[882] Cf. ch. xiii (Interluders).
[883] R. O. Lord Chamberlain's Records, ii. 4 (4).
[884] N. S. S. Trans. (1877-9), 15*, from Lord Chamberlain's Records, vol. 58a, now ii. 4 (5).
[885] Sullivan, 250; C. C. Stopes in Sh.-Jahrbuch, xlvi. 92; from Lord Chamberlain's Records, ii. 48; v. 92, 93. I am not sure whether the velvet was for a 'cap' or a 'cape'.
[886] Sullivan, 253; cf. vol. i, p. 52.
[887] Stopes (supra). I find a confirmatory note to a Household list of 1641 in Lord Chamberlain's Records, iii. 1, 'Note that the Companyes of Players under the Titles of the Kings, Queenes, Queene of Bohemia, Prince & Duke of Yorke are all of them sworne Groomes of the Chamber in ordinary without fee'. I cannot accept Miss Sullivan's theory that 'without fee' means that the players did not have to buy their places.
[888] Cf. App. C, Nos. xvii, xxxi.
[889] Platter in 1599 (cf. ch. xvi, introd.) says that plays were given 'alle tag vmb 2 vhren nach mittag'. T. S. Graves, in E. S. xlvii. 66, argues in favour of occasional night performances, and is answered by W. J. Lawrence in E. S. xlviii. 213. Whatever may have been done before 1574 or thereabouts, I find no later evidence which is not to be explained either by private performances or by a loose use of 'night' for the evening hour at which plays terminated in winter. Nor can I go with Lawrence in supposing an exception for Sunday. The Southwark play at 8 p.m. on Sunday, 12 June 1592, cannot have been at a regular theatre, for there was none within the Lord Mayor's jurisdiction. The allusion in Crosse's Vertue's Commonwealth (1603) can quite well be to private plays (cf. App. C), and Henslowe's entry (i. 83) of a loan of 30s. 'when they fyrst played Dido at nyght', on Sunday, 8 Jan. 1598, only suggests to me the payment by Henslowe of the shot for a supper after the first performance. Or it may have been a private performance, for Henslowe does not appear (vide infra) to have opened the Rose on Sundays.
[890] Cf. App. D, No. xv (1564), 'now daylye, but speciallye on holydayes'; No. xvi (1569), 'on the Saboth dayes and other solempne feastes commaunded by the church to be kept holy'; No. xvii (1571), 'vpon sondaies, holly daies, or other daie of the weke, or ells at night'; No. xxxii (1574), 'on sonndaies and holly dayes, at which tymes such playes weare chefelye vsed'; App. C, No. xxii (1579), 'These because they are allowed to play euery Sunday, make iiii or v Sundayes at least euery weeke'.
[891] There was a disorder at the Theatre on Sunday, 10 April 1580, but by July 1581 the Lord Mayor had made an order against Sunday plays, which Berkeley's men disregarded. The Privy Council letter of 3 Dec. 1581 to the City accepts the exclusion of Sunday. Gosson, Playes Confuted (1582), 167, and Field (Jan. 1583), C. iii, acknowledge the change of day. When therefore Stubbes (1 March 1583), 137, criticizes Sunday plays, he must have the suburbs in mind. Paris Garden fell on Sunday, 13 Jan. 1583. On 3 July 1583 the Lord Mayor told the Privy Council that Sunday baitings were resumed. The documents of the 1584 controversy, however, state that as a result of the accident, letters were obtained to banish plays (and doubtless also baiting) 'in the places nere London' on the Sabbath days. Whetstone (1584) also alludes to a 'reforme' by the 'magistrate' in this matter.