ix. 252) notes a Canterbury payment, omitted by Murray, in 1569-70, to

'Syr Thomas Bernars [? Benger's] players, Master of the Quenes Majesties Revells'. But this was before the Act of 1572.]

[Footnote 902: Possibly the Southwark order for tithes from players, taken before 'my lords of Canterbury and London and the Master of the Revels' about 1600, implies some continuance of the commission. The issue of licences, both for the performance and after 1607 for the printing of plays, 'under the hand of' the Master (cf. ch. xxii), does not exclude the possibility of his acting on the report of an expert assessor, and one is tempted to conjecture that this may have been the position of Segar, who sometimes licensed for the press as deputy to Buck. But it is clear from passages in Sir Henry Herbert's office-book (_Variorum_, iii. 229-42) that he at least personally read the 'books' of plays.]

[Footnote 903: Henslowe, ii. 113, where Dr. Greg _inter alia_ disposes of Mr. Fleay's theory that some of the fees entered in the _Diary_ are for licences authorizing the publication, not the performance, of plays.]

[Footnote 904: Cf. App. D, No. cliv.]

[Footnote 905: The intruding company of 1598 had not been 'bound' to the Master. The Master's licence to Worcester's men in 1583 is described as an 'indenture of lycense', and the players were 'bound to the orders prescribed by the said Edmund Tyllneye'. On 2 Jan. 1595 Henslowe paid the Master £10 'in full payment of a bonde of one hundreth powndes' (Henslowe, i. 39). This looks as if he had forfeited a recognizance.]

[Footnote 906: The licence to the Queen's Revels (1604) is an exception. Here there is no reference to the Master and the allowance of plays is committed to Samuel Daniel 'whome her pleasure is to appoynt for that purpose'. Nor is the Master mentioned in the unexecuted draft (_c._ 1604) for the Queen's men. Probably the reason is to be found in the existence of a separate Chamberlain for the Queen's Household. The Master of the Revels was of course an officer of the King's Lord Chamberlain. The Master's rights are reserved in the patent actually issued to the Queen's men in 1609. Daniel's licensing had been far from a success; cf. p. 326. Oddly enough, whatever Daniel's legal rights, it appears from his exculpation of his _Philotas_ (q.v.) that the Master did in fact 'peruse' that play.]

[Footnote 907: A Chamberlain's warrant of 20 Nov. 1622 requires a licence from the Master for any travellers who 'shall shewe or present any play shew motion feats of actiuity and sights whatsoeuer' (Murray, ii. 352). This was motived by certain irregular licences procured 'both from the Kings Maiestie and also from diuerse noblemen'. The commission of 1581 is wide enough to cover all 'shewes'; possibly the actual practice was extended when the Act of 1604 restricted the protection of noblemen to players of interludes proper--a restriction evidently still imperfectly observed in 1622. The earliest licence for a non-dramatic show on record is one of date earlier than 5 Oct. 1605 to John Watson, ironmonger, 'to shewe two beasts called Babonnes' (Murray, ii. 338; cf. ch. xxiv, s.v. _Sir G. Goosecap_), and this was a royal warrant, perhaps under the signet. But on 6 Sept. 1610 Buck issued a licence to 'shew a strange lion, brought to do strange things, as turning an ox to be roasted, &c.' (_S. P. D. Jac. I_, lvii. 45), and the keeper of a 'motion' in _Bartholomew Fair_ (1614), V. 5, 18, says, 'I have the Master of the _Reuell's_ hand for it'. Later examples of signet warrants for shows are in Murray, ii. 342, and of licences from the Master in Murray, ii. 351 sqq., and Herbert, 46; cf. Gildersleeve, 64, 72.]

[Footnote 908: Cf. ch. xxii. Herbert noted at the Restoration (_Dramatic Records_, 96), 'Severall playes allowed by Mister Tilney in 1598. As Sir William Longsword allowed to be acted in 1598, The Fair Maid of London. Richard Cor de Lyon. See the Bookes.']

[Footnote 909: The manuscript of _The Honest Man's Fortune_ (1613) has some censorial notes and an allowance at the end of the book by Herbert on the occasion of a revival in 1625. Of later manuscripts, that of _Sir John Van Olden Barnevelt_ (Bullen, _O. E. P._ ii. 101) has corrections by Herbert, but no allowance, and that of Massinger's _Believe As You List_ (facs. in _T. F. T._) is a second draft, prepared to meet criticisms by Herbert, and allowed by him; cf. Gildersleeve, 114, 123.]

