we think is an unduly severe cutback in funding by SSHRCC, we do have a grant towards
the next two years . In recent years we have had steady funding from the National
Endowment for the Humanities, and we are optimistic that their current level of support
will be continued as we regularly produce volumes by American editors . Furthermore,
last May, REED was given a generous five-year Connaught Grant by the University of
Toronto at a level unprecedented for humanities research at this university .
There is no doubt that REED will continue . However, we must become more
entrepreneurial in our fund-raising efforts as the days of government grant-security are
over . This will not be news to those familiar with other documentary editing projects
in the United States . Like them, we must begin looking to the private sector for support,
and to this end we have set up a fund-raising committee which has met twice this winter .
We are now in position to begin a deliberate approach to specific individuals and
foundations for money to secure REED's long-term future .
The past year has witnessed not only the birth of the entrepreneurial spirit at REED but
also the politicization of the Toronto office . Although we must direct our energies
towards fund raising, we are also determined to pursue the protest of SSHRCC's decision
further . Under the Access to Information Act, we were allowed to search the REED files
at SSHRCC offices in Ottawa . The search confirmed what we already had grounds to
suspect : that a challenge to the correctness of the procedures in assessing the application
is justified . Among other issues, we now know that the scope of the project and its
audience was misrepresented . A key factor in the decision made by the SSHRCC panel was
the information that REED is a narrowly-defined medieval drama project with a relatively
small group of users. On this basis, the panel could legitimately question whether there
was value for its money . What the panel did not recognize, despite the detailed evidence
of the application, was the extension of the research into the renaissance and the
interdisciplinary dividends of the records .
We have been encouraged in our appeal of the process by the continuing commitment
and active advocacy of the Vice-President of Research at the University of Toronto . We
have pursued the request for a review of the procedures to the level of Canada's Secretary
of State, the Hon David Crombie, who includes the ssHRCC in his portfolio . Further
letters from the executives of learned societies and journals, as well as from individual
renaissance scholars, would be very helpful . As before, all correspondence of this kind
should be addressed to Dr William Taylor, President, Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council of Canada, 255 Albert Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K1P 6G4 . The course
of this appeal is a long one, but we are in no doubt that it is worth attempting . If REED's
application was mishandled, can other humanities projects feel secure in the next round?
MARION COLTHORPE
The Theobalds entertainment for Queen Elizabeth I in 1591, with a
transcript of the Gardener's Speech
Queen Elizabeth i visited Theobalds, the Hertfordshire residence of Lord Burghley, the
Lord Treasurer, from 10-20 May 1591 ; she knighted his son Robert Cecil on the day
of her departure .' In 1731 Strype printed a mock `charter' dated 10 May 1591 signed by
Sir Christopher Hatton, the Lord Chancellor, and addressed by the Queen to `the
disconsolate and retired spryte, the Heremite of Tyboll', who is said to have possessed
himself of Theobalds for two years and two months, and who is commanded to return
2
to his `old cave' .' Two years and two months was approximately the time which had
elapsed since Lord Burghley's wife had died early April 1589) ; he is said to be lacking
`health and gladness,' and 'desolations and mourning' are called upon to `abjure' his
house . The `charter' is a curious jeu d'esprit, but its genuineness is not in question, for
the original is extant, still with the Great Seal appended to it, and with Hatton's signature
on the back .'
In 1831 John Payne Collier who had not yet acquired an unsavoury reputation as a
literary forger) printed a blank-verse poem supposedly addressed by a Hermit to the
Queen at her arrival at Theobalds in 1591, and said by Collier to be in the handwriting
of George Peele and to be signed `G . P . i4 In 1839 in his edition of Peele's works Dyce
reprinted `The Hermit's Speech', as he entitled it, and also printed for the first time a
prose speech by a Gardener, a six-line verse `Written about the Box' a box dug up by
the Gardener), and a prose speech by a Molecatcher. These were said by Dyce also to
be in Peele's hand, to have been communicated to him by Collier `who was not possessed'
of them at the time when he printed the Hermit's Speech, and also to have formed part
of the 1591 entertainment .' All were reprinted by Bullen in his edition of Peele, and the
speeches of the Gardener and Molecatcher and the six-line verse were included by Bond
in his edition of Lyly, to .whom Bond attributed them on stylistic grounds ."
