at Westminster, saying that Dethicke had sent him to open matters to
him and to tell him that “Hunnis also was privie to the plot”; but
Carter after a sleepless night had told Allday that he would have
nothing to do with it, and willed both Dethicke and Hunnis “to leave
all such practises, or he would turn Displayer.”
Nevertheless they worked on, without telling him any more.
Constant communications went on with Henry Dudley, the Ashtons, and
other gentlemen abroad; with the “Pirates” and the leaders of the
movement in the West, and with the French King, for a convoy. The
conspirators had progressed so far that they had entered the Treasure
House on the 6th of March, and finding the box too heavy had planned
to force it open, and take the treasure in portable packages through
Rossey’s garden to the boat that would await them on the river by the
steps on the 17th of March. On the 16th they took the final solemn oath
to hold by each other, and John Throgmorton, the real leader of the
London party “said he wished his dagger was in the Queen’s heart, and
in that of her Council.” On the 17th twenty of the chief of them were
arrested, and conveyed to the Tower. I know that Mr. Froude gives it as
the 18th, following Machyn and others. But the “Tower accounts” of the
year contain the expenses for boarding Throgmorton, Daniell, Peckham
and others, and are dated from the 17th.[43] I suppose therefore the
arrest took place on the evening of the 17th, and became known to the
people on the morning of the 18th. The name of Hunnis does not appear
in this bill, but that only proves that he did not pay for extra diet.
His name is given in Machyn’s list under the spelling Heneges, which
Froude misrendered into Thomas Heneage. His name appears twice on the
first list of conspirators. He was captured about the same time, and
lodged near the others in the Tower; his conversations upon “prudence”
and “purgatory,” spoken through the walls of cubicles and subdivided
cells, are recorded among the confessions of Peckham. It must have
been a trying time. The heat of action and the hope of success had
died out of him, the certainty of danger, the dread of torture and
of destruction surrounded him. Four days after his incarceration he
would hear (for jailers then spoke to their prisoners) of the burning
of Cranmer, while one after the other of his fellow prisoners was
tortured. On the 21st of April his friend and leader, the one brave
man among all the batch of prisoners, John Throgmorton, was tried at
Southwark, along with Uvedale, Governor of the Isle of Wight, and they
were executed together at Tyburn on the 28th. On the 5th of May, Hunnis
himself was arraigned at Guildhall in company with Henry Peckham, John
Daniell, William Stanton and Edward Turnour; on the 7th Peckham and
Daniell were condemned, and the others afterward.
But Hunnis now disappears from _historical_ notes. Whether he appealed
to any rights on technical points; whether he owed his life to his
being arraigned as “Thomas,” instead of “William,” or to the unusually
difficult writing of the clerk who took down his depositions; whether
his youth, beauty, popularity, talents, or frank confessions moved the
hearts of his judges; or whether he was _remanded_ through the interest
of his old master the Earl of Pembroke, I know not. He may have been
forgotten as being too _insignificant_. For two years he languished,
neglected in the Tower, only to be delivered on the death of Mary. He
may have been released _shortly_ before that date through influence.
That the terrors and discomforts of prison life had entered into his
soul, that fears of rack and execution had aged his youth, we can
see from two sets of verses in “The Paradise of Dainty devices” (ed.
1596), “Being asked the occasion of his white head,” No. 4 and No. 93.
In the latter, in feeble verse, and many incomprehensible phrases, he
certainly gives a chapter from his life’s experience, and asserts his
belief in the righteousness of his cause and in the reward of his faith
in God.
(93) Being in trouble he writeth thus.
In terrours trap with thraldome thrust,
Their thorny thoughts to taste and trie;
in conscience cleare from cause uniust,
With carping teares did call and crye,
and saide O God yet thou art he,
that can and will deliver me. Bis.
Thus trembling there with teares I trod,
To totter tide in truthes defence;
With sighes and sobs, I said O God,
Let right not haue this recompense.
Least that my foes might laugh to see.
That thou wouldst not deliver me. Bis.
My soule then to repentance ranne,
My ragged clothes all rent and torne;
and did bewaile the losse it wanne,
With loathsome life, so long forlorne,
and saide O God yet thou art he
that can and will deliuer me. Bis.