[Footnote 910: The extent to which Tilney's handiwork is apparent in the text is a matter of great palaeographical difficulty fully studied by Dr. Greg, who takes the view that the insertions and many of the corrections in the manuscript were made before it was submitted to Tilney, and are not an attempt to carry out the revision directed by him. If so, he was very easy-going as regards willingness to peruse a most disorderly text.]

[Footnote 911: Herbert (_Variorum_, iii. 235) records a conversation between Charles I and himself about the language of Davenant's _Wits_, at the end of which he noted in his office-book, 'The Kinge is pleased to take faith, death, slight, for asseverations and no oaths, to which I doe humbly submit as my masters judgment; but under favour conceive them to be oaths, and enter them here, to declare my opinion and submission'. I also find Herbert occasionally expurgating 'obsceanes' and 'ribaldry' from plays (_Variorum_, iii. 208, 232, 241). But it is obvious from extant texts that neither he nor his predecessors made any attempt to enforce a high standard of decency.]

[Footnote 912: R. Whyte to Sir R. Sidney on 26 Oct. 1599 (_Sydney Papers_, ii. 136), 'Two daies agoe, the ouerthrow of _Turnholt_, was acted vpon a Stage, and all your Names vsed that were at yt; especially _Sir Fra. Veres_, and he that plaid that Part gott a Beard resembling his, and a Watchet Sattin Doublett, with Hose trimd with Siluer Lace. You was also introduced, Killing, Slaying, and Overthrowing the _Spaniards_, and honorable Mention made of your Service, in seconding _Sir Francis Vere_, being engaged'. Turnhout was taken from the Spanish by Count Maurice of Nassau, with the help of an English contingent, on 24 Jan. 1598.]

[Footnote 913: Winwood to Cecil from Paris on 7 July 1602 (Winwood, i. 425), 'Upon Thursday last, certain Italian comedians did set up upon the corners of the passages in this towne that that afternoone they would play _l'Histoire Angloise contre la Roine d'Angleterre_'. Winwood protested and secured an inhibition, but 'It was objected to me before the Counsaile by some Standers by, that the Death of the Duke of Guise hath ben plaied at London; which I answered was never done in the life of the last King; and sence, by some others, that the Massacre of St. Bartholomews hath ben publickly acted, and this King represented upon the stage'. The play introducing Henri IV was probably a revival by the Admiral's men of Marlowe's _Massacre at Paris_, for which Henslowe was making advances in Nov. 1601 and Jan. 1602; cf. Bk. III. Evidently Elizabeth got as good as she gave on the stage. On 2 June 1598 Dr. Fletcher describes to Sir R. Cecil (_Hatfield MSS._ viii. 190) a recent dumb show at Brussels in which she was mocked at. On 7 June 1598 one Mr. Hungerford describes to Essex (_Hatfield MSS._ viii. 197) another, or perhaps the same, show at Antwerp, in which also she appeared. In Oct. 1607 Walter Yonge records in his _Diary_ (Camden Soc.), 15, a play at the Jesuit College of Lyons. It lasted two days, and employed 100 actors. An abbess played the Virgin. Calvin, Luther, and others 'with our late good Queen Elizabeth, condemned', were represented. The episodes included 'the meritorious deed intended of gunpowder; the conspiracy of Babington, and others, against Queen Elizabeth; all which were rewarded with the joys of Paradise'. Yonge adds that a storm broke, and 'the three resembling the Trinity, and the abbess were stricken with the hand of the Lord, and it was never known what became of them'. He says that books were printed about the incident; there are in fact no less than five recorded in Arber, iii. 361-4 (cf. App. M).]

[Footnote 914: Cf. ch. viii. On 20 July 1586 the Venetian ambassador in Spain reported (_V. P._ viii. 182) Philip's resentment at 'the masquerades and comedies which the Queen of England orders to be acted at his expense. His Majesty has received a summary of one of these which was lately represented, in which all sorts of evil is spoken of the Pope, the Catholic religion, and the King, who is accused of spending all his time in the Escurial with the monks of St. Jerome, attending only to his buildings, and a hundred other insolences which I refrain from sending to your Serenity'. This is confirmed by Collier, i. 279, from a manuscript _Declaration of the True Causes of the Great Troubles supposed to be Intended against the Realm of England_ (1592). On 15 April 1598 George Nicolson wrote from Edinburgh to Burghley (_Sc. P._