The original speeches and verses formerly in Collier's possession have been at the
British Museum since 1885, in Egerton ms 2623 . They were discussed by W . W . Greg
in an article entitled `A Collier Mystification . ' s Greg pointed out that although Collier
led Dyce to believe that all were in Peele's handwriting, the handwriting of the Hermit's
Speech is quite different from that of the remainder, that as an attached note by Collier
himself mentions), the initials `G . P .' are now missing, and that `it is improbable that the
writing is Peele's' . In an article on `The Canon of Peele's Works' T . Larsen noted that
the orthography of the speech differs from that of Anglorum Feriae, one of the only two
surviving undoubted Peele autograph manuscripts, and that `the burden of proof rests
upon those who would include it' in Peele's works) ." David Horne's edition of Peele
ignored all these speeches and verses, but did describe two Collier forgeries purporting
to be connected with Peele - a `jest' and a list of sharers in the Blackfriars Theatre ."
The Egerton Ms Gardener's Speech, six-line verse and Molecatcher's Speech are written
in the usual Elizabethan secretary hand . Since it was Collier who communicated their
text to Dyce, and who allowed Dyce to believe that they were in the same hand as the
Hermit's Speech, they have been suspected to be forgeries by Collier ." As Sir Edmund
Chambers remarked, with some understatement, when discussing these speeches : `One
is bound to mistrust manuscripts communicated by Collier . . .' . 12 A completely different
light is shed upon the question of their authenticity, however, by the fact that the speech
by the Gardener is also preserved amongst the Cecil Papers at Hatfield House ."
The speech at Hatfield is headed simply `The gardiners speach' . It is undated and
written in secretary hand, probably - like the handwriting of the same speech in the
Egerton ms - impossible now to assign to any particular person . The Hatfield speech has
some textual variations from that in the Egerton ms and the transcribers of the two
speeches have distinctive mannerisms of spelling, cf the `Variant Readings' below), so
that the text is distinct from although closely related to that in the Egerton Ms . The textual
differences may indicate that the speech was revised . The Hatfield text is, as one might
expect, a somewhat better version . For example, the Egerton ms omits a phrase and thus
makes nonsense of one sentence which Dyce, Bullen and Bond failed to notice), but
the phrase is included in the Hatfield_ text . Although the Hatfield ms has no verse `Written
about the Box' and no Molecatcher's Speech, the Gardener refers to a box dug up by
him, and to his dispute with a Molecatcher . There seems little reason to doubt that the
Egerton ms speeches and verse were geniune discoveries by Collier, although where he
found them is unknown .
The Egerton ms is endorsed `A Speeche made before the Queen at Tybbolles' . It is
3
undated, but the Molecatcher describes how the Queen had moved from Greenwich to
Hackney and thence to Theobalds, which accords with the Queen's itinerary in May
1591, 14 and the six-line verse `Written about the Box' includes the line `Till a virgin had
reigned thirty-three years' . The Queen's thirty-third regnal year began on 17 November
1590. It is worth mentioning that at the Accession Day Tilt on that day the Earl of
Cumberland's speech possibly written by the Earl himself) included a six-line verse
prophecy, beginning `When a Virgin hath reigned thirty three yeares . . .' . 15
Who might the author of the Gardener's and Molecatcher's speeches and the verse
`Written about the Box' have been, if John Payne Collier and George Peele) can be ruled
out? Two `possibles' and an `outsider' will be briefly considered here : Robert Cecil, John
Lyly and John Davies . Robert Cecil comes into the reckoning because he wrote a
`Hermit's Oration' for the Queen's next visit to Theobalds, in 1594 - the only surviving
speech which he is known to have written for a royal entertainment." The Hermit
purports to be the Hermit who at the Queen's visit in 1591 'uppon my compleynt, by
your pryncely favor, was restored to my hermitage, by an injunction', and says that he
is now `constraeined to trouble' the Queen `with another petition, not much differing
