Edited by James Knowles
INTRODUCTION
This is among the most problematic of Jonson’s entertainments as its date and auspices are uncertain. The text was first transcribed, anonymously, as ‘The Christening; A Masque by Ben Jonson; Not in his Works’, in the Monthly Magazine (1816) from BL MS Harleian 4955, folios 48–52v (hereafter JnB 574), a familial memorial volume scribed by John Rolleston for William Cavendish, Viscount Mansfield (1620–8) and later Earl of Newcastle (1628–43). For ease of reference he is, anachronistically, referred to as Newcastle here.
The undated Cavendish Entertainment appears in the first and earliest group of Jonson texts in the MS, including Gypsies Metamorphosed (1621), beside a group of Cavendish-related poems, dating c. 1617–29 (‘Charles Cavendish to His Posterity’, ‘To the Memory of that Most Honoured Lady Jane, Eldest Daughter to Cuthbert, Lord Ogle, And Countess of Shrewsbury’, ‘Epitaph on Catherine, Lady Ogle’, and two epigrams to William, Earl of Newcastle (Und. 53 and 59)). This context, which locates the Cavendish Entertainment among works associated with his family rather than with that of his cousins, the Cavendishes (later Earls of Devonshire) of Chatsworth, is highly significant.
Herford and Simpson, following The Dictionary of National Biography, determined the occasion as the birth of Charles Cavendish, second son of another William Cavendish, second Earl of Devonshire, and dated the entertainment as staged on or near 20 May 1620. Initially, they argued that the performance happened at Newcastle’s Blackfriars residence (H&S, 2.311), titling the piece ‘An Entertainment at the Blackfriars’, although later volumes (H&S, 7.767 and 10.698) are silent on its precise venue. Gifford claimed that the entertainment was written for one of Newcastle’s sons (Gifford, 1816, 9.19), but this alternative suggestion has never been developed. Neither case can be demonstrated with certainty.
The Cavendish–Devonshire case centres on Charles Cavendish, second son of ‘Lord Cavendish and Christian his lady’, who was baptized on 15 June 1619, not 1620 (London Guildhall, MS 4508/1). The parents, William, Lord Cavendish (1590–1628), and his wife, Christian (née Bruce) (d. 1675), became second Earl and Countess of Devonshire in 1626 (GEC, Complete Peerage, 4.340–1). Family tradition claims that Prince Charles stood godfather to Charles Cavendish (White, 1708, 8), and he was certainly present at the baptism (Duchy of Cornwall Record Office, Treasurer and Receiver General, 1618–19, June 1619).
In contrast, William Cavendish–Newcastle’s family history is shrouded in mystery. The date of his marriage to Elizabeth Bassett is unknown, but probably took place in 1617 (Goulding, 1936, 363) or 1618 (ODNB), and he is thought to have had at least eight and possibly ten children. His first son died in April 1620 (Derbyshire Record Office, Matlock, MS 46, Bolsover parish registers; Pembroke to Cavendish, 21 April 1620, HMC Portland, 2.118). The Cavendish vault at Bolsover contains the remains of two of Newcastle’s infant sons, Charles and William (J. B. Burke, 1855, 2.199–202). This Charles must have been born sometime before Charles (Ⅱ) Cavendish, Viscount Mansfield (1626?–58), whose birth date is also uncertain, and according to some sources this first son called Charles died aged three years (A. Collins, 1752, 45). These parameters would give a potential birth date of either c. 1620–1 (that is, before the birth of the first daughter, Jane, in 1622), or c. 1623–5 (before the birth of Charles, Ⅱ). We have no knowledge of Prince Charles standing godfather to any of William’s children.
Neither case is entirely satisfactory. Although a Cavendish–Devonshire christening in the Blackfriars within the dates is well attested, the placing of the text among Newcastle’s collection about his immediate family must cause some concern. In particular, nothing in either Jonson’s career or the patronage history of the Cavendish–Devonshire family suggests any obvious connection, and the only links found in Harleian MS 4955 date to the late 1620s, occurring within a distinct, and later, collection of Cavendish (Devonshire and Newcastle) material in the manuscript. The most likely point of contact, between Jonson and the Cavendish–Devonshires, William Cavendish–Newcastle, who knew Jonson at least as early as 1617, was embroiled in a difficult relationship with his Cavendish–Devonshire cousins after 1616 due to tensions occasioned by his executorship of the seventh Earl of Shrewsbury’s will. These disputes only eased in the late 1620s. Finally, while Herford and Simpson discounted the possibility of the occasion being the birth of one of William’s sons, they used the survival of the text in Harleian MS 4955 to posit that the venue belonged to Newcastle, which suggests they perceived, at the very least, some connection to Newcastle. It is worth pointing out, too, that an entertainment marking the birth of a second son would be unlikely to require a major celebration, while Newcastle, highly dynastically conscious, had cause to mark the birth of a potential heir, especially one named for his father.
