Page:English Historical Review Volume 35.djvu/317

 1920 SHORT NOTICES 309 tionary body, appointed by the states-general for no other purpose than to give some sort of unity to the government during the distracted times through which the country was passing. The states-general, however, defeated this very object by continually interfering in the management of affairs and by holding the council strictly to the very onerous conditions on which Matthias had consented to accept the government. In all these respects this council was the prototype of the council of state in the later republic of the United Provinces, a symbol of centralization, but powerless in the face of the permanent assembly of the states-general. Dr. De Pater's study is based on researches in the archives of The Hague and Brussels and on the new publication by Dr. Japikse of the resolutions of the states- general. P. Gr. Students of the English drama of the seventeenth century will be grateful to Professor Joseph Quincy Adams of Cornell University for his scholarly reconstitution of The Dramatic Records of Sir Henry Herbert {Cornell Stvdies in English) (New Haven, Connecticut : Yale University Press ; London : Milford, 1917). Sir Henry Herbert, youngest brother of Edward, Lord Herbert of Cherbury, and of George Herbert, exercised the office of master of the revels from 1623 to 1642 and again from 1660 till his death in 1673, though after the Restoration his extensive claims to regulate the theatre were subject to disputes not encountered in his earlier times. Herbert's Office-book, with its invaluable material for the history of the drama, remained during the eighteenth century at what had been Sir Henry Herbert's house at Ribbesford near Bewdley, lying in the same chest with his brother Edward's famous Autobiography. Both originals have disappeared. Fortunately the Office-book was used and largely quoted by Chalmers and Malone, so that it has been possible for Mr. Adams practically to put it together again from the statements which those scholars took from it or based upon it. Other documents relating to his office, and especially to his disputes with D'Avenant and with Killi- grew's actors after the Restoration, were also kept by Sir Henry Herbert. These, which were printed by Halliwell-Phillipps in 1870, are now reprinted by Mr. Adams. In a valuable introduction Mr. Adams, building on the work of Professor Feuillerat and Mr. E. K. Chambers, traces the history of the office of the revels under Herbert's administration. Its powers and emoluments are alike surprising. Herbert's fee for reading and licensing a play for performance was at first £1, but after 1632 for a new play £2. He sometimes noted that he had had ' profane ness ' or for ribaldry and still charged his £2. From 1606 the office of the revels had claimed the right to license plays not merely for acting, but for printing. For a time the right lapsed, but between 1628 and 1637 Sir Henry or his deputy licensed every play after it had been entered on the Stationers' Register. This power in 1638 was resigned to Laud's new censors. Herbert claimed the right even to license poetry not of a dramatic nature. Before erecting or taking a playhouse, a licence had also to be obtained from the master of the revels. Herbert's reward here was two benefit performances yearly (afterwards valued at £40) or a share
 * dangerous matter ' removed, while on one occasion he had a play burnt