Printer Friendly

Samuel Daniel's masque The Vision of the Twelve Goddesses: texts and payments.

THE Vision of the Twelve Goddesses was performed in the Great Hall in Hampton Court on the night of Sunday, January 8, 1604. There was considerable excitement about it in the weeks leading up to the performance. It was to be something special commissioned by the new queen, novel and unusual because she and her ladies-in-waiting would be participants rather than spectators; they were to assume roles and then dance, by themselves and with the men of the court who had been watching them. The masque was scheduled for the very end of the Christmas festivities, a high point on which to conclude the first holiday season of the new reign. No doubt it was expected that matters of state would be alluded to in the masque. Ambassadors from friendly and not-so-friendly countries would be there, trying to decipher any elements of foreign policy they could detect in the ceremonies and welcomes they were shown.

To date there has been no overview of the texts of the masque. Joan Rees concluded that the first, surreptitious edition, published in 1604, contained many printing "mistakes of a kind likely to arise from hasty and not very intelligent reading of a roughly written manuscript." (1) She did not discuss where the "roughly written" manuscript came from--a member of the elite audience, perhaps, or one of the court functionaries?--nor the manuscript from which it was copied. Plainly we need to establish, if we can, whether this source manuscript was the one from which Daniel's authorized edition was printed later in the same year. The recent discovery of the Spanish ambassador's description of the masque (2) --which resembles in many respects the authorized text--also needs to be accounted for. How were these three versions related to one another?

The texts, taken together, tell us a lot about the staging of The Vision of the Twelve Goddesses, but there is nothing in them about the actors who played the speaking parts, or the numbers of musicians, or the many preparations needed (building and painting the stage furniture, decorating the hall, cutting and finishing the ladies' dresses). However, an account book recording many of these details--including a payment to Daniel for writing the masque--has been located in the National Archives (formerly Public Record Office). This account and the expenditure listed in it have not examined before. They are discussed below in the section "Payments," which includes extracts from the account book.

It may be helpful to summarize what happened in the masque. The action began in darkness, with Night coming from beneath the earth to the cave of her son, Somnus. She asked him to produce a dream vision to please the assembled court in their "slumber," in which they were to see a Temple of Peace with four pillars and the priestess Sybilla. Night retired, and Somnus slept again. In the vision Iris, messenger of the gods, came down from a mountain to tell Sybilla that the Goddesses were about to appear. Iris gave Sybilla a prospective (a kind of telescope) so that she could see and describe the Goddesses as they descended the mountain afar off. This she did. Iris withdrew and the Goddesses advanced towards the temple, in four ranks of three, led by the Three Graces, each carrying a lit white torch. The Graces sang as the Goddesses one by one presented their gifts at the Temple. Sybilla then said what the gifts represented, and the Goddesses danced with one another. They then danced with certain noblemen among the audience, while the Graces sang another song. At the conclusion of these dances, Iris reappeared to announce that the Goddesses were about to leave. After a short dance, they ascended to the top of the mountain where, unseen, they found Queen Anne and her Ladies. The Goddesses took their forms, "delighting to be in the best built Temples of beauty and honour," and then returned with their faces unmasked.

Texts

Very soon after the performance--no more than a couple of weeks--the masque appeared in print in a small quarto pamphlet, a dozen pages of text fronted with the title-page "THE | TRUE DISCRIP- | tion of a Royall | Masque. | PRESENTED AT HAMP-|ton Court, vpon Sunday night, be- | ing the eight of lanuary. | 1604. | AND | Personated by the Queenes most Excellent Majestic, attended by Eleuen | Ladies of Honour." The text of the masque was acquired surreptitiously by the stationer Edward Allde and sold at his shop near St. Mildred's Church in Cheapside. We know Allde's edition was not authorized because at some point during 1604 Simon Waterson, Daniel's lifelong publisher, issued another text of the masque, in an octavo entitled "THE | VISION OF | the 12. Goddesses, presented in a | Maske the 8. of Ianuary, at | Hampton Court: By the Queenes most excellent Majestic, | and her Ladies." (3)

Waterson's text was the same in outline as Allde's but superior in detail. It also had prefixed to it a letter from Daniel to Lucy Russell, Countess of Bedford (1581-1627), at whose prompting the Queen had chosen him to write the masque. Daniel began the letter, which serves as a preface, by referring to Allde's edition:
  In respect of the vnmannerly presumption of an indiscreet
  Printer, who without warrant hath divulged the late shewe
  at Court ... and the same verie disorderly set forth: I
  thought it not amisse seeing it would otherwise passe abroad,
  to the preiu-dice both of the Maske and the inuention, to
  describe the whole forme thereof in all points as it was
  then performed... (4)


Daniel's first aim in the Lady Bedford letter was to defend "the inuention," i.e., the subject and design of the masque, against unnamed critics, one of whom was almost certainly Ben Jonson. His larger purpose was to argue against the tyranny of classical precedent, and the misapplication of ancient literature and philosophy (the preface is discussed further below).

The market appeal of a printed text of the masque was that it recorded an exclusive court event. Allde's surreptitious edition was on sale no later than February 2, 1604. This was the date that Edward, Earl of Worcester (c. 1550-1628). who had attended the masque, wrote to Gilbert Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury (1552-1616) enclosing a copy of the book:
  Whereas youer Lo. saythe youe wear neuer perticulerly
  advertised of the Maske, I have been at 6d. charge wth
  you to send youe the booke, wch wyll inform youe better
  then I can, having noted the names of the Ladyes applyed
  to eche Goddes... (5)


This copy has survived, as one of the three examples of the Allde edition now in the British Library. It has notes written on sigs. B1v and B2 identifying which ladies performed which roles, in what is most likely Lord Worcester's own hand. (6)

The sixpence Lord Worcester paid for the copy, if this was the normal price, would have brought Allde a good profit on the edition, especially if it sold quickly. This was the price often charged for slim quartos of public stage plays, and The Vision of the Twelve Goddesses was much shorter than many plays. The book contained only twelve pages of text, plus a title page with a blank verso. In all, the masque consisted of six speeches and two songs, all but one of which (Somnus' speech) were prefaced by a brief scene direction in prose:

Night's speech           (verse, 23 lines, 170 words)

Somnus' speech           (verse, 10 lines, 70 words)

Iris' first speech       (prose, 24 lines, 280 words)

Sybilla's first speech   (prose, 8 lines, 100 words;
                          verse, 50 lines, 370 words)

The Graces' first song   (verse, 18 lines, 100 words)

Sybilla's second speech  (verse, 10 lines, 80 words)

The Graces' second song  (verse, 12 lines, 80 words)

Iris's second speech     (prose, 17 lines, 200 words)



Thus there were only 172 lines spoken or sung in the masque--and fewer than 1,500 words. Four actors between them spoke 1,270 words (Night, 170; Somnus, 70; iris, 480; Sybilla, 550), while three singers (the Graces) performed two songs amounting to thirty lines or 180 words (word counts are rounded to the nearest 10).

The relative brevity of the masque gives us a clue about where Allde got the manuscript he printed from. On January 15, 1604, a week after the masque was performed, Dudley Carleton, still at Hampton Court (he had been there since mid-December), wrote a long letter to his friend John Chamberlain. In the first part of the letter he described at length the masques he had seen earlier in January, including The Vision of the Twelve Goddesses. His account is well known, particularly the passage about the shortness of the costume the Queen wore. Her clothes, he wrote, "were not so much below the knee but that we might see a woman had both feet and legs, which I never knew before." Less familiar is his description of the procession of the Goddesses, which has a neglected but important phrase in it:
  Their demarche was slow and orderly; and first they made their
  offerings at an altar in a temple which was built on the left side of
  the hall towards the upper end; the songs and speeches that were
  there used I send you here enclosed. (7)


It is a reasonable guess that the manuscript Carleton enclosed was related to the one of six speeches and two songs that served as printer's copy for the Allde edition. A handwritten text of 172 lines, even with scene directions, would easily fit into three or four pages of a bifolium sheet, of the kind Carleton may well have sent Chamberlain. The question that follows--where did Carleton get his manuscript?--might tempt us to imagine there was a single original source from which a purloined copy was made, from which other clandestine copies were transcribed in succession. Or that the seven actors and singers, or their handler Robert Payne (see Payments below), combined their parts to make the manuscript text Allde printed, which was distinct from the version Carleton sent Chamberlain.

