In many cases reference is made to the bills of the tradesmen for

further details. At the end of the account is appended a supplementary

account, amounting to £26 3_s._ 2_d._, for the three months from March

to May, 1572, during which a further airing took place. The airings

involved an elaborate process of what would now be called the

'spring-cleaning' of all the stuff in the office. There is also a list

of six plays and six masks performed during Christmas and Shrovetide.

The plays were acted by companies of men or children who were

'apparelled and ffurnished', and provided with 'apt howses, made of

canvasse, fframed, ffashioned and paynted accordingly' by the Revels

Office. It is noted that the six plays were 'chosen owte of many and

ffownde to be the best that then were to be had; the same also being

often perused and necessarely corrected and amended by all the

afforeseide officers'. Four of the masks were new; the other two 'were

but translated and otherwise garnished being of the former number by

meanes wherof the chardge of workmanshipp and attendaunce is cheefely to

be respected'. It will be observed that the Account does not include any

items for the fees of the officers or for the hire of lodgings or

storehouses. The former were payable under their patents at the

Exchequer, the latter provided in the royal house of St. John's. The

officers get an allowance for diet when on active duty, either in the

time of airings or in that of revels; and this is fixed, for each day or

night, at 4_s._ for the Master, 2_s._ for the Clerk Comptroller, 2_s._

for the Clerk, and 2_s._ for the Yeoman. There is a similar allowance of

1_s._ for a Porter, described more fully in a later account as the

Porter of St. John's Gate. His name was John Dauncy.[257] The Account

discloses some changes in the establishment since 1559. Thomas Blagrave

is still Clerk. Richard Lees had been succeeded as Clerk Comptroller on

30 December 1570 by Edward Buggin.[258] During the earlier part of the

period John Holt is still Yeoman, but exercises his functions through a

deputy, William Bowll, a Yeoman of the Chamber; he was replaced by John

Arnold on 11 December 1571.[259] There is a letter to Cecil from William

Bowll, written at some date after March 1571, in which he recites that

he has recently delivered to Cecil letters from the Lord Treasurer (the

Marquis of Winchester), Sir Thomas Benger, and John Holt, for a joint

grant of the Yeomanship to himself and John Holt; that he has long

served as Holt's deputy and paid him money on a composition as well as

meeting some of the debts of the Office; that Holt is now dead and that

he and his family will be undone unless Cecil procures him the

post.[260] His suit, however, was obviously unsuccessful. Holt's tenure

of the Yeomanship had thus extended from 1547 to 1571. He may himself

have been an actor, if, as seems likely, he is the 'John Holt, momer',

who received rewards for attendance on the Westminster boys at a pageant

in 1561.

If Arnold was appointed in the winter of 1571, it was against him,

rather than against Holt or his deputy Bowll, that a complaint was

lodged with Burghley about a year later by one Thomas Giles. Giles was

one of the tradesmen of the Revels. He is described in the Accounts as a

haberdasher, and purchases of vizards were made from him. The burden of

his complaint was that the officers of the Revels, and particularly the

Yeoman, who had the custody of the masking garments, were in the habit

of letting these out on hire, to their manifest deterioration, and, one

fears, also to the injury of Giles's business. He enumerates twenty-one

occasions upon which masks, including the new cloth of gold, black and

white, and murrey satin ones, made for the Queen's delectation during

the previous Christmas, had been so let out to lords, lawyers, and

citizens, in town and country, between January and November 1572.[261]

It is probable that Burghley, who became Lord Treasurer in July 1572,

took early steps to look into the administration of the Revels Office,

for which the death of Sir Thomas Benger about June of the same year

afforded an opportunity.[262] Certainly there was no possibility of

bringing about any immediate economy, for the embassy of the Duc de

Montmorency from France had already caused a great increase of cost. The

Revels bill for 1572-3 amounted to £1,427 12_s._ 6½_d._ or very

little less than that for 1571-2. Of this about £1,000 was directly due

to Montmorency's visit. Moreover, the greater part of the expenditure

upon revels was not directly defrayed through the Office. They bought

some stuff in the open market, and employed some workmen. But they had

also large supplies from the Great Wardrobe, while the structure of

banqueting-houses and the like was undertaken by the Office of Works.

The total cost, therefore, for any one year would have to be pieced

together from the accounts of all three offices. This task has never

been essayed, but on Montmorency's coming an imprest of £200 was made to

Lewis Stocket, Surveyor of the Works, and another of £300 to John

Fortescue, Master of the Great Wardrobe, while a memorandum in

Burghley's papers cites a warrant of 12 July 1572 which authorizes the

delivery by Fortescue to Benger of stuffs to no less value than £1,757

8_s._ 1½_d._[263]

Pending Burghley's investigation no patent was issued for a successor to

Benger. During the Christmas of 1573, the oversight of the Office was

committed jointly to Fortescue and to Henry Sackford, the Master of the

Tents, and the whole of the account for the period from 1 June 1572 to

31 October 1573 is signed by them, together with the inferior officers

of the Revels. There are signs of an ambition towards economy in entries

showing that on several occasions during the year claims upon the Office

were reduced after examination by the Comptroller and other

officers.[264] The auditors in their turn had an eye upon the Office. A

sum of £50 was originally included in the account with the explanation:

'Item more for new presses to be made thorowowte the whole

storehowse for that the olde were so rotten that they coulde by

no meanes be repayred or made any waye to serve agayne. The

Queenes Maiesties store lyeng now on the ffloore in the store

howse which of necessitie must preasently be provyded for

before other workes can well beginne. Whiche presses being made

as is desyred by the Officers wilbe a greate safegarde to the

store preasently remayning and lyke-wise of the store to coome

whereby many things may be preserved that otherwyse wilbe

vtterly lost and spoyled contynually encreasing her Maiesties

charge.'

To this is appended a note:

'Not allowid for so moche as the said presseis ar not

begonn.'[265]

It may be admitted that the cost of the Revels would have been less if

the officers had been in a position to pay for the goods supplied to

them in ready money. They probably got small 'imprests' or advances at

the beginning of the year when they could, but for the most part they

had to obtain credit and satisfy their tradesmen with debentures,

redeemable when the accounts had been audited and a warrant under the

privy seal for the payment of the certified expenses issued. Elizabeth

succeeded to an exchequer already burdened with the debt of past reigns,

and the issue of these warrants was often delayed. William Bowll had

made it part of his claim to be appointed Yeoman in succession to John

Holt that he had made advances for 'payment to the workemen and other

poore creditors for mony due unto them in the said office, accordinge to

thear necessities before any warant graunted, only for to mayntayn the

credit of the said office'. An undated letter is preserved amongst

Burghley's papers in which he makes an attempt to recover a sum of £236

due to him for goods supplied over a period of two years and nine

months.[266] A similar letter, written on behalf of the creditors and

artificers serving the office, and signed by 'Poore Bryan Dodmer a

creditour, to saue the labour of a great number whose exclamacion is

lamentable', refers specifically to the unpaid balance of the office

account on 28 February 1574, which stood at £1,550 5_s._ 8_d._[267]

Bryan Dodmer had received a legacy from Sir Thomas Cawarden in 1559,

and is shown by the account of 1571-2 to have been at that time occupied

in the affairs of the Revels Office, although not on the establishment.

To 1573 and 1574 may be ascribed three memoranda, which were evidently

prepared for Burghley's assistance in considering schemes of reform. Two

of these, although longer than can be printed here, are singularly

illuminating to students of departmental history. One, in particular,

gives a very capable summary of the situation, and is informed by a good

deal of sound administrative sense.[268] It begins with a short

historical notice of the origin and foundation of the Revels and a

suggestion for a fresh amalgamation of the Mastership with those of the

Tents and Toils. The writer then considers the possibility of either

farming out the office, or fixing a definite allowance for all ordinary

charges, and rejects both proposals as impracticable. Nor does he see

much room for economy in the 'airings', or in a reduction in the number

of officers; on the contrary, he is in favour of supplementing the

Master, who must give attendance at Court, by a working head of the

Office with the rank of Serjeant. He lays stress on the importance of

co-operation amongst the officers, and while not prepared to abrogate

the quasi-independence of the Master which the appointment of the

inferior officers by patent gave them, submits an elaborate draft of new

ordinances provisionally dated in the regnal year 1572-3, and intended

to replace those which he understands to have been delivered 'before my

time' to some of the Queen's Privy Council.[269] This deals, not only

with the functions of each officer, but also with the time-table of the

year's work, the control of the artificers, the economical employment of

wardrobe stuff, the books to be kept, and the avoidance of debt by a

liberal imprest. An historian of the stage can wish that the suggestion

had been adopted for order to be annually given 'to a connynge paynter

to enter into a fayer large ligeard booke in the manner of limnynge the

maskes and shewes sett fourthe in that last seruice, to thende varyetye

may be vsed from tyme to tyme'. I think that the author of this document

was probably Buggin, the Clerk Comptroller, since the two other

memoranda are clearly on internal evidence the work of Blagrave, the

Clerk, and one of the Yeomen, and Burghley is likely to have given each

officer a chance of expressing his views. It might, however, have been

Henry Sackford, in view of the suggestion for amalgamation with the

Tents, and in any case Buggin probably had Sackford's interests in mind,

not to speak of his own chances of obtaining the contemplated Serjeanty.

Blagrave's proposals are in matters of detail not unlike Buggin's, but

he does not endorse the suggestion of a Serjeant, and is less skilful in

keeping his personal ambitions in the background.[270]

If it please her highnes to bestowe the M_aste_rship of the

office vpon me (as I trust myne experience by acquayntaunce

w_i_t_h_ those thaffaires and contynuall dealing therein by the

space of xxvij or xxviij yeres deserveth, being also the

auncient of the office by at the leaste xxiiij of those yeres;

otherwise I wolde be lothe hereafter to deale nor medle

w_i_t_h_ it nor in it further then apperteyneth to the clerke,

whose allowaunce is so small as I gyve it holy to be discharged

of the toyle and attendaunce). I haue hetherto w_i_t_h_oute

recompence to my greate chardge and hynderaunce borne the

burden of the M_aste_r, and taken the care and paynes of that,

others haue had the thankes and rewarde for, w_hi_ch I trust

her Ma_ies_tie will not put me to w_i_t_h_oute the fee,

alowaunce, and estimac_i_on longing to it, nor if her highnes

vouchesafe not to bestowe it vpon me to let me passe

w_i_t_h_oute recompence for that is done and paste.

If the Fee and allowaunce be thought to muche, then let what

her Ma_ies_tie and Honerable counsaile shall thinke mete for

any man that shall supplie that burden and place to haue

toward_es_ his chardg_es_ be appointed of certeyntie, and I

will take that, and serve for as litle as any man that meanes

to Deale truly, so I be not to greate a loser by it.

The Yeoman's _Memorandum_ is short enough to be given in full.[271]

A note of sarten thing_es_ which are very nedefull to be

Redressed in the offys of the Revelles.

1. Fyrste the Romes or Loging_es_, where the garments and other

thing_es_, as hedpeces and suche lyke, dothe lye, Is in suche

decaye for want of rep_a_racions, that it hath by that meanes

perished A very greate longe wall, which parte thereof is falne

doune and hath broke undoune A greate presse, which stoode all

Alongest the same, by w_hi_ch meanes I ame fayne to laye the

garment_es_ vppon the grounde, to the greate hurt of the same,

so as if youre honoure ded se the same it woolde petye you to

see suche stoffe so yll bestowed.

2. Next there is no convenyent Romes for the Artifycers to

wourke in, but that Taylours, Paynters, Proparatiue makers,

and Carpenders are all fayne to wourke in one rome, which is A

very greate hinderaunce one to Another, w_hi_ch thinge nedes

not for theye are slacke anowe of them selves.

3. More, there ys two whole yeares charg_es_ be hinde vn payde,

to the greate hinderaunce of the poore Artyfycers that wourke

there. In so mvche that there be A greate parte of them that

haue byn dryven to sell there billes or debentars for halfe

that is dewe vnto them by the same.

4. More, yt hath broughte the offyce in suche dyscredet with

those that dyd delyver wares into the offyce, that theye will

delyuer yt in for A thirde parte more then it is woorthe, or

ellce we can get no credet of them for the same, which thinge

is A very greate hinderaunce to the Queenes ma_ies_tie and A

greate discredet to those that be offecers in that place, which

thinge for my parte I Ame very sory to see.

This is endorsed,

'For the Reuels. Matters to be redressed there.'

