthe
tide M^r of the sixe fooles, The
(29 Feb. Children of the fiveth callede
-2 Mar.). Quenes Ma^{tes} witte and will,
Chappell ... for The sixte callede
... a Tragedie’. prodigallitie, The
sevoenth of
Shrove- ‘Richarde £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 1 Mar. (W.). Orestes diuers
tide. Ferrante M^r of howses, ...
the children of as Stratoes and a
Windesore.’ Tragedie of the
Kinge of Scottes,
to y^e whiche
belonged howse,
Gobbyns howse,
Orestioes howse
Rome, the Pallace
of prosperitie
Scotlande and a
gret Castell one
thothere side.’
[784]
F. 123. ‘Revelles
vppon
Shrovesonday and
Shroftuisday at
nighte.’
=1568–9= (_D. A. 541, m. 113_).
26 Dec. ‘the Lorde Riches £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 28 Dec. (H.);
players.’ C. xxix.
1 Jan. ‘Sebastian £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 2 Jan.;
Westecote m^r of C. xxix.
the Children of
Powles.’
22 Feb. ‘Richard £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 25 Feb. (W.);
Ferraunte Scole C. xxix.
m^r of the
Children of
Windesore.’
=1569–70= (_D. A. 541, m. 115_).
27 Dec. ‘Richarde £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 2 Jan. (Wi.);
Ferrante Schole C. xxix.
m^r to the
Children of
Windesore.’
6 Jan. ‘Willm Hun̄ys m^r £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 7 Jan. (Wi.);
of the children C. xxix.
of her ma^{tes}
Chappell.’
5 Feb. ‘the Lorde Riches £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 7 Feb. (H.);
playo^{res}.’ C. xxix.
=1570–1= (_D. A. 541, m. 127_).
28 Dec. ‘Sebastian £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 22 Feb.
Westecote M^r of
the Children of
Powles.’
Shrove- ‘Willm̄ Honnyes, £20 28 Feb.
tide (25 Richarde
–7 Feb.) Farraunte and
(3 plays).Sebastian
Westcote M^{rs}
of the Children
of the Q ma^{tes}
Chapple Royall
Windsore and
Powles.’
=1571–2= (_D. A. 541, m. 137_).
27 Dec. ‘Lawrence Dutton £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 5 Jan. (W.); F. 144. ‘Lady
and his D. viii. 61 Barbara showen on
fellowes.’[785] (12 Jan.). Saint Iohns day at
nighte by Sir
Robert Lanes Men.’
28 Dec. ‘Sebastian £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 9 Jan. (W.); ‘Effiginia A
Westcott M^r of D. viii. 62 Tragedye showen on
the Children of (12 Jan.). the Innosentes
Powles.’ daie at nighte by
the Children of
Powles.’
1 Jan. ‘Richard Farrant £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 5 Jan. (W.); ‘Aiax and vlisses
gent M^r of the D. viii. 62 showen on New
Children of (12 Jan.). Yeares daie at
Windsor.’ nighte by the
Children of
Wynsor.’
6 Jan. ‘Willm̄ Hunnys £6 13_s._ 4_d._ N.D.; D. viii.‘Narcisses showen
M^r of the 62 (12 Jan., on Twelfe daye at
childer of the ‘John’ Nighte by the
Chappell.’ Hunnis). Children of the
Chappell.’
17 Feb. ‘John Greaves and £13 6_s._ 8_d._ 26 Feb. (W.); ‘Cloridon and
Thomas Goughe D. viii. 71 Radiamanta showen
servauntes to Sr (29 Feb.). on Shrove sundaye
Robt. Lane at Nighte by Sir
Knighte.’[786] Robert Lanes Men.’
19 Feb. ‘John £13 6_s._ 8_d._ 22 Feb. (W.); ‘Paris and Vienna
Billingesley.’ D. viii. 71 showen on
[787] (29 Feb.). Shrovetewsdaie at
Nighte by the
Children of
Westminster.’
=1572–3= (_D. A. 541, m. 150_).
Xmas ‘Therle of Leic. £30, ‘videlt. 1 Jan. (H.). F. 174. Scattered
(3 plays).players.’ for eūye playe entries refer to
vj^l xiij^s all these
iiij^d and for companies except
a more rewarde Sussex’s and to--
by hirMa^{tes} ‘the play of
owne comaundem^t Cariclia’,
x^lIn all xxx^l.’ ‘Theagines’,
‘the picture of
Andromadas’,
‘the monster’,
‘the playe of
fortune’.
1 Jan. ‘Richarde £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 2 Jan. (H.).
Farrante M^r of
the children at
Wyndesore.’
-- ‘Sebastian £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 7 Jan. (H.).
Westecote M^r of
the Children of
Polles.’
6 Jan. ‘Elderton and the £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 7 Jan. (H.).
Children of
Eyton.’
-- ‘Therle of Sussex £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 7 Feb.
players.’
-- ‘Laurence Dutton £6 13_s._ 4_d._ 10 Feb.
s^runte to therle
of Lincoln.’