Then comfort came with clothes of ioy,
whose seames were faithfull stedfastnes;
and did bedeck the naked boy,
that earst was full of wretchednesse.
and said be glad for God is he.
That shortly will deliuer thee. Bis.
Finis. W. HUNNIS.
Whether the whole period between March 1556 and the accession of
Elizabeth was spent by William Hunnis in the Tower or not, we are
certain he would be freed at once by the new queen, “his sweet Lady
Elizabeth,” and restored to his “living” as gentleman of the chapel
(if he ever had been formally deprived of it). Early in the new reign
he passed through great personal sorrow, as well as joys. His friend
Nicholas Brigham did not survive his Queen long. And his widow, having
lost her only child Rachel before the death of her husband, married
William Hunnis. His predecessor William Crane in the office of Master
of the Children of the Chapel was a married man. Until I learned the
fact, I had not thought the laws, or at least the customs of the
time, would have permitted this. And the marriage of Hunnis was also
surprising, especially in connection with the gossip of Dethicke,
which implied undue familiarity between Hunnis and Brigham’s wife.
Nevertheless the testimony is irrefragable. On 2nd June 1559, “Margaret
Hunnis, alias Brigham, alias Wariner, wyfe of William Hunnys, gentleman
of the Queene’s Majesties Chappell,” made her testament nuncupative,
in which, by consent of her husband, she left to her “Cousin Francis
Brigham all that her tenemente and mansion house lyinge and beyinge at
Westminster, commonly cawled ‘The Allmes House,’”[44] founded by Henry
VII, and sold by Vincent to Brigham in 34 Hen. VIII. All her other
goods, movable and immovable, she left to her husband, William Hunnis,
whom also she named her executor. This testament was proved by Thomas
Willot for William Hunnis, 12th October 1559. Her will in Somerset
House is strangely involved with that of her husband, and clears up
much.
Chalmers’ “Biographies” and Wood’s “Athenæ Oxonienses” say that
“Nicholas Brigham died in his prime in December, 1559, at Westminster,
leaving some MSS.: (1) ‘De Venationibus Rerum Memorabilium,’ a
collection of notices of characters and events of which Bale has made
much use; (2) ‘Memoirs,’ in the form of a diary in twelve books; and
(3) ‘Miscellaneous Poems.’ None of these is probably in existence.”
Wood thinks he was buried near Chaucer, whose tomb he had restored
in 1556. But he is in error in the date; he died in 1558, leaving,
by a verbal will, everything to his wife. She was granted powers of
administration 20th February 1558-9, and at least before the following
June, Hunnis had married Brigham’s widow. The entry among the wills,
December 1559, is an objection to William Hunnis succeeding his
wife, widow of Nicholas Brigham. Considerable litigation ensued in
consequence of her bequests.
The young widower had, however, consoled himself within two years by
marrying again. This time it was Mrs. Blancke of the Grocers’ Company;
through her right Hunnis became a member of the Grocers’ Company, being
admitted as redempcioner on 11th November 1560. Having found from the
Guildhall records that he was a “Citizen and Grocer” of London, I made
application to the Grocers’ Company, and was allowed to search their
books, where I found many details unknown before. The authority of Mr.