from the former' . This leads up to the presentation of Cecil's gifts to the Queen, a bell,
book and candle . The 1594 Oration is in prose, and the `petition' in 1591 `not much
differing' from it may have been a similar speech in prose, but surely was not the quite
different Hermit's Speech in blank verse which Collier printed and which he tried to pass
off as by Peele . This verse speech is further discussed below ; the `injunction' was
presumably the mock charter) . It is possible, perhaps even probable, that Cecil also
penned the Gardener's and Molecatcher's speeches, which give details of his own new
garden at Pymmes and which are an elaborate way of presenting the Queen with a gift
of jewels in a box . 17
John Lyly was considered by R. W. Bond on stylistic grounds to be `indisputably' the
author of the Gardener's and Molecatcher's speeches, and he compared the inscription
on the box to some of Lyly's doggerel `oracles' . 18 G . K . Hunter declared that Lyly `was
certainly capable of producing the pieces that Bond has printed' ." Leslie Hotson was
convinced, on stylistic grounds, that Lyly wrote a dialogue between a Poet, a Painter
and a Musician to entertain the Queen at Mitcham in 1598 ; Kenneth Muir agreed that
,most readers will have little doubt that Lyly was . . . the author."' Hotson regarded the
Mitcham Entertainment as `strongly reminiscent of the Theobalds Entertainment of
1591', and he also printed an `Angler's Speech' to the Queen at Chiswick in 1602 which
is attributed to `John : Lilly' in the manuscript, and in which Hotson found `striking
similarities of concept and expression' to various unsigned earlier entertainments,
including that at Theobalds in 1591 . 21 Hunter pointed out that there is no external
evidence that Lyly wrote any of these unsigned entertainments, and that the style which
seems so characteristic of Lyly was not peculiar to him alone . 22 Nevertheless on stylistic
grounds there is a strong case for Lyly's being the author of the Gardener's and
Molecatcher's speeches and the verse inscription . He had already had considerable
experience of successfully `Entertaining the Court of Elizabeth', albeit with plays rather
than with progress entertainments . 23
John Davies wrote a dialogue in verse between a Wife, a Widow and a Maid to entertain
the Queen when she visited Sir Robert Cecil at his London house in December 1602,
and he also wrote a prose dialogue - a'Conference' - between a Gentleman Usher and
a Post, probably for the same occasion . 24 This was, however, eleven years after the 1591
royal visit to Theobalds . As far as is known Davies did not start to make his reptutation ,
as a writer until 1593, and it is doubtful that the Cecils would have considered entrusting
him with composing an entertainment for the Queen as early as 1591 . 25
There is another problem connected with the Queen's entertainment at Theobalds in
1591 : the question of the authenticity of the long verse speech printed by Collier in 1831
and attributed by him to Peele, which Dyce called `The Hermit's Speech' . If the
4
Gardener's and Molecatcher's speeches discovered by Collier can now be taken to be
genuine, although there is nothing to connect them with Peele, can this speech also be
genuine, although also not written by Peele? 26 Collier introduces the speech by stating
that at the Queen's visit in 1591 Lord Burghley `did not himself make his appearance
to welcome her', and he goes on to describe the mock charter, from which, he says
it seems clear, that since the death of his wife . . . he. . . making only occasional
visits to court, had resided in some obscure cottage in the neighbourhood
of Theobalds . A MS. poem, in blank verse, has fallen into my hands, which
serves to explain the whole proceeding : it is a speech supposed to be delivered
by a Hermit to the Queen, on her first arrival at Theobalds, the purpose
of which was to excuse the absence of Lord Burghley, by stating that he had
taken up his abode in the cell belonging to the Hermit, in consequence of
his grief, and had enjoined the Hermit to do the honours of the house in
his stead . Robert Cecill. . . referred to it [the speech] when the Queen again
came to Theobalds in 1594 . 27
Collier then goes on to attribute the speech to Peele . In the speech the hermit is made
to say that `my fownder, he that buylt this howse' Lord Burghley) had lived in his