The documents are proposals for reform rather than statements of

existing practice; but proposals for reform made by permanent officials

are not generally very sweeping, and I think it may be taken that we get

a pretty fair notion of the actual working of a Government department in

the sixteenth century, not without certain hints of jealousies and

disputes between the various officers as to their respective functions

and privileges, which in those days as in these occasionally tended to

interfere with the smooth working of the machine. The determination of

these functions and privileges by regulation; the keeping of regular

books, inventories, journals, and ledgers; the institution of a system

of finance which would avoid the necessity of employing credit; the

prohibition of the hiring-out of Revels stuff; these are amongst the

improvements in organization which suggested themselves to practical men

who were not in the least likely to suggest the transference of the

duties of their own rather superfluous Office to the Office of Works or

the Wardrobe. Both Buggin and Blagrave ask that the hands of the

officers might be strengthened by a commission; that is, apparently, a

warrant entitling them to enforce service on behalf of the Crown, such

as the Master of the Children of the Chapel had to 'take up'

singing-boys, and other departments of the Household, including probably

the Tents, had for the purveyance of provisions and cartage. Probably

the Revels had already enjoyed this authority upon special occasions.

The _Account_ for the banqueting house of 1572 includes an item for

'flowers of all sortes taken up by comyssion and gathered in the

feeldes'.[272] At the bottom of the documents there is a feeling that

the weak point in the organization is the Mastership. The Master had to

be a courtier, dancing attendance on the Queen and the Lord Chamberlain,

and was likely to have the qualities and failings of a courtier; and

then he came to the office, and gave instructions to people who knew

their own business much better than he did.

Blagrave's ambitions to become Master of the Office were not wholly

gratified. He was allowed to act as Master for some years, but he never

received a patent, and after Benger's death he had the mortification of

seeing the post given to another, while he was left to content himself

with his much despised Clerkship. His regency lasted from November 1573

until Christmas 1579, and his signature stands alone or heads those of

the other officers upon the Accounts relating to that period, with the

exception of the last, on which the name of the incoming Master

appears.[273] His appointment was presumably from year to year. It is

stated in the Account for 1573-4 to have been made by 'her Majestie's

pleasure signefyed by the right honorable L. Chamberlaine', and in that

for 1574-5 to appear from 'sundry letters from the Lorde Chamberlayne'.

And the vacancy emphasized the dependence of the Revels upon that great

branch of the tripartite Household, the Chamber, over which the Lord

Chamberlain presided. All Blagrave's activities were subject to control

by his superior officer. He and his subordinates were constantly going

by boat or horse to Richmond, or wherever the Court might be, to take

instructions from the Lord Chamberlain, to submit patterns of masks and

alterations of plays, and to obtain payment of expenses.[274] Blagrave

himself had a house at Bedwyn in Wiltshire, and couriers were sometimes

sent after him when his presence in London was urgently needed.[275]

Upon his entrance into office the officers were called together 'for

colleccion and showe of eche thinge prepared for her Maiesties regall

disporte and recreacion as also the store wherewith to ffurnish, garnish

and sett forth the same; wherof, as also of the whole state of the

office the L. Chamberlayne according to his honours appointment was

throughly advertised'.[276] The store was also carefully perused and the

inventories checked upon the death of John Arnold the Yeoman, and the

appointment on 29 January 1574 of Walter Fish in his room.[277] The

Accounts continue to include allowances for the diet of the Clerk as

well as that of the Master. I have no doubt that Blagrave was quite

capable of drawing them both; but it is also likely enough that some

unestablished person undertook the duties of 'Acting' Clerk. If so, this

was most probably Bryan Dodmer, who was very useful on financial

business during 1573-4 and 1574-5. After this year he disappears from

the Accounts and his place is apparently taken by John Drawater. William

Bowll, the ex-Deputy-Yeoman and silkweaver, and Thomas Giles, the

haberdasher, in spite of their complaints against the Office, continue

to supply it with goods.[278]

The general character of the Accounts, both under Fortescue and

Sackford, and under Blagrave, is much the same as that of the one,

already analysed, for 1571-2. Periods of activity, mainly at Christmas

and Shrovetide, still alternate with periods of quiescence,

stock-taking, and 'airing'. Occasionally the Office has to bestir itself

to accompany a progress.[279] Some unusually detailed entries in 1576-7

give interesting information as to the rates of wages ordinarily paid to

workmen. The head tailor got 20_d._ for each day or night, and other

tailors 12_d._ Carpenters got 16_d._; the Porter and other attendants

12_d._ Painters, haberdashers, property-makers, joiners, carvers, and

wire-drawers were paid 'at sundrie rates'. In a later year, 1579-80, the

first and second painter got 2_s._ and 20_d._ respectively, and the rest

18_d._ The first wire-drawer got 20_d._, and the rest 16_d._[280] The

payments for night-work really represent double wages for overtime,

since we learn from Buggin and Blagrave that the length of a night was

reckoned at about half that of a day. The workmen who waited on the mask

before Montmorency in 1572 got extra rewards, because they 'had no tyme

to eat theyer supper'; and while the banqueting-house was building Bryan

Dodmer had to buy bread and cheese 'to serve the plasterers that

wroughte all the nighte and mighte not be spared nor trusted to go

abrode to supper'.[281] An important function of the Office consisted in

'calling together of sundry players and pervsing, fitting and reformyng

theier matters (otherwise not convenient to be showen before her

Maiestie)'.[282] Dodmer paid 40_s._ in 1574-5 for 'paynes in pervsing

and reformyng of playes sundry tymes as neede required for her

Maiestie's lyking', and it is a pity that the name of the payee is left

blank in the Account.[283] When the plays had been chosen and knocked

into shape, they had to be rehearsed. Now and then they were taken

before the Lord Chamberlain for this purpose; but as a rule the

rehearsals went on in the presence of the officers at St. John's. Here

were a 'greate chambere where the workes were doone and the playes

rezited', a storehouse, and the mansions of the officers. The Clerk had

an office with a nether room next the yard.[284] Fish complains of the

inconvenience of having only one room for every kind of artificer to

work in. Items for yellow cotton to line 'the Monarkes gowne' and for

his jerkin and hose perhaps point to the use of a lay figure.[285] One

Nicholas Newdigate was extremely useful in hearing and training the

children who frequently performed.[286] Naturally these gave a good deal

of trouble. At Shrovetide 1574 nine of them were employed for a mask at

Hampton Court. They had diet and lodging at St. John's, 'whiles thay

learned theier partes and jestures meete for the mask'. They were taken

from Paul's Wharf to Hampton Court in a barge with six oars and two

'tylt whirreys'. They arrived on Monday, but the Queen would not see

them until the Tuesday, and they were lodged for the two nights at

Mother Sparo's at Kingston. An Italian woman and her daughter were

employed to dress their heads. When they got back to London on

Ash-Wednesday, 'sum of them being sick and colde and hungry', fire and

victuals were provided at Blackfriars. Each child received a reward of

1_s._[287] Trouble was caused also sometimes by the behaviour of the

courtiers who took part in festivities. Six horns garnished with silver

were provided at a cost of 18_s._, for a mask of hunters on 1 January

1574, and there is a note in the Account that these horns 'the maskers

detayned and yet dooth kepe them against the will of all the officers'.

This sort of difficulty was traditional. It was already perplexing the

worthy Gibson more than half a century before.[288] That the practice of

lending out the Revels stuff was not wholly abandoned is shown by an

application from Magdalen College, Oxford, to Tilney in 1592 for

furniture for a play.[289] Finance was also a cause of trouble. On his

appointment in 1573 Blagrave succeeded in obtaining a 'prest' of £200 to

begin the year upon. In 1574 he did the same, but not until Dodmer had

applied in vain to the Lord Chamberlain, the Lord Treasurer, and Mr.

Secretary Walsingham, and was finally 'after long attendaunce (and that

none of the afore-named coulde get the Queenes Maiestie to resolve

therin) dryven to trouble her Maiestie himselfe and by special peticion

obtayned as well the grawnt for ccˡᶦ in prest as the dettes to be paid'.

At the end of each year there were formalities and delays to be gone

through before the bills could be paid. The accounts had to be made up,

to be passed by the auditors, and to be declared before the Lord

Treasurer and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Then a royal warrant had

to be obtained for a privy seal, then the privy seal itself, and finally

actual payment at the Exchequer. All these processes necessitated

constant fees and gratuities. In 1579 the estimated charges for audit

and payment amounted to £8. For his considerable financial services in

1574-5 Bryan Dodmer demanded £13 6_s._ 8_d._, but this was ruthlessly

cut down by the officers to £6 13_s._ 4_d._ They in their turn found the

auditor disallowing a small payment because it had been entered in the

books after the sum had been cast, and was not properly certified.

Dodmer had advanced the money, but he could not be repaid until the

following year.[290]

A letter of 8 April 1577 from Leicester to Burghley reminds him that a

certain suit of Sir Jerome Bowes and others 'touching plays' had been

referred to them, together with the Lord Chamberlain, by the Queen for

consideration. They had 'myslyked of the perpetuytie they sutors

desierd', but a report still had to be made.[291] There is nothing to

show the nature of this 'suit', but it is not unnatural to conjecture

that it arose in some way out of the vacancy in the Mastership. No more,

however, is heard of Sir Jerome Bowes in this connexion. It was not

until seven years after Benger's death that Blagrave met with the rebuff

of finding himself passed over in favour of an outsider, and reduced to

his former position of Clerk, with its subordinate duties and its

miserable allowances for the 'ordynary grene cloth, paper, incke,

counters, deskes, standishes', and so forth. The new Master was Edmund

Tilney, who had dedicated to Elizabeth, in 1568, a dialogue on matrimony

under the title of _The Flower of Friendship_. Tilney was a connexion of

Lord Howard of Effingham, to whose influence at Court he probably owed

his appointment. His patent is dated on 24 July 1579, but the fee was to

run from the previous Christmas, and he may therefore have formally

assumed his duties at that period. His signature is attached with those

of Blagrave and the other officers to the Account for the whole of the

period from 14 February 1578 to 31 October 1579, but the details do not

afford any evidence that he took a personal share in the work of the

Office.[292] In 1581 he was spoken of as a possible ambassador to Spain,

but this does not appear to have led to anything.[293]

Only a few detailed Accounts belonging to Tilney's Mastership are in

existence. These are made up regularly from each 1 November to the

following 31 October. They do not disclose any noteworthy change in the

previous routine of the Office. On 8 August 1580 Thomas Sackford, a

Master of the Requests, and Sir Owen Hopton, the Lieutenant of the

Tower, were instructed by the Council to take a view of the Revels stuff

upon the appointment of the new Master, and to deliver inventories of

the same to Tilney. Accordingly, a charge of 40_s._ 'for the ingrossinge

of three paire of indentid inventories' appears in the Account.[294]

Blagrave appears to have sulked at first, for in 1581 the employment of

a professional scribe to make up the accounts was explained by the

absence of a clerk. The auditors, very properly, made a marginal note of

surprise, and Blagrave resumed his duties.[295] In 1582-3 considerable

repairs were required at the Revels Office, owing to the fact that a

chamber which formed part of Blagrave's lodging had fallen down. An

office and a chamber for the Master seem for a time to have been

provided at Court during the attendance of the Master, and warmed with

billets and coals at the expense of the Revels, but by 1587-8 they had

been crowded out, and an allowance of 10_s._ was made for the hire of

rooms.[296] Another entry for 1582-3 marks an epoch of some importance

in the history of the Elizabethan stage. On 10 March 1583 Tilney was

summoned to Court by a letter from Mr. Secretary [Walsingham] 'to choose

out a companie of players for her Ma_ies_tie'. Horse hire and charges on

the journey cost him 20_s._[297] Outside the Accounts there is one

document of considerable interest belonging to the early years of

Tilney's rule. This is a patent, dated 24 December 1581, and giving to

the Master of the Revels such a 'commission' or grant of exceptional

powers over the subjects of the realm, as had been stated in the

_Memoranda_ of 1573 to be eminently desirable in the interests of the

office.[298] The Master is authorized to take and retain such workmen

'at competent wages', and take such 'stuff, ware, or merchandise', 'at

price reasonable', together with such 'carriages', by land and by water,

as he may consider to be necessary or expedient for the service of the

Revels. He or his deputy may commit recalcitrant persons to ward. He may

protect his workmen from arrest, and they are not to be liable to

forfeit if their service in the Revels obliges them to break outside

contracts for piece-work. The licensing powers also conferred upon the

Master by this patent are considered elsewhere.[299]

Tilney's accession to office coincided with the beginning of the period

of heightened splendour in Court entertainments, due to the negotiations

for Elizabeth's marriage with the Duke of Anjou.[300] A magnificent

banqueting-house was built at Whitehall, and Sidney, Fulke Greville, and

others, equipped as the Foster Children of Desire, besieged the Fortress

of Perfect Beauty in the tilt-yard. One might have expected to find a

considerably larger expenditure accounted for by the officers of the

Revels. But this was not so, except for the one winter of Anjou's visit.

