haben ihre besondere praeceptores in allen Künsten, insonderheit sehr gute musicos.
'Damit sie nun höfliche Sitten anwenden, ist ihnen aufgelegt, wöchentlich eine comoedia zu agiren, wozu ihnen denn die Königin ein sonderlich theatrum erbauet und mit köstlichen Kleidern zum Ueberfluss versorget hat. Wer solcher Action zusehen will, muss so gut als unserer Münze acht sundische Schillinge geben, und findet sich doch stets viel Volks auch viele ehrbare Frauens, weil nutze argumenta und viele schöne Lehren, als von andern berichtet, sollen tractiret werden; alle bey Lichte agiret, welches ein gross Ansehen macht. Eine ganze Stunde vorher höret man eine köstliche musicam instrumentalem von Orgeln, Lauten, Pandoren, Mandoren, Geigen und Pfeiffen, wie denn damahlen ein Knabe cum voce tremula in einer Basgeigen so lieblich gesungen, dass wo es die Nonnen zu Mailand ihnen nicht vorgethan, wir seines Gleichen auf der Reise nicht gehöret hatten.'
This report of a foreigner must not be pressed as if it were
precise evidence upon the business organization of the Blackfriars.
Yet it forms the main basis of the theory propounded
by Professor Wallace that Elizabeth personally financed the
Chapel plays and personally directed the limitation of the
number of adult companies allowed to perform in London,
as part of a deliberate scheme of reform, which her 'definite
notion of what the theatre should be' had led her to plan—a
theory which, I fear, makes his Children of the Chapel at
Blackfriars misleading, in spite of its value as a review of
the available evidence, old and new, about the company.[1]
Professor Wallace supposes that Edward Kirkham, acting
officially as Yeoman of the Revels, was Elizabeth's agent,
and that, even before he became a partner in the syndicate,
he dieted the boys and supplied them with the 'köstlichen
Kleidern zum Ueberfluss' mentioned by Gerschow, accounting
for the expenditure either through the Revels Accounts
or through some other unspecified accounts 'yet to be
discovered'.[2] Certainly no such expenditure appeared in
the Revels Accounts, and no other official account with
which Kirkham was concerned is known. It may be pointed
out that, if we took Gerschow's account as authoritative, we
should have to suppose that Elizabeth provided the theatre
building, which we know she did not, and I think it may be
taken for granted that her payments for the Chapel were no
more than those with which we are already quite familiar,
namely the Master's fee of £40 'pro exhibicione puerorum',
the board-wages of 6d. a day for each of twelve children,