The truth is probably simpler. It is generally accepted that texts of court masques--manuscript copies as well as printed ones--were often available as souvenirs at performances. (8) The Vision of the Twelve Goddesses was early in the development of the masque, but it is fair to suppose that even at this date something similar was planned for the performance on January 8, with several copies of the speeches and songs for dignitaries and VIPs. Daniel too may have wanted manuscript copies at the performance, but for another reason--that the audience might be so caught up with what they were watching that they would fail to listen to what was said. (9) Perhaps he arranged for copies of the speeches and songs to be given to select people as a tactful aide-memoire as well as a souvenir.

Viewed in these terms, printer's copy for the Allde edition may well have been an inaccurate transcript from a souvenir text, and Carleton's copy a souvenir manuscript he somehow got his hands on. Whoever made the Allde copy did something more, though, inserting details that show he saw the performance. For example, in the 1604 authorized text--which Daniel published because Allde forced his hand--one of the scene directions reads
  Sybilla, hauing receiued this Message, and the Prospective,
  vseth these words


but Allde's version adds an eyewitness phrase:
  Sybilla deckt as a Nunne, in blacke vpon White, hauing receiued
  this Message, and the Prospective, vseth these words.


Allde's copyist got many details wrong too, but it is because of him that we can be fairly sure, to take one further example, how the three Graces sang their first song. In the authorized text, the final lines of the first stanza are
For we deserue, we giue, we thanke,
Thanks, Gifts, Deserts, thus ioyne in ranke


but in Al1de, this appears as
1. For I deserue. 2. I giue. 3. I thanke:
All. Thanks. guifts, deserts thus joyne in ranck


thus dividing the song between them. It is entirely possible that the authorized text represents the first version of the song Ferrabosco wrote (see Payments below), which was modified in rehearsal, but which Daniel failed, or chose not to alter in the manuscript he sent to Waterson for publication.

There is no reason to suspect that Daniel from the outset intended to publish The Vision of the Twelve Goddesses as a printed book. In the years after the masque, he did not reprint the authorized text or include it in any of his three collected editions (1605, 1607, and 1611). (10) After his death, Simon Waterson and John Danyel did reprint it (not without mistakes) in the 1623 Whole Workes collected edition, (11) but they were aiming at a complete text of his poetry and drama, irrespective of what he had felt about masques in print. His views were clear enough in the Preface he wrote to his (second and final) masque, Tethys' Festival, performed in June 1610:
  For so much as shewes and spectacles of this nature, are
  vsually registred, among the memorable acts of the time ...
  it is expected (according now to the custome) that I, beeing
  imployed in the busines, should publish a discription and
  forme of the late Mask ... in regard to preserue the memorie
  thereof, and to satisfie their desires, who could haue no
  other notice, but by others report of what was done. Which
  I doe not, out of a desire, to be seene in pamphlets, or of
  forwardnes to shew my inuention thermn... (12)


Daniel's reluctance to publish Tethys' Festival is apparent throughout the Preface. We may be sure that six years earlier, before masque pamphlets had become "the custome," he was just as disinclined, if not more, to see The Vision of the Twelve Goddesses in print.

The text Daniel did publish had two parts of differing lengths. The second part was the masque proper, similar in essentials to Allde's version--same action, same speeches, same songs--but without the minor blunders. The Allde text added staging details in places (see above), but the copyist or compositor (or both) completely messed up certain speeches. Somnus, for example, closes his speech like this in the authorized Waterson text
  from this sable radius doth proceed
Nought but confused shewes, to no intent.
Be this a Temple; there Sybilla stand,
Preparing reuerent Rytes with holy hand,
And so bright visions go, and entertaine
Al round about, whilest I'le to sleepe againe.


In Allde this is printed as
  from this sable Radius doth proceed
Nought but confusd darke shewes, to no intent:
And therefore goe bright visions, entertaine
All round about. whilst I'le to sleepe againe. (13)


We should think of Waterson 's as the correct text rather than a corrected one. It is inconceivable that Daniel sent Waterson a marked up copy of Allde to print from, especially if he had a souvenir manuscript available (see above), or perhaps his own fair draft of the masque.

The first part of the authorized edition--twice the length of the masque--was the prefatory letter to Lady Bedford, written in twenty-three paragraphs, all in prose except for a few quotations in Latin and Italian. In the letter Daniel mixed freely descriptions of the plot and roles (Paragraphs 4-21) with his views on literature, court entertainments, and classical authorities (1-3, 22-23). As we shall see, it is possible he composed the paragraphs at different stages, some probably in parallel with writing the masque:
Paragraph 1      The reason for publishing the masque

Paragraph 2      A description of the "intent and scope of
                 the project"

Paragraph 3      The liberty to choose between mythologies

Paragraph 4      What the Goddesses represent

Paragraph 5      Goddesses brought "figures of their power" to
                 the Temple of Peace

Paragraphs 6-17  Descriptions of the costume and symbolic gift
                 of each Goddess

Paragraph 18     Night came to her son Sleep, "as the Proem to
                 the Vision"

Paragraph 19     Description of how Sleep was dressed and his symbols

Paragraph 20     Iris gave Sybilla a "Prospectiue" to describe the
                 Goddesses

Paragraph 21     The Goddesses entered, preceded by the Graces; gifts
                 and dances

Paragraph 22     Publishing the masque to justify Lady Bedford's
                 choice of him


Paragraph 23     Answer to "Censurers" who overvalue such "Dreames
                 and showes"


Paragraphs 1-3 and 22-23 amount to a short critical essay in which Daniel develops and adds to some of the ideas in his famous A Defence of Rhyme. published the year before. It is almost certain he was answering Ben Jonson in particular, who at the performance and afterwards criticized (as he saw it) Daniel's unscholarly and unforceful way of reading the ancients. Jonson also thought Daniel had failed to grasp how powerful an art form the masque might be. The serious and intelligent answers Daniel gave Jonson are what one might expect from him. In Paragraph 3, he drew attention to his own sources--among them Ovid and Ariosto (14)--but his key quotation (not identified before) was from Pico della Mirandola, Oratio de hominis dignitate. There were sensible limits to book learning, so as to avoid a slavish regard for classical authority:
  ingenerosum sapere solum ex commentarijs quasi
  maiorum iuenta industriae nostrae Warn precluserit,
  quasi in nobis offaeta sit vis naturae, nihil ex se
  parere

  [It is unbecoming to know only through notebooks and,
  as though the discoveries of our ancestors had closed
  the way to our own industry and the power of nature were
  exhausted in us, to bring about nothing from ourselves].
  (15)


Daniel concluded the prefatory Bedford letter with a final fling at "captious Censurers," and their overestimate of the masque, by quoting from Seneca. "Ludus istis animus, non proficit" [Epistulae Morales, 111:4: "the mind plays with these things, but gains nothing from them"].

The paragraphs answering Jonson appear to have been written after the performance, as were several of Paragraphs 4-21 (Paragraph 19, for instance, where Daniel, presumably because of criticism from Jonson, defended the attributes he had given Somnus). (16) However, it is possible that certain paragraphs--those describing what the Goddesses wore and the gifts they carried, 6-17--were written beforehand. The figure of the Goddess Concordia in Paragraph 13, for instance, is said to be
  in a partie coloured Mantle of Crimson and White (the
  colours of England and Scotland ioyned) imbrodered with
  siluer, hands in hand, with a dressing likewise of partie
  coloured Roses, a Branch whereof in a wreath or knot she
  presented.


In the masque, in the second half of the book, the details of Concordia are similar, but many of them are left unglossed:
NEXT all in partie-coloured Robes appeares,
In white and crimson, gracefull Concord drest
With knots of Vnion, and in hand she beares
The happy joyned Roses of our rest.


The question is, what is the relationship between these two passages? Did Daniel write the note in prose in Paragraph 13 to explain (or to supplement) the verses on Concordia in the masque--perhaps for readers of the authorized edition who, not being at the event, wouldn't know otherwise that the "white and crimson" of Concordia's "partie-coloured Robes" represented England and Scotland "ioyned," or that Concordia's mantle had emblematic clasped hands embroidered in silver on it, along with white and red roses? The function of Paragraphs 4-5 and 18-21 looks very similar to this--that is, that Daniel goes over the action of the masque, in the sequence of the six speeches and songs, filling in details, clarifying, and explicating, all for the sake of readers. Surely Paragraphs 6-17 do just this.