The cost of the Office, which in 1571-3 had grown to about £1,500 a

year, rapidly fell again. In 1573-4 it was about £670; in 1574-5 about

£580; and thereafter it generally stood at not more than from £250 to

£350. In 1581-2, however, it reached £630.[301] It is probable that the

figures do not point to any real reduction of expenditure, but only mean

that, after the experience of John Fortescue, the Master of the

Wardrobe, as Acting Master of the Revels in 1572-3, it was found

economical to supply the needs of the Office, to a greater extent even

than in the past, through the organization of the Wardrobe and the

Office of Works, instead of by the direct purchase of goods or

employment of labour in the open market. Stowe records, for example,

that the banqueting-house of 1581 cost £1,744 19_s._, but no part of

this appears in the Revels Account, although the banqueting-house of

1572 had cost the Office £224 6_s._ 10_d._[302] Probably it was all met

by the Office of Works. About 1596 a further reform in the interests of

economy was attempted, by the establishment of a fixed annual allowance

for expenses, including the 'wages' or 'diet' hitherto allowed to the

officers for each day or night of actual attendance at 'airings' or at

the rehearsals or performances of plays. The last payment under the old

system was made on 30 May 1594 by a warrant to Tilney for a sum of £311

2_s._ 2_d._ in respect of works and wares and officers' wages for

1589-92, together with an imprest of £100 for 1592-3.[303] The next

warrant was made out on 25 January 1597, and directed the payment of

£200 for 1593-6, together with an annual payment of £66 6_s._ 8_d._, 'as

composition for defraying the charges of the office for plays only,

according to a rate of a late reformation and composition for ordinary

charges there'.[304] The amount of £311 2_s._ 2_d._ paid for the three

years 1589-92 is so small as to suggest that the distinction between

'ordinary' and 'extraordinary' charges may have already existed during

the period, and may thus have preceded the reduction of 'ordinary'

charges to a 'composition'. The warrant of 25 January 1597, however,

never became operative. There is an entry of it in the Docquet Book of

the Signet Office, and in the margin are the notes 'Remanet: neuer

passed the Seales' and 'Staid by the L_ord_ Thre_a_s_ore_r: vacat'.

Fortunately we are able to trace the causes which led to this

interposition by Burghley. It will perhaps be remembered that Edward

Buggin, in his _Memorandum_ of 1573, had considered a possible reform of

the administration of the Revels Office on lines very similar to those

now adopted, and had decided that it was impracticable.[305] Doubtless

the same view was held by the officers of 1597, and after the manner of

permanent officials they took steps to ensure that it should be

impracticable. Disputes arose between the Master and the inferior

officers as to the distribution of the sum allowed for ordinary charges,

and, pending a settlement of these, all payments out of the Office were

suspended. The result was a memorial to Burghley from the 'creditors and

servitors' of the Revels, which called attention to the fact that five

years' arrears due to them were withheld 'only throughe the discention

amoungest the officers'.[306]

This was in the first instance referred to Tilney for his observations,

and he writes:

All _tha_t I can saye Is, _tha_t _th_er Is a Composition layd

vppo_n_ me by Quens ma_ies_te and signed by her self, rated

verbatimly by certayn orders sett down by my L_ord_ Treasorer

vnder his L_ordshippes_ Hand, whervnto I haue appealed, because

_th_e other officers will nott be satisficed w_ith_ ayni

reason, whert_o_ I am now teyd & nott vnto there friuilus

demandes. Wherefore lett _th_em sett down In writtinge _th_e

speciall Causes why they shuld reiect _th_e forsayd orders and

_th_e Compositio_n_ gronded theron, Then am I to reply vnto

_th_e same as I can, for tell then _th_es petitioners can nott

be satisfied.

Ed. Tyllney.

The document was then referred to Burghley, with the following summary

of its contents:

5 November 1597.

They shewe _tha_t theie are vnpaid theise five yeares last past

for wares deliuered and service done in _th_e office of _th_e

Revells, throughe _th_e dissencion amongest _th_e officers to

_the_ir greate hinderance theise deare yeares beeinge poore

men.

Vppon _thei_r_e_ mocion to _th_e m_aste_r of _th_e office, his

answere is, _tha_t _th_e faulte is not in him, but he is redy

to satisfie _th_em all such allowances as are dew vnto _the_m,

either by yo_u_r L_ordshippes_ former order, or in righte theie

can challeng, vppon _whi_ch order _th_e m_aste_r doth wholly

relie but _th_e other reiect _th_e same.

for _tha_t _the_re is no licklyhood of _thei_re agreem_en_t,

whereby _th_e petecioners may be satisfied, Theie Humbly pray

yo_u_r L_ordshippe_ to Command som order for _th_e releving

_thei_re poore estates.

Burghley then gave this direction:

One of the Awdito_u_rs of the prest w_i_th one of the Barons of

_th_e Eschecqr to heare the officers of the Revels, and thes

petitioners, and either to ende the questions betwene them, or

to certefie theyre opinions.

W. Burghley.

The document is then further endorsed with the report of Burghley's

referees:

quinto Januarii 1597 [1597/8].

Pleaseth it yo_u_r good Lordeship to be advertized that, after

longe travaile and paines taken betwene the M_aste_r of the

Revells and the Officers thereof, It is agreed by o_u_r

entreaty that, out of the xlˡᶦ by yeare allowed for Fees or

wage for their attendaunces, the M_aste_r of the Revell_es_

shall yearely allowe and paye the severall Somes of mony

vnd_e_r written, viz.

To the Clarke Comptroller of that office viijˡᶦ

To the Yeoman of the Revell_es_ viijˡᶦ

To the Groome of the Office xlˢ

To the Porter of St. Johns xxˢ

whereof xxˢ, p_ar_cell of the saide viijˡᶦ allowed to the

yeoman, is to be aunswered by the same yeoman after this yeare

to the said Groome.

Which yf it may stande w_i_th yo_u_r good Lordshippes lyking,

wee truste will bring contynuall quietnes and dutifull service

to her ma_ies_tie.

John Sotherton.

Jo. Conyers.

Hereon Burghley comments:

My desire is to be better satisfied howe the Credito_u_rs shall

be payd.

W. Burghley.

Here the minutes stop, but Burghley must have been satisfied and must

have allowed the arrangement to go forward, for on 10 January 1598 a new

warrant was issued, in the place of that previously stayed, for the £200

due on account of 1593-6, and for the annual £66 6_s._ 8_d._, 'by way of

composition for defraying the ordinary services of plays only'.

Apparently the fixed rate was made retrospective for 1593-6.[307] Two or

three points of interest arise from the document just printed. It seems

curious that no share in the composition is awarded to the Clerk.

Possibly Blagrave, old and disappointed, was in practical retirement at

Bedwyn; but in that case he would naturally have appointed and claimed

allowance for a deputy. On the other hand, a new post, of Groom of the

Revels, corresponding to that of Groom of the Tents which had existed

since 1544, seems to have been created, probably for the benefit of

Thomas Clatterbocke, who, unless two generations are involved, had

served the Office continuously as a foreman tailor since 1548;[308] and

it is to be gathered that some redistribution of duties and emoluments

between the Yeoman and the Groom was in progress. The Porter of St.

John's Gate, also, now seems to be classed as an officer, or perhaps

rather a 'servitor', of the Revels; and in this post John Dauncy has

been succeeded since 1588-9 by John Griffeth.[309] The sum of £66 6_s._

8_d._ allowed for ordinary charges was evidently made up of £40 for

officers' 'wages' and £26 6_s._ 8_d._ for tradesmen's bills and

miscellaneous expenses. This last sum is so small as to suggest that the

Office had been relieved both of the emption of stuffs and of the

payment of tailors and property-makers. After paying £19 to the inferior

officers, Tilney had £21 left for his own 'wages'. This amount is out of

proportion to the double rate, of 4_s._ as against the 2_s._ paid to

each inferior officer, which the Master had been accustomed to receive

for each day's or night's attendance. But the accounts for 1582-3,

1584-5, and 1587-8 show that the attendances made by Tilney, who

possibly exercised a much more detailed supervision of his Office than

either Benger or Cawarden had attempted, were far in excess, during

those years, of those of his subordinates. Every officer attended for

the twenty annual days of 'airing' and for the actual nights, which

were sixteen in 1582-3, and fourteen in 1584-5 and 1587-8, of the

performances. In addition, Tilney attended for 106, 117, and 116 days

respectively, and the other officers for only 60, 51, and 28 (in the

case of the Yeoman, 38) days respectively, in these three years.[310]

Probably he liked to be at Court, whether there was much to do or not.

The average allowances for wages had therefore been about £29 10_s._ a

year for the Master and £7 10_s._ a year for each inferior officer, so

that the composition was by no means unduly in Tilney's favour.

Moreover, he had introduced a practice of taking to Court a doorkeeper

and three other attendants, and charging 1_s._ a day as diet for each.

Probably these were his personal servants, and he got no further

allowance for them under the composition. The precedence of the Master

of the Revels at Court was fixed by a certificate of the Heralds in

1588, which directed that in the procession to St. Paul's for a

thanksgiving after the Armada he should walk with the Knights

Bachelor.[311]

Of course, the 'wages' dealt with by the composition and charged to the

Revels Account were quite distinct from the 'fees' payable to the

officers out of the Exchequer in virtue of their patents. These had been

settled in Cawarden's time, and, so far as the inferior officers were

concerned, do not appear to have been varied since. The Clerk

Comptroller was entitled to 8_d._ a day, together with four yards of

woollen cloth, worth 6_s._ 8_d._ each, from the Wardrobe. In practice,

however, the livery had been replaced by a money allowance of 26_s._

8_d._ charged half on the Revels and half on the Tents.[312] The Clerk

had 8_d._ a day, and a money payment from the Treasury of 24_s._ a year

in lieu of livery; the Yeoman 6_d._ a day, and a livery 'such as Yeomen

of the household have' at the Wardrobe. The Master's fee, alike in the

patents of Cawarden, Benger, and Tilney, is given as £10. But Tilney,

according to a statement made by his successor about 1611, received £100

'for a better recompence'.[313] In addition to fee and wages, each of

the officers was entitled under his patent to an official residence. The

Master held his place 'cum omnibus domibus mansionibus regardis

proficuis iuribus libertatibus et advantagiis eidem officio quovismodo

pertinentibus sive spectantibus vel tali officio pertinere sive spectare

debentibus'. The Clerk Comptroller could claim a house, 'ubi paviliones

... positi sunt aut erunt' to be assigned by the Master of the Tents;

the Clerk, one at the _staura_ of the Revels or the Tents, to be

assigned by the Master of one or other Office; the Yeoman 'one

sufficient house or mancion such as hereafter shall be assigned to him'

for the keeping of the vestures. Cawarden had provided these houses at

the Blackfriars and had taken allowances in his accounts of £10 for his

own and £5 each for those of his three subordinates, as well as one of

£6 13_s._ 4_d._ for the work and store rooms of the Office.[314] After

his death suitable lodgings were available at St. John's. During the

interregnum the Master's lodging was utilized as a supplementary

storehouse. It was consequently not ready for Tilney on his appointment,

and he was allowed £13 6_s._ 8_d._ a year for lodgings elsewhere.[315]

An undated letter from him at the Revels Office to Sir William More,

complaining of the conduct of a neighbour, suggests that he found these

at the Blackfriars, and here he seems to have remained, at any rate

until 1582.[316] But by 1586-7 he had moved to St. John's, where he

occupied not his proper lodging but that of the Comptroller, for which

he paid £16 a year. This we learn from a careful survey made at that

date by Thomas Graves, Surveyor of the Office of Works.[317] He was

comfortably housed enough, for he had thirteen chambers, with a parlour,

hall, kitchen, stable and other appurtenances, and a 'convenient

garden'. The Clerk had eleven rooms and a stable, and the Yeoman seven

and a barn. The addition of the Master's lodging to the space available

for official purposes had presumably removed the difficulties of

accommodation of which Fish had complained in 1574. In addition to the

'Great Hall' and a 'great chamber', there were a cutting house and three

'woorking housez' below the hall. It may be added that there had been

some changes during Tilney's Mastership, both of Clerk Comptroller and

of Yeoman. On 15 October 1584 William Honing was appointed Comptroller

in place of Edward Buggin.[318] On 25 June 1596, Honing having resigned,

Edmund Pakenham was appointed as from 29 September 1595.[319] The last

Yeoman of the reign was Edward Kirkham. His patent, in succession to

Walter Fish, then dead, is dated on 28 April 1586.[320] But it refers to

his 'service done in the Revels', and it is clear from the account for

1582-3 that he was already employed during that year, probably as deputy

to Fish, in whose place he signed the book.[321] Fish signed that for

1580-1, and that for 1581-2 is missing. Kirkham's activities as a member

of the syndicate formed to finance the Chapel plays in 1601 are a matter

for discussion elsewhere.[322]

Tilney remained Master of the Revels until his death on 20 August 1610.