In the absence of clear external evidence the text provides some meagre facts. The location and ownership of the venue are unspecified but could have belonged to the unnamed countess (20), as well as to the parents, the ‘honourable lord’ (19) and ‘glad lady within’ (41). The relationship of this countess to the parents is never explained. Indeed, the only certainties are that the entertainment dates from before 1625; that it celebrates a child called Charles (23); and, that Prince Charles was present. It seems reasonable to deduce that the Prince stood as godparent to the child (16), and that the celebration took place in the Blackfriars (235).
Beyond the inference that this text was staged somewhere in Blackfriars, Herford and Simpson’s supposition about the venue is unproven. If the entertainment originates with the Cavendish–Devonshires, their residence in Aldersgate would have served. A Cavendish–Devonshire christening requires that, for some unknown reason, they borrowed a house for the occasion, hence the suggestion of a property belonging to William Cavendish–Newcastle. Unfortunately, the evidence for Newcastle’s ownership of a house in the Blackfriars at this date is slim. Lucy Worsley (2001), 2.71–2 has argued that the house may be that near the Blackfriars Stairs, occupied by Van Dyck after 1632, which possibly belonged to Cavendish. She notes that the registers of St Anne’s contain the names of various servant families associated with the Cavendish–Newcastles (see also 235n.). In the absence of convincing external evidence the venue is, probably, unidentifiable.
The surviving manuscript text is also problematic, especially as the division and location of the sections of the entertainment remain unclear. The opening Forester’s speech (3–7) appears to belong to a different text, a situation which Herford and Simpson explain through the most metaphorical of associations between the ‘battle’ (3) and ‘hunting’ (4) and the ante-supper. Equally, the exact articulation between both the end of the first song (45–61) and the subsequent dialogue (especially 62), and also the end of the Mathematician’s speech (169) and the ‘battle’ song (195–221) is uncertain. This is not unusual in transcripts of multi-sectional entertainments which often lack the necessary link-passages, although the missing speech between 13 and 15 may suggest the manuscript represents neither an accurate nor complete text. Nothing is known of the performers of this text, although the significant role played by music echoes Newcastle’s later entertainments and may reflect his extensive musical patronage (ODNB).
The text presented here follows the manuscript. Although it is tempting to add stage directions to clarify some of the awkward transitions within the text (such as an entrance for the nurses at 11, or exits at 17 and 167), editorial stage directions have been kept to a minimum, to avoid fixing the action in ways for which there is no supporting evidence. For other changes and emendations, see collation, commentary, and Textual Essay.
A CAVENDISH CHRISTENING ENTERTAINMENT
now you see a hunting. I know not what the game will prove, but the ground
as trees, dogs, deer, all, mean to be a part of the quarry.
At the banquet.
is enough to the wise and as good as a hundred, you know. This is my day!
My lords, and my lady, how like you my boy? Is’t not a goodly boy? I said
an God will, by one privy mark that I found about him. Would you had such 25
glad woman, and a proud, should I be to be seen at home with you upon the
same occasion!
HOLDBACK
How now, what’s the matter with you two?
DUGS
Why, Mistress Kecks, the dry nurse, strives to have place of me.
KECKS
Yes, Mistress Dugs, I do indeed. 35
KECKS
Why not afore the prince, worshipped might he be. I desire no better a
judge.
Nurse, ha’ done, let the music ha’ their play.You have made a joyful house 40
Song 45
If now as merry you could be
As you are welcome here,
Who wait would have no time to see
But you that deign the place and lord 50
But that within his face;
Where, if by engaging of his heart,
He yet could set forth more, 55
The world would scarce afford a part
Of such imagined store.
KECKS
Ay, is not summer better than winter?
yourselves thus and let everyone enter into your secrets? Shall they take it up 75
between you, a God’s name, proffer it to ’em? I am nobody, I. I know nothing.
