The King and Queen’s Entertainment at Bolsover (1634) survives in two witnesses, the Newcastle manuscript, BL Harl. 4955, fols. 199-202 (JnB 680), and F2, sigs. 2P1-2Q1, which places the entertainment at the end of The Underwood rather than with the other masques, following on from Welbeck. To match Welbeck, the F2 text is retitled as ‘LOVES WELCOME. / THE KING AND QVEENES / ENTERTAINMENT / AT / BOLSOVER: / AT / The Earle of Newcastles’ against the simpler title found in JnB 680 (see Bolsover, Collation). Although there are several errors in F2 there are no stop-press corrections or resettings in the copies collated. Indeed, like their counterpart, Welbeck, both JnB 680 and F2 are marked by errors and textual difficulties, and neither the printed text not the scribal copy presents an entirely complete or clear version of the entertainment. There are important differences between the MS and printed text, especially around the naming of Vitruvius, but also in the handling of locations and stage business. As with Welbeck, neither JnB 680 nor F2 can be used without emendation and, more significantly, the manuscript and print witnesses embody two versions of the text.
The copy in JnB 680 belongs to the later group of Jonson materials in the MS (see Cavendish Ent., Textual Essay for a full discussion) and is presented in John Rolleston’s mature calligraphic style. Rolleston, who had acted as Newcastle’s secretary for a number of years (see Cavendish Ent., Textual Essay), had developed his penmanship and his approach to the layout and presentation of dramatic texts, and this increased expertise is reflected in the small number of errors in the MS. Each page is headed ‘Ben Jonson’ at the top, and uses a double rule in the left margin and a right rule to provide a parallel margin. Most speech-headings are placed in the left double-rule, although for two larger speech-headings (Chorus, SH 20 and SH 28, fol. 199v) the wider left margin is used. Many of the individual shortened SHs in the opening song (2-30) and the Anteros/Eros dialogue (74-124) are reproduced with great accuracy and neatness, keeping the verse lines dispersed but the dialogue intact. Some speech-headings and stage-directions are centred, such as on fol. 199 (line 1; where SH and SD merge) and 199v (31-2): see also fol. 200 (67), or fols. 200v (73-4) and 201 (125). Marginal notes are twice placed in the left margin (fol. 199v, 41; and fol. 200v, 84), but on fol. 200 (47-8 and 52-3) the wider, outer right margin is used. The marginal notes contain stage directions, with the exception of 199v (23) where ‘Complement’, a heading, is placed in the margin.
JnB 680 contains very few errors and scribal slips. These are:
18 anything] any hing
50 you] you <there>
55 in] <with> in
98 be] be <deletion>
138 believed] believed <here>
161 but] <by> but
162 To] To <two>
Line 50 appears to be an example of eyeslip and it may be that the repetition of ‘or rather!’ in JnB 680, fol. 200 (60) preserves another example, although much of this speech is marked by short phrases closed with an exclamation mark (e.g. ‘A busy man!’ (39), ‘Or neighbour Vulcan!’ (42)). ‘From’ instead of ‘for’ at 148 may be another eyeslip. One possible instance, ‘Statut-tunes’ (64), has been excluded, as OED recognises ‘statut’ as a possible form, so the spelling may be scribal habit rather than an error.
JnB 680 also contains other significant errors. At the outset 2-4 lacks a SH, though it may be that the combined SD and SH at 1 was considered sufficient. More crucially, at 52-3 the order of the entering workmen (Dresser, Fret, Quarrel, and Beater) does not match the following dialogue, where they are listed as Dresser, Quarrel, Fret, and Beater (54-5; the order is correct in F2); and although both texts contain an SD ending the mechanics’ dance (67), JnB 680 lacks a starting direction or the F2 heading (which describes the ‘Dance of Mechanickes’, sig. 2Pv). Moreover, there are a number of slips in JnB 680 which impair the sense, such as ‘And’ for ‘An’ (38); although JnB 680 does make some sense here),‘wing’ for ‘wings’ (81), ‘from’ instead of ‘for’ (148), and ‘the’ for ‘their’ (150).
The infrequency of these errors (especially in comparison to earlier texts such as the Cavendish Ent. and, indeed, Welbeck) illustrates Rolleston’s skills, particularly in the immaculate presentation of the intermeshed dialogue of the two Cupids, including the relegation of the disruptive SD detailing the snatching of the palm to the margin. The low frequency of error suggests that the copy supplied to Rolleston was clear and straightforward, possibly a holograph or transcript. Both JnB 680 and F2 use the Jonsonian ‘’hem’ (57, 62) and both witnesses are distinguished by the careful use of diacritical marks, especially diaeresis on the words ‘Poët’ (39) and ‘Poëtry’ (126, 137). However, only JnB 680 marks the stress on Philaléthes (125).
