[902] Possibly the Southwark order for tithes from players, taken before 'my lords of Canterbury and London and the Master of the Revels' about 1600, implies some continuance of the commission. The issue of licences, both for the performance and after 1607 for the printing of plays, 'under the hand of' the Master (cf. ch. xxii), does not exclude the possibility of his acting on the report of an expert assessor, and one is tempted to conjecture that this may have been the position of Segar, who sometimes licensed for the press as deputy to Buck. But it is clear from passages in Sir Henry Herbert's office-book (Variorum, iii. 229-42) that he at least personally read the 'books' of plays.
[903] Henslowe, ii. 113, where Dr. Greg inter alia disposes of Mr. Fleay's theory that some of the fees entered in the Diary are for licences authorizing the publication, not the performance, of plays.
[904] Cf. App. D, No. cliv.
[905] The intruding company of 1598 had not been 'bound' to the Master. The Master's licence to Worcester's men in 1583 is described as an 'indenture of lycense', and the players were 'bound to the orders prescribed by the said Edmund Tyllneye'. On 2 Jan. 1595 Henslowe paid the Master £10 'in full payment of a bonde of one hundreth powndes' (Henslowe, i. 39). This looks as if he had forfeited a recognizance.
[906] The licence to the Queen's Revels (1604) is an exception. Here there is no reference to the Master and the allowance of plays is committed to Samuel Daniel 'whome her pleasure is to appoynt for that purpose'. Nor is the Master mentioned in the unexecuted draft (c. 1604) for the Queen's men. Probably the reason is to be found in the existence of a separate Chamberlain for the Queen's Household. The Master of the Revels was of course an officer of the King's Lord Chamberlain. The Master's rights are reserved in the patent actually issued to the Queen's men in 1609. Daniel's licensing had been far from a success; cf. p. 326. Oddly enough, whatever Daniel's legal rights, it appears from his exculpation of his Philotas (q.v.) that the Master did in fact 'peruse' that play.
[907] A Chamberlain's warrant of 20 Nov. 1622 requires a licence from the Master for any travellers who 'shall shewe or present any play shew motion feats of actiuity and sights whatsoeuer' (Murray, ii. 352). This was motived by certain irregular licences procured 'both from the Kings Maiestie and also from diuerse noblemen'. The commission of 1581 is wide enough to cover all 'shewes'; possibly the actual practice was extended when the Act of 1604 restricted the protection of noblemen to players of interludes proper—a restriction evidently still imperfectly observed in 1622. The earliest licence for a non-dramatic show on record is one of date earlier than 5 Oct. 1605 to John Watson, ironmonger, 'to shewe two beasts called Babonnes' (Murray, ii. 338; cf. ch. xxiv, s.v. Sir G. Goosecap), and this was a royal warrant, perhaps under the signet. But on 6 Sept. 1610 Buck issued a licence to 'shew a strange lion, brought to do strange things, as turning an ox to be roasted, &c.' (S. P. D. Jac. I, lvii. 45), and the keeper of a 'motion' in Bartholomew Fair (1614), V. 5, 18, says, 'I have the Master of the Reuell's hand for it'. Later examples of signet warrants for shows are in Murray, ii. 342, and of licences from the Master in Murray, ii. 351 sqq., and Herbert, 46; cf. Gildersleeve, 64, 72.
[908] Cf. ch. xxii. Herbert noted at the Restoration (Dramatic Records, 96), 'Severall playes allowed by Mister Tilney in 1598. As Sir William Longsword allowed to be acted in 1598, The Fair Maid of London. Richard Cor de Lyon. See the Bookes.'
[909] The manuscript of The Honest Man's Fortune (1613) has some censorial notes and an allowance at the end of the book by Herbert on the occasion of a revival in 1625. Of later manuscripts, that of Sir John Van Olden Barnevelt (Bullen, O. E. P. ii. 101) has corrections by Herbert, but no allowance, and that of Massinger's Believe As You List (facs. in T. F. T.) is a second draft, prepared to meet criticisms by Herbert, and allowed by him; cf. Gildersleeve, 114, 123.
[910] The extent to which Tilney's handiwork is apparent in the text is a matter of great palaeographical difficulty fully studied by Dr. Greg, who takes the view that the insertions and many of the corrections in the manuscript were made before it was submitted to Tilney, and are not an attempt to carry out the revision directed by him. If so, he was very easy-going as regards willingness to peruse a most disorderly text.
[911] Herbert (Variorum, iii. 235) records a conversation between Charles I and himself about the language of Davenant's Wits, at the end of which he noted in his office-book, 'The Kinge is pleased to take faith, death, slight, for asseverations and no oaths, to which I doe humbly submit as my masters judgment; but under favour conceive them to be oaths, and enter them here, to declare my opinion and submission'. I also find Herbert occasionally expurgating 'obsceanes' and 'ribaldry' from plays (Variorum, iii. 208, 232, 241). But it is obvious from extant texts that neither he nor his predecessors made any attempt to enforce a high standard of decency.