The King’s Entertainment at Welbeck (1633) survives in two witnesses, the Newcastle MS, BL Harley MS 4955, fols. 194-198v (JnB 676), and F2 (sigs. 2N4v-2O4v), where it is placed at the end of The Underwood with Bolsover rather than with the other masques and entertainments. Although there are numerous errors in the printing of F2 there are no stop-press corrections or resettings in the copies collated. There are also considerable difficulties with the copy scribed in JnB 676, important differences between the MS and printed text, while neither text presents an entirely clear version of the action of the entertainment. Indeed, neither JnB 676 nor F2 provides a clear, error-free text that can be used without emendation.
The copy in JnB 676 belongs to the later group of Jonson materials in the MS (see Cavendish Entertainment: 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 Entertainment: 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. As part of the later Jonson group in the Newcastle MS, the pages are headed ‘Ben Jonson’ at the top of each page, and Rolleston used a double rule in the left margin and a right rule to provide a parallel margin for speech-headings. These are placed in the left double-rule, although for one larger speech heading (Chorus (SH 24), fol. 194v) the wider external left margin is used, and some speech-headings and stage-directions are centred, such as on fol. 195, where SH and SD merge (53) and 198 (SH ‘Gentleman’ (264)). Marginal notes are placed in the right margin except on fols. 196v and 197v where the wider left (outer) margin is used to list the appearance of hooded yeomen (155-66) and the SDs for the bride-ale (224-9). The marginal notes contain stage directions, descriptions of costumes, and occasionally add clarificatory information such as the description of the pasted records (48-52 are given as a marginal note in JnB 676).
JnB 676 contains very few mechanical errors and scribal slips. These are:
39 one] interlined correction
58 Lieutenant] Leiutenant (a scribal slip; correctly spelled in 59)
109 a] interlined correction
137 Monmouth] Mumouth
147 Hath challenged] hath <chang> challenged
162 SH ACCIDENCE] not present
223 breaks them off] breakes <of> them of,
261 coming in] comeing [caret] in interlined correction
297 makes] make
309 take him] take [caret] him interlined correction
309 be] be <illegible deletion>
The most significant of these errors is the omission of the SH for Accidence at 162 which creates two successive speeches for Fitzale (fol. 196v).
Two further dubious readings, ‘Through’ (98; F2 = ‘Throw’) and ‘weight’ (111; F2 = ‘Wight’), may reflect scribal spellings, although one error, shared with F2 at 86 where both texts have ‘sells’ (for ‘selves’) could either be scribal error or an attempt at dialect. (Interestingly, both JnB 676 and F2 spell ‘surety’ (71) as ‘sure-tie: see Commentary.) JnB 676 also contains an error at 297, reading ‘make’ whereas the sense requires ‘makes’, and error which is also shared with F2. In addition, at 52 the omission of ‘sir’ may be the result of compression caused by the narrow compass afforded by the margin. Interestingly, the correction of the pentameter in F2 may be an authorial revision. and so JnB 676 may be following its copy-text at this point. The relative paucity of these errors, especially in comparison to earlier texts such as the Cavendish Christening Entertainment, not only shows Rolleston’s gathering skills but may also suggest that the copy supplied to him was straightforward, possibly a clear holograph or transcript.
F2 is laid out with the stage directions moved from marginal notes and incorporated into prose descriptions. The only exceptions to this are the directions for the hooded bachelors, where their names are listed in the right margin (2O2v); the six ‘courses’ at the quintain, where the names and their order are numbered and placed in the right margin (2O3); and the opening song, where the Chorus of the Affections is listed in an incomplete fashion in the margin (2N4v), whereas on the next page (2O1) the ‘CHORVS’ direction is centred. Interestingly, the opening song seems to have presented several problems for the printer as the SHs change from ‘DOVBT’ (and ‘LOVE’) to ‘Dou.’(2O1). Furthermore, several obvious errors remain uncorrected. On 2O2 the two successive speech headings for ‘FITZ.’ remain, and the following errors are introduced:
47] heard for hard (corrected in F3 )
66] pleaseth requires it for sense (as in JnB 676)
83] nonce replacing JnB 676 nones and disturbing the rhyme
109] geat for great (corrected in F3)
183] Thou hast knocked it replacing He has knocked it wrenching the grammar of the rest of the stanza (188-189)
272] you for your (corrected in F3)
297] make for makes
312] grand-child for grand-children
The lack of press-corrections and the introduced errors (notably at 83 and 183) suggest little oversight of the printing process.