JnB 680 handles two theatrical aspects of the text in a clearer fashion, giving a more precise location for the mechanics’ dance (‘a garden’, 31) and a more practical instruction to divide the palm-branch: in JnB 680 it is ‘cleft to the bottom’ (70) but in F2 only ‘cleft a little at the top’. In the marginal stage directions of the second and third quaternio, too, the two groups are more clearly separated, while in F2 they merge and the entry point for each group is less obvious. These theatrical aspects may also explain some of the absent elements in JnB 680, as those who had attended a performance could supply missing details, such as the start of the mechanics’ dance (SD given at 59 in F2) or the vague ‘fit place selected for the purpose’ (68), while F2’s description aids readerly reconstruction of the occasion.
Indeed, JnB 680 shares many features with F2, including the careful punctuation noted above, down to the strange diacritical mark after ‘cross’ (77). Some passages, especially the complex divided verse of the song and the Cupids’ dialogue are laid out almost identically, so that at 17 both texts place a superscript ‘2’ over the SH ‘Ten.’. This compression, which might appear to derive from the limitations of line length in F2, recurs in JnB 680, where there is plenty of space for the ‘2’ to sit on the line. In the song, even the brackets for the triplets sung by the Chorus appear the same, although the marginal ‘Complement’ (JnB 680) is placed on a centred line in F2. Unlike F2 Welbeck, this text uses margins for SDs, even if the layout sometimes lacks the clarity of JnB 680 (especially at 47-8, 52-3).
Like JnB 680, F2 offers an imperfect text. At 19 F2 attributes the line to ‘2.’ perhaps because the compositor missed the superscript ‘2.’ at 17 (JnB 680 gives 19 to the First Tenor); at 47 and 49 ‘Squire’, becomes ‘Sq. Summer’ and ‘Squire Summer’, mistaking the tool for a social rank; and at 95 the SH ‘Anteros’ is missing. Equally, many of the verbal errors in JnB 680 are correctly given in F2 (‘An’ (38), ‘wings’ (81), ‘for’ (148), and ‘their’ (150)). F2 also provides the missing SD for the commencement of the dance, placing it in the margin at 59. Most of the differences between JnB 680 and F2, however, are explicable as the result of preparation for printing. Thus many SDs change the tense, as at 31 (‘were’), 71 (‘were’), 72 (‘stood’), 72 (‘began’) and 84 (‘snatched’, ‘divided’). Several phrases are also added to illustrate the action for the reader, so that after 32 the mechanicals are described as a ‘Dance’, and F2 provides a more elaborate description of ‘a second banquet, set down before them from the clouds by two Loves’ (67-8). The elaboration of the title also contributed to the presentation of the print version for a wider audience, defining place, date, and auspices.
F2 also shows signs of authorial revision beyond the obvious elaboration of the performance details in the title. These include:
37 what that] what a surveyor is, F2
37 A supervisor] I tell you a supervisor F2
37 word] word, that F2
42 neighbour] Hammer-armed F2
46 knows.] knows a little. F2
56 with measure] with tune and measure F2
59 quick and sprightly] light and nimble F2
60 or rather] with the F2
60 my] my true F2
62 just] a well-tim’d F2
63 a] the F2
63 into] in F2
65 Colonel] Iniquo F2
67-8 having reposed . . . Cupids] having a second banquet, set down before them from the clouds by two Loves F2
72 when] till at last F2
72 lesser] lesser of them F2
123 which] that F2
124 the] a F2
133 in] here in the edge of F2
133 it] not in F2
150 with] with the F2
152 this] the F2
163 ‘Welcome!’] Welcome. Welcome, Welcome. F2
The multitude of verbal tinkerings typifies authorial revision, and it is clear that, either before or in the process of preparation for F2, there has been revision to justify the new title ‘Love’s Welcome’, evident in the revised final line, which echoes Welbeck 8 and 31. The other major revision accentuates the satire on Inigo Jones, through increased verbal repetitions in his speech (37), additional emphasis on his boastfulness and limited learning (‘knows a little’, 46), and a changed name (‘Iniquo’, 65). The use of Vitruvius as the architect’s name, and the comic treatment of ‘surveyor’ as a ‘hard word’ requiring a glossary, parallel Jonson’s attacks on Jones’s position and learning in the ‘Expostulation’.
There are three cruces in the text. First, at 42 both texts read ‘or’: ‘Oh, Captain Smith, or neighbour Vulcan’ (in F2 ‘neighbour’ becomes ‘hammer-armed’). H&S emend this to ‘our’, but the point lies in the contrast between the localised version, (‘Captain Smith’) and the mythological figure Vulcan, rather than some actual local figure who might be called ‘our neighbour’. In both JnB 680 and F2 marginal directions the sentence is ‘Captain Smith or Vulcan’. The emendation is unnecessary and intrusive.