But with the new reign he appears to have exercised most of his

functions through his nephew, Sir George Buck, as his deputy and

prospective successor. Buck had been in the Cadiz expedition of 1596,

and was not improbably the Mr. Buck who carried dispatches for Cecil to

Middelburgh in the Low Countries and afterwards in England during the

autumn of 1601.[323] At the funeral of Elizabeth he received livery as

an Esquire of the Body, probably extraordinary.[324] Hopes of the

Mastership seem to have been held out to him as early as 1597, to the

despair of another Esquire of the Body, John Lyly, the dramatist, who

considered that he had claims upon the reversion to the Mastership, and

pretty clearly regarded the bestowal of it upon another as a distinct

breach of faith on the part of the Queen. Several letters of his

referring to the matter are preserved at Hatfield and elsewhere. The

earliest and most important of these is dated 22 December 1597 and

addressed to Sir Robert Cecil. Herein Lyly says:

'I haue not byn importunat, that thes 12 yeres w_it_h vnwearied

pacienc have entertayned the p_ro_rogui_n_g of her ma_ies_ties

promises, w_hi_ch if in the 13 may conclud w_it_h the

Parlement, I will think the greves of tymes past but pastymes

... Offices in Reuersion are forestalld, in possession ingrost,

& that of _th_e Reuells countenanced upon Buck, wherein the

Justic of an oyre shewes his affection to _th_e keper &

partialty to _th_e sheppard, a french fauor.'

To the Queen herself Lyly wrote:

'I was entertayned yo_u_r Mai_es_ties servant by yo_u_r owne

gratious ffavo_u_r, stranghthened w_i_th condic_i_ons, that I

should ayme all my courses att the Revells (I dare not saye,

w_i_th a promise, butt a hopeffull Item, of the Reversion);

ffor the w_hi_ch, theis tenn yeares, I haue attended, w_i_th an

vnwearyed patience, and I knowe not whatt crabb tooke mee ffor

an oyster, that, in the middest of the svnnshine of yo_u_r

gratious aspect, hath thrust a stone betwene the shelles, to

eate mee alyve, that onely lyve on dead hopes.'

The date of this petition is probably 1598, since a second letter to

Cecil, dated 9 September 1598, specifies the same period of 'ten yeres',

during which Lyly had had 'nothing applied to my wantes but promises'.

On 27 February 1601, a third letter to Cecil, asking for his aid in

obtaining a grant out of property forfeited after the Essex conspiracy,

suggests that 'after 13 yeres servic and suit for _th_e Revells, I may

turne all my forces & frends to feed on _th_e Rebells'. This was written

in connexion with a second petition to the Queen, in which occurs the

following passage:

'It pleased yo_u_r Mai_es_tie to except against Tentes and

Toyles. I wishe, that ffor Tentes I might putt in Tenem_en_tes:

soe should I bee eased with some Toyles; some landes, some

goodes, ffynes, or fforffeytures, that should ffall, by the

just ffall of these most ffalce Trayto_u_rs, that seeinge

nothinge will come by the Revells, I may praye vppon Rebells.

Thirteen yeares, yo_u_r Highnes Servant, butt yett

nothinge....'[325]

The general drift of these documents is fairly clear. It would seem that

Lyly received promises of advancement from Elizabeth about 1585,

probably as a result of the success of his plays; that in 1588 he was

'entertained the queen's servant', with a more or less authorized

expectation of place in the Revels; that in 1597 his claims were set

aside in favour of Buck; and that, after unavailing protests, he made

the best of the situation and attempted to obtain what compensation he

could for his disappointment. I find some confirmation of the view that

about 1588 Lyly came to be regarded, possibly on account of the aid

rendered by his pen to the bishops against Martin Marprelate, as having

some right of succession to a place at Court, in an allusion of Gabriel

Harvey, who in his _Advertisement for Papp-Hatchett_, dated 5 November

1589, but not published until it was included in his _Pierce's_

_Supererogation_ of 1593, says of Papp-Hatchett, who is almost certainly

Lyly, 'He might as truly forge any lewd or villanous report of any one

in England; and for his labour challenge to be preferred to the

Clerkship of the whetstone'; and again, 'His knavish and foolish malice

palpably bewrayeth itself in most odious actions; meet to garnish the

foresayd famous office of the whetstone'.[326] The actual phrasing of

Lyly's letters is, of course, characteristically obscure. It is possible

that the 'keper' referred to in the first of them is the Lord Keeper,

Sir Thomas Egerton, to whom, if Collier may be trusted, Buck sent, in

1605, a copy of a poem called [Greek: DAPHNIS POLYSTEPHANOS], with some

lines referring to an obligation of long standing towards his

patron.[327] The allusion to 'Tentes and Toyles' may mean that, after

giving up hope of the Mastership of the Revels, Lyly had turned his

thoughts to the Mastership of the Tents and Toils, the actual holder of

which, in 1601, Henry Sackford, had been appointed to the Tents as far

back as 1559, and must therefore have been an oldish man; or possibly

that, if he could not have the higher place, Lyly would have been

content with the reversion of one of the two subordinate appointments,

the Clerkship or the Clerk Comptrollership, which the Revels shared with

the Tents.[328]

I may complete the story by pointing out that Buck, no less than Lyly,

was making interest with Cecil. As a connexion of the Howards, he had of

course a powerful influence behind him, and after the death of Nicasius

Yetswiert, French Secretary and Clerk of the Signet, Lord Howard of

Effingham had written to Cecil on 28 April 1595[329]:

'In favour of Mʳ. Buck, whom Her Majesty, talking with Mʳ. John

Stanhope, herself named, showing a gracious disposition to do

him good, and think him fit, as sure he is, for one of the two

offices of Mʳ. Necasius, that is called unto God's mercy. For

the French tongue he can do it very well to serve her Majesty.'

Four years later, on 1 June 1599, Buck himself wrote to the

Secretary[330]:

'I understood by a friend of mine, not many months since, that

you were very well affected to mine old long suit, and of your

own disposition offered to move the Queen in my behalf. Ever

since I reckoned myself in your good favour till yesterday that

I heard you had given your goodwill to another, and besides

had persuaded one of my chiefest friends to be solicitor for

him. My interest therein accrued out of frank almoin, and

therefore I can claim no estate but during pleasure, yet I

hoped, as other poor true tenants do, not to be turned out so

long as I performed my honest duties.'

This may reasonably be taken as referring to the Mastership of the

Revels, and makes it clear that, whatever Elizabeth had said or done in

1597, she had not given Buck any irrecoverable promise. Very likely she

never did. But early in the new reign, on 23 June 1603, Buck received a

formal grant by patent of the reversion to Tilney.[331] On the same day

was issued a new commission for the office, similar to that of 1581, but

in Buck's name instead of Tilney's, from which it is to be inferred that

he had become the acting Master.[332] On 23 July 1603 he was

knighted.[333] Tilney, however, continued to render the accounts, which,

with two exceptions, only exist for the whole of the reign of James in a

summary form. The account for 1609-10 is by Tilney's executor, Thomas

Tilney; and from 1610-11 onwards Buck is accounting officer, and in full

enjoyment of the Mastership.[334] One of the two detailed accounts is

Tilney's for 1604-5, the other Buck's for 1611-12. These are made

interesting by their schedules of Court performances, the authenticity

of which may now be regarded as fairly vindicated.[335] They show that

the establishment remained precisely upon its sixteenth-century lines.

The close of Elizabeth's reign witnessed the termination by death of

Blagrave's fifty-seven years' service in the Revels.[336] William

Honing, the former Comptroller, returned to the Office as Clerk in his

room, under a patent made retrospective to 25 March 1603.[337] He was

still there, as was Edward Kirkham, the Yeoman, in 1617.[338] On the

other hand there was a rather rapid succession of Clerk Comptrollers:

Edmund Pakenham to 1605-6, Edmund Fowler from 1606-7 to 1608-9, William

Page in 1609-10, and Alexander Stafford from 24 April 1611 to 1617 or

later.[339] The Groom or Purveyor, like the Porter of St. John's,

appears to have been a servitor and not an officer by patent. During

1603-15 he was Stephen Baile, who had succeeded Thomas Clatterbocke. The

Porter of St. John's, during the same period, was Richard Prescot.[340]

The change of reign brought with it another change in the financial

arrangements for the office. The 'composition' introduced by Burghley in

1597 was abandoned, and henceforth the Master regularly received an

imprest of £100 at the beginning of each financial year, together with

the balance due on an account rendered by him for all charges since the

time of the last imprest. The total amount passing through his hands was

not large. During the earlier years of the reign it varied from £150 to

£300, and during 1611-15 from £300 to £500.[341] In 1617 the 'ordinary'

issues for the Revels were still estimated at £300.[342] Nor was there

any special need for 'extraordinary' issues, since the organization of

the masks, in which Jacobean Court extravagance centred, was not

entrusted to the Revels at all, but to some nominated officer, under the

direct supervision of the Lord Chamberlain and the Master of the Horse,

who received funds direct from the Treasury for any expenditure which

did not fall within the provinces of the Wardrobe or the Office of

Works.[343] The Revels Officers continued indeed to give their personal

attendance on mask nights, and to charge for their diet accordingly. But

their actual responsibility for the entertainments appears to have been

limited to the supervision of the fittings, such as the 'music house' in

the hall or banqueting-house, and in particular of the elaborate

arrangements for lighting. The wire-drawer's bill is the chief outgoing

represented in the annual accounts. There is very little else except the

personal allowances for the officers and the Master's four servants,

their office expenses and boat-hire, the audit and exchequer costs, and

occasional repairs to the 'tiring-house' used for rehearsals and other

parts of the premises which they occupied. The Master charges diet for

himself and his men for every day between All Hallows and Ash Wednesday,

together with an extra amount for each actual night of play or mask, and

for a varying number of days of tilting and running at the ring and

twenty days of 'airing' in the summer. The Comptroller, Clerk, and

Yeoman get £13 6_s._ 8_d._ each and the Groom £6 13_s._ 4_d._ for the

whole of their required attendance. Beyond a stray property or garment

here and there, there is nothing spent on emptions of stuff or on

tailors and the like. I think it is clear that the result of the policy

initiated by Burghley had been to reduce the Revels, regarded as a

branch of the Household organization, to comparative insignificance.

Henceforward its domestic duties sink into the background of the

quasi-political functions given to the Master as stage censor by the

commissions of 1581 and 1603. But these functions were peculiar to the

Master, who carried them out with the aid of his personal servants.[344]

The other Revels officers had no claim to share in them, and though

Tilney and Buck built up a considerable income out of licensing fees,

which probably accounts for the discontinuance in Buck's case of the

'better recompense' of £100 granted by Elizabeth to Tilney, no penny of

these fees ever passed through the Revels Accounts.

The slight increase of cost observable in course of time is mainly due

to charges for lodgings. The want of accommodation at Hampton Court in

the winter of 1603-4 obliged the officers to rent rooms at Kingston for

a month at a cost of £4.[345] In 1607 a far more serious problem was

presented by the impending loss of St. John's. This had remained in

Crown hands throughout Elizabeth's time, although on 31 October 1601 we

find John Chamberlain writing to Dudley Carleton, 'The Quene sells land

still and the house of St. Johns is at sale'.[346] James, however, after

leasing the Gatehouse for life to Sir Roger Wilbraham in 1604, carried

out his predecessor's intention by selling the greater part of the

Priory to Ralph Freeman on 9 May 1607.[347] Presumably the premises

which had been assigned to the Revels were not covered by this sale, for

of these the King made a gift in the same year to his cousin Esmé

Stuart, eighth Lord Aubigny.[348] The Revels therefore had to be

dispossessed. But the Office had to be housed somewhere; and the

officers were all entitled to official residences under the terms of

their patents. It was doubtless in connexion with this transaction that

the following memorandum, which is preserved amongst Sir Julius Caesar's

papers and endorsed 'Mr. Tilney's writinge touching his Office', was

drawn up.[349]

The Office of _th_e Revells Is noted to be one of _th_e Kinges

Ma_ie_st_e_s standinge Offices, as are the Jewellhowsse, _th_e

wardropp, _th_e Ordinance, the Armorye, and the Tentes with

_th_e like Allowances everie wayes _th_at any of _th_em haue.

W_hi_ch Office of _th_e Revells Consistethe of a wardropp and

other severall Roomes for Artifficers to worke in (viz.

Taylors, Imbrotherers, Properti makers, Paynters, wyerdrawers

and Carpenters), togeather with a Convenient place for _th_e

Rehearshalls and settinge forthe of Playes and other Shewes for

those Services.