In several respects JnB 676 and F2 have similar layouts – and share errors (such as 86, 297) – possibly from a common source-text. The opening dialogue and the placing of the speech heading for the Chorus are treated in the same way (even if the exact personnel involved and the ascription of lines is clearer in JnB 676), and the treatment of the hooded bachelors and the six ‘courses’, using marginal notes to mark out each figure and each run at the quintain, are also paralleled. The similarities are most striking in the division of SHs and lines at 152-66, where in both exemplars the half-lines split between the two different speakers are laid out continuously and the SHs merge with the main body of the text. JnB 676 and F2 do, however, differ in the treatment of the SDs, as the treatment of Fitzale’s first appearance shows.
In JnB 676, the main SD is supplemented by a marginal note (because of the division to mark the start of the label (50-2), the marginalium appears as two separate notes, starting with the asterisk at ‘with’ (46) and the second next to ‘loth’ (48), whereas they are, in fact, one continuous note). The JnB 676 text is treated as follows and the underlined passages are placed in the right margin in the original marked by the asterisk (see above):
The other was in a Taberd, or Heralds Coate of
Azure, and Gules, quarterlie chang’d of Buckram;
Lyn’d with Yellow, instead of Gold, and pasted ouer
with* Records of the two Shires, and certaine fragments
of the Forrest, as a Coat of Antiquitie and President,
willing to be seene, but hard to bee read, and as loth
to bee vnderstood, without the Interpretor,
who wore it.
*Wch Records were pasted
on wth the wrong way
vpward, and this Labell
annexed./
To the Curious Prier.
Looke not so neare, wth
hope to vnderstand;
Out-cept you can read
with the left hand./
F2 treats the marginal material as part of the main text thus:
The other in a Taberd, or Heralds Coat of Azure, and Gules quarter-
ly chang’d of Buckram; Limn’d with yellow, in stead of Gold, and pa-
sted over with old Records of the two Shires, and certaine fragments of
the Forrest, as a Coat of Antiquitie, and President, willing to be seene, but
heard to be read, and as loth to be understood, without the Interpreter,
who wore it: For the wrong end of the letters were turn’d upward, there-
fore was a labell fix’d to, To the Curious Prier, advertising:
Looke not so neere, with hope to understand;
Out-cept, Sir, you can read with the left hand.
Although JnB 676 cannot be a performance text (see further discussion of this point below), the F2 text moves even further away, adding a descriptive element so that the records are ‘old’ and the label is ‘advertising’ its message, formulating a clearer picture for the reader. Similar processes can be seen in the SD at 136, as F2 clarifies where Stub should enter (JnB 676 only places the SD in the margin) and begins the SD with the descriptive ‘Here’, explaining how he ‘presented himself, being apparelled’; and again at SD 224-29, where F2 adds ‘who was dressed’ to the bride’s description (224) and explains the maids as ‘attending on her’ as ‘attired’ (225). At 223 the present tense in JnB 676 ‘breaks them off’ is replaced by the reported past ‘did break them off’ in F2.
The description of Fitzale also illustrates the problematic nature of F2. There are several verbal changes, including the addition of a hat-band (44), the correction of the metre (adding ‘Sir’ at 52), and the organisation of the label as a couplet, that may well be authorial changes (especially ‘limn’d’, 46; ‘lined’ in JnB 676) and tidying of the text for publication. Yet F2’s treatment of the marginal note is garbled, stating that the ‘wrong end of the letters were turn’d upward’, while JnB 676 clarifies ‘letters’ as ‘Records’ (46). JnB 676’s phrasing of ‘Label annexed’ improves on F2’s awkward ‘a label fixed to, To’. It is possible this clumsy repetition is simply compositorial eye-slip, but whatever its origin JnB 676’s text is more fluent.
To complicate matters, there are points at which F2 presents a better text. For instance, at 98 F2’s ‘Throw’ corrects ‘Through’ (JnB 676), at 234 ‘quicksilver’ replaces JnB 676’s ‘Quick-siller’, and at 236 ‘Firk-hum-Jerk-hum’ is probably more coherent than JnB 676’s ‘Firk-hum-Firk-hum’ (although it’s a fine point). At 136-38 F2’s placing of the SD establishes where Stub should enter, and F2 provides a speech heading at 162. F2 also improves on the lineation of JnB 676 by indenting 100, although this sequence of indentations that accentuates the rhyme-lines is so irregular that it is hard to be sure what represents the correct layout. For example, in JnB 676, 131 is indented; in F2 it is not.