Second, the description of Eros and Anteros has been seen as problematic. In fact much of the confusion stems from H&S’s decision to emend the SD by moving the palm (70) to 68, so that it was carried by the King’s cupid. H&S thought that ‘with a bough of palm in his hand cleft to the bottom’ must be a marginal note inserted at the wrong place, and accordingly moved the whole phrase. The logic in the SD, however, links the palm-bough to the second cupid, as it follows on from the description of his lily garland. This second cupid is the Queen’s, and at 84, the palm-bearing cupid is identified as Eros, implying that Eros must be the Queen’s cupid. This inference is confirmed in the dialogue at 80-1, where the aggressive and larger Anteros is the King’s cupid. The SD only confuses when it is assumed that the cupids speak in the order in which they are described. Indeed, the specific designation of the ‘lesser’ (72) as the first speaker is, perhaps, designed to signal that the presumed order has been changed (that the first, and larger, cupid would speak first). This order reverses the gendering of the cupids in Challenge, where Eros is attached to the bridegroom, representing a rampant phallic sexuality, although it matches the association of the smaller cupid, described as ‘purer’ and ‘worthier’ (7), with the bride. On this matter Bolsover follows Cartari (1571, 500-1), so the smallness of Eros conforms to the myth that attributes Anteros’s birth to the need to encourage Eros to grow. It seems most likely that the apparent ‘reversal’ is deliberate and the King’s association with Anteros suggests the more rational and ordered nature of his love. As both witnesses (which each show evidence of Jonson’s involvement) include the bough at 70, H&S’s decision seems arbitrary, as there is no evidence from either text that this was a misplaced marginal SD.
Thirdly, H&S relegate the phrase ‘alluding to the holy riddle’ (158) to a marginal gloss, even though the text contains only marginal SDs and not marginal glosses. Both texts treat this phrase as integral to the text and it is a piece of perfectly acceptable explanation for the audience, clarifying an allusion that would otherwise be almost unrecognisable, even to the most educated spectators.
There are also several smaller issues. First, in the third quaternion in JnB 680, the order of the figures in the SD is not followed in the dialogue (described above). It is possible that JnB 680 represents an earlier version or that the confusion reflects the permissive nature of some theatrical texts where SDs are given alternative forms to accommodate a range of performance possibilities. F2 corrects the order. The second problem, the SD for the palm-branch, can be explained by the different natures of the two witnesses, one closer to the performance. JnB 680 provides not a mythologically correct version but one which had more practical utility in the performance.
Finally, there is the matter of the additional stage direction in F2 (not in JnB 680, although both texts mark a paragraph break at this point) which signals ‘They begun to dance’ (59). From ‘Come forth’ (33), ‘the dance ended’ (67), and the references to ‘quick and sprightly motion’ (59), it is clear that these are entry directions for groups of four dancing workmen made up of smiths and builders (41, 47-8, 52-3). Significantly, F2 even describes this as ‘Colonel Vitruvius his oration to his dance of mechanics’. F2’s opening heading clarifies the action but leaves unclear whether ‘dance’ is a collective noun or the description of their actions. Given the parallels with court masques, especially the danced entries of Chloridia, themselves adapted from the balet de cour, it seems possible that the mechanics danced onto the stage. With this in mind, and following JnB 680, this edition leaves it open as to when the dancing began, and omits the F2 direction which fixes the action but also contradicts the earlier ‘dance’ heading.
It is clear, then, that, as with Welbeck, there are two authorized versions of this text, one closer to the original occasion and the other prepared for the broader audience of print. Although JnB 680 plays down the satire on Jones (or F2 adds to it), it remains a ghostly presence even in that version. The degree of tinkering, as with Welbeck, suggests that the changes are not likely to be Digby’s (as Brown, 1994, 164 claims about the changed SD) but authorial. In this sense JnB 680 shows the pressure on Jonson in the early 1630s to conform and avoid offence to the King, especially over the quarrel with Jones, which had incurred royal displeasure. JnB 680 illuminates how the staging and text of these occasions could be left open to allow for local changes and resources as circumstances dictated.
This edition uses JnB 680 as its base-text, with the correction of the order of the mechanics at 52-3 taken from F2. H&S’s emendations at 70 and 158 have not been accepted, and the marginal directions and headings have been moved into the main text. This creates a slight problem at 84 where it is hard to choose where to place this SD. The solution offered here fits the action, but a degree of awkwardness about the long line it thus creates cannot be avoided.