`hermytage' for `two yeeres & sum few monethes', and that at the news of the Queen's
impending visit `yet my fownder kept his hermytage, And gave me warrant to provyde
for all . . .' . The Queen is asked to `call my fownder home unto his howse, That he may
entertayn your Majestie . . .' . 28
As has been pointed out above, Robert Cecil's Hermit's Oration of 1594 does not
necessarily refer to the speech printed by Collier, so that it provides no support for the
genuineness of the latter . As for Lord Burghley residing in an `obscure cottage', it is a
fact that in April 1589, a few days after his wife died, Burghley penned a meditation on
her death `Written at Collings Lodg by mee in Sorrow', 2 but no evidence has come to
light that he continued to live at this lodge or at any obscure cottage . On the contrary,
he continued to spend the majority of his time at Court or at his house in the Strand,
he continued to attend Privy Council meetings and to play a large part in the government
of the country, and in general his life between April 1589 and May 1591 went on much
as before, 30 although the `charter' makes it clear that he was in low spirits . Collier
contends that Burghley was absent during the Queen's visit to Theobalds, and the hermit
declares that he was left `to provyde for all' . In fact there is evidence that Burghley took
an active interest in even minor details of the preparations for the royal visit . On 3 Mar
1591 he wrote with his own hand a'Memorial for the Queen's coming to Theobalds' . 1
There is a list of the same date of the allocation of rooms at Theobalds which has a few
annotations by him . 32 This does reveal that Burghley was not planning to occupy his
usual `lodging', which was assigned to the Lord Chancellor ; this does not necessarily
imply that the Lord Treasurer took himself off to some `obscure cottage' or `hermitage'
whilst his sovereign was honouring him with a visit, but may have inspired the Queen
and the Lord Chancellor to concoct the mock charter, and was probably why Robert
Cecil's 1594 Oration refers to Burghley in 1591 as having `retyred himselfe' in a `poore
cell'. 33 On 6 May 1591 Burghley rode down to Theobalds from his house in the Strand . 34
Privy Council meetings took place at Theobalds during the Queen's visit, and Burghley
was present at at least two of them . 35 Other evidence for his presence at Theobalds could
be adduced but would be superfluous . There was, in short, no need for any speech `to
excuse the absence of Lord Burghley', for Lord Burghley was not absent .
As for the manner of the speech, as opposed to the matter, in its phraseology it is
frequently un-Elizabethan, but to dignify it with further analysis would be akin to taking
a sledge-hammer to crack a nut, as also would be any detailed palaeographical analysis
of the speech in the Egerton Ms . It is difficult to believe that this Hermit's Speech first
5
printed by Collier can be anything other than an elaborate fabrication by Collier himself,
inspired first by Cecil's Hermit's Oration of 1594 which appears to refer to a lost speech
of 1591, a lacuna which Collier took it upon himself to fill), secondly by a too-literal
interpretation or mis-interpretation of the 1591 `charter' whose composition it professes
to precede), and thirdly by Collier's urge to add to the canon of Peele's works . The only
problem about dismissing the speech outright as a forgery to be discarded along with
Collier's other forgeries is that it might then be necessary to believe that Collier forged
a verse speech which he declared to have been delivered to the Queen at Theobalds in
May 1591 and then subsequently discovered two prose speeches which had genuinely
been delivered to the Queen at Theobalds in May 1591 . The odds against this must be
fairly astronomical - but fortunately we have only Collier's word for it via his dupe,
Dyce) that he `was not possessed' of the Gardener's and the Molecatcher's Speeches when
he printed the Hermit's Speech .
NOTES
1 W . Murdin, Collection of State Papers . . . [Burghley Papers] 1759), 796 .
2 J . Strype, Annals of the Reformation, iv 1731), 77-8 .
3 It was sold by Sotheby Park Bernet in London on 16 December 1980, and is transcribed in the sale
catalogue . The British Library has a photocopy RP 2895) reserved until 12 December 1991 .
