Page:The Elizabethan stage (Volume 4).pdf/154



of Cranbornes, where the Q. with the D. of Holst and a great part of the Court were feasted, and the like two nights before at my Lord of Southamptons. The Temples have both of them done somewhat since Twelftide but nothing memorable, save that it was observed on Friday last at night the greatest part of the femal audience was the sisterhoode of Blackfriers.'

Mr. Law (More about S. F. 50) rightly rejects the suggestion of 'Audi Alteram Partem' that the 'last night' referred to was necessarily 14 Jan., the night before the date of Carleton's letter; but I think he is wrong in taking it as the last night of Christmas. This, of course, was traditionally Twelfth Night, the day in 1605 of Jonson's Mask of Blackness. But surely Carleton's whole point lies in the exceptional prolongation of the Christmas festivities of this year beyond Twelfth Night, and I feel clear that all the revels he here refers to fell between 6 and 15 Jan. On 7 and 8 Jan. came ''Hen. V'' and E. M. O. Putting the facts together, we get a performance, either at Southampton's house or Cranborne's, between 8 and 15 Jan. of Love's Labour's Lost, which the Queen had not seen before. It is not therefore at all likely that there had been another performance of the same play at court between 1 and 6 Jan. It is true that the Queen might by some accident have missed such a performance. But that would not have prevented the Treasurer of the Chamber from paying for it, whereas he would not pay for a performance ordered as part of an entertainment given by Southampton or Cranborne. Nor would it have been the duty of the Revels Office to attend such a performance, which makes it rather mystifying that they should have confused it with the second Queen's Revels performance at court some days earlier, which it would have been their duty to attend. The vagueness of the phrase 'betwin Newers Day and Twelfe Day', suggesting that the list was prepared retrospectively from memory, when the account was made up in the autumn of 1605, may perhaps help to explain an error. On the other hand, a forger, presumably knowing nothing of Cope's letter, which first came to light in 1872, could hardly have guessed at a revival of Love's Labour's Lost in 1605.

The discrepancies between the Revels list of 1611-12 and the corresponding accounts of the Treasurer of the Chamber are rather numerous. The Revels list records thirteen plays from 1 Nov. to 25 Feb. 'before the Kinges Maiestie', including two which, although, I suppose, ordered for the King, were in fact only given before the Queen and Prince. The Treasurer paid for only ten plays as before the King, and for many others before the younger members of the royal family only, with which the Revels would not normally be concerned. The two records agree as to 1 and 5 Nov., 26, 27, and 29 Dec., and 2, 23, and 25 Feb. On 28 Dec. the Treasurer notes a play by the Prince's men which the Revels list does not. On 1 Jan. the Revels list notes a play by the King's men, which the Treasurer does not. The play on 5 Jan. is assigned by the Treasurer to the King's men, and by the Revels list to the Whitefriars. The plays on 12 and 13 Jan. appear from the Revels list to have been joint performances by the King's and Queen's men, but the Treasurer notes the play on 12 Jan. only, assigns that to the Duke of York's men,