In w_hi_ch Office _th_e Master of _th_e Office hath ever hadd a

dwellinge Howsse for him self and his Famelie, and _th_e other

Officers ar to haue eyther dwellinge Howsses Assigned unto

_th_em by _th_e M_aste_r (for so goeth the wordes of _th_er

Pattent_es_) or else a Rente for _th_e same as _th_ei had

before they Came unto St. Johnes.

For by ther Pattents, w_hi_ch be all eyther new graunted or

Confirmed by the King_es_ Ma_ies_tie, They ar Allowed as the

Master Is to haue eache of them a dwellinge Howsse w_i_th

garden and Stable for Terme of _th_er lyues, as ther

Predicessors hadd (viz. w_i_thin St. Johnes), w_hi_ch Cannot

well be taken from vs w_i_thout good Consideration for the

same: or _th_e lyke Allowance for Howssroome.

Elye Howsse Is possessed agayne by _th_e Byshopp as I doe

heare.

But S_i_r Thomas Knevitt hath vnder neathe his keepershipp of

Whitehaull, dyvers howsses, as Hawnces and Baptistas with ij or

iij howsses more Appertayninge ther vnto, near vnto _th_e olde

Pallas In westminster w_hi_ch I doe doubte be all rented out by

him for Terme of his lyeffe.

The difficulty was met by a plan which had served before in the history

of the Revels. The officers were allowed to provide their own lodgings,

and to charge £15 each for the purpose in the Office account. A similar

allowance (£20) was made to the Master for the provision of an

office.[350] The actual removal, so far as the office was concerned,

took place in the spring of 1608. The accounts show expenses 'in

providing a place for th'office of the Revells' between 10 February and

the middle of April, and there is independent evidence that on the 10th

of March, it was located next door to the Whitefriars theatre.[351]

Tilney's personal allowance first appears in the account for 1608-9, and

is made retrospective to Michaelmas 1607. Perhaps the Clerk and Yeoman

were not disturbed quite so soon. Their allowances first appear in

1610-11, and are retrospective to Hallowmas 1608.[352] It may be assumed

that the Comptroller's lodging was treated as a charge on the Tents. On

Tilney's death, Buck was allowed £30 to cover both the Office and his

own lodging, and the payment antedated to Michaelmas 1608. He protested

that he had in fact to pay a rent of £50, and although Salisbury

probably turned a deaf ear, his appeal was allowed when his Howard

connexions, Suffolk and Northampton, became Treasury Commissioners in

1612, and the allowance was finally fixed at £50.[353] It should be

added that Buck also secured in 1612-13, and very likely in other years,

a quite distinct allowance of £16, under a warrant from the Lord

Chamberlain to the Treasurer of the Chamber, as compensation for the

absence of a lodging for him at a crowded Court during the winter revels

season.[354] The Office cannot have stayed long in the Whitefriars, for

on 24 August 1612 Buck dedicated a treatise on _The Third University in

England_ to Sir Edward Coke 'from his Majesties office of the Revels,

upon St. Peter's Hill'.[355] This is an account of the seats of learning

in London, and was printed by Howes as an appendix to the 1615 edition

of Stowe's _Annales_. Chapter 47 is _Of the Art of Revels_, and is worth

quoting:

'I might add herunto for a corollary of this discourse the Art

of Revels which requireth knowledge in Grammar, Rhetoric,

Logic, Philosophy, History, Music, Mathematics, and in other

Arts (and all more than I understand I confess) and hath a

settled place within this City. But because I have described it

and discoursed thereof at large in a particular commentary,

according to my talent, I will surcease to speak any more

thereof: blazing only the Arms belonging to it; which are

Gules, a cross argent, and in the first corner of the

scutcheon, a Mercury's petasus argent, and a lion gules in

chief or.'[356]

It is matter for deep regret that Buck's 'particular commentary' is

lost. He made other contributions to letters, writing commendatory

verses to Thomas Watson's [Greek: EKATOMPATHIA] (_c._ 1582) and to

Camden's _Britannia_ (1607), and a poem called [Greek: DAPHNIS

POLYSTEPHANOS] (1605).[357] His _History of the Life and Reigne of

Richard III_ was published posthumously in 1607.[358]

Reversions of the Mastership were granted during Buck's lifetime to

Edward Glasscock in 1603, to John, afterwards Sir John, Astley or Ashley

on 3 April 1612, to Benjamin Jonson on 5 October 1621, and to William

Painter on 29 July 1622.[359] His actual successor was Sir John Astley.

On 30 March 1622 John Chamberlain wrote to Dudley Carleton, 'Old Sir

George Buck, master of the revels, has gone mad'.[360] On 29 March 1622

a warrant was issued by the Lord Chamberlain to swear Astley in as

Master, followed on 16 May by a letter requiring Buck to deliver up the

books and other property of the Office.[361] His death took place on 20

September 1623.[362] Astley almost immediately sold his office to Sir

Henry Herbert, whose tenure of it belongs to the history of the Caroline

stage.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 232: _Order for Sitting in the King's Great Chamber_ (_H. O._

113): 'If the master of revells be there, he may sitt with the chapleyns

or with the esquires or gentlemen ushers.']

[Footnote 233: Cf. _Mediaeval Stage_, i. 404.]

[Footnote 234: Cf. ch. xiii.]

[Footnote 235: Brewer, i. 24, 283, 690, 828; ii. 875, 1044, 1479; iii.

129; iv. 868; cf. _Tudor Revels_, 6.]

[Footnote 236: Machyn, 157.]

[Footnote 237: Brewer, vii. 560; Feuillerat, _M. P._ 22; cf. _Tudor

Revels_, 7.]

[Footnote 238: Brewer, xiv. 1. 574; 2. 102, 159.]

[Footnote 239: Patent in Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 53. The appointment was

retrospective from 16 March 1544. Cawarden had taken an inventory of

Revels stuff for the King as far back as 10 Dec. 1542 (Feuillerat, _M.

P._ 27). The historical memorandum of 1573 (cf. p. 82) printed in _Tudor

Revels_, 2, says, 'After the deathe of Travers Seriaunt of the said

office. Sir Thomas Carden knight, beinge of the kinges maiesties pryvie

Chamber, beinge skilfull and delightinge in matters of devise, preferred

to that office, did mislyke to be tearmed a Seriaunt because of his

better countenaunce of roome and place beinge of the kinges maiesties

privye Chamber. And so became he by patent the first master of the

Revelles.']

[Footnote 240: Patent in Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 70; cf. Feuillerat, _Edw.

and M._ 4, 9.]

[Footnote 241: _Tudor Revels_, 2, from memorandum of 1573.]

[Footnote 242: Brewer, xx. I. 213; Feuillerat, _M. P._ 28; _Edw. and M._

49; Patent to Lees in Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 56.]

[Footnote 243: Patent in Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 66.]

[Footnote 244: Patent in Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 68; cf. _Edw. and M._ 74,

180, 272. Blagrave is described as Cawarden's 'servant' in 1546-7, and

again in Cawarden's will of 1559. He was aged about 50 on 27 June 1572

(_M. S. C._ ii. 52).]

[Footnote 245: Kempe, 93.]

[Footnote 246: Brewer, i. 636, 757; ii. 179; xvi. 603.]

[Footnote 247: Feuillerat, _Edw. and M._ 3; cf. ch. xvii (Blackfriars).]

[Footnote 248: _Tudor Revels_, 3, from memorandum of 1573. An account of

Cawarden's life by T. Craib is in _Surrey Arch. Colls._ xxviii. 7

(1915). There is a doubt as to the exact date of his death. The i.p.m.

gives 29 Aug.; his epitaph 25 Aug. Similarly the Blechingley register

gives 29 Aug. for his funeral; Machyn, 208, gives 5 Sept.]

[Footnote 249: Patent in Rymer, xv. 565; Collier, i. 170, from privy

seal; Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 54.]

[Footnote 250: Nichols, _Eliz._ i. 115, 280; _Athenaeum_ (1903), i. 220;

_3 Library_, ix. 252; Collier, i. 185. A reference to the Master of

'Revels' in _Hatfield MSS._ i. 551 is a mistake for 'Rolls'. Benger was

son of Robert Benger or Berenger of Marlborough (_Harl. Soc.

Visitations_, lviii. 10), was knighted 2 Oct. 1553 (Machyn, 335), and

was auditor to Elizabeth as princess (Hearne, _John of Glastonbury_,

519). Further personal notes are in Stopes, _Hunnis_, 104, 311.]

[Footnote 251: Collier, i. 171 (assigned in error to Cawarden);

Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 110, from _S. P. D. Eliz._ vii. 50.]

[Footnote 252: _Hist. MSS._ vii. 615.]

[Footnote 253: Lady Derby writes to Sir Christopher Hatton in 1580 that

she had been with her cousin Sackford (Master of the Tents) in 'his

house at St. John's' (Nicolas, _Hatton_, 148).]

[Footnote 254: Printed by Feuillerat, _Edw. and M._ 180; _Eliz._ 18,

77.]

[Footnote 255: Sometimes garments no longer useful for masks, but not

yet cast as fees, had been altered for players, and either kept in the

office and 'often used by players', or given to the players or musicians

'by composicion' or 'for their fee'. Some were missing because 'the

lordes that masked toke awey parte', or they had been 'gyven awaye by

the maskers in the queenes presence'. Some were treated as fees, because

'to moche knowen'; in an earlier inventory of 1555 we find 'ffees

because the King hath worin hit' (Feuillerat, _Edw. and M._ 299; _Eliz._

24, 25, 27, 40.)]

[Footnote 256: Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 109, 119, 124, 125, 126. Possibly the

amounts of imprests are in some years to be added.]

[Footnote 257: Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 130, 135.]

[Footnote 258: Patent in Feuillerat, 58.]

[Footnote 259: Patent in Feuillerat, 72.]

[Footnote 260: Feuillerat, 408, from _S. P. D. Eliz. Add._ xx. 101;

Collier, i. 230, who thinks that the application was for the Mastership

of the Revels.]

[Footnote 261: Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 409; Collier, i. 191; from _Lansd.

MS._ 13; cf. ch. v.]

[Footnote 262: Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 429. He died in debt, and his will

was not proved until 1577 (Chalmers, 482). This led me into thinking

(_Tudor Revels_, 26) that during 1572-7 he was alive, but not actively

exercising his functions, and possibly into some injustice in suggesting

that he had 'in the end proved an extravagant and unbusinesslike

Master'. Yet Blagrave's memorandum of 1573 (_vide infra_) seems to lay a

special stress on the importance of appointing a Master who shall be

'neither gallant, prodigall, nedye, nor gredye'.]

[Footnote 263: Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 187, 456, correcting Collier, i. 198

and _Tudor Revels_, 26.]

[Footnote 264: Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 157, 160, 172, 178.]

[Footnote 265: Ibid. 186.]

[Footnote 266: _Tudor Revels_, 28; Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 416; from _Lansd.

MS._ 83, f. 145, misdated in pencil 'July 1597'.]

[Footnote 267: _Tudor Revels_, 29; Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 412; from _Lansd.

MS._ 83, f. 147. Dodmer was still pursuing a claim in the Court of

Requests in May 1576 (Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 413).]

[Footnote 268: Text in full in _Tudor Revels_, 1, 31, and Feuillerat,

_Eliz._ 5, from _Lansd. MS._ 83, f. 158.]

[Footnote 269: Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 432, points out that, as Elizabeth's

Privy Council is referred to, these ordinances can hardly have been

those of Cawarden (cf. p. 74) as I suggested in _Tudor Revels_, 34.]

[Footnote 270: Text in full in _Tudor Revels_, 42, and Feuillerat,

_Eliz._ 17, from _Lansd. MS._ 83, f. 154. The time-references agree with

1573 or 1574, if Blagrave's unestablished service in the Revels began as

early as 1546.]

[Footnote 271: _Lansd. MS._ 83, f. 149. The reference to two years'

debts suggests a date, when compared with Dodmer's, in the summer of

1574; if so, the writer will be Fish, rather than Arnold.]

[Footnote 272: Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 164.]

[Footnote 273: A _Declared Account_ for 14 Feb. 1578 to 14 Feb. 1579 is

in Blagrave's name.]

[Footnote 274: Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 212, 218, 238, 247, 267, 277, 295,

296, 297, 298, 299, 300.]

[Footnote 275: Ibid. 192, 266, 277, 297, 301.]

[Footnote 276: Ibid. 191.]

[Footnote 277: Patent in Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 73; cf. 191, Collier, i.

227, and _Variorum_, iii. 499.]

[Footnote 278: Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 197, 204, 212, 228, 247, 268, 277,

291, 300.]

[Footnote 279: Ibid. 182, 225.]

[Footnote 280: Ibid. 256, 321.]

[Footnote 281: Ibid. 162, 165.]

[Footnote 282: Ibid. 191.]

[Footnote 283: Ibid. 242.]

[Footnote 284: Ibid. 179, 186, 277, Table III.]

[Footnote 285: Ibid. 185.]

[Footnote 286: Ibid. 204, 219, 268.]