This explanation is convincing until we read the description of the masque sent to King Philip III of Spain by his ambassador the Conde de Villamediana, recently discovered in the Archivo General, Simancas, by Cano-Echevarria and Hutchings. The description, in Spanish prose, was an enclosure in a letter Villamediana wrote to Philip describing diplomatic maneuverings leading up the masque (including disputes over protocol) dated January 20, 1604, that is, twelve days after the performance. Villamediana, who could speak no English, evidently had some kind of text of the masque, which his cousin, Juan de Tassis, translated for him. It is possible that the actors supplied this text clandestinely, or that Daniel prepared it for Villamediana as a special favor. Once again, though, the most likely explanation is that it was a VIP souvenir manuscript that de Tassis worked from, adding details in places that he or Villamediana (or both) had noticed in the performance (including, for example, the time that the Goddesses spent dancing). The outline of the action in Villamediana is the same as in both printed texts, surreptitious and authorized, and most of the speeches and songs are visible beneath their summaries in Spanish. A few details are wrong (at one point about the Graces), either because de Tassis misread the English text or because he misremembered the performance.

However, there is one important difference in Villamediana's version, in the account of what the Goddesses wore, and what their costumes and gifts meant. In both the surreptitious and authorized versions. Sybilla looks through a prospective and describes the Goddesses in turn in four-line stanzas. In Villamediana the sibyl looks through a prospective in the same way, but this time her account of the Goddesses is not as they are described in the masque text but as they are in Daniel's prefatory letter, Paragraphs 6-17. Moreover, alongside each Goddess is written the name of the real Lady who performed the role in the masque. In the case of Concordia, for instance, Villamediana has:
Concordia:   the With a crimson and white mantle embroidered with
Countess of  figures of hands intertwined to signify the union of
Nottingham   England, and would present a white and red rose bush.
             (17)


Villamediana's description appears to be a composite, largely drawn from a text of the masque like the one later used for the Waterson printed version, (18) but also from replacement manuscript pages (similar to Paragraphs 6-17) listing the Goddesses, their outfits, and the Ladies who played them.

We can only guess how this came about. One possibility--though there are others--is that Villamediana did have a souvenir manuscript but asked Daniel to supplement the section on the Goddesses with fuller notes--who performed the roles and what the symbols on their dresses signified. When Daniel later came to write the prefatory letter to the authorized edition, perhaps he incorporated the notes, removing the Ladies' names (i.e., Paragraphs 6-17), to explain things to a new audience, of readers.

Villamediana's account. although it adds significantly to what we know about the masque, is not an infallible guide. There are mistakes in it, and what he (or de Tassis) saw and wrote down needs a proper historical context. A telling instance of this is the prospective or optical instrument (a hand prop) that Iris gave Sybilla.

All but one of the twenty-eight characters in the masque carried an object (a hand prop or torch) at some point in the action. Each Goddess carried her symbolic gift down from the Mountain and left it in the Temple of Peace. The three Graces and nine Torchbearers who accompanied them carried torches in the procession and then probably held these aloft to give light while the Goddesses danced. Of the four speaking parts, Somnus had a white wand or rod made of horn in his right hand, and a black rod (or "radius") in his left. His mother, Night, was the only character not to carry anything, though she did wear a pair of substantial black wings.

The priestess Sybilla's role (the third speaking part) was to receive the symbolic gifts in the Temple, but also to describe the Goddesses as they gathered together supposedly far off on the Mountain before their descent. In terms of the Hall at Hampton Court, Sybilla was at one end, close to the Temple, and to the royal dais and thrones, looking up the long hall towards the screen end where the Queen and her Ladies, the Goddesses, paused as a group, in four ranks of three, on the pathway down. So that Sybilla could see them at this imaginary great distance, Iris, goddess of the rainbow and "messenger of Juno" (the fourth speaking role), descended from the Mountain to give Sybilla (in Daniel's words) "a Prospectiue, wherin she might behold the Figures of their Deities, and thereby describe them." Iris tells Sybilla "take here this Prospectiue, and therein note and tell what thou seest: for well mayest thou there obserue their shadow." To this Sybilla responds--drawing attention to the instrument--"But what Prospectiue is this? or what shall I herein see? Oh admirable Powers! what sights are these?" (19)

Editors have not settled what this "Prospectiue" was. Clearly it was another hand prop, portable and light enough for Iris and Sybilla to carry. Law thought it was a "scroll" in which Sybilla read a description of the Goddesses and the "symbolical meaning of their several attires." (20) Rees, more convincingly, glossed it as "a spy-glass, or perhaps a magic mirror in which distant or future events could be seen." (21) In Villamediana's account in Spanish, Iris gave Sybilla a "prospective mirror" ["espejo prospectiuvo"] where
  (not being permitted to contemplate the goddesses being present) she
  could see at her pleasure everything that was to happen, and looking
  in the mirror ["espejo"], the Sybil related the name of the
  goddesses, their costumes, figures and the blessings they brought
  with them.


From this, Cano-Echevarrfa and Hutchings conclude that since "the telescope had yet to be invented," Iris's prospective was undoubtedly "a mirror, and not any other type of perspective device." (20)

At the date of the masque, according to the OED, the noun "prospective" had several meanings, among them, the "art of drawing in perspective" or a "view in perspective" (n. 2a). It could also be a synonym for a "prospect," that is, a scene or landscape (n. 3a). However, its primary meaning was a device that "allows one to see objects or events not immediately present" (n. la). The OED shows that this meaning intrigued Daniel (four of its earliest citations are from his works). In 1585, for instance, in The Worthy Tract, his translation of Paolo Giovio's book on imprese, he wrote that "Sunne beames passing through a peece of Christall, beeing so strengthened through their vniting, according to the nature of the Prospectiue ... burne euery object." Twenty years later when he used the word figuratively, in a dedication to the Earl of Hertford, he still had the device in mind. I must "judge," he declared, "as my selfe do stand looking thorow the prospectiue of mine owne imagination."

In the masque, although the prospective had a mirror of some kind, it was still most likely a telescope--but not the "Dutch" refracting telescope (a tube with lenses at each end) that Galileo perfected in 1609 and thereafter. Rather, it was some kind of early reflecting telescope that combined a curved mirror with a lens, where the viewer looked into the mirror to see an image (sometimes the lens and mirror were built into a box, with an eyepiece). The telescopic mirror was the subject of sustained optical speculation in England, though it is a matter of debate whether an instrument of this kind was ever made to work. The theory of the reflecting telescope was in print, however, in Latin, Italian, and English, and the Elizabethan nobility knew about it (the more practically minded ones at least). (23) The mirror instrument Sybilla used to view the Goddesses at long-range was only a model or hand prop (like Pallas's lance and shield), so whether it actually worked was unimportant. The prospective was another symbolic gift, like those the Goddesses left in the Temple, which celebrated the peace and virtue the new reign had brought about, and what was to come. It is worth noting that Queen Anne's father and mother, King Frederick and Queen Sophia of Denmark and Norway, were major patrons of the astronomer Tycho Brahe and his famous observatory and laboratory. (24) Perhaps Daniel intended Iris's telescopic mirror to hint that new scientific knowledge and devices would be of interest to the Queen as well as traditional book learning and the arts.

