indicates that thereafter, not Daniel, but the Master of the Revels, acted as its censor. Anne herself, by the way, must have felt the snub, for it was probably at the Blackfriars that, if the French ambassador may be trusted, she had attended representations 'to enjoy the laugh against her husband'.[1] The alias, whatever it connoted, proved but an ephemeral one. By February 1606 one of the plays just named, the Isle of Gulls, had given a new offence. Some of those responsible for it were thrown into Bridewell, and a fresh reconstruction became imperative.[2] It was probably at this date that one Robert Keysar, a London goldsmith, came into the business. Kirkham, like Evans before him, discreetly retired from active management, and the Children, with Keysar as 'interest with them', became 'Masters themselves', taking the risks and paying the syndicate for the use of the hall.[3] Kirkham claims that under this arrangement the moiety of profits in which he had rights amounted to £150 a year, as against £100 a year previously earned.[4] Shortly afterwards the dissociation of the Chapel from the Blackfriars was completed by a new commission issued to Giles on 7 November 1606, to which was added the following clause:
'Prouided alwayes and wee doe straightlie charge and commaunde
that none of the saide Choristers or Children of the Chappell so to be
taken by force of this commission shalbe vsed or imployed as Comedians
or Stage players, or to exercise or acte any Stage playes Interludes
Comedies or tragedies, for that it is not fitt or decent that such as
shoulde singe the praises of God Allmightie shoulde be trayned vpp
or imployed in suche lascivious and prophane exercises.'[5]
It is presumably to this pronouncement that Flecknoe refers
in 1664, when he speaks of the Chapel theatre being converted
to the use of the Children of the Revels, on account of the
growing precision of the people and the growing licentiousness
- [Footnote: company. No theatre is named, but the play is too early for the King's
Revels, who, moreover, do not seem to be described on other t.ps. as 'Children of the Revels' pure and simple. I take it that these t.p. descriptions follow the designations of the companies in use when the plays were last on the stage before publication, rather than those in use at the times of first production.]
- ↑ Cf. ch. x.
- ↑ Cf. ch. xxiii, s.v. Day.
- ↑ Keysar was certainly associated with Kendall by the Christmas of 1606-7, when they supplied apparel and properties for the Westminster plays; cf. Murray, ii. 169.
- ↑ K. v. P. 249.
- ↑ M. S. C. i. 362, from P. R. O., Patent Roll, 4 James I, p. 18, dorso. Collier, i. 446, long ago noted the existence of a similar clause in a Caroline commission to Giles of 1626. It was probably the choristers who assisted in a quasi-dramatic performance on 16 July 1607, when James dined with the Merchant Taylors, and Giles received the freedom of the company in reward; cf. ch. iv.