[Footnote 287: Ibid. 218.]

[Footnote 288: Ibid. 202; cf. _Tudor Revels_, 5.]

[Footnote 289: _Hist. MSS._ iv. 300.]

[Footnote 290: Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 227, 247, 277, 300, 310, 457.]

[Footnote 291: App. D, No. xxxiii.]

[Footnote 292: Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 55 (text of patent), 285, 302, 310,

312; _Variorum_, iii. 57; Chalmers, 482; Collier, i. 230, 235; _Dramatic

Records_, 2.]

[Footnote 293: Digges, 359.]

[Footnote 294: Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 330.]

[Footnote 295: Ibid. 434.]

[Footnote 296: Ibid. 354, 358, 370, 381, 391.]

[Footnote 297: Ibid. 359.]

[Footnote 298: See text in App. D, No. lvi.]

[Footnote 299: Cf. ch. x.]

[Footnote 300: Cf. ch. i.]

[Footnote 301: Feuillerat, _Eliz._ Table II.]

[Footnote 302: Stowe, _Annales_, 689; Feuillerat, _Eliz._ 168; cf. ch.

i.]

[Footnote 303: _S. P. D. Eliz._ ccxlviii, p. 512.]

[Footnote 304: Ibid, cclxii, p. 351. The calendar does not, however,

note the _marginalia_ to the docquet referred to below.]

[Footnote 305: Cf. p. 82.]

[Footnote 306: _Tudor Revels_, 64, and Feuillerat, 417, from _Lansd.

MS._ 83, f. 170.]

[Footnote 307: _S. P. D. Eliz._ cclxvi, p. 5.]

[Footnote 308: Feuillerat, _Edw. and M._ 29; cf. p. 100.]

[Footnote 309: Feuillerat, 394, 417.]

[Footnote 310: Feuillerat, 352, 360, 367, 372, 379, 382.]

[Footnote 311: _S. P. D._ cclxxix. 86.]

[Footnote 312: Feuillerat, 108.]

[Footnote 313: Chalmers, 486, 490; _S. P. D. Jac. I_, lxv. 2. The fee

lists (cf. p. 29) confirm this, sometimes adding 'diet in court'.]

[Footnote 314: Feuillerat, 108.]

[Footnote 315: Ibid. 310, 463.]

[Footnote 316: _Hist. MSS._ vii. 661; Feuillerat, 467.]

[Footnote 317: Feuillerat, 47. Owing to the omission of Burghley's title

in the address of the report, I misdated it in _Tudor Revels_, 20. The

history of St. John's is given by W. P. Griffith, _An Architectural

Notice of St. John's Priory, Clerkenwell_ (_1 London and Middlesex Arch.

Soc. Trans._ iii. 157); A. W. Clapham, _St. John of Jerusalem,

Clerkenwell_ (_St. Paul's Ecclesiological Soc. Trans._ vii. 37). It was

a Priory of the Knights Hospitallers, founded _c._ 1100, and enlarged in

the fifteenth century. The Gatehouse, which still stands, was rebuilt by

Prior Thomas Docwra in 1504. After the dissolution in 1540, the stones

of the church were used for Somerset House, and the rest granted to

Dudley. Mary resumed it and refounded the Priory. After the second

dissolution by Elizabeth, the property remained in the hands of the

Crown.]

[Footnote 318: Patent in Feuillerat, 60.]

[Footnote 319: Patent in Feuillerat, 63.]

[Footnote 320: Ibid. 74.]

[Footnote 321: Ibid. 360.]

[Footnote 322: Cf. ch. xii.]

[Footnote 323: _Hatfield MSS._ xi. 359, 379, 380. The 'Mr. Buck'

implicated in the Essex rebellion of 1601 (_Hist. MSS._ xi. 4. 10) was

Francis Buck (_Hatfield MSS._ xi. 214).]

[Footnote 324: _Lord Chamberlain's Records_, 554. Can he also have been

a Gentleman of the Chapel? A Gentleman was sworn in 'in Mr. Buckes

roome' on 2 July 1603, just after he became acting Master (Rimbault,

6).]

[Footnote 325: The letters are printed in full in Bond, _Lyly_, i. 64,

68, 70, 378, 392, 395. A contemporary note by Sir Stephen Powle to a

copy of the 1601 appeal says, 'He was a suter to be Mr. of the Reuelles

and tentes and Toyles, but eauer crossed'.]

[Footnote 326: Grosart, _Harvey_, ii. 211.]

[Footnote 327: Collier, i. 361.]

[Footnote 328: The conjecture of R. W. Bond (_Lyly_, i. 41) that Lyly

was actually Clerk Comptroller is rendered untenable by our complete

knowledge of the succession to that post; cf. _Tudor Revels_, 60, and

Feuillerat, _Lyly_, 194, who shows that Lyly was the Queen's 'servant'

as Esquire of the Body.]

[Footnote 329: _Hatfield MSS._ v. 189.]

[Footnote 330: Ibid. ix. 190.]

[Footnote 331: _Patent Roll, 1 Jac. I_, p. 24, m. 25; Text from

seventeenth-century copy in _Dramatic Records_, 14; docquet, dated 21

June, in _S. P. D. Jac. I_, ii. p. 16. The terms, which follow those of

earlier patents, are recited in the Declared Accounts of the Office from

1610-11 onwards.]

[Footnote 332: _Patent Roll, 1 Jac. I_, p. 24, m. 31. The date 1613

given by Chalmers, 491, is an error. An imperfect copy is in _Dulwich

MS._ xviii. 5, f. 51 (Warner, 338). The docquet in _S. P. D. Jac. I_,

ii. p. 16, is dated 21 June.]

[Footnote 333: Nichols, _James_, i. 215.]

[Footnote 334: He did not, however, get Tilney's fee of £100 (cf. p.

103) but only the original £10 (_Abstract_ of 1617) or, according to

some of the manuscript fee lists (_Stowe MSS._ 574, f. 16; 575, f. 22ᵛ),

£20. Tilney's monument is in Streatham church (Lysons, _Environs_, i.

365) but does not give the exact date of his death.]

[Footnote 335: Cf. App. B.]

[Footnote 336: The pedigree in _Middlesex Pedigrees_ (_Harl. Soc._ lxv),

83, dates his death in error 18 Jan. 1590, but it is interesting to note

that his daughter Mary married William, brother of Thomas Lodge. He was

buried at Clerkenwell.]

[Footnote 337: Patent in _Dramatic Records_, 9, dated 5 (? 15) June;

docquet of 10 June in _S. P. D. Jac. I_, ii. p. 14; draft of 30 May in

_S. P. D. Eliz. Addl._ ix. 58.]

[Footnote 338: _Abstract_, 60.]

[Footnote 339: _Dramatic Records_, 63; _Accounts_, _passim_.]

[Footnote 340: _Accounts_, _passim_. Feuillerat, 475, names Thomas

Cornwallis as Groom Porter in 1603. But there was no such post at the

Revels. Cornwallis was Groom Porter of the Chamber.]

[Footnote 341: Cunningham, 209, 217; _Declared Accounts_, _passim_; _S.

P. D. Jac. I_, x. p. 178; xxxi. p. 410; lviii. p. 652; lxii. p. 17;

lxviii. p. 110; Collier, i. 347, 363; Devon, 118.]

[Footnote 342: _Abstract_, 8.]

[Footnote 343: Cf. ch. vi.]

[Footnote 344: Henslowe took receipts for licensing fees from Michael

Bloomson, John Carnab, Robert Hassard, William Hatto, Robert Johnson,

William Playstowe, Thomas and William Stonnard, Richard Veale, and

Thomas Whittle, 'men' of the Master of the Revels, between 1595 and

1602. Johnson was of Leatherhead, where Tilney had a house. I regret to

say that on one occasion Henslowe thought fit to make a loan to William

Stonnard (Greg, _Henslowe_, i. 3, 5, 12, 28, 39, 40, 46, 54, 72, 83, 85,

103, 109, 116, 117, 121, 129, 132, 148, 160, 161; _Dulwich MSS._ i.

37).]

[Footnote 345: _Declared Account._]

[Footnote 346: Chamberlain, 120. A proposal (_c._ 1589) for the

establishment of an 'Accademye for the studye of Antiquitye and

Historye' (_Anglia_, xxxii. 261) contains a suggestion that its library

might be housed in St. John's.]

[Footnote 347: _S. P. D._ (22. xi. 04); _1 London and Middlesex Arch.

Soc. Trans._ iii. 157.]

[Footnote 348: The gift to Aubigny is recited in the Treasury warrants

of 10 Nov. 1610 and 31 March 1611 for lodging allowances cited below.]

[Footnote 349: _Lansd. MS._ 156, f. 368.]

[Footnote 350: _S. P. D. Jac. I_, xxviii, p. 391. The authority was

given by a privy seal.]

[Footnote 351: Cf. ch. xvii.]

[Footnote 352: Cunningham, xxi, from _Audit Office Enrolments_, ii. 108.

The authority is a Treasury warrant to auditors of 10 Nov. 1910.]

[Footnote 353: _S. P. D. Jac. I_, lxv. 2, contains (i) a letter of 1

July 1611 from Buck to Salisbury's secretary, Dudley Norton, asking for

authority to be given by privy seal and not a mere letter to the

auditors, and enclosing (ii) a letter to Salisbury, putting his case and

pleading that Tilney had £35, 'besides £100 for a better recompense

which had not been continued to Buck, (iii) a copy of a Treasury warrant

to the auditors for the £30, dated 31 March 1611, and (iv) a draft of

the privy seal asked for. Chalmers, 490, printed (ii) and (iii), and

Cunningham printed a draft for (ii) from _Harl. MS. 6850_ in _Sh. Soc.

Papers_, iv. 143. On 19 Dec. 1612 the Treasury sent a warrant to the

auditors to allow the £50 (Cunningham, xxii). But Buck's preference for

a privy seal was sound, for at a later date Auditor Beale complained

that authority for the lodging allowances was wanting (_Dramatic

Records_, 84; Herbert, 129).]

[Footnote 354: _Chamber Accounts._ Similar expenses for earlier years

were charged in the _Revels Accounts_; cf. p. 89.]

[Footnote 355: There was yet another change later. Herbert said after

the Restoration (_Dramatic Records_, 39; Herbert, 108) that the Office

had been 'time out of minde' in the parish of St. Mary Bowe, in the ward

of Cheap. St. Peter's Hill is divided between Queen Hithe and Castle

Baynard wards.]

[Footnote 356: Chalmers, _Apology_, 531, 628, has an engraving from a

block of the Revels Office seal or stamp, as used by Thomas Killigrew

under Charles II. It has Killigrew's arms with the legend 'Sigill:

Offic: Iocor: Mascar: Et Revell: Dni: Reg.']

[Footnote 357: Cf. p. 98. The verses to the _Britannia_ are headed

'Georgij Buc Equitis aurati Reg[iorum] Sp[ectaculorum] C[uratoris]

Heptastichon'.]

[Footnote 358: This is sometimes ascribed to a younger Buck, but the

manuscript copy in _Cott. MS. Tiberius_, E. x, is dated from the Revels

Office on St. Peter's Hill in 1619.]

[Footnote 359: Feuillerat, _Lyly_, 237; _Dramatic Records_, 11, 39;

Herbert, 7, 102; _S. P. D. Jac. I_ (cxxxii, p. 432). Chalmers, 492,

says, 'Yet, this was not old Ben, as it seemeth, who died in 1637, but

young Ben, who died in 1635'. This seems rather improbable. Was Jonson

already a suitor for the post in 1601, when Dekker wrote _Satiromastix_,

iv. i. 244, 'Master Horace ... I have some cossens Garman at Court,

shall beget you the reuersion of the Master of the Kings Reuels, or else

be his Lord of Misrule now at Christmas'?]

[Footnote 360: _S. P. D. Jac. I_, cxxviii. 96.]

[Footnote 361: Murray, ii. 193, from _Inner Temple MS._ 515; cf.

Collier, i. 402; Gildersleeve, 64.]

[Footnote 362: Herbert, 67, 109.]

IV

PAGEANTRY

[_Bibliographical Note._ A mass of material on the progresses

is collected in J. Nichols, _Progresses of Elizabeth_ (ed. 2,

1823) and _Progresses of James I_ (1828), which may be

supplemented by W. Kelly, _Royal Progresses and Visits to

Leicester_ (1884), and F. S. Boas, _University Drama in the

Tudor Age_ (1914). Most of the contemporary descriptions of

entertainments reprinted by Nichols will be found noticed in

chh. xxiii, xxiv, and a more complete itinerary than his is

attempted in Appendix A with the help of the dates of Privy

Council meetings and the accounts of the Treasurer of the

Chamber, which he did not utilize. Most of the hosts of royalty

can be identified with the aid of the _Victoria County

Histories_, and of other local histories, to which some guide

is afforded by J. P. Anderson, _Book of British Topography_

(1881), of which a new edition is looked for, C. Gross,

_Bibliography of Municipal History_ (1897), and A. L.