4 J . P . Collier, The History of English Dramatic Poetry to the Time of Shakespeare 1831), 1, 284-8 .
5 A. Dyce ed), The Works of George Peele 1828-39), in, 159-69 .
6 A. H . Bullen ed), The Works of George Peele 1888), ii, 304-14 . R. W . Bond ed), The Complete
Works ofJohn Lyly 1902), i, 417-19, 519-20 .
7 British Library : Egerton ms 2623, ff 15-18v .
8 W .W . Greg, 'A Collier Mysification', Review of English Studies, 1 1925), 452-4 .
9 T . Larsen, `The Canon of Peele's Works', Modern Philology, 26 1928-9),191-9 . P . Beal compiler),
Index of English Literary Manuscripts, i, part 2 1980), 359, states that `Only two autographs of
George Peele are known' [Anglorum Feriae and a letter] .
10 D .H . Horne ed), The Life and Minor Works of George Peele 1952), 84-6 .
11 L .R.N . Ashley, George Peele 1970),185-6 ; B .R. Smith, `Landscape with Figures . . .', Renaissance
Drama, ns 8 1977), 78-9 . Ashley and Smith were unaware of the contents of Egerton ms 2623) .
12 E .K . Chambers, The Elizabethan Stage 1923), in, 248 .
13 Hatfield House : Cecil Papers, vol 140, no 94 . There is a brief summary of the speech in HMC
Calendar of Salisbury mss, xiv 1923), 321 . T . Lewis and D . Pam, `William and Robert Cecil as
Landowners in Edmonton and Southgate 1561-1600', Edmonton Historical Society, Occasional
Papers N .S .), xxii [n .d ., c 1972], printed an inaccurate and modern-spelling transcript ; they made
no reference to Egerton MS 2623 .
14 Chambers, Elizabethan Stage, iv, 105 .
15 G . C . Williamson, George, third Earl of Cumberland 1920), 109, where it is dated 1592 . It is
correctly dated 1590 by Roy Strong, The Cult ofElizabeth 1977),207-8 . It is also worth mentioning
that the fullest surviving description of the 1590 Tilt is Peele's Polyhymnia cf Strong, 208) .
16 Two manuscripts give the date as at Theobalds in 1594 `penned by Sir Robert Cecill' . Lambeth Palace
Library : MS 2858, f 188 ; Bodleian Library : Rawlinson MS D692, f 106 . The speech was printed from
the Bodleian manuscript by J . Nichols, The Progresses and Public Processions ofQueen Elizabeth
1823), in, 241-5 . Quotations here are from Nichols ; he changed the date to `1593-4' . See also
Chambers, Elizabethan Stage, in, 247-9 .
17 The modernized versions in Dyce, Bullen and Bond have `jewel', but the Egerton MS has `Jewelles' .
18 Bond, Complete Works of John Lyly, t, 517, 520 .
19 G.K. Hunter, John Lyly 1962), 84 .
20 L . Hotson, Queen Elizabeth's Entertainment at Mitcham 1953) ; K. Muir, review of Hotson,
Review of English Studies, ns 5 1954), 408 .
6
3
21 Hotson, 12, 33-6.
22 Hunter, John Lyly, 84, and see pp 356-7, note 69 .
23 Ibid, chapter in, `Entertaining the Court of Elizabeth' .
24 Chambers, Elizabethan Stage, in, 248-9 . The `Conference' is undated but was `at Mr Secretaryes
house' . Nichols, Progresses, III, 76-8, printed it as 'at Theobalds, 1591', but Cecil did not become
Secretary until 1596 . For reasons for dating it December 1602 see Notes and Queries, 15 October
1887, 305-6 .
25 R. Krueger ed), The Poems ofSir John Davies 1975), xxxi, was misled by Nichols over the date
of the `Conference' into surmising that it `may have been his earliest extant literary writing' .
26 Among those who have accepted it as genuine in addition to Dyce and Bullen) are A . Cecil, A Life
of Robert Cecil, first Earl of Salisbury 1915), 48-51, and C . Read, Lord Burghley and Queen
Elizabeth 1960), 583 who took it to be by Robert Cecil) .