DUGS
We never thought so, Mistress Holdback.
HOLDBACK
Go to, you do think so upon the point, and say as much i’your
upon the first view of my lady’s breasts and an inspection of what passed from
the mead and hydromel, I assured her it was so without all peradventure. I
my opinion whether it was a boy or a girl that Her Ladyship went withal,
money. Nor when the milk dissolved not in water, nor scattered, but sunk: a
boy still. No, upon the very day of my lady’s labour, when the wives came in,
I offered no wagers, not the odds I? Three to one, having observed the moon 95
the night before, and Her Ladyship set her right foot foremost, the right
lost his discretion. 100
mole. I thank God, and our mistress, Nature — she is God’s chambermaid and
and capability of the persons. By our places, we try all the conclusions. Many
mouth, many a glad cup through her lips. She is a leader of wives, the lady of
light hearts, and the queen of the gossips.
KECKS
But what is this to us, Mistress Holdback? The which is the better nurse, 110
the wet or the dry?
KECKS
But when it is wet i’th’ blankets with your superfluities, what quiets it
then? It is not the two bottles at the breasts, that when you have emptied
and bathing of him and the washing and the cleansing and, especially, the 120
drying that nourishes the child; cleansing his eyes and nostrils, wiping his
ears, fashioning his head with stroking it between the hands, clapping a piece
careful laying his legs and arms straight, and swathing ’em so justly as his
mother’s maids may leap at him when he bounces out on his blankets. These 125
are the offices of a nurse, a true nurse. What beauty would ever behold him
in a light, should send him forth into the world with a pair of false eyes? No,
’tis the nurse, and by excellence, the dry nurse, that gives him fashionable 130
to ladies.
DUGS
How enviously she talks, as if any nearer or nobler office could be done the
child than to feed him, or any more necessary and careful than to increase
that which is his nutriment, from both which I am truly, and principally,
named his nurse.
for thy sake, to bore ’em as full of holes as a colander: as if there were no
nutriment but thy milk or nothing could nurse a child but sucking. Why,
corruption of your milk that way? 150
in private. It makes a sweet perfume i’th’ nursery, as if you had swallowed
child. Thou’lt stifle it with thy breath one of these mornings!
the wine cellar and so watered your couch that, to save your credit with my
lady next morning, you were glad to lay it upon your innocent bedfellow,
and slander him to his mother how plentifully he had sucked. This was none
But what need this, so far our star extend,
When here a star shines that doth far transcend
In all benevolence and sways more power
To rule his whole life than the star his hour?
For in a prince are all things, since they all 175
To him, as to their end in nature, fall;
As from him, being their fount, all are produced,
This child, then, from his bounty shall receive
Judgement in all things, what to take or leave, 180
Matter to speak, and sharpness to dispute
Of every action both the root and fruit,
Truly foreseeing, in his each fit deed,
Wisdom t’attempt and spirit to proceed.
He shall gain favour, in things serious, fame.
Dissentions shall he shun and peace pursue;
Friendships, by frailties broke, he shall renew.
Virtue by him shall gain again her youth,
And joy as much therein as in her truth. 190
All helpless chances he shall free endure,
And perils passed, at length survive secure.
To ha’ seen but the delicate sport is within,
And how the two nurses do roar!
The dry nurse she swears
To have the wet by the ears, 200
And in fellowship calleth her whore,
And sayeth she will pay her her score.
Now the wet nurse doth water the place,
And while they do jangle,
The midwife doth wrangle 205
And is very near in the same case!
She urgeth,
And lays them the law.
They fight, 210
And they bite,
And not weigh her a straw.
Then off goeth her grave velvet hat
Ay, and rather than fail, 215
She lets fly at them both with that,
And her drum it goes, twiddle-dum-twat.
But they heat her with many a thump,
And now, to assuage
The height of her rage, 220
They are cooling her down at the pump!
Song
For we have well tasted your wine in the street,
And yet we make shift to stand on our feet.
As soon as we heard the Prince would be here,
We knew by his coming we should have good cheer;
A boy for my lady, then, every year 230
Now luck we beseech thee, that all things may stand
With my lady’s good liking that my lord takes in hand,
That still there come gossips the best in the land,
Another day,
My lord be thankèd,
We had such a banquet,
Was worth the list’ning.
After a year,
And a day for I fear,
We shall not see
The like will be, 245
While we know the Thames
Unless’t be a James.