Payments

Modern literary and historical scholars, according to a recent writer, "do not have very much information about the economics of Queen Anne's court." This is because, the writer explains, the Public Record Office holds
  only about thirty pages out of Anne of Denmark's accounts,
  relating to the year 1614-15: because her household was
  dissolved on her death, her accounts, unlike those of the
  king's household, were not automatically preserved
  (E101/437/8). [The 1614-15 account] ... confirms the Queen's
  financial independence: it gives a large part of her wages
  bill, and also details her income from fee-farms, which
  was nearly [pounds sterling]16,000 for that year.
  Unfortunately, it does not include her wardrobe account for
  the period; though some textile-related bills turn up in the
  section on extraordinary expenditures... (25)


In point of fact more of Queen Anne's accounts have survived than this, at least for the first years she was in England. Among her household accounts for 1604-5, for instance, there are payments made to "Marie Mountjoy Tyre-woman" and "William Cookesberrie Haberdasher." Charles Nicholl uncovered these in the National Archives, TNA (PRO) SC6/JASI/1646, fo.29, when he was looking into the life of Marie Mountjoy (c.1567-1606), who at one point, famously, was Shakespeare's landlady in Silver Street in London. (26) Marie and her husband Christopher had their home and workshop in Silver Street where they made wigs and ornate headdresses for women of quality. The payment to Marie in the Queen's account would have been for the elaborate head-tires the Mountjoys had created for her out of silver wire and twisted metal thread--of the kind we see her wearing in portraits c. 1605. (27)

The prefix to the PRO manuscript, "SC" for "Special Collections," indicates that this is a gathering of miscellaneous items from various royal departments. Most of the records in SC6 appear to relate to crown lands in different parts of the country. For instance, SC6/JASI/565 contains Lincolnshire accounts, while SC6/JASI/1246 deals with collegiate, chantry, and concealed lands in Yorkshire. At some point the records, largely dealing with land revenues, were arranged by counties, and then, probably artificially, by date. The payments to Marie Mountjoy and William Cooksberry in SC6/ JASI/1646 may have been mistakenly copied from the original bills into the SC6 manuscripts for the same period. Alternatively, entries like these--recording settlements of bills--were brought together with land revenues because the Queen's household and entertainment expenses (at least some of them) were being paid out of these revenues. On its title page, SC6/JASI/ 1646 is described as "The Declaration of the Accompt of Sir George Carew" for "Anglia" for the year "Anno HP" 1605." The first ten folios list rents and revenues from the Queen's manors in England, followed by folios specifying payments to members of her household and others, including Mountjoy and Cooksberry.

Carew's 1604-5 account has perhaps survived by fluke, and this may well be true of the larger collection of payments in another manuscript in the National Archives, TNA (PRO) LR 6/154/9. This too was the account book of the Queen's Vice-Chamberlain, Sir George Carew (see Extracts below). As its prefix indicates, this account should be concerned with Land Revenues. LR is normally the classification of the audit accounts of receivers of crown lands, but LR 6/154/9, though it does begin with rents and revenues from the Queen's manors, goes on to list many entries relating to her payments and expenses in the first years of King James's reign, 1603-4. It is possible that a clerk simply copied the expenditure in the wrong place, and that when this was discovered the entries were transferred to a more suitable account, such as household and wardrobe payments, E101 (unfortunately the roll covering these dates seems not have survived). More likely, at the beginning of James's reign there was some notion--as there appears to have been with SC6/JASI/1646 and other SC6 accounts--that the Queen's expenditure should be in the same place as the records of her revenue. (28) But however it came about, LR 6/154/9, because of its classification, seems to have escaped the notice of literary scholars. (29)

The payments in LR 6/154/9 are of different kinds and amounts. James Spottiswood, the Queen's Sub-Almoner, was paid by warrant of December 7, 1603 "for soe much by hym to be distributed vnto the poore in her ma[les] progresse from wilton vnto Hampton Courte by direccion from her ma[les] Lo: Chamberlaine" (fo.26). Neil Nelson, "sometime" the Queen's coachman, received a hundred crowns for his service, "by vertue of her ma[les] warrant" of January 27, 1604 (fo.26), while George Hooker, gentleman, was reimbursed for the cost of a "Standard or greate Cheste for her ma[les] Treasure" that he acquired in Salisbury on September 8, 1603 (fo.28). William Bell, clerk of the "Jewell Coffers," received wages for looking after the Queen's jewels "at the removing of the Courte to divers places" (fo.30), (30) and Robert Hughes was paid for making and delivering farthingales to "thoffice of her ma[les] Roabes" from July 1603 to March 1604 (fo.33).

Rather better-known names appear here and there. An entry on fo.15 records payments for wages and livery to the lutenist and composer Daniel Bacheler (1572-1619), a Groom of the Queen's Privy Chamber. Bacheler also received [pounds sterling]13.3s for the cost of a new viol and case along with the mending of another viol and buying a music book and lute strings. The viols, strings and book were "allowed and paid" by a warrant of March 4, 1604 signed by Robert Cecil (fo.28)--which is intriguing given Cecil's keen interest in music, musicians, and musical instruments. (31) There are records of wages paid to ordinary Grooms of the Chamber--Percival Platt, David Penry, and Rees Jones for example (fo.30)--and to Grooms of the Privy Chamber, including Thomas Cardell with two of his servants for "attendance" on the Queen "in her progresse" in the West Country in September and October 1603 (fo.29). John Florio, by this date also a Groom of the Privy Chamber--he was teaching the Queen Italian--was paid an annual wage of [pounds sterling]50 (fo.16).

Costs and payments like these are what we would expect of any royal court. In 1603, for the first time for half a century and more, the English had to get used to paying for two courts, that of the Queen as well as the King's. In terms of managing expenditure, the key officers in the Queen's new household were Robert, Baron Sidney (1563-1626), Lord High Chamberlain and Surveyor General; Sir George Carew (1555-1629), Vice Chamberlain and Receiver General (one of whose general responsibilities as Receiver would have been the account book LR 6/154/9); and William Fowler (1560/1-1612), Secretary and Master of Requests. Lord Sidney is often alluded to in the entries in LR 6/154/9, as is Audrey, Lady Walsingham (c.1570-1631), who shared the keepership of the Queen's Wardrobe with her husband Sir Thomas Walsingham (1560/1-1630). A fairly typical example of payment concerned two bills presented by the hosier Hugh Griffiths "for Silck Stockinges" made for the Queen in 1603. Griffiths had delivered the stockings in batches to Lady Walsingham who vouched that the bills were correct. The bills were then "viewed and rated" by the Queen's officers of the Wardrobe and finally "allowed by the Lo: Sidney and others of her highnes Counsell" (fo.34).

Among the everyday elite payments in LR 6/154/9--for farthingales, silk stockings, and servants" wages--there is a particular set of costs incurred in making and performing the masque The Vision of the Twelve Goddesses. The extracts printed below are taken from half a dozen of the manuscript's large folio pages (see below pp. 36-38). The entries cover all aspects of the masque, from writing it and building and painting the stage furniture (a mountain, a temple, and a cave) to the songs and the costumes worn by the boy actors and torchbearers. The bills show payments for satin and other fabrics, for fans and plumes of feathers, for buskins, and for embroidery. Daniel himself is named, as are a dozen others--gentlemen, craftsmen, theater people and suppliers, Marie Mountjoy and the haberdasher William Cooksberry among them. There were seven boy actors and twenty-nine musicians, unfortunately none of them named.

The extracted entries are rich in information about the masque, but they are not a comprehensive list of everything that was paid for and noted in the account. Extract (2) for instance tells us that the embroiderer Christopher Shaw was paid [pounds sterling]50 in part payment for the work he did "about her ma[tes] maske." This entry was canceled (vertical strokes were drawn across it), but in another entry, Extract (8), among a list of payments for embroidery from August 1603 to February 1604, covered by four "severall Bills," there is one for the large sum of [pounds sterling]346.16s.8d, interlined as "for her mates maske." Was the [pounds sterling]50 paid and set against the [pounds sterling]346.16s.8d, or did the total grow as smaller embroidery bills for the masque, not noted separately in the account (one of them for [pounds sterling]50), were totted up and presented as a single amount? Cross-referencing between entries left much to be desired, and some bills may well have been duplicated.

There is another problem with entries where suppliers presented bills for goods or services done over a period of time (sometimes six months), in the middle of which there is an item charged for the masque. The charge for it, half-buried in the entry, may have been overlooked and not included in the extracts. (32) On one or two occasions, where a bill only adds an extra detail about the type of purchases made, this has not been transcribed in the extracts. An instance of this is the entry listing bills presented by Abraham Speckart and his wife Dorothy for high-quality fabrics, including eighteen yards of "black sticht clothes florisht wth gold and silver." The Speckarts were also asking for payment for "Tiffanie"--fine transparent silk or perhaps muslin--provided "for her Ma:tes maske" (fo.34). This is the same fine material that Richard French supplied for the same purpose (Extract [7]). The Speckart entry would certainly be needed in a thoroughgoing analysis of the Queen's wardrobe but not here. The aim in the extracts is simpler--to show, in headline terms, who supplied the key elements in The Vision of the Twelve Goddesses and what they were paid. The overall cost of making and furnishing the masque is touched on below.