Humphreys, _Handbook to County Bibliography_ (1917). Three of

the most important home counties are described in J. Norden's

_Middlesex_ (1593), _Herts_ (1598), and _Essex_ (1840), and the

main roads are surveyed at a date rather after the period in J.

Ogilby, _Britannia_ (1675), the progenitor of a long line of

road-books.

On the Lord Mayor's show, J. G. Nichols, _London Pageants_

(1837), and F. W. Fairholt, _Lord Mayor's Pageants_ (1843-4)

and _The Civic Garland_ (1845), may be consulted; and further

details can be gleaned from C. M. Clode, _Memorials of the

Guild of Merchant Taylors_ (1875) and _Early History of the

Guild of Merchant Taylors_ (1888), and other publications of

individual guilds.

Elizabethan hunting is dealt with by D. H. Madden, _The Diary

of Master William Silence_ (1897). There is no adequate history

of the dance; the chapter by A. F. Sieveking in _Shakespeare's

England_, ii. 437, and the sources there cited may be

consulted. The tilt has been recently dealt with by F. H.

Cripps-Day, _The History of the Tournament_ (1918), and R. C.

Clephan, _The Tournament, Its Periods and Phases_ (1919), which

appeared after this chapter was written. Contemporary records

are collected by W. Segar, _Honor Military and Civill_ (1602),

and armature is learnedly treated in J. Hewitt, _Ancient Armour

and Weapons in Europe_ (1855-60), and C. Ffoulkes, _Armour and

Weapons_ (1909).

R. Withington, _English Pageantry_ (vol. i, 1918), also

published since this chapter was written, deals more fully with

the origins and mediaeval history of pageantry than with its

Elizabethan examples.]

The tradition of pageantry had its roots deep in the Middle Ages. But it

made its appeal also to the Renaissance, of which nothing was more

characteristic than the passion for colour and all the splendid external

vesture of things; while the ranging curiosity of the Renaissance was

able to stimulate into fresh life the fading imaginative energies of the

past, weaving its new fancies from classical mythology, from epic and

pastoral, from the explorations of history and folk-lore, no less

delightfully than incongruously, into the old mediaeval warp of

scripture and hagiology and allegory. So that the Tudor kings and queens

came and went about their public affairs in a constant atmosphere of

make-believe, with a sibyl lurking in every court-yard and gateway, and

a satyr in the boscage of every park, to turn the ceremonies of welcome

and farewell, without which sovereigns must not move, by the arts of

song and dance and mimetic dialogue, to favour and to prettiness.

The fullest scope for such entertainments was afforded by the custom of

the progress, which led the Court, summer by summer, to remove from

London and the great palaces on the Thames and renew the migratory life

of earlier dynasties, wandering for a month or more over the fair face

of the land, and housing itself in the outlying castles and royal

manors, or claiming the ready hospitality of the territorial gentry and

the provincial cities. This was a holiday, in which the sovereign sought

change of air and the recreation of hunting and such other pastimes as

the country yields.[363] But it cannot be doubted that it had also a

political object, in the strengthening, by the give and take of gracious

courtesies, of the bonds of personal affection and loyalty upon which

much of the wisdom of Elizabeth's domestic statecraft so securely

rested. And accordingly the procedure retained much of the solemnity of

a state function. The Queen went on horseback or in a coach or litter,

attended by her bodyguards and the great officers of state, with the

Master of the Horse leading her bridle and a great noble carrying the

sword before her.[364] The sheriff met her at the boundary of each

county, and as she entered a castle or a city the constables offered up

their keys and the corporations their maces, and received them again at

her hands. And with the Queen came the Household in a body, Hall and

Chamber and Stable, followed by a long train of carts bearing the royal

'stuff' which was destined to supply the needs of the household offices,

and to furnish the often empty walls of temporary lodgings, where were

reproduced, if only on a miniature scale, the conventional ordering of

presence chamber, privy chamber, and the like, which were the essentials

of a royal dwelling.[365] Careful arrangements had, of course, to be

made in advance; on the one hand for the maintenance of communications

with London and the transaction or postponement of business during the

absence of Queen and Council, and on the other for the housing and

provisioning of so great a multitude in the country districts.[366] The

latter had of old been the care of a special group of Hall officers

known as the Harbingers.[367] These still exercised functions of detail.

But the general control, like so much else, had passed into the hands of

the Lord Chamberlain. Early in the summer, as soon as the royal decision

as to the direction and duration of the progress could be obtained, a

document was drawn up, known as the 'gestes' or 'jestes', by which must

be understood, I think, not a chronicle of _res gestae_, but a table of

the 'gysts' or _gîtes_ appointed for each night's lodging, which is what

in fact it contained.[368] Copies of the 'gestes' were signed by the

Lord Chamberlain and given with warrants from himself to Gentlemen

Ushers of the Chamber, who took them as instructions to the mayors of

towns, and doubtless also to the lord-lieutenants of counties, through

which the progress would pass. The Ushers were directed to view and

report upon the lodgings available.[369] The royal Waymaker studied the

roads, and the Guard the security of the neighbourhood.[370] The local

officials were required to see that a sufficient provision of food,

drink, and fuel was secured, and to furnish that important safeguard, a

certificate that their districts were free from the dangerous infection

of the plague.[371] The 'gestes' were also published in the household,

and individual courtiers hastened to send them to their friends, and to

give advice to those scheduled as royal hosts about the kind of

entertainment which the sovereign would expect. There is plenty of

evidence in the private correspondence of the period that the honour of

a royal visit was not anticipated without some anxieties. That of Sir

William More at Loseley contains several references to the subject.

There is a letter from Sir Anthony Wingfield, who tells More that he has

reported to the Lord Chamberlain 'what fewe smal romes and howe unmete

your howes was for the Quenes majesty'. She had decided to go to a

manor-house of her own, but had again changed her mind. Wingfield had

spoken to Lord Admiral Clinton, 'for that ytt shalbe a grete trouboul

and a henderanes to you', and advises More to try his influence with

Leicester. This must have been written before the present fine house at

Loseley, built during 1562-8, was sufficiently completed to house the

Queen. More, however, had a visit in 1567, and another in 1576, after

which his neighbour, Henry Goringe of Burton, who expected one in 1577,

wrote to ask him 'what order was taken by her Maiesties offycers at that

tyme that her grace was with youe, and whether your howse were furnyshed

with her highnes stufe, wyne, beer, and other provycion, or that you

purveyd for the same or any parte thereof'. He had a third in 1583, of

which he was warned by Sir Christopher Hatton in a letter of 4 August,

directing him to see everything well ordered, and the house 'sweete and

cleane'. There had been a 'brute' of infection, but this was now

reported as 'a misinformation'. On 24 August, Hatton wrote again. More

should 'avoyd' his family, and make everything ready 'as to your owne

discretion shall seeme most needefull for her maiesties good

contentation'. The sheriff was not to attend her on this occasion, but

More and some other gentlemen had better meet her in Guildford. Finally,

he had one in 1591, and one Mr. Constable came with a letter from Lord

Hunsdon, asking for More's help in selecting suitable lodgings on the

way to Petworth or Cowdray.[372] To these letters can be added others

from various sources. In 1572 Sir Nicholas Bacon wrote to Burghley from

Gorhambury that he understood 'by comen speche' that the Queen was

coming, and being uncertain of the date and desirous to 'take that cours

that myght best pleas her maiestie', begged for advice 'what you thinke

to be the best waye for me to deale in this matter: ffor, in very deede,

no man is more rawe in suche a matter then my selfe'.[373] Only a few

days later Burghley also had a letter from the Earl of Bedford, then on

his way to Woburn Abbey to make preparations. He wishes his rooms and

lodgings were better, and says, 'I trust your Lordship will have in

remembraunce to provide and helpe that her Maiesties tarieng be not

above two nights and a daye; for, for so long tyme do I prepare'.[374]

In the following year, 1573, it was the turn of Archbishop Parker to be

both flattered and perturbed by the intimation of a visit to Canterbury.

He can lodge the Queen, he tells Burghley, and also, at any rate 'for a

progresse-tyme', the Treasurer himself, the Chamberlain, Leicester, and

Hatton, 'thinking that your Lordships will furnisshe the places with

your owne stuffe'. The house, indeed, was 'of an evill ayer, hanging

upon the churche and having no prospect to loke on the people: but yet,

I trust, the convenience of the building would serve'. Possibly the

Queen would prefer 'her owne pallace at St. Austens', and the lords

could go to the dean and prebendaries, several of whom have offered to

take Burghley. In any case he would wish to dine the Queen, and the

nobles and her train in 'my bigger hall'. Meanwhile he will write to the

Lord Chamberlain on some things that concern his office.[375] In 1577 it

was the Lord Chamberlain himself, the Earl of Sussex, who received a

touching appeal from Lord Buckhurst for 'some certenty of the progres,

yf it may possibly be'. Will the Queen come to Lewes, and if so, for how

long? All the provision in Kent, Surrey, and Sussex is already taken up

by the Earl of Arundel, Viscount Montagu and others, and he will have to

send over to Flanders. Unless the Queen will 'presently determin', he

does not see how he can perform that 'which is du and convenient.' And

may it please God 'that the hous do not mislike her; that is my cheif

care'. Apparently Buckhurst, like More a decade earlier, was building,

for he adds, 'But yf her Highness had taried but on yere longer, we had

ben to to happy; but Gods will and hers be doon'.[376] Sussex, though

called upon to advise others, had his own subjects for reflection. He

had offered the Queen hospitality at New Hall, apparently at short

notice on some change of programme, and she replied that 'it were no

good reason and less good manners' to trouble him. In forwarding her

message Leicester had added, perhaps maliciously, for there was no love

lost between him and Sussex, 'Nevertheless, my lord, for mine own

opinion, I believe she wil hunt, and visit your house, coming so neer.

Herein you may use the matter accordingly, since she would have you not

to look for her.' Attempts were being made to dissuade her from having a

progress at all, 'But it much misliketh her not to go some wher to have

change of air', and the progress was 'most like to go forward, since she

fancieth it so greatly herself'.[377] However, there was a good deal of

plague about, and in the end the progress was abandoned, doubtless to

the relief of both Sussex and Buckhurst. Perhaps the most amusing letter

of all, in its delicate attempt to balance deprecation with loyalty, is

one written by Sir William Cornwallis to Walsingham in 1583, on behalf

of the Earl of Northumberland at Petworth. The earl wished to learn 'as

much certeinty as he can' of the expected visit, and after mentioning

'the shortness of the tyme' for provision and the illness of Lady

Northumberland, Cornwallis continues, 'Notwithstanding, Sir, this is

very trew, yet it may not be advertysed, lest it might be thought to

give impediment to her Majesties coming, wherof I perceyve my lord very

glade and desirous'. Finally he ventures a discreet hint on his own

account, fearing that 'her Majestie will never thank him that hath

perswaded this progreyse, nor those lords that shall receive her, how

great entertaynment soever they give her, considering the wayes by which

she must come to them, up the hill and down the hill, so as she shall

not be able to use ether coche or litter with ease, and those ways also

so full of louse stones, as it is carefull and painfull riding for

anybody, nether can ther be in this cuntrey any wayes devysed to avoyd

those ould wayes. In truth, Sir, thus I find it, and I wyshe some others

knew it, so I wear not the author; who though I write it for care of the

Queen, yet might it be interpreted otherwise.'[378] Northumberland had

at this time good reason to be diplomatic. Probably he was already under

Walsingham's suspicion, and before the end of the year he was in the

Tower, for his participation in the Throgmorton plot. Against all this

uneasiness may be set the genuine spirit of welcome and personal

affection for the Queen which appears to have prevailed in the much

visited household of Lord Norris of Rycote. Leicester reports to Hatton

in 1582 his own 'piece of cold entertainment' at the hands of Lady

Norris, because he and Hatton 'were the chief hinderers of her Majesty's

coming hither, which they took more unkindly than there was cause

indeed'. Inverting Cornwallis's plea, he had alleged 'the foul and

ragged way' as an excuse, and adds as his comment, 'A hearty noble

couple are they as ever I saw towards her Highness'.[379]

Much additional inconvenience was evidently caused to voluntary and

involuntary hosts alike by the characteristic indecision which led

Elizabeth, in small things as well as great, to be constantly chopping

and changing her plans. The 'gestes' might be set down, but they were

never final, to the last minute. The good city of Leicester was warned

four times to make preparation, in 1562, 1575, 1576, and 1585, and never

had the felicity of beholding its sovereign at all.[380] The point comes

out clearly enough in the letters already quoted; perhaps even more

clearly in a final group written in August 1597 by one of Burghley's

secretaries, Henry Maynard, from London to another, Michael Hicks, who

was in fluttered anticipation of a visit at Ruckholt in Essex. Maynard

wrote three times in the course of five days. On the 10th he warned

Hicks to expect the Queen in the following week, 'if the iestes hold,

which after manie alterations is so sett downe this daie'. He will let

him know if there is any further change, 'for wee are greatlie aferd of

Theobalds'. On the 12th there had been no change as yet and Hicks had

better come to court for advice. There was still danger of Theobalds,

'but as yett it is not sett downe'. With a sigh, Maynard adds, 'This

progresse much trowbleth mee, for that we knowe not what corse the Queen

will take'. On the 15th he can at last announce that no change was now

expected. He had told the Lord Chamberlain that Hicks was troubled at

the insufficient accommodation he could provide for the royal train.