As with the small alterations in the layout some of the verbal divergences between JnB 676 and F2 are the product of the text’s preparation for a wider audience in a printed form, such as the changed tense of the SDs, the additional details of the occasion, location, and patron in the extended title given in F2, and the exact date (after 317). Interestingly, though, at 35 ‘the courtiers’ are removed from the list of guests, perhaps accentuating the socially elevated nature of the occasion, although it might also be that ‘lords’ renders ‘courtiers’ redundant (see also Commentary). These changes may well be authorial in origin, and other instances suggest a more extensive process of authorial revision. In addition to those discussed above, these are (followed by the JnB 676 reading in brackets):
39] other side (other)
46] old (not in JnB 676)
52] Sir (not in JnB 676)
68] Accidence my good lord (Accidence)
72] my very good lord (my lord)
72] Father (Humphrey)
95] or (would)
151] his (a)
158] Colour (Liuorie)
209] was (is)
223] them (of them)
223] Dance, and to (dance)
229] office (service)
231] show, Sirs (show)
260] or (and)
277] should (must)
294] the rule (a rule)
304] nerves (strings)
At 52, 68, 72, 231 and 277 the F2 version is more deferential, while at 304, as H&S note, ‘strings’ becomes the more Latinate ‘nerves’. Other of these changes (notably the tense change at 209 and the small verbal substitutions at 229, 260 and 294) are typical of the tinkering associated with authorial alteration. The pattern of changes towards deference, however, might mark a response to criticism if, as is possible, the occasion was felt to be undecorous (after all, this is the point of 265, 273-80), or they may belong to the preparation for a wider audience that moves away from private occasion to public text.
There are, however, five areas of textual difficulty in Welbeck. Although both texts start with the dialogue sung after the king was ‘set’ at dinner neither text gives any exact location or an entry for the singers. Most importantly, while both ascribe lines to the Chorus of Affections neither includes any indication of their presence or any entry direction at the outset. JnB 676, however, provides some important elements not in F2. Thus in the song, JnB 676 details the members of the Chorus of Affections (Joy, Delight, Jollity) and numbers the lines of the stanza to indicate the singer (9-13), whereas F2 fails to include Jollity and does not indicate which singers take the individual lines. In JnB 676, 9-13 are given to three singers numbered 1 to 3 and 15-16 to ‘All’ although it is not clear if this includes Love and Doubt or just the Chorus of Affections.
The entry of the hooded bachelors is problematic in both JnB 676 and F2 since in both exemplars the text has been edited for presentation or publication, removing the SDs necessary to clarify the action. In JnB 676, the left margin on fol. 196v lists and numbers the hoods, heading the extended marginal note with ‘Sixehoods’ and closing with the phrase ‘Each in his Liuorie’ (154). F2 includes an explanatory initial direction (centered in the text), ‘Here, the sixe Hoods presented themselves severally, in their Livery Hoods, while Fitz-ale spoke on’, with the hoods listed in the right margin. There are no entries, exits or indications of any intervening action.
Similarly, the running at the quintain is opaque in both JnB 676 and F2. In JnB 676 the runners are listed in the margin of the page and numbered 1 to 7 with the phrase ‘X’s course’ (X being the particular tilter). Each quintainer is preceded by a trumpet sounding (marked by ‘Trumpett sounds’ for Stub and then ‘Sound’ for each of the rest). In JnB 676, however, the intervening commentary breaks down so that 194, 197, 199, 204 lack any SHs. In F2 the first ‘course’ is preceded with ‘A Flourish’, repeated thereafter as ‘Flourish’, and the runners are listed in the right margin and numbered. F2 provides a more useful text at this point as it preserves the SHs for 194 (Accidence), 197 (Fitzale), 199 (Accidence), and 204 (Fitzale).
Although both texts agree for Motley Hood’s course (210-15), at Russet Hood’s course they diverge and then the identification of speakers breaks down. At 217, JnB 676 gives the speech to Accidence, F2 to Fitzale, and again at 218 these speakers are reversed, but at 219-21 the names are simply replaced by numbers. It is not clear from either text whether these replace Accidence and Fitzale or whether there are other characters involved. They could be the bachelors (perhaps the first four of the Hoods) commenting from the sidelines. The following SD ‘Here ACCIDENCE breaks them off’ (223) certainly suggests that he interrupts other speakers besides himself and Fitzale. This also makes sense of 222.
JnB 676 and F2 also divide the lines differently. At 219 the SH in both JnB 676 and F2 is simply ‘i.’ and ‘I.’ respectively; at 220 JnB 676 divides the line and attributes to ‘2.’ and ‘3.’, whereas in F2 it is given to ‘2.’ only; at 221 JnB 676 gives the line to ‘4.’ and F2 to ‘3.’; and both texts treat 222 as a continuation of the preceding line and speaker. As both texts are internally coherent at this point, it is possible that the two distributions of lines represent alternate versions or a later revision.
These five areas of textual difficulty encapsulate the problem facing an editor, that neither N nor F2 is an entirely reliable text. In the case of the opening dialogue and song, JnB 676 provides a more workable text; and, while neither text provides a clear version of the action for either the entry of the bachelors or the quintain, F2 at least supplies SHs for the section 194-204. While the reversal of speakers at 217-18 may simply reflect a change during performance or authorial revision, both JnB 676 and F2 for 219-21 fail to supply any cogent information beyond the numbered speakers (over which they also disagree).