Perhaps the biggest surprise in the entries is the part that James Kirton had as "Director & orderer of the workes for her ma[tes] maske" (Extract [1]). Kirton (1559-1620) is not someone students of the Jacobean masque will be familiar with; indeed there is no sign he was involved in any other court entertainments before or after The Vision of the Twelve Goddesses. The entries show that his task was to finance and manage the building and staging of the masque, for which he was paid [pounds sterling]20 ([1], [3] and [5]). We need to recall that this was a full year earlier than The Masque of Blackness, "invented" and written by Ben Jonson but performed against backdrops devised by Inigo Jones. The Vision of the Twelve Goddesses had nothing like Jones's sets, proscenium arch, and shifting scenery.

Kirton was given his job by the Queen because he was a proven administrator, as the in-house solicitor of Edward Seymour, first Earl of Hertford (1540-1621). (33) The Queen's connection with Lord Hertford is easy to explain. Her two favorites from the moment she arrived in England were Lucy Russell, Countess of Bedford (see above), and Frances Seymour, Countess of Hertford (1578-1639), the latter Lord Hertford's wife. At the beginning of September 1603 the King and Queen stayed with Lord and Lady Hertford at their home, Tottenham Lodge, the Seymour mansion in Savernake Forest in Wiltshire. While they were there, Lord Hertford summoned Samuel Daniel and his brother John (the lute composer), to entertain the visitors, presumably with music and songs or perhaps an interlude. It was James Kirton who arranged for the brothers to be fetched, and for his close friend Samuel Daniel to be paid E4 "for rewarde." (34) A month later the Queen already had it in mind to present a masque at some point in the winter. (35) Her favorites Lady Bedford and Lady Hertford would both be in the masque, and the servants they personally vouched for--the Queen had met them at Tottenham Lodge--would be given the plum commissions, Daniel to write it, Kirton to supervise its preparation and to arrange the necessary short-term finance.

We learn in Extract (1) that Daniel was paid [pounds sterling]40 for "his paines & chardges attending the busines of her ma[tes] said maske by the space of vj weekes"--which means, if this is correct, that he was at Hampton Court by the beginning of the fourth week of November 1603, that is, three weeks before Lady Arbella Stuart arrived there and wrote that the Queen intended to "make a mask" at Christmas. (36) As we have seen, the text of the masque was very short--only 172 lines, including the songs--but Daniel may have had to oversee the musicians' practicing and the rehearsal of the speaking parts, possibly with Kirton in attendance. The Master of the Revels Edmund Tilney (1535/6-1610) was at Hampton Court at this date, for two months either side of Christmas, doing something similar--overseeing the "rehersalles" and "reforming" of plays brought from the public stage (37) (Tilney's connection with Daniel after the masque is touched on below). The composer Alfonso Ferrabosco the younger (c.1575-1628), who made the songs and had "imploym[t]" in the mask, was paid 100 shillings (i.e., [pounds sterling]5). (38) He and Daniel may have collaborated in organizing the music (for the procession of the Goddesses, the singing of the Graces, and the dances).

Daniel, Kirton, and Ferrabosco aside, the payments in the extracts were made to two groups of people--craftsmen and suppliers, and performers. The most senior craftsman mentioned in the entries was the carpenter Wiliam Portington, who received 40 shillings "for his paines taken in Directing & seing the said Carpenters busines done about the said maske." Portington, the King's master carpenter, was in demand everywhere for his work (he made the oak paneling and carved screen at Knole in Kent for Thomas, first Earl of Dorset). In 1608 Jonson acknowledged that it was Portington who had made Inigo Jones's scenic machinery ("the motions") work in the Masque of Beauty. In Extract (1) the phrase "Directing & seing ... the busines done" suggests that the 40 shillings was payment for supervising the carpenters. Portington's charge for actually building the stage furniture (noted in a later entry, "the Temple, Rock, and other necessaries," Extract [5]) was [pounds sterling]37.20d. The "Rock" or Mountain in particular must have been a very large structure--it took up the full width of the hall at the gallery or screen end and rose well above the gallery into the hammer-beam roof. (39) George Hearne, the craftsman mentioned in Extract (4), charged [pounds sterling]73 "for the painting of the frame & other thinges," a considerable sum but one that reflects the work that had to be done in painting and decorating the Mountain (most likely "the frame"), the Temple of Peace (with four pillars and a cupola big enough to hold several musicians), and the Cave of Somnus or Sleep.

Six of the seven other tradespeople in the entries were concerned, in one way or another, with the Ladies' clothes and dressings for their hair. It is well known that the materials for the masque costumes, at least some of them, came from the finest dresses and robes in Queen Elizabeth's wardrobe. (40) These would have needed cutting, reshaping, and tailoring, which is presumably what "James Duncane," the Queen's master tailor, did, and for which he was paid [pounds sterling]8.8s.6d (Extract [6]). The most expensive job was the embroidery done by Christopher Shawe, [pounds sterling]346.16s.8d ([2] and [8]). In the masque each of the twelve Goddesses wore a mantle, with designs embroidered on it, appropriate to the deity they represented. As Pallas, the goddess of defensive wars, the Queen (in Daniel's words) "was attyred in a blew mantle, with a siluer imbrodery of al weapons and engines of war." In the same way, Lady Hertford was Diana, "in a greene Mantle imbrodered with siluer halfe Moones, and a croissant of pearle on her head," while Lady Bedford was Vesta "in a white Mantle imbrodered with gold-flames." (41) The designs were probably embroidered in gold and silver thread, together with pearls and semiprecious stones--no doubt the reason Shawe charged so much. The insides of the Goddesses' mantles were lined with tiffany or silk gauze, striped with silver (Extract [7]).

It is clear with Shaw that his payment was for materials and work done on all the Goddesses' costumes in the masque, not just the Queen's. This was probably true as well of the "divers ffanes & plumes of fethers" supplied by the haberdasher Cooksberry for [pounds sterling]11.16s.8d (Extract [11]), and perhaps also the payment to Mistress Rogers, "the Tyrewoman," who charged 77 shillings and sixpence ([5]), presumably for the headtires, wigs, and hairpieces worn by the Goddesses. As Pallas, the Queen wore something very different, specially made for her by Marie Mountjoy, "an helmett" [10])--what Daniel describes as "a helmet-dressing on her head." In Dudley Carleton's words, she "had a pair of buskins [open-toed lace-up boots] set with rich stones, a helmet full of jewels, and her whole attire embossed with jewels of several fashions." (42) The buskins themselves were relatively cheap at 14s, made by the shoemaker Thomas Wilson ([12]). To complement her outfit, the Queen carried a "Launce & target [a small shield]," which Kirton paid for as a separate item ([5]). but there is no indication of who made them. The seventh tradesman in the account, the draper "Edward fferres" ([9]) presented three bills for fine Holland linen "and other parcells of wares." It is possible these fabrics were for costumes or clothes (noblemen certainly wore Holland linen), but the payment of [pounds sterling]51.16s.10d for January 3, 1604 indicates a different use, "to furnish the hall for her mates maske," suggesting decoration of some kind, possibly to embellish or to conceal the scaffolding on which the spectators sat in tiers, or to provide material for seating and cushions.

There were twenty-nine musicians in the performers' group. These were employed, according to the account, "in the Rock, the Temple, and for Dauncinge" (Extract [1]). The phrasing here appears to indicate the three locations in the Hall where they played. Dudley Carleton wrote that "the one end [of the Hall] was made into a rock [i.e., the Mountain] and, in several places, the waits [i.e., musicians playing wind instruments] placed; in attire like Savages." Carleton mistook their outfits--they were dressed as satyrs--perhaps because they sat half-concealed in hollows and holes in the supposed mountainside. (43) A second group of musicians (Daniel describes them as "the Consort Musicke") were hidden in the cupola of the Temple of Peace, which was positioned to one side at the opposite end of the Hall. The Rock and Temple musicians between them in sequence provided the accompaniment when the Goddesses moved in procession down from the Rock and along the Hall to present their gifts in the Temple. A guess at their numbers (twelve satyrs possibly and an ensemble of six in the cupola) suggests there might have been up to a dozen performers who provided the third segment of music of viols and lutes for the dances, playing from one side of the Hall, seated beneath (or alongside) the tiered spectators.