'His awnsweare was that you weare unwise to be at anie such charge: but

onelie to leave the howse to the Quene: and wished that theare might be

presented to hir Majestie from your wief sum fine wastcoate, or fine

ruffe, or like thinge, which he said would be acceptablie taken as if it

weare of greate price.' Maynard was still anticipating a descent on

Theobalds, although nothing had been said about it.[381] As a matter of

fact, his anticipation was justified, and Theobalds was visited in the

course of September. In 1599 there was a scare lest the short progress

planned should be extended, 'by reason of an intercepted letter, wherein

the giving over of long voyages was noted to be sign of age'.[382]

Contact with the great is not ordinarily, for the plain man, a bed of

roses; and there is no reason to suppose that it was otherwise in the

spacious times of Elizabeth. You probably got knighted, if you were not

a knight already, which cost you some fees, and you received some

sugared royal compliments on the excellence of your entertainment and

the appropriateness of your 'devices'. But you had wrestled for a month

with poulterers and with poets. You had 'avoided' your house, and made

yourself uncomfortable in a neighbouring lodge. You had seen your trim

gardens and terraces encamped upon by a locust-swarm of all the tag-rag

and bobtail that follows a court. And with your knowledge of that queer

streak in the Tudor blood, you had been on tenterhooks all the time lest

at some real or fancied dislike the royal countenance might become

clouded, and the compliments give way to a bitter jest or to open

railing. 'I have had hitherto a troublesome progress,' writes Cecil to

Parker in 1561, 'to stay the Queen's majesty from daily offence

conceived against the clergy, by reason of the undiscreet behaviour of

the readers and ministers in these countries of Suffolk and

Essex.'[383] Parker himself was something of a favourite with Elizabeth,

yet John Harington can record an incredible insult to his wife on the

doorstep of Lambeth.[384] And Richard Topcliffe, hunter of recusants,

describes with indecent glee how the hospitality of Edward Rookwood in

1578 was rewarded with a committal to prison and a public obloquy on his

religion.[385] The arrogance of the royal train had always to be

reckoned with. As far back as 1526 Henry VIII had issued a formal

household order against the spoliation of houses in progress.[386] In

1574 Leicester instigated a surprise visit to Berkeley Castle, which

was not in the 'gestes', and so ruined the head of deer by killing

twenty-seven in one day that Lord Berkeley in a passion disparked the

estate. This appears to have been a deliberate scheme by Leicester to

bring Berkeley into disfavour and secure the castle himself.[387] The

Stuart households were probably just as bad. After Anne's visit in 1603,

the Leicester corporation had to pursue the court 'aboute lynnyns and

pewter that was myssinge'.[388]

It is not quite clear how far these annoyances were aggravated by the

financial burden of the royal entertainment. There is some evidence

that, so far as the essentials of food and drink and fuel were

concerned, the household was prepared to pay its way, and that, although

the hosts had to make provision of these necessaries, they were entitled

to recoupment for the cost by the Cofferer.[389] Certainly the progress,

once an economy for the Crown, had become an expense.[390] Burghley's

papers contain an estimate, based on the accounts of 1573, showing an

'increase of chardgies in the time of progresse' to the extent of

£1,034, 'which should not be if her Majestie remeynid at her Standing

Howses within XX myles of London'.[391] This is not wholly conclusive,

because in any case part of the time was usually spent, not in private

houses, but at royal manors or even in inns.[392] But its indication is

confirmed, so far as civic visits are concerned, by entries in

corporation accounts, which appear to be limited to expenditure upon the

hire or purchase of plenishing, the repair of streets and pavements and

painting of gates and public buildings, the provision of a fairly costly

gift in the form of a gold cup with money in it, and the payment of fees

to the queen's waymaker for inspecting the roads, and to various

officers of the chamber, hall, and stable. The visit of 1575 cost the

city of Worcester £173, raised partly out of corporation funds, partly

by a special levy. The city of Leicester met that of 1612 with a levy of

£74 1_s._ 9_d._, while that of 1614 cost them £102 12_s._ 6½_d._[393]

Anything in the way of a mimetic entertainment would probably fall by

civic custom on the guilds.[394] And the establishment of the Revels,

which followed the progress, was ready to help at need, with a mask or

banqueting house.[395] There are definite statements as to the

recoupment of the cost of light, rushes, and fuel at Oxford in 1566, and

of beer when Prince Charles passed through Leicester in 1604.[396] Of

course, the Crown used its feudal right of purveyance; that is to say,

of purchase within the verge at rates fixed by itself; and for this

purchase a local jury was empanelled to assist the Clerk of the Market

in drawing up a tariff and supervising weights and measures.[397]

But the abuses of purveyance, which included the impressment of

vehicles by the royal cart-takers, cannot have borne very heavily upon

districts rarely visited, although the home counties, which were more

often traversed and contained standing houses, had no doubt their

grievances.[398]

The Hicks correspondence suggests that, even in 1597, the household was

still prepared to provision itself, at any rate in the smaller private

houses. But there is a good deal of evidence to show that, where persons

of wealth were concerned, a different practice grew up. A visit to

Gorhambury in 1577 cost Sir Nicolas Bacon £577.[399] Parker's son

recorded that his father's entertainment of the Queen at Canterbury and

other houses, with his gifts to her and the lords and ladies, cost him

above £2,000, and that in addition he spent £170 at Canterbury in

rewards to the officers of the household.[400] Burghley's domestic

biographer tells us that the twelve visits to Theobalds cost him 'two or

three thousand pounds every tyme', which sufficiently explains why his

adherents were not particularly anxious for a visit in 1597.[401] Parker

had to find many nights' lodging, as the Queen passed up and down

stream, and at Canterbury Elizabeth is known to have occupied a house of

her own. But Burghley's heavy expenditure must surely have covered more

than the mere gifts and the spectacular side of his entertainments. A

visit to the Marquis of Winchester in 1601 was 'with more charge than

the constitution of Basing may well bear'.[402] For that to Harefield in

1602 the bills are preserved, and amount to £2,013 18_s._ 4_d._, of

which £1,255 12_s._ 0_d._ was apparently for provisions, £199 9_s._

11_d._ for temporary buildings, and the balance presumably for gifts,

spectacles, and the like. There is no indication of any repayments by

the royal Cofferer, although Sir Thomas Egerton's friends came nobly to

his assistance, and sent in innumerable presents, including no less than

eighty-six stags and bucks, eleven oxen, sixty-five sheep, and forty-one

sugar-loaves, as well as birds, fish, oysters, Selsea cockles,

cheese-cakes, sweetmeats, wine, wheat, and salt.[403] Finally we have

the definite statement of the French ambassador La Mothe Fénelon in

1575, that at Kenilworth Leicester 'a deffrayé toute la court a cent

soixante platz d'assiette, l'espace de douze jours'.[404] And we have

that of the Venetian ambassador Foscarini in 1612, that 'his Majesty's

charges are borne by the owners of the houses where he lodges'.

Foscarini had accompanied the progress to Belvoir, and was much struck

with the large numbers, more than a thousand, who were housed there, and

with the costly style in which things were done, 'far exceeding that of

the court when in London or a neighbouring palace'. He found personally,

as others have found since his day, that visiting was much more

expensive than staying at home, on account of the largesse

expected.[405] I am inclined to think that we have come here upon a

point of honour, and that, while it was not in theory incumbent upon a

poor man to feed as well as lodge his mistress, it gradually became

customary for rich men to give a special proof of their devotion by

omitting to claim the recoupment to which they were strictly entitled.

And if this was so, of course in the long run the poor men had to follow

suit. Sir William Clarke in 1602 was counted a churl, for he 'neither

gives meat nor money to any of the progressors. The house Her Majesty

has at commandment, and his grass the guard's horses eat, and this is

all.'[406] The right to occupy the house of a subject was indeed a

matter of feudal tradition. All manors were ultimately held of the

Crown. We find Elizabeth dating from 'our manor of Cheneys' in 1570,

although Chenies had long been in the hands of the Russells; and it was

an _obiter dictum_ of Lord Northampton in a Star Chamber case of 1606

that 'the kinge by his prerogative may take vp any howse in his

progres'.[407]

Those who accompanied the progress had their own woes to bear. There was

a good deal of 'roughing it'. The rate of advance, at ten or twelve

miles a day, broken by a dinner at some wayside mansion or in a

temporarily constructed 'dining house', was inevitably slow. The weather

and the roads were often unkind; nor was the advance guard of two

hundred and twenty carts carrying baggage likely to have mended the

condition of the latter.[408] The numbers were great, and if

accommodation was scant, some had to make shift with tents and booths.

The commissariat was not always perfect. Even the Queen might come off

badly. On one occasion Leicester reported to Burghley that the beer had

been unsatisfactory. 'Hit did put her very farr out of temper, and

almost all the company beside.' Happily, a better brew had been

discovered. 'God be thanked she is now perfectly well and merry.'[409]

Burghley himself was apparently timed to join the progress at Dudley,

and he received a discreet hint from Walsingham that a change of

programme would bring the Queen there earlier than had been expected,

'whereuppon your Lordship may take some just cause to excuse you not

coming thither'.[410] No doubt Burghley's duties as Lord Treasurer often

kept him at Westminster. But the fact is that the sixteenth-century

growth of luxury was making a migratory court something of an

anachronism.[411] The progress was by no means always on the same scale

of elaboration. In some years it was limited to a month or so in the

counties nearest to London; in others it extended over three or four

months, and the Queen went fairly far afield. During the earlier years

the most important progresses were those of 1564 and 1566, which

included visits to Cambridge and to Oxford respectively. In 1562, 1563,

and 1565 there were no progresses at all, owing to plague or other

reasons. The period of the great progresses was the second decade of the

reign; and it culminated in the 'Princely Pleasures' of Kenilworth of

1575. During 1572, 1574, and 1575 Elizabeth covered a large part of the

Midlands; during 1573 Kent and Sussex; during 1578 East Anglia. She

reached Southampton in 1560 and 1569, Dover in 1573, Bristol in 1574,

Stafford and Chartley in 1575. Farther north or west I do not find her;

visits were planned to the chief towns of the Presidencies of Wales and

of the North, to Shrewsbury in 1575 and to York in 1584, but these never

came off. Progresses were practically suspended during the troublous

decade before the Armada, when the Queen's life was hardly ever safe

from plots, and she generally spent the autumn quietly at Oatlands or

Nonsuch. In 1591 and 1592 the old custom was revived; Southampton was

revisited in the former year, Oxford and the Cotswolds in the latter.

There was another revival towards the end of the reign, and there were

short progresses in 1597, 1600, 1601, and 1602. Two unsuccessful plans

were made to get as far as Wiltshire. Elizabeth's strength was failing,

but the restlessness of her latter years was upon her, and she would not

have it said that she was too old to travel. She had to reckon, however,

with courtiers who had learnt to love their ease. 'The Lords are sorry

for it,' wrote Rowland White to Sir Robert Sidney, when she determined

to set out from Nonsuch in 1600, 'butt her majestie bids the old stay

behind, and the young and able to goe with her. She had just cause to be

offended, that at her remove to this place she was soe poorely attended;

for I never saw so small a train.'[412] At all times, and particularly

during the later years, the formal progresses were supplemented by short

visits of a few days, or even a few hours, to favoured courtiers,

sometimes by way of a 'by-progress' in spring or autumn, sometimes in

the course of a remove from one standing house to another, sometimes

merely to relieve a continuous residence at the same palace.[413]

Several of the twelve visits to Theobalds, for which Elizabeth had

evidently a liking, and which had been rebuilt to accommodate her, were

by progresses. The household did not always accompany her on these

occasions. Within London itself, she also occasionally paid a visit. In

the last winter of her life, several entertainments were carefully

arranged for her, in the hope of keeping her at Whitehall.[414] In 1601

and 1602 she went a-Maying at Highgate and Lewisham. Another day's

visit, probably of 1600, is elaborately described by Sir Robert Sidney

to Sir John Harington.[415]