Kingdon corroborated that evidence. On 9th May 1567, he was formally
admitted to the “Livery and Clothing” of the company, the fourth among
a list of eighteen citizens. He duly paid his brotherhood money, two
shillings. In the year 1570 his name was entered among the group of
those “dwelling at Westminster and extravagant”; and he paid four
shillings for the brotherhood money for the last two years, and two
shillings towards defraying the expenses of the election feast. His
marriage would be all the more important to him financially as he had,
with other of her subjects, to wait some time before any practical
recognition of his services was rendered him by Queen Elizabeth, beyond
those connected with his living. The first that I have found recorded
is a patent in June, the fourth year of Elizabeth, to the office of
supervisor and custodian of the orchards and gardens at Greenwich,
called the “great gardyne” and the “new gardyne,” to hold during his
life with a salary of 12_d._ a day and various perquisites.[45] One
duty was to present the Queen with seven gallons of “sweet water” a
year. I am aware that Cunningham, in his notes to his edition of the
“Revels Book,” asserts that this is another William Hunnis; but he
had not made a thorough search, or he would have found it expressly
stated that the grant was to “William Hunnis of the Chapell.” This,
therefore, connects him with various payments made “to the supervisor
of the gardens” for “men gardeners and women weeders at Greenwich”; and
also with the famous account for seventy-nine bushels of roses and many
bushels of other flowers in June of the 14th Elizabeth, “in preparation
of the Banketing Howse made at White Hall for the entertainment of
the said Duke.” Not only were there to be wreaths and adornments of
flowers, but the floor was to be strewn with “rose-leaves pickt, and
sweetened with sweet waters,” under the supervision of Hunnis. One
suggestive point in connection with this patent of supervisor I have
not yet worked out; but I may mention that his predecessor in office
was one Philip Innes, whom Edward VI, in the fourth year of his reign,
appointed for life to this post.[46] But in 1562 the said Philip Innes
appears before Elizabeth and “renders up his office in favour of one
William Hunnys,” and his patent is then cancelled. The new patent is
at the side named “the patent of Philip Innes alias Hunnys,” and this
is scratched out, and below is written fair “the patent of William
Hunnys.” Is it possible that this Innes was his father, and that he had
been brought up as a “gardener’s son”? Had he improved his name into
Hinnes, in which form it appears oftener than in any other? I cannot
yet say more than that the point is worth noting. In the first year
of Mary there was another of the name, a John Innes, of Westminster,
appointed to receive the “first almsmans room in the cathedral church
of Westminster.”
Elizabeth often liked to pay her debts at the expense of other people.
It was through a second grant of hers that I discovered Hunnis as a
“citizen and grocer of the city of London.” In relation to the entry
in Guildhall, which states in the Records, 30th May 1570, that a
“reversion of the office of collection of the cities rightes, duties,
and profittes, cominge and growinge uppon London Bridge, for wheelage
and passage” was granted “to William Hunnys, citizen and grocer, and
also master of Hir grace’s children of hir Chappell Royal,” upon
letters of her Majesty in his favour.[47]
Various difficulties had arisen from the fact that the acting
collectors had been promised that they should retain the post, not only
for the twenty-one years for which they held a patent, but for the term
of their natural lives and the life of the survivor, so it was agreed
that the bridge-master should pay to Mr. Hunnis, in gratification of
the Queen’s letters, the sum of £40 for a lease in reversion of the
wheelage and passage of London Bridge.
Whether this £40 was in lieu of the reversion, or only as a _douceur_
for the time likely to elapse before the reversion should fall in, is
not clear from the passage, and I have not yet been able to work it
out. With his various expenses among the boys of the Chapel this £40
would not last long.
I do not now notice his poems, because I have only acquired any
knowledge regarding them from printed material. But it is evident his
poems read differently when connected with the events of his life. For
instance, the opening device at the Kenilworth[48] festivities in 1575,
when Sybilla prophesies good things to Elizabeth, comes gracefully
from one who had conscientiously plotted to make her queen two years
earlier than she became so--probably the only _poet_ of that conspiracy
then surviving. The _rewards_ for his plays can be found among the
declared accounts of the Treasurer of the Chamber, and his death is
noted in 1597 in “the Cheque Book of the Chapel Royal.”
By the favour of Elizabeth, on the death of Richard Edwards, Master
of the Children of the Chapel Royal, on the 31st of October 1566,
William Hunnis was appointed in his place on the 15th of November.
But Elizabeth proved in his case not a “liberall dame,” as his
perquisites, or rather his provisions, were materially curtailed, at
the same time that the prices of food had much increased. This he very
clearly explains in an interesting petition presented to the Council
in November 1583,[49] where he states that he had to keep not only an
usher, but a man-servant, to wait on the boys, and a woman-servant to
keep them clean, on an income of 6_d._ a day each for their food, and
£40 a year for their apparel and all other expenses, nothing being
allowed for travelling and lodging when the Court required him to carry
the boys with him to various places. On an examination of his demands,
they appear both just and moderate. We do not wonder that he left no
will, unless the verses written on the fly-leaf of Sir Thomas More’s
works really represented one:[50]
To God my soul I doe bequeathe, because it is his owen,
My body to be layd in grave, where to my friends best knowen,
Executors I wyll none make, thereby great stryffe may growe,
Because ye goods that I shall leave wyll not pay all I owe.
W. HUNNYS.
But this will has been previously noted by Warton, and I only now
allude to it in connection with others that are original.