The other performers in the account were theater people. From Extract (I) we learn that seven "Boyes Actors" earned a total of 70 shillings for "theire paines" in the masque. In (3) Thomas Kendall asked for payment of [pounds sterling]44.13s.10d, in a bill "entituled the Bill for the Torchbearers" for "the making of Dressings and other necessaries for the Children of her ma[tes] maske." In (5) Robert Payne presented two bills amounting to [pounds sterling]4.3s "for his chardge in bringing to the Courte those boyes wc[ch] were speakers & for theire diett and lodging during theire attendance." The masque had four speaking parts (Night, Somnus, Sybilla, and Iris) and three singing parts (the Graces), so it is almost certain the seven boy actors played these roles. Thomas Kendall (c.1563-1608) was a haberdasher and one of the five members of a new partnership formed in April 1602 that put on plays at the Blackfriars Theatre performed by the company of boy players, The Children of the Queen's Chapel Royal.' The presence of Kendall in the entries is a sure sign that the boy actors in the masque belonged to this company. The statement of charges he presented, "the Bill for the Torchbearers," evidently covered costumes and wigs worn by the speakers and singers (six of whom played female characters), but also, it appears, the outfits "and other necessaries" of the Torchbearers. There were nine of these, dressed, as Carleton put it, as "pages in white satin loose gowns, set with stars of gold; and their torches of white virgin wax gilded." (45) In the procession down from the Mountain, the three Graces led the way "in siluer Robes with white Torches," followed by the Goddesses, similarly in threes. Between "euery ranke of Goddesses," there marched," in Daniel's words, "three Torch-bearers in the like seuerall colours, their heads and Robes all dect with Starres." (46)

The Torchbearers neither spoke nor sang, so they weren't among "those boyes w[ch] were speakers" whom Robert Payne brought to Hampton Court and housed and fed. It is possible the Torchbearers really were pages, but more likely they were additional boys from the Children of the Chapel, paid for (perhaps on a casual basis) under Kendall's "Bill for the Torchbearers." It is intriguing that in the Kendall entry, the payment is said to be "for the Children of her ma[tes] maske," almost as if this were an established company, with the Queen as patron. Perhaps the clerk who wrote it (in January 1604) had in mind that a new acting company was just then being formed, out of the disbanded Children of the Chapel, with Kendall and Payne (d. 1623) as two of its shareholders. This was the Children of the Queen's Revels, granted a royal patent on February 4, 1604 (the company's license was made out a little earlier, on January 31). (47)

Daniel later claimed that it was through his efforts that Kendall and Payne and their partners obtained the patent. His own reward was the unusual stipulation in the patent that the new company should only present plays--either before the Queen herself or on the public stage--with "the approbation and allowaunce of Samuell Danyell" whom it was the Queen's pleasure "to appoynt for that purpose." This made Daniel the company's licenser, an innovation that encroached on the office of Edmund Tilney, the Master of the Revels, whose job it was to license public stage plays. As we saw, Tilney was at Hampton Court at the date of the masque and the creation of the company. Presumably this was when he agreed (or was obliged to agree) to the new post for Daniel. For the first year or so, the arrangement may have provided Daniel with a small income, but after that his association with the company was disastrous. He was still caught up in a lawsuit with the shareholders as late as May 1609, and it is more than likely that it was the Children of the Queen's Revels that put on his controversial play, The Tragedy of Philotas, which nearly ruined him. (48)

The entries and payments in LR 6/154/9 help to fill in our picture of The Vision of the Twelve Goddesses--how much music there was and who performed the speaking roles--but they do not tell us what the masque cost as a whole. Later in 1604, in December when probably all the bills had been presented, the Privy Council estimated that the cost of the next Christmas masque (were it to happen) would be [pounds sterling]4,000. (49) No matter how we count up the masque payments in LR 6/154/9 the total is nowhere as much as that. This must be because many of the charges simply were not entered in this account. One omission in particular makes the point. On December 23, two weeks before the performance, Sir Thomas Edmonds wrote from Hampton Court to Gilbert, Earl of Shrewsbury (see above), reporting the plans to have two masques, the "younge Lordes and chief Gentlemen of one parte, and the Queene and her Ladyes of the other parte." And because "there is use of invention therein," Edmondes explained,
  special! choice is made of Mr. Sanford to direct the
  order and course of the Ladyes, which is an occasion
  to staie him here till that busyness be donne. (50)


This was Hugh Sanford (d. 1607), formerly tutor to William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke (1580-1630). Sanford, "learned in all arts, sciences, knowledge, humane and divine," was evidently chosen because of his Pembroke connections at Wilton House (51) --where the King and Queen had stayed in August 1603, not long before their visit to Lord and Lady Hertford's home nearby in Savernake Forest (see above). Sanford's part in the preparations for the Queen's masque was either as director in charge of everything--"the order and course of the Ladies [masque]"--or as the person who supervised how the Ladies marched and danced within the masque [their "order and course"]. Either way, it was an important role, given to someone of the rank of Kirton and Daniel. Yet it appears there is no mention of any payment to Sanford in LR 6/154/9. Unless one is found--with Sanford's name entered but horribly misspelled--one can only assume that he was not paid for his service (which is unlikely) or that his payment passed through some other account, now either lost or unexamined.

Extracts

Extracts relating to the masque The Vision of the Twelve Goddesses from the account book of Sir George Carew, Vice-Chamberlain and Receiver General of Anne of Denmark, 24 June 1603 to Michaelmas 1604, TNA (PRO) LR 6/154/9.

(1), fo. 26; (2) and (3), fo. 27; (4) and (5), fo. 28; (6), fo. 33; (7), (8) and (9), fo. 34; (10) and (11), fo. 36; (12), fo. 37

(1) James Kirton gent Director & orderer of the workes for her ma[tes] maske at Hampton Courte on the viijth of Januarie 1603 for soe much money by to him delivered, as parcell of ccxliij[li] xvj[s] ij[d] by vertue of A warrante signed by her hignes bearing date the xxth daie of lanuarie 1603 & heereafter in the title of extraordinarie paym[tes]. likewise advouched aswell for him selfe as divers others hereafter mencioned viz for m[t] Samuell Daniell for his paines & chardges attending the busines of her ma[tes] said maske by the space of vj weekes xl[li] The said James Kirton for his travaile & paines about the said maske xx[li] The musiccions imploied in the Rock. the Temple, and for Dauncinge in the said maske being in nomber xxix[tie] xx[li]. Alphonso fferabosco for making the songes and his imploym[t] in the said maske cs. vij Boyes Actors in the said maske for theire paines Lxxs & for william Portington mu Carpenter for his paines taken in Directing & seing the said Carpenters busines done about the said maske xls. heere allowed and paid by vertue of the said warrante seene & examined & nowe called in & remaining among the remembrances of this Accompt amounting in all to [xx]iiij x[li] x[s]

(2) [left margin] this is to be sett of in Sup. Confession.