27 Collier, History of English Dramatic Poetry, 1, 283-4 .
28 Ibid, 285-7 .
29 British Library : Lansdowne ms 103, no 51 mis-dated 1588) . Printed by Strype, Annals of the
Reformation, in, book 2 1728), 595-7.
30 Read, Lord Burghley and Queen Elizabeth, 448-66 .
31 HMC Calendar of Salisbury mss, iv 1892), 109 .
32 Hatfield House : Cecil Papers, vol 140, f 33 .
33 Nichols, Progresses, in, 242-3 .
34 HMC Calendar of Salisbury mss, iv 1892), 108 .
35 Acts of the Privy Council, ns xxi 1900), 109, 125 .
The transcript of the Gardener's Speech which follows is printed by kind permission
of the Marquess of Salisbury from the Cecil Papers at Hatfield House, vol 140, no 94 .
As the Egerton ms text of the speech was printed by Dyce, Bullen and Bond with
spelling modernized, variant readings in the original manuscript are listed at the end of
the following transcript .
The gardiners speach
Most fortunate and faire Quene, one' Whose harte Wisdome hathe layd her Crowne,
and in whose handes justice hathe left her ballance, voutsafe to heare a Contrie
contryversie for y` there is as great equitie in determininge poore mens unions,' as of
riche mens landes . The younger sonne of ye owner of this house at a litle farme of his,
iiite myle hence called Pymmes, 3 devised alot for a garden, as me thought in4 a place
unfytt for pleasure, beinge overgrowen wt' thistles and turned up w`h moles, and besides
so farre from ye house y` in my Cuntry capacitie a pounde5 had bene meeter y e° a
paradize, what' his meaning was I durst not enquire but ? what my labours were I dare
boast of. The moles distroyed and ye plot leveled, I cast it into iiii°` quarters in8 ye first
I framed a Maze, not of hissope9 and tyme 10 but y` w`h makethe tyme itselfe to' wither
w` h wondringe . All ye vertues, all ye greaces all ye muses wynding, and wreathinge about
yo` mayCe eache contending to be chiefe, all contented to be cherished . And" this not
of pothearbes but of13 flowers & of flowers fairest and sweetest for in so heavenly a maze,
w` astonished all earthly thoughtes what did not bewtye bringe, what dyd not fortune
promyse . 14
The Vertues were done in roses, flowers fitt for ye xii vertues having 15 in yem selfes,
as wee Gardyners have observed) 16 above an hundred . The Graces of pawnces partie
collored in one stalke, sisters never asunder but t ' dyverselye beautified . The Muses of
ix," severall cullors 18 being of sundrye natures yet all sweete all soveraigne . Theise19
mingled in a Maze and brought into suche shapes as Poettes and Painters have made us
7
belyve 20 made myne eies dazill wrh ye shadowe, and mowe 21 my thoughtes amased to
beholde ye bodye . 22 Then was I commanded to place and" Arbour all of Eglentyne in
w` h my M' conceipte outstript my cunninge . Eglentyne quothe he21 I most honor and
it hathe bene tolde me y t ye deeper it is rooted in ye grounde ye sweeter it smelles25 in
ye flower, making it so 6 grene yt ye sonne of Spaine at ye hotest cannot parch it .
As he was telling me more, I entendinge more my worke 2 y' his wordes set my spade
w`h all force into ye earthe and at ye firste hitt uppon this 8 boxe . This Ratcatcher as
children do when anything is founde) cryed halfe, w` I denyinge claymed all, because
hee kylled ye moles for said he if I had not distroyed ym this had 9 bene no garden, if
no garden no digginge, yf no diggin a no boxe founde, at30 length y" boxe bred boxes
betwene 31 us, tyll32 wearye of theseE blacke and blue judges wee determined to appcale
to yor Man' into whose handes 134 bothe committ ye boxe and ye cause, hoping y ` this
weasill monger who is no better y° a cat in a house or a feret in a conygree3 shall not
dissuade yor Man' from a Gardiner whose art is to make walkes pleasant for prynces,
to set flowers, cast knottes, graffe 36 trees and 37 to do all thinges yt may bring pleasure
and profitt, and 31 so to give hym one girde for all, as muche oddes as ther is betwene
a Woodcleaver and a Carpenter, so great difference in y 's matter is betwene ye
Molecatcher and ye Gardyner.