I know it is possible that some may object that the William whose name
I find spelt in seventeen different ways is not the same as the “Thomas
Hinnewes” tried for his life at Guildhall. But the connecting links are
strong.
This laxity of orthography made me look up all resembling names in
wills, inquisitions, etc, about the period, to find a pedigree for
him, but without success as yet. I have not found the name “Hunnis”
appear before his time, and since then only twice; the first being a
Thomas Hunnis, who died in 1626, and might very well have been his son;
the other a “Marchadine Hunnys, of Berks, Plebs; a Demy of Magdalene
College, Oxford, 1605; M.A. 1610.” This may give a clue to the local
origin of the name, but the Marchadine “Plebs” could not have been son
of William, as he was always entered “gentleman,” and had a coat of
arms granted him in 1568 different from that printed by the College of
Heralds (Ash. MS. Bodleian Library).
My original materials have been collected from the Manuscript
Department of the British Museum, the Public Record Office, the
Guildhall Record Office, the books of the Grocers’ Company, and from
Somerset House. Only want of space prevents my giving references
in full. I sincerely hope, however, that I may have an opportunity
of publishing ere long the whole series of papers which I have _in
extenso_, as an addition to the known history of the poet.
_“Athenæum,” 21st February and 21st March 1891._
PS.--This first paper ever printed on Hunnis came out in time for the
D. N. B. In that same year I had all the patents concerning William
Hunnis translated for me, in order to be exact (I still have the dated
bill for the transaction) in preparation for a Paper which I read
before The New Shakespeare Society in April 1892. Dr. Furnivall allowed
me extra time to read it because my materials were new. Shortly after I
completed my book entitled “William Hunnis and the Revels of the Chapel
Royal,” which I could not afford to publish, and laid on the shelf for
ten years till Dr. Furnivall recommended it to Professor Bang for the
Louvain Series of “Materials for the History of the English Drama.” It
was sent to him in 1904, but, by a special stroke of bad luck, was not
published until 1910. The only point I had not secured was found by
Professor Feuillerat too late to be included; as he only published it
on 22nd December 1911 in the “Daily Chronicle.”
This gave the important story of the association of Hunnis and Farrant
with the early venture of the Blackfriars private theatre in 1576.
I had long sought for it; had, indeed, applied for a ticket for the
Loseley Manuscripts on purpose in 1906, but, as the late owner was
abroad in search of health, my search was postponed. A friend of the
family assured me that there was nothing among the papers on William
Hunnis, but very much about the Earl of Southampton, so I _thought_
that I could afford to wait. My only real regret, however, was that
Professor Feuillerat should not have published his find earlier, to
allow me to borrow it (with acknowledgement), to complete the life of
the writer, of whom the reviewer in the “Times” in 1910 said, “Mrs.
Stopes has made a _man_ of him.”
Unfortunately the Louvain Series is produced at such an expensive rate
that it finds comparatively few English purchasers. Some of my new
facts have appeared _since_ in Professor Wallace’s “Evolution of the
English Drama.”
FOOTNOTES:
[42] See Art. XXV.
[43] Q.R.M. 924.17. Tower Records, 2 and 3 Ph. and Mary. P.R.O.
[44] See “Henry Seventh’s Almshouse,” “Athenæum,” 30th December 1905.
[45] Aud. Pat. Books, 4 Eliz., vol. ix, 85_b_.
[46] _Ibid._, 4 Edw. VI, vol. iii, f. 40.
[47] See Letter-Books, v, f. 292-294.
[48] See “George Gascoigne’s brief rehearsal of as much as was
presented before her Majestie at Kenilworth during her last abode
there, July, 1575,” printed 26th March 1576.
[49] State Papers Dom. Series. Eliz., clxiii, 88.
[50] The edition of 1557, in the Library of Trinity College, Oxford.
XVII
BURBAGE’S “THEATRE”
To few pioneers is it given to initiate, and also to develope into
completeness, any great new form of national art. Chaucer was not
our first poet, Shakespeare was not our first dramatist. Our first
architect, our first musician, our first painter, would be hard to
find. But we know where to look for our “first builder of playhouses.”
A remarkable man he must have been, strong of physique, intellect and
courage, strenuous, many-sided, imaginative, far-seeing, irrepressible.