[begin strikethrough] christofer Shawe Imbroderer for soe much imney by him receied of this Accomptant by waie of Impresi and [in] parte of payment for wtorke & Im broderie:; to be done by him about her ma[tes] maske & heere allowed to this Accomplant by warrant vnder the hand of the right ho:[ble] Rohcrie Lo: Ski ney & william ffowler esquire two of her ma[tes] Couiicell dated the xxxth of Decembre 1603 together wth thacq[tes] of the said Christofer Shawe seene & examined & nowe culled in nd remaininge wth the rest of the remembrances of this Accompt in the Bagge the particulers thereol above menconed L[li] [end strikethrough]

(3) Thomas Kendall for the making of Dressings and other necessaries for the Children of her ma'es maske as appeareth by his bill of the particulers therof entituled the Bill for the Torchebearers signed by the said Thomas Kendall amounting to the some of xliij[li] xiij[s] x[d] & heere allowed and paid [as folioweth] viz to the said Thomas Kendall by waie of imprest by warrant from the Lo Sidney & william ffowler esquire [two of her ma[tes] Counsell] dated the xxxth of Decembre 1603 x[li] and to James Kyrton gent as parcell of ccxliij[li] xvj[s] ij[d] by him rec by vertue [of] a warrante signed by her ma[tic] bearinge date the xxth daie of Ianuarie 1603 xxxiij[li] xiij[s] iiij[d]. In all as appeareth by the said warrantes & theire acq[tes] nowe called in and remaining as aforesaid xliij[li] xiij[s] iiij[d]

(4) [margin] Extraordinarie paymentes paid to George Hearne Painter for the painting of the frame & other thinges about her ma[tes] maske as appeareth by his bill of the particulers therof entituled the painters Bill signed by the said George Hearne amounting to the some of Lxxiij[li] & heere allowed & paid as heareafter followeth viz to the said George Hearne by waie of imprest by warrant from the Lo: Sidney & william ffouler esquire dated the xxxth of Decembre 1603 x[li] And to thabove named James Kirton gent as parcell of the said Some of ccxliij[li] xvj[s] ij[d] by him Rec by ver-tue of the warrant above mencioned Lxiij[li] In all as appeareth by the said warrantes & theire acq[tes] called in and remaining as aforesaid Lxxiij[li]

(5) [The said] James Kirton [begin strikethrough] gent who had the Directing anti ordering of the wooorkers in the aforesaid make [end strikethrough] for soe much money by him Rec, as parcell of the [fore] said Some of ccxliij[li] xvj[s] ij[d] aswell for him selfe as for divers others according to theire Bills of the particulers therof seene & examined viz for m:[ris] [blank] Rogers the Tyrewoman her bill amounting to Lxxvij[s] vj[d] Roberte Payne for his chardge in bringing to the Courte those boyes w[ch] were speakers & for theire diett and lodging during theire attendance as appeareth by his two bills amounting to iiij[li] iij[s] The said James Kirton for the Launce & targett vsed by the Queenes ma:[tie] & for the Satines habittes & other necessaries for the said maske as appeareth by his bill vnder his hand xj.[li] x[s] viij[d] William Portington m[r] Carpenter for the making of the Temple, Rock, and other necessaries meete for her ma'es rsaidi maske at Hampton Courte as ap-peareth by his bill vnder his hand amounting to xxxvij[li] xx[d] All W[ch] said Somes of money are heere allowed and paid by vertue of ma[tes] warrante above mencioned [bearing date the xxth of lanuarie1603] and doe [heere] amount to [the Some of] lvj[li] xij[s] x[d]

(6) James Duncane mr Tayler to the Queenes Ma:[tie] for his workmanshippe and makinge of divers Roabes for her hignes. ... [including] for her ma[t]es maske at Christemas 1603 viij[li] viij[s] vj[d]...

(7) Richarde ffrench Haberdasher for divers parcells of ware ... for her ma[tes] vse ... [from 26 July 1603 to 20 March 1604, including] the third of Januarie 1603 for Tiffanie stript [i.e. striped] wth silver to line mantles for her ma[tes] maske xxiiij[li]xli[s]...

(8) Christopher Shawe Imbroderer for divers parcells of [work of] imbroderie by him done for her ma:[tes] [vse &] s[er]vice as appeareth by iiij[or] severall Bills thereof vouched [begin strikethrough] and recevd by [end strikethrough] [by] the La: Walsingham and allowed by the right honorable the Lo Sidney and others of her macs Counsell ... [including] the iiijth of lanuarie 1603 [for her ma[tes] maske] CCCiiij[xx]vi[li] xvi[s] viii[d]...

(9) Edward fferres Linen draper for Holland and other parcells of wares by him delivered for her ma[tes] service as appeareth by his iij hills vouched by the La: Walsingham viewed and rated by thofficers of her ma[tes] Roabes & allowed by the said Lo: Sidney and others of her ma[tes] Counsell ... [including] the third of Ianuarie 1603 to furnish the hall for her ma[tes] maske lj[li] xvj[s] x[d]...

(10) Marie mountioye Tyrewoman for an helmett for her Ma:[tic] and divers Tryminges for the La: in roil her ma:[tes] maske at Twelfetide 1603 as by her bill vouched by the La: Walsingham signed and allowed by the Lo: Sidney and two others of her hignes Counsel] male appeare Lix[li]. w[ch] hill is now called in seene and examined [&] remaine as aforesaid together wth a warrant signed by iiij[or] of her ma[tes] said Counsell dated the vijth of August 1604 for the paym[t] of xviij[li] xiij[s] vij[d] in parte of payment of the said Some and an acq:[tes] of the said marie mountioy for the re:[t] of the same in parte of paym[t] as aforesaid besides xl[li] vij[s] vd yet vnpaid due vnto her xviij[li] xiij[s] vii[d]

(11) William Cookesberie [begin strikethrough] of london [end strikethrough] Haberdasher for divers ffanes & plumes of fethers by hym delivered to the La: Walsingham and the La: Carey (52) viz the third of Ianuarie 1603 [for the masque] xj[li] xvj[s] viij[d]...

(12) Thomas Wilson Shomaker for Shooes pantoffles (53) & Buskins ... for her ma[tes] vse & service at sondrie tymes ... [from 25 July to 4 March 1604, including] Buskins for her ma[tes] maske xiiijs...

Notes

(1.) Joan Rees, ed., The Vision of the Twelve Goddesses by Samuel Daniel, in T. J. B. Spencer and Stanley Wells, ed., A Book of Masques in Honour of Allardyce Nicoll (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 17-42 (38).

(2.) Berta Cano-Echevarria and Mark Hutchings, "The Spanish Ambassador and Samuel Daniel's Vision of the Twelve Goddesses: A New Document," English Literary Renaissance 24 (2012): 223-57.

(3.) The surreptitious edition, The True Discription, is STC 6264, 4[degrees]: A-B[4] the authorized edition, The Vision, is STC 6265, 4[degrees]: A-B[8]

(4.) The Vision, sig. A3r.

(5.) John Nichols, ed., The Progresses, Processions, and Magnificent Festivities, of King James the First, 4 vols. (London 1828), i.317.

(6.) This is the British Library copy, 161.a 41 (the BL copies of Allde, 161.a 41, C.21.c.69 and C.33.e.7.(21.) are the only ones recorded in the STC). The manuscript notes in 161.a 41 were identified as Lord Worcester's in Ernest Law, ed., The Vision of the Twelve Goddesses: a Royal! Masque (London: B. Quaritch, 1880), 50-51.

(7.) Maurice Lee, ed., Dudley Carleton to John Chamberlain, 1603-1624: Jacobean Letters (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1972), 55 (emphasis added).

(8.) The evidence is reviewed in Lauren Shohet, Reading Masques: the English Masque and Public Culture in the Seventeenth Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 88-92, 123.

(9.) This is connected to the reason Daniel had Sybilla describe the Goddesses at a distance before the audience saw them close up--"that the eyes of the Spectators might not beguile their cares, as in such cases it euer happens, whiles the pompe and splendor of the sight takes vp all the intention without regard what is spoken" (prefatory letter to The Vision, sig. A7).

(10.) Lauren Shohet is mistaken about this in Reading Masques, 94.

(11.) STC 6238.

(12.) Tethys' Festival, part of The Order and Solemnitie of the Creation of ... Prince Henry (published by John Budge in 1610, STC 13161), sig. Elr. The masque was never reprinted.

(13.) Waterson edition The Vision, sig. B2v; Allde edition, True Discription, sig. A3v.

(14.) The lines beginning "Execussit tandem sibi se" on sig. A4r are from Ovid, Metamorphoses, 11:621-22. On the same page the lines beginning "Intanto soprauenne" and "Il sonno viene" are from Ariosto, Orlando Furioso, 25:80 and 25:93 respectively.

(15.) Sig. A4r. Pico wrote "Profectum ingenerosum est, ut ait Seneca, sapere solum ex commentario et, quasi maiorum inventa nostrae industriae viam praecluserint, quasi in nobis effeta sit vis naturae, nil ex se parere, quod veritatem, Si non demons-tret, saltem innuat vel de longinquo." (Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, Oratio de hominis dignitate, ed. Eugenio Garin (Pordenone: Edizioni studio tesi, 1994), 56.