The problems and divergences of the two exemplars raise acutely the issue of the copy-text underlying the two exemplars. Neither text could be used for performance as necessary information is missing, although we are unclear what a performance text of any masque or entertainment might have looked like, and it is possible that the script was more outline than finished object, allowing for a degree of improvisation and local change as circumstances required. F2, however, has been more clearly prepared for publication, but it also clarifies some parts of the action (SD at 136-38) and adds details such as the hat-band (44) that may have been recalled from the performance. JnB 676 identifies the opening singers more clearly and provides a more coherent explanation of the upside-down records, although the SD at 225 could result from either an unresolved loose end in the script or from the preparation of a more descriptive copy to record the performance. JnB 676, too, has clearly been prepared by Rolleston for a memorial volume which, like the process of copy-preparation for print-publication, has moved the text away from whatever holograph or scribal copy might have been provided to the performers and to the patron. Although the situation is not as clear-cut as with Bolsover, where two audiences are addressed in the different MS and print versions, the JnB 676 text has been prepared for a particular context just as much as F2. In particular, JnB 676 embodies a much harsher attitude towards the rustic sports: they ‘must’ be banished, while F2’s ‘should’ dovetails with the more deferential lines given to the yokels. It is not unreasonable to argue that F2 presents a less confrontational text, possibly aligned with the perception of how a wider audience might respond in 1640, or possibly registering the changed political situation between 1633 and 1640. The process reverses the hardening of the headnotes to ‘Lycidas’ seen between the 1637 publication and Milton’s Poems (1645).
The key problem for any editor is how to treat the marginalia in this text since, unlike other masque texts, they do not provide glosses or sources for the action. In some ways they resemble the SDs placed in the margin of F1 and F2 play-texts, except that they are not always clearly SDs. As with many other masques, the division between SDs and description is often difficult to draw. So, whereas the opening Chorus (9-13), the description of the costumes and label (48-52), Stub’s entry and costume (136-38), the trumpet ‘sound’ and the bachelors’ courses (181-216), and the bride-ale party (224-29) all function as SDs, other marginalia, notably the list of the bachelors and their hoods (154-66) and the repeated ‘Song’ heading (250), have a more descriptive function. Whoever prepared F2 for printing clearly regarded 136-38 and 154 as closer to SDs and moved them from their marginal position, and the same rationale could be suggested for the movement of 48-52 and 224-29, although they are closer to the kinds of description found in other masque texts. Of the remaining marginalia that were used in F2 (it omits the opening marginal Chorus direction (now 9-13)), that is, the naming of the hoods and the tilting courses, they remained as explicatory marginalia.
Given the inconsistency within the two witnesses, and the inconsistency between them, plus the uncertain nature of these marginalia, it seems that any consistency in editorial treatment cannot be achieved. Our notion of the SD seems over-rigid for these texts, and the fluidity in the two witnesses over such material may reflect either the nature of the underlying text and dramatic praxis (which may have diverged greatly form the public stage and its scribal texts and print publications). Furthermore, any interpretation of these sections of both JnB 676 and F2 must bear in mind that neither text can be assumed to be a performance text, in so far as we can identify what that may have looked like, as both witnesses have been prepared for a reading audience. In these circumstances, it has been decided to treat all the marginalia as SDs with the exception of 154-66.
Bearing in mind that neither JnB 676 nor F2 can simply be used as a base-text, this edition has taken the unusual step of presenting an eclectic text. The basis of the edition is JnB 676 precisely because it embodies a text closer to the 1633 performance and its more stringent attitudes rather than the more emollient version of F2. Where JnB 676 is obviously in error, however, F2 has been used to supply the deficiencies, and any alterations that may be authorial have been flagged in both the collation and in the notes, so that the reader may also easily reconstruct Jonson’s final version (if that is, indeed, what F2 represents). The risk of such an approach is that it produces a text that was never available at the time, being neither JnB 676 nor F2 exactly, but many of JnB 676’s errors and problems would have had to be solved in performance, and F2’s solutions are often the obvious ones. Thus for the SHs at 162, 194, 197, 199, and 204 this edition follows F2 (but not at 217, 218). At some points neither text supplies a clear direction, so at 219-21 the SHs have been left as ‘FIRST SPEAKER’ and so on, reflecting the numbers given in both JnB 676 and F2, and a note has been added in the Commentary to identify the staging possibilities of these lines.
Ultimately, this text embodies a pragmatic rather than a perfect solution, but this way the reader can access a text close to that which might have been performed in 1633, and can also see how the 1640 printing changed that first version. The key point here is the instability of the Jonsonian text, where MS and print are deployed to present alternative versions of texts to different audiences. It suggests a sensitivity to audience response and to the political difference his chosen media might make that belies the notion of an incapacitated Jonson retired from the world and politics in the 1630s.