A special strain of genius must have prepared him to face difficulties
thrown in his way during the development of his great Idea.
In all our discussions about the Shakespeare Memorial and the National
Theatre, it would be well to remember what one man did towards that end
330 years ago.
James Burbage, the joiner by apprenticeship, the player by inspiration,
the manager by sheer superiority, formed the best company of players
of his day, and persuaded the greatest Earl of the kingdom to secure
him the first Royal Patent to players, a patent which raised them
from being “vagabonds” into artists. With a strategic skill worthy
of a great commander, he circumvented the fettering edicts of the
Common Council by carrying his company outside their jurisdiction,
and, in seeming to obey the regulations against playing in inn-yards
or in open spaces, reared for himself an edifice in which he could
foster and develope the national drama, an edifice which he had the
foresight to name “The Theatre.” The special and particular name he
chose has become the generic name or patronymic of all its descendants.
Within the wooden walls of his citadel, protected by doorkeepers,
he had an opportunity, not only of earning money, but of educating
the people, superintending at the same time a school of actors and a
school of dramatists. To him came the honour of rearing a son whom
he trained to be the greatest tragedian of his day; to him came the
proud satisfaction of finding and training the provincial player who
helped him to make his name; to him came the appreciative insight into
the powers of this “fellow,” which led him to encourage Shakespeare
to make use of his opportunities of patching and improving old plays
until he could stand alone; to him came the crowning glory of seeing
_his man_ become the greatest dramatist of his time. And all this was
done in about twenty years! What actor-manager has ever done like unto
him? And all that he did was achieved under the stress and strain of
active opposition from many quarters; he was constantly being harassed
by regulation, legislation, and litigation with rivals, relatives, and
landlords, eager to share in the profits of his phenomenal financial
success (which, however, through his heavy expenses must have been
much less than they supposed it to be). He was a pioneer, but he had
more than his fair share of fighting to do. The Curtain “rose like an
exhalation” in his wake, and left no records in its train. His very
popularity made his path more thorny.
It may be well to collect what little is known of him.
Halliwell-Phillips, that industrious writer, discovered many points,
but his reticence, or at least haziness, about references has prevented
his successors from following him to his originals. He is generally
correct in his transcripts, but not always so; his inferences are
sometimes erroneous; he did not cover the whole possible field, so
there are many fresh references to be brought forward, not, perhaps,
of prime importance, but still important enough to help to complete
“the idea of the life” of James Burbage.
We do not know when or where he was born or educated, what was the
occupation of his father, or when he joined the Earl of Leicester’s
servants. We do know that he was bred a joiner, and must have been a
member of the company, as he is frequently described as a “joiner,”
in his legal actions, even after one would have thought another
description of him would have been more suitable. But any _citizen_
then, even in the lesser companies, was reckoned more respectable
than a “_player_.” Think of his times. On 12th February 1563 Edward,
Bishop of London, wrote to advise Sir William Cecil to inhibit all
players, at least for a year, it would be well if it could be for ever.
They spread the plague and profaned Holy things; “the Histriones,
the common players,” are “an idle sort of people which have been
infamous in all good commonwealths.” In 1572 Queen Elizabeth enacted
the famous statute[51] that “Rogues, Vagabonds ... fencers, Bearwards,
Common Players, and Minstrels not belonging to any baron of the Realm
shall be judged Vagabonds,” and made liable to be whipped and sent
to some respectable service. To satisfy the Queen’s private tastes,
however, and their own, many barons helped the better class of players
by enrolling them as their “servants,” and thus securing them some
ill-defined privileges. But the City strongly disapproved of plays
and players. On 2nd March 1573-4 the Lord Mayor declined to license a
place in the City, even for the servants of the Earl of Sussex; on the
22nd the Privy Council asked the Lord Mayor what cause made him thus
restrain plays. Dissatisfied with his reply, the Earl of Leicester,
determined that his servants should not be put to such an indignity,
secured the first _Royal Patent_ under the Privy Seal for them, which
introduced James Burbage into the history of his country. As it gave
him, on paper, a large liberty, and raised his craft to the level of an
art, often as it has been printed, it is important to start with it in
any history of the stage. One forgets sometimes. On 7th May 1574 the
Royal Patent warned all officials to permit