VARIANT READINGS IN THE BRITISH LIBRARY MANUSCRIPT
BL Egerton ms 2623, ff 17-17v . Referred to hereafter as
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
BL.
Endorsement : `A Speeche made before the Queen at Tybbolles'
Heading : `The gardner'
BL on
`in determininge poore mens unions', BL `in defendinge of poore mens onions'
`The younger. . . Pymmes', BL [new paragraph] `At Pymmes some foure myles hence the
youngest son of this hon'able ould man whome god blesse wrh as manye yeares and
vertues as there be of him conceyved hopes [and] wishes)'
`in', BL `& in'
`in my Cuntry capacitie a pounde', BL ` in my cuntrey capacitie) a ponde'
BL [new sentence] What
`enquire but', BL `enquire, for sunt animis celestibus irae, but'
`into iiii °t quarters in', BL `into fower quarters : In'
BL yseppe
BL thyme
BL Omits `to'
BL All
BL omits `of'
`thoughtes . . .promyse', BL omits `what did not bewtye bringe, what dyd not fortune'
`having', BL `who have'
BL omits the parentheses
`The Graces . . . asunder but', BL `The grace of pauncees partlie colored but in one stalke
nevr a sunder yet'
'ix" severall cullors', BL 'nyne sevrall flowers'
BL [new paragraph]
`Painters have made us belyve', BL `painters use to shadowe'
BL all
BL bodies
8
23 BL an
24 BL omits `he'
25 BL smelleth
26 `so', BL `ever so'
27 `more my worke', BL `my worke more'
28 BL the
29 'kylled ye moles. . . this had', BL `killed the moles, and yf the moles had not bene destroyed
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
theire had'
BL [new sentence] At
BL betwixte
BL [new sentence] Tyll
BL those
BL wee
BL Connigat
BL graft
BL omits `and'
BL [new sentence] And
Note : The Hatfield ms generally uses the contractions 'ye, y`, y"', y", y15 ,' whereas in
the Egerton ms these words are generally spelt out in full, the, that, them, than, this' .
The two mss also have different ways of rendering some numerals see above) .
ALEXANDRA F . JOHNSTON
The churchwarden accounts of Great Marlow, Buckinghamshire
In the spring of 1979, having spent much of that winter working in Berkshire, I began
to investigate the surviving evidence from the county across the Thames,
Buckinghamshire. One of the most remarkable things about records research is the
unevenness of the survival of the evidence . The Berkshire collection, now complete and
awaiting companions to share the covers of a REED volume, is quite rich and diverse with
evidence from four towns, many parishes and the estate of the Hobys of Bisham. It is
also possible to pursue the details of the lives of the people who are mentioned in the
records because many wills survive for the county . Yet I soon found that the situation
is totally different in Buckinghamshire . No town records of any consequence survive,
and there are very few parishes with lengthy runs of accounts . The single major set of
records from this county are the records of Eton College . The archivists in the
Buckinghamshire Record Office in Aylesbury were as frustrated as I was . One
explanation that was offered for the dearth of early material was the heavy involvement
of the people of Buckinghamshire in the Parliamentary cause . Be that as it may, it is
remarkable how little survives in this county from before the Restoration . It is also worth
noting that one set of documents that does survive is legal documents of a Baptist
congregation dating from the 1630s . Non-conformity was very strong very early in
Buckinghamshire particularly in the Chilterns .
In an attempt to flesh out the tiny collection of material available to me at that time,
I set out to locate undeposited records . I had had some luck that year writing to the
incumbents of ancient parishes in Berkshire in an attempt to find churchwardens'
accounts . I therefore set out to do the same in Buckinghamshire. The accounts of Great
Marlow, though not deposited in the record office in Aylesbury, seemed to me to be
9