Daniel glosses Pico: "[it may well seem] that there can be nothing done authenticall, vnles we obserue al the strict rules of the booke." Daniel also refers to Pico in A Defence of Rhyme; see Gavin Alexander, ed., Sidney's "The Defence of Poesy' and Selected Renaissance Literary Criticism (London: Penguin, 2004), 219.

(16.) Somnus or Sleep, Daniel wrote, "is brought in, as a body, vsing speech & motion: and it was no more improper in this forme to make him walke, and stand, or speake, then it is to glue voyce or passion to dead men, Ghosts, Trees. and Stones: and therefore in such matters of Shewes, these like Caracters (in what forme soeuer they be drawne) serue vs but to read the intention of what wee would represent. ..." preface to The Vision, sig. A6.

(17.) The translation is by Cano-Echevarria and Hutchings, "The Spanish Ambassador and Samuel Daniel's Vision of the Twelve Goddesses," 250.

(18.) Certain details in Villamediana are in the authorized text of the masque as well but missing in the surreptitious version, e.g., the numerals in the lines Iris speaks interpreting the Goddesses' gifts (Cano-Echevarria and Hutchings, "The Spanish Ambassador and Samuel Daniel's Vision of the Twelve Goddesses," 251, and The Vision, sig. B6r).

(19.) The Vision, sig. B3v.

(20.) Law, ed., Vision of the Twelve Goddesses, 42.

(21.) Rees, ed., The Vision of the Twelve Goddesses by Samuel Daniel, 41.

(22.) Cano-Echevarria and Hutchings, "The Spanish Ambassador and Samuel Daniel's Vision of the Twelve Goddesses," 249.

(23.) See Sven Dupre, "William Bourne's Invention: Projecting a Telescope and optical Speculation in Elizabethan England," in The Origins of the Telescope, eds. Albert Van Helden, Sven Dupre, Rob van Gent and Huib Zuidervaart (Amsterdam: KNAW Press, 2010), 129-45, and Albert Van Helden, The Invention of the Telescope, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 67 (1977): 1-67.

(24.) Leeds Barroll, Anna of Denmark, Queen of England: A Cultural Biography (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001), 16.

(25.) Jane Stevenson, "Texts and Textiles: Self-Presentation among the Elite in Renaissance England," Journal of the Northern Renaissance 3 (2011): paragraph [12]. The extraordinary expenditures in the 1614-15 account include a payment to Richard Miller of [pounds sterling]135 for "stuffes." a bill which, Stevenson says, "stands out, for its size, in a general context of such miscellaneous expenditures as [pounds sterling]10 to firework makers, [pounds sterling]10 to her players for a play performed on December 17, 1615, and [pounds sterling]30 to an Italian poet."

(26.) Charles Nicholl, The Lodger: Shakespeare on Silver Street (London: Allen Lane, 2008), 143-44, 156-57, Illustration 23 (see p. xvii).

(27.) See Nicholl, The Lodger, Illustration 24.

(28.) LR 6/154/9 is headed "The Declaration of the Account of S:r George Carewe." It comprises forty folios in three sections: fos.1-12, preamble, and rents and revenues from Queen Anne's manors; fos.13-38, payments to individual officers of the household and others, with a summing up and totals on fos.38-39r; fos.39-40 unpaid debts, specified by person or groups (usually tenants). LR 6/154/9 is not foliated, so folio numbers have been supplied throughout this essay.

(29.) Helen Payne informed me about the payments to Daniel and Kirton in LR 6/ 154/9, which led me to examine it. Andy Boyle took photographs and transcribed portions of the manuscript. I am most grateful to them for their help and advice.

(30.) There is no mention of William Bell in Diana Scarisbrick, "Anne of Denmark's Jewellery Inventory," Archaelogia 109 (1991): 193-238.

(31.) See Lynn Hulse, "The Musical Patronage of Robert Cecil, First Earl of Salisbury (1563-1612)." Journal of the Royal Musical Association 116 (1991): 24-40. Perhaps more to the point. Cecil was Lord High Steward of the Queen's household and would want to keep an eye on expenditure.

(32.) My hope is that nothing significant has been missed, but LR 6/154/9 is a large manuscript, crammed with interlineations, cancellations, and added phrases, which may contain minor details about spending on the masque.

(33.) Lord Hertford had at least two servants called James Kirton, possibly three: James Kirton the elder (C.1559-1611) of the Middle Temple, a lawyer who worked for the Earl occasionally; his cousin James Kirton the younger (1559-1620) of Almsford, Somerset--the Earl's servant who was paid to organize The Vision of the Twelve Goddesses--and another James Kirton, also of the Middle Temple, possibly connected with Sir William Cavendish, and perhaps the man described as Hertford's solicitor by the Countess of Shrewsbury's servant involved in the plan Arbella Stuart hatched in 1602 to marry Edward Seymour, Hertford's grandson. James Kirton the younger entered Hertford's service by 1592, and was, according to his own testimony in 1615, employed by the Earl "in matters of greatest charge and trust" between 1599 and 1608 ("History of Parliament" online). Kirton was not Hertford's steward--this was Sir Gilbert Prynne.

(34.) John Pitcher, "Samuel Daniel, the Hertfords, and a Question of Love," Review of English Studies 35 (1984): 449-62 (459).

(35.) Barroll, Anna of Denmark, 77.

(36.) In a letter of December 18, 1603 from Hampton Court, Arbella Stuart wrote that "The Queene intendeth to make a mask this Christmas to which end my Lady of Suffolk and my Lady of Walsingham have warrants to take of the late Queenes best apparel out of the Tower at theyr discretion." (Sara Jayne Steen, ed., The Letters of Lady Arbella Stuart [New York: Oxford University Press, 19941, 197.)

(37.) W. R. Streitberger, ed., "Jacobean and Caroline Revels Accounts, 1603-42," Malone Society Collections 13 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), 5.

(38.) At Queen Elizabeth's court, Ferrabosco received [pounds sterling]50 a year from 1601. He was made an Extraordinary Groom of the Privy Chamber from Christmas 1604, specifically to teach music to Prince Henry. Perhaps Ferrabosco wrote the songs for The Vision of the Twelve Goddesses because of his connection with Lord Hertford, James Kirton's employer. Aubrey said that Ferrabosco served the Earl, visiting him in Amesbury and Wolfhall in Wiltshire (ODNB).

(39.) Glynne Wickham in Early English Stages 1300 to 1660, 3 vols. in 4 (London: Routledge and Paul, 1959-81), II. Part 1.269 offers in a diagram a "conjectural reconstruction of the arrangements in the hall" of the Rock (Mountain), Temple and Cave. The Rock--which in Wickham's diagram is far too small and is shown as freestanding--was probably attached to the screen wall, across its full width. This would have allowed the Queen and her Ladies access to the top of the Mountain via the gallery and the staircase that led up to it.

(40.) See the excerpt from Arbella Stuart's letter quoted in n. 36.

(41.) The Vision, sig. A5r.

(42.) Lee, ed., Dudley Carleton to John Chamberlain, 1603-1624, 55.

(43.) Ibid.

(44.) Lucy Munro, Children of the Queen's Revels: A Jacobean Theatre Repertory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 18.

(45.) Lee, ed., Dudley Carleton to John Chamberlain, 1603-1624, 55.

(46.) The Vision, sig. A7v.

(47.) The license for the company, a docquet dated 31 January, is TNA (PRO) SP 38/7/65.

(48.) See Munro, Children of the Queen's Revels, 20 (199, n. 39), 140-42,188.

(49.) Barroll, Anna of Denmark, 99-100.

(50.) Quoted in Law, ed., Vision of the Twelve Goddesses, 10-11.

(51.) For Sanford, see "History of Parliament" online and ODNB.

(52.) This was Elizabeth Lady Carey, wife of Sir Robert Carey (1560-1639), a Lady of' the Queen's Privy Chamber and Mistress of the Sweet Coffers, responsible for the care of the Queen's gowns and in charge of cosmetics and perfume.

(53.) Corrected from "pantables" ("ables" crossed through and "offles" written above).
COPYRIGHT 2013 Associated University Presses
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2013 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Pitcher, John
Publication:Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England
Article Type:Critical essay
Geographic Code:4EUUK
Date:Jan 1, 2013
Words:12251
Previous Article:Foreword.
Next Article:"'Batter'd, not demolish'd': staging the tortured body in The Martyred Soldier.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters