The Project Gutenberg eBook of The mediaeval stage, volume 2 (of 2)
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: The mediaeval stage, volume 2 (of 2)
Author: E. K. Chambers
Release date: November 23, 2025 [eBook #77310]
Language: English
Original publication: London: Oxford University Press, 1903
Credits: Tim Lindell and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE MEDIAEVAL STAGE, VOLUME 2 (OF 2) ***
Transcriber’s Notes
Obvious typographical errors have been silently corrected. Variations in
hyphenation and accents have been standardised but all other spelling and
punctuation remains unchanged. The first volume is available as Project
Gutenberg eBook #73000.
[Illustration: BEGINNING OF DUBLIN _Quem quaeritis_, FROM BODLEIAN
RAWLINSON LITURGICAL MS. D. 4
(14TH CENTURY)]
THE MEDIAEVAL STAGE
BY E. K. CHAMBERS. VOL. II
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
M.CMIII
_Impression of 1925_
_First Edition 1903_
_This impression has been produced photographically by the
MUSTON COMPANY, from sheets of the First Edition_
_Printed wholly in England for the MUSTON COMPANY
By LOWE & BRYDONE, PRINTERS, LTD.
PARK STREET, CAMDEN TOWN, LONDON, N.W. 1._
CONTENTS
VOLUME I
PAGE
PREFACE v
LIST OF AUTHORITIES xiii
BOOK I. MINSTRELSY
CHAP.
I. THE FALL OF THE THEATRES 1
II. MIMUS AND SCÔP 23
III. THE MINSTREL LIFE 42
IV. THE MINSTREL REPERTORY 70
BOOK II. FOLK DRAMA
V. THE RELIGION OF THE FOLK 89
VI. VILLAGE FESTIVALS 116
VII. FESTIVAL PLAY 146
VIII. THE MAY-GAME 160
IX. THE SWORD-DANCE 182
X. THE MUMMERS’ PLAY 205
XI. THE BEGINNING OF WINTER 228
XII. NEW YEAR CUSTOMS 249
XIII. THE FEAST OF FOOLS 274
XIV. THE FEAST OF FOOLS (_continued_) 301
XV. THE BOY BISHOP 336
XVI. GUILD FOOLS AND COURT FOOLS 372
XVII. MASKS AND MISRULE 390
VOLUME II
BOOK III. RELIGIOUS DRAMA
XVIII. LITURGICAL PLAYS 1
XIX. LITURGICAL PLAYS (_continued_) 41
XX. THE SECULARIZATION OF THE PLAYS 68
XXI. GUILD PLAYS AND PARISH PLAYS 106
XXII. GUILD PLAYS AND PARISH PLAYS (_continued_) 124
XXIII. MORALITIES, PUPPET-PLAYS, AND PAGEANTS 149
BOOK IV. THE INTERLUDE
XXIV. PLAYERS OF INTERLUDES 179
XXV. HUMANISM AND MEDIAEVALISM 199
APPENDICES
A. THE TRIBUNUS VOLUPTATUM 229
B. TOTA IOCULATORUM SCENA 230
C. COURT MINSTRELSY IN 1306 234
D. THE MINSTREL HIERARCHY 238
E. EXTRACTS FROM ACCOUNT BOOKS 240
I. Durham Priory 240
II. Maxstoke Priory 244
III. Thetford Priory 245
IV. Winchester College 246
V. Magdalen College, Oxford 248
VI. Shrewsbury Corporation 250
VII. The Howards of Stoke-by-Nayland, Essex 255
VIII. The English Court 256
F. MINSTREL GUILDS 258
G. THOMAS DE CABHAM 262
H. PRINCELY PLEASURES AT KENILWORTH 263
I. A Squire Minstrel 263
II. The Coventry Hock-Tuesday Show 264
I. THE INDIAN VILLAGE FEAST 266
J. SWORD-DANCES 270
I. Sweden (sixteenth century) 270
II. Shetland (eighteenth century) 271
K. THE LUTTERWORTH ST. GEORGE PLAY 276
L. THE PROSE OF THE ASS 279
M. THE BOY BISHOP 282
I. The Sarum Office 282
II. The York Computus 287
N. WINTER PROHIBITIONS 290
O. THE REGULARIS CONCORDIA OF ST. ETHELWOLD 306
P. THE DURHAM SEPULCHRUM 310
Q. THE SARUM SEPULCHRUM 312
R. THE DUBLIN QUEM QUAERITIS 315
S. THE AUREA MISSA OF TOURNAI 318
T. SUBJECTS OF THE CYCLICAL MIRACLES 321
U. INTERLUDIUM DE CLERICO ET PUELLA 324
V. TERENTIUS ET DELUSOR 326
W. REPRESENTATIONS OF MEDIAEVAL PLAYS 329
X. TEXTS OF MEDIAEVAL PLAYS AND INTERLUDES 407
I. Miracle-Plays 407
II. Popular Moralities 436
III. Tudor Makers of Interludes 443
IV. List of Early Tudor Interludes 453
SUBJECT INDEX 462
BOOK III
RELIGIOUS DRAMA
heȝe vpon a doune,
þer al folk hit se may,
a mile from þe toune,
aboute þe midday,
þe rode is vp arered;
his frendes aren afered,
ant clyngeþ so þe clay;
þe rode stond in stone,
marie stont hire one,
ant seiþ ‘weylaway’!
CHAPTER XVIII
LITURGICAL PLAYS
[_Bibliographical Note._—The liturgical drama is fully treated
by W. Creizenach, _Geschichte des neueren Dramas_ (vol. i,
1893), Bk. 2; L. Petit de Julleville, _Les Mystères_ (1880),
vol. i. ch. 2; A. d’Ancona, _Origini del Teatro Italiano_ (2nd
ed. 1891), Bk. 1, chh. 3-6; M. Sepet, _Origines catholiques
du Théâtre moderne_ (1901), and by L. Gautier in _Le Monde_
for Aug. and Sept. 1872. The studies of W. Meyer, _Fragmenta
Burana_ (1901), and C. Davidson, _English Mystery Plays_
(1892), are also valuable. A. W. Ward, _History of English
Dramatic Literature_ (2nd ed. 1899), vol. i. ch. 1 deals
very slightly with the subject. A good popular account is
M. Sepet, _Le Drame chrétien au Moyen Âge_ (1878). Of older
works, the introduction to E. Du Méril’s _Origines latines du
Théâtre moderne_ (1849, facsimile reprint, 1896) is the best.
The material collected for vol. ii of C. Magnin’s _Origines
du Théâtre_ is only available in the form of reviews in the
_Journal des Savants_ (1846-7), and lecture notes in the
_Journal général de l’Instruction publique_ (1834-6). Articles
by F. Clément, L. Deschamps de Pas, A. de la Fons-Melicocq, and
others in A. N. Didron’s _Annales archéologiques_ (1844-72)
are worth consulting; those of F. Clément are reproduced in
his _Histoire de la Musique religieuse_ (1860). There are also
some notices in J. de Douhet, _Dictionnaire des Mystères_
(1854).—The texts of the _Quem quaeritis_ are to be studied
in G. Milchsack, _Die Oster- und Passionsspiele_, vol. i (all
published, 1880), and C. Lange, _Die lateinischen Osterfeiern_
(1887). The former compares 28, the latter no less than 224
manuscripts. The best general collection of texts is that
of Du Méril already named: others are T. Wright, _Early
Mysteries and other Latin Poems_ (1838); E. de Coussemaker,
_Drames liturgiques du Moyen Âge_ (1860), which is valuable
as giving the music as well as the words; and A. Gasté, _Les
Drames liturgiques de la Cathédrale de Rouen_ (1893). A few,
including the important _Antichristus_, are given by R.
Froning, _Das Drama des Mittelalters_ (1891). The original
sources are in most cases the ordinary service-books. But
a twelfth-century manuscript from St. Martial of Limoges
(_Bibl. Nat. Lat._ 1139) has four plays, a _Quem quaeritis_,
a _Rachel_, a _Prophetae_, and the _Sponsus_. Facsimiles
are in E. de Coussemaker, _Histoire de l’Harmonie au Moyen
Âge_ (1852). A thirteenth-century manuscript from Fleury
(_Orleans MS._ 178) has no less than ten, a _Quem quaeritis_,
a _Peregrini_, a _Stella_ in two parts, a _Conversio Pauli_,
a _Suscitatio Lazari_ and four _Miracula S. Nicholai_. Two
later plays and fragments of three others are found in the
famous thirteenth-century manuscript from Benedictbeuern
(_Munich MS._ 19,486, printed in J. A. Schmeller, _Carmina
Burana_, 3rd ed. 1894, with additional fragments in W. Meyer,
_Fragmenta Burana_, 1901). This is probably the repertory of
travelling goliardic clerks. The twelfth-century manuscript
which preserves the three plays of Hilarius (_Bibl. Nat. Lat._
11,331, printed in J. J. Champollion-Figeac, _Hilarii Versus et
Ludi_, 1838) is of a similar character.—The tropes are fully
dealt with by L. Gautier, _Hist. de la Poésie liturgique au
Moyen Âge_, vol. i (all published, 1886), and W. H. Frere,
_The Winchester Troper_ (1894). I have not been able to see
A. Reiners, _Die Tropen-, Prosen- und Präfations-Gesänge des
feierlichen Hochamtes im Mittelalter_ (1884). Antiquarian data
are collected by H. J. Feasey, _Ancient English Holy Week
Ceremonial_ (1897), and A. Heales, _Easter Sepulchres_, in
_Archaeologia_, vol. xlii. I have printed an important passage
from the _Regularis Concordia_ of St. Ethelwold (965-75) in
Appendix O. The _Planctus Mariae_ are treated by A. Schönbach,
_Die Marienklagen_ (1874), and E. Wechssler, _Die romanischen
Marienklagen_ (1893). W. Köppen, _Beiträge zur Geschichte
der deutschen Weihnachtsspiele_ (1893), and M. Sepet, _Les
Prophètes du Christ_ (1878), contain valuable studies of the
evolution of the _Stella_ and the _Prophetae_ respectively.
The relation of dramatic to iconic art in the Middle Ages
is brought out by P. Weber, _Geistliches Schauspiel und
kirchliche Kunst_ (1894). A rather primitive bibliography is
F. H. Stoddard, _References for Students of Miracle Plays and
Mysteries_ (1887).—Authorities for English facts given without
references in the present volume will be found in Appendices W
and X.]
The discussions of the first volume have often wandered far enough from
the history of the stage. But two or three tolerable generalizations
emerge. The drama as a living form of art went completely under at the
break-up of the Roman world: a process of natural decay was accelerated
by the hostility of Christianity, which denied the theatre, and by the
indifference of barbarism, which had never imagined it. If anything of a
histrionic tradition survived, it took the shape of pitiable farce, one
amongst many heterogeneous elements in the _spectacula_ of disreputable
mimes. For the men of the Middle Ages, however, peasants or burghers,
monks or nobles, such _spectacula_ had a constant attraction: and the
persistence of the deep-rooted mimetic instinct in the folk is proved
by the frequent outcrops of primitive drama in the course of those
popular observances which are the last sportive stage of ancient heathen
ritual. Whether of folk or of minstrel origin, the _ludi_ remained to
the last alien and distasteful to the Church. The degradation of Rome
and Constantinople by the stage was never forgotten; nor the association
with an heathenism that was glossed over rather than extinct: and though
a working compromise inevitably tended to establish itself, it remained
subject to perpetual protest from the austerer spirit in the counsels of
the clergy.
It is the more remarkable that the present volume has to describe a most
singular new birth of the drama in the very bosom of the Church’s own
ritual. One may look at the event as one will, either as an audacious,
and at least partly successful, attempt to wrest the pomps of the devil
to a spiritual service, or as an inevitable and ironical recoil of a
barred human instinct within the hearts of its gaolers themselves. From
either point of view it is a fact which the student of European culture
cannot afford to neglect. And apart from its sociological implications,
apart from the insight which it gives into the temper of the folk and
into the appeal of religion, it is of the highest interest as an object
lesson in literary evolution. The historian is not often privileged to
isolate a definite literary form throughout the whole course of its
development, and to trace its rudimentary beginnings, as may here be
done, beyond the very borders of articulate speech.
The dramatic tendencies of Christian worship declared themselves at
an early period[1]. At least from the fourth century, the central and
most solemn rite of that worship was the Mass, an essentially dramatic
commemoration of one of the most critical moments in the life of the
Founder[2]. It is his very acts and words that day by day throughout
the year the officiating priest resumes in the face of the people.
And when the conception of the Mass developed until instead of a mere
symbolical commemoration it was looked upon as an actual repetition of
the initial sacrifice, the dramatic character was only intensified. So
far as the Canon of the Mass goes, this point needs no pressing. But the
same liturgical principle governs many other episodes in the order of the
mediaeval services. Take, for example, the ritual, of Gallican origin,
used at the dedication of a church[3]. The bishop and his procession
approach the closed doors of the church from without, but one of the
clergy, _quasi latens_, is placed inside. Three blows with a staff are
given on the doors, and the anthem is raised _Tollite portas, principes,
vestras et elevamini, portae aeternales, et introibit Rex gloriae_. From
within comes the question _Quis est iste rex gloriae?_ and the reply is
given _Dominus virtutum ipse est Rex gloriae_. Then the doors are opened,
and as the procession sweeps through, he who was concealed within slips
out, _quasi fugiens_, to join the train. It is a dramatic expulsion of
the spirit of evil. A number of other instances are furnished by the
elaborate rites of Holy week. Thus on Palm Sunday, in commemoration of
the entry into Jerusalem, the usual procession before Mass was extended,
and went outside the church and round the churchyard or close bearing
palms, or in their place sprigs of yew, box, or withies, which the priest
had previously blessed[4]. The introduction of a _Palmesel_ might make
the ceremony more dramatic still[5]. Some of the texts used were of a
prophetic character, and the singer of these was occasionally dressed
as a prophet[6]. At the doors of the church the procession was greeted
by boys stationed upon the roof of the porch, and certain French uses
transferred to the occasion the dedication solemnity of _Tollite portas_
just described[7]. The reading of the gospel narratives of the Passion,
which on Palm Sunday, on the Monday or Tuesday, and the Wednesday in Holy
week and on Good Friday preceded the Gospel proper, was often resolved
into a regular oratorio. A tenor voice rendered the narrative of the
evangelist, a treble the sayings of Jews and disciples, a bass those
of Christ himself[8]. To particular episodes of these Passions special
dramatic action was appropriated. On Wednesday, at the words _Velum
templi scissum est_, the Lenten veil, which since the first Sunday in
Lent had hidden the sanctuary from the sight of the people, was dropped
to the ground[9]. On Good Friday the words _Partiti sunt vestimenta_
were a signal for a similar bit of by-play with a linen cloth which lay
upon the altar[10]: Maundy Thursday had its commemorative ceremony of the
washing of feet[11]; while the _Tenebrae_ or solemn extinction, one after
another, of lights at the Matins of the last three days of the week, was
held to symbolize the grief of the apostles and others whom those lights
represented[12].
These, and many other fragments of ceremonial, have the potentiality
of dramatic development. Symbolism, mimetic action, are there. The
other important factor, of dialogued speech, is latent in the practice
of antiphonal singing. The characteristic type of Roman chant is that
whereby the two halves of the choir answer one another, or the whole
choir answers the single voice of the _cantor_, in alternate versicle and
respond[13]. The antiphon was introduced into Italy by St. Ambrose of
Milan. It had originated, according to tradition, in Antioch, had been in
some relation to the histrionic tendencies of Arianism, and was possibly
not altogether uninfluenced by the traditions both of the Greek tragic
chorus and of Jewish psalmody[14]. At any rate, it lent itself naturally
to dialogue, and it is from the antiphon that the actual evolution of
the liturgical drama starts. The course of that evolution must now be
followed.
The choral portions of the Mass were stereotyped about the end of the
sixth century in the _Antiphonarium_ ascribed to Gregory the Great[15].
This compilation, which included a variety of antiphons arranged for the
different feasts and seasons of the year, answered the needs of worship
for some two hundred years. With the ninth century, however, began a
process, which culminated in the eleventh, of liturgical elaboration.
Splendid churches, costly vestments, protracted offices, magnificent
processions, answered especially in the great monasteries to a heightened
sense of the significance of cult in general, and of the Eucharist
in particular[16]. Naturally ecclesiastical music did not escape the
influence of this movement. The traditional _Antiphonarium_ seemed
inadequate to the capacities of aspiring choirs. The Gregorian texts were
not replaced, but they were supplemented. New melodies were inserted
at the beginning or end or even in the middle of the old antiphons.
And now I come to the justification of the statement made two or three
pages back, that the beginnings of the liturgical drama lie beyond the
very borders of articulate speech. For the earliest of such adventitious
melodies were sung not to words at all, but to vowel sounds alone. These,
for which precedent existed in the Gregorian _Antiphonarium_, are known
as _neumae_[17]. Obviously the next stage was to write texts, called
generically ‘tropes,’ to them; and towards the end of the ninth century
three more or less independent schools of trope-writers grew up. One,
in northern France, produced Adam of St. Victor; of another, at the
Benedictine abbey of St. Gall near Constance, Notker and Tutilo are the
greatest names; the third, in northern Italy, has hitherto been little
studied. The _Troparia_ or collections of tropes form choir-books,
supplementary to the _Antiphonaria_. After the thirteenth century, when
trope-writing fell into comparative desuetude, they become rare; and
such tropes as were retained find a place in the ordinary service-books,
especially the later successor of the _Antiphonarium_, the _Graduale_.
The tropes attached themselves in varying degrees to most of the choral
portions of the Mass. Perhaps those of the _Alleluia_ at the end of
the _Graduale_ are in themselves the most important. They received the
specific names, in Germany of _Sequentiae_, and in France of _Prosae_,
and they include, in their later metrical stages, some of the most
remarkable of mediaeval hymns. But more interesting from our particular
point of view are the tropes of the _Officium_ or _Introit_, the antiphon
and psalm sung by the choir at the beginning of Mass, as the celebrant
approaches the altar[18].
Several _Introit_ tropes take a dialogue form. The following is a
ninth-century Christmas example ascribed to Tutilo of St. Gall[19].
‘Hodie cantandus est nobis puer, quem gignebat ineffabiliter
ante tempora pater, et eundem sub tempore generavit inclyta
mater.
_Int[errogatio]._
quis est iste puer quem tam magnis praeconiis dignum
vociferatis? dicite nobis ut collaudatores esse possimus.
_Resp[onsio]._
hic enim est quem praesagus et electus symmista dei ad terram
venturum praeuidens longe ante praenotavit, sicque praedixit.’
The nature of this trope is obvious. It was sung by two groups of voices,
and its closing words directly introduce the _Introit_ for the third
mass (_Magna missa_) on Christmas day, which must have followed without
a break[20]. It is an example of some half a dozen dialogued _Introit_
tropes, which might have, but did not, become the starting-point for
further dramatic evolution[21]. Much more significant is another trope of
unknown authorship found in the same St. Gall manuscript[22]. This is for
Easter, and is briefly known as the _Quem quaeritis_. The text, unlike
that of the _Hodie cantandus_, is based closely upon the Gospels. It is
an adaptation to the form of dialogue of the interview between the three
Maries and the angel at the tomb as told by Saints Matthew and Mark[23].
‘Quem quaeritis in sepulchro, [o] Christicolae?
Iesum Nazarenum crucifixum, o caelicolae.
non est hic, surrexit sicut praedixerat.
ite, nuntiate quia surrexit de sepulchro.
_Resurrexi_[24].’
This is the earliest and simplest form of the _Quem quaeritis_. It
recurs, almost unaltered, in a tenth-century troper from St. Martial
of Limoges[25]. In eleventh-century tropers of the same church it is a
little more elaborate[26].
‘TROPUS IN DIE.
Quem quaeritis in sepulchro, Christicolae?
Ihesum Nazarenum crucifixum, o caelicole.
non est hic, surrexit sicut praedixerat,
ite, nuntiate quia surrexit. Alleluia.
ad sepulchrum residens angelus nuntiat resurrexisse Christum:
en ecce completum est illud quod olim ipse per prophetam dixerat ad
patrem taliter inquiens,
_Resurrexi_.’
Here the appended portion of narrative makes the trope slightly less
dramatic. Yet another addition is made in one of the Limoges manuscripts.
Just as the trope introduces the _Introit_, so it is itself introduced by
the following words:
‘Hora est, psallite. iube, dompnus, canere.
eia, eia, dicite.’
As M. Gautier puts it, the trope is troped[27].
In the Easter _Quem quaeritis_ the liturgical drama was born, and to it
I shall return. But it must first be noted that it was so popular as to
become the model for two very similar tropes belonging to Christmas and
to the Ascension. Both of these are found in more than one troper, but
not earlier, I believe, than the eleventh century. I quote the Christmas
trope from a St. Gall manuscript[28].
‘_In Natale Domini ad Missam sint parati duo diaconi induti
dalmaticis, retro altare dicentes_
Quem quaeritis in praesepe, pastores, dicite?
_Respondeant duo cantores in choro_
salvatorem Christum Dominum, infantem pannis involutum,
secundum sermonem angelicum.
_Item diaconi_
adest hic parvulus cum Maria, matre sua, de qua, vaticinando,
Isaias Propheta: ecce virgo concipiet et pariet filium. et
nuntiantes dicite quia natus est.
_Tunc cantor dicat excelsa voce_
alleluia, alleluia, iam vere scimus Christum natum in terris,
de quo canite, omnes, cum Propheta dicentes:
_Puer natus est_.’
The Ascension trope is taken from an English troper probably belonging to
Christ Church, Canterbury[29].
‘Quem cernitis ascendisse super astra, o Christicolae?
Ihesum qui surrexit de sepulchro, o caelicolae.
iam ascendit, ut praedixit, ascendo ad patrem meum et patrem
vestrum, deum meum et deum vestrum.
alleluia:
regna terrae, gentes, linguae, conlaudate dominum:
quem adorant caeli cives in paterno solio:
deo gratias dicite eia.’
I return now to the Easter _Quem quaeritis_. In a few churches this
retained its position at the beginning of Mass, either as an _Introit_
trope in the strict sense, or, which comes to much the same thing, as a
chant for the procession which immediately preceded. This was the use of
the Benedictine abbey of Monte Cassino at the beginning of the twelfth
century, of that of St. Denys in the thirteenth[30], and of the church
of St. Martin of Tours in the fifteenth[31]. Even in the seventeenth
century the _Quem quaeritis_ still appears in a Paris manuscript as a
‘_tropus_[32],’ and Martene records a practice similar to that of Monte
Cassino and St. Denys as surviving at Rheims in his day[33].
But in many tropers, and in most of the later service-books in which it
is found, the _Quem quaeritis_ no longer appears to be designed for use
at the Mass. This is the case in the only two tropers of English use in
which, so far as I know, it comes, the Winchester ones printed by Mr.
Frere[34]. I reproduce the earlier of these from the Bodleian manuscript
used by him[35].
‘ANGELICA DE CHRISTI RESURRECTIONE.
Quem quaeritis in sepulchro, Christicolae?
_Sanctarum mulierum responsio._
Ihesum Nazarenum crucifixum, o caelicola!
_Angelicae voces consolatus._
non est hic, surrexit sicut praedixerat,
ite, nuntiate quia surrexit, dicentes:
_Sanctarum mulierum ad omnem clerum modulatio_:
alleluia! resurrexit Dominus hodie,
leo fortis, Christus filius Dei! Deo gratias dicite, eia!
_Dicat angelus_:
venite et videte locum ubi positus erat Dominus, alleluia! alleluia!
_Iterum dicat angelus_:
cito euntes dicite discipulis quia surrexit Dominus, alleluia!
alleluia!
_Mulieri una voce canant iubilantes_:
surrexit Dominus de sepulchro,
qui pro nobis pependit in ligno.’
In this manuscript, which is dated by Mr. Frere in 979 or 980, the text
just quoted is altogether detached from the Easter day tropes. Its
heading is rubricated and immediately follows the tropes for Palm Sunday.
It is followed in its turn, under a fresh rubric, by the ceremonies for
Holy Saturday, beginning with the _Benedictio Cerei_. From the second,
somewhat later Cambridge manuscript, probably of the early eleventh
century, the Holy Saturday ceremonies have disappeared, but the _Quem
quaeritis_ still precedes and does not follow the regular Easter tropes,
which are headed _Tropi in die Christi Resurrectionis_[36]. The precise
position which the _Quem quaeritis_ was intended to take in the Easter
services is not evident from these tropers by themselves. Fortunately
another document comes to our assistance. This is the _Concordia
Regularis_, an appendix to the _Rule_ of St. Benedict intended for the
use of the Benedictine monasteries in England reformed by Dunstan during
the tenth century. The _Concordia Regularis_ was drawn up by Ethelwold,
bishop of Winchester, as a result of a council of Winchester held at some
uncertain date during the reign of Edgar (959-79); it may fairly be taken
for granted that it fixed at least the Winchester custom. I translate the
account of the _Quem quaeritis_ ceremony, which is described as forming
part, not of the Mass, but of the third Nocturn at Matins on Easter
morning[37].
‘While the third lesson is being chanted, let four brethren
vest themselves. Let one of these, vested in an alb, enter as
though to take part in the service, and let him approach the
sepulchre without attracting attention and sit there quietly
with a palm in his hand. While the third respond is chanted,
let the remaining three follow, and let them all, vested in
copes, bearing in their hands thuribles with incense, and
stepping delicately as those who seek something, approach the
sepulchre. These things are done in imitation of the angel
sitting in the monument, and the women with spices coming to
anoint the body of Jesus. When therefore he who sits there
beholds the three approach him like folk lost and seeking
something, let him begin in a dulcet voice of medium pitch to
sing _Quem quaeritis_. And when he has sung it to the end, let
the three reply in unison _Ihesu Nazarenum_. So he, _Non est
hic, surrexit sicut praedixerat. Ite, nuntiate quia surrexit a
mortuis._ At the word of this bidding let those three turn to
the choir and say _Alleluia! resurrexit Dominus!_ This said,
let the one, still sitting there and as if recalling them, say
the anthem _Venite et videte locum_. And saying this, let him
rise, and lift the veil, and show them the place bare of the
cross, but only the cloths laid there in which the cross was
wrapped. And when they have seen this, let them set down the
thuribles which they bare in that same sepulchre, and take
the cloth, and hold it up in the face of the clergy, and as
if to demonstrate that the Lord has risen and is no longer
wrapped therein, let them sing the anthem _Surrexit Dominus
de sepulchro_, and lay the cloth upon the altar. When the
anthem is done, let the prior, sharing in their gladness at the
triumph of our King, in that, having vanquished death, He rose
again, begin the hymn _Te Deum laudamus_. And this begun, all
the bells chime out together.’
The liberal _scenario_ of the _Concordia Regularis_ makes plain the
change which has come about in the character of the _Quem quaeritis_
since it was first sung by alternating half-choirs as an _Introit_
trope[38]. Dialogued chant and mimetic action have come together and the
first liturgical drama is, in all its essentials, complete.
I am not quite satisfied as to the relations of date between the
_Concordia Regularis_ and the Winchester tropers, or as to whether the
_Quem quaeritis_ was intended in one or both of these manuscripts for
use at the Easter Matins[39]. But it is clear that such a use was known
in England at any rate before the end of the tenth century. It was also
known in France and in Germany: the former fact is testified to by the
_Consuetudines_ of the monastery of St. Vito of Verdun[40]; the latter
by the occurrence of the _Quem quaeritis_ in a troper of Bamberg, where
it has the heading _Ad visitandum sepulchrum_ and is followed by the
Matins chant of _Te Deum_[41].
The heading of the Bamberg version and the detailed description of
the _Concordia Regularis_ bring the _Quem quaeritis_ drama into close
relations with the Easter ‘sepulchre’[42]. They are indeed the first
historical notices of the ceremony so widely popular during the Middle
Ages. Some account of the Easter sepulchre must accordingly be inserted
here, and its basis shall be the admirably full description of St.
Ethelwold[43]. He directs that on Good Friday all the monks shall go
_discalceati_ or shoeless from Prime ‘until the cross is adored’[44].
In the principal service of the day, which begins at Nones, the reading
of the Passion according to St. John and a long series of prayers are
included. Then a cross is made ready and laid upon a cushion a little
way in front of the altar. It is unveiled, and the anthem _Ecce lignum
crucis_ is sung. The abbot advances, prostrates himself, and chants the
seven penitential psalms. Then he humbly kisses the cross. His example is
followed by the rest of the monks and by the clergy and congregation. St.
Ethelwold proceeds:—
‘Since on this day we celebrate the laying down of the body
of our Saviour, if it seem good or pleasing to any to follow
on similar lines the use of certain of the religious, which
is worthy of imitation for the strengthening of faith in the
unlearned vulgar and in neophytes, we have ordered it on this
wise. Let a likeness of a sepulchre be made in a vacant part of
the altar, and a veil stretched on a ring which may hang there
until the adoration of the cross is over. Let the deacons who
previously carried the cross come and wrap it in a cloth in
the place where it was adored[45]. Then let them carry it back,
singing anthems, until they come to the place of the monument,
and there having laid down the cross as if it were the buried
body of our Lord Jesus Christ, let them say an anthem. And here
let the holy cross be guarded with all reverence until the
night of the Lord’s resurrection. By night let two brothers or
three, or more if the throng be sufficient, be appointed who
may keep faithful wake there chanting psalms.’
The ceremony of the burial or _Depositio Crucis_ is followed by the
_Missa Praesanctificatorum_, the Good Friday communion with a host not
consecrated that day but specially reserved from Maundy Thursday; and
there is no further reference to the sepulchre until the order for Easter
day itself is reached, when St. Ethelwold directs that ‘before the bells
are rung for Matins the sacristans are to take the cross and set it in a
fitting place.’
In the _Concordia Regularis_, then, the _Depositio Crucis_ is a sequel
to the _Adoratio Crucis_ on Good Friday. The latter ceremony, known
familiarly to the sixteenth century as ‘creeping to the cross,’ was one
of great antiquity. It was amongst the Holy week rites practised at
Jerusalem in the fourth century[46], and was at an early date adopted
in Rome[47]. But the sepulchre was no primitive part of it[48]; nor is
it possible to trace either the use which served St. Ethelwold as a
model[49], or the home or date of the sepulchre itself. It is unlikely,
however, that the latter originated in England, as it appears almost
simultaneously on the continent, and English ritual, in the tenth
century, was markedly behind and not in advance of that of France and
Germany[50]. St. Ethelwold speaks of it as distinctively monastic but
certainly not as universal or of obligation amongst the Benedictine
communities for whom he wrote. Nor did the _Concordia Regularis_ lead
to its invariable adoption, for when Ælfric adapted St. Ethelwold’s
work for the benefit of Eynsham about 1005 he omitted the account of
the sepulchre[51], and it is not mentioned in Archbishop Lanfranc’s
Benedictine _Constitutions_ of 1075[52]. At a later date it was used by
many Benedictine houses, notably by the great Durham Priory[53]; but the
Cistercians and the Carthusians, who represent two of the most famous
reforms of the order, are said never to have adopted it, considering it
incompatible with the austerity of their rule[54]. On the other hand it
was certainly not, in mediaeval England, confined to monastic churches.
The cathedrals of Salisbury[55], York[56], Lincoln[57], Hereford[58],
Wells[59], all of which were served by secular canons, had their
sepulchres, and the gradual spread of the Sarum use probably brought a
sepulchre into the majority of parish churches throughout the land[60].
There are naturally variations and amplifications of the sepulchre
ceremonial as described by St. Ethelwold to be recorded. The _Depositio
Crucis_, instead of preceding the _Missa Praesanctificatorum_, was often,
as in the Sarum use, transferred to the end of Vespers, which on Good
Friday followed the _Missa_ without a break[61]. The _Elevatio_ regularly
took place early on Easter morning before Matins. The oldest custom was
doubtless that of the _Regularis Concordia_, according to which the cross
was removed from the sepulchre secretly by the sacristans, since this
is most closely in agreement with the narrative of the gospels. But in
time the _Elevatio_ became a function. The books of Salisbury and York
provide for it a procession with the antiphons _Christus resurgens_ and
_Surrexit Dominus_. Continental rituals show considerable diversity of
custom[62]. Perhaps the most elaborate ceremonials are those of Augsburg
and Würzburg, printed by Milchsack. In these the _Tollite portas_
procession, which we have already found borrowed from the dedication of
churches for Palm Sunday, was adapted to Easter day[63]. But the old
tradition was often preserved by the exclusion or only partial admission
of the populace to the _Elevatio_. In the Augsburg ritual just quoted,
all but a few privileged persons are kept out until the devil has been
expelled and the doors solemnly opened[64]. A curious light is thrown
upon this by a decree of the synod of Worms in 1316, which orders that
the ‘mystery of the resurrection’ shall be performed before the _plebs_
comes into the church, and gives as a reason the crowds caused by a
prevalent superstition that whoever saw the crucifix raised would escape
for that year ‘the inevitable hour of death’[65].
A widespread if not quite universal innovation on the earlier use was
the burial, together with the cross or crucifix, of a host, which was
consecrated, like that used in the _Missa Praesanctificatorum_, on Maundy
Thursday. This host was laid in a pyx[66], monstrance[67], or cup[68],
and sometimes in a special image, representing the risen Christ with
the cross or _labarum_ in his hands, the breast of which held a cavity
covered with beryl or crystal[69]. Within the sepulchre both the host and
the crucifix were laid upon or wrapped in a fine linen napkin.
The actual structure of the sepulchre lent itself to considerable
variety. St. Ethelwold’s _assimilatio quaedam sepulchri_ upon a vacant
part of the altar may have been formed, like that at Narbonne several
centuries later, by laying together some of the silver service-books[70].
There are other examples of a sepulchre at an altar, and it is possible
that in some of these the altar itself may have been hollow and have
held the sacred deposit. Sometimes the high altar was used, but a
side-altar was naturally more convenient, and at St. Lawrence’s, Reading,
the ‘sepulchre awlter’ was in the rood-loft[71]. The books were a
primitive expedient. More often the sepulchre was an elaborate carved
shrine of wood, iron, or silver. If this did not stand upon the altar,
it was placed on the north side of the sanctuary or in a north choir
aisle. In large churches the crypt was sometimes thought an appropriate
site[72]. Often the base of the sepulchre was formed by the tomb of a
founder or benefactor of the church, and legacies for making a structure
to serve this double purpose are not uncommon in mediaeval wills. Such
tombs often have a canopied recess above them, and in these cases the
portable shrine may have been dispensed with. Many churches have a niche
or recess, designed of sole purpose for the sepulchre[73]. Several of
these more elaborate sepulchres are large enough to be entered, a very
convenient arrangement for the _Quem quaeritis_[74]; a few of them are
regular chapels, more than one of which is an exact reproduction of the
Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem, and is probably due to the piety of some
local pilgrim[75]. Wood, metal, or stone, permanent or movable, the
sepulchre was richly adorned with paintings and carvings of the Passion
and the Resurrection, with Easter texts, with figures of censer-swinging
angels and sleeping knights[76]. A seal was, at least at Hereford and
in Hungary, set upon it[77]. A canopy was hung over it and upon it lay
a pall, also a favourite object for a pious legacy. Similar legacies
might meet the expense of the ‘sepulchre light,’ which was kept burning
from Good Friday to Easter morning, and was only extinguished for a few
minutes on Easter Saturday to be re-lit from the freshly blessed ‘new
fire[78].’ Or the light might be provided by one of the innumerable
guilds of the Middle Ages, whose members, perhaps, also undertook the
devout duty of keeping the two nights’ vigil before the sepulchre[79].
This watch was important. The Augsburg ritual already quoted makes the
possibility of arranging it a condition of setting up the sepulchre
at all[80]. The watchers sang psalms, and it is an example of the
irrepressible mediaeval tendency to _mimesis_ that they were sometimes
accoutred like the knights of Pilate[81]. After the _Elevatio_, the
crucifix seems to have been placed upon a side-altar and visited by
processions in Easter, while the host was reserved in a tabernacle. The
Sarum _Custumary_ directs that the empty sepulchre shall be daily censed
at Vespers and removed on the Friday in Easter week before Mass[82].
Naturally there was some division of opinion at the Reformation as to
the precise spiritual value of the Easter sepulchre. While Bishop Hooper
and his fellow pulpiters were outspoken about the idolatrous cult of a
‘dead post[83],’ the more conservative views which ruled in the latter
years of Henry VIII declared the ceremony to be ‘very laudable’ and
‘not to be contemned and cast away[84].’ The Cromwellian _Injunctions_
of 1538 sanctioned the continued use of the sepulchre light, and by
implication of the sepulchre itself. The Edwardine _Injunctions_ of
1547 suppressed the sepulchre light and were certainly interpreted by
Cranmer and others as suppressing the sepulchre[85]. The closely related
‘creeping to the cross’ was forbidden by proclamation in 1548; and in
1549, after the issue of the first Act of Uniformity and the first Prayer
Book of Edward VI, the disallowance of both ceremonies was legalized,
or renewed by _Articles_ for the visitation of that year[86]. Payments
for the breaking up of the sepulchre now appear in many churchwardens’
accounts, to be complicated before long by payments for setting the
sepulchre up again, in consequence of an order by Queen Mary in 1554[87].
In the same year the crucifix and pyx were missing out of the sepulchre
at St. Pancras’ Church in Cheapside, when the priests came for the
_Elevatio_ on Easter morning, and one Marsh was committed to the Counter
for the sacrilege[88]. The Elizabethan _Injunctions_ of 1559, although
they do not specifically name the sepulchre, doubtless led to its final
disappearance[89]. In many parts of the continent it naturally lasted
longer, but the term ‘visiting sepulchres’ seems in modern times to have
been transferred to the devotion paid to the reserved host on Maundy
Thursday[90].
I now return to the _Quem quaeritis_ in the second stage of its
evolution, when it had ceased to be an _Introit_ trope and had become
attached to the ceremony of the sepulchre. Obviously it is not an
essential part of that ceremony. The _Depositio_ and _Elevatio_ mutually
presuppose each other and, together, are complete. For the dramatic
performance, as described by St. Ethelwold, the clergy, having removed
the cross at the beginning of Matins, revisited the empty sepulchre quite
at the close of that service, after the third respond[91], between which
and the normal ending of Matins, the _Te Deum_, the _Quem quaeritis_ was
intercalated. The fact that the Maries bear censers instead of or in
addition to the scriptural spices, suggests that this _Visitatio_ grew
out of a custom of censing the sepulchre at the end of Matins as well as
of Evensong[92]. But the _Visitatio_ could easily be omitted, and in fact
it was omitted in many churches where the _Depositio_ and _Elevatio_ were
in use. The Sarum books, for instance, do not in any way prescribe it.
On the other hand, there were probably a few churches which adopted the
_Visitatio_ without the more important rite. Bamberg seems to have been
one of these, and so possibly were Sens, Senlis, and one or two others
in which the _Quem quaeritis_ is noted as taking place at an altar[93].
However, whether there was a real sepulchre or not, the regular place
of the _Quem quaeritis_ was that prescribed for it by St. Ethelwold,
between the third respond and the _Te Deum_ at Matins. It has been found
in a very large number of manuscripts, and in by far the greater part
of them it occupies this position[94]. In the rest, with the exception
of a completely anomalous example from Vienne[95], it is either a
trope[96], or else is merged with or immediately follows the _Elevatio_
before Matins[97]. The evidence of the texts themselves is borne out by
Durandus, who is aware of the variety of custom, and indicates the end of
Matins as the _proprior locus_[98].
No less difficult to determine than the place and time at which the
Easter sepulchre itself was devised, are those at which the _Quem
quaeritis_, attached to it, stood forth as a drama. That the two first
appear together can hardly be taken as evidence that they came into
being together. The predominance of German and French versions of the
_Quem quaeritis_ may suggest an origin in the Frankish area: and if
the influence of the Sarum use and the havoc of service-books at the
Reformation may between them help to account for the comparative rarity
of the play in these islands, no such explanation is available for Italy
and Spain. The development of the religious drama in the peninsulas,
especially in Italy, seems to have followed from the beginning lines
somewhat distinct from those of north-western Europe. But between France
and Germany, as between France and England, literary influences, so far
as clerkly literature goes, moved freely: nor is it possible to isolate
the centres and lines of diffusion of that gradual process of accretion
and development through which the _Quem quaeritis_ gave ever fuller and
fuller expression to the dramatic instincts by which it was prompted. The
_clerici vagantes_ were doubtless busy agents in carrying new motives
and amplifications of the text from one church to another. Nor should it
be forgotten that, numerous as are the versions preserved, those which
have perished must have been more numerous still, so that, if all were
before us, the apparent anomaly presented by the occurrence of identical
features in, for instance, the plays from Dublin and Fleury, and no
others, would not improbably be removed. The existence of this or that
version in the service-books of any one church must depend on divers
conditions; the accidents of communication in the first place, and in
the second the laxity or austerity of governing bodies at various dates
in the licensing or pruning of dramatic elaboration. The simplest texts
are often found in the latest manuscripts, and it may be that because
their simplicity gave no offence they were permitted to remain there. A
Strassburg notice suggests that the ordering of the _Quem quaeritis_ was
a matter for the discretion of each individual parish, in independence of
its diocesan use[99]; while the process of textual growth is illustrated
by a Laon _Ordinarium_, in which an earlier version has been erased and
one more elaborate substituted[100].
Disregarding, however, in the main the dates of the manuscripts, it is
easy so to classify the available versions as to mark the course of a
development which was probably complete by the middle of the twelfth and
certainly by the thirteenth century. This development affected both the
text and the dramatic interest of the play. The former is the slighter
matter and may be disposed of first[101].
The kernel of the whole thing is, of course, the old St. Gall trope,
itself a free adaptation from the text of the Vulgate, and the few
examples in which this does not occur must be regarded as quite
exceptional[102]. The earliest additions were taken from anthems, which
already had their place in the Easter services, and which in some
manuscripts of the Gregorian _Antiphonarium_ are grouped together as
suitable for insertion wherever may be desired[103]. So far the text
keeps fairly close to the words of Scripture, and even where the limits
of the antiphonary are passed, the same rule holds good. In time,
however, a freer dramatic handling partly establishes itself. Proses, and
even metrical hymns, beginning as choral introductions, gradually usurp a
place in the dialogue, and in the latest versions the metrical character
is very marked. By far the most important of these insertions is the
famous prose or sequence _Victimae paschali_, the composition of which
by the monk Wipo of St. Gall can be pretty safely dated in the second
quarter of the eleventh century[104]. It goes as follows:
‘Victimae paschali laudes immolant Christiani.
agnus redemit oves, Christus innocens patri reconciliavit peccatores.
mors et vita duello conflixere mirando, dux vitae mortuus regnat vivus.
dic nobis, Maria, quid vidisti in via?
sepulchrum Christi viventis et gloriam vidi resurgentis;
angelicos testes, sudarium et vestes.
surrexit Christus, spes mea, praecedet suos in Galilaeam.
credendum est magis soli Mariae veraci, quam Iudaeorum turbae fallaci.
scimus Christum surrexisse a mortuis vere: tu nobis, victor, rex,
miserere.’
Originally written as an _Alleluia_ trope or sequence proper, a place
which it still occupies in the reformed Tridentine liturgy[105], the
_Victimae paschali_ cannot be shown to have made its way into the _Quem
quaeritis_ until the thirteenth century[106]. But it occurs in about
a third of the extant versions, sometimes as a whole, sometimes with
the omission of the first three sentences, which obviously do not lend
themselves as well as the rest to dramatic treatment. When introduced,
these three sentences are sung either by the choir or by the Maries: the
other six fall naturally into dialogue.
The _Victimae paschali_ is an expansion of the text of the _Quem
quaeritis_, but it does not necessarily introduce any new dramatic
motive. Of such there were, from the beginning, at least two. There was
the visit of the Maries to the sepulchre and their colloquy with the
angel; and there was the subsequent announcement of the Resurrection made
by them in pursuance of the divine direction. Each has its appropriate
action: in the one case the lifting of the pall and discovery of
the empty sepulchre, in the other the display by the Maries of the
cast-off grave-clothes, represented by a _linteum_, in token of the
joyful event. It is to this second scene, if the term may be used of
anything so rudimentary, that the _Victimae paschali_ attaches itself.
The dialogue of it is between the Maries and the choir, who stand for
the whole body of disciples, or sometimes two singers, who are their
spokesmen[107]. A new scene is, however, clearly added to the play,
when these two singers not only address the Maries, but themselves pay a
visit to the sepulchre. Now they represent the apostles Peter and John.
In accordance with the gospel narrative John outstrips Peter in going
to the sepulchre, but Peter enters first: and the business of taking
up the _linteum_ and displaying it to the other disciples is naturally
transferred to them from the Maries. The apostle scene first makes its
appearance in an Augsburg text of the end of the eleventh century, or the
beginning of the twelfth[108]. It occurs in rather more than half the
total number of versions. These are mainly German, but the evidence of
Belethus is sufficient to show that it was not unknown in twelfth-century
France[109]. The addition of the apostle scene completed the evolution
of the Easter play for the majority of churches. There were, however, a
few in which the very important step was taken of introducing the person
of the risen Christ himself; and this naturally entailed yet another new
scene. Of this type there are fifteen extant versions, coming from one
Italian, four French, and four German churches[110]. The earliest is of
the twelfth century, from a Prague convent. The new scene closely follows
the Scripture narrative. Mary Magdalen remains behind the other Maries
at the sepulchre. The Christ appears; she takes him for the gardener, and
he reveals himself with the _Noli me tangere_. Mary returns with the new
wonder to the choir. This is the simplest version of the new episode. It
occurs in a play of which the text is purely liturgical, and does not
even include the _Victimae paschali_. A somewhat longer one is found in
a Fleury play, which is in other respects highly elaborate and metrical.
Here the Christ appears twice, first disguised _in similitudinem
hortolani_, afterwards _in similitudinem domini_ with the _labarum_ or
resurrection banner. The remaining versions do not depart widely from
these two types, except that at Rouen and Mont St.-Michel, the Christ
scene takes place, not at the sepulchre but at the altar, and at Cividale
in a spot described as the _ortus Christi_[111].
The formal classification, then, of the versions of the _Quem quaeritis_,
gives three types. In the first, the scenes between the Maries and the
angel, and between the Maries and the choir, are alone present; in the
second the apostle scene is added to these; the third, of which there
are only fifteen known examples, is distinguished by the presence of the
Christ scene. In any one of these types, the _Victimae paschali_ and
other proses and hymns may or may not be found[112]. And it must now
be added that it is on the presence of these that the greater or less
development of lyric feeling, as distinct from dramatic action, in the
play depends. The metrical hymns in particular, when they are not merely
choral overtures, are often of the nature of _planctus_ or laments put
in the mouths of the Maries as they approach the sepulchre or at some
other appropriate moment. These _planctus_ add greatly to the vividness
and humanity of the play, and are thus an important step in the dramatic
evolution. The use of them may be illustrated by that of the hymn _Heu!
pius pastor occiditur_ in the Dublin version found by Mr. Frere and
printed, after a different text from his, in an appendix[113]. This play
has not the Christ scene, and belongs, therefore, to the second type of
_Quem quaeritis_, but, in other respects, including the _planctus_, it
closely resembles the Fleury version described above. Another _planctus_,
found in plays of the third type from Engelberg, Nuremberg, Einsiedeln,
and Cividale, is the _Heu nobis! internas mentes_[114]; a third, the
_Heu! miserae cur contigit_, seems to have been interpolated in the _Heu!
pius pastor_ at Dublin; a fourth, the _Omnipotens pater altissime_, with
a refrain _Heu quantus est dolor noster!_ is found at places so far apart
as Narbonne and Prague[115]: and a fifth, _Heu dolor, heu quam dira
doloris angustia!_ is also in the Fleury text[116].
Another advance towards drama is made in four Prague versions of the
third type by the introduction of an episode for which there is no
Scriptural basis at all. On their way to the sepulchre, the Maries stop
and buy the necessary spices of a spice-merchant or _unguentarius_. In
three thirteenth-century texts the _unguentarius_ is merely a _persona
muta_; in one of the fourteenth he is given four lines[117]. The
_unguentarius_ was destined to become a very popular character, and to
afford much comic relief in the vernacular religious drama of Germany.
Nor can it be quite confidently said that his appearance in these
comparatively late liturgical plays is a natural development and not
merely an instance of reaction by the vernacular stage.
The scenic effect of the _Quem quaeritis_ can be to some extent gathered
from the rubrics, although these are often absent and often not very
explicit, being content with a general direction for the performers to
be arrayed _in similitudinem mulierum_ or _angelorum_ or _apostolorum_,
as the case may be. The setting was obviously simple, and few properties
or costumes beyond what the vestments and ornaments of the church could
supply were used. The Maries had their heads veiled[118], and wore
surplices, copes, chasubles, dalmatics, albs, or the like. These were
either white or coloured. At Fécamp one, presumably the Magdalen, was
in red, the other two in white[119]. The thuribles which, as already
pointed out, they carried, were sometimes replaced by boxes or vases
representing the ointment and spices[120]. Sometimes also they carried,
or had carried before them, candles. Two or three rubrics direct them to
go _pedetemptim_, as sad or searching[121]. They were generally three
in number, occasionally two, or one only. The angels, or angel, as the
case might be, sat within the sepulchre or at its door. They, too, had
vestments, generally white, and veiled or crowned heads. At Narbonne, and
probably elsewhere, they had wings[122]. They held lights, a palm, or an
ear of corn, symbolizing the Resurrection[123]. The apostles are rarely
described; the ordinary priestly robes doubtless sufficed. At Dublin,
St. John, in white, held a palm, and St. Peter, in red, the keys[124].
In the earliest Prague version of the Christ scene, the Christ seems to
be represented by one of the angels[125]. At Nuremberg the _dominica
persona_ has a crown and bare feet[126]. At Rouen he holds a cross, and
though there is a double appearance, there is no hint of any change of
costume[127]. But at Coutances and Fleury the first appearance is as
_hortulanus_, indicated perhaps by a spade, which is exchanged on the
second for the cross[128].
It must be borne in mind that the _Quem quaeritis_ remained imperfectly
detached from the liturgy, out of which it arose. The performers were
priests, or nuns, and choir-boys. The play was always chanted, not
spoken[129]. It was not even completely resolved into dialogue. In many
quite late versions narrative anthems giving the gist of each scene are
retained, and are sung either by the principal actors or by the choir,
which thus, as in the hymns or proses which occur as overtures[130],
holds a position distinct from the part which it takes as representing
the disciples[131]. Finally the whole performance ends in most cases with
the _Te Deum laudamus_, and thus becomes a constituent part of Matins,
which normally comes to a close with that hymn. The intervention of the
congregation, with its Easter hymn _Christ ist erstanden_, seems to lie
outside the main period of the evolution of the _Quem quaeritis_. I only
find one example so early as the thirteenth century[132]. It is in quite
late texts also that certain other Easter motives have become attached to
the play. The commonest of these are the whispered greeting of _Surrexit
Christus_ and the kiss of peace, which have been noted elsewhere as
preceding Matins[133]. At Eichstädt, in 1560, is an amusing direction,
which Mr. Collins would have thought very proper, that the _pax_ is to be
given to the _dominus terrae, si ibi fuerit_, before the priest. The same
manuscript shows a curious combination of the _Quem quaeritis_ with the
irrepressible _Tollite portas_ ceremony[134]. Another such is found at
Venice[135]. But this is as late as the eighteenth century, to which also
belongs the practice at Angers described by De Moleon, according to which
the Maries took up from the sepulchre with the _linteum_ two large Easter
eggs—_deux œufs d’autruche_[136].
Besides the _Quem quaeritis_, Easter week had another liturgical drama
in the _Peregrini_ or _Peregrinus_[137]. This was established by the
twelfth century. It was regularly played at Lichfield[138], but no text
is extant from England, except a late transitional one, written partly
in the vernacular[139]. France affords four texts, from Saintes[140],
Rouen[141], Beauvais[142], and Fleury[143]. The play is also recorded
at Lille[144]. In Germany it is represented by a recently-discovered
fragment of the famous early thirteenth-century repertory of the
_scholares vagantes_ from the Benedictbeuern monastery[145]. The simplest
version is that of Saintes, in which the action is confined to the
journey to Emmaus and the supper there. The Rouen play is on the same
lines, but at the close the disciples are joined by St. Mary Magdalen,
and the _Victimae paschali_ is sung. The Benedictbeuern play similarly
ends with the introduction of the Virgin and two other Maries to greet
the risen Christ. But here, and in the Beauvais and Fleury plays, a
distinct scene is added, of which the subject is the incredulity of
Thomas and the apparition to him. It is, I think, a reasonable conjecture
that the _Peregrini_, in which the risen Christ is a character, was not
devised until he had already been introduced into the later versions of
the _Quem quaeritis_. Indeed the Fleury _Peregrini_, with its double
appearance and change of costume for Christ, seems clearly modelled on
the Fleury _Quem quaeritis_. But the lesser play has its own proper
and natural place in the Easter week services. It is attached to the
_Processio ad fontes_ which is a regular portion, during that season, of
Vespers[146]. The Christ with the Resurrection cross is personated by the
priest who normally accompanies the procession _cum cruce_. At Rouen
the play was a kind of dramatization of the procession itself[147]; at
Lille it seems to have had the same position; at Saintes and Beauvais it
preceded the _Magnificat_ and _Oratio_ or _Collecta_, after which the
procession started. In the remaining cases there is no indication of the
exact time for the _Peregrini_. The regular day for it appears to have
been the Monday in Easter week, of the Gospel for which the journey to
Emmaus is the subject; but at Fleury it was on the Tuesday, when the
Gospel subject is the incredulity of Thomas. At Saintes, a curious rubric
directs the Christ during the supper at Emmaus to divide the ‘host’ among
the _Peregrini_. It seems possible that in this way a final disposal was
found for the host which had previously figured in the _Depositio_ and
_Elevatio_ of the sepulchre ceremony.
A long play, probably of Norman origin and now preserved in a manuscript
at Tours, represents a merging of the _Elevatio_, the _Quem quaeritis_,
and the _Peregrini_[148]. The beginning is imperfect, but it may be
conjectured from a fragment belonging to Klosterneuburg in Germany, that
only a few lines are lost[149]. Pilate sets a watch before the sepulchre.
An angel sends lightning, and the soldiers fall as if dead[150].
Then come the Maries, with _planctus_. There is a scene with the
_unguentarius_ or _mercator_, much longer than that at Prague, followed
by more _planctus_. After the _Quem quaeritis_, the soldiers announce
the event to Pilate. A _planctus_ by the Magdalen leads up to the
apparition to her. The Maries return to the disciples. Christ appears to
the disciples, then to Thomas, and the _Victimae paschali_ and _Te Deum_
conclude the performance. A fragment of a very similar play, breaking off
before the _Quem quaeritis_, belongs to the Benedictbeuern manuscript
already mentioned[151].
It is clear from the rubrics that the Tours play, long as it is, was
still acted in church, and probably, as the _Te Deum_ suggests, at the
Easter Matins[152]. Certainly this was the case with the Benedictbeuern
play. In a sense, these plays only mark a further stage in the process
of elaboration by which the fuller versions of the _Quem quaeritis_
proper came into being. But the introduction at the beginning and end
of motives outside the events of the Easter morning itself points to
possibilities of expansion which were presently realized, and which
ultimately transformed the whole character of the liturgical drama.
All the plays, however, which have so far been mentioned, are strictly
plays of the Resurrection. Their action begins after the Burial of
Christ, and does not stretch back into the events of the Passion. Nor
indeed can the liturgical drama proper be shown to have advanced beyond
a very rudimentary representation of the Passion. This began with the
_planctus_, akin to those of the _Quem quaeritis_, which express the
sorrows of the Virgin and the Maries and St. John around the cross[153].
Such _planctus_ exist both in Latin and the vernacular. The earliest
are of the twelfth century. Several of them are in dialogue, in which
Christ himself occasionally takes part, and they appear to have been
sung in church after Matins on Good Friday[154]. The _planctus_ must
be regarded as the starting-point of a drama of the Passion, which
presently established itself beside the drama of the Resurrection. This
process was mainly outside the churches, but an early and perhaps still
liturgical stage of it is to be seen in the _ludus breviter de passione_
which precedes the elaborated _Quem quaeritis_ of the Benedictbeuern
manuscript, and was probably treated as a sort of prologue to it. The
action extends from the preparation for the Last Supper to the Burial. It
is mainly in dumb-show, and the slight dialogue introduced is wholly out
of the Vulgate. But at one point occurs the rubric _Maria planctum faciat
quantum melius potest_, and a later hand has inserted out of its place in
the text the most famous of all the laments of the Virgin, the _Planctus
ante nescia_[155].
CHAPTER XIX
LITURGICAL PLAYS (_continued_)
The ‘Twelve days’ of the Christmas season are no less important than
Easter itself in the evolution of the liturgical drama. I have mentioned
in the last chapter a Christmas trope which is evidently based upon
the older Easter dialogue. Instead of _Quem quaeritis in sepulchro,
o Christicolae?_ it begins _Quem quaeritis in praesepe, pastores,
dicite?_ It occurs in eleventh- and twelfth-century tropers from St.
Gall, Limoges, St. Magloire, and Nevers. Originally it was an _Introit_
trope for the third or ‘great’ Mass. In a fifteenth-century breviary
from Clermont-Ferrand it has been transferred to Matins, where it
follows the _Te Deum_; and this is precisely the place in the Christmas
services occupied, at Rouen, by a liturgical drama known as the _Officium
Pastorum_, which appears to have grown out of the _Quem quaeritis in
praesepe?_ by a process analogous to that by which the Easter drama
grew out of the _Quem quaeritis in sepulchro[156]?_ A _praesepe_ or
‘crib,’ covered by a curtain, was made ready behind the altar, and in
it was placed an image of the Virgin. After the _Te Deum_ five canons
or vicars, representing the shepherds, approached the great west door
of the choir. A boy _in similitudinem angeli_ perched _in excelso_ sang
them the ‘good tidings,’ and a number of others _in voltis ecclesiae_
took up the _Gloria in excelsis_. The shepherds, singing a hymn, advanced
to the _praesepe_. Here they were met with the _Quem quaeritis_ by two
priests _quasi obstetrices_[157]. The dialogue of the trope, expanded
by another hymn during which the shepherds adore, follows, and so the
drama ends. But the shepherds ‘rule the choir’ throughout the _Missa in
Gallicantu_ immediately afterwards, and at Lauds, the anthem for which
much resembles the _Quem quaeritis_ itself[158]. The _misterium pastorum_
was still performed at Rouen in the middle of the fifteenth century, and
at this date the shepherds, _cessantibus stultitiis et insolenciis_, so
far as this could be ensured by the chapter, took the whole ‘service’
of the day, just as did the deacons, priests, and choir-boys during the
_triduum_[159].
If the central point of the _Quem quaeritis_ is the _sepulchrum_, that
of the _Pastores_ is the _praesepe_. In either case the drama, properly
so called, is an addition, and by no means an invariable one, to the
symbolical ceremony. The _Pastores_ may, in fact, be described, although
the term does not occur in the documents, as a _Visitatio praesepis_.
The history of the _praesepe_ can be more definitely stated than that
of the _sepulchrum_. It is by no means extinct. The Christmas ‘crib’
or _crèche_, a more or less realistic representation of the Nativity,
with a Christ-child in the manger, a Joseph and Mary, and very often
an ox and an ass, is a common feature in all Catholic countries at
Christmas time[160]. At Rome, in particular, the _esposizione del santo
bambino_ takes place with great ceremony[161]. A tradition ascribes
the first _presepio_ known in Italy to St. Francis, who is said to
have invented it at Greccio in 1223[162]. But this is a mistake. The
custom is many centuries older than St. Francis. Its Roman home is
the church of S. Maria Maggiore or _Ad Praesepe_, otherwise called
the ‘_basilica_ of Liberius.’ Here there was in the eighth century a
permanent _praesepe_[163], probably built in imitation of one which had
long existed at Bethlehem, and to which an allusion is traced in the
writings of Origen[164]. The _praesepe_ of S. Maria Maggiore was in the
right aisle. When the Sistine chapel was built in 1585-90 it was moved
to the crypt, where it may now be seen. This church became an important
station for the Papal services at Christmas. The Pope celebrated Mass
here on the vigil, and remained until he had also celebrated the first
Mass on Christmas morning. The bread was broken on the manger itself,
which served as an altar. At S. Maria Maggiore, moreover, is an important
relic, in some boards from the _culla_ or cradle of Christ, which are
exposed on the _presepio_ during Christmas[165]. The _presepio_ of S.
Maria Maggiore became demonstrably the model for other similar chapels
in Rome[166], and doubtless for the more temporary structures throughout
Italy and western Europe in general.
In the present state of our knowledge it is a little difficult to
be precise as to the range or date of the _Pastores_. The only full
mediaeval Latin text, other than that of Rouen, which has come to light,
is also of Norman origin, and is still unprinted[167]. In the eighteenth
century the play survived at Lisieux and Clermont[168]. The earliest
Rouen manuscript is of the thirteenth century, and the absence of any
reference to the _Officium Pastorum_ by John of Avranches, who writes
primarily of Rouen, and who does mention the _Officium Stellae_, makes
it probable that it was not there known about 1070[169]. Its existence,
however, in England in the twelfth century is shown by the Lichfield
_Statutes_ of 1188-98, and on the whole it is not likely to have taken
shape later than the eleventh. Very likely it never, as a self-contained
play, acquired the vogue of the _Quem quaeritis_. As will be seen
presently, it was overshadowed and absorbed by rivals. I find no trace of
it in Germany, where the _praesepe_ became a centre, less for liturgical
drama, than for carols, dances, and ‘crib-rocking[170].’
Still rarer than the _Pastores_ is the drama, presumably belonging to
Innocents’ day, of _Rachel_. It is found in a primitive form, hardly more
than a trope, in a Limoges manuscript of the eleventh century. Here it is
called _Lamentatio Rachel_, and consists of a short _planctus_ by Rachel
herself, and a short reply by a consoling angel. There is nothing to show
what place it occupied in the services[171].
The fact is that both the _Pastores_ and the _Rachel_ were in many
churches taken up into a third drama belonging to the Epiphany. This
is variously known as the _Tres Reges_, the _Magi_, _Herodes_, and
the _Stella_. It exists in a fair number of different but related
forms. Like the _Quem quaeritis_ and the _Pastores_, it had a material
starting-point, in the shape of a star, lit with candles, which hung
from the roof of the church, and could sometimes be moved, by a
simple mechanical device, from place to place[172]. As with the _Quem
quaeritis_, the development of the _Stella_ must be studied without much
reference to the relative age of the manuscripts in which it happens
to be found. But it was probably complete by the end of the eleventh
century, since manuscripts of that date contain the play in its latest
forms[173].
The simplest version is from Limoges[174]. The three kings enter by the
great door of the choir singing a _prosula_. They show their gifts, the
royal gold, the divine incense, the myrrh for funeral. Then they see the
star, and follow it to the high altar. Here they offer their gifts, each
contained in a gilt cup, or some other _iocale pretiosum_, after which a
boy, representing an angel, announces to them the birth of Christ, and
they retire singing to the sacristy. The text of this version stands
by itself: nearly all the others are derived from a common tradition,
which is seen in its simplest form at Rouen[175]. In the Rouen _Officium
Stellae_, the three kings, coming respectively from the east, north, and
south of the church, meet before the altar. One of them points to the
star with his stick, and they sing:
‘1. Stella fulgore nimio rutilat,
2. Quae regem regum natum demonstrat
3. Quem venturum olim prophetiae signaverant.’
They kiss each other and sing an anthem, which occurs also in the Limoges
version: _Eamus ergo et inquiramus eum, offerentes ei munera; aurum thus
et myrrham._ A procession is now formed, and as it moves towards the
nave, the choir chant narrative passages, describing the visit of the
_Magi_ to Jerusalem and their reception by Herod. Meanwhile a star is lit
over the altar of the cross where an image of the Virgin has been placed.
The _Magi_ approach it, singing the passage which begins _Ecce stella in
Oriente_. They are met by two in dalmatics, who appear to be identical
with the _obstetrices_ of the Rouen _Pastores_. A dialogue follows:
‘Qui sunt hi qui, stella duce, nos adeuntes inaudita ferunt.
_Magi respondeant_:
nos sumus, quos cernitis, reges Tharsis et Arabum et Saba, dona
ferentes Christo, regi nato, Domino, quem, stella deducente,
adorare venimus.
_Tunc duo Dalmaticati aperientes cortinam dicant_:
ecce puer adest quem queritis, Iam properate adorate, quia ipse
est redemptio mundi.
_Tunc procidentes Reges ad terram, simul salutent puerum, ita
dicentes_:
salve, princeps saeculorum.
_Tunc unus a suo famulo aurum accipiat et dicat_:
suscipe, rex, aurum.
_Et offerat._
_Secundus ita dicat et offerat_:
tolle thus, tu, vere Deus.
_Tercius ita dicat et offerat_:
mirram, signum sepulturae.’
Then the congregation make their oblations. Meanwhile the _Magi_ pray and
fall asleep. In their sleep an angel warns them to return home another
way. The procession returns up a side aisle to the choir; and the Mass,
in which the _Magi_, like the shepherds on Christmas day, ‘rule the
choir,’ follows.
In spite of the difference of text the incidents of the Rouen and Limoges
versions, except for the angelic warning introduced at Rouen, are the
same. There was a dramatic advance when the visit to Jerusalem, instead
of being merely narrated by the choir, was inserted into the action.
In the play performed at Nevers[176], Herod himself, destined in the
fullness of time to become the protagonist of the Corpus Christi stage,
makes his first appearance. There are two versions of the Nevers play. In
the earlier the new scene is confined to a colloquy between Herod and the
_Magi_:
‘[_Magi._] Vidimus stellam eius in Oriente, et agnovimus regem
regum esse natum.
[_Herodes._] regem quem queritis natum stella quo signo
didicistis? Si illum regnare creditis, dicite nobis.
[_Magi._] illum natum esse didicimus in Oriente stella
monstrante.
[_Herodes._] ite et de puero diligenter investigate, et
inventum redeuntes mihi renuntiate.’
The later version adds two further episodes. In one a _nuntius_ announces
the coming of the _Magi_, and is sent to fetch them before Herod: in the
other Herod sends his courtiers for the scribes, who find a prophecy of
the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem. Obviously the Herod scene gives
point to the words at the end of the Rouen play, in which the angel bids
the _Magi_ to return home by a different way.
At Compiègne the action closes with yet another scene, in which Herod
learns that the _Magi_ have escaped him[177].
‘_Nuncius._ Delusus es domine, magi viam redierunt aliam.
[_Herodes._ incendium meum ruina extinguam[178].]
_Armiger._ decerne, domine, vindicari iram tuam, et stricto
mucrone quaerere iube puerum, forte inter occisos occidetur et
ipse.
_Herodes._ indolis eximiae pueros fac ense perire.
_Angelus._ sinite parvulos venire ad me, talium est enim regnum
caelorum.’
In a Norman version which has the same incidents as the Compiègne play,
but in parts a different text, the _armiger_ is the son of Herod, and
the play ends with Herod taking a sword from a bystander and brandishing
it in the air[179]. Already he is beginning to tear a passion to tatters
in the manner that became traditionally connected with his name. Another
peculiarity of this Norman version is that the _Magi_ address Herod in an
outlandish jargon, which seems to contain fragments of Hebrew and Arabic
speech.
The play of the _Stella_ must now, perhaps, be considered, except so far
as mere amplifications of the text are concerned, strictly complete. But
another step was irresistibly suggested by the course it had taken. The
massacre of the Innocents, although it lay outside the range of action in
which the _Magi_ themselves figured, could be not merely threatened but
actually represented. This was done at Laon[180]. The cruel suggestion
of Archelaus is carried out. The Innocents come in singing and bearing a
lamb. They are slain, and the play ends with a dialogue, like that of the
distinct Limoges _planctus_, between the lamenting Rachel and an angelic
_consolatrix_.
The absorption of the motives proper to other feasts of the Twelve nights
into the Epiphany play has clearly begun. A fresh series of examples
shows a similar treatment of the _Pastores_. At Strassburg the _Magi_, as
they leave Herod, meet the shepherds returning from Bethlehem:
‘Pastores, dicite, quidnam vidistis?
infantem vidimus.’
This, however, is not taken from the _Pastores_ itself, but from the
Christmas Lauds antiphon[181]. Its dramatic use may be compared with that
of the _Victimae paschali_ in the _Quem quaeritis_. In versions from
Bilsen[182] near Liège and from Mans[183], on the other hand, although
the meeting of the _Magi_ and the shepherds is retained, a complete
_Pastores_, with the angelic tidings and the adoration at the _praesepe_,
forms the first part of the office, before the _Magi_ are introduced at
all.
The Strassburg, Bilsen, and Mans plays have not the _Rachel_, although
the first two have the scene in which the _nuntius_ informs Herod
that the _Magi_ have deceived him. A further stage is reached when,
as at Freising and at Fleury, the _Pastores_, _Stella_ and _Rachel_
all coalesce in a single, and by this time considerable, drama. The
Freising texts, of which there are two, are rather puzzling[184]. The
first closely resembles the plays of the group just described. It begins
with a short _Pastores_, comprising the angelic tidings only. Then the
scenes between the _Magi_ and Herod are treated at great length. The
meeting of the _Magi_ and the shepherds is followed by the oblation,
the angelic warning, and the return of the messenger to Herod. In the
second Freising text, which is almost wholly metrical, the _Pastores_
is complete. It is followed by a quite new scene, the dream of Joseph
and his flight into Egypt. Then come successively the scene of fury at
court, the massacre, the _planctus_ and consolation of Rachel. Clearly
this second text, as it stands, is incomplete. The _Magi_ are omitted,
and the whole of the latter part of the play is consequently rendered
meaningless. But it is the _Magi_ who are alone treated fully in the
first Freising text. I suggest, therefore, that the second text is
intended to supplement and not to replace the first. It really comprises
two fragments: one a revision of the _Pastores_, the other a revision of
the closing scene and an expansion of it by a _Rachel_.
As to the Fleury version there can be no doubt whatever[185]. The matter
is, indeed, arranged in two plays, a _Herodes_ and an _Interfectio
Puerorum_, each ending with a _Te Deum_; and the performance may possibly
have extended over two days. But the style is the same throughout and
the episodes form one continuous action. It is impossible to regard the
_Interfectio Puerorum_ as a separate piece from the _Herodes_, acted a
week earlier on the feast of the Innocents; for into it, after the first
entry of the children with their lamb, _gaudentes per monasterium_,
come the flight into Egypt, the return of the _nuntius_, and the wrath
of Herod, which, of course, presuppose the _Magi_ scenes. Another new
incident is added at the end of the Fleury play. Herod is deposed and
Archelaus set up; the Holy Family return from Egypt, and settle in the
parts of Galilee[186].
I have attempted to arrange the dozen or so complete Epiphany plays known
to scholars in at least the logical order of their development. There
are also three fragments, which fit readily enough into the system. Two,
from a Paris manuscript and from Einsiedeln, may be classed respectively
with the Compiègne and Strassburg texts[187]. The third, from Vienne,
is an independent version, in leonine hexameters, of the scene in which
the _Magi_ first sight the star, a theme common to all the plays except
that of Limoges[188]. I do not feel certain that this fragment is from a
liturgical drama at all.
The textual development of the _Stella_ is closely parallel to that of
the _Quem quaeritis_. The more primitive versions consist of antiphons
and prose sentences based upon or in the manner of the Scriptures. The
later ones, doubtless under the influence of wandering scholars, become
increasingly metrical. The classical tags, from Sallust and Virgil, are
an obvious note of the scholarly pen. With the exception of that from
Limoges, all the texts appear to be derived by successive accretions and
modifications from an archetype fairly represented at Rouen. The Bilsen
text and the Vienne fragment have been freely rewritten, and the process
of rewriting is well illustrated by the alternative versions found
side by side in the later Nevers manuscript. With regard to the place
occupied by the _Stella_ in the Epiphany services, such manuscripts as
give any indications at all seem to point to a considerable divergence
of local use. At Limoges and Nevers, the play was of the nature of a
trope to the Mass, inserted in the former case at the _Offertorium_,
in the latter at the _Communio_[189]. At Rouen the _Officium_ followed
Tierce, and preceded the ordinary procession before Mass. At Fleury the
use of the _Te Deum_ suggests that it was at Matins; at Strassburg it
followed the _Magnificat_ at Vespers, but on the octave of Epiphany, not
Epiphany itself. Perhaps the second part of the Fleury play was also on
the octave. At Bilsen the play followed the _Benedicamus_, but with this
versicle nearly all the Hours end[190]. I do not, however, hesitate to
say that the Limoges use must have been the most primitive one. The
kernel of the whole performance is a dramatized _Offertorium_. It was a
custom for Christian kings to offer gold and frankincense and myrrh at
the altar on Epiphany day[191]; and I take the play to have served as a
substitute for this ceremony, where no king actually regnant was present.
There is yet one other liturgical play belonging to the Christmas season,
which for the future development of the drama is the most important of
all. This is the _Prophetae_[192]. It differs from the _Quem quaeritis_,
the _Peregrini_, the _Pastores_, and the _Stella_ by the large number
of performers required, and by the epical mode of its composition. Its
origin, in fact, is to be sought in a narrative, a _lectio_, not a chant.
The source was the pseudo-Augustinian _Sermo contra Iudaeos, Paganos
et Arianos de Symbolo_, probably written in the sixth century, but
ascribed throughout the Middle Ages to the great African[193]. A portion
of this sermon was used in many churches as a lesson for some part or
other of the Christmas offices[194]. The passage chosen is in a highly
rhetorical vein. _Vos, inquam, convenio, O Iudaei_ cries the preacher,
and calls upon the Jews to bear witness out of the mouths of their own
prophets to the Christ. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Moses, David, Habakkuk,
Simeon, Zacharias and Elisabeth, John the Baptist;—each in turn is
bidden to speak, and each testimony is triumphantly quoted. Then: _Ecce,
convertimur ad gentes_. Virgil—_poeta facundissimus_—is pressed into the
service, for the famous line of his fourth eclogue:
‘iam nova progenies caelo demittitur alto[195],’
Nebuchadnezzar, who saw four walking in the furnace, and finally the
Erythraean Sibyl, whose acrostic verses on the ‘Signs of Judgement’ first
appear in the writings of Eusebius[196].
The dramatic form of this _lectio_ possibly led to its being chanted
instead of read, and distributed between several voices in the manner
of the Passions from Palm Sunday to Good Friday[197]. At any rate in
the eleventh century there appears in a Limoges manuscript a metrical
adaptation in which it has been wholly converted into a dramatic
dialogue[198]. This Limoges _Prophetae_ follows the sermon pretty closely
in its arrangement. A _Precentor_ begins:
‘Omnes gentes congaudentes, dent cantum laetitiae!
deus homo fit, de domo David, natus hodie.’
He addresses a couplet each _Ad Iudaeos_, _Ad Gentes_, and then calls
in turn upon each of the prophets, who reply, Virgil pronouncing his
line, the Sibyl the _Iudicii Signum_, and the others a couplet or
quatrain apiece. They are nearly identical with the personages of the
sermon: Israel is added, Zacharias disappears, and the order is slightly
different. Finally the _Precentor_ concludes:
‘Iudaea incredula,
cur manens adhuc inverecunda?’
Two later versions, belonging respectively to Laon[199] and to
Rouen[200], diverge far more from the model. They are at much the same
stage of development. In both the play is ushered in with the hymn
_Gloriosi et famosi_, the verses of which are sung by the prophets, and
the refrain by the choir[201]. The costumes and symbols of the prophets
are carefully indicated in the rubrics. The _Precentor_ of Limoges is
represented by two singers, called at Laon _Appellatores_, and at Rouen
_Vocatores_. The dialogue is amplified beyond that of Limoges. _Sex
Iudaei_ and _sex Gentiles_, for instance, take parts: and the _Vocatores_
comment with the choir in an identical form of words on each prophecy.
The Laon text is a good deal the shorter. The prophets are practically
the same as at Limoges, with one remarkable exception. At the end is
introduced Balaam, and to his prophecy is appended a miniature drama,
with the angel and the ass: thus—
‘_Hic veniat Angelus cum gladio. Balaam tangit asinam, et illa
non praecedente, dicit iratus_:
quid moraris, asina,
obstinata bestia?
iam scindent calcaria
costas et praecordia.
_Puer sub asina respondet_:
angelus cum gladio,
quem adstare video,
prohibet ne transeam;
timeo ne peream.’
The Rouen text adds quite a number of prophets. The full list includes
Moses, Amos, Isaiah, Aaron, Jeremiah, Daniel, Habakkuk, Balaam, Samuel,
David, Hosea, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Zephaniah, Haggai,
Zechariah, Ezekiel, Malachi, Zacharias, Elisabeth, John the Baptist,
Simeon, Virgil, Nebuchadnezzar, and the Sibyl. In this version, also, the
part of Balaam is expanded into a drama.
‘_Duo missi a rege Balac dicant_:
Balaam, veni et fac.
_Tunc Balaam, ornatus, sedens super asinam, habens calcaria,
retineat lora et calcaribus percutiat asinam, et quidam
iuvenis, habens alas, tenens gladium, obstet asinae. Quidam sub
asina dicat_:
cur me cum calcaribus miseram sic laeditis.
_Hoc dicto, Angelus ei dicat_:
desine regis Balac praeceptum perficere.’
Here, too, another little drama is similarly introduced. This is the
story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, which, with an _imago_ for the
brethren to refuse to worship and a _fornax_ for them to be cast into,
attaches itself to the _vocatio_ of Nebuchadnezzar.
In the Limoges manuscript the _Prophetae_ is followed by the words _Hic
inchoant Benedicamus_[202]. As has been pointed out in the case of the
Bilsen _Pastores_, this is not conclusive as to the hour at which the
performance took place. The day was probably that of Christmas itself.
But even the day would naturally vary with the variable position of the
_lectio_ out of which the _Prophetae_ grew. At Lincoln it was likewise
Christmas day. But at Rouen the _processio asinorum_ was on Christmas
eve, and took the place of the ordinary festal procession after Tierce
and before Mass[203]. And at St. Martin of Tours the _Prophetae_ was on
New Year’s day, performances being given both at Matins and Vespers[204].
The question naturally suggests itself: What was the relation of these
liturgical plays of the Christmas season to the Feast of Fools and other
ecclesiastical _ludi_ of the Twelve nights, which were discussed in the
first volume? At Rouen, the _Prophetae_ received the name of _processio
asinorum_ and took place at a _festum asinorum_, a name which we know to
have been elsewhere synonymous with _festum fatuorum_. At Tours, it was
played at a reformed _festum novi anni_, with a Boy Bishop and at least
traces of expelled disorder. So, too, with the other plays. The Rouen
_Pastores_ was infected by the fifteenth century with the _stultitiae
et insolentiae_ of the _triduum_. At Bilsen the _Stella_ was performed
before a _rex_, who can hardly have been any other than a _rex fatuorum_
of Epiphany. At Autun the _regnum Herodis_ was considered a Feast of
Fools[205]. Probably in both churches the _rex_ acted Herod in the
play. I think it must be taken for granted that the plays are the older
institution of the two. They seem all to have taken shape by the eleventh
century, before there is any clear sign that the Kalends had made their
way into the churches and become the Feast of Fools. The plays may even
have been encouraged as a counter-attraction, for the congregation, to
the Kalends outside. On the other hand, I do not hold, as some writers
do, that the riotous Feasts of Asses were derived from the pious and
instructive ceremony so called at Rouen[206]. On the contrary, Balaam
and his ass are an interpolation in the _Prophetae_ both at Rouen and,
more obviously, at Laon. Balaam, alone of the Laon performers, is not
from the pseudo-Augustine sermon. Is he not, therefore, to be regarded
as a reaction of the Feast of Fools upon the _Prophetae_, as an attempt
to turn the established presence of the ass in the church to purposes of
edification, rather than of ribaldry[207]? I think the explanation is
the more plausible one. And I find a parallel reaction of the turbulence
of the Feast of Fools upon the _Stella_, in the violence of speech and
gesture which permanently associated itself at a very early stage with
the character of Herod. The view here taken will be confirmed, when
we come to consider certain ecclesiastical criticisms passed upon the
liturgical plays in the twelfth century.
Whatever the exact relation of the divine and profane _ludi_ at Easter
and Christmas may be, it seems to have been, in the main, at these two
great seasons of festivity that what may be called the spontaneous growth
of drama out of liturgy took place. There are yet a fair number of Latin
plays to be spoken of which are in a sense liturgical. That is to say,
they were acted, certainly or probably, in churches and during intervals
in the services. But of these such a spontaneous growth cannot be
asserted, although it cannot also, in the present state of the evidence,
be confidently denied. Their metrical and literary style is parallel
to that of the Easter and Christmas plays in the latest stages of
development; and, until further data turn up, it is perhaps permissible
to conjecture that they were deliberately composed on the model of the
_Quem quaeritis_ and the _Stella_, when these had become widespread
and popular. Indeed, some such derivation of the _Peregrini_ from the
_Quem quaeritis_ and of the _Stella_ itself, at least in part, from the
_Pastores_, has already appeared probable.
In dealing with this new group of plays, we come, for the first and only
time, upon an individual author. As might be expected, this author is
a _scholaris vagans_, by name Hilarius. It would even be doing him no
great injustice to call him a goliard. What little is known of Hilarius
is gathered from his writings, which exist in a single manuscript. He
may have been an Englishman, for a large proportion of his verses are
addressed to English folk. He was a pupil, about 1125, of the famous
Abelard at his oratory of Paraclete in a desert near Nogent-sur-Seine.
Afterwards he made his way to Angers. Many of his verses are of the
familiar goliardic type, amorous and jocund; but amongst them are three
plays[208]. Two of these are comparatively short, and contain each a few
stanzas of French interspersed amongst the Latin. The subject of one is
a miracle wrought by St. Nicholas[209]; of the other, the _Suscitatio
Lazari_[210]. The third play, wholly in Latin, falls into two parts, and
gives at considerable length the story of _Daniel_[211]. I take it that
these plays were not written for any church in particular, but represent
the repertory of a band of wandering clerks. At the end, both of the
_Daniel_ and of the _Suscitatio Lazari_, is a rubric or stage-direction,
to the effect that, if the performance is given at Matins, the _Te Deum_
should follow; if at Vespers, the _Magnificat_. Evidently the connexion
with the church service, so organic in the plays of the more primitive
type, has become for Hilarius almost accidental. As to the place of the
plays in the calendar, the manuscript gives no indication, and probably
Hilarius and his friends would be willing enough to act them whenever
they got a chance. But the St. Nicholas play would come most naturally
on the day of that saint, December 6. The _Suscitatio Lazari_ would
be appropriate enough as an addition to the _Quem quaeritis_ and the
_Peregrini_ in Easter week. The story is told, indeed, in the Gospel for
Friday in the fourth week in Lent; but that does not seem a very likely
date for a play. The _Daniel_ perhaps grew, as we have seen a _Balaam_
and a _Nebuchadnezzar_ growing, out of a _Prophetae_; and may have been a
substitute for a _Prophetae_ at Christmas.
These dates are borne out, or not contradicted, by other similar plays,
which have more of a local habitation. For no one of Hilarius’ three
stands quite alone. Of Latin plays of St. Nicholas, indeed, quite a
little group exists; and the great scholastic feast evidently afforded an
occasion, less only than Easter and Christmas, for dramatic performances.
The earliest texts are from Germany. Two are found in a Hildesheim
manuscript of the eleventh century[212]; a third in an Einsiedeln
manuscript of the twelfth[213]. The thirteenth-century Fleury play-book
contains no less than four, two of which appear to be more developed
forms of the Hildesheim plays. The theme is in every case one of the
miraculous deeds which so largely make up the widespread legend of the
saint[214]. Nicholas restores to life the three clerks
‘quos causa discendi literas
apud gentes transmisit exteras,’
and whom the greed of an innkeeper has slain[215]. He provides with a
dowry the daughters of a poor gentleman, who are threatened with a life
of shame[216]. He brings back from captivity the son of his wealthy
adorer[217]. His image preserves from housebreakers the riches of a
Jew[218]. Alone of the extant Latin plays, these of St. Nicholas are
drawn from outside the Biblical story. Each of the Fleury versions
introduces at the end one of the anthems proper to St. Nicholas’ day, and
their connexion with the feast is therefore clear.
A second Lazarus play, which includes not only the _Suscitatio_ but also
the episode of Mary Magdalen in the house of Simon, is likewise in the
Fleury play-book[219]. A second _Daniel_, composed by the _iuventus_ of
Beauvais, occurs in the same manuscript which contains the Office of
the Circumcision for that cathedral[220]. It was perhaps intended for
performance on the day of the _asinaria festa_. Other plays seem, in
the same way as the _Daniel_, to have budded off from the _Prophetae_.
A fragment is preserved of an _Isaac and Rebecca_ from Kloster Vorau
in Styria[221]. A twelfth-century mention of an _Elisaeus_[222] and
an eleventh-century one of a _Convivium Herodis_[223], which suggests
rather the story of John the Baptist than that of the _Magi_, point to an
activity in this direction of which all the traces have possibly not yet
been discovered.
Three plays, each more or less unique in character, complete the tale.
The Fleury play-book has a _Conversio Beati Pauli Apostoli_, doubtless
designed for the feast on January 25[224]. The shorter, but highly
interesting collection from Limoges, has a play of the wise and foolish
virgins, under the title of _Sponsus_[225]. This has attracted much
attention from scholars, on account of the fact that it is partly in
French, or more strictly in a dialect belonging to the Angoumois, and
slightly affected by Provençal. As it is therefore of the nature of a
transitional form, it may be well to give a somewhat full account of it.
It opens with a Latin chorus beginning
‘Adest sponsus qui est Christus: vigilate, virgines!’
The angel Gabriel then addresses the virgins, and warns them in four
French stanzas to expect ‘un espos, Sauvaire a nom.’ Each stanza has a
refrain, probably sung chorally:
‘gaire noi dormet:
aici’s l’espos que vos or atendet!
Then comes a lyric dialogue, in which the _Fatuae_, who have wasted their
oil, attempt in vain to get some, first from the _Prudentes_, and then
from some _Mercatores_, whose presence here recalls the _unguentarius_
in the Prague versions of the _Quem quaeritis_[226]. This dialogue is in
Latin, but with a French refrain:
‘dolentas, chaitivas, trop i avem (_or_ avet) dormit.’
Then comes the _Sponsus_, to whom the _Fatuae_ finally appeal:
‘audi, sponse, voces plangentium:
aperire fac nobis ostium
cum sociis ad dulce prandium;
nostrae culpae praebe remedium!
dolentas, chaitivas, trop i avem dormit.
_Christus._
amen dico, vos ignosco, nam caretis lumine,
quod qui perdunt procul pergunt huius aulae limine.
alet, chaitivas, alet, malaüreias!
a tot jors mais vos son penas livreias,
e en efern ora seret meneias!
_Modo accipiant eas daemones et praecipitentur in infernum._’
This stage direction, together with an allusion in the opening lines of
the _Sponsus_ to the ‘second Adam,’ link this remarkable, and, I venture
to think, finely conceived little piece to the Christmas play of _Adam_
to be discussed in the next chapter. It has essentially an Advent theme,
and must have been performed either in Advent itself or at the Christmas
season, with which Advent is prophetically connected[227].
Finally, there is a play which was almost certainly performed at
Advent[228]. This is the Tegernsee play of _Antichristus_[229]. It
is founded upon the prophecy in St. Paul’s second epistle to the
Thessalonians of the _homo peccati, filius perditionis_, who shall sit
in the temple of God until the Christ shall slay him with the breath
of his mouth, and destroy him with the glory of his advent[230]: and
it is an elaborate spectacle, requiring for its proper performance
a large number of actors and a spacious stage, with a temple of God
and seven royal _sedes_, together with room for much marching and
counter-marching and warfare[231]. It must have taken up the whole nave
of some great church. It begins with a procession of Emperor, Pope, and
Kings, accompanied by personages emblematic of _Gentilitas_, _Sinagoga_
and _Ecclesia_ with her attendants _Misericordia_ and _Iustitia_. The
first part of the action represents the conquest of the four corners of
Christendom by the Emperor and his championship of Jerusalem against the
King of Babylon. _Ecclesia_, _Gentilitas_, and _Synagoga_ punctuate the
performance with their characteristic chants. Then come the Hypocrites,
_sub silentio et specie humilitatis inclinantes circumquaque et captantes
favorem laicorum_. They are followed by Antichrist himself, who instructs
Hypocrisy and Heresy to prepare the way for his advent. Presently
Antichrist is enthroned in the temple and gradually saps the Empire,
winning over the King of the Greeks by threats, the King of the Franks by
gifts, and the King of the Teutons, who is incorruptible and invincible,
by signs and wonders. He marks his vassals on the brow with the first
letter of his name. Then the Hypocrites attempt to persuade _Synagoga_
that Antichrist is the Messiah; but are refuted by the prophets Enoch
and Elijah. Antichrist has the rebels slain; but while he is throned in
state, thunder breaks suddenly over his head, he falls, and _Ecclesia_
comes to her own again with a _Laudem dicite deo nostro_.
The author of the _Antichristus_ is not only a skilled craftsman in
rhyming Latin metres; he is also capable of carrying a big literary
scheme successfully to a close. His immediate source was probably
the tenth-century _Libellus de Antichristo_ of Adso of Toul[232].
Into this he has worked the central theme of the _Prophetae_ and the
debating figures from that very popular _débat_ or ‘estrif,’ the
_Altercatio Ecclesiae et Synagogae_[233]. His work differs in several
obvious respects from the comparatively simple, often naïve, liturgical
dramas which have been considered. It is ambitious in scope, extending
to between four and five hundred lines. It introduces allegorical
figures, such as we shall find, long after, in the moralities. It has
a purpose other than that of devotion, or even amusement. It is, in
fact, a _Tendenzschrift_, a pamphlet. The instinct of the drama, which
sways the imaginations of men perhaps more powerfully than any other
form of literature, to mix itself up with politics is incorrigible:
_Antichristus_ is a subtle vindication, on the one hand, of the Empire
against the Papacy, on the other of the _rex Teutonicorum_ against the
_rex Francorum_. It probably dates from about 1160, when Frederick
Barbarossa was at the height of his struggle with Alexander III, who
enjoyed the sympathies of Louis VII of France. And it is anti-clerical.
The Hypocrites who carry out the machinations of Antichrist are the
clerical reformers, such as Gerhoh of Reichersberg[234], who were the
mainstay of the papacy in Germany.
It is improbable that the few and scattered texts which have come to
light represent all the liturgical plays which had made their appearance
by the middle of the twelfth century. Besides the lost _Elisaeus_ and
_Convivium Herodis_, there is evidence, for example, of scholars’ plays
in honour, not only of St. Nicholas, but of their second patron, the
philosophical St. Catharine of Alexandria. Such a _ludus de Sancta
Katarina_ was prepared at Dunstable in England by one Geoffrey, a Norman
clerk who had been invited to England as schoolmaster to the abbey of St.
Albans. For it he borrowed certain choir copes belonging to the abbey,
and had the misfortune to let these be burnt with his house. Deeply
repentant, he took the religious habit, and in 1119 became abbot of St.
Albans. From this date that of the _ludus_ may be judged to be early in
the twelfth century[235].
It cannot, of course, be assumed that every play, say in the fifteenth
century, which although probably or certainly written in the vernacular
was performed in a church, had a Latin prototype[236]. Many such may
have been written and acted for the first time on existing models, when
the vernacular drama was already well established. But there are certain
feasts where it is possible to trace, on the one hand, the element of
mimetic ceremony in the services, and on the other, perhaps, some later
representation in the dramatic cycles, and where a Latin text might at
any time turn up without causing surprise. With a few notes on some of
these this chapter must conclude. A highly dramatic trope for Ascension
day, closely resembling the _Quem quaeritis_, has already been quoted
from the tropers of Limoges[237]. An _Ordinarium_ of St. Peter’s of Lille
directs that, after the respond _Non vos relinquam_, the officiant shall
mount a pulpit and thence appear to ascend towards heaven from the top of
a mountain[238]. Fifteenth-century _computi_ speak of this or of a more
elaborate performance as a _mysterium_, and include amongst other items
payments for painting the scars on the hands of the performer[239]. On
Whit-Sunday it was the custom at St. Paul’s in London and many other
churches, during the singing of the hymn _Veni Creator Spiritus_ at
Tierce, to open a hole in the roof and let down symbols of the Pentecost;
a dove, a globe of fire, bits of burning tow to represent tongues of
fire, a censer, flowers, pieces of flaky pastry[240]. This same hole in
the roof sometimes served a similar purpose at a mimetic representation
of the Annunciation. The Gospel for the day was recited by two clerks
dressed as Mary and the angel, and at the words _Spiritus Sanctus
supervenit in te_ a white dove descended from the roof. This can hardly
be called a drama, for, with the exception of a short fifteenth-century
text from Cividale, only the words of the Gospel itself seem to have
been used; but obviously it is on the extreme verge of drama. A curious
variant in the date of this ceremony is to be noted. In several Italian
examples, of which the earliest dates from 1261, and in one or two
from France, it belongs to the feast of the Annunciation proper on
March 25[241]. But in later French examples, and apparently also at
Lincoln[242], it has been transferred to the Advent season, during which
naturally the Annunciation was greatly held in remembrance, and has
been attached to the so-called ‘golden’ Mass celebrated ten days before
Christmas during the _Quatuor Tempora_[243]. It thus became absorbed into
the Christmas dramatic cycle.
CHAPTER XX
THE SECULARIZATION OF THE PLAYS
[_Bibliographical Note._—The best general account of the
vernacular religious drama of Europe is that of W. Creizenach,
_Geschichte des neueren Dramas_ (vol. i. 1893), Books 2-4;
and this may be supplemented by K. Hase, _Das geistliche
Schauspiel_ (1858, trans. A. W. Jackson, 1880); R. Proelss,
_Geschichte des neueren Dramas_ (1880-3), vol. i. ch. 1; C.
Davidson, _English Mystery Plays_ (1892), and G. Gregory
Smith, _The Transition Period_ (1900), ch. 7. There is also
the cumbrous work of J. L. Klein, _Geschichte des Dramas_
(1865-86). The nearest approach to a general bibliography is
F. H. Stoddard, _References for Students of Miracle Plays
and Mysteries_ (1887).—For Germany may be added R. Froning,
_Das Drama des Mittelalters_ (1890-1); K. Pearson, _The
German Passion Play_ (in _The Chances of Death and Other
Studies in Evolution_, 1897, vol. ii); L. Wirth, _Die Oster-
und Passionsspiele bis zum 16. Jahrhundert_ (1889); J. E.
Wackernell, _Altdeutsche Passionsspiele aus Tirol_, 1897;
R. Heinzel, _Beschreibung des geistlichen Schauspiels im
deutschen Mittelalter_ (1898), and the articles by F. Vogt on
_Mittelhochdeutsche Literatur_, § 73, and H. Jellinghaus on
_Mittelniederdeutsche Literatur_, § 5, in H. Paul, _Grundriss
der germanischen Philologie_, vol. ii (2nd ed. 1901). F. Vogt
gives a few additional recent references. Older works are F.
J. Mone, _Schauspiele des Mittelalters_ (1846); H. Reidt,
_Das geistliche Schauspiel des Mittelalters in Deutschland_
(1868), and E. Wilken, _Geschichte der geistlichen Spiele in
Deutschland_ (1872). Many of the books named print texts.
Lists of others are given by Pearson and by Heinzel, and
full bibliographical notices by K. Goedeke, _Grundriss zur
Geschichte der deutschen Dichtung_ (2nd ed.), vol. i (1884),
§§ 67, 92, and vol. ii (1886), § 145.—For France, L. Petit de
Julleville, _Les Mystères_ (1880), is excellent and exhaustive,
and contains many bibliographical references, although the
‘Liste des ouvrages à consulter’ intended as part of the work
seems never to have been printed. M. de Julleville is also the
writer of the article on _Théâtre religieux_ in the _Hist. de
la Langue et de la Littérature françaises_, vol. ii (1896). G.
Gröber’s article on _Französische Litteratur_, §§ 129, 362 in
his _Grundriss der romanischen Philologie_, vol. ii (1901-2),
brings the subject up to date and adds some recent authorities.
Mortensen, _Medeltidsdramat i Frankrike_ (1899), is beyond my
range. G. Paris, _La Littérature française au moyen âge_ (2nd
ed., 1890), is a brief summary, and L. Clédat, _Le Théâtre
au moyen âge_ (1897), a useful popular account. G. Bapst,
_Essai sur l’Histoire du Théâtre_ (1893), is good on matters
of stage arrangement. Older works are O. Le Roy, _Études sur
les Mystères_ (1837), and J. de Douhet, _Dictionnaire des
Mystères_ (1854). Only fragments of C. Magnin’s investigations
are available in the _Journal des Savants_ (1846-7) and the
_Journal général de l’Instruction publique_ (1834-6). Texts are
in A. Jubinal, _Mystères du 15ᵉ siècle_ (1837); Monmerqué et
Michel, _Théâtre français au moyen âge_ (1842); E. Fournier,
_Le Théâtre français avant la Renaissance_ (1872), and the
series published by the _Société des Anciens Textes français_.
The most recent text of _Adam_ is that by K. Grass, _Das
Adamsspiel_ (1891). M. Wilmotte, _Les Passions allemandes du
Rhin dans leur Rapport avec l’ancien Théâtre français_ (1898),
deals with the interrelations of the French and German texts.
C. Hastings, _Le Théâtre français et anglais_ (1900, trans.
1901), is a compilation of little merit.—For Italy there is A.
D’Ancona, _Origini del Teatro italiano_ (2nd ed. 1891), with
texts in the same writer’s _Sacre Rappresentazioni_ (1872), in
Monaci, _Appunti per la Storia del Teatro italiano_ (_Rivista
di Filologia Romana_, vols. i, ii), and in F. Torraca, _Il
Teatro italiano dei Secoli xiii, xiv, e xv_ (1885).—For Spain,
A. F. von Schack, _Geschichte der dramatischen Litteratur
und Kunst in Spanien_ (1845-54), and G. Baist, _Spanische
Litteratur_, §§ 19, 63, in Gröber’s _Grundriss_, vol. ii
(1897).—For the minor Romance dramatic literatures, Provençal,
Catalan, Portuguese, I must be content to refer to the
last-named authority, and for that of Holland to the similar
_Grundriss_ of H. Paul.]
The evolution of the liturgic play described in the last two chapters may
be fairly held to have been complete about the middle of the thirteenth
century. The condition of any further advance was that the play should
cease to be liturgic. The following hundred years are a transition
period. During their course the newly-shaped drama underwent a process
which, within the limits imposed by the fact that its subject-matter
remained essentially religious, may be called secularization. Already,
when Hilarius could write plays to serve indifferently for use at Matins
or at Vespers, the primitive relation of _repraesentatio_ to liturgy had
been sensibly weakened. By the middle of the fourteenth century it was
a mere survival. From ecclesiastical the drama had become popular. Out
of the hands of the clergy in their naves and choirs, it had passed to
those of the laity in their market-places and guild-halls. And to this
formal change corresponded a spiritual or literary one, in the reaction
of the temper of the folk upon the handling of the plays, the broadening
of their human as distinct from their religious aspect. In their origin
_officia_ for devotion and edification, they came, by an irony familiar
to the psychologist, to be primarily _spectacula_ for mirth, wonder, and
delight.
It is, however, the formal change with which I am here mainly concerned;
and of this it will be the object of the present chapter to trace as
briefly as possible the outlines. The principal factor is certainly
that tendency to expansion and coalescence in the plays which has been
already seen at work in the production of such elaborate pieces as the
_Quem quaeritis_ of the Tours or that of the Benedictbeuern manuscript,
the Fleury _Stella_, the Rouen _Prophetae_ and the _Antichristus_. This
culminates in the formation of those great dramatic cycles of which the
English Corpus Christi plays are perhaps the most complete examples.
But before we can approach these, we must consider a little further the
independent development of the Easter and Christmas groups.
It is noteworthy that, during the period now under discussion, the
importance of Christmas falls markedly into the background when compared
with that of Easter; and a reason for this will presently suggest
itself. The _Stella_, indeed, as such, appears to have almost reached
its term[244]; for such further growth as there is we must look chiefly
to the _Prophetae_. The process by which little episodic dramas, as
of Balaam and Nebuchadnezzar at Rouen, bud out from the stem of the
_Prophetae_, is one capable of infinite extension. By 1204 the play had
found its way to Riga, on the extreme border of European civilization,
and the _ludus prophetarum ordinatissimus_ there performed included
scenes from the wars of Gideon, David, and Herod[245]. The text of the
Riga play is unfortunately not preserved, but the famous Norman-French
_Ordo repraesentationis Adae_ is an example of a _Prophetae_, in which
the episodes, no longer confined to the stories of the prophets in the
stricter sense, have outgrown and cast into the shade the original
intention[246]. Most things about the _Adam_ are in dispute. Scholars
differ as to whether the manuscript belongs to the twelfth or the
thirteenth century, and as to whether it is the work of a Norman or
of an Anglo-Norman scribe. The piece is manifestly incomplete, but
how far incomplete it is hard to say. What we have consists of three
sections. There is a long play of nearly six hundred lines on the Fall
and Expulsion from Paradise, in which the speakers are Adam and Eve, the
_Figura_ of God and the _Diabolus_. Then comes a much shorter one of Cain
and Abel; and finally a _Prophetae_, which breaks off after the part
of Nebuchadnezzar. Of the general character of this interesting piece
something further will be said presently, but the point to notice here is
that, although Adam and Abel may of course be regarded as prophetic types
of Christ, if not exactly prophets, yet there is a real extension of the
dramatic content of the _Prophetae_ in the prefixing to it of a treatment
of so momentous a subject as the Fall[247]. For with the addition of the
Fall to the already dramatized Redemption, the framework of a structural
unity was at once provided for the great cosmic drama of the future. And
the important motive seems to have been still further emphasized in a
lost play performed at Regensburg in 1195, which treated, besides the
Prophets and the Creation and Fall of Man, the Creation of the Angels and
the Fall of Lucifer[248].
Yet another step towards the completion of the Christmas cycle was
taken when the _Prophetae_ and the _Stella_ were brought together in a
single drama. Such a merging is represented by two related texts from
German sources[249]. One is from a fourteenth-century manuscript now
at St. Gall[250]. The structure is of the simplest. The setting of the
pseudo-Augustine sermon has altogether disappeared. Eight prophets
deliver a speech apiece, announcing their own identities after a naïve
fashion—_Ich bin der alte Balaam_, and so forth—which strongly recalls
the ‘folk’ or ‘mummers’’ plays. Then follows without break a _Stella_,
whose scenes range from the Marriage of the Virgin to the Death of Herod.
Far more elaborate is the Christmas play found in the famous repertory
of the _scholares vagantes_ from Benedictbeuern[251]. A peculiarity of
this is that for the first time Augustine appears _in propria persona_.
He presides over the prophecies, taking the place of the _Precentor_ of
the Limoges _Prophetae_, and the _Appellatores_ or _Vocatores_ of Laon
and Rouen. The only prophets are Isaiah, Daniel, the Sibyl, Aaron, and
Balaam, and there is once more a special episode for Balaam’s ass.
‘_Quinto loco procedat Balaam sedens in asina et cantans_:
vadam, vadam, ut maledicam populo huic.
_Cui occurrat Angelus evaginato gladio dicens_:
cave, cave ne quicquam aliud quam tibi dixero loquaris.
_Et asinus cui insidet Balaam perterritus retrocedat. Postea
recedat angelus et Balaam cantet hoc_:
orietur stella ex Iacob, etc.’
A long _disputatio_ follows between Augustine, an _Archisynagogus_, and
the prophets, in which at one point no less a person intervenes than
the _Episcopus Puerorum_, affording an interesting example of that
interrelation between the religious plays and the festivities of the
_triduum_ and the Feast of Fools, about which something has already
been said[252]. Presently the prophets retire and sit _in locis suis
propter honorem ludi_. The _Stella_ extends from the Annunciation to
the Flight into Egypt. Here the original play seems to have ended; but
a later writer has added a scene in Egypt, in which the idols fall at
the approach of the Holy Family, and some fragments adapted from the
_Antichristus_, and hardly worked up into anything that can be called a
scene.
The form of Christmas play, then, characteristic of the transition
century, consists of a version of the _Prophetae_ extended at the
beginning by a dramatic treatment of the Fall, or extended at the end
by the absorption of the _Stella_. It so happens that we do not, during
the period in question, find examples in which both extensions occur
together. But this double amplification would only be the slightest step
in advance, and may perhaps be taken for granted. The Rouen _Mystère
de l’Incarnation et la Nativité_ of 1474 offers, at a much later date,
precisely the missing type[253].
The Easter cycle, also, received memorable accretions during the period.
The _Quem quaeritis_ of the Tours manuscript, it will be remembered,
included a series of scenes beginning with the Setting of the Watch
before the Sepulchre, and ending with the Incredulity of Thomas.
Important additions had still to be made, even within the limits of
this _cadre_. One was a more complete treatment of the Resurrection
itself through the introduction of the figure of Christ stepping with
the _labarum_ out of the sepulchre, in place of a mere symbolical
indication of the mystery by the presence of angels with lighted candles
and the dismay of the soldiers[254]. Another, closely related to the
Resurrection, was the scene known as the Harrowing of Hell. This was
based upon the account of the _Descensus Christi ad Inferos_, the
victory over Satan, and the freeing from limbo of Adam and the other
Old Testament Fathers, which forms part of the apocryphal _Gospel of
Nichodemus_[255]. The narrative makes use of that _Tollite portas_
passage from the twenty-fourth Psalm, which we have already found
adapted to the use of more than one semi-dramatic ceremonial[256], and
naturally this found its way into the Harrowing of Hell, together with
the so-called _canticum triumphale_, a song of welcome by the imprisoned
souls:
‘Advenisti, desirabilis, quem exspectabamus in tenebris, ut educeres
hac nocte vinculatos de claustris.
te nostra vocabant suspiria.
te larga requirebant lamenta.
tu factus es spes desperatis, magna consolatio in tormentis.’
I cannot share the view of those who look upon the East Midland English
_Harrowing of Hell_ as intended for dramatic representation. The
prologues found in two of the three manuscripts leave it clear that
it was for recitation. It is in fact of the nature of an ‘estrif’ or
_débat_, and may be compared with an Anglo-Saxon poem of the eighth or
tenth century on the same subject[257]. But there is evidence that the
scene had found its way into the Easter cycle at least by the beginning
of the thirteenth century, for it occurs amongst the fragments of a
play of that date from Kloster Muri; and in later versions it assumed a
considerable prominence[258].
The liturgical drama proper abstained in the main from any strictly
dramatic representation of the Passion. The nearest approach to such a
thing is in the dialogued versions of the _Planctus Mariae_ and in the
Benedictbeuern _Ludus breviter de Passione_, which extends very slightly
beyond these. The central event of the transition period is, therefore,
the growth side by side with the _Quem quaeritis_ of a Passion play,
which in the end rather absorbs than is absorbed by it. A marked advance
in this direction is shown in an Anglo-Norman fragment, probably written
in the twelfth century, which includes, not indeed the Crucifixion
itself, but the Descent from the Cross, the Healing of Longinus, and the
Burial of Christ[259]. The first recorded Passion play is in Italy. It
took place at Siena about 1200[260]. In 1244 the Passion and Resurrection
were played together at Padua[261]. The earliest text of a Passion play
is contained in the Benedictbeuern manuscript[262]. It opens with the
Calling of Andrew and Peter, the Healing of the Blind, Zacchaeus and the
Entry into Jerusalem. Then follows a long episode of Mary Magdalen. She
is represented with her lover, buying cosmetics of a _Mercator_—we have
had the _Mercator_ in the _Quem quaeritis_ and in the _Sponsus_—and with
a profane song upon her lips:
‘Mundi delectatio dulcis est et grata,
cuius conversatio suavis et ornata.’
She is converted in a dream, puts on black, buys ointments from the same
_Mercator_, and adores the Lord in the house of Simon. Then come, far
more briefly treated, the Raising of Lazarus, the Betrayal by Judas, the
Last Supper, the Mount of Olives, the Passion itself, from the Taking in
Gethsemane to the Crucifixion. The introduction here of some _planctus
Mariae_ points to the _genesis_ of the drama, which closes with the
Begging of the Body of Christ by Joseph of Arimathaea. And so, at a blow,
as it were, the content of the Easter play is doubled. Certain episodes,
such as the Conversion of Mary Magdalen and the Raising of Lazarus had,
as we know, received an independent dramatic treatment; but in the main
the play before us, or its source, bears the character of a deliberate
composition on the lines of the pre-existing _Quem quaeritis_. That it
was to be followed in representation by a _Quem quaeritis_ may perhaps
be taken for granted. Indeed there is one personage, the wife of the
_Mercator_, who is named in a list at the beginning, but has no part in
the text as it stands[263]. She may have come into the Benedictbeuern
_Quem quaeritis_, of which a fragment only survives, and this may have
been intended for use, as might be convenient, either with the _Ludus
breviter de Passione_, or with the longer text now under consideration.
At all events, Passion and Resurrection are treated together in two
slightly later texts, one from the south of France[264], the other from
St. Gall[265]. The St. Gall Passion play takes the action back to the
beginning of the missionary life of Christ, giving the Marriage at Cana,
the Baptism, and the Temptation. It also includes a Harrowing of Hell.
Certain forms of the Passion play, as the conjoint Passion and
Resurrection may now be termed, show an approximation to the type of the
Christmas play. It is obvious that the Fall and the _Prophetae_ would
be as proper a prologue to the Passion which completes the Atonement
as to the Nativity which begins it. And the presence of Adam and other
Old Testament characters in the Harrowing of Hell would be the more
significant if in some earlier scene they had visibly been haled there.
The first trace of these new elements is in the St. Gall play, where the
Augustine of the _Prophetae_ is introduced to speak a prologue. A long
Frankfort play of the fourteenth century, of which unfortunately only
the stage directions and actors’ cues are preserved, carries the process
further[266]. Again Augustine acts as presenter. A _Prophetae_ begins the
performance, which ends with the Ascension, a _Disputatio Ecclesiae et
Synagogae_ and the baptizing of the incredulous Jews by Augustine. On the
other hand, the Fall forms the first part of an early fourteenth-century
Passion play from Vienna[267]. Both the Fall of Lucifer and that of
Adam and Eve are included, and there is a supplementary scene in hell,
into which the souls of a usurer, a monk, a robber, and a sorceress are
successively brought. Lucifer refuses to have anything to do with the
monk, an early use of the Tomlinson motive.
The dramatic evolution is now within measurable distance of the ‘cosmic’
type finally presented by the English Corpus Christi plays. Two further
steps are necessary: the juxtaposition of the Nativity and Passion scenes
behind their common Old Testament prologue, and the final winding up
of the action by the extension of it from the Ascension to the second
coming of the Christ in the Last Judgement. The eschatological scenes
of the _Sponsus_ and the _Antichristus_ are already available for such
an epilogue. That the whole of this vast framework was put together by
the beginning of the fourteenth century may be inferred from the notices
of two performances, in 1298 and 1303 respectively, at Cividale[268].
The first included the Passion, Resurrection, Ascension, Advent of
the Holy Spirit, and Advent of Christ to Judgement: the second added
to these the Creation, Annunciation, Nativity, with much else, and the
Antichrist. Any further development could now be merely episodic. The
text could be amplified at the fancy of the individual writer, or upon
the suggestion of the great epic narratives, such as the _Cursor Mundi_,
the _Passional_, the _Erlösung_[269]. An infinity of new scenes could be
added from the Old Testament[270], from the apocryphal gospels and acts,
from the historic narratives of the vengeance of the Crucified One upon
Rome and Jewry[271]. But beyond the limits of the fixed _cadre_ it was
now impossible to go, for these were coincident with the span of time and
eternity.
It is now necessary to consider briefly some modifications in the general
character of the religious plays which accompanied or resulted from this
great expansion of their scope. These all tend towards that process of
secularization, that relaxing of the close bonds between the nascent
drama and religious worship, which it is the especial object of this
chapter to illustrate. Of capital importance is the transference of the
plays from the interior of the church to its precincts, to the graveyard
or the neighbouring market-place. This must have been primarily a matter
of physical necessity. The growing length of the plays, the increasing
elaboration of their setting, made it cumbrous and difficult to
accommodate them within the walls. It is a big step from the early _Quem
quaeritis, Pastores_ or _Stella_, with their simple _mises-en-scène_ of
_sepulchrum_ and _praesepe_ to the complicated requirements, say, of the
Fleury group, the _tabernaculum in similitudinem castelli Emaus_ for the
_Peregrini_, the half-dozen _loca_, _domus_, or _sedes_ demanded by the
_Suscitatio Lazari_ or the _Conversio Pauli_. Still more exigent is the
_Antichristus_ with its _templum domini_ and its seven _sedes regales_,
and its space in between for marchings and counter-marchings and the
overthrowing of kings. Yet for a long time the church proved sufficient.
The Tours _Quem quaeritis_ and some, if not all, of the Fleury plays
were demonstrably played in the church. So was the Rouen _Prophetae_,
and an allusion of Gerhoh of Reichersberg makes it extremely probable
that so was the _Antichristus_[272]. One must conceive, I think, of the
performances as gradually spreading from choir to nave, with the _domus_,
_loca_, or _sedes_ set at intervals against the pillars, while the people
crowded to watch in the side aisles. It is in the twelfth century that
the plays first seek ampler room outside the church. Of the transition
plays dealt with in the present chapter, the _Adam_, the Benedictbeuern
Christmas play, the Anglo-Norman _Resurrection_, were certainly intended
for the open, and the contrary cannot be affirmed in any case with the
same assurance. Again, the Riga _Prophetae_ of 1204 was _in media Riga_,
the Padua Passion play of 1244 was in a meadow, the _Pratum Vallis_,
while in England an early thirteenth-century biographer of St. John
of Beverley records a miracle wrought at a Resurrection play in the
churchyard of the minster.
Of the type of performance now rendered possible, a very good notion is
given by the full stage directions of the _Adam_. These are so valuable
a document for the history of stage management that I must take leave to
excerpt from them somewhat liberally. The opening rubric recalls at once
the minute stage directions of Ibsen and the counsel to the players in
_Hamlet_.
‘A Paradise is to be made in a raised spot, with curtains and
cloths of silk hung round it at such a height that persons
in the Paradise may be visible from the shoulders upwards.
Fragrant flowers and leaves are to be set round about, and
divers trees put therein with hanging fruit, so as to give the
likeness of a most delicate spot. Then must come the Saviour
clothed in a dalmatic, and Adam and Eve be brought before him.
Adam is to wear a red tunic and Eve a woman’s robe of white,
with a white silk cloak; and they are both to stand before
the Figure, Adam the nearer with composed countenance, while
Eve appears somewhat more modest. And the Adam must be well
trained when to reply and to be neither too quick nor too
slow in his replies. And not only he, but all the personages
must be trained to speak composedly, and to fit convenient
gesture to the matter of their speech. Nor must they foist in a
syllable or clip one of the verse, but must enounce firmly and
repeat what is set down for them in due order. Whosoever names
Paradise is to look and point towards it.’
After a _lectio_ and a chant by the choir, the dialogue begins. The
_Figura_ instructs Adam and Eve as to their duties and inducts them into
Paradise.
‘Then the Figure must depart to the church and Adam and Eve
walk about Paradise in honest delight. Meanwhile the demons are
to run about the stage (_per plateas_), with suitable gestures,
approaching the Paradise from time to time and pointing out the
forbidden fruit to Eve, as though persuading her to eat it.
Then the Devil is to come and address Adam.’
The _diabolus_ thinks he is prevailing upon Adam. He joins the other
demons and make sallies about the _plateae_. Then he returns _hylaris et
gaudens_ to the charge. But he fails.
‘Then, sadly and with downcast countenance, he shall leave
Adam, and go to the doors of hell, and hold council with the
other demons. Thereafter he shall make a sally amongst the
people, and then approach Paradise on Eve’s side, addressing
her with joyful countenance and insinuating (_blandiens_)
manner.’
Eve, too, is hard to persuade, and is scolded by Adam for listening to
the _diabolus_. But when a _serpens artificiose compositus_ rises hard by
the trunk of the forbidden tree, she lends her ear, is won over, takes
the apple and gives it to Adam.
‘Then Adam is to eat part of the apple; and after eating it he
shall immediately recognize his sin and debase himself. He must
now be out of sight of the people, and shall put off his solemn
raiment, and put on poor raiment sewn together of fig-leaves,
and with an air of extreme dolour shall begin his lament.’
When the Figure ‘wearing a stole’ comes again, Adam and Eve hide in a
corner of Paradise, and when called upon stand up, ‘not altogether erect,
but for shame of their sin somewhat bowed and very sad.’ They are driven
out, and an angel with a radiant sword is put at the gate of Paradise.
The Figure returns to the church.
‘Then Adam shall have a spade and Eve a hoe, and they shall
begin to till the soil and sow corn therein. And when they
have sown, they shall go and sit down a while, as if wearied
with toil, and anon look tearfully at Paradise, beating their
breasts. Meanwhile shall come the devil and shall plant thorns
and thistles in their tillage, and avoid. And when Adam and Eve
come to their tillage and see the thorns and thistles sprung
up, they shall be smitten with violent grief and shall throw
themselves on the earth and sit there, beating their breasts
and thighs and betraying grief by their gestures. And Adam
shall begin a lament.’
Now the last scene is at hand.
‘Then shall come the devil and three or four devils with
him, carrying in their hands chains and iron fetters, which
they shall put on the necks of Adam and Eve. And some shall
push and others pull them to hell; and hard by hell shall be
other devils ready to meet them, who shall hold high revel
(_tripudium_) at their fall. And certain other devils shall
point them out as they come, and shall snatch them up and
carry them into hell; and there shall they make a great smoke
arise, and call aloud to each other with glee in their hell,
and clash their pots and kettles, that they may be heard
without. And after a little delay the devils shall come out and
run about the stage; but some shall remain in hell.’
The shorter play of Cain and Abel is similarly conceived. The sacrifices
are offered on two great stones ‘which shall have been made ready for
the purpose’; and at the end of the performance the devils hale off Cain
and Abel also to hell ‘beating Cain often; but Abel they shall lead more
gently.’ The prophets, who have been prepared in a secret spot, now
advance one by one and deliver their prophecies. Their appearance is
described much as in the earlier _Prophetae_, and it is noted that each
in turn at the finish of his harangue is to be led off to hell by the
devils.
Unless the _Adam_ extended much beyond the text left to us,
a comparatively small number of _loca_ would suffice for its
representation. The contemporary Anglo-Norman Resurrection play required
thirteen, as is set out at length in a versified prologue:
‘En ceste manere recitom
La seinte resurreccion.
Primerement apareillons
Tus les lius e les mansions:
Le crucifix primerement
E puis apres le monument.
Une jaiole i deit aver
Pur les prisons emprisoner.
Enfer seit mis de cele part,
E mansions de l’altre part,
E puis le ciel; et as estals
Primes Pilate od ces vassals.
Sis u set chivaliers aura.
Caïphas en l’altre serra;
Od lui seit la jeuerie,
Puis Joseph, cil d’Arimachie.
El quart liu seit danz Nichodemes.
Chescons i ad od sei les soens.
El quint les deciples Crist.
Les treis Maries saient el sist.
Si seit pourvéu que l’om face
Galilée en mi la place;
Jemaüs uncore i seit fait,
U Jhesu fut al hostel trait;
E cum la gent est tute asise,
E la pés de tutez parz mise,
Dan Joseph, cil d’Arimachie,
Venge a Pilate, si lui die.’
I have ventured to arrange these _lius_ (_loca_) and _mansions_ (_domus_)
or _estals_ (_sedes_), upon the indications of the prologue, in the
following plan:
[Illustration]
And I would point out that such a scheme is simply a continuation of the
arrangement down the choir and nave of a church suggested above[273].
The crucifix is where it would stand in the church, above the altar. The
place of the monument corresponds to that most usual for the _sepulchrum_
on the north side of the chancel. The positions of heaven and hell are
those in the former case of the stairs up to the rood-loft, in the
latter of the stairs down to the crypt; and what, in a church, should
serve for hell and heaven but crypt and rood-loft[274]? The Galilee
answers to the porch at the west end of the church, which we know to have
been so called[275]; and the castle of Emmaus stands in the middle of
the nave, just as it did in the Fleury _Peregrini_. With my conjectural
plan may be compared this actual plan of a sixteenth-century stage from
Donaueschingen, in which a similar principle is apparent, the three
divisions formed by cross-barriers corresponding to the three divisions
of a church—sanctuary, choir, nave[276].
[Illustration: PLAN OF DONAUESCHINGEN PASSION-PLAY STAGE (_sixteenth
century_).
A. B. C. The three divisions of the stage, corresponding to the nave,
choir, and sanctuary of a church.
1. The first door.
2. Hell.
3. The Garden of Gethsemane.
4. Mount Olivet.
5. The second door.
6. Herod’s palace.
7. Pilate’s palace.
8. The pillar of scourging.
9. The pillar for the cock.
10. The house of Caiaphas.
11. The house of Annas.
12. The house of the Last Supper.
13. The third door.
14, 15, 16, 17. Graves from which the dead arise.
18, 19. Crosses of the two thieves.
20. Cross of Christ.
21. The Holy Sepulchre.
22. Heaven.]
The Anglo-Norman Resurrection play was pretty clearly out of doors[277];
and the double line of _sedes_ may be thought of as stretching from the
west door of the church right across the market-place. In _Adam_ the
_Figura_ comes and goes from and to the church, which thus serves for
a _ciel_; in the Benedictbeuern Christmas play, the chair of Augustine
is set _in fronte ecclesiae_. This arrangement, also, can be paralleled
from later plays, both French and German. At Freiburg in 1504 the stage
was built across the cathedral yard from the south door to the Kaufhaus,
a space of some 110 feet long[278]. At Rouen, in 1474, the _establies_
went across the market-place from the Axe and Crown to the Angel[279].
It must not, however, be supposed that the rectangular stage survived as
the invariable type. In particular a round type was sometimes preferred.
The Cornish guary-plays were given in rounds, and a round is figured in a
fifteenth-century miniature by Jean Fouquet, representing a play of Saint
Apollonia[280].
I have spoken of a stage, but I am not sure that there was any stage in
the sense of a platform. There is certainly no such scaffold in Fouquet’s
miniature, and the _plateae_ of the Fleury _Suscitatio Lazari_ and
the _Adam_ are probably only the open spaces kept free for the actors
between the _sedes_[281]. In the _Adam_ the devils are able to make
sallies from the _plateae_ amongst the spectators. The latter probably
crowded upon barriers between the _sedes_. In the miniature, however,
the _sedes_ stand close together and are considerably raised, with
ladders running up to them. The spectators stand beneath. The prologue
to the Anglo-Norman _Resurrection_ speaks of _la gent_ as seated, and
possibly raised scaffolds for the audience were already in use. These
were certainly known later, and the descriptions of some of them as
no less than nine stories high have given rise to an erroneous theory
that the plays were performed upon a many-storied stage[282]. It is
clear that this was not really the case. All the _sedes_ were on the
same level, except that, for greater dignity, the Calvary, the Heaven,
the Paradise might be, as in _Adam_, _loco eminentiore_, and that the
_infernum_ or hell, conventionally represented by the head and open
gullet of a monstrous dragon, was low down, as if in the bowels of the
earth[283]. It should be added that, as early as the first quarter of
the twelfth century, plays had begun to make their way from the church,
if not into the open, at any rate into buildings of domestic use. The
authority for this is Gerhoh of Reichersberg, who speaks of performances
in the refectory of Augsburg, when he was _magister scolae_ there about
1123[284]. Some of the Fleury or other early plays may conceivably have
been intended for the refectory.
The expansion of the cycles caused difficulties of time, as well as of
space. Without a compression of manner alien to the long-winded Middle
Ages, it was sometimes impossible to get the whole of the matter to be
treated within the limits of a single day. The problem was amenable to
more than one solution. The performance could be spread over two or
more sittings. The first recorded example of such an arrangement is at
Cividale in 1298[285], but it is one that would naturally suggest itself,
especially for the Easter cycle, which fell naturally enough into the two
dramas of Passion and Resurrection, from which, indeed, it sprang. In
the Frankfort cue-book of the fourteenth century, it is carefully noted,
that if the audience are being kept too long, the _rectores_ of the play
shall defer the Resurrection to a second day[286]. Another device, which
does not occur so early, was to divide the cycle into parts and play them
in successive years. This method was adopted with the play of the Seven
Joys of Mary at Brussels[287], and English examples will be found in a
later chapter[288].
The cycles required in many cases a larger number of actors than the
ecclesiastical bodies, even with the aid of wandering clerks and the
cloister schools, could supply. It was necessary to press the laity into
the service. The Easter play, of which the thirteenth-century anchoress
Wilburgis was disappointed, was acted _tam a clero quam a populo_[289].
It was a further step in the same direction when the laity themselves
took over the control and financing of plays. For this one must look
mainly to that most important element in mediaeval town life, the guilds.
Just as the Feast of Fools passed from the hands of the clergy into
those of the _sociétés joyeuses_, so did the religious drama into those
of more serious confraternities. The _burgenses_ of Cahors, who in 1290
and 1302 played a _ludum de miraculis beati Marcialis_ in the graveyard
of St. Martial of Limoges, not improbably belonged to a guild formed
to do honour to the patron[290]. The primary purpose of such guilds as
these was devotional, and if they acted plays, it was doubtless with
the countenance and assistance of the clergy to whose church they were
affiliated. But those more secular and literary guilds, the _puys_, also
undertook to act religious plays no less than _sotties_ and farces; and
in them it may be suspected that the influence of the clergy would have
to contend shrewdly with that of the minstrels[291]. It is not surprising
to come in time upon signs of a rivalry between lay and clerical actors.
Thus, in 1378, the scholars of St. Paul’s are said to have presented a
petition to Richard II, praying him to prohibit a play by some ‘unexpert
people’ of the History of the Old Testament, a subject which they
themselves had prepared at great expense for the ensuing Christmas. It
may have been some similar dispute which led about the same date to the
formation of the Parisian _Confrérie de la Passion_, which received from
Charles VI a privilege to perform in and about the city, and became a
model for many similar _confréries_ throughout France. The charter bears
the date of 1402. In 1398 the provost of Paris seems to have been moved
to forbid dramatic performances without special sanction in the city
or suburbs, a prohibition which, by the way, was flouted on the day of
its proclamation at Saint-Maur. Exactly what led to this interposition
of authority is not clear; but it probably induced the _confrérie_,
who may have had a previous less formal existence, to apply for their
privilege[292]. The _confrérie de la Passion_ seem to have acted, as a
rule, in closed rooms. It is not unlikely that the _puys_ did the same.
The altered conditions of representation naturally reacted upon the style
and temper of the plays themselves. This is not a subject that can be
discussed in detail here, but a few points may be briefly noted. The
first is the gradual substitution of vernacular tongues for the Latin of
the liturgical drama. This was almost inevitable, where laymen performed
to a lay audience. But the liturgical drama itself did not absolutely
exclude the vernacular. In the _Sponsus_, and in the _Suscitatio Lazari_
and the Nicholas play of Hilarius, fragments of French are inserted,
just as they are in the ‘farced’ epistles used at the feasts of certain
saints, notably at that of St. Stephen[293]. It was a step further when
in the fourteenth century the nuns of Origny Ste.-Benoîte rewrote their
liturgical _Quem quaeritis_, leaving indeed some of the more solemn
parts, such as the dialogue of the Maries with the angel, or that of
the Magdalen with the risen Christ, in Latin, but turning the rest into
French[294]. Such an arrangement as this of Origny Ste.-Benoîte became in
the transition plays, intended for out-of-door performance to a popular
audience, the rule. There was naturally some local variation. Of the two
longer scholars’ plays in the Benedictbeuern manuscript, the Christmas
play is wholly, the Passion play mainly, in Latin. A large proportion of
Latin seems to have been retained in the Frankfort Passion play of the
fourteenth century. But on the whole, as the texts grow, and especially
as they draw upon the apocryphal books or the great mediaeval vernacular
epics for matter not in the liturgical plays, the vernacular steadily
gets the upper hand, until in the latest versions the traces of Latin
must be regarded as mere survivals.
In some cases where Latin and vernacular appear together, the latter
is of the nature of a translation, or rough and often much expanded
paraphrase, of the former. This type of mixed and obviously transitional
text can, as it happens, be illustrated from French, German, and English
sources. It occurs, for instance, in the _Adam_. Here the Adam and Eve
and Cain and Abel scenes are wholly, but for the preliminary _lectio_ and
the interpolated chants by the choir, in Norman-French. The prophecies,
however, are given in the double form. Thus Isaiah says:
‘Egredietur virga de radice Jesse, et flos de radice eius
ascendet, et requiescet super eum spiritus domini.
‘Or vus dirrai merveillus diz:
Jessé sera de sa raïz.
Verge en istra, qui fera flor,
Qui ert digne de grant unor.
Saint espirit l’avra si clos,
Sor ceste flor iert sun repos.’
There are many similar examples in German plays, of which the most
complete is a _Quem quaeritis_ in a fourteenth-century manuscript at
Trèves[295]. In England Professor Skeat discovered at Shrewsbury a
fragmentary text of this type in a manuscript of the early fifteenth
century[296]. It is written in a northern, probably Yorkshire, dialect,
and contains the part, with cues, of a single actor in three plays, a
_Pastores_, a _Quem quaeritis_, and a _Peregrini_. In the first he played
the Third Shepherd, in the second the Third Mary, in the last probably
Cleophas. The fragment shows clearly enough the way in which the Latin
text was first sung by a group of performers together, and then expanded
by them separately in the vernacular. The two documents last quoted mark
not only the transition from Latin to the vernacular, but also that from
the sung drama of the liturgies to the spoken drama of the great cycles.
In Professor Skeat’s Shrewsbury fragments the Latin alone is musically
noted. In the Trèves _Quem quaeritis_ the Latin and portions of the
German are noted, and a careful distinction is made between the lines
to be spoken and those to be sung by the use of the terms _cantat_ and
_dicit_ in the rubrics[297].
Again, the laicization of the drama was accompanied by a further
development of the secular and even comic elements, of which the germs
already existed in the plays. A more human and less distinctively
ecclesiastical handling became possible[298]. The figure of Herod
offered a melodramatic type of ranting tyrant which the tradition of the
stage did not readily forget. The life of the unconverted Magdalen _in
gaudio_ gave the dramatist his opportunity to paint scenes of wholly
secular luxury and romance. Naturally the comic developments attached
themselves largely to personalities not already defined in the Testament
narratives. The _Mercator_, for instance, whose domesticities with his
wife and his apprentice do so much to enliven the later German plays, is
a thoroughly characteristic production of the mediaeval folk spirit, for
the delectation of which Rutebeuf wrote the _Dit de l’Erberie_[299]. It
is not, perhaps, altogether unjustifiable to trace a relation between him
and the inveterate quack doctor of the spring folk drama itself[300].
This would not be the only point of contact between the _ludi_ of the
Church and those of the folk. The significance, from this point of view,
of Balaam’s ass has already been touched upon[301]. And in the growth of
the devil scenes, from their first beginnings in the _Sponsus_ or in the
devil-deacon of the _Tollite portas_[302], to their importance in the
_Adam_ or the various treatments of the Fall of Lucifer and the Harrowing
of Hell, may we not trace the influence of those masked and blackened
demon figures who from all time had been a dear scandal of the Kalends
and the Feast of Fools[303]? It is certain that the imps who sallied
amongst the spectators and haled the Fathers off to their limbo of
clashed kettles and caldrons must have been an immensely popular feature
of the _Adam_; and it is noteworthy that in more than one place the
_compagnies joyeuses_ who inherited the Feast of Fools joined forces with
more serious _confréries_ and provided comic actors for the religious
plays[304].
In yet another way the coming of the vernacular affected the character
of the religious drama. It had been cosmopolitan; it was to be
national: and from the fourteenth century, in spite of a few lendings
and borrowings, and of a certain uniformity in the general lines of
development, it really requires separate treatment in each of the
European countries[305]. In Italy the divergence from the common type
was perhaps most marked of all, although I think that Signor D’Ancona
and others have perhaps pushed the doctrine of the independence and
isolation of Italian drama to an extreme. They consider that it almost
began afresh with the religious stirrings of the Umbrian Flagellants
in 1260. The _compagnie_ or associations of _disciplinati_, who were
the outcome of this thoroughly folk movement, were wont, as they
lashed themselves, to sing hymns of praise, _laudes_, whence they got
the secondary name of _laudesi_. The lauds were mostly sung in the
chapels of the _compagnie_ after mass and a sermon on Sundays. Several
fourteenth-century collections are extant, and contain examples intended
for use throughout the circle of the ecclesiastical year. Many of them
were dialogued, and appear to have been recited in costume with scenic
accessories. The dramatic lauds were specifically known as _devozioni_,
and by the end of the fourteenth century were in some cases performed
rather elaborately upon a _talamo_ or stage in the nave of a church,
with _luoghi deputati_ for the accommodation of the chief actors.
According to Signor D’Ancona, the _devozioni_, which were composed by
poor folk, were taken direct from the liturgy and owed little more than
the initial hint or impulse to the liturgical drama; while at the other
end of these developments, they became the source of the out-of-door
and splendidly-staged _sacre rappresentazioni_ which originated in
Florence in the fifteenth century and thence spread to other Italian
cities[306]. On this theory it must be observed that the _devozioni_ have
not been shown to be independent of the liturgical drama, and that the
derivation of the _sacre rappresentazioni_ from the _devozioni_ is purely
conjectural. The _sacre rappresentazioni_ were out of doors and produced
by the clergy or laity; the _devozioni_, which have not been traced to
Florence, were produced indoors by religious guilds of a very distinct
type. The _sacre rappresentazioni_, moreover, included subjects, such
as the _profeti_, which are not within the cycle of the _devozioni_,
but do belong to the liturgical drama. It is at least a tenable view,
that the _devozioni_ were merely a backwater of the drama, and that the
_sacre rappresentazioni_ were derived, like the fifteenth-century plays
of other countries, from the liturgical drama through the medium of such
transitional types as those already noted at Padua, Siena, and Cividale.
The fact that the only transitional texts preserved are those of the
_devozioni_ has perhaps led to an exaggerated estimate of the importance
of these. Even liturgical dramas are rare in Italy, although there are
sufficient thoroughly to establish their existence. The chroniclers,
however, mention one or two events which point to another dramatic
tradition in Italy than that of the _devozioni_. At Florence itself, in
1306, there was a show of Heaven and Hell upon the Arno, which though
merely pantomimic, may have been based on some dramatic representation
of the Last Judgement[307]. At Milan, in 1336, was a _Stella_, in which
the _Magi_ rode through the streets, and Herod sat by the columns of
San Lorenzo[308]. Both of these performances, like those at Padua and
Cividale and the _sacre rappresentazioni_ themselves, were out of doors.
It is true that the _sacre rappresentazioni_ fell less into big cycles
than did the contemporary plays of other countries: but cycles were not
unknown[309], and it must be borne in mind that the extreme beauty and
elaboration of the Florentine _mise-en-scène_ made a limited scheme, on
grounds both of time and expense, almost imperative.
With out-of-door plays climatic conditions began to be of importance.
Even in sunny France, Christmas is not exactly the season to hang about
the market-place looking at an interminable drama. It is not to be
denied that Christmas plays continued to be occasionally acted well
through the fifteenth century[310], but the number of these, compared
with the Passions, is small[311]. Even Easter weather is not invariably
genial. Nor, as the cycles lengthened, was the attachment of them to
any one of the feasts, whose events they commemorated, a matter of
first-rate importance. A tendency set in towards playing them as far
as possible in the long warm days of the summer months. The first
Whitsuntide performances are those at Cividale in 1298 and 1303; and
Whitsuntide became a very favourite date[312]. At Florence the great
patronal feast and procession of St. John the Baptist on June 24 was a
natural occasion for _sacre rappresentazioni_[313]. Another high day
for the cyclical drama from the fourteenth century onwards, notably in
England[314] and Spain[315], and to a much less degree in Germany[316]
and France[317], was the recently-established feast of Corpus Christi.
This, the most materialistic of all the Church’s celebrations, is in
honour of the mystery of the transubstantiated sacrament. It originated
locally in an alleged revelation to Juliana, a Cistercian religious of
Liège. Pope Urban IV designed in 1264 to make it a universal festival,
but he died in the same year, and the bull which he had issued remained
inoperative until it was confirmed by Clement V at the council of Vienne
in 1311. Corpus Christi day was the Thursday after Trinity Sunday.
An office was compiled for it by St. Thomas Aquinas, and the leading
ceremony was a great procession in which the host, escorted by local
dignitaries, religious bodies and guilds, was borne through the streets
and displayed successively at out-of-door stations[318]. When the plays
were transferred to Corpus Christi day, they became more or less attached
to this procession. Sometimes, perhaps, the procession served as a mere
preliminary parade for the actors, such as sometimes preceded plays at
other times[319]. The play itself would follow on a fixed stage of the
ordinary type. But the method of the great English cycles seems to point
to a more complete merging of play and procession than this. The _domus_,
_loci_, or _sedes_ were set upon wheels, and known as ‘pageants[320]’;
and the performance was gone through during the procession, being
repeated at the various stations made by the host. If the cycle was a
very long one, time could be saved by making an early play at one station
coincident with a later play at that in front of it. It is, however,
easy to see that with the arrangement here suggested the popularity of
the pageants might throw the strictly religious aspect of the procession
rather into the shade. The two would then be severed again, but the play
might still retain its processional character. This is not, I think, an
unreasonable conjecture as to how the type of play found, say at York,
may have come into existence[321]. To Chester, where the plays were not
on Corpus Christi day, but at Whitsuntide, the method must have been
transferred at a later date.
During this brief survey of the critical period for the religious drama
between the middle of the thirteenth and the middle of the fourteenth
century, I have attempted to bring into relief the tendencies that were
at work for its remodelling. But it must not be supposed that either
the tendency to expansion or the tendency to secularization acted
universally and uniformly. The truth is quite otherwise. To the end of
the history of the religious drama, the older types, which it threw out
as it evolved, co-existed with the newer ones[322]. The Latin tropes and
liturgical dramas held their place in the church services. And in the
vernaculars, side by side with the growing Nativities and Passions, there
continued to be acted independent plays of more than one sort. There
were the original short plays, such as the _Stella_, the _Annunciation_,
the _Sponsus_, the _Antichrist_, by the running together of which the
cycles came into being. There were plays, on the other hand, which
originated as episodes in the cycles, and only subsequently attained
to an independent existence. The majority of these were Old Testament
plays, budded off, like the _Daniel_, from the _Prophetae_. And finally
there were numerous plays drawn from hagiological legends, many of which
never came into connexion with the cycles at all. Thus in the transition
period we find, not only plays on St. Nicholas and St. Catherine for
which liturgical models existed, but also the great French series of
Miracles of the Virgin, and plays on Saints Theophilus, Dorothy, Martial,
and Agnes[323]. The natural tendency of great churches to magnify their
own patron saints led to further multiplication of themes. In the same
way, long after the lay guilds and corporations had taken up the drama,
performances continued to be given or superintended by the clergy and
their scholars[324]. Priests and monks supplied texts and lent vestments
for the lay plays. To the last, the church served from time to time as
a theatre. All these points, as well as the traces of their liturgical
origin lingering in the cycles, will be fully illustrated, so far as
England is concerned, in the following chapters.
The question presents itself: What was the official attitude of the high
ecclesiastical authorities towards the growing religious plays? It is
not precisely answered, as the history of the Feast of Fools has shown,
by the fact that the chapters and inferior clergy encouraged and took
part in them. The liturgical drama had its motive, as St. Ethelwold
is careful to point out, in a desire for devotion and the edification
of the vulgar[325]. The hope of affording a counter-attraction to
the spring and winter _ludi_ of hard-dying paganism probably went for
something. Herrad of Landsberg, in the twelfth century, utters a regret
that the _Stella_ rightly instituted at Epiphany by the Fathers of
the Church had given place to a shameless revel[326]. But a contrary
opinion to Herrad’s arose almost contemporaneously amongst the reforming
anti-imperial clergy of Germany. This finds expression more than once
in the writings of Gerhoh of Reichersberg[327]. He scoffs at the monks
of Augsburg who, when he was _magister scolae_ there about 1122, could
only be induced to sup in the refectory, when a representation of Herod
or the Innocents or some other quasi-theatrical spectacle made an excuse
for a feast[328]. And he devotes a chapter of his _De Investigatione
Antichristi_, written about 1161, to an argument that clergy who turn
the churches into theatres are doing the work of that very Antichrist
of whom they make a show[329]. Evidently Gerhoh has been stung by the
lampooning of his party as the _Hypocritae_ in the pro-imperialist
_Antichristus_ which is still extant. But he includes in his condemnation
plays of a less special and polemical character, referring especially
to the Nativity cycle and to a lost play of _Elisaeus_. He repeats some
of the old patristic objections against _larvae_ and _spectacula_, and
tells tales, such as Prynne will tell after him, of how horrors mimicked
by actors have been miraculously converted into verities[330]. Literary
historians occasionally commit themselves to the statement that Innocent
III forbade the clergy to participate in miracle-plays[331]. It is
more than doubtful whether this was so. The prohibition in question
is familiar to us, and it is clear that the _ludi theatrales_ which
Innocent barred from the churches were primarily the Feasts of Fools,
and the like[332]. And as a matter of fact the _glossa ordinaria_ to the
decretal by Bernard de Bottone, which itself dates from about 1263, so
interprets the words of the Pope as expressly to allow of Christmas and
Easter representations calculated to stimulate devotion[333]. Yet there
would have been no need for the gloss to have been written had not an
opposite interpretation also been current. It was perhaps on the strength
of the decree that another reformer, Robert Grosseteste, justified his
action when in 1244 he directed his archdeacons to exterminate, so
far as they could, the _miracula_, which he put on the same level as
May-games and harvest-Mays, or the _scotales_ of the folk[334]. And it
is certainly appealed to before the end of the thirteenth century in
the _Manuel des Péchés_ of the Anglo-Norman William of Waddington[335].
Robert Grosseteste presumably, and William of Waddington specifically,
objected to _miracula_ even out of doors, which is surely stretching the
words of Innocent III beyond what they will reasonably bear. In any case
the austere view of the matter was not that which prevailed. The lax
discipline of the ‘Babylonish captivity’ at Avignon, which allowed the
Feast of Fools to grow up unchecked through the fourteenth century, was
not likely to boggle at the plays. The alleged indulgence, not without
modern parallels[336], of Clement VI to the spectators of the Chester
plays and the performance of a _Stella_ given by the English bishops in
honour of their continental colleagues at the council of Constance in
1417[337] are two out of many proofs that the later mediaeval Church
found no difficulty in accommodating itself to the somewhat disconcerting
by-product of its own liturgy[338]. Such opposition to the religious
drama as can be traced after the thirteenth century came not from the
heads of the Church but from its heretics. It is chiefly represented
by a curious _Tretise of miraclis pleyinge_ which dates from the end
of the fourteenth century and may safely be referred to a Wyclifite
origin[339]. The burden of it is the sin of making ‘oure pleye and bourde
of tho myraclis and werkis that God so ernestfully wrouȝt to us.’ On this
note the anonymous preacher harps rather monotonously, and adds that
‘myraclis pleyinge ... makith to se veyne siȝtis of degyse, aray of men
and wymmen by yvil continaunse, eyther stiryng othere to letcherie and of
debatis.’ Like Gerhoh of Reichersberg, he thinks the plays ‘gynnys of the
dyvul to drawen men to the byleve of Anti-Crist.’ He elaborately confutes
the views that they are for the worship of God, or the more compassion of
Christ, or lead to conversion. He will not allow that ‘summe recreatioun
men moten han, and bettere it is or lesse yvele that thei han theyre
recreacoun by pleyinge of myraclis than bi pleyinge of other japis.’ The
analysis of the piece need not, perhaps, be pushed further. The opinions
expressed do not appear to have had any weight either of popular or of
ecclesiastical sentiment behind them; but they curiously antedate the
histriomastic tracts of many a sixteenth and seventeenth-century Puritan.
This chapter may be fitly closed by a few words on the subject
of nomenclature[340]. The old classical terms of _tragoedia_ and
_comoedia_ are not of course normally used of the religious plays until
the Renaissance influences come in towards the end of the fifteenth
century. Their mediaeval sense, in fact, implies nothing distinctively
dramatic[341]. The liturgical plays have often a purely liturgical
heading, such as _Processio Asinorum_[342], or _Officium Sepulchri_[343],
or _Ordo Rachaelis_[344]. Perhaps _officium_ may be taken to denote
the thing itself, the special service or section of a service; _ordo_
rather the book, the written directions for carrying out the _officium_.
Or they have a title derived from their subject, such as _Visitatio
Sepulchri_[345], or _Suscitatio Lazari_[346]. Or they are introduced
in terms which cannot be said to have a technical signification at
all, _ad faciendam similitudinem_[347], _ad suscipiendum_[348], _ad
repraesentandum_[349]. _Similitudo_ I do not find outside Fleury, nor
the corresponding _exemplum_ outside the Benedictbeuern manuscript[350].
From _ad repraesentandum_, however, a technical term does arise, and
_repraesentatio_ must be considered, more than any other word, as the
mediaeval Latin equivalent of ‘dramatic performance[351].’ This the
Italian vernacular preserves as _rappresentazione_. A synonym for
_repraesentatio_, which naturally came into use when the intention of
recreation began to substitute itself for devotion, is _ludus_, with its
vernacular renderings, all in common use, of _jeu_, _Spiel_, ‘play.’ But
_ludus_, as already pointed out[352], is a generic term for ‘amusement,’
and the special sense of ‘dramatic play’ is only a secondary one[353].
‘Clerks’ play’ as a variant for miracle-play is occasionally found[354].
Yet another synonym which makes its appearance in the twelfth century,
is _miraculum_; and this, originally a mere convenient shorthand for
_repraesentatio miraculi_, came, especially in England, to stand for
‘religious play’ in general[355]. _Mystère_, or ‘mystery,’ on the other
hand, is not English at all, in a dramatic sense[356], and in France
first appears as _misterie_ in the charter given by Charles VI in 1402
to the Parisian _confrérie de la Passion_[357]. This term also acquires
a very general signification by the end of the fifteenth century. Its
radical meaning is still matter of dispute. Probably it is derived from
_ministerium_, should be spelt _mistère_, and is spelt _mystère_ by
a natural confusion with the derivative of μυστήριον. Even then the
question remains, what sort of _ministerium_? M. Petit de Julleville
would explain it as a ‘religious function,’ and thus equate it precisely
with _officium_[358]. Only it does not appear in connexion with the
liturgical plays[359], and perhaps it is more plausible to regard it
as denoting the ‘function’ of the guild of actors, just as its doublet
_menestrie_, the English ‘minstrelsy,’ denotes the ‘function’ of the
minstrels[360], or its doublet _métier_, which in English becomes in fact
‘mystery,’ denotes the ‘function’ of the craft guilds. Perhaps the theory
of M. de Julleville finds a little support from the term _actio_, which
appears, besides its meaning in connexion with the Mass[361], to be once
at least used for a play[362]. At any rate _actus_ is so used as a Latin
equivalent of the Spanish _auto_[363].
CHAPTER XXI
GUILD PLAYS AND PARISH PLAYS
[_Bibliographical Note._—The English miracle play has been
often, fully, and admirably studied from the point of view
of dramatic literature; perhaps less so from that of stage
history. The best accounts are those of B. Ten Brink,
_History of English Literature_, bk. v, chs. 2-6 (trans. W.
C. Robinson, vol. ii, 1893); A. W. Ward, _History of English
Dramatic Literature_ (2nd ed., 1899), vol. i, ch. 1; W.
Creizenach, _Geschichte des neueren Dramas_, vol. i (1893);
and the introduction to A. W. Pollard, _English Miracle Plays,
Moralities and Interludes_ (3rd ed., 1898). These supersede
J. P. Collier, _History of English Dramatic Poetry_ (2nd ed.,
1879), vol. ii, and J. L. Klein, _Geschichte des englischen
Dramas_ (1876), vol. i. Other useful books are J. A. Symonds,
_Shakspere’s Predecessors in the English Drama_ (1884), ch.
3; K. L. Bates, _The English Religious Drama_ (1893), and J.
J. Jusserand, _Le Théâtre en Angleterre_ (1881), ch. 2. The
substance of this last is incorporated in the same writer’s
_Literary History of the English People_, vol. i (1895), bk.
iii, ch. 6. W. J. Courthope, _History of English Poetry_,
vol. i (1895), ch. 10, should also be consulted, as well as
the valuable detailed investigations of A. Hohlfeld, _Die
altenglischen Kollektivmisterien_, in _Anglia_, vol. xi (1889),
and C. Davidson, _Studies in the English Mystery Plays_
(1892). I do not think that S. W. Clarke, _The Miracle Play
in England_ (n.d.), and C. Hastings, _Le Théâtre français
et anglais_ (1900, trans. 1901), add very much. A. Ebert,
_Die englischen Mysterien_, in _Jahrbuch für romanische und
englische Literatur_, vol. i (1859), is an early manifestation
of German interest in the subject, and the still earlier native
learning may be found in T. Warton, _History of English Poetry_
(ed. W. C. Hazlitt, 1871), §§ 6, 33; E. Malone, _Historical
Account of the English Stage_, in _Variorum Shakespeare_
(1821), vol. iii; W. Hone, _Ancient Mysteries Described_
(1823). The antiquarianism of T. Sharp, _Dissertation on the
Pageants or Dramatic Mysteries Anciently Performed at Coventry_
(1825), is still a mine of material on the _Realien_ of the
stage.—The four great cycles have been edited as follows, in
most cases with important introductions: the _Chester Plays_ by
T. Wright (_Shakespeare Society_, 1843-7) and by H. Deimling
(_E. E. T. S._, part only issued in 1893); the _York Plays_
by L. T. Smith (1885); the _Towneley_ or _Wakefield Plays_
by an uncertain editor (_Surtees Society_, 1836), and by G.
England and A. W. Pollard (_E. E. T. S._ 1897); the _Ludus
Coventriae_, by J. O. Halliwell [-Phillipps] (_Shakespeare
Society_, 1841). A miscellaneous collection of late plays
from one of the _Bodleian Digby MSS._ has been printed by T.
Sharp (_Abbotsford Club_, 1835), and F. J. Furnivall (_New
Shakespeare Society_, 1882, _E. E. T. S._ 1896). The Cornish
cycle is in E. Norris, _The Ancient Cornish Drama_ (1859).
Good selections of typical plays are in A. W. Pollard’s book,
and J. M. Manly, _Specimens of the Pre-Shakespearean Drama_
(1897), vol. i. Older books of the same kind are J. P. Collier,
_Five Miracle Plays, or Scriptural Dramas_ (1836), and W.
Marriott, _A Collection of English Miracle Plays or Mysteries_
(Basle, 1838). The bibliographies given by Miss Bates and by
F. H. Stoddard, _References for Students of Miracle Plays and
Mysteries_ (1887), may be supplemented from my _Appendices of
Representations_ and _Texts_, which I have tried to make as
complete as possible.]
There is no reason to doubt that England had its full share in the
earlier development of the religious drama. Texts of the liturgical
period are, indeed, rare. The tenth-century version of the _Quem
quaeritis_ from Winchester and the fourteenth-century version from Dublin
stand, at least for the present, alone. But the wholesale destruction of
liturgical books at the Reformation is sufficient to account for such
a sparseness, and a few stray notices gathered from the wreckage of
time bear sufficient witness to the presence in this country of several
amongst the more widespread types of liturgical play. The Lichfield
statutes (1188-98) provide for _repraesentationes_ of the _Pastores_, the
_Resurrectio_, the _Peregrini_; those of York (†1255) for the _Pastores_
and the _Tres Reges_; a Salisbury inventory of 1222 includes ‘crowns’
or more probably ‘stars’ (_coronae_) _ad repraesentationes faciendas_;
while Lincoln account books of the early fifteenth century appear to
add the _Annuntiatio_ and the _Prophetae_, a _visus_ called _Rubum quem
viderat_ in 1420 perhaps forming a Moses scene in the latter. So late as
1518 the _Quem quaeritis_ was performed in Magdalen College chapel, and
plays of the Nativity and the Resurrection by the clerks of the chapel
are contemplated at about the same date in the household regulations of
the Earl of Northumberland at Leconfield. Nor were dramatic versions of
the legends of saints unknown. I do not trace a St. Nicholas cycle in
England, although Hilarius, in whose repertory a St. Nicholas play is
included, is thought to have been an Englishman by birth. But the memory
of a play of St. Catherine prepared by Geoffrey the Norman at Dunstable
early in the twelfth century was preserved, owing to the accident which
led to Geoffrey ultimately becoming abbot of St. Albans; and towards the
close of the same century William Fitzstephen records the representations
of the miracles of holy confessors and the passions of martyrs which took
the place of minstrelsy in London. For the most part such early plays
are found in close connexion with the cathedrals and great monasteries.
But a document of about 1220, the interpretation of which must, however,
be considered doubtful, would seem to suggest that plays (_actiones_)
were habitually given at no less than five chapelries within the single
parish of Shipton in Oxfordshire, and that the profits thereof formed
an appreciable part of the income derived from that living by the
prebendaries of Salisbury cathedral.
Examples of the transitional forms by which the liturgical drama grew
into the popular religious drama of the great cycles can also be found
in England. At Beverley a Resurrection play is described as taking
place in the graveyard of the minster about 1220. The intrusion of the
vernacular is represented by the curious bilingual text of a single
actor’s parts in the _Pastores_, _Quem quaeritis_ and _Peregrini_,
printed by Professor Skeat from a manuscript found at Shrewsbury. These
are probably still liturgical in character, and it is to be observed
that their subjects are precisely those of the three plays known to
have been used in the neighbouring cathedral of Lichfield. It must
remain a moot point whether the religious drama passed directly, in this
country, from Latin to English, or whether there was a period during
which performances were given in Norman-French. Scholars are inclined
to find an Anglo-Norman dialect in that very important monument of the
transition, the _Repraesentatio Adae_, as well as in an early example of
the expanded Easter play. But even if the authors of these were, like
Hilarius, of English birth, it hardly follows that their productions
were acted in England. Nor do the probable borrowings of the Chester and
other cycles from French texts much affect the question[364]. That the
disfavour with which the austerer section of the clergy looked upon the
vernacular religious plays had its spokesmen in England, was sufficiently
illustrated in the last chapter.
The English miracle-play reaches its full development with the
formation of the great processional cycles almost immediately after the
establishment of the Corpus Christi festival in 1311. The local tradition
of Chester, stripped of a certain confusion between the names of two
distinct mayors of that city which has clung about it, is found to fix
the foundation of the Chester plays in 1328. The date has the authority
of an official municipal document, forms part of a quite consistent
story, several points in which can be independently corroborated, and
is on _a priori_ grounds extremely plausible. Unfortunately, owing to
the comparative scarcity of archives during this period, the first
fifty years of the history of municipal drama are practically a blank.
A mention, about 1350, of a _ludus filiorum Israelis_, in connexion
with a guild of Corpus Christi at Cambridge, spans a wide gulf. There
is no actual record of plays at Chester itself until 1462. Those of
Beverley are first mentioned in 1377, those of York in 1378, and those
of Coventry in 1392. But it must be added that the Beverley plays were
an _antiqua consuetudo_ in 1390, and that those of York were to take
place at stations _antiquitus assignatis_ in 1394. It is in 1378 that
the earliest notice of plays in London, since the days of William
Fitzstephen, comes to light. The fuller records which are from this
time onward available reveal, during the next hundred and fifty years,
a vigorous and widespread dramatic activity throughout the length and
breadth of the land. It manifests itself at such extreme points as the
Cinque Ports in the east, Cornwall in the west, and Newcastle in the
north. It penetrates to Aberdeen and to Dublin. And though naturally
it finds its fullest scope in the annually repeated performances of
several amongst the greater cities, yet it is curious to observe in
what insignificant villages it was from time to time found possible to
organize plays. Performers from thirteen neighbouring places, many of
them quite small, made their way to New Romney between 1399 and 1508;
whilst the churchwardens of Chelmsford, in the twelve years after their
own play in 1562, reaped a profit by hiring out their stock of garments
to the men of some seventeen aspiring parishes. On the other hand,
there were several important towns in which, so far as we can judge
from documents, such as craft ordinances, which would almost certainly
have referred to the plays of the crafts, if these had existed, the
normal type of municipal drama failed to establish itself. London is
one, although here the want was supplied in another way; others are
Northampton, Nottingham, Bristol, Oxford, and Reading. And occasionally
plays, which had once been annual, were allowed to fall into desuetude
and decay. The corporation of Canterbury, for instance, called upon the
crafts about 1500 to revive a Corpus Christi play which for some time
had been ‘left and laid apart.’ Certainly, by the sixteenth century, if
there was still pride and interest taken in many of the municipal plays,
signs were not wanting that they were an institution which had almost
outlived its day. A reason for this need hardly be sought beyond the
_Zeitgeist_. No doubt the plays were a financial burden upon the poorer
crafts and the poorer members of crafts. There was much grumbling at
Beverley in 1411 because certain well-to-do persons (_generosi_), who did
not practise any trade or handicraft, had hitherto escaped the payment
of contributions to the civic function; and municipal authorities were
constantly called upon to adjust and readjust the responsibility for this
and that pageant with the fluctuations of prosperity amongst the various
occupations. But on the other hand, the plays, were the cause of much
and profitable resort to those fortunate towns which possessed them. The
mercers’ guild at Shrewsbury found it necessary to impose a special fine
upon those of its members whose business avocations required them ‘to
ride or goe to Coventrie Faire’ at Corpus Christi tide, and so to miss
the procession of guilds at home[365]. And although the mayor of Coventry
wrote to Thomas Cromwell, in 1539, that the poor commoners were put to
such expense with their plays and pageants that they fared the worse all
the year after, yet against this may be set the statement made to Dugdale
by ‘some old people who had in their younger days been eye-witnesses of
these pageants’ that ‘the confluence of people from farr and neare to
see that shew was extraordinary great, and yeilded noe small advantage
to this cittye.’ Moreover the levy upon individuals was a trifling one;
the whole of the company of smiths at Coventry only paid 3_s._ 4_d._
amongst them for ‘pagent pencys’ in 1552. A _leitourgia_ is always an
unpopular institution, and these complaints resemble nothing so much as
the groans of an opulent London tradesman in the twentieth century over
an extra penny on the education rate. In the smaller places it is clear
that plays, far from being a source of expense, were a recognized method
of raising funds for public purposes. Even in 1220 the _emolumentum
actionum_ from the chapelries of Shipton went to swell the purses of the
Salisbury prebendaries. In 1505 the churchwardens of Kingston-on-Thames
made £4 towards their new steeple by getting up a play for which they
secured the patronage of royalty. At Braintree, in Essex, funds were
similarly raised by Nicholas Udall and others, between 1523 and 1534,
for the repair of the church. I have little doubt that when the mayor
of Coventry said economy he meant Protestantism, just as when, under
Elizabeth, the corporation of London wished to make a Puritanic attack
upon the theatres, they were always smitten with a terrible dread of the
infection of the plague[366].
Certainly the spirit of Protestantism, although it came to be willing to
use the religious drama for its own purposes[367], was inclined to see
both profanity and superstition in the ordinary miracle-plays[368]. Here,
as elsewhere, it inherited the hostile tradition which such reforming
clerics as Gerhoh of Reichersberg in the twelfth century and Robert
Grosseteste in the thirteenth had handed down to Wyclif and his Lollards.
At Bungay in 1514 certain ill-disposed persons ‘brake and threw down five
pageants’ usually borne about the town on Corpus Christi day. One may
fairly suspect, even at this early date, a Lollardist intention in the
outrage, and perhaps also in the interposition of the authority of the
warden of the Cinque Ports to suppress the play of New Romney in 1518.
With the progress of the new ideas the big cycles began to be irregularly
performed or to undergo textual modification. The plays of York, for
example, were shorn in 1548 of the pageants representing the Death,
Assumption, and Coronation of the Virgin. On the other hand, religious
plays sometimes became a rallying-point for those who favoured the old
order of things. There is extant a letter from Henry VIII to the justices
of York, in which he refers to a riot promoted by certain papists at a
play of St. Thomas the Apostle, and warns them not to suffer upon such
occasions any language likely to tend to a breach of the peace. The brief
Marian reaction led to the resumption of the plays in more than one town
which had dropped them. The Lincoln corporation ordered ‘St. Anne’s Gild
with Corpus Cristi play’ to be brought forward again in 1554 and 1555.
In London Henry Machyn records during 1557 a Passion play at the Grey
Friars, and another in the church of St. Olave’s, Silver Street, on the
festival of the patron. The New Romney play was elaborately revived,
after forty-two years’ interval, in 1560. But the process of decay soon
set in again. Even where the plays survived, they were Protestantized,
and as Corpus Christi day was no longer observed, the performances had to
be transferred to some other date. At York the text of the Corpus Christi
play was ‘perused and otherwise amended’ in 1568. In 1569 it was acted
upon Whit-Tuesday. Then it lay by until 1579, when the book was referred
to the archbishop and dean for further revision, and apparently impounded
by them. The Creed play was suppressed, by advice of the dean, in 1568,
as unsuitable to ‘this happie time of the gospell.’ The _Paternoster_
play was revised and played in 1572. Then this text also fell into the
hands of the archbishop, and the corporation seem to have been unable
to recover it. So ended the religious drama in York. In Chester the
municipal authorities stood out gallantly for their plays. John Hankey
and Sir John Savage, mayors in 1572 and 1575 respectively, were called
before the privy council for sanctioning performances in spite of
inhibitions from the archbishop of York and other persons of authority.
They had revised the text, and had a new and Protestant version of the
preliminary ‘banns’ prepared. Copies of the text appear to have been
got ready for yet another performance in 1600, but the local annalists
record that Henry Hardware, then mayor, ‘would not suffer any Playes.’ In
one or two cities, new plays, dealing with apocryphal or other merely
semi-religious themes, were substituted for the old ones. Thus at Lincoln
a ‘standing play’ of the story of Tobit was given in 1564 and 1567; and
in Coventry, where the old cycle had been ‘laid down’ in 1580, an Oxford
scholar was hired in 1584 to write a semi-religious semi-historical drama
of the Destruction of Jerusalem. In 1591, the Conquest of the Danes and
the History of King Edward the Confessor were proposed as alternatives
for this. By the end of the sixteenth century all the cycles of which
most is known had come to an end. The smaller places—Chelmsford in
1574, Braintree in 1579, Bungay in 1591—had sold off their stock of
playing-garments. For such dramatic entertainment as the provinces were
still to get, they must look to travelling companies taking their summer
vacation from the metropolis. Miracle-plays during the seventeenth
century were a mere survival. They lingered in distant Cornwall and at
Kendal in the hill country of the north; and had been replaced by morals,
themselves almost equally obsolete, at Manningtree. The last religious
play recorded in England is a quite exceptional one, given at the end of
James I’s reign before Gondomar, the Spanish ambassador, and an audience
which numbered thousands at Ely Place in Holborn.
In giving some account of the distribution of the various types of
religious play throughout England during the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries, I am dispensed from any obligation to be exhaustive by the
fact that the greater municipal dramas at least have already been the
subject of more than one fairly adequate discussion. All I shall attempt
will be a brief general summary of the main points which emerge from the
more or less detailed local notices collected in a lengthy appendix.
The characteristic English type of play was the long cycle given
annually under the superintendence of the corporation or governing
body of an important city and divided into a number of distinct scenes
or ‘pageants,’ each of which was the special charge of one or more of
the local ‘crafts,’ ‘arts,’ or ‘occupations.’ Such cycles, organized
upon very similar lines, can be studied in the records available from
Chester, York, Beverley, Coventry, Newcastle, Lincoln, and Norwich;
and the same general model is known or conjectured—sometimes, it is
true, on the slightest indication—to have been followed in the plays
of Lancaster, Preston, Kendal, Wakefield, Leicester, Worcester, Louth,
Bungay, Canterbury, Dublin, and Aberdeen. As in all matters of municipal
custom, the relative functions of the corporations and the crafts were
nicely adjusted. The direction and control of the plays as a whole were
in the hands of the corporations. They decided annually whether the
performance should be given, or whether, for war, pestilence, or other
reason, it should be withheld. They sent round their officers to read the
proclamation or ‘banns’ of the play. They kept an official version of
the text, at Chester an ‘original,’ at York a ‘register’ copied from the
‘originals’ belonging to the crafts. Agreements and disputes as to the
liability of this or that craft to maintain or contribute to a particular
pageant were entered or determined before them. They maintained order
at the time of the play and inflicted fines on the turbulent, or upon
crafts neglectful or unskilful in carrying out their responsibilities.
In particular they required the provision of properly qualified actors.
Thus Robert Greene and others were admonished before the leet of Coventry
in 1440, that they should play _bene et sufficienter_ so as not to cause
a hindrance in any _iocus_. Similarly, Henry Cowper, ‘webster,’ was
fined by the wardens of Beverley in 1452, _quod nesciebat ludum suum_.
An order at York, in 1476, directed the choice of a body of ‘connyng,
discrete, and able players’ to test the quality of all those selected
as actors. All ‘insufficiant personnes, either in connyng, voice or
personne’ they were to ‘discharge, ammove, and avoide’; and no one was to
perform more than twice in the course of the day. Sometimes the actual
oversight of the plays was delegated to specially appointed officers.
At Beverley the wardens themselves ‘governed’ the Corpus Christi plays,
but the Paternoster play was in the hands of ‘aldermen of the pageants.’
At Aberdeen the Haliblude play was undertaken in 1440 by the local lord
of misrule, known as the Abbot of Bon Accord; for the Candlemas play
‘bailyes’ represented the corporation. At Lincoln the ‘graceman’ of
the guild of St. Anne was responsible, and had the aid of the mayor. At
Leicester a number of ‘overseers’ with two ‘bedalls’ were chosen to have
the ‘gydyng and rule’ of the play.
The corporations do not appear to have themselves incurred much
expenditure over the performances. They provided sitting-room and
refreshments for their own members, and for distinguished guests.
Richard II was elaborately entertained with a special _pagina_ when he
visited York on Corpus Christi day, 1397. Sixty years later a collation,
including ‘ij cofyns of counfetys and a pot of grene gynger,’ was
made ready for Queen Margaret on her visit to Coventry. At York and
Beverley, but not at Coventry, the corporations paid the minstrels, and
occasionally made a special contribution to the funds of a particularly
poor pageant. At York the corporation could well afford to do this, for
they claimed the right to fix certain ‘stations’ at which, as well as at
two or three traditional ones, the plays should be given, and they made
a considerable annual profit out of payments by well-to-do citizens who
aspired to have one of these at their doors. The stations were marked by
banners broidered with the arms of the city. At Leicester the ‘playyng
germands’ seem to have belonged to the corporation. At Beverley in 1391
they owned all the ‘necessaries,’ pageant garments and properties, of
the play of Paradise, and lent the same upon security to the craft
charged therewith. The pageants may also have been originally corporation
property in York, for it was stipulated in 1422 that one of them, like
the banners at the stations, should bear the arms of the city, to the
exclusion of those of the craft.
As a rule, the cost of the plays fell almost wholly upon the crafts.
The ordinances of the craft-guilds provide for their maintenance as a
_leitourgia_ or fraternal duty, in the same way as they often provide
for a ‘serge’ or light to be burnt in some chapel or carried in the
Corpus Christi procession, or, at Beverley, for the _castellum_ in which
the craft sat to do honour to the procession of St. John of Beverley
in Rogation week. At Coventry, where the burden upon the crafts was
perhaps heaviest, they were responsible for the provision, repairing,
ornamenting, cleaning, and strewing with rushes of the pageant, for
the ‘ferme’ or rent of the pageant house, for the payment of actors,
minstrels, and prompter, for the revision of play-book and songs and the
copying of parts, for the ‘drawing’ or ‘horsing’ of the pageant on the
day of the performance, for costumes and properties, and above all for
copious refreshments before and after the play, at the stations, and
during the preliminary rehearsals. The total cost of the smiths’ pageant
in 1490 was £3 7_s._ 5½_d._ In 1453 they had contracted with one Thomas
Colclow to have ‘the rewle of the pajaunt’ for twelve years at an annual
payment of £2 6_s._ 8_d._, and other examples of ‘play lettine’ can be
traced at Newcastle and elsewhere. But it was more usual for the crafts
to retain the management of the pageants in their own hands; at York
each guild appointed its ‘pageant-masters’ for this purpose. The expense
to the craft primarily in charge of a pageant was sometimes lightened
by fixed contributions from one or more minor bodies affiliated to it
for the purpose. Part of it was probably met from the general funds of
the craft; the rest was raised by various expedients. A levy, known as
‘pagent pencys’ at Coventry and as ‘pajaunt silver’ at York, was made
upon every member. The amount varied with the numbers of the craft and
the status of the craftsman. At York it ranged from 1_d._ to 8_d._ At
Beverley the journeymen paid 8_d._ to light, play, and castle, and 6_d._
only in years when there was no play. At Coventry the ordinary members of
more than one craft paid 1_s._; others apparently less. To the proceeds
of the levy might be added fines for the breach of craft ordinances,
payments on the taking out of freedom by strangers and the setting up
of shop or indenturing of apprentices by freemen. At York, the mercers
are found granting free admission to a candidate for their fraternity on
condition of his entering into a favourable contract for the supply of a
new pageant. At Coventry, in 1517, one William Pisford left a scarlet and
a crimson gown to the tanners for their plays, together with 3_s._ 4_d._
to every craft charged with the maintenance of a pageant. Besides the
levy, certain personal services were binding upon the craftsmen. They had
to attend upon the play, to do it honour; the Coventry cappers expected
their journeymen to do the ‘horsing’ of the pageant.
In some cities, the crafts received help from outside. At Coventry,
in 1501, the tilers’ pageant got a contribution of 5_s._ from the
neighbouring tilers of Stoke. At Chester, vestments were borrowed
from the clergy; at Lincoln from the priory and the local gentry. A
‘gathering’ was also made in the surrounding districts. The only trace
of any charge made to the spectators, other than the fees for ‘stations’
at York, is at Leicester, where, in 1477, the players paid over to the
‘pachents’ certain sums they had received for playing.
The majority of the crafts in a big city were, of course, already formed
into guilds for ordinary trade purposes, and in their case the necessary
organization for the plays was to hand. But no citizen could wholly
escape his responsibility in so important a civic matter. At Coventry it
was ordered in 1494 that every person exercising any craft must become
contributory to some pageant or other. At York the innholders, who do
not appear to have been a regular guild, were organized in 1483 for the
purposes of a pageant on the basis of a yearly contribution of 4_d._
from each man. The demand at Beverley in 1411 for the appropriation of
a play to the _generosi_ has already been alluded to. In a Beverley
list of 1520 the ‘Gentylmen’ are put down for the ‘Castle of Emaut.’
It may be suspected that some of the other crafts named in the same
list, such as the ‘Husbandmen’ and the ‘Labourers,’ were not regular
guilds; not to speak of the ‘Prestes,’ who played the ‘Coronacion of
Our Lady.’ This participation of religious bodies in the craft plays
can be paralleled from other towns. At York the hospital of St. Leonard
took the Purification in 1415; at Lincoln the cathedral clergy, like the
priests at Beverley, were responsible for the Coronation or Assumption
of the Virgin, a play which at Chester was given by the ‘worshipfull
wyves of this town,’ and at York by the innholders. Both at York
and Chester this scene was dropped at the Reformation. Possibly its
somewhat exceptional position may be accounted for by its having been
a comparatively late addition in all four cycles. Some endeavour after
dramatic appropriateness is visible in the apportioning of the other
plays amongst the crafts. Thus Noah is given to the shipwrights (York,
Newcastle), the watermen (Beverley, Chester), the fishers and mariners
(York); the _Magi_ to the goldsmiths (Beverley, Newcastle, York); the
Disputation in the Temple to the scriveners (Beverley); the Last Supper
to the bakers (Beverley, Chester, York); the Harrowing of Hell to the
cooks (Beverley, Chester).
A somewhat anomalous position is occupied amongst towns in which the
plays were in the hands of the crafts by Lincoln. Here the task of
supervision was shared with the corporation by a special guild, religious
and social rather than industrial in character[369], of St. Anne. Perhaps
this guild had at one time been solely responsible for the plays, and
there had been a crisis such as took place at Norwich in 1527. Before
that date the charge of the plays had been borne, fittingly enough, by
the guild of St. Luke, composed of painters and metalworkers. But in 1527
this guild was ‘almost fully decayed,’ and upon the representation of
its members the corporation agreed that in future the pageants should be
distributed amongst the various crafts as was customary elsewhere. The
Lincoln plays were on St. Anne’s day, but one does not find a position
comparable to that of the St. Anne’s guild held by Corpus Christi guilds
in other towns. As a rule such guilds concerned themselves with the
Corpus Christi procession, but not with the plays. At Ipswich, indeed,
the Corpus Christi guild had the whole conduct of the plays, and the
craft-guilds as such were not called upon; but this Ipswich guild arose
out of a reorganization of the old merchant-guild, included all the
burgesses, and was practically identical with the corporation. Other
towns, in which the corporation managed the plays itself, without the
intervention of the craft-guilds, are Shrewsbury, New Romney, and Lydd.
On the other hand, where neither the corporation nor the crafts undertook
plays, it was no uncommon thing for a guild of the religious or social
type to step into the breach. A series of London plays recorded in 1384,
1391, 1409, and 1411 may all be not unreasonably ascribed to a guild
of St. Nicholas, composed of the ‘parish clerks’ attached to the many
churches of the city. At a later date the performances of this guild
seem to have become annual and they are traceable, with no very great
certainty, to the beginning of the sixteenth century. They were cyclical
in character, but not processional, and took place hard by the well known
indifferently as Skinners’ well or Clerkenwell, amongst the orchards
to the north of London. Chaucer says of his ‘parish clerk,’ the ‘joly
Absolon,’ that
‘Somtyme, to shewe his lightnesse and maistrye,
He pleyeth Heródës, on a scaffold hye[370].’
These London plays may have had some original connexion with the great
fair of the neighbouring priory of St. Bartholomew upon August 24; but
they are recorded at various dates during the summer, and extended over
four, five, or even seven days. Whether the guild of St. Nicholas bore
any relation to the clerks of St. Paul’s, who petitioned Richard II in
1378 against the rivalry of certain ‘unexpert people’ in the production
of an Old Testament play, must be matter for conjecture. The performance
contemplated at St. Paul’s was to be at Christmas. The Cambridge guild
of Corpus Christi was responsible for a _ludus Filiorum Israelis_ about
1350, and this is more likely to have formed part of a cycle than to
have stood alone. An unverified extract of Warton’s from a Michael-House
_computus_ suggests that some of the Cambridge colleges may have assisted
in dramatic undertakings. At Abingdon the hospital of Christ held their
feast on Holy Cross day (May 3), 1445, ‘with pageantes and playes, and
May games.’ At Sleaford, in 1480, a play of the Ascension was performed
by the guild of the Holy Trinity. At Wymondham a guild seems to have
existed in the sixteenth century for the express purpose of holding a
‘watch and play’ at Midsummer. The proceedings were directed by officers
designated ‘husbands.’ The one example of an isolated play under the
management of a craft-guild is at Hull. Here an annual play of Noah,
with a ship or ark which went in procession, was in the hands of the
Trinity House, a guild of master mariners and pilots. The records extend
from 1421 to 1529. There is no sign of a dramatic cycle at Hull. The
Noah play was given on Plough Monday, and it is possible that one may
trace here a dramatized version of just such a ship procession as may be
found elsewhere upon the coasts in spring[371]. After the performance
the ‘ship’ was hung up in the church. The text of the play was perhaps
borrowed from that of the watermen of the neighbouring city of Beverley.
Where there were craft-plays, social and religious guilds sometimes
gave supplementary performances. The ‘schaft’ or parochial guild of St.
Dunstan’s, Canterbury, owned a play of Abraham and Isaac in 1491. This
may have been merely a contribution towards the craft-cycle on Corpus
Christi day. On the other hand, the play of St. George, contemplated
by the guild of that saint at New Romney in 1490, was probably an
independent undertaking. The town play here was a Passion play. At
York there were two rivals to the Corpus Christi plays. One was the
_Paternoster_ play, for the production of which a guild of the Lord’s
Prayer was in existence at least as early as 1378. By 1488 this guild
was absorbed into the Holy Trinity guild of the mercers, and in the year
named the play was given, apparently at the charges of the mercers,
instead of the ordinary cycle. All the crafts contributed to similar
performances in 1558 and 1572. But by this time the supervision, under
the corporation, of the play had passed to one of the few religious
guilds in York which had escaped suppression, that of St. Anthony. The
other extraordinary York play was a Creed play, bequeathed to the guild
of Corpus Christi in 1446. This was stationary, and was acted decennially
about Lammas-tide (August 1) at the common hall. In 1483, it was ‘apon
the cost of the most onest men of every parish,’ who were, it may be
supposed, members of the guild. In 1535 the crafts paid for it instead
of their usual cycle. Upon the suppression of the guild, the play-book
passed into the custody of the hospital of St. Thomas.
In the same way there are instances in which the clergy, who elsewhere
lent help to the craft-plays, gave independent exhibitions of their own.
At Chester, before the Reformation, they eked out the Whitsun cycle by a
supplementary performance on Corpus Christi day. The priors of St. John
of Jerusalem, Holy Trinity, and All Saints contributed their share to
the somewhat incongruous blend of religious and secular entertainments
provided by the traders of Dublin for the earl of Kildare in 1528. The
so-called _Ludus Coventriae_ has often been supposed to be the play-book
of a cycle acted by the Grey Friars or Franciscans of Coventry. This
theory hardly survives critical examination. But in 1557, during the
Marian reaction, a Passion play was given at the Grey Friars in London,
and the actors were possibly restored brethren. Miracle-plays must often
have been performed in choir schools, especially upon their traditional
feast-days of St. Nicholas, St. Catherine, and the Holy Innocents.
But there are only two examples, besides that of St. Paul’s in 1378,
actually upon record. In 1430 the _pueri eleemosynae_ of Maxstoke acted
on Candlemas day in the hall of Lord Clinton’s castle; and in 1486 those
of St. Swithin’s and Hyde abbeys combined to entertain Henry VII with the
Harrowing of Hell as he sat at dinner in Winchester.
Many minor plays, both in towns and in country villages, were organized
by the clergy and other officials of parish churches, and are mentioned
in the account books of churchwardens. At London, Kingston, Oxford,
Reading, Salisbury, Bath, Tewkesbury, Leicester, Bungay, and Yarmouth,
such parochial plays can be traced, sometimes side by side with those
provided by craft or other guilds. The parochial organization was the
natural one for the smaller places, where the parish church had remained
the centre of the popular life[372]. The _actiones_ in the chapelries
of Shipton in Oxfordshire during the thirteenth century may have been
plays of this type. The municipal records of Lydd and New Romney mention
visits of players to the towns between 1399 and 1508 from no less than
fourteen neighbouring places in Kent and Sussex, many of which must
have been then, as they are now, quite insignificant. They are Hythe,
Wittersham, Herne, Ruckinge, Folkestone, Appledore, Chart, Rye, Wye,
Brookland, Halden, Bethersden, Ham, and Stone. A few other village plays
are to be traced in the fifteenth century. In the sixteenth century they
are fairly numerous, especially in the eastern counties. In Essex they
are found at Chelmsford, Braintree, Halstead, Heybridge, Malden, Saffron
Walden, Billericay, Starford, Baddow (by ‘children’), Little Baddow,
Sabsford, Boreham, Lanchire, Witham, Brentwood, Nayland, Burnham, High
Easter, Writtle, Woodham Walter, and Hanningfield; in Cambridgeshire
at Bassingbourne; in Lincolnshire at Holbeach; in Norfolk at Harling,
Lopham, Garboldisham, Shelfhanger, and Kenninghall; in Suffolk at
Boxford, Lavenham, and Mildenhall; in Leicestershire at Foston; in
Somersetshire at Morebath; and in Kent once more at Bethersden. The
latest instance is a ‘Kynge play’ at Hascombe in Surrey in 1579.
Parochial plays, whether in town or country, appear to have been in
most cases occasional, rather than annual. Sometimes, as at Kingston
and Braintree, they became a means of raising money for the church, and
even where this object is not apparent, the expenses were lightened in
various ways at the cost of neighbouring villages. ‘Banns’ were sent
round to announce the play; or the play itself was carried round on tour.
Twenty-seven villages contributed to a play at Bassingbourne in 1511.
The Chelmsford play of 1562 and 1563 cost about £50, of which a good
proportion was received from the spectators. The play was given at Malden
and Braintree as well as at Chelmsford, and for years afterwards the
letting out of the stock of garments proved a source of revenue to the
parish. This same practice of hiring garments can be traced at Oxford,
Leicester, and elsewhere. The parochial plays were always, so far as can
be seen, stationary. At Leicester, Braintree, Halstead, and Heybridge
they were in the church. That of Harling was ‘at the church gate,’ that
of Bassingbourne in a ‘croft’; that of Chelmsford in a ‘pightell.’ At
Reading performances in the market-place and in an open piece of ground
called (then and now) the ‘Forbury’ are mentioned.
There remain a certain number of plays as to the organization of which
nothing definite can be said. Such are the minor plays, on the legends
of saints, recorded by the annalists of London, Coventry, and Lincoln;
those referred to in the corporation accounts of King’s Lynn, as given by
unspecified players between 1385 and 1462; and those which took place,
as late as the seventeenth century, in ‘rounds’ or amphitheatres at St.
Just, Perranzabulo, and elsewhere in Cornwall.
CHAPTER XXII
GUILD PLAYS AND PARISH PLAYS (_continued_)
The last chapter occupied itself mainly with the diffusion of the
vernacular religious plays in England, with their organization, and with
their part in municipal and village life. That study must be completed
by at least the outline of another, dealing with the content and nature
of the performances themselves. Here again it is variety rather than
uniformity which requires attention; for the records and texts of the
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries bear witness to the effective survival
of all the diverse types of play, to which the evolution of the dramatic
instinct gave birth in its progress from liturgical office to cosmic
cycle.
The term of the evolution—the cosmic cycle itself—is represented by
five complete texts, and one fragment sufficiently substantial to be
ranked with these. There are the plays of the York and Chester crafts.
The manuscript of the former dates from the middle of the fifteenth
century; those of the latter from the end of the sixteenth and beginning
of the seventeenth: but in both cases it may be assumed that we possess
the plays, with certain modifications, additions, and omissions, as
they were given in the palmy days of their history. There are also, in
a fifteenth-century manuscript, the so-called ‘Towneley’ plays, as to
whose origin the most likely theory is that they are the craft-plays
of Wakefield. There is the _Ludus Coventriae_, also of the fifteenth
century, which has probably nothing to do with Coventry, but is either,
as scholars generally hold, the text of a strolling company, or, as
seems to me more probable, that of a stationary play at some town in the
East Midlands not yet identified. If I am right, the _Ludus Coventriae_
occupies a midway position between the three northern craft cycles,
which are all processional plays, split up into a number of distinct
pageants, and the fifth text, which is Cornish. This is probably of the
fourteenth century, although extant in a fifteenth-century manuscript,
and doubtless represents a stationary performance in one of the ‘rounds’
still to be seen about Cornwall. The fragment, also Cornish, is not a
wholly independent play, but a sixteenth-century expansion of part of the
earlier text.
A study of the table of incidents printed in an appendix will show the
general scope of the cyclical plays[373]. My comments thereon must be
few and brief. The four northerly cycles have a kernel of common matter,
which corresponds very closely with just that dramatic stuff which was
handled in the liturgical and the earliest vernacular dramas. It includes
the Fall of Lucifer, the Creation, Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel; then the
Annunciation and the group of scenes, from the _Pastores_ to the Massacre
of the Innocents, which went to make up the _Stella_; then the Passion
in the narrower sense, centring in the _planctus Mariae_ and extending
from the Conspiracy of the Jews to the Descent from the Cross; then the
Resurrection scenes, centring in the _Quem quaeritis_ and ending with the
_Peregrini_ and Incredulity of Thomas; then the Ascension, the Pentecost,
and finally the _Iudicium_ or Doomsday. Almost equally invariable is
something in the way of a _Prophetae_. But at York this is thrown into
narrative instead of dramatic form; and at Chester the typical defile
of prophets, each with his harangue, is deferred to almost the close of
the cycle (Play xxiii), and in its usual place stand two independent
episodes of Balaam and of Octavian and the Sibyl. Two other groups of
scenes exhibit a larger measure of diversity between the four cycles. One
is that drawn from the history of the Old Testament Fathers, out of which
the Deluge and the Sacrifice of Isaac are the only incidents adopted
by all four. The other is the series taken from the missionary life of
Christ, where the only common scenes are the Raising of Lazarus and the
Feast in the House of Simon the Leper, both of which can be traced back
to the liturgical drama[374].
The principal source of the plays belonging to this common kernel is,
of course, the biblical narrative, which is followed, so far as it
goes, with considerable fidelity, the most remarkable divergence being
that of the _Ludus Coventriae_, which merges the Last Supper with the
scene in the House of Simon. But certain embroideries upon scripture,
which found their way into the religious drama at an early stage of its
evolution, are preserved and further elaborated. Thus each of the four
cycles has its Harrowing of Hell, which links the later scenes with the
earlier by introducing, as well as the devils, such personages as Adam
and Eve, Enoch and Elijah, John the Baptist and others[375]. Similarly
the Suspicion of Joseph and the _obstetrices_ at the Virgin Birth finds
a place in all four[376], as does the Healing of Longinus, the blind
knight, by the blood-drops from the cross[377]. Other apocryphal or
legendary elements are confined to one or more of the cycles[378].
The Chester plays, for example, have a marked development of the
eschatological scenes. Not only is the _Iudicium_ itself extremely long
and elaborate, but it is preceded by two distinct plays, one a section
of the split-up _Prophetae_ ending with the Fifteen Signs, the other an
Antichrist, in which, as in the Tegernsee _Antichristus_[379], Enoch
and Elijah appear as disputants. The most legendary of the northerly
cycles is without doubt the _Ludus Coventriae_. It has the legend of
Veronica, which is only hinted at in the corresponding York play. And
it has so long a series of scenes drawn from the legends of the Virgin
as to make it probable that, like the Lincoln plays and another East
Midland cycle of which a fragment is extant, it was performed not on
Corpus Christi day but on that of St. Anne. Before the Annunciation it
inserts the episodes of Joachim and Anne, Mary in the Temple, and the
Betrothal of Mary. To the common episode of the Suspicion of Joseph
it adds the Purgation of Mary. In the Resurrection scene is a purely
legendary Apparition of Christ to the Virgin; while the Death, Burial,
Assumption, and Coronation of Mary intervene between the Pentecost and
the _Iudicium_. This matter from the after-history of the Virgin belongs
also to the York plays, which add the Apparition to St. Thomas of India.
The Cornish plays, although in many respects they are parallel to those
of the north, have yet some very marked features of their own. They have
episodes of the miraculous Release of Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea
from Prison, and of the Death of Pilate and the Interview of Veronica
with Tiberius[380]. But their most remarkable legendary addition is an
elaborate treatment of the history of the Holy Rood, which provides
the motives for the scenes dealing with Seth, Moses, David, Solomon,
Maximilla, and the Bridge upon Cedron[381]. On the other hand the
Cornish plays close with the Ascension and entirely omit the sub-cycle
of the Nativity, passing direct, but for the Holy Rood matter, from the
Sacrifice of Isaac to the Temptation.
It is not improbable that the majority of the Corpus Christi and other
greater English plays reached the dimensions of a cosmic cycle. But
in only a few cases is any definite evidence on the point available.
Complete lists are preserved from Beverley and Norwich. The Beverley
series seems to have been much on the scale of the four extant cycles.
It extended in thirty-six pageants from the Fall of Lucifer to Doomsday.
Like the Cornish cycle, it included the episode of Adam and Seth; and
it presented an exceptional feature in the insertion of a play of the
Children of Israel after the Flight into Egypt. The Norwich cycle, which
began with the Creation and ended with Pentecost, was a short one of
twelve pageants[382]. The small number is due, partly to the grouping of
several episodes in a single play, partly to the omission of the Passion
proper. The Resurrection followed immediately upon the Baptism. Of other
plays, the chroniclers record that in 1391 the London performance covered
both the Old and New Testament, that in 1409 it went from the Creation
to the Day of Judgement, and that in 1411 it was ‘from the begynnyng of
the worlde.’ The fragmentary indications of the records preserved show
that the Chelmsford play stretched at least from the Creation to the
Crucifixion, the Newcastle play at least from the Creation to the Burial
of the Virgin[383], the Lincoln play at least from the Deluge to the
Coronation of the Virgin. On the other hand the range of the Coventry
plays can only be shown to have been from the Annunciation to Doomsday,
although it may be by a mere accident that no Old Testament scenes are
here to be identified[384].
Examples, though unfortunately no full texts, can also be traced of the
separate Nativity and Easter cycles, the merging of which was the most
important step in the formation of the complete Corpus Christi play.
Both, if I read the evidence aright, existed at Aberdeen. There was a
‘Haliblude’ play on Corpus Christi day, which I conceive to have been
essentially a Passion and Resurrection, and a play at Candlemas, which
seems to have included, as well as the Purification, a _Stella_, a
Presentation in the Temple, and something in the way of a _Prophetae_.
There were performances of Passions in Reading in 1508, in Dublin in
1528, at Shrewsbury in 1567, and in London in 1557 and as late as between
1613 and 1622. I do not suppose that in any of these cases ‘Passion’
excludes ‘Resurrection.’ The New Romney town play, also, seems to have
been a Passion in the wider sense. The records of Easter plays at Bath
(1482), Leicester (1504-7), Morebath (1520-74), Reading (1507, 1533-5),
and Kingston (1513-65), are too slight to bear much comment. They may
relate to almost anything from a mere Latin _Quem quaeritis_ to a full
vernacular Passion and Resurrection.
One interesting text falls to be considered at this point. This is a
fifteenth-century Burial and Resurrection of northern _provenance_. It
is very lyrical in character, and apparently the author set out to write
a ‘treyte’ to be read, and shortly after the beginning changed his mind
and made a play of it. There are two scenes. The first is an elaborate
_planctus_, ‘to be playede on gud-friday after-none.’ The second,
intended for ‘Esterday after the resurrectione, In the morowe’ is a _Quem
quaeritis_. An Ascension play was performed by the Holy Trinity guild at
Sleaford in 1480. A ‘Christmasse play’ is recorded at Tintinhull in 1451.
How much it included can hardly be guessed. But the _Stella_ maintained
its independent position, and is found at Yarmouth (1462-1512), Reading
(1499, 1539), Leicester (1547), Canterbury (1503), Holbeach (1548), and
Hascombe (1579)[385].
The plays just enumerated may be regarded as of precyclical types.
But there are a few others which, although they occur independently,
would have their more natural position in cycles of less or greater
range. In some of these cases it is probable that the independence is
only apparent, a mere matter of incomplete evidence. There are two
fifteenth-century plays, both on the subject of Abraham and Isaac,
one of which is preserved in the ‘Book of Brome’ from Suffolk, the
other in a manuscript now at Dublin, but probably of South Midland
_provenance_. It is of course not impossible that these represent
isolated performances, but it is on the whole more likely that they are
fragments of lost cycles. A third play, of Midland origin, preserved in
the Digby manuscript, occupies an exceptional position. It deals with
the Massacre of the Innocents and the Purification, and allusions in a
prologue and epilogue make it clear that it belonged to a cycle in which
it was preceded by a _Pastores_ and a _Magi_, and followed by a Christ
in the Temple. This cycle, however, was not played all at once, but a
portion was given year by year on St. Anne’s day. One of the groups of
plays brought together in the _Ludus Coventriae_ was evidently intended
for performance under similar conditions. It is probable that the _ludus
Filiorum Israelis_ of the Cambridge Corpus Christi guild about 1350,
the Abraham and Isaac of the ‘schaft’ of St. Dunstan’s, Canterbury,
between 1491 and 1520, and the Adam and Eve (1507) and ‘Cayme’s pageaunt’
(1512-5) of St. Lawrence’s, Reading, formed parts of Corpus Christi
cycles given in those towns.
Isolated performances of plays picked out of a cycle, or upon subjects
usually treated in a cycle, are, however, not unknown. One or more of
the Chester plays occasionally formed part of the civic entertainment of
a royal or noble personage. When Henry VII visited Winchester in 1486,
the schoolboys of the two great abbeys of Hyde and St. Swithin’s gave a
_Christi Descensus ad Inferos_ before him at dinner. At York the acting
of an ‘interlude of St. Thomas the Apostle’ on a St. Bartholomew’s eve
towards the end of the reign of Henry VIII became the occasion for a
papist demonstration. This might have been either the Incredulity of
Thomas (Play xlii) or the Apparition of the Virgin to St. Thomas in
India (Play xlvi) from the Corpus Christi cycle. At York, also, there
was, in the hands of a Corpus Christi guild, a distinct play, frequently
performed between 1446 and the Reformation, called the Creed play. This
was apparently an expansion of a motive found in the Pentecost scene at
Chester and probably at Coventry, but not at York itself, wherein, after
the coming of the Holy Ghost, each of the apostles in turn enunciates
one of the articles of the so-called Apostles’ creed. At Hull, where I
find no trace of a cycle, the Trinity guild of sea-faring men had their
play of Noah. At Lincoln, a play of Tobit, which does not actually, so
far as I know, form part of the Old Testament section of any English
cycle[386], was substituted for the regular Corpus Christi play after
the Reformation. Naturally such exceptional performances became more
common in the decadence of the religious drama[387]. Thus the very
scratch series of plays shown before the earl of Kildare at Dublin, in
the Christmas of 1528, included, besides other contributions both sacred
and secular, an Adam and Eve by the tailors and a Joseph and Mary by the
carpenters. The choice of these subjects was evidently motived by their
appropriateness to the craft representing them. Similarly, when John Bale
was bishop of Ossory in 1553, he had performed at the market-cross of
Kilkenny, on the day of the proclamation of Queen Mary, a short fragment
of a cycle consisting of a _Prophetae_, a Baptism, and a Temptation. One
fancies that this strange protagonist of the Reformation must have had
in his mind some quaint verbal analogy between ‘John Bale’ and ‘John
Baptist,’ for he states that he also wrote a dramatic _Vita D. Ioannis
Baptistae_ in fourteen books. Nor is this the only example of the
treatment of a subject, merely episodic in the Corpus Christi cycles, in
a distinct and elaborate play. The invaluable Digby manuscript contains
a similar expansion, from the East or West Midlands, of the story of
Mary Magdalen. It follows the narrative of the _Golden Legend_, and
introduces the familiar scenes of the Raising of Lazarus, the Feast in
the House of Simon the Leper, the _Quem quaeritis_, and the _Hortulanus_,
preceding these with episodes of the life of the Magdalen _in gaudio_,
and following them with the Conversion of the King and Queen of
Marseilles, and of Mary’s Life in the Wilderness and Death. As offshoots
from the Corpus Christi cycle may also be regarded the Deaths of the
Apostles played in the Dublin series of 1528, Thomas Ashton’s _Julian
the Apostate_ at Shrewsbury in 1565, and the _Destruction of Jerusalem_,
written by John Smith in 1584 to take the place of the traditional plays
at Coventry[388].
The Mary Magdalen and the rest of the group just described may be
considered as standing halfway between the plays of and akin to the
Corpus Christi cycle and those founded on the legends of saints. Of
regular saint-plays there are unfortunately only two texts available
from these islands. The Digby manuscript contains an East Midland
Conversion of St. Paul, which, however, is almost wholly biblical and
not legendary. It will be remembered that the subject was one known
even to the liturgical drama[389]. There is also a Cornish play of St.
Meriasek or Mereadocus, the patron saint of Camborne, written at the
beginning of the sixteenth century. Other such plays are, however, upon
record. It is perhaps curious that no mention should be found of any
English parallel to either the Saint Nicholas plays or the _Miracles de
Nostre Dame_ of France. It can hardly be doubted that the former at least
existed in connexion with the widespread revel of the Boy Bishop[390].
The most popular English saint for dramatic purposes appears to have
been St. George. A play of St. George was maintained by the town of
Lydd, and was probably copied by a neighbouring guild at New Romney.
Another, on an elaborate scale, was given by a group of villages at
Bassingbourne in 1511. These seem to have been genuine dramas, and not
mere ‘ridings’ or folk-plays such as occur elsewhere[391]. A St. George
play, described by Collier at Windsor in 1416, can be resolved into a
cake. St. Thomas of Canterbury was only honoured with a dumb show in his
own city, but there was a play upon him at King’s Lynn in 1385. Of quite
a number of other saint-plays the barest notices exist. London had hers
on St. Catherine; Windsor on St. Clotilda; Coventry on St. Catherine and
St. Crytyan; Lincoln on St. Laurence, St. Susanna, St. Clara, and St.
James; Shrewsbury on St. Feliciana and St. Sabina; Bethersden in Kent
on St. Christina; Braintree in Essex on St. Swithin, St. Andrew, and
St. Eustace. The Dublin shoemakers contributed a play on their patron
saints Crispin and Crispinian to the Dublin festival of 1528. In London,
the plays on the days of St. Lucy and St. Margaret at St. Margaret’s,
Southwark, may have been on the stories of those saints; and during the
Marian reaction a ‘goodly’ stage-play was given at St. Olave’s church on
St. Olave’s day.
Quite unique, as dealing with a contemporary ‘miracle,’ is the play of
the Blessed Sacrament, performed at one of the many places bearing the
name of Croxton, in the latter half of the fifteenth century. According
to the manuscript, the event upon which it was based, the marvellous
conversion of a Jew who attempted an outrage upon a host, took place at
Heraclea in Spain, in 1461. There is, curiously enough, a late French
play, quite independent of the English one, upon an exactly parallel
miracle assigned to Paris and the thirteenth century[392].
The variation in the types of English miracle-plays naturally implies
some variation also in the manner of representation. The normal craft
cycles of the greater towns were processional in character. They were
not played throughout by a single body of actors and upon a single
stage; but the action was divided into a number of independent scenes,
to each of which was assigned its own group of performers and its own
small movable stage or ‘pageant.’ And each scene was repeated at several
‘stations’ in different parts of the city, pageant succeeding pageant
in regular order, with the general effect of a vast procession slowly
unrolling itself along the streets[393]. This method of playing was
convenient to the distribution of the _leitourgia_ among the guilds, and
was adopted in all those places, Chester, York, Beverley, and Coventry,
from which our records happen to be the fullest. But it was not the
primitive method and, as has been pointed out in a previous chapter, it
probably arose from an attempt about the beginning of the fourteenth
century to adapt the already existing miracle-plays to the distinctive
feature of the festival of Corpus Christi. To this point it will be
necessary to recur[394]. The processional play was rare outside England,
and even in England it at no period became universal. Two at least of the
great cycles that survive, the Cornish one and the _Ludus Coventriae_,
as well as several smaller plays, can be clearly shown from internal
evidence to have been intended for stationary performance. They do not
naturally cleave asunder into distinct scenes. The same personages
appear and reappear: the same properties and bits of scenery are left
and returned to, often at considerable intervals. Moreover stationary
performances are frequently implied by the records. At Lincoln, after
the suppression of the old _visus_ of St. Anne’s processional play,
the corporation ordered the performance of a ‘standing’ play ‘of some
story of the Bible.’ At Newcastle, although pageants of the plays went
in the procession, the actual performance seems to have been given in a
‘stead.’ This arrangement is exactly parallel to that of the Florentine
_rappresentazioni_ on St. John’s day in 1454[395]. Elsewhere there
was commonly enough no ‘pageant’ at all. The ‘standing’ plays may be
traced at various removes from their original scene, the floor of the
church[396]. Indeed, the examples of Braintree in 1523 and 1525, of
Halstead in 1529, of Heybridge in 1532, seem to show that, quite apart
from the survival of ritual plays proper, the miracle-play, even at
the very moment of its extinction, had not been always and everywhere
excluded from the church itself. The Beverley _repraesentatio dominicae
resurrectionis_ about 1220 had got as far as the churchyard. At Bungay in
1566 they played in the churchyard, and at Harling in 1452 ‘at the cherch
gate.’ The latest of all the village plays, that of Hascombe in 1579,
was at, but perhaps not in the church. The next step brought the plays
to the market-place, which itself in many towns lay just outside the
church door. At Louth the Corpus Christi play was in the ‘markit-stede,’
and so were some at least of the Reading plays. A neighbouring field
might be convenient; the Bassingbourne play was in a ‘croft,’ that of
Chelmsford in a ‘pightell.’ Certain places had a bit of waste ground
traditionally devoted to the entertainment of the citizens. Such were
the ‘Forbury’ at Reading and the ‘Quarry’ at Shrewsbury. The Aberdeen
Haliblude play took place _apud ly Wyndmylhill_. Edinburgh constructed
its ‘playfield’ in the Greenside at considerable cost in 1554, while in
Cornwall permanent amphitheatres were in use. A writer contemporary with
the later performances describes these as made of earth in open fields
with an enclosed ‘playne’ of some fifty feet in diameter. If they are
correctly identified with the ‘rounds’ of St. Just and Perranzabulo,
these examples at least were much larger. The St. Just round is of
stone, with seven tiers of seats, and measures 126 feet in diameter; the
earthen one at Perranzabulo is 130 feet, and has a curious pit in the
centre, joined to the edge by a trench. The disposition of these rounds
at the time of performance can be studied in the diagrams reproduced from
the fifteenth-century manuscript of the plays by Mr. Norris. Within a
circular area is arranged a ring of eight spots which probably represent
structures elevated above the general surface of the ‘playne.’ They
have labels assigning them to the principal actors. Thus for the _Origo
Mundi_ the labels are _Celum_, _Tortores_, _Infernum_, _Rex Pharao_, _Rex
Dauid_, _Rex Sal[omon]_, _Abraham_, _Ortus_. From the stage directions
it would appear that the raised portions were called _pulpita_ or
_tenti_, and by Jordan at a later date ‘rooms’; that the ‘playne’ was the
_platea_; and that the action went on partly on the _pulpita_, partly
on the _platea_ between them. Except that it is circular instead of
oblong, the scheme corresponds exactly to that of the continental plays
shown in an earlier chapter to have been determined by the conditions of
performance within a church[397]. Those plays also had their _platea_;
and their _domus_, _loca_, or _sedes_ answer to the _pulpita_ and _tenti_
of Cornwall. Judging by the somewhat scanty indications available, the
disposition of other English ‘standing’ plays must have been on very
similar lines. In some cases there is evidence that the level _platea_
was replaced by a raised ‘platform,’ ‘scaffold,’ or ‘stage.’ Thus
Chaucer’s ‘joly Absolon’ played Herod ‘on a scaffold hye[398].’ But the
‘stages’ or ‘scaffolds’ mentioned in accounts are sometimes merely for
the spectators and sometimes equivalent to the _loca_ of leading actors.
In the Digby play of St. Mary Magdalen, a practicable ship moves about
the _platea_. Possibly a similar bit of realism was used elsewhere for
the ever popular ‘Noy schippe,’ and, if so, this may explain the pit and
trench of the Perranzabulo ‘round[399].’
As to the ‘pageant’ or movable stage of the processional plays, a good
deal of information is preserved. Dugdale describes it at Coventry as a
‘Theater ... very large and high, placed upon wheels’; Rogers at Chester
as ‘a highe place made like a howse with ij rowmes, beinge open on yᵉ
tope: the lower rowme they apparelled and dressed them selues; and in
the higher rowme they played; and they stood vpon 6 (_v.l._ 4) wheeles.’
According to an inventory of 1565 the grocers’ pageant at Norwich was
‘a Howse of Waynskott paynted and buylded on a Carte wᵗ fowre whelys.’
It had a square top or canopy; on it were placed a gilt griffin and two
large and eighty-three small vanes; and about it were hung three painted
cloths. Similar adornments of the pageant were in use at Coventry. At
York it bore the arms of the city or of the guild. M. Jusserand has
unearthed from a Bodleian manuscript two fourteenth-century miniatures
which apparently represent pageants. These have draperies covering the
whole of the lower ‘room’ down to the ground and resemble nothing so
much as the ambulant theatre of a Punch and Judy show[400]. The pageants
were probably arranged so that the action might be visible from every
side. The scenery would therefore be simple—a throne, a house. Certain
plays, however, necessitate a divided scene, such as the inside and
outside of a temple[401]. For the ‘hell,’ the traditional monstrous head
on a lower level, with practicable chains and fire, was required[402].
The pageant used for the Flood scene was doubtless shaped like an ark.
The ‘shipp’ belonging to the Trinity guild of Hull cost £5 8_s._ 4_d._
The ordinary pageant may have been less expensive. That of the Doom at
York was made ‘of newe substanciale’ for seven marks, the old pageant
and a free admission into the guild. At Lincoln three times as much was
charged for housing the ship as for any other pageant.
The origin of the pageant is capable of a very easy explanation[403].
Like the _edifizio_ of the Italian _rappresentazioni_, it is simply
the raised _locus_, _sedes_, or _domus_ of the stationary play put upon
wheels. Just as the action of the stationary play took place partly on
the various _sedes_, partly in the _platea_, so Coventry actors come and
go to and from the pageant in the street. ‘Here Erode ragis in the pagond
& in the strete also,’ says a stage direction. It should be observed that
the plays at Coventry were exceptionally long, and that scaffolds seem to
have been attached to the pageant proper in order to get sufficient space.
The number of ‘stations’ at which the plays were given varied in the
different towns. At York there were from twelve to sixteen; at Beverley
six; at Coventry not more than three or four can be identified. The many
scenes and frequent repetitions naturally made the processional plays
very lengthy affairs. At Chester they were spread over three days; at
York they were got through in one, but playing began at half-past four
in the morning. At Newcastle, on the other hand, the plays were in the
afternoon. The banns of the _Ludus Coventriae_ promise a performance ‘at
vj of the belle,’ but whether in the morning or evening is not stated.
The normal occasion for the greater plays was the feast of Corpus
Christi on the Thursday after Trinity Sunday. A few exceptions are,
however, to be noted. At Chester, Norwich, New Romney, and apparently
Leicester, the date chosen was Whitsuntide. Yet at Chester the play is
called the ‘Corpus Christi play’ in craft documents of the fifteenth
century, and even in the municipal ‘White Book’ of the sixteenth; from
which it must be inferred either that the term was used of all cyclical
plays without regard to their date, or, more probably, that at Chester
a performance originally given on Corpus Christi day had been for some
reason transferred to Whitsuntide. The motive may have been a desire to
avoid clashing between the plays and the great Corpus Christi procession
in which the crafts everywhere took a prominent part. A difficulty arose
on this score at York in 1426, and a Franciscan preacher, one William
Melton, tried to induce the citizens to have the plays on the day before
Corpus Christi. Ultimately the alternative was adopted of having the
procession on the day after. At Lincoln the plays were on St. Anne’s
day (July 26) and the last pageant was acted by the clergy in the nave
of the cathedral. At Aberdeen there appear to have been two cycles, a
processional Nativity at Candlemas and a Haliblude play on Windmill Hill
at Corpus Christi.
The oversight of the actors was, as pointed out in the last chapter, an
important element in the civic control of the craft-plays. The mention
at York of a commission of ‘connyng, discrete and able players’ must not
be taken to imply that these were in any sense professionals. All the
actors received fees, on a scale proportionate to the dignity of their
parts. Thus at Coventry one Fawston got 4_d._ ‘for hangyng Judas,’ and
4_d._ more ‘for coc croyng.’ The payment to the performer of God was
3_s._ 4_d._ A ‘sowle,’ whether ‘savyd’ or ‘dampnyd,’ got 20_d._, and a
‘worme of conscyence’ only 8_d._ At Hull, Noah was generally paid 1_s._,
God and Noah’s wife a trifle less. But there is nothing to show that the
performers were drawn from the minstrel class: they were probably, like
‘joly Absolon,’ members of the guilds undertaking the plays. The Chester
men describe themselves in their banns as not ‘playeres of price’ but
‘Craftes men and meane men.’ The epilogue to the Conversion of St. Paul
in the Digby manuscript similarly deprecates unkindly criticism of folk
‘lackyng lytturall scyens ... that of Retoryk haue non intellygens.’ A
characteristic of the acting which greatly impressed the imagination
of the audience seems to have been the rant and bombast put from very
early times in the mouths of such royal or pseudo-royal personages as
Herod and Pilate.[404] In the Chester plays fragments of French, as
in a liturgical play fragments of gibberish[405], are used to enhance
this effect. In the Cornish plays, as in the modern music hall, each
performer at his first appearance displays himself in a preliminary strut
about the stage. _Hic pompabit Abraham_, or _Moses_, or _David_, say the
stage directions. As is usually the case with amateurs, the function of
the prompter became an exceedingly important one. If the Cornish writer
Richard Carew may be trusted, the local players did not learn their
parts at all, but simply repeated them aloud after the whispers of the
‘ordinary[406].’ Probably this was exceptional; it certainly was not the
practice at Beverley, where there is a record of an actor being fined
_quod nesciebat ludum suum_. But it may be taken for granted that the
‘beryng of the boke,’ which is so frequently paid for in the accounts,
was never a sinecure. Another functionary who occasionally appears is the
stage-manager. In the later Cornish plays he is called the ‘conveyour.’
The great Chelmsford performance of 1562 was superintended by one Burles
who was paid, with others, for ‘suing’ it, and who probably came from a
distance, as he and his boy were boarded for three weeks.
The professional assistance of the minstrels, although not called in
for the acting, was welcome for the music. This was a usual and a
considerable item in the expenses. At the Chelmsford performance just
mentioned the waits of Bristol and no less than forty other minstrels
were employed. There is no sign of a musical accompaniment to the
dialogue of the existing plays, which was spoken, and not, like that of
their liturgical forerunners, chanted. But the York and Coventry texts
contain some noted songs, and several plays have invitations to the
minstrels to strike up at the conclusion or between the scenes. Minstrels
are also found accompanying the proclaimers of the banns or preliminary
announcements of plays. These banns seem to have been versified, like
the plays themselves. They are often mentioned, and several copies exist.
Those of Chester were proclaimed by the city crier on St. George’s day;
those of the Croxton play and the _Ludus Coventriae_ were carried round
the country-side by _vexillatores_ or banner-bearers. Minstrelsy was not
the only form of lighter solace provided for the spectators of the plays.
Two of those in the Digby manuscript were accompanied with dances. At
Bungay a ‘vyce’ was paid ‘for his pastyme before the plaie, and after
the plaie.’ There were ‘vices’ too at Chelmsford, and ‘fools,’ by which
is meant the same thing[407], at Heybridge and New Romney. But these
examples are taken from the decadence of the miracle-play, rather than
from its heyday.
The accounts of the Bassingbourne play in 1511 include a payment to ‘the
garnement man for garnements and propyrts and playbooks.’ This was an
occasional and not an annual play, and apparently at the beginning of the
sixteenth century such plays were sufficiently frequent to render the
occupation of theatrical outfitter a possible one. Certainly those lucky
parishes, such as Chelmsford or St. Peter’s, Oxford, which possessed a
stock of ‘game gear,’ found a profit in letting it out to less favoured
places. The guilds responsible for the greater plays naturally preserved
their own costumes and properties from year to year, supplementing
these where necessary by loans from the neighbouring gentry and clergy.
The Middle Ages were not purists about anachronism, and what was good
enough for an English bishop was good enough for Annas and Caiaphas. The
hands of the craftsmen who acted were discreetly cased in the gloves,
without which no ceremonial occasion was complete, and sometimes, at
least, vizors or masks were worn. But, as a rule, the stage setting
left a good deal to the imagination. The necessaries for the play of
Paradise at Beverley in 1391 consisted of the ‘karre’ or pageant, eight
hasps, eighteen staples, two vizors, a pair of wings for the angel, a
fir-spar (the tree of knowledge), a worm (the serpent), two pairs of
linen breeches, two pairs of shifts, and one sword. For a similar play
the Norwich grocers possessed in 1565, besides the pageant and its
fittings, sufficient ‘cotes and hosen’ for all the characters, that
of the serpent being fitted with a tail, a ‘face’ and hair for the
Father, hair for Adam and Eve, and—‘a Rybbe colleryd Red.’ A few other
interesting details can be gathered from various records. At Canterbury
the steeds of the _Magi_ were made of hoops and laths and painted canvas.
In the Doomsday scene at Coventry the ‘savyd’ and ‘dampnyd’ souls were
distinguished by their white or black colour[408]. The hell mouth was
provided with fire, a windlass, and a barrel for the earthquake. There
were also three worlds to be set afire, one, it may be supposed, at
each station. The stage directions to Jordan’s Cornish Creation of the
World are full of curious information. The Father appears in a cloud and
when he speaks out of heaven, ‘let ye levys open.’ Lucifer goes down to
hell ‘apareled fowle wᵗʰ fyre about hem’ and the plain is filled with
‘every degre of devylls of lether and spirytis on cordis.’ In Paradise a
fountain and ‘fyne flowers’ suddenly spring up, and a little later ‘let
fyshe of dyuers sortis apeare & serten beastis.’ Lucifer becomes ‘a fyne
serpent made wᵗʰ a virgyn face & yolowe heare upon her head.’ Adam and
Eve departing from Paradise ‘shewe a spyndell and a dystaff.’ For the
murder of Abel, according to old tradition, a ‘chawbone’ is needed[409],
and for the ark, timber and tools, including ‘a mallet, a calkyn yren,
ropes, masstes, pyche and tarr.’ I have not space to dwell further on
these archaeological _minutiae_. One point, however, seems to deserve
another word. Many writers have followed Warton in asserting that Adam
and Eve were represented on the stage in actual nakedness[410]. The
statement is chiefly based upon a too literal interpretation of the
stage directions of the Chester plays[411]. There is a fine _a priori_
improbability about it, and as a matter of fact there can be very little
doubt that the parts were played, as they would have been on any other
stage in any other period of the world’s history, except possibly at the
Roman _Floralia_[412], in fleshings. Jordan is quite explicit. Adam and
Eve are to be ‘aparlet in whytt lether,’ and although Jordan’s play is
a late one, I think it may be taken for granted that white leather was
sufficient to meet the exigencies even of mediaeval realism.
The accounts of miracle-plays frequently contain entries of payments for
providing copies of the text used. When the stock of the Chelmsford play
was dispersed in 1574, the copies were valued at £4. Such copies were
naturally of more than one kind. There was the authoritative text kept
for reference by the guild or other body of presenters. This is sometimes
called the ‘play-book’ or ‘game-book.’ The Cornish term is _ordinale_,
a derivative from the _ordo_ of the liturgical drama[413]. That in use
elsewhere is more commonly ‘original,’ which appears in a variety of
quaint spellings[414]. In the great towns where plays were given by the
crafts under the general supervision of the corporation, each craft held
the ‘original’ of its own play, but approved transcripts of these were
also in the hands of the corporation officers. At Chester this transcript
was itself called the ‘original’; at York it was the _registrum_.
Most of the extant manuscripts of plays appear to be of the nature of
‘originals.’ From York and probably from Wakefield we have _registra_.
The Chester texts are, however, late transcripts due to the zeal of
local antiquaries, perhaps in view of some frustrated revival. Specimens
exist also of two other kinds of copy. There are single plays from both
Chester and York which have all the appearance of having been folded up
for the pocket of a prompter. And the nature of the ‘parts’ prepared
for individual actors may be seen from the transition example edited by
Professor Skeat from a manuscript found at Shrewsbury. They contained the
actors’ own speeches, with the ‘cues’ or closing words of the preceding
speeches which signalled to him that his turn was at hand[415].
Indications of the authorship of plays are very scanty. John Bale has
preserved a list of his own plays, some at least of which were acted
in mediaeval fashion. It may perhaps be assumed that Nicholas Udall,
afterwards author of _Ralph Roister Doister_, wrote the play performed
at Braintree in 1534, while he was vicar there. At Bassingbourne in 1511
one John Hobarde, ‘brotherhood priest,’ was paid ‘for the play-book.’ In
this and in several of the following cases it is impossible to determine
whether an author or merely a copying scribe is in question. The
corporation of Beverley employed Master Thomas Bynham, a friar preacher,
to write ‘banis’ for their plays in 1423. At Reading we find Mr. Laborne
‘reforming’ the Resurrection play about 1533. The later Cornish play of
the Creation of the World was ‘wryten’ by William Jordan in 1611, and
that of St. Meriasek by ‘dominus Hadton’ in 1504. At Bungay William Ellys
was paid in 1558 ‘for the interlude and game-book[416],’ and Stephen
Prewett, a priest at Norwich, for some labour about the matter of a
game-book in 1526. This same Stephen Prewett had a fee from the Norwich
grocers ‘for makyng of a new ballet’ in 1534. One of the extant Coventry
plays was ‘nevly correcte’ and the other ‘nevly translate’ by Robert Croo
in 1535. The name ‘Thomas Mawdycke’ and the date 1591 are written at the
head of some songs belonging to the former. In 1566 Thomas Nycles set a
song for the drapers. Robert Croo or Crowe seems to have made himself
generally useful in connexion with the Coventry plays. In 1563 the smiths
paid him for ‘ij leves of our pley boke.’ In 1557 he wrote the ‘boke’
for the drapers, and between 1556 and 1562 further assisted them by
playing God, mending the ‘devell’s cottes,’ and supplying ‘iij worldys’
for burning and a hat for the Pharisee. A later Coventry playwright was
John Smith of St. John’s College, Oxford, who wrote the ‘new play’ of
the Destruction of Jerusalem in 1584 for a sum of £13 6_s._ 8_d._ The
fifteenth-century Croxton play has the initials ‘R. C.’ One of the plays
in the Digby manuscript ‘Ihon Parfre ded wryte.’ The three others have
the initials ‘M. B.,’ and against the _Poeta_ of the prologue to one of
them a later hand has written in the margin ‘Myles Blomfylde.’ I repeat
the caution that some at least of these names may be those of mere
copyists. Miles Blomfield has been identified with a monk of Bury of that
name. As he was born in 1525 he obviously was not the original author
of the Digby plays, which are probably of the fifteenth century. A much
greater monk of Bury, John Lydgate, has been claimed as the author of the
_Ludus Coventriae_, but there does not seem to be any real evidence for
this[417]. On the other hand I see no reason to doubt the old Chester
tradition which connects the plays of that city with the name of Randulph
Higden, author of the _Polychronicon_. The story is very fairly coherent,
and the date (1328) which it assigns for the plays falls within the
period of Higden’s monastic life at St. Werburgh’s abbey.
It must, of course, be borne in mind that the notion of authorship
is only imperfectly applicable to the miracle-plays. The task of the
playwrights was one less of original composition than of adaptation, of
rewriting and rearranging existing texts so as to meet the needs of the
particular performances in which they were interested. Obviously this was
a process that could be carried out with more or with less individuality.
There were slavish adapters and there were liberal adapters. But on the
whole the literary problem of the plays lies in tracing the evolution of
a form rather than in appreciating individual work. Even when written,
the plays, if periodically performed, were subject to frequent revision,
motived partly by the literary instinct for furbishing up, partly by
changing conditions, such as the existence of a varying number of
craft-guilds ready to undertake the responsibility for a scene[418].
Further alterations, on theological rather than literary grounds, were
naturally called for at the Reformation. Thus Jordan’s Cornish _Creation
of the World_ is clearly based upon the older play printed by Mr.
Norris. The book of the Norwich grocers contains two versions of their
play of Paradise, the later of which, ‘newely renvid accordynge unto
yᵉ Skrypture,’ was substituted for the earlier in 1565. The Towneley
manuscript has two alternative versions of the _Pastores_. That of
York has a fragmentary second version of the Coronation of the Virgin,
and when read with the records affords much evidence of the dropping,
insertion, and rearrangement of scenes, and of doctrinal revision during
the sixteenth century. At Coventry the local annals mention ‘new playes’
in 1520, fifteen years before the existing texts were ‘nevly correcte’
and ‘translate’ by Robert Crowe.
The determination of the relations in which the plays stand towards one
another is a field in which literary scholars, delayed by the want of
trustworthy critical texts, are only just beginning to set foot. The
question lies outside the scope of these pages. But I may call attention
to Mr. Pollard’s analysis of the various _strata_ in the Towneley
plays[419], and to the studies by Professor Hohlfeld[420] and Professor
Davidson[421] upon the greater cycles in general and especially upon
the influence exercised by York over the Towneley and other plays, as
excellent examples of what may be looked for. The _Ludus Coventriae_
will afford a good subject for investigation, when the manuscript has
been properly re-edited. It is evidently a patchwork cycle, roughly put
together and in parts easy to break up into its constituent elements.
The problem is not confined to English literature. The Chester tradition
represents Higden’s work as an affair rather of translation than of
anything else. It is not quite clear whether translation from the Latin
or from the Norman-French is intended. In any case it is probable that
the earlier English playwrights made use of French models, and certain
parallels have already been traced between English plays and others to
be found in the French collection known as the _Viel Testament_. Here, as
elsewhere, the international solidarity of mediaeval literature is to be
taken into account.
Two chapters back I defined the change which took place in the character
of the _religious drama_ of western Europe during the thirteenth century
as _being_, to a large extent, _a process of secularization_. ‘Out of
the hands of the clergy,’ I said, ‘in their naves and choirs, the drama
passed to those of the laity in their market-places and guild-halls.’
And I pointed to the natural result of these altered conditions in ‘the
reaction of the temper of the folk upon the handling of the plays, the
broadening of their human as distinct from their religious aspect[422].’
A study of the texts and records of the fully developed miracle-play as
it existed in these islands from the fourteenth to the sixteenth century
can only confirm this view. I have indeed shown, I hope, in the course
of this imperfect summary, that the variety of mediaeval theatrical
organization was somewhat greater than a too exclusive attention to
the craft-cycles of the great towns has always allowed scholars to
recognize. But, with all qualifications and exceptions, it is none the
less true that what began as a mere spectacle, devised by ecclesiastics
for the edification of the laity, came in time to appeal to a deep-rooted
native instinct of drama in the folk and to continue as an essentially
popular thing, a _ludus_ maintained by the people itself for its own
inexhaustible wonder and delight[423]. Literary critics have laid
stress upon the emergence of the rude humour of the folk, with its love
of farce and realism, in somewhat quaint juxtaposition to the general
subject-matter of the plays. I only desire to add here that the instinct
which made the miracle-plays a joy to the mediaeval burgher is the same
instinct which the more primitive peasant satisfied in a score of modes
of rudimentary folk-drama[424]. The popularity and elaboration of the
devil scenes in the plays is the most striking manifestation of this
identity[425]. For your horned and blackened devil is the same personage,
with the same vague tradition of the ancient heathen festival about him,
whether he riots it through the cathedral aisles in the Feast of Fools,
or hales the Fathers to limbo and harries the forward spectators in the
market-place of Beverley or Wakefield.
One must not look for absolute breaches of continuity, even in a
literary evolution. That the liturgical types of religious drama
continued to exist side by side with their popular offshoots, that
here the clergy continued to present plays, and in spite of a certain
adverse current of ascetic feeling, to assist the lay guilds in divers
ways, has already been there shown. It is to be added that the texts
of the plays bear traces to the end of their liturgical origin. The
music used is reminiscent of church melodies[426]. The dialogue at
critical moments follows the traditional lines and occasionally even
reverts to the actual Latin of the _repraesentationes_. More than one
play—the Towneley _Iuditium_, the Croxton _Sacrament_, the Digby _St.
Mary Magdalen_—closes with the _Te Deum_ which habitually ended Matins
when the dramatic interpolation of the office was over. And what are
the _Expositor_ of the _Ludus Coventriae_, the _Doctor_ of the Brome
play, or even _Balaeus Prolocutor_ himself, but the lineal descendants,
through the dramatized St. Augustine, of certain German plays and the
_appellatores_ or _vocatores_ of the _Prophetae_, of the priest who read
the pseudo-Augustinian Christmas _lectio_ from which the _Prophetae_
sprang? Survivals such as these impress upon the student the unity of the
whole religious drama of the Middle Ages, from trope to Corpus Christi
cycle.
CHAPTER XXIII
MORALITIES, PUPPET-PLAYS, AND PAGEANTS
[_Bibliographical Note._—The English moralities are well
treated from a literary point of view in the books by Ten
Brink, Ward, Creizenach, Pollard, Collier, Klein, Symonds,
Bates, Jusserand, and Courthope, named in the bibliographical
note to Chapter xxi, and also in the Introduction to A. Brandl,
_Quellen des weltlichen Dramas in England vor Shakespeare_
(1898). Some texts not easily available elsewhere are given in
the same book; others are in Dodsley’s _A Select Collection of
Old English Plays_ (ed. W. C. Hazlitt, 1874-6), vol. i, and J.
M. Manly, _Specimens of the Pre-Shakespearean Drama_ (1897),
vol. i. Extracts are given by Pollard. Lists both of popular
moralities and of moral interludes will be found in Appendix X.
The French plays of a similar type are dealt with by L. Petit
de Julleville, _La Comédie et les Mœurs en France au Moyen
Âge_ (1886) and _Répertoire du Théâtre comique en France au
Moyen Âge_ (1886).—On puppet-plays, C. Magnin, _Histoire des
Marionnettes en Europe_ (1852), and A. Dieterich, _Pulcinella_
(1897), may be consulted. The traditional text of the stock
English play is printed, with illustrations by G. Cruikshank,
in J. P. Collier, _Punch and Judy_ (1870). English pageants at
the Corpus Christi feast and at royal entries are discussed
by C. Davidson, _English Mystery Plays_ (1892), § xvii, and
Sir J. B. Paul, in _Scottish Review_, xxx (1897), 217, and
the corresponding French _mystères mimés_ by L. Petit de
Julleville, _Les Mystères_ (1880).]
I have endeavoured to trace from its ritual origins the full development
of that leading and characteristic type of mediaeval drama, the
miracle-play. I now propose to deal, very briefly, with certain further
outgrowths which, in the autumn of the Middle Ages, sprang from the
miracle-play stock; and a final book will endeavour to bring together
the scattered threads of this discursive inquiry, and to touch upon that
transformation of the mediaeval into the humanist type of drama, which
prepared the way for the great Elizabethan stage.
The miracle-play lent itself to modification in two directions: firstly,
by an extension of its subject-matter; and secondly, by an adaptation
of its themes and the methods to other forms of entertainment which,
although mimetic, were not, in the full sense of the term, dramatic.
There are a few plays upon record which were apparently represented
after the traditional manner of miracles, but differ from these in that
they treat subjects not religious, but secular. Extant examples must
be sought in the relics, not of the English, but of the continental
drama. The earliest is the French _Estoire de Griselidis_, a version
of the story familiar in Chaucer’s _Clerkes Tale_, which was written
and acted, according to the manuscript, in 1395[427]. Slightly later is
a Dutch manuscript which contains, amongst other things, probably the
_répertoire_ of some _compagnie joyeuse_, three plays on the subjects
respectively of Esmoreit, Gloriant of Brunswick, and Lanseloet and
Sanderijn[428]. Both the French and Dutch plays belong to what may be
called the wider circle of chivalric romance. An obvious link between
such pieces and the ordinary miracle-play is to be found in those of
the _Miracles de Nostre Dame_ which, like _Amis et Amiles_ or _Robert
le Diable_, also handle topics of chivalric romance, but only such as
are brought technically within the scope of the miracle-play by the
intervention of the Virgin at some point of the action[429]. Similarly,
another French play, dating from about 1439, on the subject, drawn not
from romance but from contemporary history, of the Siege of Orleans,
may be explained by the sanctity already attributed in the national
imagination to Joan of Arc, who is naturally its leading figure[430].
But the usual range of subject was certainly departed from when Jacques
Millet, a student at Orleans, compiled, between 1450 and 1452, an immense
_mystère_ in 30,000 lines on the _Istoire de la destruction de Troye la
grant_[431]. In England, the few examples of the mingling of secular
elements with the miracle-plays which present themselves during the
sixteenth century can hardly be regarded as mediaeval[432]. The only
theme which need be noticed here is that of King Robert of Sicily. A play
on this hero, revived at the High Cross at Chester in 1529, is stated
in a contemporary letter to have been originally written in the reign
of Henry VII. But a still earlier _ludus de Kyng Robert of Cesill_ is
recorded in the Lincoln _Annales_ under the year 1453.
Far more important than this slight secular extension of miracle-plays
is another development in the direction of allegory, giving rise to
the ‘moral plays’ or ‘moralities,’ as they came to be indifferently
called[433], in which the characters are no longer scriptural or
legendary persons, but wholly, or almost wholly, abstractions, and which,
although still religious in intention, aim rather at ethical cultivation
than the stablishing of faith. The earliest notices of morals are found
about the end of the fourteenth century, at a time when the influence
of the _Roman de la Rose_ and other widely popular works was bringing
every department of literature under the sway of allegory[434]. That the
drama also should be touched with the spirit of the age was so inevitable
as hardly to call for comment. But it will be interesting to point out
some at least of the special channels through which the new tendency
established itself. In the first place there is the twelfth-century
Latin play of _Antichristus_. In a sense the whole content of this may
be called allegorical, and the allegory becomes formal in such figures
as _Heresis_ and _Ypocrisis_, _Iustitia_ and _Misericordia_, and in
those of _Ecclesia_, _Synagoga_, and _Gentilitas_, suggested to the
clerkly author by a well-known _disputatio_. The same theme recurs in
more than one later play[435]. Secondly, there is the theme of the
Reconciliation of the Heavenly Virtues, which is suggested by the
words of the eighty-fifth Psalm: ‘Mercy and Truth are met together:
Righteousness and Peace have kissed each other.’ This is treated in two
unprinted and little known French plays, also of the twelfth century,
which I have not as yet had occasion to mention and of which I borrow the
following analysis from Dr. Ward: ‘These four virtues appear personified
as four sisters, who meet together after the Fall of Man before the
throne of God to conduct one of those disputations which were so much in
accordance with the literary tastes of the age; Truth and Righteousness
speak against the guilty Adam, while Mercy and Peace plead in his favour.
Concord is restored among the four sisters by the promise of a Saviour,
who shall atone to Divine Justice on behalf of man.’ One of these pieces
is ascribed to the Anglo-Norman poet, Guillaume Herman (1127-70),
the other to Stephen Langton, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury.
They are generally spoken of as literary exercises, not intended for
representation[436]. But it is obvious that they might very well find
their places in miracle-play cycles, as links between the scenes dealing
respectively with the Fall and the Redemption. Further, precisely such
an episode, in precisely such a position, does occur, three hundred
years later, in the English cycle known as the _Ludus Coventriae_. Nor
is this the only allegorical element which distinguishes a certain part
of this patchwork cycle from nearly all the other English plays[437]. It
is not, perhaps, of great importance that in the Assumption scene the
risen Christ receives the name of _Sapientia_, or that _Contemplatio_
is the ‘exposytour in doctorys wede,’ by whom several other scenes are
introduced. But there is a striking passage at the end of the Slaughter
of the Innocents, where ‘Dethe, Goddys masangere,’ intervenes to make
an end of the tyrannic Herod[438], and here, I think, may clearly be
traced yet a third stream of allegorical tendency making its way into
the drama from that singular _danse macabre_ or ‘Dance of Death,’ which
exercised so powerful a fascination on the art of the Middle Ages. Death
hobnobbing with pope and king and clown, with lord and lady, with priest
and merchant, with beggar and fool, the irony is familiar in many a long
series of frescoes and engravings. Nor are cases lacking in which it
was directly adapted for scenic representation. An alleged example at
Paris in 1424 was probably only a painting. But in 1449 a _certain jeu,
histoire et moralité sur le fait de la danse macabre_ was acted before
Philip the Good at Bruges, and a similar performance is recorded at
Besançon in 1453[439].
The process of introducing abstractions into the miracle-plays themselves
does not seem to have been carried very far. On the other hand, the
moralities, if God and the Devil may be regarded as abstractions, admit
of nothing else. Two at least of the motives just enumerated, the Dance
of Death and the Reconciliation of the Heavenly Virtues, recur in them.
But both are subordinate to a third, which may be called the Conflict of
Vice and Virtue. This _débat_-like theme is of course familiar in every
branch of allegorical literature. Prof. Creizenach traces one type of it,
in which the conflict is conceived under the symbols of siege or battle,
to the _Psychomachia_ of Prudentius[440], and perhaps even further to
the passage about the ‘whole armour of God’ in St. Paul’s epistle to the
Ephesians[441]. For the purposes of the stage it is eminently suitable,
both because it lends itself to many and various modes of representation,
and because conflict is the very stuff out of which drama is wrought.
As the earliest notices of moralities are found in English records and as
this particular development of the drama is thoroughly well represented
in English texts, I may save space by confining my attention to these,
merely noting as I pass the contemporary existence of precisely parallel
records and texts on the continent and particularly in France[442]. The
first English moralities seem to have been known as _Paternoster_ plays.
Such a play is mentioned by Wyclif about 1378 as existing at York, and
at some date previous to 1389 a special guild _Orationis Domini_ was
founded in that city for its maintenance. The play, however, survived the
guild, and was acted from time to time as a substitute for the ordinary
Corpus Christi plays up to 1572. Similarly, at Beverley a _Paternoster_
play was acted by the crafts, probably in emulation of that of York,
in 1469, while a third is mentioned in Lincoln documents as played at
various dates from 1397 to 1521. Although all these _Paternoster_ plays
are lost, their general character can be made clear. In that of York ‘all
manner of vices and sins were held up to scorn and the virtues were held
up to praise,’ while an incidental entry in a _computus_ shows that one
division of it was known as the _ludus accidiae_. The information to be
derived from Beverley is even more explicit. There were eight pageants.
One was assigned to ‘Vicious,’ probably a typical representative of frail
humanity, the other seven to the seven deadly sins which beset him,
‘Pryde: Invy: Ire: Avaryce: Sleweth (or Accidie): Glotony: Luxuria.’
The _Paternoster_ play seems, therefore, to have been in some fashion a
dramatization of the struggle of the vices and the corresponding virtues
for the soul of man, and the name given to it may be explained by the
mediaeval notion that each clause of the Lord’s Prayer was of specific
merit against one of the deadly sins[443]. Here then is one version of
just that theme of the Conflict of Vice and Virtue noted as dominant in
the moralities.
Of the half dozen extant English moralities which can with any
plausibility be assigned to the fifteenth century, two are based upon
a motive akin to that of the Dance of Death. These are the fragmentary
_Pride of Life_, which is the earliest of the group, and _Everyman_,
which is by far the finest[444]. In the former Death and Life contend
for the soul of _Rex Vivus_, the representative of humanity, who is only
saved from the fiends by the intervention of the Virgin. In the latter,
God sends Death to summon Everyman, who finds to his dismay that of
all his earthly friends only Good Deeds is willing to accompany him.
The Conflict of Vice and Virtue is resumed in the moral of _Mundus et
Infans_ and in the three morals of the Macro manuscript, the _Castle of
Perseverance_, _Mind, Will and Understanding_, and _Mankind_. In all
four plays the representative of humanity, _Infans_ or _Humanum Genus_
or _Anima_ or Mankind, is beset by the compulsion or swayed this way and
that by the persuasion of allegorized good and bad qualities. At the end
of the _Castle of Perseverance_ the motive of the Reconciliation of the
Heavenly Virtues is introduced in a scene closely resembling that of the
_Ludus Coventriae_ or the earlier essays of Guillaume Herman and Stephen
Langton.
A somewhat unique position between miracle-play and morality is occupied
by the Mary Magdalen drama contained in the Digby manuscript. The
action of this, so far as it is scriptural or legendary, has already
been summarized[445]; but it must now be added that the episodes of
the secular life of the Magdalen _in gaudio_ are conceived in a wholly
allegorical vein. The ‘kyngs of the world and the flesch’ and the ‘prynse
of dylles’ are introduced with the seven deadly sins and a good and
a bad angel. The castle of Magdala, like the castle of Perseverance,
is besieged. The Magdalen is led into a tavern by _Luxuria_ and there
betrayed by Curiosity, a gallant. We have to do less with a mystery
beginning to show morality elements than with a deliberate combination
effected by a writer familiar with both forms of drama.
The manner of presentation of the fifteenth-century moralities did not
differ from that of the contemporary miracle-plays. The manuscript of the
_Castle of Perseverance_ contains a prologue delivered by _vexillatores_
after the fashion of the _Ludus Coventriae_ and the Croxton _Sacrament_.
There is also, as in the Cornish mysteries published by Mr. Norris, a
diagram showing a circular ‘place’ bounded by a ditch or fence, with a
central ‘castel’ and five ‘skaffoldys’ for the principal performers.
Under the castle is ‘Mankynde, is bed’ and near it ‘Coveytyse cepbord.’
The scaffolds are the now familiar _loca_ or _sedes_. The scantier
indications of more than one of the other moralities proper suggest
that they also were performed in an outdoor ‘place’ with _sedes_, and a
similar arrangement is pointed to by the stage directions of the _Mary
Magdalen_. Nor could the moralities dispense with those attractions of
devils and hell-fire which had been so popular in their predecessors.
Belial, in the _Castle of Perseverance_, is to have gunpowder burning
in pipes in his hands and ears and other convenient parts of his body;
_Anima_, in _Mind, Will and Understanding_, has little devils running
in and out beneath her skirts; and in _Mary Magdalen_, the ‘prynse of
dylles’ enters in ‘a stage, and Helle ondyr-neth that stage.’ The later
moralities, of which the sixteenth century affords several examples, were
presented under somewhat different conditions, which will be discussed in
another chapter[446]. Allusions to the ‘morals at Manningtree,’ however,
in the beginning of the seventeenth century, suggest that moralities may
have continued in out-of-the-way places to hold the open-air stage, just
as miracle-plays here and there did, to a comparatively late date. Actual
examples of the more popular type of morality from the sixteenth century
are afforded by Skelton’s _Magnificence_ and by Sir David Lyndsay’s
_Satyre of the Thrie Estaitis_, shown successively at Linlithgow in 1540,
on the Castle-hill at Cupar of Fife in 1552, and in the Greenside at
Edinburgh about 1554. This remarkable piece differs in many ways from the
English moralities. The theme consists of the arraignment of the estates
of the realm before _Rex Humanitas_. Various ‘vycis’ and allegorical
personages appear and plead, and the action is enlivened by farcical
interludes for the amusement of the vulgar, and wound up by a sermon of
‘Folie,’ which points rather to French than to English models[447]. The
flight of time is also shown by the fact that the _Satyre_ aims less at
the moral edification with which the fifteenth-century plays contented
themselves, than at the introduction of a sharp polemic against abuses in
church and state. Skelton’s _Magnificence_ had also, not improbably, some
political bearing. To this matter also I return in another chapter[448].
Miracle-plays and moralities ranked amongst the most widespread and
coloured elements, century after century, of burgher and even of
village life. It is not surprising that their subjects and their
methods exercised a powerful influence upon other manifestations of the
mediaeval spirit. The share which their vivid and sensuous presentations
of religious ideas had in shaping the conceptions of artists and
handicraftsmen is a fascinating topic of far too wide a scope to be even
touched upon here[449]. But a few pages must be devoted to indicating
the nature of their overflow into various pseudo-dramatic, rather than
strictly dramatic, forms of entertainment.
One of these is the puppet-show. It has been pointed out, in speaking
of the liturgical drama, that the use of puppets to provide a figured
representation of the mystery of the Nativity, seems to have preceded
the use for the same purpose of living and speaking persons; and
further, that the puppet-show, in the form of the ‘Christmas crib,’ has
outlived the drama founded upon it, and is still in use in all Catholic
countries[450]. An analogous custom is the laying of the crucifix in
the ‘sepulchre’ during the Easter ceremonies, and there is one English
example of a complete performance of a Resurrection play by ‘certain
smalle puppets, representinge the Persons of Christe, the Watchmen, Marie
and others.’ This is described by a seventeenth-century writer as taking
place at Witney in Oxfordshire ‘in the dayes of ceremonial religion,’ and
one of the watchmen, which made a clacking noise, was ‘comonly called
Jack Snacker of Wytney[451].’ This points to the use of some simple
mechanical device by which motion was imparted to some at least of the
puppets. A similar contrivance was produced by Bishop Barlow to point a
sermon against idolatry at Paul’s Cross in 1547 and was given afterwards
to the boys to break into pieces[452]. More elaborate representations of
miracle-plays by means of moving puppets or _marionnettes_ make their
appearance in all parts of Europe at a period when the regular dramatic
performances of similar subjects were already becoming antiquated, nor
can they be said to be even yet quite extinct[453]. Most of them belong
to the repertory of the professional showmen, and it will be remembered
that some form or other of _marionnette_ seems to have been handed
down continuously amongst the minstrel class from Roman times[454]. In
England the puppet-shows were much in vogue at such places as Bartholomew
Fair, where they became serious rivals of the living actors[455]. The
earliest name for them was ‘motions[456].’ Italian players brought ‘an
instrument of strange motions’ to London in 1574[457]. Autolycus, in
_The Winter’s Tale_, amongst his other shifts for a living, ‘compassed
a motion of the Prodigal Son[458].’ Ben Jonson, in _Bartholomew Fair_,
introduces one Lanthorn Leatherhead, a puppet-showman, who presents in
his booth a curious rigmarole of a motion in which Hero and Leander,
Damon and Pythias, and Dionysius are all mixed up[459]. It would appear
to have been customary for the showman, like his brethren of the modern
Punch and Judy, to ‘interpret’ for the puppets by reciting a suitable
dialogue as an accompaniment to their gestures[460]. The repertory
of Lanthorn Leatherhead contained a large proportion of ‘motions’ on
subjects borrowed from the miracle-play. Similar titles occur in the
notices of later performances at Bartholomew Fair[461] and of those
given by the popular London showman, Robert Powell, during the reign
of Queen Anne[462]. In more recent times all other puppet-shows have
been outdone by the unique vogue of Punch and Judy[463]. The derivation
of these personages from the Pontius Pilate and Judas Iscariot of the
miracle-plays is the merest philological whimsy. Punch is doubtless the
Pulcinella[464], who makes his appearance about 1600 as a stock figure
in the impromptu comedy of Naples. Under other names his traditions may,
for all one knows, go back far beyond the miracle-plays to the _fabulae
Atellanae_. But the particular drama in which alone he now takes the
stage, although certainly not a miracle-play, follows closely upon the
traditional lines of the moralities[465].
Another kind of religious dumb-show, at once more ancient and more
important than that of the puppets, was presented by living persons
in the ‘ridings’ or processions which formed an integral part of so
many mediaeval festivals. Like the miracle-plays themselves, these
_tableaux_ reached their highest point of elaboration in connexion with
the ceremonies of Corpus Christi day; and, in order to understand their
relation to the regular dramas, it is necessary to return for a moment
to the early history of the great feast. It has already been suggested
that the processional character of the great English craft-cycles, with
their movable pageants and their ‘stations,’ may be explained on the
hypothesis, that the performances were at one time actually given during
the ‘stations’ or pauses before temporary street altars of the Corpus
Christi procession itself. The obvious inconveniences of such a custom,
if it really existed, might not unnaturally lead to its modification.
Except at Draguignan, where the dialogue was reduced to the briefest
limits, no actual traces of it are left[466]. In England the difficulty
seems to have been solved at Newcastle by sending the pageants round with
the procession in the early morning and deferring the actual plays until
the afternoon. At Coventry representatives of the _dramatis personae_
appear to have ridden in the procession, the cumbrous pageants being
left behind until they were needed. Herod, for instance, rode on behalf
of the smiths. At other places, again, the separation between procession
and play was even more complete. The crafts which produced the plays were
as a rule also burdened by their ordinances with the duties of providing
a light and of walking or riding in honour of the host; but the two
ceremonies took place at different hours on the same day, and there was
no external relation, so far as the evidence goes, between them. Even
so there was still some clashing, and at York, after an unsuccessful
attempt on the part of the clergy in 1426 to get the plays put off, the
procession itself appears to have been transferred to the following day.
On the other hand the difficulty seems to have been met in certain towns
by suppressing the plays and reducing them to dumb-show ‘pageants’
carried in the procession. Lists are extant of such pageants as they
were assigned to the crafts at Dublin in 1498 and at Hereford in 1503,
and although it is not of course impossible that there were to be
plays later in the day, there is no proof that this was the case. For
a similar procession of _tableaux_ held in London, in the earlier part
of the fifteenth century, a set of descriptive verses was written by
John Lydgate, and the adoption of this method of ‘interpreting’ the
dumb-show seems to put the possibility of a regular dramatic performance
out of court[467]. There were pageants also in the Corpus Christi
processions at Bungay and at Bury St. Edmunds, but the notices are too
fragmentary to permit of more than a conjecture as to whether they were
accompanied by plays. The _tableaux_ shown at Dublin, Hereford, and
London were of a continuous and cyclical character, although at Hereford
St. Catherine, and at Dublin King Arthur, the Nine Worthies, and St.
George’s dragon were tacked on at the tail of the procession[468]. A
continental parallel is afforded by the twenty-eight _remontrances_,
making a complete cycle from the Annunciation to the Last Judgement,
shown at Béthune in 1549[469]. But elsewhere, both in England and abroad,
the shows of the Corpus Christi procession were of a much less systematic
character, and Dublin was not the only place where secular elements crept
in[470]. At Coventry, in addition to the representative figures from the
craft-plays, the guild of Corpus Christi and St. Nicholas, to which,
as to special Corpus Christi guilds elsewhere, the general supervision
of the procession fell, provided in 1539 a Mary and a Gabriel with the
lily, Saints Catherine and Margaret, eight Virgins and twelve Apostles.
The Coventry procession, it may be added, outlived the Corpus Christi
feast. In the seventeenth century Godiva had been placed in it and became
the most important feature. By the nineteenth century the wool-combers
had a shepherd and shepherdess, their patron saint Bishop Blaize, and
Jason with the Golden Fleece[471]. At the Shrewsbury ‘Show,’ which also
until a recent date continued the tradition of an older Corpus Christi
procession, Saints Crispin and Crispinian rode for the shoemakers. At
Norwich the grocers sent the ‘griffin’ from the top of their pageant and
a ‘tree’ which may have been the tree of knowledge from their Whitsun
play of Paradise, but which was converted by festoons of fruit and
spicery into an emblem of their trade[472].
Aberdeen seems to have been distinguished by having two great mimetic
processions maintained by the guilds. The interpretation of the data is
rather difficult, but apparently the ‘Haliblude’ play, which existed in
1440 and 1479, had given way by 1531 to a procession in which pageants
of the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, and the Coronation of the Virgin
were eked out by others of Saints Sebastian, Laurence, Stephen, Martin,
Nicholas, John, and George. The other procession seems originally to
have been introduced as an episode in a play of the Presentation in the
Temple on Candlemas day. Its ‘personnes’ or ‘pageants’ are such as might
furnish out the action of a short Nativity cycle, together with ‘honest
squiares’ from each craft, ‘wodmen,’ and minstrels. But in this case also
the play seems to have vanished early in the sixteenth century, while the
procession certainly endured until a much later date.
There are no other English religious dumb-shows, outside those of Corpus
Christi day, so elaborate as the Aberdeen Candlemas procession. On the
same day at Beverley the guild of St. Mary carried a pageant of the
Virgin and Child with Saints Joseph and Simon and two angels holding
a great candlestick[473]. The guild of St. Helen, on the day of the
Invention of the Cross (May 3), had a procession with a boy to represent
the saint, and two men bearing a cross and a shovel[474]. The guild of
St. William of Norwich paraded a knave-child between two men holding
candles in honour of the youthful martyr[475]. In the Whitsuntide
procession at Leicester walked the Virgin and Saint Martin, with the
twelve Apostles[476]. More interesting is the pageant of St. Thomas
the Martyr on December 29 at Canterbury, with the saint on a cart and
knights played by children and an altar and a device of an angel and
a ‘leder bag for the blode[477].’ Probably this list could be largely
increased were it worth while[478]. The comparatively modern elements
in the Corpus Christi pageantry of Coventry, Shrewsbury, and Dublin
may be paralleled from the eighteenth-century festival of the Preston
guild merchant on or near St. John Baptist’s day with its Crispin and
Crispinian, Bishop Blaize, Adam and Eve, Vulcan, and so forth[479],
or the nineteenth-century wool trade procession on St. Blasius’ day
(February 3), at Bradford, in which once more Bishop Blaize, with the
Jason and Medea of the Golden Fleece, appears[480]. It is noticeable how,
as such functions grow more civic and less religious, the pageants tend
to become distinctively emblematic of the trades concerned. The same
feature is to be observed in the choice of subjects for the plays given
by way of entertainment to the earl of Kildare at Dublin in 1528.
The dumb-show pageants, which in many cities glorified the ‘ridings’ on
the day of St. George (April 23), have been described in an earlier
chapter[481]. These ‘ridings,’ of curiously mingled religious and folk
origin, stand midway between the processions just mentioned and such
seasonal perambulations as the ‘shows’ and ‘watches’ of Midsummer. Even
in the latter, elements borrowed from the pageants of the miracle-plays
occasionally form an odd blend with the ‘giants’ and other figures of the
‘folk’ tradition[482]. The ‘wache and playe’ went together at Wymondham,
and also apparently at Chelmsford, in the sixteenth century. At York
we find the pageants of some of the crafts borrowed for a play, though
apparently a classical and not a religious one, at the Midsummer show
of 1585. At Chester, when the Whitsun plays were beginning to fall into
desuetude, the crafts were regularly represented in the Midsummer show
by some of their _dramatis personae_, who, however, rode without their
pageants. The smiths sent ‘the Doctors and little God,’ the butchers sent
‘the divill in his fethers,’ the barbers sent Abraham and Isaac, the
bricklayers sent Balaam and the Ass, and so forth. These with the giants,
a dragon, a man in woman’s clothes, naked boys, morris-dancers and other
folk elements, made up a singular cavalcade.
In London, pageants were provided for the Midsummer show by the guilds
to which the lord mayor and sheriffs for the year belonged. Thus the
drapers had a pageant of the Golden Fleece in 1522, and pageants of the
Assumption and Saint Ursula in 1523[483]. To a modern imagination the
type of civic pageantry is the annual procession at the installation of
the lord mayor in November, known familiarly as the lord mayor’s show.
This show was important enough from the middle of the sixteenth century,
and the pens of many goodly poets, Peele, Dekker, Munday, Middleton, and
others, were employed in its service[484]. But its history cannot be
taken much further back, and it is exceedingly probable that when the
Midsummer show came to an end in 1538, the pageants were transferred to
the installation procession. The earliest clear notice is in 1540, when
a pageant of the Assumption, perhaps that which had already figured at
the Midsummer show of 1523, was used[485]. The ironmongers had a pageant
when the lord mayor was chosen from their body in 1566. It was arranged
by James Peele, father of the dramatist, and there were two ‘wodmen’ in
it, but unfortunately it is not further described[486]. In 1568, Sir
Thomas Roe, merchant tailor, had a pageant of John the Baptist[487].
William Smith, writing an account of city customs in 1575, mentions, as a
regular feature of the procession, ‘the Pagent of Triumph richly decked,
whereupon, by certain figures and writings, some matter touching Justice
and the office of a Magistrate is represented[488].’ And about ten years
later the series of printed ‘Devices’ of the pageants begins.
The influence of miracle-plays and moralities is also to be looked for
in the municipal ‘shows’ of welcome provided at the state entries of
royal and other illustrious visitors. A large number of these, chiefly at
coronations, royal marriages and the like, are recorded in chronicles of
London origin, and with the London examples in their chronological order
I will briefly deal. The earlier features of such ceremonies include
the riding of the mayor and corporation to meet the king at some place
outside the gates, such as Blackheath, or, in the case of a coronation,
at the Tower, and the escorting of him with joyous _tripudium_ or
_carole_ to the palace of Westminster, the reading of loyal addresses
and the giving of golden gifts, the decking of walls and balconies with
costly robes and tapestries, the filling of the conduits with wine, white
and red, in place of the accustomed water[489]. The first example of
pageantry in the proper sense occurs about the middle of the thirteenth
century, in certain ‘devices and marvels’ shown at the wedding of Henry
III to Eleanor of Provence in 1236[490]. These are not described in
detail; but when Edward I returned to London after the defeat of William
Wallace at Falkirk in 1298, it is recorded by a chronicler, quoted in
Stowe’s _Annals_, that the crafts made ‘great and solemne triumph’ and
that the fishmongers in particular ‘amongst other pageantes and shewes’
had, as it was St. Magnus’s day, one of the saint accompanied by a
thousand horsemen, and preceded by four gilded sturgeons, four salmons
on horseback and ‘sixe and fourtie knights armed, riding on horses made
like luces of the sea[491].’ It was the fishmongers again who on the
birth of Edward III in 1313 went in a _chorea_ to Westminster with an
ingeniously contrived ship in full sail, and escorted the queen on her
way to Eltham[492]. At the coronation of Richard II in 1377 an elaborate
castle was put up at the head of Cheapside. On the four towers of this
stood four white-robed damsels, who wafted golden leaves in the king’s
face, dropped gilt models of coin upon him and his steed, and offered
him wine from pipes laid on to the structure. Between the towers was a
golden angel, which by a mechanical device bent forward and held out a
crown as Richard drew near[493]. Similar stages, with a _coelicus ordo_
of singers and boys and maidens offering wine and golden crowns, stood
in Cheapside when Richard again rode through the city in 1392, in token
of reconciliation with the rebellious Londoners. And at St. Paul’s was a
youth enthroned amongst a triple circle of singing angels; and at Temple
Bar St. John Baptist in the desert surrounded by all kinds of trees and
a menagerie of strange beasts[494]. No similar details of pageantry are
recorded at the coronations of Henry IV or Henry V. But when the latter
king returned to London after the battle of Agincourt in 1415 there was
a very fine show indeed. The procession came to the city from Eltham and
Blackheath by way of London Bridge. Upon the tower masking the bridge
stood two gigantic figures, one a man with an axe in his right hand and
the city keys in his left, the other a woman in a scarlet mantle. Beyond
this were two columns painted to resemble white marble and green jasper,
on which were a lion and an antelope bearing the royal arms and banner.
Over the foot of the bridge was a tower with a figure of St. George,
and on a house hard by a number of boys representing the heavenly host,
who sang the anthem _Benedictus qui venit in nomine Dei_. The tower
upon the Cornhill conduit was decked with red and had on it a company
of prophets, who sent a flight of sparrows and other birds fluttering
round the king as he passed, while the prophets chanted _Cantate Domino
canticum novum_. The tower of the great Cheapside conduit was green,
and here were twelve Apostles and twelve Kings, Martyrs and Confessors
of England, whose anthem was _Benedic, anima, Domino_, and who, even
as Melchisedek received Abraham with bread and wine, offered the king
thin wafers mixed with silver leaves, and a cup filled from the conduit
pipes. On Cheapside, the cross was completely hidden by a great castle,
in imitation white marble and green and red jasper, out of the door of
which issued a bevy of virgins, with timbrel and dance and songs of
‘Nowell, Nowell,’ like unto the daughters of Israel who danced before
David after the slaying of Goliath. On the castle stood boys feathered
like angels, who sang _Te Deum_ and flung down gold coins and boughs of
laurel. Finally, on the tower of the little conduit near St. Paul’s, all
blue as the sky, were more virgins who, as when Richard II was crowned,
wafted golden leaves out of golden cups, while above were wrought angels
in gold and colours, and an image of the sun enthroned[495]. The details
of the reception of Henry and Catherine of France, six years later, are
not preserved[496]. Nor are those of the London coronation of Henry
VI in 1429. But there was a grand dumb-show at the Paris coronation
in 1431[497], and it was perhaps in emulation of this that on his
return to London in the following year the king was received with a
splendour equal to that lavished on the victor of Agincourt. There is a
contemporary account of the proceedings by John Carpenter, the town clerk
of London[498]. As in 1415 a giant greeted the king at the foot of London
Bridge. On the same ‘pageant[499]’ two antelopes upbore the arms of
England and France. On the bridge stood a magnificent ‘fabric,’ occupied
by Nature, Grace, and Fortune, who gave the king presents as he passed.
To the right were the seven heavenly Virtues, who signified the seven
gifts of the Holy Ghost, by letting fly seven white doves. To the left,
seven other virgins offered the regalia. Then all fourteen, clapping
their hands and rejoicing in _tripudia_, broke into songs of welcome. In
Cornhill was the Tabernacle of Lady Wisdom, set upon seven columns. Here
stood Wisdom, and here the seven liberal Sciences were represented by
Priscian, Aristotle, Tully, Boethius, Pythagoras, Euclid, and Albumazar.
On the conduit was the Throne of Justice, on which sat a king surrounded
by Truth, Mercy, and Clemency, with two Judges and eight Lawyers. In
Cheapside was a Paradise with a grove full of all manner of foreign
fruits, and three wells from which gushed out wine, served by Mercy,
Grace, and Pity. Here the king was greeted by Enoch and Elijah[500]. At
the cross was a castle of jasper with a Tree of Jesse, and another of the
royal descent; and at St. Paul’s conduit a representation of the Trinity
amongst a host of ministering angels. In 1445 Margaret of Anjou came to
London to be crowned. Stowe records ‘a few only’ of the pageants. She
entered by Southwark bridge foot where were Peace and Plenty. On the
bridge was Noah’s ship; in Leadenhall, ‘madam Grace Chancelor de Dieu’;
on the Tun in Cornhill, St. Margaret; on the conduit in Cheapside, the
Wise and Foolish Virgins; at the Cross, the Heavenly Jerusalem; and at
Paul’s Gate, the General Resurrection and Judgement[501].
The rapid kingings and unkingings of the wars of the Roses left little
time and little heart for pageantries, but with the advent of Henry VII
they begin again, and continue with growing splendour throughout the
Tudor century. Space only permits a brief enumeration of the subjects
chosen for set pageants on a few of the more important occasions. Singing
angels and precious gifts, wells of wine and other minor delights may be
taken for granted[502]. As to the details of Henry VII’s coronation in
1485 and marriage in 1486 the chroniclers are provokingly silent, and
of the many ‘gentlemanlie pageants’ at the coronation of the queen in
1487 the only one specified is ‘a great redde dragon spouting flames of
fyer into the Thames,’ from the ‘bachelors’ barge’ of the lord mayor’s
company as she passed up the river from Greenwich to the Tower[503]. At
the wedding of Prince Arthur to Katharine of Aragon in 1501, ‘vi goodly
beutiful pageauntes’ lined the way from London Bridge to St. Paul’s.
The contriver is said to have been none other than Bishop Foxe the
great chancellor and the founder of Corpus Christi College in Oxford.
The subject of the first pageant was the Trinity with Saints Ursula
and Katharine; of the second, the Castle of Portcullis, with Policy,
Nobleness, and Virtue; of the third, Raphael, the angel of marriage,
with Alphonso, Job, and Boethius; of the fourth, the Sphere of the Sun;
of the fifth, the Temple of God; and of the sixth, Honour with the seven
Virtues[504]. As to Henry VIII’s coronation and marriage there is, once
more, little recorded. In 1522 came Charles V, Emperor of Germany, to
visit the king, and the city provided eleven pageants ‘very faire and
excellent to behold[505].’ The ‘great red dragon’ of 1487 reappeared in
1533 when yet another queen, Anne Boleyn, came up from Greenwich to enjoy
her brief triumph. It stood on a ‘foist’ near the lord mayor’s barge,
and in another ‘foist’ was a mount, and on the mount Anne’s device, a
falcon on a root of gold with white roses and red. The pageants for the
progress by land on the following day were of children ‘apparelled like
merchants,’ of Mount Parnassus, of the falcon and mount once more, with
Saint Anne and her children, of the three Graces, of Pallas, Juno, Venus,
and Mercury with the golden apple, of three ladies, and of the Cardinal
Virtues[506]. The next great show was at the coronation of Edward VI
in 1547, and included Valentine and Orson, Grace, Nature, Fortune and
Charity, Sapience and the seven Liberal Sciences, Regality enthroned with
Justice, Mercy and Truth, the Golden Fleece, Edward the Confessor and
St. George, Truth, Faith, and Justice. There was also a cunning Spanish
rope-dancer, who performed marvels on a cord stretched to the ground
from the tower of St. George’s church in St. Paul’s churchyard[507].
Mary, in 1553, enjoyed an even more thrilling spectacle in ‘one Peter
a Dutchman,’ who stood and waved a streamer on the weathercock of St.
Paul’s steeple. She had eight pageants, of which three were contributed
by the Genoese, Easterlings, and Florentines. The subjects are unknown,
but that of the Florentines was in the form of a triple arch and had
on the top a trumpeting angel in green, who moved his trumpet to the
wonder of the crowd[508]. There were pageants again when Mary brought her
Spanish husband to London in 1554. At the conduit in Gracechurch Street
were painted the Nine Worthies. One of these was Henry VIII, who was
represented as handing a bible to Edward; and the unfortunate painter was
dubbed a knave and a rank traitor and villain by Bishop Gardiner, because
the bible was not put in the hands of Mary[509]. At the coronation of
Elizabeth in 1559, with which this list must close, it was Time and
Truth who offered the English bible to the queen. The same pageant had
representations of a Decayed Commonwealth and a Flourishing Commonwealth,
while others figured the Union of York and Lancaster, the Seat of Worthy
Governance, the Eight Beatitudes, and Deborah the Judge. At Temple
Bar, those ancient _palladia_ of London city, the giants Gotmagot and
Corineus, once more made their appearance[510].
I do not wish to exaggerate the influence exercised by the miracle-plays
and moralities over these London shows. London was not, in the Middle
Ages, one of the most dramatic of English cities, and such plays as
there were were not in the hands of those trade- and craft-guilds to
whom the glorifying of the receptions naturally fell. The functions
carried out by the fishmongers in 1298 and 1313 are much of the nature
of masked ridings or ‘disguisings,’ and must be held to have a folk
origin. The ship of 1313 suggests a ‘hobby ship[511].’ Throughout the
shows draw notions from many heterogeneous sources. The giants afford
yet another ‘folk’ element. The gifts of gold and wine and the speeches
of welcome[512] need no explanation. Devices of heraldry are worked in.
The choirs of boys and girls dressed as angels recall the choirs perched
on the battlements of churches in such ecclesiastical ceremonies as the
Palm Sunday procession[513]. The term ‘pageant’ (_pagina_), which first
appears in this connexion in 1432 and is in regular use by the end of the
century, is perhaps a loan from the plays, but the structures themselves
appear to have arisen naturally out of attempts to decorate such obvious
architectural features of the city as London Bridge, the prison known as
the Tun, and the conduits which stood in Cornhill and Cheapside[514].
It is chiefly in the selection of themes for the more elaborate mimetic
pageants that the reflection of the regular contemporary drama must
be traced. Such scriptural subjects as John the Baptist of 1392 or
the Prophets and Apostles of 1415 pretty obviously come from the
miracle-plays. The groups of allegorical figures which greeted Henry VI
in 1432 are in no less close a relation to the moralities, which were at
that very moment beginning to outstrip the miracle-plays in popularity.
And in the reign of Henry VII the humanist tendencies begin to suggest
subjects for the pageants as well as to transform the drama itself.
Certainly one does not find in London or in any English city those
_mystères mimés_ or cyclical dumb-shows, with which the good people of
Paris were wont to welcome kings, and which are clearly an adaptation of
the ordinary miracle-play to the conditions of a royal entry with its
scant time for long drawn-out dialogue. The earliest of these upon record
was in 1313 when Philip IV entertained Edward II and Isabella. It is not
quite clear whether this was a procession like the disguising called the
_procession du renard_ which accompanied it, or a stationary dumb-show
on pageants. But there is no doubt about the _moult piteux mystere de
la Passion de Nostre Seigneur au vif_ given before Charles VI and Henry
V after the treaty of Troyes in 1420, for this is said to have been on
_eschaffaulx_ and to have been modelled on the bas-reliefs around the
choir of Notre-Dame. Very similar must have been the _moult bel mystere
du Vieil testament et du Nouvel_ which welcomed the duke of Bedford in
1424 and which _fut fait sans parler ne sans signer, comme ce feussent
ymaiges enlevez contre ung mur_. _Sans parler_, again, was the _mystère_
which stood on an _eschaffault_ before the church of the Trinity when
Henry VI was crowned, only a few weeks before the London reception
already mentioned[515].
It may be added that in many provincial towns the pageants used at
royal entries had a far closer affinity to the miracle-plays proper
than was the case in London. The place most often honoured in this sort
was Coventry. In 1456 came Queen Margaret and poor mad Henry VI. One
John Wedurley of Leicester seems to have been employed to organize a
magnificent entertainment. At Bablake gate, where stood a Jesse, the
royal visitors were greeted by Isaiah and Jeremiah. Within the gate was
a ‘pagent’ with Saint Edward the Confessor and St. John the Evangelist.
On the conduit in Smithford Street were the four Cardinal Virtues. In
the Cheaping were nine pageants for the Nine Worthies. At the cross
there were angels, and wine flowed, and at another conduit hard by was
St. Margaret ‘sleyng’ her dragon and a company of angels. The queen
was so pleased that she returned next year for Corpus Christi day. It
appears from the smiths’ accounts that the pageants used at the reception
were those kept by the crafts for the plays. The smiths’ pageant was
had out again in 1461, with Samson upon it, when Edward IV came after
his coronation, and in 1474 when the young prince Edward came for St.
George’s feast. The shows then represented King Richard II and his court,
Patriarchs and Prophets, St. Edward the Confessor, the Three Kings of
Cologne and St. George slaying the dragon. Prince Arthur, in 1498, saw
the Nine Worthies, the Queen of Fortune, and, once more, Saint George.
For Henry VIII and Katharine of Aragon in 1511 there were three pageants:
on one the ninefold hierarchy of angels, on another ‘divers beautiful
damsels,’ on the third ‘a goodly stage play.’ The mercers’ pageant
‘stood’ at the visit of the Princess Mary in 1525, and the tanners’,
drapers’, smiths’, and weavers’ pageants at that of Queen Elizabeth in
1565. I do not know whether it is legitimate to infer that the subjects
represented on these occasions were those of the Corpus Christi plays
belonging to the crafts named[516].
York was visited by Richard III in 1483, and there were pageants, the
details of which have not been preserved, as well as a performance of
the Creed play[517]. It was also visited by Henry VII in 1486, and there
exists a civic order prescribing the pageants for that occasion. The
first of these was a most ingenious piece of symbolism. There was a
heaven and beneath it ‘a world desolaite, full of treys and floures.’
Out of this sprang ‘a roiall, rich, rede rose’ and ‘an othre rich white
rose,’ to whom all the other flowers did ‘lowte and evidently yeve
suffrantie.’ Then appeared out of a cloud a crown over the roses, and
then a city with citizens with ‘Ebrauk’ the founder, who offered the
keys to the king. The other pageants represented Solomon and the six
Henries, the Castle of David, and Our Lady. There were also devices by
which a rain of rose-water and a hailstorm of comfits fell before the
king[518]. During the same progress which took Henry to York, he also
visited Worcester, where there were pageants and speeches, ‘whiche his
Grace at that Tyme harde not’ but which should have represented Henry VI
and a _Ianitor ad Ianuam_. Thence he went to Hereford, and was greeted
by St. George, King Ethelbert, and Our Lady; thence to Gloucester, where
the chronicler remarks with some surprise that ‘ther was no Pageant nor
Speche ordeynede’; and finally to Bristol, where were King Bremmius,
Prudence, Justice, ‘the Shipwrights Pageannt,’ without any speech, and
a ‘Pageannte of an Olifaunte, with a Castell on his Bakk’ and ‘The
Resurrection of our Lorde in the highest Tower of the same, with certeyne
Imagerye smytyng Bellis, and all wente by Veights, merveolously wele
done[519].’ In 1503 Henry VII’s daughter Margaret married James IV of
Scotland, and was received into Edinburgh with pageants of the Judgement
of Paris, the Annunciation, the Marriage of Joseph and Mary, and the Four
Virtues[520]. Eight years later, in 1511, she visited Aberdeen, and the
‘pleasant padgeanes’ included Adam and Eve, the Salutation of the Virgin,
the _Magi_, and the Bruce[521].
The facts brought together in the present chapter show how ‘pageant’
came to have its ordinary modern sense of a spectacular procession. How
it was replaced by other terms in the sense of ‘play’ will be matter for
the sequel. It may be added that the name is also given to the elaborate
structures of carpenters’ and painters’ work used in the early Tudor
masks[522]. These the masks probably took over from the processions and
receptions. On the other hand, the receptions, by an elaboration of the
spoken element, developed into the Elizabethan ‘Entertainments,’ which
are often classified as a sub-variety of the mask itself. This action and
reaction of one form of show upon another need not at this stage cause
any surprise. A sixteenth-century synonym for ‘pageant’ is ‘triumph,’
which is doubtless a translation of the Italian _trionfo_, a name given
to the _edifizio_ by the early Renascence, in deliberate reminiscence of
classical terminology[523].
BOOK IV
THE INTERLUDE
Patronage cannot kill art: even in kings’ palaces the sudden
flower blooms serene.
MODERN PLAY.
CHAPTER XXIV
PLAYERS OF INTERLUDES
[_Bibliographical Note._—The _Annals of the Stage_ in J. P.
Collier, _History of English Dramatic Poetry_ (new ed. 1879),
although ill arranged and by no means trustworthy, now become
of value. They may be supplemented from the full notices of
Tudor _spectacula_ in E. Hall, _The Union of Lancaster and
York_, 1548, ed. 1809, and from the various calendars of State
papers, of which J. S. Brewer and J. Gairdner, _Letters and
Papers of the Reign of Henry VIII_ (1862-1903), including the
_Revels Accounts_ and the _Kings Books of Payments_, is the
most important. Some useful documents are in W. C. Hazlitt,
_The English Drama and Stage_ (1869). The French facts are
given by L. Petit de Julleville, _Les Comédiens en France au
Moyen Âge_ (1889).]
The closing section of this essay may fitly be introduced by a brief
retrospect of the conclusions already arrived at. The investigation,
however it may have lingered by the way, has not been altogether without
its _logos_ or rational framework. The first book began with a study
of the conditions under which the degenerate stage of the Roman Empire
ceased to exist. The most important of these were the indifference of
the barbarians and the direct hostility of the Church. A fairly clean
sweep was made. Scarcely a thread of dramatic tradition is to be traced
amongst the many and diverse forms of entertainment provided by mediaeval
minstrelsy. But the very existence of minstrelsy, itself a singular blend
of Latin and barbaric elements, is a proof of the enduring desire of the
western European peoples for something in the nature of _spectacula_.
In the strength of this the minstrels braved the ban of the Church, and
finally won their way to at least a partial measure of toleration from
their hereditary foes. In the second book it was shown that the instinct
for _spectacula_ had its definitely dramatic side. The ludi of the
folk, based upon ancient observances of a forgotten natural religion,
and surviving side by side with minstrelsy, broke out at point after
point into _mimesis_. Amongst the villages they developed into dramatic
May-games and dramatic sword-dances: in their _bourgeois_ forms they
overran city and cathedral with the mimicries of the Feast of Fools and
the Boy Bishop; they gave birth to a special type of drama in the mask;
and they further enriched Tudor revels with the characteristic figures
of the domestic fool or jester and the lord of misrule. Upon the folk
_ludi_, as upon the _spectacula_ of the minstrels, the Church looked
doubtfully. But the mimetic instinct was irresistible, and in the end it
was neither minstrels nor folk, but the Church itself, which did most for
its satisfaction. The subject of the third book is a remarkable growth
of drama within the heart of the ecclesiastical liturgy, which began in
the tenth century, and became, consciously or unconsciously, a powerful
counterpoise to the attraction of _ludi_ and _spectacula_. So popular,
indeed, did it prove that it broke the bonds of ecclesiastical control;
and about the thirteenth century a process of laicization set in, which
culminated during the fourteenth in the great Corpus Christi cycles of
the municipal guilds. The subject-matter, however, remained religious to
the end, an end which, in spite of the marked critical attitude adopted
by the austerer schools of churchmen, did not arrive until that attitude
was confirmed by successive waves of Lollard and Protestant sentiment.
Nor was the system substantially affected by certain innovations of the
fifteenth century, a tendency to substitute mere spectacular pageantry
for the spoken drama, and a tendency to add to the visible presentment of
the scriptural history an allegorical exposition of theological and moral
doctrine.
It is the object of the present book briefly to record the rise, also in
the fifteenth century, of new dramatic conditions which, after existing
for a while side by side with those of mediaevalism, were destined
ultimately to become a substitute for these and to lead up directly to
the magic stage of Shakespeare. The change to be sketched is primarily a
social rather than a literary one. The drama which had already migrated
from the church to the market-place, was to migrate still further, to
the banqueting-hall. And having passed from the hands of the clergy to
those of the folk, it was now to pass, after an interval of a thousand
years, not immediately but ultimately, into those of a professional class
of actors. Simultaneously it was to put off its exclusively religious
character, and enter upon a new heritage of interests and methods,
beneath the revivifying breath of humanism.
A characteristic note of the new phase is the rise of the term
_interludium_ or ‘interlude.’ This we have already come across in the
title of that fragmentary _Interludium de Clerico et Puella_ which alone
amongst English documents seemed to bear witness to a scanty dramatic
element in the repertory of minstrelsy[524]. The primary meaning of the
name is a matter of some perplexity. The learned editors of the _New
English Dictionary_ define it as ‘a dramatic or mimic representation,
usually of a light or humorous character, such as was commonly introduced
between the acts of the long mystery-plays or moralities, or exhibited
as part of an elaborate entertainment.’ Another recognized authority,
Dr. Ward, says[525]: ‘It seems to have been applied to plays performed
by professional actors from the time of Edward IV onwards. Its origin
is doubtless to be found in the fact that such plays were occasionally
performed in the intervals of banquets and entertainments, which of
course would have been out of the question in the case of religious
plays proper.’ I cannot say that I find either of these explanations at
all satisfactory. In the first place, none of the limitations of sense
which they suggest are really borne out by the history of the word. So
far as its rare use in the fourteenth century goes, it is not confined
to professional plays and it does not exclude religious plays. The
_Interludium de Clerico et Puella_ is, no doubt, a farce, and something
of the same sort appears to be in the mind of Huchown, or whoever else
was the author of _Sir Gawain and the Green Knight_, when he speaks of
laughter and song as a substitute for ‘enterludez’ at Christmas[526].
But on the other hand, Robert Mannyng of Brunne, at the very beginning
of the century, classes ‘entyrludes’ with ‘somour games’ and other
forbidden delights of the folk[527], while the Wyclifite author of
the _Tretise on Miriclis_ at its close, definitely uses ‘entirlodies’
as a name for the religious plays which he is condemning[528]. In the
fifteenth century, again, although ‘interlude’ is of course not one
of the commonest terms for a miracle-play, yet I find it used for
performances probably of the miracle-play type at New Romney in 1426 and
at Harling in 1452, while the jurats of the former place paid in 1463
for ‘the play of the interlude of our Lord’s Passion[529].’ The term,
then, appears to be equally applicable to every kind of drama known to
the Middle Ages. As to its philological derivation, both the _New English
Dictionary_ and Dr. Ward treat it as a _ludus_ performed in the intervals
of (_inter_) something else, although they do not agree as to what that
something else was. For the performance of farces ‘between the acts of
the long miracle-plays’ there is no English evidence whatever[530]. The
farcical episodes which find a place in the Towneley plays and elsewhere
are in no way structurally differentiated from the rest of the text.
There are some French examples of combined performances of farces and
miracles, but they do not go far enough back to explain the origin of
the word[531]. A certain support is no doubt given to the theory of
the _New English Dictionary_ by the ‘mirry interludes’ inserted in Sir
David Lyndsay’s morality _Ane Satyre of the Thrie Estaits_, but, once
more, it is difficult to elucidate a term which appears at the beginning
of the fourteenth century from an isolated use in the middle of the
sixteenth. Dr. Ward’s hypothesis is perhaps rather more plausible. No
doubt plays were performed at court and elsewhere between the banquet and
the ‘void’ or cup of spiced drink which followed later in the evening,
and possibly also between the courses of the banquet itself[532]. But
this fact would not differentiate dramatic _ludi_ from other forms of
minstrelsy coming in the same intervals, and the fact that miracle-plays
are called interludes, quite as early as anything else, remains to be
accounted for. I am inclined myself to think that the force of _inter_ in
the combination has been misunderstood, and that an _interludium_ is not
a _ludus_ in the intervals of something else, but a _ludus_ carried on
between (_inter_) two or more performers; in fact, a _ludus_ in dialogue.
The term would then apply primarily to any kind of dramatic performance
whatever.
In any case it is clear that while ‘interlude’ was only a subordinate
name for plays of the miracle-type, it was the normal name,
varied chiefly by ‘play’ and ‘disguising,’ for plays given in the
banqueting-halls of the great[533]. These begin to claim attention
during the fifteenth century. Dr. Ward’s statement that religious plays
could not have been the subject of such performances does not bear the
test of comparison with the facts. A miracle of St. Clotilda was played
before Henry the Sixth at Windsor Castle in 1429, a _Christi Descensus
ad Inferos_ before Henry the Seventh during dinner at Winchester in
1486; nor is it probable that the play performed by the boys of Maxstoke
Priory in the hall of Lord Clinton at Candlemas, 1430, was other than
religious in character[534]. The records of the miracle-plays themselves
show that they were often carried far from home. There was much coming
and going amongst the villages and little towns round about Lydd and
New Romney from 1399 to 1508. One at least of the existing texts, that
of the Croxton _Sacrament_, appears to be intended for the use of a
travelling troupe, and that such troupes showed their plays not only in
market-places and on village greens but also in the houses of individual
patrons, is suggested by entries of payments to players of this and that
locality in more than one _computus_[535]. Thus Maxstoke Priory, between
1422 and 1461, entertained _lusores_[536] from Nuneaton, Coventry,
Daventry, and Coleshill; while Henry the Seventh, between 1492 and
1509, gave largess, either at court or abroad, to ‘pleyers’ from Essex,
Wimborne Minster, Wycombe, London, and Kingston. The accounts of the
last-named place record an ordinary parochial play in the very year of
the royal ‘almasse.’
It is obvious that this practice of travelling must have brought the
local players into rivalry with those hereditary gentlemen of the
road, the minstrels. Possibly they had something to do with provoking
that _querelosa insinuatio_ against the _rudes agricolae et artifices
diversarum misterarum_ which led to the formation of the royal guild
of minstrels in 1469. If so, the measure does not seem to have been
wholly successful in suppressing them. But the minstrels had a better
move to make. Their own profession had fallen, with the emergence of the
_trouvère_ and the spread of printing, upon evil days. And here were the
scanty remnants of their audiences being filched from them by unskilled
rustics who had hit upon just the one form of literary entertainment
which, unlike poetry and romance in general, could not dispense with
the living interpreter[537]. What could they do better than develop a
neglected side of their own art and become players themselves? So there
appear in the _computi_, side by side with the local _lusores_, others
whose methods and status are precisely those of minstrels[538]. The
generosity of Henry the Sixth at the Christmas of 1427 is called forth
equally by the _entreludes_ of the _jeweis de Abyndon_ and the _jeuues
et entreludes_ of _Jakke Travail et ses compaignons_. By 1464 ‘players
in their enterludes’ were sufficiently recognized to be included with
minstrels in the exceptions of the Act of Apparel[539]. Like other
minstrels, the players put themselves under the protection of nobles and
persons of honour. The earliest upon record are those of Henry Bourchier,
earl of Essex, and those of Richard, duke of Gloucester, afterwards
Richard the Third. Both companies were rewarded by Lord Howard in 1482.
The earls of Northumberland, Oxford, Derby, and Shrewsbury, and Lord
Arundel, all had their players before the end of the century[540]. The
regulations of the _Northumberland Household Book_, as well as entries
in many _computi_, show that by the reign of Henry the Eighth the
practice was widespread[541]. Naturally it received a stimulus when a
body of players came to form a regular part of the royal household.
Whether Richard the Third retained his company in his service during his
brief reign is not upon record. But Henry the Seventh had four _lusores
regis, alias, in lingua Anglicana, les pleyars of the Kyngs enterluds_ at
least as early as 1494. These men received an annual fee of five marks
apiece, together with special rewards when they played before the king.
When their services were not required at court, they took to the road,
just as did the minstrels, _ioculator_, and _ursarius_ of the royal
establishment. In 1503 they were sent, under their leader John English,
in the train of Margaret of Scotland to her wedding with James the Fourth
at Edinburgh, and here they ‘did their devoir’ before the Scottish
court[542]. Henry the Eighth increased their number to eight, and they
can be traced on the books of the royal household through the reigns of
Edward the Sixth and Mary, and well into that of Elizabeth[543].
The new conditions under which plays were now given naturally reacted
upon the structure of the plays themselves. The many scenes of the
long cyclical miracles, with their multitudinous performers, must be
replaced by something more easy of representation. The typical interlude
deals with a short episode in about a thousand lines, and could be
handled in the hour or so which the lord might reasonably be expected
to spare from his horse and his hounds[544]. Economy in travelling and
the inconvenience of crowding the hall both went to put a limit on the
number of actors. Four men and a boy, probably in apprenticeship to one
of them, for the women’s parts, may be taken as a normal troupe. In many
of the extant interludes the list of _dramatis personae_ is accompanied
by an indication as to how, by the doubling of parts, the caste may be
brought within reasonable compass[545]. The simplest of scenic apparatus
and a few boards on trestles for a stage had of course to suffice. But
some sort of a stage there probably was, as a rule, although doubtless
the players were prepared, if necessary, to perform, like masquers,
on the floor in front of the screen, or at best upon the dais where
the lord sat at meals[546]. The pleasure-loving monks of Durham seem
as far back as 1465 to have built at their cell of Finchale a special
player-chamber for the purposes of such entertainments[547]. Henry the
Eighth, too, in 1527 had a ‘banket-house’ or ‘place of plesyer,’ called
the ‘Long house,’ built in the tiltyard at Greenwich, and decorated by
none other than Hans Holbein[548]. But this was designed rather for a
special type of disguising, half masque half interlude, and set out with
the elaborate pageants which the king loved, than for ordinary plays. A
similar banqueting-house ‘like a theatre’ had been set up at Calais in
1520, but unfortunately burnt down before it could be used[549]. Another
characteristic of the interlude is the prayer for the sovereign and
sometimes the estates of the realm with which it concludes, and which
often helps to fix the date of representation of the extant texts[550].
Like the minstrels, the interlude players found a welcome not only in
the halls of the great, but amongst the _bourgeois_ and the village
folk. In the towns they would give their first performance before the
municipality in the guildhall and take a reward[551]. Then they would
find a profitable pitch in the courtyard of some old-fashioned inn, with
its convenient range of outside galleries[552]. It is, however, rather
surprising to find that Exeter, like Paris itself[553], had its regular
theatre as early as 1348, more than two centuries before anything of
the kind is heard of in London. This fact emerges from two mandates
of Bishop Grandisson; one, already quoted in the previous volume,
directed against the _secta_ or _ordo_, probably a _société joyeuse_, of
Brothelyngham[554], the other inhibiting a satirical performance designed
by the youth of the city, in disparagement of the trade and mystery of
the cloth-dressers. In both cases the ‘theatre’ of the city was to be
the locality of the revels[555]. Much later, in 1538, but still well in
anticipation of London, the corporation of Yarmouth appear to have built
a ‘game-house’ upon the garden of the recently surrendered priory[556].
In the villages the players probably had to content themselves with
a stage upon the green; unless indeed they could make good a footing
in the church. This they sometimes did by way of inheritance from the
local actors of miracles. For while the great craft-cycles long remained
unaffected by the professional competition and ultimately came to their
end through quite different causes, it was otherwise in the smaller
places. If the parson and the churchwardens wanted a miracle in honour
of their patron saint and could readily hire the services of a body of
trained actors, they were not likely to put themselves to the trouble of
drilling bookless rustics in their parts. And so the companies got into
the churches for the purpose of playing religious interludes, but, if the
diatribes of Elizabethan Puritans may be trusted, remained there to play
secular ones[557]. The rulers of the Church condemned the abuse[558],
but it proved difficult to abolish, and even in 1602 the authorities of
Syston in Leicestershire had to buy players off from performing in the
church[559].
Even where the old local plays survived they were probably more or less
assimilated to the interlude type. It was certainly so with those written
by John Bale and played at Kilkenny. It was probably so with the play of
_Placidas_ or _St. Eustace_ given at Braintree in 1534, if, as is most
likely, it was written by Nicholas Udall, who was vicar of Braintree at
the time. And when we find the wardens of Bungay Holy Trinity in 1558
paying fourpence for an ‘interlude and game-booke’ and two shillings for
writing out the parts, the conjecture seems obvious that what they had
done was to obtain a copy of one of the printed interludes which by that
time the London stationers had issued in some numbers. On the other hand
the example of the travelling companies sometimes stirred up the folk,
with the help, no doubt, of Holophernes the schoolmaster, to attempt
performances of secular as well as religious plays on their own account.
The rendering of _Pyramus and Thisbe_ by the mechanicals of Athens, which
is Stratford-upon-Avon, is the classical instance. But in Shropshire the
folk are said to have gone on playing debased versions of _Dr. Faustus_
and other Elizabethan masterpieces, upon out-of-door stages, until quite
an incredibly late date[560].
I return to the atmosphere of courts. It must not be supposed that, under
the early Tudors, the professional players had a monopoly of interludes.
On the contrary, throughout nearly the whole of the sixteenth century,
it remained doubtful whether the future of the drama was to rest in
professional or amateur hands. The question was not settled until the
genius of Marlowe and of Shakespeare came to the help of the players.
Under the pleasure-loving Henries accomplishment in the arts of social
diversion was as likely a road to preferment as another. Sir Thomas More
won a reputation as a page by his skill in improvising a scene[561].
John Kite stepped almost straight from the boards to the bishopric of
Armagh. His performances, not perhaps without some scandal to churchmen,
were given when he was subdean of the Chapel Royal[562]. This ancient
establishment, with its thirty-two gentlemen and its school of children,
proved itself the most serious rival of the regular company. Both
gentlemen and children, sometimes together and sometimes separately, took
part in the performances, the records of which begin in 1506[563]. The
rather exceptional nature of the repertory will be considered presently.
Few noblemen, of course, kept a chapel on the scale of the royal one.
But that of the earl of Northumberland was of considerable size, and
was accustomed about 1523 to give, not only a Resurrection play at
Easter and a Nativity play at Christmas, but also a play on the night
of Shrove-Tuesday. The functionary to whom it looked for a supply of
interludes was the almoner[564].
The gentlemen of the Inns of Courts were always ready to follow in the
wake of courtly fashion. Their interludes were famous and important in
the days of Elizabeth, but, although Lincoln’s Inn entertained external
_lusores_ in 1494 and 1498[565], Gray’s Inn is the only one in which
amateur performances are recorded before 1556. A ‘disguising’ or ‘plaie’
by one John Roo was shown here in 1526, and got the actors into trouble
with Wolsey, who found, or thought that he found, in it reflections
on his own administration[566]. All ‘comedies called enterludes’ were
stopped by an order of the bench in 1550, except during times of solemn
Christmas[567]. In 1556 an elaborate piece for performance by all the
Inns was in preparation by William Baldwin[568].
There were interludes, moreover, at universities and in schools. The
earliest I have noted are at Magdalen College, Oxford, where they occur
pretty frequently from 1486 onwards. They were given in the hall at
Christmas, and overlap in point of time the performances of the _Quem
quaeritis_ in the chapel[569]. There was a play at Cardinal’s College in
1530[570]. Nicholas Grimald’s _Christus Redivivus_ was given at Brasenose
about 1542. Possibly his _Archipropheta_ was similarly given about 1546
at Christ Church, of which he had then become a member. Beyond these
I do not know of any other Oxford representations before 1558. But in
1512 the University granted one Edward Watson a degree in grammar on
condition of his composing a comedy[571]. At Cambridge the pioneer
college was St. John’s, where the _Plutus_ of Aristophanes was given in
Greek in 1536[572]. Christ’s College is noteworthy for a performance of
the antipapal _Pammachius_ in 1545[573], and also for a series of plays
under the management of one William Stevenson in 1550-3, amongst which it
is exceedingly probable that _Gammer Gurton’s Needle_ was included[574].
Most of these university plays were however, probably, in Latin. The
Elizabethan statutes of Trinity College[575] and Queens’ College[576]
both provide for plays, and in both cases the performances really date
back to the reign of Henry VIII. At Trinity John Dee seems to have
produced the _Pax_ of Aristophanes, with an ingenious contrivance for
the flight of the Scarabaeus to Zeus, shortly upon his appointment as an
original fellow in 1546[577].
The Westminster Latin play cannot be clearly shown to be
pre-Elizabethan[578], and the Westminster dramatic tradition is,
therefore, less old than that of either Eton or St. Paul’s. Professor
Hales has, indeed, made it seem plausible that Udall’s _Ralph Roister
Doister_ dates from his Westminster (?1553-6) and not his Eton mastership
(1534-41). But the Eton plays can be traced back to 1525-6[579], and
were a recognized institution when Malim wrote his _Consuetudinary_
about 1561[580]. In 1538 the Eton boys played, under Udall, before
Cromwell[581]. A decade earlier, in 1527, John Ritwise had brought the
boys of Colet’s new foundation at St. Paul’s to court. They acted an
anti-Lutheran play before Henry and probably also the _Menaechmi_ before
Wolsey. Certainly they acted the _Phormio_ before him in the following
year[582]. The dramatic history of this school is a little difficult
to disentangle from that of its near neighbour, the song-school of St.
Paul’s cathedral[583]. The song-school probably provided the children
whom Heywood brought before the princess Mary in 1538[584] and to court
in 1553. But some doubt has been cast upon the _bona fides_ of the
account which Warton gives of further performances by them before the
princess Elizabeth at Hatfield in 1554[585]. Plays, either in English or
in Latin, of which Bale preserves a list, were also acted in the private
school set up in 1538 by one Ralph Radclif in the surrendered Carmelite
convent of Hitchin[586].
It will be seen that the non-professional dramatic activities of England,
outside the miracle-plays, although of some importance in the sixteenth
century, came late and hardly extended beyond courtly and scholastic
circles. There is nothing corresponding to the plentiful production
of farces by amateur associations of every kind which characterized
fifteenth-century France. Besides the scholars and the _Basoche_, which
corresponded roughly to the Inns of Court, but was infinitely more lively
and fertile, there were the _Enfants sans Soucis_ in Paris, and in the
province a host of _puys_ and _sociétés joyeuses_. All of these played
both morals and farces, particularly the latter, for which they claimed
a very free licence of satirical comment[587]. As a result, although
salaried _joueurs de personnages_ begin to make their appearance in the
account books of the nobles as early as 1392-3[588], the professional
actors were unable to hold their own against the unequal competition, and
do not really become of importance until quite the end of the sixteenth
century[589]. In England it was otherwise. The early suppression of the
Feast of Fools and the strict control kept over the Boy Bishop afforded
no starting-point for _sociétés joyeuses_, while the late development
of English as a literary language did not lend itself to the formation
of _puys_. We hear indeed of satirical performances by the guild of
Brothelyngham at Exeter in 1348, and again by the _filii civitatis_ in
1352[590], but Bishop Grandisson apparently succeeded in checking this
development which, so far as the information at present available goes,
does not seem to have permanently established itself either at Exeter or
elsewhere.
CHAPTER XXV
HUMANISM AND MEDIAEVALISM
[_Bibliographical Note._—The literary discussions and
collections of texts named in the bibliographical note to chap.
xxiii and the material on the annals of the stage in that to
chap. xxiv remain available. W. Creizenach, _Geschichte des
neueren Dramas_, vols. i-iii (1893-1903), is the best general
guide on the classical drama and its imitations during the
Middle Ages and the Renascence. W. Cloetta, _Beiträge zur
Litteraturgeschichte des Mittelalters und der Renaissance_: i.
_Komödie und Tragödie im Mittelalter_ (1890); ii. _Die Anfänge
der Renaissancetragödie_ (1892), deals very fully with certain
points. C. H. Herford, _Studies in the Literary Relations of
England and Germany in the Sixteenth Century_ (1886), has an
admirable chapter on _The Latin Drama_. G. Saintsbury, _The
Earlier Renaissance_ (1901), chap. vi, may also be consulted.
Useful books on the beginnings of the Elizabethan forms of
drama are R. Fischer, _Zur Kunstentwicklung der englischen
Tragödie von ihren ersten Anfängen bis zu Shakespeare_ (1893);
J. W. Cunliffe, _The Influence of Seneca on Elizabethan
Tragedy_ (1893); L. L. Schücking, _Studien über die stofflichen
Beziehungen der englischen Komödie zur italienischen bis
Lilly_ (1901); F. E. Schelling, _The English Chronicle Play_
(1902). The best bibliographies are, for the Latin plays, P.
Bahlmann, _Die Erneuerer des antiken Dramas und ihre ersten
dramatischen Versuche, 1314-1478_ (1896), and _Die lateinischen
Dramen von Wimpheling’s Stylpho bis zur Mitte des sechzehnten
Jahrhunderts, 1480-1550_ (1893); and for English plays, W. W.
Greg, _A List of English Plays written before 1643 and printed
before 1700_ (1900). This may be supplemented from W. C.
Hazlitt, _A Manual for the Collector and Amateur of Old English
Plays_ (1892). A list of early Tudor interludes will be found
in Appendix X.]
The dramatic material upon which the interlude was able to draw had
naturally its points of relation to and of divergence from that of
the popular stage, whose last days it overlapped. It continued to
occupy itself largely with the morality. The ‘moral interludes’ of
the early Tudor period are in fact distinguished with some difficulty
from the popular moralities by their comparative brevity, and by
indications of the _mise en scène_ as a ‘room’ or ‘hall’ rather than
an open ‘place[591].’ The only clearly popular texts later than those
of the fifteenth century, discussed in a previous chapter, are Sir
David Lyndsay’s Scottish _Satyre of the Thrie Estaitis_, and the
_Magnificence_, which alone survives of several plays from the prolific
pen of the ‘laureate’ poet, John Skelton. A somewhat intermediate type is
presented by the _Nature_ of Cardinal Morton’s chaplain, Henry Medwall.
This was certainly intended for performance as an interlude, but it is
on the scale of the popular moralities, needing division into two parts
to bring it within the limits of courtly patience; and like them it is
sufficiently wide in its scope to embrace the whole moral problem of
humanity. The conditions of the interlude, however, enforced themselves,
and the later morals have, as a rule, a more restricted theme. They make
their selection from amongst the battalions of sins and virtues which
were wont to invade the stage together, and set themselves the task of
expounding the dangers of a particular temperament or the advantages of
a particular form of moral discipline. _Hickscorner_ shows man led into
irreligion by imagination and freewill. _Youth_ concerns itself with
pride, lechery, and riot, the specific temptations of the young. _The
Nature of the Four Elements_ and John Redford’s somewhat later _Wit and
Science_ preach the importance of devotion to study. The distinction
between the episodic and the more comprehensive moralities was in the
consciousness of the writers themselves; and the older fashion did not
wholly disappear. William Baldwin describes his play for the Inns of
Court in 1556 as ‘comprehending a discourse of the worlde[592]’; and
mention is more than once made of an interesting piece called _The Cradle
of Security_, which seems to have had a motive of death and the judgement
akin to that found in _The Pride of Life_ and in _Everyman_[593].
The morality was not, perhaps, quite such an arid type of drama as might
be supposed, especially after the dramatists learnt, instead of leaving
humanity as a dry bone of contention between the good and evil powers, to
adopt a biographic mode of treatment, and thus to introduce the interest
of growth and development[594]. But by the sixteenth century allegory
had had its day, and the light-hearted court of Henry VIII and Katharine
of Aragon might be excused some weariness at the constant presentation
before it of argumentative abstractions which occasionally yielded
nothing more entertaining than a personified _débat_[595]. Certainly it
is upon record that Medwall’s moral of ‘the fyndyng of Troth,’ played
at the Christmas of 1513, appeared to Henry so long, that he got up and
‘departyd to hys chambre[596].’ The offenders on this occasion were
English and his company of household players. They seem to have been
unwisely wedded to the old methods. They pursued the princess Margaret to
Scotland with a ‘Moralite’ in 1503, and in the reign of Edward VI they
were still playing the play of _Self-Love_[597]. Perhaps this explains
why they make distinctly less show in the accounts of Tudor revels than
do their competitors of the Chapel. Unfortunately none of the pieces
given by this latter body have been preserved. But, to judge by the
descriptions of Hall, many of them could only be called interludes by a
somewhat liberal extension of the sense of the term. There was perhaps
some slight allegorical or mythological framework of spoken dialogue. But
the real amusement lay in an abundance of singing, which of course the
Chapel was well qualified to provide, and of dancing, in which the guests
often joined, and in an elaborately designed pageant, which was wheeled
into the hall and from which the performers descended. They were in fact
masques rather than dramas in the strict sense, and in connexion with the
origin of the masque they have already been considered[598].
The popular stage, as has been said, had its farcical elements, but did
not, in England, arrive at any notable development of the farce. Nor
is any marked influence of the overseas habit even now to be traced.
The name is not used in England, although it is in Scotland, where
at the beginning of the sixteenth century the relations with France
were much closer[599]. Whether directly or indirectly through French
channels, the farce is perhaps the contribution of minstrelsy to the
nascent interlude. That some dramatic tradition was handed down from
the _mimi_ of the Empire to the _mimi_ of the Middle Ages, although not
susceptible of demonstration, is exceedingly likely[600]. That solitary
mediaeval survival, the _Interludium de Clerico et Puella_, hardly
declares its origin. But the farce, in its free handling of contemporary
life, in the outspokenness, which often becomes indecency, of its
language, in its note of satire, especially towards the priest and other
institutions deserving of reverence, is the exact counterpart of one
of the most characteristic forms of minstrel literature, the _fabliau_.
These qualities are reproduced in the interludes of John Heywood, who,
though possibly an Oxford man, began life as a singer and player of
the virginals at court, and belonged therefore to the minstrel class.
He grew quite respectable, married into the family of Sir Thomas More
and John Rastell the printer, and had for grandson John Donne. He was
put in charge of the singing-school of St. Paul’s, the boys of which
probably performed his plays. Of the six extant, _Wit and Folly_ is a
mere dialogue, and _Love_ a more elaborate disputation, although both are
presented ‘in maner of an enterlude.’ But the others, _The Pardoner and
the Friar_, _The Four P’s_, _The Weather_, and _John, Tib and Sir John_
are regular farces. And with them the farce makes good its footing in the
English drama.
Those congeners of the French farce which took their origin from
the Feast of Fools, the _Sottie_ and the _Sermon joyeux_, are only
represented in these islands by the Sermon of ‘Folie’ in Sir David
Lyndsay’s _Satyre of the Thrie Estaitis_[601]. But the ‘fool’ himself,
as a dramatic character, is in Shakespeare’s and other Elizabethan
plays, and it must now be pointed out that he is in some of the
earliest Tudor interludes. Here he has the not altogether intelligible
name of the ‘vice.’ A recent writer, Professor Cushman of the Nevada
State University, has endeavoured to show that the vice came into
the interludes through the avenue of the moralities. Originally ‘an
allegorical representation of human weaknesses and vices, in short
the summation of the Deadly Sins,’ he lost in course of time this
serious quality, and ‘the term Vice came to be simply a synonym for
buffoon[602].’ This theory has no doubt the advantage of explaining the
name. Unfortunately it proceeds by disregarding several plays in which
the vice does occur, and reading him into many where there is none[603].
‘Vicious’ had his pageant in the Beverley _Paternoster_ play, and vices
in the ordinary sense of the word are of course familiar personages in
the morals, which generally moreover have some one character who can
be regarded as the representative or the chief representative of human
frailty. But the vice is not found under that name in the text, list of
_dramatis personae_, or stage directions of any popular morality or of
any pre-Elizabethan moral interlude except the Marian _Respublica_. The
majority of plays in which he does occur are not morals, even of the
modified Elizabethan type; and although in those which are he generally
plays a bad part, even this is not an invariable rule. In _The Tide
Tarrieth for No Man_, as in the tragedy of _Horestes_, he is Courage.
Moreover, as a matter of fact, he comes into the interludes through the
avenue of the farce. The earliest vices, by some thirty years, are those
of Heywood’s _Love_, in which he is ‘Neither Loving nor Loved,’ who
mocks the other disputants, and plays a practical joke with fireworks
upon them, and _The Weather_, in which he is ‘Merry Report,’ the jesting
official of Jupiter. And in the later plays, even if he has some other
dramatic function, he always adds to it that of a riotous buffoon.
Frequently enough he has no other. It must be concluded then that,
whatever the name may mean—and irresponsible philology has made some
amazing attempts at explanation[604]—the character of the vice is derived
from that of the domestic fool or jester. Oddly enough he is rarely
called a fool, although the description of Medwall’s _Finding of Truth_
mentions ‘the foolys part[605].’ But the Elizabethan writers speak
of his long coat and lathen sword, common trappings of the domestic
fool[606]. Whether he ever had a cockscomb, a bauble, or an eared hood is
not apparent. A vice seems to have been introduced into one or two of the
later miracle-plays[607]. At Bungay in 1566 he ‘made pastime’ before and
after the play, as Tarleton or Kempe were in time to do with their ‘jigs’
upon the London boards. And probably this was his normal function on such
occasions.
From the moral the interlude drew abstractions; from the farce social
types. The possibility of vital drama lay in an advance to the
portraiture of individualities. The natural way to attain to this was by
the introduction of historical, mythical, or romantic personages. The
miracle-play had, of course, afforded these; but there is little to show
that the miracle-play, during the first half of the sixteenth century,
had much influence on the interlude[608]. The local players brought it
to court, but, for the present, it was _démodé_. It was, however, to
have its brief revival. The quarry of romantic narrative had hardly been
opened by the Middle Ages. An old theme of Robert of Sicily, once used at
Lincoln, was now remembered at Chester. Robin Hood had yielded dramatic
May-games, and his revels were popular at Henry VIII’s court[609]. New
motives, however, now begin to assert themselves. Some at least of these
were suggested by the study of Chaucer. Ralph Radclif’s school plays at
Hitchin included one on _Griselda_ and one on _Meliboeus_[610]. Nicholas
Grimald wrote one on _Troilus_, and another had been acted by the Chapel
at court in 1516[611]. Radclif was also responsible for a _Titus and
Gisippus_, while the king’s players, shaking off their devotion to the
moral, prepared in 1552 ‘a play of _Aesop’s Crow_, wherein the most part
of the actors were birds[612].’ An extant piece on ‘the beauty and good
properties of women’ and ‘their vices and evil conditions’ is really a
version through the Italian of the Spanish _Celestina_, one of the first
of many English dramatic borrowings from South European sources.
So far I have written only of developments which were at least latent in
mediaevalism. But the interlude had its rise in the very midst of the
great intellectual and spiritual movement throughout Europe which is
known as humanism; and hardly any branch of human activities was destined
to be more completely transformed by the new forces than the drama. The
history of this transformation is not, however, a simple one. Between
humanism and mediaevalism there is no rigid barrier. As at all periods
of transition, a constant action and reaction established themselves
between the old and new order of ideas. Moreover, humanism itself held
elements in solution that were not wholly reconcilable with each other.
Many things, and perhaps particularly the drama, presented themselves in
very different lights, according as they were viewed from the literary or
the religious side of the great movement. Some brief indication of the
in-and-out play of the forces of humanism as they affected the history
of the interlude during the first half of the sixteenth century is,
therefore, desirable.
The chief of these forces is, of course, the influence of classical
comedy and tragedy. These, as vital forms of literature, did not long
survive the fall of the theatres, with which, indeed, their connexion had
long been of the slightest. In the East, a certain tradition of Christian
book dramas begins with the anti-Gnostic dialogues of St. Methodius in
the fourth century and ends with the much disputed Χριστὸς Πάσχων in the
eleventh or twelfth[613]. It is the merest conjecture that some of these
may have been given some kind of representation in the churches[614].
In the West the _Aulularia_ of Plautus was rehandled under the title
of _Querolus_ at the end of the fourth century, and possibly also the
_Amphitruo_ under that of _Geta_[615]. In the fifth, Magnus, the father
of Consentius, is said by Sidonius, as Shakespeare is said by Ben
Jonson, to have ‘outdone insolent Greece, or haughty Rome[616].’ Further
the production of plays cannot be traced. Soon afterwards most of the
classical dramatists pass into oblivion. A knowledge of Seneca or of
Plautus, not to speak of the Greeks, is the rarest of things from the
tenth century to the fourteenth. The marked exception is Terence who, as
Dr. Ward puts it, led ‘a charmed life in the darkest ages of learning.’
This he owed, doubtless, to his unrivalled gift of packing up the most
impeccable sentiments in the neatest of phrases. His vogue as a school
author was early and enduring, and the whole of mediaevalism, a few of
the stricter moralists alone dissenting, hailed him as a master of the
wisdom of life[617]. At the beginning of the eleventh century, Notker
Labeo, a monk of St. Gall, writes that he has been invited to turn the
_Andria_ into German[618]. Not long before, Hrotsvitha, a Benedictine nun
of Gandersheim in Saxony, had taken Terence as her model for half a dozen
plays in Latin prose, designed to glorify chastity and to celebrate the
constancy of the martyrs. The dramaturgy of Hrotsvitha appears to have
been an isolated experiment and the merest literary exercise. Her plays
abound in delicate situations, and are not likely to have been intended
even for cloister representation[619]. Nor is there much evidence for
any representation of the Terentian comedies themselves. A curious
fragment known as _Terentius et Delusor_ contains a dialogue between the
_vetus poeta_ and a _persona delusoris_ or mime. The nature of this is
somewhat enigmatic, but it certainly reads as if it might be a prologue
or _parade_ written for a Terentian representation. In any case, it is
wholly unparalleled[620]. In fact, although the Middle Ages continued to
read Terence, the most extraordinary ideas prevailed as to how his dramas
were originally produced. Vague reminiscences of the pantomimic art of
later Rome led to the mistaken supposition that the poet himself, or a
_recitator_, declaimed the text from a _pulpitum_ above the stage, while
the actors gesticulated voicelessly below[621]. By a further confusion
the name of Calliopius, a third- or fourth-century grammarian through
whose hands the text of Terence has passed, was taken for that of a
_recitator_ contemporary with the poet, and the _Vita Oxoniensis_ goes
so far as to describe him as a powerful and learned man, who read the
comedies aloud in the senate[622]. The same complete ignorance of things
scenic declares itself in the notions attached to the terms _tragoedia_
and _comoedia_, not only vulgarly, but in the formal definitions of
lexicographers and encyclopaedists[623].
The characteristics which really differentiate the drama from other
forms of literature, dialogue and scenic representation, drop out of
account, the latter entirely, the former very nearly so. Both tragedy
and comedy are regarded as forms of narrative. Tragedy is narrative
which concerns persons of high degree, is written in a lofty style,
and beginning happily comes to a sad conclusion. Comedy, on the other
hand, concerns itself with ordinary persons, uses humble and everyday
language, and resolves its complications in a fortunate ending[624].
Even these distinctions are not all consistently maintained, and the sad
or happy event becomes the only fixed and invariable criterion[625].
The origin of such conceptions is to be found partly in the common
derived classical use of _tragoedia_ and _comoedia_ to describe tragic
and comic events as well as the species of drama in which these are
respectively represented; partly in a misunderstanding of grammarians
who, assuming the dialogue and the representation, gave definitions
of tragedy and comedy in relation to each other[626]; and partly in
the solecism of the fifth-century epic writer Dracontius, who seems
to have called his _Orestes_ a tragedy, merely because it was from
tragedies that the material he used was drawn[627]. The _comoedia_ and
_tragoedia_ of the Latin writers, thus defined, was extended to all the
varieties of narrative, in the widest sense of the word. The epics of
Lucan and Statius, the elegies of Ovid, are _tragoediae_; the epistles
of Ovid, the pastoral dialogues of Virgil, are _comoediae_; the satires
of Horace, Persius, Juvenal, are one or the other, according to the
point of view[628]. It is curious that, with all this wide extension
of the terms, they were not applied to the one form of mediaeval Latin
composition which really had some analogy to the ancient drama; namely to
the liturgical plays out of which the vernacular mysteries grew. These
must have been written by learned writers: some of them were probably
acted by schoolboys trained in Terence; and yet, if Hrosvitha, as she
should be, is put out of the reckoning, no inward or outward trace
of the influence of classical tragedy or comedy can be found in any
one of them. In the manuscripts, they are called _officium_, _ordo_,
_ludus_, _miraculum_, _repraesentatio_ and the like, but very rarely
_comoedia_ or _tragoedia_, and never before 1204[629]. From the Latin
the mediaeval notions of tragedy and comedy were transferred to similar
compositions in the vernaculars. Dante’s _Divina Commedia_ is just a
story which begins in Hell and ends in Paradise[630]. Boccaccio[631],
Chaucer[632], and Lydgate[633] use precisely similar language. And, right
up to the end of the sixteenth century, ‘tragedy’ continues to stand for
‘tragical legend’ with the authors of the _Mirror for Magistrates_ and
their numerous successors[634]. Long before this, of course, humanistic
research, without destroying their mediaeval sense, had restored to
the wronged terms their proper connotation. There is a period during
which it is a little difficult to say what, in certain instances,
they do mean. When Robert Bower, in 1447, speaks of _comoediae_ and
_tragoediae_ on the theme of Robin Hood and Little John, it is a matter
for conjecture whether he is referring to dramatized May-games or merely
to ballads[635]. Bale, in writing of his contemporaries, certainly
applies the words to plays; but when he ascribes _tragoedias vulgares_
to Robert Baston, a Carmelite friar of the time of Edward II, it is
probable that he is using, or quoting a record which used, an obsolescent
terminology[636]. What the _comoediae_ of John Scogan, under Edward IV,
may have been, must remain quite doubtful[637].
It is in the early fourteenth century and in Italy that a renewed
interest in the Latin dramatists, other than Terence, can first be
traced. Seneca became the subject of a commentary by the English
Dominican Nicholas Treveth, and also attracted the attention of Lovato
de’ Lovati and the scholarly circle which gathered round him at Padua.
The chief of these was Albertino Mussato, who about 1314 was moved
by indignation at the intrigues of Can Grande of Verona to write his
_Ecerinis_ on the fate of that Ezzelino who, some eighty years before,
had tyrannized over Padua. This first of the Senecan tragedies of
the Renascence stirred enthusiasm amongst the growing number of the
_literati_. It was read aloud and Mussato was laureated before the
assembled university. Two learned professors paid it the tribute of a
commentary. The example of Mussato was followed in the _Achilleis_ (1390)
of Antonio de’ Loschi of Vicenza and the _Progne_ (†1428) of Gregorio
Corraro of Mantua. Petrarch was familiar not only with Terence, but also
with Seneca and Plautus, and his _Philologia_, written before 1331 and
then suppressed, may claim to take rank with the _Ecerinis_ as the first
Renascence comedy. It was modelled, says Boccaccio, upon Terence. A fresh
impulse was given to the study and imitation of Latin comedy in 1427
by the discovery of twelve hitherto unknown Plautine plays, including
the _Menaechmi_ and the _Miles Gloriosus_, and various attempts were
made to complete the imperfect plays. In 1441 Leonardo Dati of Florence
introduced a motive from the _Trinummus_ into his, not comedy, but
tragedy of _Hiempsal_[638].
It must be borne in mind that during these early stages of humanism
classical models and neo-Latin imitations alike were merely read and not
acted. There is no sign whatever that as yet the mediaeval misconception
as to the nature of Roman scenic representation had come to an end. It
was certainly shared by Nicolas Treveth and probably by both Petrarch
and Boccaccio[639]. It was not indeed in these regular dramas that the
habit of acting Latin first re-established itself, but in a mixed and
far less classical type of play. It is probable that in schools the
exercise of reciting verse, and amongst other verse dialogue, had never
died out since the time of the Empire. In the fourth century the _Ludus
Septem Sapientum_ of the Bordeaux schoolmaster Ausonius, which consists
of no more than a set of verses and a ‘_Plaudite!_’ for each sage, was
doubtless written for some such purpose[640]. Such also may have been the
destiny of the ‘elegiac’ and ‘epic’ comedies and tragedies of which a
fair number were produced, from the eleventh century to the thirteenth.
These are comedies and tragedies, primarily, in the mediaeval sense.
They are narrative poems in form. But in all of them a good deal of
dialogue is introduced, and in some there is hardly anything else. Their
subject-matter is derived partly from Terence and partly from the stock
of motives common to all forms of mediaeval light literature. Their
most careful student, Dr. Cloetta, suggests that they were intended for
a half-dramatic declamation by minstrels. This may sometimes have been
the case, but the capacity and the audience of the minstrels for Latin
were alike limited, and I do not see why at any rate the more edifying
of them may not have been school pieces[641]. By the fifteenth century
it will be remembered, students, who had long been in the habit of
performing miracle-plays, had also taken to producing farces, morals,
and those miscellaneous comic and satiric pieces which had their origin
in the folk-festivals. Many of these were in the vernaculars; but it
is difficult to avoid classing with them a group of Latin dialogues
and loosely constructed comedies, written in Terentian metres and
presenting a curious amalgam of classical and mediaeval themes. Of
hardly any of these can it be said positively that they were intended to
be acted. This is, however, not unlikely in the case of the anonymous
_Columpnarium_, which goes back to the fourteenth century. Pavia probably
saw a performance of Ugolini Pisani’s _Confabulatio coquinaria_ (1435),
which has all the characteristics of a carnival drollery, and certainly
of Ranzio Mercurino’s _De Falso Hypocrita_, which is stated in the
manuscript to have been ‘_acta_’ there on April 15, 1437. The _Admiranda_
of Alberto Carrara was similarly ‘_acta_’ at Padua about 1456. The exact
way in which these pieces and others like them were performed must remain
doubtful. Acting in the strict sense can only be distinctly asserted of
Francesco Ariosto’s dialogue of _Isis_ which was given ‘_per personatos_’
at the Ferrara carnival of 1444[642].
All this pseudo-classic comedy was looked upon with scorn by the purists
of humanism. But it made its way over the Alps and had a considerable
vogue in Germany. In France it found an exponent in Jean Tissier de
Ravisy (Ravisius Textor), professor of rhetoric in the College of Navarre
at Paris, and afterwards rector of the Paris University, who wrote, in
good enough Latin, but wholly in the mediaeval manner, a large number
of morals, farces, and dialogues for representation by his pupils[643].
Two at least of these were turned into English interludes. The classical
element predominates in the pseudo-Homeric _Thersites_, the production
of which can be fixed to between October 12 and 24, 1537; the mediaeval
in Thomas Ingelend’s _The Disobedient Child_, which belongs to the very
beginning of the reign of Elizabeth.
It was doubtless the study of Vitruvius which awakened the humanists to
the fact that their beloved comedies had after all been acted after very
much the fashion so long familiar in farces and miracle-plays. Exactly
when the knowledge came is not clear. Polydore Vergil is still ignorant,
and even Erasmus, at the date of the _Adagia_, uncertain. Alberti put a
_theatrum_ in the palace built on the Vatican for Nicholas V about 1452,
but there is no record of its use for dramatic performances at that
time, and the immediate successors of Nicholas did not love humanism.
Such performances seem to have been first undertaken by the pupils of a
Roman professor, Pomponius Laetus. Amongst these was Inghirami, who was
protagonist in revivals of the _Asinaria_ of Plautus and the _Phaedra_
of Seneca. These took place about 1485. Several other representations
both of classical plays and of neo-Latin imitations occurred in Italy
before the end of the century; and the practice spread to other countries
affected by the humanist wave, soon establishing itself as part of the
regular sixteenth-century scheme of education. By this time, of course,
Greek as well as Latin dramatic models were available. The Latin
translation of the _Plutus_ of Aristophanes by Leonardo Bruni (†1427)
found several successors, and the play was acted at Zwickau in 1521. The
study of Sophocles and Euripides began with Francesco Filelfo (†1481),
but no representations of these authors are mentioned[644].
The outburst of dramatic activity in English schools and universities
during the first half of the sixteenth century has already been noted.
Wolsey may claim credit for an early encouragement of classical comedy in
virtue of the performances of the _Menaechmi_ and the _Phormio_ given in
his house by the boys of St. Paul’s in 1527 and 1528[645]. The master of
St. Paul’s from 1522 to 1531 was John Ritwise, who himself wrote a Latin
play of _Dido_, which also appears to have been acted before Wolsey[646].
The _Plutus_ was given at St. John’s College, Cambridge, in 1536; the
_Pax_ at Trinity about a decade later[647]. A long series of English
translations of classical plays begins with one of the _Andria_ printed,
possibly by John Rastell, under the title of _Terens in Englysh_[648].
A more important matter is the influence exercised by classical models
upon the vernacular interludes. This naturally showed itself in school
dramas, and only gradually filtered down to the professional players.
Two plays compete for the honour of ranking as ‘the first regular
English comedy,’ a term which is misleading, as it implies a far more
complete break with the past than is to be discerned in either of them.
One is Nicholas Udall’s _Ralph Roister Doister_, the performance of
which can be dated with some confidence in 1553, by which time its
author may already have been head master of Westminster; the other
is _Gammer Gurton’s Needle_, which was put on the stage at Christ’s
College, Cambridge, has been ascribed to John Still, afterwards bishop
of Bath and Wells, and to John Bridges, afterwards bishop of Oxford, but
is more probably the work of one William Stevenson, who was certainly
superintending plays at Christ’s College in 1550-3. Both plays adopt the
classical arrangement by acts and scenes. But of the two _Gammer Gurton’s
Needle_ is far closer to the mediaeval farce in its choice and treatment
of subject. _Ralph Roister Doister_, although by no means devoid of
mediaeval elements, is in the main an adaptation of the _Miles Gloriosus_
of Plautus. A slighter and rather later piece of work, _Jack Juggler_,
was also intended for performance by schoolboys, and is based upon the
_Amphitruo_. The earliest ‘regular English tragedy’ on Senecan lines,
or at least the earliest which oblivion has spared, is the _Gorboduc_
or _Ferrex and Porrex_ of 1561. This falls outside the strict scope of
this chapter. But a fragment of a play from the press of John Rastell
(1516-33) which introduces ‘Lucres’ and Publius Cornelius, suggests that,
here as elsewhere, the Elizabethan writers were merely resuming the
history of the earlier English Renascence, which religious and political
disturbances had so wofully interrupted.
Towards the end of Henry VIII’s reign, the course of the developing
interlude was further diverted by a fresh wave of humanist influence.
This came from the wing of the movement which had occupied itself, not
only with erudition, but also with the spiritual stirrings that issued
in the Reformation. It must be borne in mind that the attitude of mere
negation which the English Puritans, no doubt with their justification
in ‘antiquity,’ came to adopt towards the stage, was by no means
characteristic of the earlier Protestantism. The Lutheran reformers were
humanists as well as theologians, and it was natural to them to shape
a literary weapon to their own purposes, rather than to cast it aside
as unfit for furbishing. About 1530 a new school of neo-Latin drama
arose in Holland, which stood in much closer relations to mediaevalism
than that which had had its origin in Italy. It aimed at applying the
structure and the style of Terence to an edifying subject-matter drawn
from the tradition of the religious drama. The English _Everyman_ belongs
to a group of related plays, both in Latin and in the vernaculars, on
its moral theme. The _Acolastus_ (1530, acted 1529) of William Gnaphaeus
and the _Asotus_ (1537, written †1507) of George Macropedius began a
cycle of ‘Prodigal Son’ plays which had many branches. The movement
began uncontroversially, but developed Protestant tendencies. It spread
to Basle, where Sixt Birck, who called himself Xystus Betuleius, wrote
a _Susanna_ (1537), an _Eva_ (1539), a _Judith_ (1540), and to France,
where the Scotchman George Buchanan added to the ‘Christian Terence’
a ‘Christian Seneca’ in the _Jephthes_ (1554) and _Baptistes_ (1564)
performed, between 1540 and 1543, by his students at Bordeaux. In these,
which are but a few out of many similar plays produced at this period,
the humanists drew in the main upon such scriptural subjects, many of
them apocryphal or parabolic, as were calculated, while no doubt making
for edification, at the same time to afford scope for a free portrayal of
human life. This on the whole, in spite of the treatment of such episodes
as the Magdalen _in gaudio_, was a departure from the normal mediaeval
usage[649].
A new note, of acute and even violent controversy, was introduced
into the Protestant drama by the fiery heretic, Thomas Kirchmayer, or
Naogeorgos. Kirchmayer wrote several plays, but the most important from
the present point of view is that of _Pammachius_ (1538), written during
his pastorate of Sulza in Thuringia before his extreme views had led,
not merely to exile from the Empire, but also to a quarrel with Luther.
The _Pammachius_ goes back to one of the most interesting, although of
course not one of the most usual, themes of mediaeval drama, that of
Antichrist; and it will readily be conceived that, for Kirchmayer, the
Antichrist is none other than the Pope. It is interesting to observe
that the play was dedicated to Archbishop Cranmer, whose reforming
_Articles_ of 1536 had roused the expectations of Protestant Germany. It
was translated into English by John Bale, and was certainly not without
influence in this country[650].
Both the merely edifying and the controversial type of Lutheran drama,
indeed, found its English representatives. To the former belong the
_Christus Redivivus_ (1543) and the _Archipropheta_ (1548) of the Oxford
lecturer, Nicholas Grimald, one of which deals, somewhat exceptionally
at this period, with the Resurrection, the other with John the Baptist.
The _Absalon_ of Thomas Watson, the _Jephthes_ of John Christopherson
(1546)[651], and the _Sodom_, _Jonah_, _Judith_, _Job_, _Susanna_,
and _Lazarus and Dives_ of Ralph Radclif (1546-56)[652], can only
conjecturally be put in this class; and Nicholas Udall, who wrote an
_Ezechias_ in English, certainly did not commit himself irrecoverably in
the eyes of good Catholics. John Palsgrave’s _Ecphrasis_ or paraphrase of
_Acolastus_ (1540) is supplied with grammatical notes, and is conceived
wholly in the academic interest. On the other hand controversy is
suggested in the titles of Radclif’s _De Iohannis Hussi Damnatione_, and
of the _De Meretrice Babylonica_ ascribed by Bale to Edward VI[653],
and is undeniably present in the _Christus Triumphans_ (1551) of John
Foxe, the martyrologist. This, like _Pammachius_, to which it owes much,
belongs to the Antichrist cycle.
Nor was controversy confined to the learned language. As Protestantism,
coquetted with by Henry VIII, and encouraged by Cromwell, became
gradually vocal in England and awakened an equally resonant reply, the
vernacular drama, like every other form of literary expression, was swept
into the war of creeds. This phase, dominating even the professional
players, endured through the reigns of Edward VI and Mary, and still
colours the early Elizabethan interludes. Its beginnings were independent
of the Lutheran influences that so profoundly affected its progress. The
morality already contained within itself that tendency to criticism which
was perhaps the easiest way to correct its insipidity. Historically it
was politics rather than religion with which the interlude first claimed
to interfere. The story begins, harmlessly enough, at court, with an
allegorical ‘disguising’ during the visit of the Emperor Charles V to
London in 1523, in which the French king, typified by an unruly horse,
was tamed by Amitie, who stood for the alliance between Charles and
Henry[654]. In 1526 John Roo’s morality, played at Gray’s Inn, of ‘Lord
Governaunce’ and ‘Lady Publike-Wele’ wrung Wolsey’s withers, although as
a matter of fact it was twenty years old[655]. Religion was first touched
in 1527 in a piece of which one would gladly know more. It was played, as
it seems, in Latin and French by the St. Paul’s boys under John Ritwise,
before ambassadors from France. The subject was the captivity of the
Pope, and amongst the singular medley of characters named are found
‘the herretyke, Lewtar’ and ‘Lewtar’s wyfe, like a frowe of Spyers in
Almayn[656].’ This was, no doubt, all in the interests of orthodoxy; and
a similar tone may be assumed in the comedies acted before Wolsey in the
following year on the release of the Pope[657]. But much water passed
under the mill in the next few years, and in 1533 there was a comedy
at court ‘to the no little defamation of certain cardinals[658].’ In
the same year, however, a proclamation forbade ‘playing of enterludes’
‘concerning doctrines in matters now in question and controversie[659].’
This is a kind of regulation which it is easier to make than to enforce.
Its effect, if it had any, was not of long duration. In 1537 much offence
was given to Bishop Gardiner, the Chancellor of Cambridge University, by
the performance amongst the youth of Christ’s College of a ‘tragedie,’
part at least of which was ‘soo pestiferous as were intolerable.’ This
‘tragedie’ was none other than the redoubtable _Pammachius_ itself[660].
In the same year, strict orders were issued to stay games and unlawful
assemblies in Suffolk, on account of a ‘seditious May-game’ which was
‘of a king, how he should rule his realm,’ and in which ‘one played
Husbandry, and said many things against gentlemen more than was in the
book of the play[661].’ These were exceptional cases. Both the students
of Christ’s and the Suffolk rustics had in their various ways overstepped
the permitted mark. Certainly Henry was not going to have kingship
called in question on a village green. But it is notorious that, in
matters of religion, he secretly encouraged many obstinate questionings
which he openly condemned. And there is evidence that Cromwell at least
found the interlude a very convenient instrument for the encouragement
of Protestantism. Bale tells us that he himself won the minister’s
favour _ob editas comedias_[662]; and there is extant amongst his
papers a singular letter of this same year 1537, from Thomas Wylley,
the vicar of Yoxford in Suffolk, in which he calls attention to three
plays he has written, and asks that he may have ‘fre lyberty to preche
the trewthe[663].’ Cranmer, too, seems to have been in sympathy with
Cromwell’s policy, for in 1539 there was an enterlude at his house which
a Protestant described as ‘one of the best matiers that ever he sawe
towching King John,’ and which may quite possibly have been John Bale’s
famous play[664].
The position was altered after 1540, when Cromwell had fallen and the
pendulum of Henry’s conscience had swung back to orthodoxy. Foxe records
how under the _Act Abolishing Diversity in Opinions_ (1539), known as
the _Act of the Six Articles_, one Spencer, an ex-priest who had become
an interlude-player, was burned at Salisbury for ‘matter concerning
the sacrament of the altar’; and how, in London, one Shermons, keeper
of the Carpenters’ Hall in Shoreditch, ‘was presented for procuring an
interlude to be openly played, wherein priests were railed on and called
knaves[665].’ But the stage was by now growing difficult to silence. In
1542 the bishops petitioned the king to correct the acting of plays ‘to
the contempt of God’s Word[666]’; and in 1543 their desire was met by
the _Act for the Advauncement of true Religion and for the Abolishment of
the Contrary_, which permitted of ‘plays and enterludes for the rebukyng
and reproching of vices and the setting forth of vertue’; but forbade
such as meddled with ‘interpretacions of scripture, contrary to the
doctryne set forth or to be set forth by the kynges maiestie[667].’ This
led to a vigorous protest from John Bale, writing under the pseudonym of
Henry Stalbridge, in his _Epistel Exhortatorye of an Inglyshe Christian_.
Its repeal was one of the first measures passed under Edward VI[668].
Lord Oxford’s men were playing in Southwark at the very hour of the
dirge for Henry in the church of St. Saviour’s[669]. Almost immediately
‘the Poope in play’ and ‘prests in play’ make their appearance once
more[670]. Edward himself wrote his comedy _De Meretrice Babylonica_.
In 1551 the English comedies ‘in demonstration of contempt for the
Pope’ were reported by the Venetian ambassador to his government[671].
But the players were not to have quite a free hand. It was now the
Catholic interludes that needed suppression. A proclamation of August
6, 1549, inhibited performances until the following November in view of
some ‘tendyng to sedicion[672].’ The _Act of Uniformity_ of the same
year forbade interludes ‘depraving and despising’ the _Book of Common
Prayer_[673]. A more effective measure came later in a proclamation of
1551, requiring either for the printing or the acting of plays a licence
by the king or the privy council[674]. Mary, at whose own marriage
with Philip in 1554 there were Catholic interludes and pageants[675],
issued a similar regulation in 1553, though naturally with a different
intention[676]. But this was not wholly effectual, and further orders
and much vigilance by the Privy Council in the oversight of players were
required in the course of the reign[677].
Only a few texts from this long period of controversial drama have
come down to us. On the Catholic side there is but one, the play
of _Respublica_ (1553). In this, and in the Protestant fragment of
_Somebody, Avarice and Minister_, the ruling literary influence is that
of Lyndsay’s _Satyre of the Thre Estaitis_. Of the remaining Protestant
plays, _Nice Wanton_ (1560) and Thomas Ingelend’s _The Disobedient Child_
(n.d.) derive from the Dutch school of Latin drama and its offshoots.
_Nice Wanton_ is an adaptation of the _Rebelles_ (1535) of Macropedius.
_The Disobedient Child_ has its relations, not only to the play of
Ravisius Textor already mentioned, but also to the _Studentes_ (1549)
of Christopher Stymmelius. More distinctly combative in tendency is the
_Lusty Juventus_ (n.d.) of R. Wever, who may be reckoned as a disciple
of John Bale. The activity of Bale himself can be somewhat obscurely
discerned as the strongest impelling force on the Protestant side. He
had his debts both to Lyndsay and to Kirchmayer, whose _Pammachius_, if
not his other plays, he translated. But he is very largely original,
and he is set apart from the other great figures of the Lutheran drama
by the fact that all his plays were written _in idiomate materno_.
Moreover, though not without classical elements, they were probably
intended for popular performance, and approach more closely to the
mediaeval structure than to that of the contemporary interlude. In his
_Scriptores_ he enumerates, under twenty-two titles, some forty-six of
them. The five extant ones were probably all ‘compiled’ about 1538 while
he was vicar of Thorndon in Suffolk. But some of them were acted at the
market-cross of Kilkenny in 1553, and the others show signs of revision
under Edward VI or even Elizabeth. In _God’s Promises_, _John Baptist_,
and _The Temptation_, Bale was simply adapting and Protestantizing the
miracle-play. The first is practically a _Prophetae_, and they are all
‘actes,’ or as the Middle Ages would have said ‘processes’ or ‘pageants,’
from a scriptural cycle. Of similar character were probably a series of
eleven plays extending from Christ in the Temple to the Resurrection.
A _Vita D. Joannis Baptistae_ in fourteen _libri_ perhaps treated this
favourite sixteenth-century theme in freer style. The polemics are more
marked in _Three Laws_, which is a morality; and in _King John_, which is
a morality varied by the introduction of the king himself as a champion
against the Pope and of certain other historical figures. It thus marks
an important step in the advance of the drama towards the treatment of
individualities. With the _Three Laws_ and _King John_ may be grouped
another set of lost plays whose Latinized titles point unmistakably to
controversy. An _Amoris Imago_ might be merely edifying; but it would be
difficult to avoid meddling in matters of doctrine with such themes to
handle as _De Sectis Papisticis_, _Erga Momos et Zoilos_, _Perditiones
Papistarum_, _Contra Adulterantes Dei Verbum_, _De Imposturis Thomae
Becketi_. A pair of plays _Super utroque Regis Coniugio_, must have been,
if they were ever acted, a climax of audacity even for John Bale.
What then, in sum, was the heritage which the early Elizabethan writers
and players of interludes received from their immediate predecessors? For
the writers there were the stimulus of classical method and a widened
range both of intention and of material. Their claim was established
to dispute, to edify, or merely to amuse. They stood on the verge
of more than one field of enterprise which had been barely entered
upon and justly appeared inexhaustible. ‘Tragedy, comedy, history,
pastoral, pastoral-comical, historical-pastoral, tragical-historical,
tragical-comical-historical-pastoral’; they possessed at least the keys
to them all. Their own work is a heterogeneous welter of all the dramatic
elements of the past and the future. Belated morals and miracle-plays
jostle with adaptations of Seneca and Plautus. The _dramatis personae_
of a single play will afford the abstractions of the allegory and the
types of the farce side by side with real living individualities; and the
latter are drawn indifferently from contemporary society, from romance,
from classical and from national history. These are precisely the dry
bones which one day, beneath the breath of genius, should spring up into
the wanton life of the Shakespearean drama. The players had made good
their footing both in courts and amongst the folk. But their meddlings
with controversy had brought upon them the hand of authority, which was
not to be lightly shaken off. Elizabeth, like her brother, signalized the
opening of her reign by a temporary inhibition of plays[678]; and her
privy council assumed a jurisdiction, by no means nominal, over things
theatrical. In their censorship they had the assistance of the bishop
of London, as ‘ordinary.’ The lesser companies may have suffered from
the statute of 1572 which confined the privilege of maintaining either
minstrels or players of interludes to barons and personages of higher
degree[679]. But the greater ones which had succeeded in establishing
themselves in London, grew and flourished. They lived down the
competition of the amateurs which during the greater part of the century
threatened to become dangerous, by their profitable system of double
performances, at court and in the inn yards. Thus they secured the future
of the drama by making it economically independent; and the copestone
of their edifice was the building of the permanent theatres. But for
courtesy and a legal fiction, they were vagabonds and liable to whipping:
yet the time was at hand when one player was to claim coat armour and
entertain preachers to sack and supper at New Place, while another was to
marry the daughter of a dean and to endow an irony for all time in the
splendid College of God’s Gift at Dulwich.
APPENDICES
A
THE TRIBUNUS VOLUPTATUM
[The _tribunus voluptatum_ was a municipal officer of the later
Empire charged with the superintendence of the _spectacula_. He
seems to have been appointed for life by the Emperor, and to
have taken over functions formerly discharged by the praetors
and quaestors. Mommsen, _Ostgothische Studien_ (_Neues Archiv_,
xiv. 495), says that he first appears in the fifth century.
Possibly, therefore, Suetonius, _Tiberius_, 42, ‘novum denique
officium instituit a voluptatibus, praeposito equite R. T.
Caesonio Prisco’ refers to some other post. A _titulus_, ‘de
officio tribuni voluptatū qd a temelicis et scenariis,’ which
should be _C. Th._ i. 19, is missing from the text. _C. Th._
xv. 7, 13 (413), is addressed to the _tribunus voluptatum_ of
Carthage. The office was maintained in Italy under Theodoric
(493-526). The _formula_ of appointment here given is preserved
by Cassiodorus, _Variae_, vii. 10; cf. _Var._ vi. 19 ‘cum
lascivae voluptates recipiant tribunum.’ The Senate is informed
by _Var._ i. 43 (†509) of the promotion of Artemidorus, who
had held the office, to be _praefectus urbanus_. The _tribunus
voluptatum_ of Rome is referred to in two inscriptions of
522 and 526 (Rossi, _Inscr. Christ._ i. Nos. 989, 1005). One
Bacauda is appointed _tribunus voluptatum_ in Milan by _Var._
v. 25 (523-6). Constantine Porphyrogenitus _de Caer._ i. 83
mentions an ἄρχων τῆς θυμέλης in the tenth-century court of
Byzantium, who may be the same officer.]
_Formula Tribuni Voluptatum._
Quamvis artes lubricae honestis moribus sint remotae et histrionum
vita vaga videatur efferri posse licentia, tamen moderatrix providit
antiquitas, ut in totum non effluerent, cum et ipsae iudicem sustinerent.
amministranda est enim sub quadam disciplina exhibitio voluptatum.
teneat scaenicos si non verus, vel umbratilis ordo iudicii. temperentur
et haec legum qualitate negotia, quasi honestas imperet inhonestis,
et quibusdam regulis vivant, qui viam rectae conversationis ignorant.
student enim illi non tantum iucunditati suae, quantum alienae laetitiae
et condicione perversa cum dominatum suis corporibus tradunt, servire
potius animos compulerunt. Dignum fuit ergo moderatorem suscipere, qui
se nesciunt iuridica conversatione tractare. locus quippe tuus his
gregibus hominum veluti quidam tutor est positus. nam sicut illi aetates
teneras adhibita cautela custodiunt, sic a te voluptates fervidae
impensa maturitate frenandae sunt. age bonis institutis quod nimia
prudentia constat invenisse maiores. leve desiderium etsi verecundia
non cohibet, districtio praenuntiata modificat. agantur spectacula
suis consuetudinibus ordinata, quia nec illi possunt invenire gratiam,
nisi imitati fuerint aliquam disciplinam. Quapropter tribunum te
voluptatum per illam indictionem nostra fecit electio, ut omnia sic
agas, quemadmodum tibi vota civitatis adiungas, ne quod ad laetitiam
constat inventum, tuis temporibus ad culpas videatur fuisse transmissum.
cum fama diminutis salva tua opinione versare. castitatem dilige, cui
subiacent prostitutae: ut magna laude dicatur: ‘virtutibus studuit, qui
voluptatibus miscebatur.’ optamus enim ut per ludicram amministrationem
ad seriam pervenias dignitatem.
B
TOTA IOCULATORUM SCENA
John of Salisbury, _Polycraticus_ i. 8 (†1159, _P. L._ cxcix, 406),
says, Satius enim fuerat otiari quam turpiter occupari. Hinc mimi,
salii vel saliares, balatrones, aemiliani, gladiatores, palaestritae,
gignadii, praestigiatores, malefici quoque multi, et tota ioculatorum
scena procedit.’ The specific terms belong to John of Salisbury’s
classical learning rather than to contemporary use; but his generic
_ioculator_ is the normal mediaeval Latin term for the minstrel in the
widest sense. Classically the word, like its synonym _iocularis_, is an
adjective, ‘given to ioca,’ ‘merry.’ Thus Cicero, _ad Att_. iv. 16. 3
‘huic ioculatorem senem illum interesse sane nolui.’ Similarly Firmicus
Maternus (fourth century), _Mathesis_, viii. 22 ‘histriones faciat,
pantomimos, ac scaenicos ioculatores,’ and 4 _Conc. Carthag._ (398), c.
60 (_C. I. C. Decr. Gratiani_, i. 46. 6) ‘clericum scurrilem et verbis
turpibus ioculatorem ab officio retrahendum censemus.’ Here the technical
meaning is approached, which Gautier, ii. 12, declares to be complete
in Salvian (fifth century), _de gubernatione Dei_. I cannot, however,
find the word in Salvian, though I do find _iugulator_, ‘cut-throat.’
I have not come across _ioculator_ as a noun before the eighth century
(vol. i. p. 37), but thenceforward it is widely used for minstrels
of both the _scôp_ and the _mimus_ type. A rarer form is _iocista_.
_Ioculator_ gives rise to the equally wide French term _jouglere_,
_jougleur_, which seems to merge with the doublet _jogeler_, _jougler_,
from _iocularis_. Similarly _ioca_ becomes _jeu_, the equivalent of
the classical and mediaeval Latin _ludus_, also in the widest sense.
In Provençal _ioculator_ becomes _joglar_, in English _jugelour_,
_jugelere_, _jogeler_, &c. Thus _S. Eng. Leg._ i. 271 (†1290) ‘Is
iugelour a day bifore him pleide faste And nemde in his ryme and in is
song þene deuel atþe laste’; King Horn (ed. Ritson), 1494 (†1300) ‘Men
seide hit were harperis, Jogelers, ant fythelers.’ The incorrect modern
French form _jongleur_ seems due to a confusion between _jougleur_ and
_jangleur_, ‘babbler,’ and the English _jangler_ has a similar use; cf.
_Piers the Plowman_, B. Text, _passus_ x. 31 (ed. Skeat, i. 286) ‘Iaperes
and Iogeloures, and Iangelers of gestes.’ Here both words appear side
by side. The English _jogelour_ sometimes has the full sense of the
French _jougleur_, as in the instances just given, but as a term for
minstrels of the higher or _scôp_ type it has to compete, firstly, with
the native _gleeman_, from O. E. _gleoman_, _gligman_, and secondly, with
_minstrel_; and as a matter of fact its commoner use is for the lower
type of minstrel or buffoon, and in particular, in the exact sense of
the modern _juggler_, for a conjuror, _tregetour_ or _prestigiator_. The
latter is the usual meaning of _jogelour_, with the cognate _jogelrye_,
in Chaucer; for the former, cf. Adam Davie (†1312) ‘the minstrels sing,
the jogelours carpe.’ In English documents the Latin _ioculator_ itself
to some extent follows suit; the _ioculator regis_ of late fifteenth or
early sixteenth-century accounts is not a minstrel or musician, but the
royal _juggler_ (cf. vol. i. p. 68). On the other hand the Provençal
_joglar_ is differentiated in the opposite sense, to denote a grade of
minstrelsy raised above the mere _bufos_ (vol. i. p. 63).
A street in Paris known at the end of the thirteenth century as
the ‘_rue aus Jugléeurs_,’ came later to be known as the _rue des
Ménétriers_ (Bernhard, iii. 378). This is significant of a new tendency
in nomenclature which appears with the growth during the fourteenth
century of the household entertainers at the expense of their unattached
brethren of the road. _Minister_ is classical Latin for ‘inferior’
and so ‘personal attendant.’ The _ministeriales_ of the later Empire
are officers personally appointed by the Emperor. Towards the end of
the thirteenth century _minister_, with its diminutives _ministellus_
and _ministrallus_ (French _menestrel_), can be seen passing from the
general sense of ‘household attendant’ to the special sense of ‘household
_ioculator_.’ A harper was one of the _ministri_ of Prince Edward in
1270 (vol. i. p. 49). Gautier, ii. 13, 51, quotes _li famles_ (_famuli_)
as a synonym for such _ioculatores_, and such doublets as ‘menestrel
et serviteur,’ ‘menestrel et varlet de chambre.’ The _ministeralli_ of
Philip IV in 1288 include, with the musicians, the _rex heraudum_ and
the _rex ribaldorum_. From the beginning of the fourteenth century,
however, _ministrallus_, with French _menestrel_, _menestrier_, and
English _menestrel_, _mynstral_, is firmly established in the special
sense. The antithesis between the _ministrallus_ and the unattached
_ioculator_ appears in the terminology of the 1321 statutes of the
Paris guild, ‘menestreus et menestrelles, jougleurs et jougleresses’;
but even this disappears, and the new group of terms becomes equivalent
to the _ioculator_ group in its widest sense. So too, _ministralcia_,
_menestrardie_, _minstralcie_, although chiefly used, as by Chaucer, for
music, are not confined to that; e.g. _Derby Accounts_, 109, ‘cuidam
tumblere facienti ministralciam suam.’ The word is here approaching very
near its kinsman _métier_ (vol. ii. p. 105). Wright-Wülcker, 596, 693,
quotes from the fifteenth-century glossaries, ‘_simphonia_, mynstrylsy,’
and ‘_mimilogium_, mynstrisye.’
_Ioculator_ and _ministrallus_ are in their technical sense
post-classical. But it is to be noted that the classical _histrio_ and
_mimus_, widened in connotation to an exact equivalent with these, remain
in full use throughout the Middle Ages. They are indeed the more literary
and learned words, as may be seen from the fact that they did not give
rise to Romance or English forms; but they are not differentiated as to
meaning. In particular, I do not find that _mimus_ is used, as I have
occasionally for convenience used it, to denote the lower minstrel of
classical origin, as against the higher minstrel or _scôp_. Here are
a few of many passages which go to establish this complete fourfold
equivalence of _ioculator_, _ministrallus_, _mimus_ and _histrio_;
_Gloss._ in _B.N. MS._ 4883ᵃ, f. 67ᵇ (Du Méril, _Or. Lat._ 23) ‘istriones
sunt ioculatores’; _Constit. regis Minorcae_ (1337, Mabillon, _Acta
SS. Bened. Ian._ iii. 27) ‘In domibus principum, ut tradit antiquitas,
mimi seu ioculatores licite possunt esse’; _Conc. Lateran._ (1215), c.
16 ‘mimis, ioculatoribus et histrionibus non intendant.’ This triple
formula, often repeated by ecclesiastics, is of course conjunctive,
like ‘rogues and vagabonds.’ Guy of Amiens (†1068) calls Taillefer
both _histrio_ and _mimus_ (vol. i. p. 43). At the beginning of the
sixteenth century the royal minstrels are _histriones_ in the accounts
of Shrewsbury, _ministralli_ in those of Winchester College (_App. E._
(_iv_)), _mimi_ in those of Beverley (Leach, _Beverley MSS._ 171).
The _ioculator regis_, as already said, is by this time distinct. The
Scottish royal minstrels appear in the Exchequer Rolls for 1433-50 as
_mimi_, _histriones_, _ioculatores_ (_L. H. T. Accounts_, i, cxcix). The
town musicians of Beverley, besides their specific names of _waits_ and
_spiculatores_, have indifferently those of _histriones_, _ministralli_,
_mimi_ (Leach, _Beverley MSS._ _passim_). It is largely a matter of
the personal taste of the scribe. Thus the Shrewsbury accounts have
both _histriones_ and _menstralles_ in 1401, _histriones_ in 1442,
_ministralli_ regularly from 1457 to 1479, and _histriones_ regularly
from 1483 onwards.
Many other names for minstrels, besides these dominant four, have been
collected by scholars (Gautier, ii. 10; Julleville, _Les Com._ 17;
Gröber, ii. 489; Bédier, 366). From the compliments exchanged in the
_fabliau_ of _Des Deux Bordeors Ribaux_ (Montaiglon-Raynaud, i. 1)
one may extract the equivalence of _menestrel_, _trouvère_, _ribaud_,
_bordeor_, _jougleur_, _chanteur_, _lecheor_, _pantonnier_. Of such
subordinate names many are specific, and have been dealt with in their
turn in chh. iii, iv. Others, again, are abusive, and found chiefly
in the mouths of ecclesiastics, or as distinctive of the lower orders
of minstrels. There are _garcio_, _nebulo_, _delusor_, _saccularius_,
_bufo_, _ribaud_, _harlot_. There are _bourdyour_, _japer_, _gabber_,
_jangler_ (vol. i. p. 84). There is _scurra_, an early and favourite term
of this class; cf. Ælfric’s gloss (Ducange, s.v. _Iocista_), ‘_Mimus_,
_iocista_, _scurra_, gligmon’; Wright-Wülcker, 693 (fifteenth-century
gloss), ‘_scurra_, harlot’; and vol. i. p. 32. There is _leccator_,
_leccour_ (cf. above and _App. F._ s.v. _Chester_). And finally, there
are a few terms of general, but not very common, application. _Scenici_
and _thymelici_ come from the early Christian prohibitions (vol. i. pp.
12, 17, 24). More important are a group derived from _ludus_, which like
_jeu_ has itself the widest possible sense, covering every possible kind
of amusement. The _Sarum Statutes_ of 1319, in a _titulus_ dealing with
_histriones_, speak of those ‘qui “menestralli” et quandoque “ludorum
homines” vulgari eloquio nuncupantur’ (vol. i. p. 40). In the fifteenth
and sixteenth centuries appear such terms as _lusor_, _lusiator_,
_ludens_, _interlusor_, _interludens_. The two latter of these are always
specific, meaning ‘actor’; the three former are usually so, although they
may occasionally have the more general sense, and this is probably also
true of the English _player_. This question is more fully discussed in
vol. i. pp. 84, 393, and vol. ii. p. 185.
C
COURT MINSTRELSY IN 1306
[From _Manners and Household Expenses of England in the
Thirteenth and Fifteenth Centuries_, 141 (Roxburghe Club,
1841), from Exchequer Roll (King’s Remembrancer’s Dept.)
in Rolls Office. The Pentecost feast of 1306 was that at
which Prince Edward, who became in the next year Edward II,
was knighted. It is described in the _Annales Londonienses_
(_Chronicles of Edward I and Edward II_, R. S. i. 146).]
Solutio facta diversis Menestrallis die Pentecostes anno xxxiiiiᵗᵒ.
[A. D. 1306.]
Le Roy de Champaigne }
Le Roy Capenny } cuilibet v._marc._;
Le Roy Baisescue } summa, xvj._li._
Le Roy Marchis } i._marc._
Le Roy Robert }
Phelippe de Caumbereye lx._s._; summa, lx._s._
} cuilibet iiij._marc._;
Robert le Boistous } summa,
Gerard de Boloigne } c. vj._s._ viij._d._
}
Bruant } cuilibet xl._s._;
Northfolke } summa, iiij._li._
Carltone }
Maistre Adam le Boscu } cuilibet xx._s._;
Devenays } summa, lx._s._
Artisien } cuilibet xxx._s._;
Lucat } summa, iiij._li._
Henuer } [x._s._]
Le menestral Mons. de Montmaranci }
Le Roy Druet }
Janin le Lutour }
Gillotin le Sautreour }
Gillet de Roos }
Ricard de Haleford }
Le Petit Gauteron } cuilibet xl._s._;
Baudec le Tabourer } summa, xxvj._li._
Ernolet }
Mahu qui est ove la dammoisele de Baar }
Janin de Brebant }
Martinet qui est ove le Conte de Warwike }
Gauteron le Grant }
Le Harpour Levesque de Duresme x._s._
Guillaume le Harpour qui est ove le Patriarke }
Robert de Clou }
Maistre Adam de Reve }
Henri le Gigour }
Corraud son compaignon }
Le tierz Gigour }
Gillot le Harpour } cuilibet ij._marc._;
Johan de Newentone } summa,
Hugethun le Harpour lour compaignon } xxj._li._ di._marc._
Adekin son compaignon }
Adam de Werintone }
Adam de Grimmeshawe }
Hamond Lestivour }
Mahuet qui est ove Mons. de Tounny }
Johan de Mochelneye }
Janin Lorganistre }
Simond le Messager }
Les ij. Trumpours Mons. Thomas de Brothertone }
Martinet le Taborour }
Richard Rounlo }
Richard Hendelek }
Janin de La Tour son compaignon }
Johan le Waffrer le Roy }
Pilk }
Januche } }
Gillot } Trumpours Mons. le Prince }
Le Nakarier }
Le Gitarer } cuilibet j._marc._;
Merlin } summa, xl._marc._
Tomasin, Vilour Mons. Le Prince }
Raulin qui est ove le Conte Mareschal }
Esvillie qui est ove Mons. Pierres de Maule }
Grendone }
Le Taborer La Dame de Audham }
Gaunsaillie }
Guillaume sanz maniere }
Lambyn Clay }
Jaques Le Mascun }
Son compaignon }
Mahu du North }
Le menestral ove les cloches }
Les iij. menestraus Mons. de Hastinges }
Thomelin de Thounleie }
Les ij. Trompours le Comte de Hereforde }
Perle in the eghe }
Son compaignon }
Janyn le Sautreour qui est ove Mons. de Percy }
Les ij. Trumpours le Comte de Lancastre }
Mellet }
Henri de Nushom }
Janyn le Citoler }
Gilliame }
Fairfax } cuilibet xx._s._;
Monet } summa, iiij._li._
Hanecocke de Blithe }
Summa totalis,—cxiiij._li._ x._s._—Et issi demoerent des cc._marc._, pur
partir entre les autres menestraus de la commune,—xviij._li._ xvj._s._
viij._d._—Et a ceste partie faire sunt assigne Le Roy Baisescu, Le Roy
Marchis, Le Roy Robert, et Le Roy Druet, Gauteron le Graunt, Gauteron
le Petit, Martinet le Vilour qui est ove le Conte de Warewike, et del
hostiel Mons. le Prince, ij. serjantz darmes ... clerke.
[Five lines of which only a few words are legible.]
Richard le Harpour qui est ove le Conte de Gloucestre.
Wauter Bracon Trounpour
Wauter le Trounpour
Johan le Croudere
Tegwaret Croudere
Geffrai le Estiveur
Guillot le Taborer
Guillot le Vileur
Robert le Vilour
Jake de Vescy
Richard Whetacre
A ceux xj., por toute la commune, xvii._li._ iiii._s._ viii._d._
_Denarii dati Menestrallis._
Vidulatori Dominae de Wak’ v._s._
Laurentio Citharistae di._marc._
Johanni du Chat, cum Domino J. de Bur’ di._marc._
Mellers v._s._
Parvo Willielmo, Organistae Comtissae Herefordiae v._s._
Ricardo de Quitacre, Citharistae di._marc._
Ricardo de Leylonde, Citharistae di._marc._
Carleton Haralde v._s._
Gilloto Vidulatori Comitis Arundelliae di._marc._
Amakyn Citharistae Principis v._s._
Bolthede v._s._
Nagary le Crouder Principis v._s._
Matheu le Harpour v._s._
Johanni le Barber v._s._
ij. Trumpatoribus J. de Segrave di._marc._
Ricardo Vidulatori Comitis Lancastriae v._s._
Johanni Waffrarario Comitis Lancastriae xl._d._
Sagard Crouther xl._d._
William de Grymesar’, Harpour xl._d._
Citharistae Comitissae Lancastriae xl._d._
ij. Menestrallis J. de Ber[wyke] xl._d._
Henrico de Blida xl._d._
Ricardo Citharistae xl._d._
William de Duffelde xl._d._
v. Trumpatoribus Principis, pueris, cuilibet ij._s._ x._s._ in _toto._
iiijᵒʳ. Vigil’ Regis, cuilibet di._marc._ xx._s._
Adinet le Harpour
Perote le Taborer
Adae de Swylingtone Citharistae ij._s._
David le Crouther xij._d._
Lion de Normanville ij._s._
Gerardo xij._d._
Ricardo Citharistae ij._s._
Roberto de Colecestria iij._s._
Jhanni le Crouther de Salopia xij._d._
Johanni le Vilour domini J. Renaude xij._d._
Johanni de Trenham, Citharistae ij._s._
Willielmo Woderove, Trumpatori ij._s._
Johanni Citharistae J. de Clyntone ij._s._
Waltero de Brayles xij._d._
Roberto Citharistae Abbatis de Abbyndone xij._d._
Galfredo Trumpatori domini R. de Monte Alto
Richero socio suo ij._s._
Thomae le Croudere ij._s._
Rogero de Corleye, Trumpatori ij._s._
Audoeno le Crouther xij._d._
Hugoni Daa Citharistae ij._s._
Andreae Vidulatori de Hor’ ij._s._
Roberto de Scardeburghe xij._d._
Guilloto le Taborer Comitis Warrewici iij._s._
Paul’ Menestrallo Comitis Marescalli iij._s._
Matheo Waffraris domini R. de Monte Alto ij._s._
iij. diversis menestrallis, cuilibet iij._s._ ix._s._
Galfrido Citharistae Comitis Warrenniae ij._s._
Matill’ Makejoye xij._d._
Johanni Trumpatori domini R. de Filii Pagani xij._d._
Adae Citharistae domini J. Lestraunge xij._d._
Reginaldo le Menteur, Menestrallo domini J. de Buteturt xij._d._
Perle in the Eghe xij._d._
Gilloto Citharistae Domini P. de Malo Lacu x._s._
Roberto Gaunsillie xl._d._ Item. xl._d._
Jacke de Vescy di._marc._
Magistro Waltero Leskirmissour et fratri suo, cuilibet iij._s._ vj._s._
D
THE MINSTREL HIERARCHY
The term _rex_ is not seldom applied as a distinction amongst minstrels.
At the wedding of Joan of England in 1290 were present King Grey of
England and King Caupenny of Scotland, together with Poveret, minstrel of
the Marshal of Champagne (Chappell, i. 15). Poveret is perhaps the ‘roy
de Champaigne’ of the 1306 list, which also includes the ‘roys’ Capenny,
Baisescue, Marchis, Robert, and Druet (_Appendix C_). A ‘rex Robertus,’
together with ‘rex Pagius de Hollandia,’ reappears in accounts of the
reign of Edward II (1307-27), while one of the minstrels of the king was
William de Morlee, ‘roy de North’ (Percy, 416-8; cf. vol. i. p. 49).
In France a list of the ‘ministeralli’ of Philip IV in 1288 includes
the ‘rex Flaiolatus,’ ‘rex Heraudum,’ and ‘rex Ribaldorum.’ A certain
Pariset, who was minstrel to the Comte de Poitiers in 1314, signs the
statutes of the Paris guild in 1321 as ‘Pariset, menestrel le roy,’ and
the various ‘roys des menestreuls du royaume de France’ who appear in and
after 1338 may have been heads at once of the king’s household minstrels
and of the guild (_Appendix F_; cf. Bernhard, iii. 380). Further, the
title is claimed by the authors of various pieces of minstrel literature.
‘Adenet le roi’ is the author of _Cleomadès_ (Paris, 84; Percy, 416-8),
and ‘Huon le roi,’ perhaps identical with ‘Huon de Cambrai’ and
‘Huon Paucele,’ of the _fabliau_ of _Du Vair Palefroi_ (Bédier, 438;
Montaiglon-Raynaud, i. 3). The term _rex_ is of course common enough in
connexion with temporary or permanent associations of all sorts, and
is probably of folk origin (vol. i. chaps. iv, viii). It is possible
that some of these ‘rois’ may have been crowned by ‘puis’ (Lavoix, ii.
377), but it is more probable that they had some official pre-eminence
amongst their fellows, and perhaps some jurisdiction, territorial or
otherwise. Clearly this was the case with the ‘roy des ministralx’ at
Tutbury. The appearance of the ‘rex Flaiolatus’ with the ‘rex Heraudum’
and the ‘rex Ribaldorum’ in the French list of 1288 is thus significant,
for the latter had just such a jurisdiction over the riff-raff of the
court (Ducange, s.v.), and I conceive the relation of the minstrel ‘roys’
to their fellows to have been much that of the ‘Kings at arms’ to the
ordinary heralds. It seems that minstrels and heralds belonged to the
same class of _ministri_. The order of the Emperor Henry II (vol. i. p.
52) couples ‘ioculatores et armaturi’ and ‘Carleton Haralde’ is actually
rewarded in the 1306 list (_App. C_, p. 237). If one may quote a Celtic
parallel, the _Arwyddfardd_ or heralds formed a regular division (†1100)
of Welsh minstrelsy (E. David, _La Poésie et la Musique dans la Cambrie_,
72-91). Under Richard II the head of the English royal minstrels was
a _rex_, but from 1464 onwards the term used is _marescallus_ (Rymer,
xi. 512), and this again may be paralleled from the supreme position of
the Earl Marshal in heraldry. At the head of the Earl of Lancaster’s
minstrels in 1308 was an _armiger_. I only find this term again in the
burlesque account of the ‘auncient minstrell’ shown before Elizabeth at
Kenilworth (_Appendix H_). He was ‘a squier minstrel of Middilsex’ and,
as he bore the arms of Islington, presumably a ‘wait.’
E
EXTRACTS FROM ACCOUNT BOOKS
I. DURHAM PRIORY.
[The entries, unless otherwise specified, are amongst the
extracts (generally of _Dona Prioris_) from the Bursars’ Rolls
between 1278 and 1371, printed by Canon Fowler in vols. ii,
iii of the _Durham Account Rolls_ (Surtees Soc.). _D. H. B._ =
_Durham Household Book_ (Surtees Soc.), _F. P._ = _Inventories
and Account Rolls of Finchale Priory_ (Surtees Soc.). This
was a cell of Durham Priory. The minstrelsy often took place
at the _ludi Domini Prioris_, either in his _camera_ (_D. A._
ii. 424) or at Beaurepaire, Witton, or other _maneria_ of
the Priory. There seem to have been in most years four _ludi
ordinarii_ (_D. A._ ii. 296), though occasionally only two or
three are mentioned. These were at the feasts of Candlemas,
Easter, St. John Baptist, and All Saints (_D. A._ i. 242, iii.
932). But the Prior, Sub-Prior, and brethren seem often to have
been _ludentes_, _spatiantes_, or _in recreacione_ (_D. A._ i.
118, 235), without much regard to fixed dates. In 1438-9 they
were _ludentes_ for as much as eleven weeks and four days at
Beaurepaire (_D. A._ i. 71). See also _D. A._ i. 16, 116, 120,
129, 137, 138, 142, 166, 207, 263; ii. 287, 419, 456, 515; iii.
810, s.vv. _Ludi_, &c.; _D. H. B._ 9, 13, 54, 141, 240, 339;
_F. P._ 30, ccxcv, ccccxxxvi.]
1278. Menestrallo Regis Scociae.
Menestrallo de Novo Castro.
1299. Roberto le Taburer.
1300-1. Cuidam hystrioni Regis.
1302-3. Histrionibus domini Regis.
1310-11. Hugoni de Helmeslaye stulto domini Regis.
Cuidam Iugulatori d’ni Regis.
Cuidam Cytharistae.
†1310. Histrionibus d’ni H. de Bello Monte.
In scissura tunicae stulti.
†1315. Histrionibus ad Natale.
1330-1. In uno garniamento pro Thoma fatuo empto.
Histrionibus ad Natale.
” in fest. S. Cuthberti in Marcio.
” ad fest. S. Cuthberti in Sept.
” d’ni Henrici de Beaumond.
Citharistae (in another roll ‘citharatori’) d’ni Roberti de
Horneclyff ex precepto Prioris.
1333-4. Duobus histrionibus in die Veneris proximo post octavam beati
Martini.
Histrionibus d’ni Regis quando d’nus noster Rex rediit de
Novo Castro.
Stulto d’ni Episcopi.
Histrionibus comitis Warenne.
Histrionibus Regis Scociae.
1334-5. Histrionibus ad Natale.
1335-6. Histrionibus d’ni Regis Scociae.
Duobus histrionibus die Sci. Cuthberti.
Duobus histrionibus ex precepto Prioris.
Histrionibus Novi Castri ad fest. S. Cuthberti.
Histrionibus d’ni R. de Nevill, per Priorem.
In 1 Cythara empta pro Thom. Harpour. 3ˢ.
Cuidam histrioni apud Beaurepaire per R. de Cotam ex dono
Prioris.
Thomae fatuo ex precepto eiusdem.
†1335. Istrionibus d’ni Regis.
Istrionibus Reginae apud Pytingdon.
Istrionibus [die Dominica proxima post festum Epiphaniae, quo
die d’nus Episcopus epulabatur cum Priore].
Will’o de Sutton, Citharaedo d’ni Galfridi Lescrop eodem die.
Istrionibus die Natalis Domini.
†1336. Duobus istrionibus d’ni Regis.
Edmundo de Kendall, Cytharaeto, de dono Prioris ad Pascha.
Menestrallis de dono [quando Episcopus epulabatur cum Priore].
†1337. In 1 pari sotularium pro Thoma fatuo.
1338-9. Several payments to ‘istriones’ and ‘menestralli.’
In 4 ulnis burelli scacciati emptis pro garniamento Thomae
Fole per preceptum Prioris.
1339-40. In panno empto in foro Dunelm. pro uno garniamento pro Thoma
fatuo.
Willelmo Piper istrioni d’ni Radulphi de Nevill die
Circumcisionis.
1341. Pelidod et duobus sociis suis histrionibus d’ni Regis post
Natale Domini.
1341-42. In garniamentis emptis pro ... Thoma fatuo (and similar
entries, or for ‘Russet,’ ‘pannus,’ ‘Candelwykstret’ in
other years).
†1343. Various payments to ‘Istriones.’
1347-8. ‘Istrionibus,’ &c.
1350-51. Istrionibus ad Natale.
” ad S. Cuthbertum in Sept.
1355-6. Will’o Pyper et aliis istrionibus ad Natale.
Item duobus istrionibus d’ni Episcopi et duobus istrionibus
Comitis de Norhamton in festo Sci. Cuthberti in Marcio.
Item istrionibus d’ni Episcopi ad festum Paschae.
Item istrionibus in festo Sci. Cuthberti in Sept.
1356-7. In sepultura Thomae fatui et necessariis expensis circa
corpus eius, per manus d’ni Prioris (similar entry in
miscellaneous roll, ‘Thomae Fole,’ _D. A._ iii. 719).
Diversis ministrallis (_D. A._ iii. 718).
†1357. Et Will’o Blyndharpour ad Natale.
Et Ioh’i Harpour d’ni Ioh’is de Streuelyn et Will’o
Blyndharpour de Novo Castro.
Et duobus Trompours Comitis de Norhamton apud Wyuestow.
Et cuidam Harpour vocato Rygeway.
Istrionibus d’ni Episcopi (and Harpers, &c.).
†1360. Petro Crouder apud Pityngton, per Capellanum.
Item eidem Petro pro uno quarterio ordii sibi dato per
Priorem.
Duobus Istrionibus Episcopi in festo Assensionis Domini.
Et cuidam Istrioni Maioris villae Novi Castri per Capellanum.
1360-61. Will’o Pyper et aliis istrionibus ad Natale per manus Ioh’is
del Sayles.
Cuidam Welsharpour d’ni Will’i de Dalton.
Item histrionibus aliorum dominorum.
1361-2. In uno viro ludenti in uno loyt et uxori eius cantanti apud
Bewrpayr (_D. A._ i. 127, _Hostiller’s Accounts_).
1362. Item cuidam histrioni harper episcopi Norwychiae in festo
Transl. Sᶜⁱ. Cuthberti.
Cuidam Istrioni Jestour Jawdewyne in festo Natalis Domini.
Will’o yᵉ kakeharpour ad idem festum.
Et Barry similem sibi ad id. festum.
Et cuidam ystrioni caeco franco cum uno puero fratre suo.
Barry harper ex precepto Prioris in una tunica empta.
1363-4. Item cantoribus in Adventu Domini cum histrionibus ibidem
ex dono Prioris.
Item cuidam histrioni die Dominica _Quasimodo geniti_.
1364-5. To two players of the Lord Duke at the said feast (of St.
Cuthbert) (Raine, _St. Cuthbert_, 109, _Surtees Soc._).
1365-6. Barry Harpour, ystrionibus, &c.
1366-8. Ministrallis, Istrionibus.
1368-9. Rob’o Trompour et Will’o Fergos ministrallo in die Sci.
Cuthberti.
1373-4. Duobus Ministrallis cum uno Weyng.
1374. 12 ministrallis in festo Sᶜⁱ. Cuthb.
1375-6. Ministrall. in die S. Cuthb. in Mar.
Cuidam ministrallo ludenti coram domino Priori in camera sua.
Tribus ministrallis Comitis del Marchie ludentibus coram
domino Priore.
Cuidam ministrallo domini Regis veniente cum domino de Neuill.
12 ministrallis in festo Sci. Cuthb. in Sept.
4 ministrallis domini Principis in festo exaltacionis Sᶜᵉ.
Crucis.
Cuidam ministrallo in festo Sᶜⁱ. Mathaei.
Ministrallis in festo Sᶜⁱ. Cuthb. in Marcio anno Domini, &c.
lxxvᵗᵒ.
Duobus ministrallis in die Pasche.
1376-7. Willielmo Fergos et Rogero Harpour caeco ad Natale Domini.
Aliis ministrallis domini de Percy in eadem fest.
1377-8. Haraldis, histrionibus et nunciis, ut patet per cedulam.
1378-9. Histrionibus ... dominorum Regis, Ducis, et aliorum dominorum.
1380-1. Iohanni Momford ministrallo domini Regis.
1381-2. Ministrallis domini de Neuill apud Beaurepaire cum domina de
Lomly.
Ministrallo domini Ducis cum uno saltante in camera domini
Prioris.
(and others.)
1384-5. Ministrallis domini Regis.
1394-5. Ministrallis in festo S. Cuthb., Henrici Percy, domini Ducis
Lancastr., domini de Neuill, Ducis Eborac., de Scocia,
comitis Canciae, ad Nat. Domini, de Hilton, Ric. Brome
ministrallo, in fest. S. Cuthb. in Marc.
Uni Trompet domini Regis.
Uni Rotour de Scocia.
1395. Item, in vino, speciebus, in donis datis Confratribus,
ministrallis et aliis diversis, ex curialitate (_F. P._
cxv).
1399-1400. Ministrallis.
1401-2. Ministrallis.
1416-7. Ministrallis.
Diversis pueris ludentibus coram eodem priore in festo Sᶜⁱ.
Stephani hoc anno.
1441-2. Per ... capellanum [et] ... per bursarium ministrallis domini
Regis et aliorum dominorum supervenientibus.
1446-7. Ministrallis.
1449-50. Ministrallis.
1464-5. Et solvit Iohanni Andrewson et sociis suis operantibus pro
nova tectura unius camerae vocatae le Playerchambre
(_F. P._ ccxcv).
1465. Item j por de ferro in camera Prioris, j in le plaer cha ...
(_F. P._ ccxcviii).
1496. Paid to Robert Walssch for two days playing John Gibson of
Elvet ‘herper’ (_D. H. B._ 340).
1532-3. ... bus lusoribus ... Regis, in regardis, in auro, 15ˢ.
Et custodi ursorum et cimearum dominae Principis.
Et capellano, per bursarium, pro 4 lusoribus domini Comitis
de Darby, in auro, 7ˢ. 6ᵈ. (_D. H. B._ 143, the last two
items crossed out).
1536-7. In diversis donis datis ministrallis diversorum dominorum.
1538. Paid to the ministrels (_ministrallis_) at ‘le musters’ upon
‘le Gelymore.’
1539-40. Paid to the players (_lusoribus_) of Auklande at Christmas
before Master Hyndley, as a present (_D. H. B._ 340).
1554-5. [Cathedral Account.] Paid for two mynstralles.
II. MAXSTOKE PRIORY.
[Printed by Hazlitt-Warton, ii. 97, ‘_ex orig. penes me_.’]
‘In the Prior’s accounts of the Augustine canons of Maxstoke in
Warwickshire, of various years in the reign of Henry VI (1422-61), one of
the styles or regular heads is _De Ioculatoribus et Mimis_....
Ioculatori in septimana S. Michaelis, ivᵈ.
Citharistae tempore natalis domini et aliis iocatoribus, ivᵈ.
Mimis de Solihull, viᵈ.
Mimis de Coventry, xxᵈ.
Mimo domini Ferrers, viᵈ.
Lusoribus de Eton, viiiᵈ.
Lusoribus de Coventry, viiiᵈ.
Lusoribus de Daventry, xiiᵈ.
Mimis de Coventry, xiiᵈ.
Mimis domini de Asteley, xiiᵈ.
Item iiij mimis domini de Warewyck, xᵈ.
Mimo caeco, iiᵈ.
Sex mimis domini de Clynton.
Duobus mimis de Rugeby, xᵈ.
Cuidam citharistae, viᵈ.
Mimis domini de Asteley, xxᵈ.
Cuidam citharistae, viᵈ.
Citharistae de Coventry, viᵈ.
Duobus citharistis de Coventry, viiiᵈ.
Mimis de Rugeby, viiiᵈ.
Mimis domini de Buckeridge, xxᵈ.
Mimis domini de Stafford, iiˢ.
Lusoribus de Coleshille, viijᵈ....
[1432] Dat. duobus mimis de Coventry in die consecrationis Prioris,
xiiᵈ.’
III. THETFORD PRIORY.
[From Collier, i. 55, 84, on the authority of a ‘MS. of the
expenses of the Priory of Thetford, from 1461 to 1540, lately
in the collection of Mr. Craven Orde, and now of the Duke of
Newcastle.’]
‘The mention of “plays” and “players” does not begin until the 13ᵗʰ of
Henry VII; but “Minstrels” and “Waytes” are often spoken of there as
receiving rewards from the convent. The following entries, regarding
“plays” and “players,” occur between the 13ᵗʰ and 23ʳᵈ of Henry VII:—
13 Henry VII [1497-8].
Itᵐ. sol. in regard 12 capital plays, 4ˢ.
Itᵐ. sol. to menstrell and players in festo Epiphaniae, 2ˢ.
19 Henry VII [1503-4].
Itᵐ. sol. to the play of Mydenale, 12ᵈ.
21 Henry VII [1505-6].
Itᵐ. sol. in regard lusoribus et menstrall, 17ᵈ.
23 Henry VII [1507-8].
Itᵐ. sol. in regard lusoribus div. vices, 3ˢ 4ᵈ.
Itᵐ. sol. in regard to Ixworth play, 16ᵈ.
Itᵐ. sol. in regard to Schelfanger play, 4ᵈ.
... From the 1ˢᵗ to the 31ˢᵗ Henry VIII, the King’s players, the King’s
jugglers, the King’s minstrels, and the King’s bearwards were visitors of
Thetford, and were paid various sums, from 4ᵈ to 6ˢ 8ᵈ, by the Prior of
the convent there, as appears by the entries in the account-book during
that period. On one occasion, 16 Henry VIII, Cornyshe, “the master of the
King’s chapel,” was paid 3ˢ 4ᵈ by the prior; but he was then, probably,
attendant upon the King, who is not unfrequently spoken of as having
arrived, and being lodged at the Priory. Mr. Brandon and Mr. Smith are
more than once rewarded as “Jugglers of the King.” The Queen’s players,
the Prince’s players, and the players of the Queen of France, also
experienced the liberality of the Prior, as well as those of the Duke
of Norfolk, the Duke of Suffolk, the Earl and Countess of Derby, Lord
and Lady Fitzwater, the Lord Privy Seal, the Lord Chancellor, Sir Thomas
Challoner and two gentlemen who are called Marks and Barney.’
IV. WINCHESTER COLLEGE.
[Extracts from _computi_ partly by Hazlitt-Warton, ii. 98,
and partly by M. E. C. Walcott, _William of Wykeham and his
Colleges_, 206. The _satrapae_ of 1466 and 1479 are said by
Mr. Walcott to have been local notables, but a collation to
them would not cost so little or be grouped with rewards to
minstrels in the _computus_. Ducange says that the word is used
‘pro quodam ministro vel satellite.’ The Magdalen accounts
use it for the ‘serjeants’ of the mayor of Oxford (Macray,
_Register_, i. 15).]
1400. In dono lusoribus civitatis Wynton venient. ad collegium cum
suo tripudio ex curialitate, xijᵈ.
1412. In dat. Ricᵒ. Kent bochier tempore regno suo vocat. Somerkyng,
xijᵈ.
1415. In dat. diversis hominibus de Ropley venientibus ad coll. die
Sanct. Innoc. et tripudiantibus et cantantibus in aula coram
Epō. scholarium, xxᵈ.
1422. Dat. histrioni dⁿⁱ epi Wynton et ioculatori ejusdem 5ᵗⁱ die
Ianuarii, cuilibet, xxᵈ.
1425. Dat. Gloucester ioculatori ludenti coram custode et sociis
penultimo die Iulii, ob reverentiam ducis Exon. xijᵈ.
1426. Dat. ministrellis d. epi Wynton tempore Nat. Dni. ex curialitate
et honestate, ijˢ viiiᵈ.
Dat. ij ministrallis comitissae de Westmorland vęnient’ ad coll.
xxᵈ.
1433. In dat. mimis dⁿⁱ cardinalis venient’ ad collegium erga festum
natale Dⁿⁱ iiijˢ.
1462. Dat’ Epo Nicholatensi visitanti Dominum custodem in hospitio suo
de nocte Sᵗⁱ. Nicholai, iiijᵈ.
1464. Et in dat. ministrallis comitis Kanciae venient. ad coll. in mense
Iulii, iiijˢ iiijᵈ.
1466. Et in dat. satrapis Wynton venientibus ad coll. festo Epiphaniae,
cum ijˢ dat. iiij. interludentibus et J. Meke citharistae eodem
festo, iiijˢ.
1467. Et in datis iiijᵒʳ mimis dom. de Arundell venient. ad coll. xiij.
die Febr. ex curialitate dom. custodis, ijˢ.
In dat. Ioh. Pontisbery et socio ludentibus in aula in die
circumcisionis, ijˢ.
1471. In dat. uni famulo dⁿⁱ regis Angliae venienti ad collegium cum
Leone mense Ianuarii, xxᵈ.
1472. Et in dat. ministrallis dom. Regis cum viijᵈ. dat. duobus
Berewardis ducis Clarentiae, xxᵈ.
Et in dat. Iohanni Stulto quondam dom. de Warewyco, cum iiijᵈ
dat. Thomae Nevyle taborario.
Et in datis duobus ministrallis ducis Glocestriae, cum iiijᵈ.
dat. uni ministrallo ducis de Northumberland, viijᵈ.
Et in datis duobus citharatoribus ad vices venient. ad collegium
viijᵈ.
1477. Et in dat. ministrallis dom. Principis venient. ad coll. festo
Ascensionis Domini, cum xxᵈ. dat. ministrallis dom. Regis, vˢ.
1479. Et in datis satrapis Wynton venientibus ad coll. festo Epiphaniae,
cum xijᵈ dat. ministrallis dom. episcopi venient. ad coll.
infra octavas epiphaniae, iiiˢ.
Dat. lusoribus de civitate Winton. venientibus ad collegium in
apparatu suo mens. Iulii, vˢ vijᵈ.
1481. Et in sol. ministrallis dom. regis venientibus ad collegium xv
die Aprilis cum xijᵈ solut. ministrallis dom. episcopi Wynton
venientibus ad collegium iᵒ die Iunii, iiijˢ iiijᵈ.
Et in dat. ministrallis dom. Arundell ven. ad coll. cum viijᵈ dat.
ministrallis dom. de la Warr, ijˢ iijᵈ.
1483. Sol. ministrallis dom. regis, ven. ad coll. iijˢ iiijᵈ.
1484. Et in dat. uni ministrallo dom. principis et in aliis ministrallis
ducis Glocestriae v die Iulii, xxᵈ.
1536. In dat. ministrallis dⁿⁱ regis venientibus ad coll. xiij die April
pro regardo, ijˢ.
1573. In regardis dat’ tibicinis dominae reginae cum vino, vijˢ iiijᵈ.
In regardis dat. lusoribus dominae reginae, vjˢ viijᵈ.
V. MAGDALEN COLLEGE, OXFORD.
[Extracts from account books made by J. R. Bloxam and W.
D. Macray, _A Register of the Members of St. Mary Magdalen
College, Oxford_, First Series, ii. 235; New Series, i. 3; ii.
3. The dates given below are for the year in which the account
begins.]
1481. pro cerothecis pro chorustis, iiijᵈ.
1482. vᵒ die Decembris pro cerothecis episcopi in festo S. Nicholai
iiijᵈ.
1483. pro cerothecis datis ad honorem Sancti Nicolai duobus choristis,
viijᵈ.
1484. pro cerothecis Episcopi in festo Sancti Nicholai et eius crucem
ferentis, viijᵈ.
1485. ‘Ursarii’ of Lord Stanley dined with the Fellows.
1486. pro factura sepulturae erga pascham, xijᵈ.
‘Sex vagatores’ dined with the servants.
Solut. viᵒ die Ian. citharistis et mimis tempore ludi in aula in
regardo, in tempore Nativitatis Domini, viijᵈ.
Solut. pro quodam ornamento lusorum vocato _ly Cape mayntenawnce_,
ixᵈ.
1487. pro vestimentis lusorum tempore Nativ. Domini, consilio unius
decani, iiˢ ijᵈ.
pro clavis ad pannos in ornatum aulae pendendos, jᵈ.
1488. Sol. Iohanni Wynman pro scriptura unius libri de servicio episcopi
pro die Innocencium, vᵈ.
1490. Singers from Abingdon, London and Hereford entertained.
1494. Sol. Pescode servanti quandam bestiam vocatam _ly merumsytt_ ex
consilio seniorum, quia Rex erat apud Woodstocke, xijᵈ.
1495. Sol. Henrico Mertyn pro lino, _alyn_, et aliis emptis pro ludo in
die Paschae, xvijᵈ ob.
Sol. Pescod ducenti duo animalia nuncupata _mermosettes_.
1502. Sol. in expensis factis tempore Nativitatis Domini, in biberiis
post interludia et alia, xiijˢ iiijᵈ.
1506. To John Burgess, B.A., ... xᵈ were paid for writing out a
miracle-play (‘scriptura lusi’) of Sᵗ. Mary Magd., and vˢ.
for some music; and viijᵈ to a man who brought some songs
from Edward Martyn, M.A. For his diligence with regard to the
above miracle-play, Kendall, a clerk, was rewarded with iˢ.
pro expensis mimi, iiijˢ, at Christmas.
1507. in quatuor refectionibus citharistae, at Epiphany.
1508. Sol. famulo Regis ducenti ursam ad collegium, ex mandato
Vice-presidentis, xijᵈ.
1509. Sol. pane, cibo et aliis datis pueris ludentibus in die Paschae,
mandato Vicepr. xvijᵈ ob.
1510. Sol. pro expensis factis in aula tempore Nativitatis Domini, xiijˢ
iiijᵈ.
Sol. cuidam mimo tempore Nativitatis Domini in regardo, viijᵈ.
1512. Sol. Petro Pyper pro pypyng in interludio nocte Sancti Iohannis,
vjᵈ.
Sol. Iohanni Tabourner pro lusione in interludio Octavis
Epiphaniae, vjᵈ.
Sol. Roberto Johnson pro una tunica pro interludiis, iiijˢ.
1514. pro carnibus [? carbonibus] consumptis in capella tribus noctibus
ante Pascha et in tempore Nativitatis, ijˢ.
1518. To Perrot, the Master of the choristers, ‘pro tinctura et
factura tunicae eius qui ageret partem Christi et pro crinibus
mulieribus, ijˢ vjᵈ.’
1520. pro pane ... datis clericis in vigiliis Sᵗⁱ. Nicolai.
pro cerothecis puerorum in festo Sancti Nicolai.
1526. pro merendis datis episcopo capellanis clericis et aliis in
vigilia Sᵗ. Nicolai.
1529. pro ... episcopo Nicholai.
1530. pro pueris in festo Sancti Nicholai.
1531. Solut. mimis dominae principisshae, xxᵈ.
Pro biberio dato sociis et scolaribus post interludia in tempore
Natalis Domini, vjˢ viijᵈ.
1532. To the Queen’s players, by the President’s order, xiiᵈ.
pro biberio dato sociis post ludum baccalaureorum in magna aula,
vjˢ viijᵈ.
1535. pro merenda facta in vigilia Sancti Nicolai.
Actors at Christmas, iiiiˢ iiijᵈ.
pro merenda facta post comediam actam, ixˢ iijᵈ.
‘ioculatoribus Regis,’ by the President’s order, xxᵈ.
1536. pro biberio in nocte Sancti Nicholai.
Sol. mimo pro solatiis factis sociis et scholasticis tempore
Nativitatis Domini, viijˢ.
1537. pro carbonibus consumptis in sacrario, per custodes sepulchri,
et per pueros in festis hiemalibus, ijˢ [and in other years].
1539. pro bellariis datis sociis cum ageretur comedia, viijˢ.
1540. pro epulis datis sociis eo tempore quo agebatur tragedia, viijˢ
iiijᵈ.
pro bellariis datis sociis et clericis vigilia divi Nicolai, iiijˢ
viijᵈ.
pro pane et potu datis semicommunariis dum curabant publicam
exhibere comediam, xxᵈ.
1541. A ‘tympanista’ was hired at Christmas and comedies acted.
1554. 30 Ian. in adventu [dom. Matravers] ad tragedias per duas noctes,
xlijˢ viijᵈ ob.
Pro epulis datis sociis post exactas tragedias, xˢ ixᵈ.
The only Elizabethan entry I need note is:—
1561. Sol. Joyner, pictori, depingenti portenta religiosorum in
spectaculo Baulino, iijˢ iiijᵈ ... depingenti nomina
haeresium in spectaculo (in aula) quod choristarum
moderator [Richard Baull] ordinavit.
VI. SHREWSBURY CORPORATION.
[Extracts from the Bailiffs’ accounts by Owen and Blakeway,
_Hist. of Shrewsbury_ (1825), i. 262, 267, 275, 284, 290, 292,
325 sqq.; and by W. D. Macray in _Hist. MSS._ xv. 10. 25. It
is not always clear to which calendar year an entry belongs.
The accounts run from Michaelmas to Michaelmas, but Owen and
Blakeway generally quote entries under one calendar year and
sometimes under one regnal year.]
1401. ‘Histriones’ of the Prince and the Earl of Stafford.
‘Menstralles’ of the Earls of Worcester and Stafford.
1409. Players [i.e. in these early accounts, ‘histriones,’ not ‘lusores’]
of the countess and earl of Arundel, of Lord Powis, Lord Talbot,
and Lord Furnivall.
Players ‘in honorem villae’ at the marriage of a cousin of David
Holbache.
1437. Minstrels of earl of Stafford.
1438. Livery to two town minstrels, ‘voc. _waytes_.’
1442. Some town minstrels called ‘histriones.’ In same year,
‘histrionibus regis,’ and in subsequent years ‘histrionibus’
of earl of Shrewsbury and others, including one ‘voc. Trumpet.’
1450. Players and minstrels at coming of duke of York from Ireland.
1457. Denaria soluta uni ministrallo domini principis [Edward] pro
honestate villae.
Quatuor ministrallis domini ducis de Bukyngham.
Duobus ministrallis d’ni de Powys.
1 lagenae vini de Ruyn dictis ministrallis.
Denaria data uni ministrallo d’ni principis et suo puero.
iiij. ministrallis d’ni ducis de Eboraco.
iv. ministrellis d’ni ducis de Excestro.
1474. Regardo ministrallis d’ni ducis de Clarence.
1478. Waltero Harper ministrallo d’ni principis.
Regardo dato uni ministrallo ducis Gloucestris vocato le Taborer.
Regardo sex ministrallis d’ni Regis.
1479. Soluta pro liberata ministrallorum vocatorum Wayts, quilibet eorum.
Soluta pro conductu unius ministralli vocati Wayt a villa de
Norhampton usque Salop.
Soluta pro quodam regardo dato uni ministrallo d’ni Regis via
elemosinaria causa eius paupertatis et aetatis.
[From this point _histriones_ replaces _ministralli_ in the
accounts.]
1483. Soluta pro quodam regardo dato sex histrionibus domini Regis pro
honestate villae.
Pro vino dato dictis histrionibus in praesencia ballivorum et
aliorum proborum hominum pro honestate villae.
Pro liberatura communium histrionum vocatorum le Wayts villae.
Soluta ursenario domini Regis pro honestate villae.
1495. Pro vino dato domino Principi [Arthur] ad ludum in quarell.
1496. Wine given to the minstrels of our Lord the King.
To the King’s minstrels.
To the Queen’s minstrels.
To the Prince’s players.
To the Earl of Derby’s players.
To the Earl of Shrewsbury’s players.
1503. In regardo dato ij Walicis histrionibus domini Regis.
1510. ‘Lusoribus’ in feast of Pentecost.
‘Histrionibus’ of Earl of Shrewsbury and King.
1516. In vino, pomis, waffers, et aliis novellis datis et expenditis
super abbatem Salop et famulos suos ad ludum et demonstrationem
martiriorum Felicianae et Sabinae in quarera post muros.
In regardo dato lusoris eiusdem martirii tunc temporis hoc anno.
1517. Regardo ursinario comitis Oxoniae.
In regardo dato ursinario domini Regis pro agitacione bestiarum
suarum ultra denarios tunc ibidem collectos.
1518. In vino expendito super tres reges Coloniae equitantibus in
interludio pro solacio villae Salop in festo Pentecost.
1520. Ralph Hubard, minstrel of Lord de ‘Mountegyle.’
In regardo dato iiijᵒʳ interlusoribus comitis Arundele
ostendentibus ballivis et comparibus suis diversa interludia.
Et in vino dato eis et aliis extraneis personis intuentibus
interludia, ultra denarios collectos.
In regardo dato histrionibus Iohannis Talbot militis pro melodia
eorum facta in presencia ballivorum.
In regardo dato iij histrionibus comitis Arundelle pro honestate
villae Salop.
In regardo dato Benet & Welles histrionibus comitis Salop.
In regardo ij histrionibus comitissae de Derby pro honestate
villae Salop.
Et in vino expendito per ballivos et compares suos audientes
melodiam eorum.
Histrionibus domini Regis ex consuetudine.
In regardo dato et vino expendito super Willelmum More histrionem
domini Regis eo quod est caecus et principalis citherator
Angliae.
1521. Regardo dato M. Brandon ioculatori domini Regis pro honestate
villae
Et in vino expendito par ballivos & compares suos videntes lusum
et ioculationem dicti ioculatoris ultra ij denarios collectos
de qualibet persona villae extraneis exceptis.
Soluta pro una roba nova depicta, sotularibus & aliis necessariis
regardis & expensis factis super Ricardum Glasyer, abbatem de
Marham, pro honestate & iocunditate villae.
In regardo dato portitori communis campanae circa villam pro
proclamacione facta pro attendencia facienda super abbatem
de Marham tempore Maii hoc anno.
In regardo dato iiijᵒʳ histrionibus domini Regis de consuetudine.
Histrionibus comitis Derby.
Regardo dato ursinario ducis Suffolke ultra 2ˢ. 3ᵈ. de pecuniis
collectis de circumstantibus ad agitacionem ursarum suarum.
Pro ursinario domini marchionis Dorsett.
1522. ‘Ursenarius’ of duke of Suffolk.
In regardo dato ioculatori domini Regis.
1524. ‘Histrio’ of Henry Knight.
‘Histriones’ of Earl of Derby.
‘Histriones’ of Lord Mount Egle.
1525. In regardo dato iiij histrionibus comitis Arundell.
Et in vino expendito super ballivos & compares suos audientes
melodiam et ludentes inspicientes.
In regardo dato iiijᵒʳ interlusoribus ducis Suffolk.
Interludes of the Lady Princess, and wine spent at hearing their
interludes.
1526. In regardo dato custodi cameli domini Regis ostendenti ballivis
et comparibus suis ioca illius cameli.
Interlusoribus dominae principissae.
Ralph Hubard, minstrel of Lord de ‘Mountegyle,’ with one Lokkett.
1527. In regardo dato lusoribus villae tempore veris et mensis Maii pro
iocunditate villae.
Interlusoribus dominae principissae.
Interluders of our Lord the King.
‘Histriones,’ of Sir John Talbot, Arthur Neuton and Sir John
Lyngen.
1528. ‘Ursenarius’ of marquis of Exeter.
1530. ‘Histrio’ of baron of Burford.
1531. Data interlusoribus dominae principissae.
1533. Soluta Thomae Eton pro factura unius mansionis de duobus stagiis
pro domino presidenti [Bishop of Exeter] et ballivis tempore
ludi septimana Pentecostes.
Et in regardo dato lusoribus ad dictum lusum et pro reparacione
ornamentorum suorum.
In vino dato domino presidenti & ballivis in mansione sua tempore
lusi in Quarrera pone muros.
In regardo dato lusoribus & interlusoribus domini Regis
ostendentibus & offerentibus ioca sua.
Et in vino expendito super eos et comitivam ballivorum & comparium
suorum audientium & supervidentium lusum & melodiam eorum.
In expensis factis in garniamentis, liberatis et histrion[ibus]
pro domino abbate de Marham tempore mensis Maii pro honestate
villae hoc anno.
1535. In regardo m[agistro] Brandon, ioculatori domini Regis.
In regardo dato histrionibus extraneis melodiam et cantilenas
eorum coram ballivis et comparibus pronunciantibus.
1538. Data in regardo lusoribus domini privati sigilli.
Data in regarda lusoribus domini principis [Edward].
Expendita super lusores domini principis, domini privati sigilli,
domini visitatoris ... pro honestate villae.
‘Histriones’ of Sir Thomas Cornewall and of Thomas Newport.
Rogero Philipps, goldsmyth, pro argento et emendacione colarium
histrionum villae.
‘Ursenarius’ of marquis of Exeter.
1540. Data in regardo quibusdam interlusoribus de Wrexam ludentibus
coram ballivis et comparibus suis in vino tunc expendito.
‘Item, Mr. Bayleffes left on pᵈ more the same day at aftʳ the play.
‘Item, the vj men spend appon the kyng’s pleyers in wyne.
‘Item, there was left on pᵈ by Mr. Bayleffs wᵗ my Lorde Prinssys
plears on Sonday after Seint Bartlaumew day.
‘Item, there was sent them the nyght to supper a poˡ of red and
a poˡ of claret.
‘Item, Mr. Bayleffs left on pᵈ on Sonday after owre Lade day wyth
my Lord Prinsys plears.’
Cuidam iugulatori ludenti coram ballivis.
1541. ‘Ursenario ducis Norfoxiae.’
1542. In vino dato interlusoribus post interlusum in cimitirio sancti
Cedde coram commissariis domini Regis ballivis et aliis.
Cuidem ursuario de la Northewiche.
Ursiatori praepotentis viri comitis Derby ad ij tempora.
Pro reparacione et pictura ornamentorum abbatis de Mayvole.
Et soluta pro una toga de nova facta dicto abbati de Mayvole.
Soluta Ricardo Glasier pro labore suo in ludendo abbatem de
Mardall.
1548. Interlusoribus ludentibus cum domino abbate de Marall.
Soluta Iohanni Mason, peynter, pro pictura togae pro dicto domino
de Marrall.
In regardo istrionibus ludentibus ante viros armatos.
Cuidam istrioni ludenti ante viros equiles equitantes ad Scociam.
1549. James Lockwood ‘servienti et gestatori domini Regis.’
Interluders of Sir John Bridges and of Sir Edward Braye.
William Taylor, and others, interluders of the town of Salop,
playing there in the month of May.
‘Histriones’ of William Sheldon and of Lord Ferrers [last use of
term histrio].
1552. Interluders of Lord Russell.
Soluta domino de abbott Marram et pro apparatu eorum videlicet
pro calciamentis tunicis et aliis vestibus.
1553. Expendita per ballivos et associatos suos die lunae in le Whitson
wuck post visum lusum.
Pro tunicis et aliis vestimentis ac pistura eorundem pro Robyn
Hood.
In vino dato eisdem interlusoribus.
In regardo le tomlers.
1554. In regardo Thomae Staney le jugler.
Wyett le gester.
1559. Regardo lusiatoribus domini Stafford.
1561. Item, gyvyn unto my lord Wyllybe’s playarys in reward.
Item, spent at the gullet on the saem playarys.
1565. To Master Baly Pursell with the Quenes players.
1566. Yeven Mr. Justes Throgmerton’s mynstrell.
1574. Paid and geven to my L. Sandwayes man, the berwart.
The players of noblemen and others and ber-wards of noblemen and
mynstrells of noblemen, this yere, viiiˡⁱ xˢ viijᵈ.
1576. Leid out to my lord of Derby and my lord Staffart’s musicions.
1582. Bestowed on her Majesty’s players this yere.
1591. To my lord of Derby’s musysyons, and to the erle of Woster’s
players ... to my L. Beachem men, beinge players.
[From _Books of Council Orders in Hist. MSS._ xv. 13, 16, 18.]
1556. 16 May. The bailiffs to set forward the stage play this next
Whitsontide for the worship of the town and not to disburse
above £5 about the furniture of the play.
1570. 8 July. Lease of pasture ‘behind the walles, exceptinge the
Quarrell where the plases have bine accustomyd to be usyd.’
1575. 17 July. Five marks to be given to Mr. Churchyard for his pains
taken in setting forth the show against the Queen’s coming,
being sent hither by the Lord President.
VII. THE HOWARDS OF STOKE-BY-NAYLAND, ESSEX.
[From accounts of Sir John Howard, in _Manners and Household
Expenses_ (Roxburghe Club, 1841), 325, 511.]
2 May, 1465. Item that he [my master] delyverd the pleyers at Moleyns
[a servant of Sir John’s] weddynge, ijˢ.
12 Jan. 1466. And the sonday nexte after the xij day, I ȝafe to the
pleyeres of Stoke, ijˢ.
[From accounts of John, Lord Howard, afterwards Duke of
Norfolk, in _Household Books of John, Duke of Norfolk, and
Thomas, Earl of Surrey_ (ed. Collier, Roxburghe Club, 1844),
104, 145, 146, 148, 149, 202, 336, 339.]
29 Aug. 1481. I paid to the pleirs of Turton [Thorington] Strete, xxᵈ.
26 Dec. 1481. Item, the xxvj day of December, my Lord toke the Plaiers
of Kokesale [Coggeshall], iijˢ iiijᵈ.
27 Dec. 1481. Item, to the Plaiers of Hadley [Hadleigh], and the olde
man and ij. children, vjˢ viijᵈ.
7 Jan. 1482. Item, to the Plaiers of Esterforde, iijˢ iiijᵈ.
9 Jan. 1482. Item, to Senclowe, that he paid to my Lord of Essex
[Henry Bourchier] men, plaiers, xxᵈ.
Thei are of Canans.
22 May, 1482. Item, that my Lord yaffe to the cherche on Whitson Monday
at the pley, xˢ.
25 Dec. 1482. Item, on Crystemas day, my Lord gaff to iiij pleyers of
my lord of Gloucestres, iijˢ iiijᵈ.
Item, the same day, my Lord gaff to iiij pleyers of
Coksale, iijˢ iiijᵈ.
9 Jan. 1483. Item, the same day, my Lord paid to Garard, of Sudbury,
for all suche stoffe as folewyth, that he bought for
the Dysgysing [a schedule of paper, gunpowder,
‘arsowde,’ pack-thread, &c., follows]. Summe totall,
xxjˢ ob.
[From accounts of Thomas, Earl of Surrey, in _Household Books_
(_ut supra_), 515, 517, 519.]
20 Dec. 1490. Payd for xviij yardes of lynen cloth, that M. Leynthorpe
had for dysgysyng, at iiijᵈ the yard, ... vjˢ iiijᵈ.
[Other expenses for the disguising follow.]
27 Dec. 1490. Item, payd to the playars of Chemsford, vjˢ. viijᵈ.
2 Jan. 1491. Item, the said day, in reward to the panget [pageant (?)],
iijˢ iiijᵈ.
Item, payd to ——, when he went to Bury to fach stuff for
dygysers on Saynt Stevens day, xvjᵈ.
8 Jan. 1492. Item, in reward to the players of Lanam [Lavenham], xlˢ.
[The Howard accounts also include many payments for minstrelsy,
&c. The Duke of Norfolk kept singers, a harper, children of the
chapel, and two fools, ‘Tom Fool’ and Richard, ‘the fool of the
kitchen.’]
VIII. THE ENGLISH COURT.
[From Rymer, _Foedera_, x. 387. A memorandum _de strenis,
liberatis et expensis_, at Christmas, 1427.]
A Jakke Travail et ses compaignons feisans diverses jeuues et entreludes
dedeins le feste de Noell devant notre dit sire le roi, 4 lib.
Et as autres jeweis de Abyndon feisantz autres entreludes dedeins le dit
feste de Noel, 20 sol.
[Extracted by Collier, i. 50, from the _Household Book_ of
Henry VII, 1491-1505, and the _Book of King’s Payments_,
1506-9. I cannot identify the former; the latter appears to be
vol. 214 of the _Miscellanea of the Treasury of the Receipt of
the Exchequer_ (Scargill-Bird, _Guide to the Public Records_,
228). I omit, here and below, entries referring to minstrelsy,
disguisings, and plays by the King’s players and the Chapel.
Probably some of the performances were given at London;
others before the King on progress. I have corrected some of
Collier’s dates from the similar entries in Bentley, _Excerpta
Historica_, 85, taken from a transcript in _B. M. Add. MS._
7099.]
1 Jan. 1492. To my Lorde of Oxon pleyers, in rewarde, £1.
7 Jan. 1493. To my Lorde of Northumberlande Pleyers, in rewarde, £1.
1 Jan. 1494. To four Pleyers of Essex in rewarde, £1.
To the Pleyers of Wymborne Minster, £1.
6 Jan. 1494. To the Frenche Pleyers for a rewarde, £1.
31 Dec. 1494. To 3 Pleyers of Wycombe in rewarde, 13ˢ 4ᵈ.
4 Jan. 1495. To the Frenshe Pleyers in rewarde, £2.
20 July, 1498. To the pleyers of London in rewarde, 10ˢ.
14 June, 1499. To the pleyers with Marvells, £4.
6 Aug. 1501. To the Pleyers at Myles End, 3ˢ 4ᵈ.
2 Jan. 1503. To the Pleyers of Essex in rewarde, £1.
20 May, 1505. To the Players of Kingeston toward the bilding of the
churche steple, in almasse, 3ˢ 4ᵈ.
1 Jan. 1506. To the players that played afore the Lord Stewarde in
the Hall opon Sonday nyght, 6ˢ 8ᵈ.
To my lorde Princes players that played in hall on
new-yeres even, 10ˢ.
25 Dec. 1506. To the Players that played affore the Lord Stewarde
in the Hall opon Tewesday nyght, 10ˢ.
2 Jan. 1509. To my lord of Buckingham’s pleyers that playd in the
Hall at Grenewich, 6ˢ 8ᵈ.
[Extracted by Collier, i. 76, from the _Book of King’s
Payments_ for 1509-17, now vol. 215 of the _Miscellanea of the
Treasury of the Receipt of the Exchequer_. The document is more
fully analysed in Brewer, ii. 1441. It is an account of the
Treasurer of the Chamber.]
6 Jan. 1512. To the Players that cam out of Suffolke, that playd
affore the Lorde Stewarde in the Kings Hall opon Monday
nyght, 13ˢ 4ᵈ.
1 Jan. 1515. To the Erle of Wiltyshires playres, that shulde have
played in the Kings Hall oppon Thursday at nyght, in
rewarde, 13ˢ 4ᵈ.
1 Jan. 1516. To the Erle of Wilshire’s players, 13ˢ 4ᵈ.
[From _Accounts of Treasurer of Chamber_ in _Trevelyan Papers_
(C.S.), i. 146, 161, 174.]
1 Jan. 1530. To the Prince’s plaiers.
1 Jan. 1531. To the Princes pleyers.
Item, paid to certain Players of Coventrye, as in wey
of the Kinges rewarde, for playnge in the Corte this
last Cristmas.
1 Jan. 1532. To the Princesse plaiers.
F
MINSTREL GUILDS
A. FRANCE.
1. _Arras_, †1105.
The famous _Pui d’Arras_ (vols. i. p. 376, ii. p. 88) was in a sense
a minstrel guild. According to tradition a plague was stayed by a
simultaneous apparition of the Virgin in a dream to two minstrels, which
led to the acquisition of ‘le joyel d’Arras,’ the miraculous ‘cierge
de notre Dame.’ This was about 1105, and the result was the foundation
of the _Confrérie_ or _Carité de N. D. des Ardents_, which afterwards
developed into the _pui_. This was not confined to minstrels, but they
were predominant. The _Statutes_ say, ‘Ceste carité est estorée des
jogleors, et les jogleors en sont signors[680].’ The objects of the
_pui_, however, were religious, social, and literary. It was not a craft
guild, such as grew up two centuries later.
2. _Paris_, 1321.
Ordinances were made in 1321 ‘à l’acort du commun des menestreus et
menestrelles, jougleurs et jougleresses’ of Paris for the reformation
of their ‘mestier,’ and registered with the provost of Paris in 1341.
They chiefly regulate the employment of minstrels within the city. The
‘mestres du dit mestier’ are to be ‘ii ou iii preudes hommes’ appointed
by the provost on behalf of the King. A number of ‘guètes’ and other
minstrels sign, beginning with ‘Pariset, menestrel le roy,’ and ending
with ‘Jaque le Jougleur.’ As a possible head of the ‘mestier’ is named
‘li prevost de Saint-Julian.’ This seems to contemplate the foundation
of the _hospice et confrérie_ under the patronage of SS. Julian and
Genesius, and in close connexion with the ‘mestier,’ which actually took
place 1328-35. But in the later Statutes of 1407 the head of the guild is
called the ‘roy des ménestriers,’ and as by this time the guild seems to
claim some authority over the whole of France, it is probable that this
‘roy’ was identical with the ‘roy des menestreuls du royaume de France,’
a title which occurs in various documents from 1338 onwards. He may also
have been identical with the ‘roy’ of the King’s household minstrels
(cf. p. 239). The Paris guild lasted until the suppression of all such
privileged bodies in 1776[681].
3. _Chauny._
The corporation of ‘les Trompettes jougleurs’ of Chauny was founded
during the fifteenth century. This town claimed to provide _bateleurs_
for all the north of France[682].
B. ENGLAND.
There are two early jurisdictions over minstrelsy, which are not strictly
of the nature of guilds.
1. _Chester._
Tradition has it that †1210 Randal Blundeville, Earl of Chester, besieged
by the Welsh in Rhuddlan Castle, was relieved by Roger Lacy, constable
of Cheshire, with a mob of riff-raff from Chester Midsummer fair. Randal
gave to Lacy, and Lacy’s son John gave to his steward Hugh de Dutton
and his heirs the ‘magistratum omnium leccatorum et meretricum totius
Cestriae.’ The fact of the jurisdiction is undoubted. It was reserved by
the charter to the London guild in 1469, claimed by Laurence de Dutton
in 1499, admitted upon an action of _quo warranto_ as a right ‘from time
immemorial,’ further reserved in the first Vagrant Act (1572) which
specifically included minstrels, and in the successive Acts of 1597,
1603, 1628, 1641, 1713, 1740, 1744. It lapsed when this last Act was
repealed in 1822. Up to 1756 the heir of Dutton regularly held his _curia
Minstralciae_ at Chester Midsummer fair, and issued licences to fiddlers
in the city and county for a fee of 4½_d._, afterwards raised to 2_s._
6_d._ Thomas Dutton (1569-1614), under puritan influences, inserted a
proviso against piping and dancing on Sundays[683].
2. _Tutbury._
Letters patent of John of Gaunt dated 1380 and confirmed by an
‘inspeximus’ of Henry VI in 1443 assigned ‘le roy des ministralx’ in the
honour of Tutbury to arrest all minstrels within the honour not doing
service on the feast of the Assumption. It was a custom that the prior
of Tutbury should provide a bull for a bull-running by the assembled
minstrels on this feast. The court was still held by an annual ‘king of
the fiddlers,’ with the steward and bailiff of the honour (including
Staffs., Derby, Notts., Leicester, and Warwick), at the end of the
seventeenth century, and the minstrels claimed to be exempt, like
those of Chester, from vagrancy legislation. But their rights were not
reserved, either by the Charter of 1469 or the Vagrant Acts[684].
The first English craft guild of minstrels is later by a century and a
half than that of Paris.
3. _London._
A charter of Edward IV (1469), ‘ex querelosa insinuatione dilectorum
nobis Walteri Haliday, marescalli [and seven others] ministrallorum
nostrorum,’ declares that ‘nonnulli rudes Agricolae et Artifices
diversarum Misterarum Regni nostri Angliae finxerunt se fore
Ministrallos. Quorum aliqui Liberatam nostram, eis minime datam,
portarunt, seipsos etiam fingentes esse Ministrallos nostros proprios.
Cuius quidem Liberatae ac dictae Artis sive Occupationis Ministrallorum
colore in diversis Partibus Regni nostri praedicti grandes Pecuniarum
Exactiones de Ligeis nostris deceptive colligunt et recipiunt.’ Hence
illegitimate competition with the real minstrels, decay of the art, and
neglect of agriculture. The charter then does two things. It makes the
royal minstrels a corporation with a marshall elected by themselves, and
it puts them at the head of a ‘Fraternitatem sive Gildam’ of minstrels
already existing in the chapel of the Virgin in St. Paul’s, and in
the royal free chapel of St. Anthony. All minstrels in the country
are to join this guild or be suppressed. It is to have two _custodes_
and to make statutes and ordinances. The jurisdiction of Dutton over
Chester minstrels is, as already stated, reserved[685]. A ‘serviens’ or
‘serjeant’ seems to have been an officer of the guild[686]. With this
exception nothing more is heard of it until 1594, when a dispute as
to the office of the Master of the Musicians’ Company called for the
intervention of the Lord Keeper[687].’ In 1604 the Company received a
new charter, which gave it jurisdiction within the city and a radius
of three miles from its boundaries. It was further restricted to the
city itself under Charles I. It still exists as the Corporation of the
Master, Wardens, and Commonalty of the Art or Science of the Musicians of
London[688].
The London guild would appear, from its peculiar relation to the
royal household minstrels, and its claim to jurisdiction throughout
the country, to have been modelled upon that of Paris. This claim was
evidently not maintained, and in fact at least three other local guilds
can be shown to have existed in the sixteenth century. A search, which I
have not undertaken, would probably readily discover more.
4. _Canterbury._
Ordinances, dated 1526, of the ‘felowshyp of the craft and mystery of
mynstrells’ give the prerogative right to perform in the city to the
members of this body, saving the privileges of the city waits, and ‘the
King’s mynstrells, the Queane’s, my Lord Prince’s, or any honorable or
wurshipfull mann’s mynstrells of thys realme[689].’
5. _Beverley._
An order of the Governors of the city (1555) recites an old custom ‘since
Athelstan’ of the choice by minstrels between Trent and Tweed of aldermen
of their fraternities during Rogation days, and renews orders for the
‘fraternity of our Lady of the read arke in Beverley.’ The statutes deal
with the employment of minstrels in Beverley, and with their ‘castells’
at the Rogation-day procession. A new member must be ‘mynstrell to some
man of honour or worship or waite of some towne corporate or other
ancient town or else of such honestye and conyng as shalbe thought
laudable and pleasant to the hearers.’ It is claimed that such are
excluded from the ‘Kyng’s acts where they speake of vacabonds and
valiant beggers.’ Quite in the spirit of the London charter of 1469 it
is ordered that ‘no myler shepherd or of other occupation or husbandman
or husbandman servant’ shall assume the functions of a minstrel outside
his own parish[690]. The earliest notice of this guild in the Beverley
archives seems to be in 1557[691], but the terms of the order and the
existence of pillars put up by the minstrels in fifteenth-century
churches in Beverley[692] point to some informal earlier association.
6. _York._
A craft of Mynstrells certainly existed by 1561, in which year they
undertook the pageant of Herod at the Corpus Christi plays[693].
G
THOMAS DE CABHAM
[The following extract from a _Penitential_ formerly ascribed
to John of Salisbury, but now to Thomas de Cabham, Bishop
of Salisbury (†1313), is printed by B. Hauréau, _Notices et
Extraits de Manuscrits_, xxiv. 2, 284, from _B. N. MSS. Lat._
3218 and 3529ᵃ, and by F. Guessard and C. Grandmaison, _Huon de
Bordeaux_, vi., from _B. N. Sorbonne MS._ 1552, f. 71. The two
texts differ in several points. According to Gautier, ii. 22,
there are several similar thirteenth-century _Penitentials_,
and it is difficult to say which was the original. The doctrine
laid down about minstrels is often repeated in later treatises.
See e.g. a passage from the fifteenth-century _Le Jardin des
Nobles_ in P. Paris, _Manuscrits français_, ii. 144.]
Tria sunt histrionum genera. Quidam transformant et transfigurant corpora
sua per turpes saltus et per turpes gestus, vel denudando se turpiter,
vel induendo horribiles larvas, et omnes tales damnabiles sunt, nisi
reliquerint officia sua. Sunt etiam alii qui nihil operantur, sed
criminose agunt, non habentes certum domicilium, sed sequuntur curias
magnatum et dicunt opprobria et ignominias de absentibus ut placeant
aliis. Tales etiam damnabiles sunt, quia prohibet Apostolus cum talibus
cibum sumere, et dicuntur tales scurrae vagi, quia ad nihil utiles sunt,
nisi ad devorandum et maledicendum. Est etiam tertium genus histrionum
qui habent instrumenta musica ad delectandum homines, et talium sunt
duo genera. Quidam enim frequentant publicas potationes et lascivas
congregationes, et cantant ibi diversas cantilenas ut moveant homines
ad lasciviam, et tales sunt damnabiles sicut alii. Sunt autem alii, qui
dicuntur ioculatores, qui cantant gesta principum et vitam sanctorum, et
faciunt solatia hominibus vel in aegritudinibus suis vel in angustiis,
et non faciunt innumeras turpitudines sicut faciunt saltatores et
saltatrices et alii qui ludunt in imaginibus inhonestis et faciunt videri
quasi quaedam fantasmata per incantationes vel alio modo. Si autem non
faciunt talia, sed cantant in instrumentis suis gesta principum et alia
talia utilia ut faciant solatia hominibus, sicut supradictum est, bene
possunt sustineri tales, sicut ait Alexander papa. Cum quidam ioculator
quaereret ab eo utrum posset salvare animam suam in officio suo,
quaesivit Papa ab eo utrum sciret aliquod aliud opus unde vivere posset:
respondit ioculator quod non. Permisit igitur Papa quod ipse viveret de
officio suo, dummodo abstineret a praedictis lasciviis et turpitudinibus.
Notandum est quod omnes peccant mortaliter qui dant scurris vel
leccatoribus vel praedictis histrionibus aliquid de suo. Histrionibus
dare nichil aliud est quam perdere.
H
PRINCELY PLEASURES AT KENILWORTH
[From _Robert Laneham’s Letter_ (ed. F. J. Furnivall for
New Shakspere Society (1890); and in Nichols, _Progresses
of Elizabeth_, i. 420) describing the entertainment of
Elizabeth by the Earl of Leicester at Kenilworth, in July,
1575. G. Gascoigne, _The Princelye Pleasures at the Courte at
Kenelworth_ (1576, in Nichols, i. 502), leaves undescribed what
he calls the ‘Coventrie’ (ed. 2, ‘Countrie’) shows.]
I. A SQUIRE MINSTREL.
Mary, syr, I must tell yoo: Az all endeuoour waz too mooue mirth &
pastime (az I tolld ye): éeuen so a ridiculoous deuise of an auncient
minstrell & hiz song waz prepared to haue been profferd, if méet time
& place had béen foound for it. Ons in a woorshipfull company, whear,
full appointed, he recoounted his matter in sort az it should haue been
vttred, I chaunsed too be: what I noted, heer thus I tel yoo: A parson
very méet séemed he for the purpoze, of a xlv. yéers olld, apparelled
partly as he woold himself. Hiz cap of: his hed séemly roounded tonster
wyze: fayr kemb, _that_ with a spoonge deintly dipt in a littl capons
greaz was finely smoothed too make it shine like a Mallard’s wing. Hiz
beard smugly shauen: and yet hiz shyrt after the nu trink, with ruffs
fayr starched, sléeked, and glistening like a payr of nu shooz: marshalld
in good order: wyth a stetting stick, and stoout, that euery ruff stood
vp like a wafer: a side gooun of kendall green, after the freshnes of the
yéer noow, gathered at the neck with a narro gorget, fastened afore with
a white clasp and a keepar close vp to the chin: but easily for heat too
vndoo when he list: Séemly begyrt in a red caddiz gyrdl: from that a payr
of capped Sheffield kniuez hanging a to side: Out of hiz bozome drawne
forth a lappet of his napkin, edged with a blu lace, & marked with a
trulooue, a hart, and A. D. for Damian: for he was but a bachelar yet.
Hiz gooun had syde sleeuez dooun to midlegge, slit from the shooulder
too the hand, & lined with white cotten. Hiz doobled sleeuez of blak
woorsted, vpon them a payr of poynets of towny Chamblet laced a long
the wreast wyth blu threeden points, a wealt toward the hand of fustian
anapes: a payr of red neatherstocks: a pair of pumps on hiz féet, with a
cross cut at the toze for cornz: not nu indéede, yet cleanly blakt with
soot, & shining az a shoing horn.
Aboout hiz nek a red rebond sutable too hiz girdl: hiz harp in good grace
dependaunt before him: hiz wreast tyed to a gréen lace, and hanging by:
vnder the gorget of hiz gooun a fair flagon cheyn, (pewter, for) siluer,
as a squier minstrel of Middilsex, that trauaild the cuntrée this soommer
seazon vnto fairz & worshipfull mens hoousez: from hiz chein hoong a
Schoochion, with mettall & cooller resplendant vpon hiz breast, of the
auncient armez of Islington:
[Apparently the minstrel was got ready; but not shown. He was to have
recited an Arthurian romance in verse.]
II. THE COVENTRY HOCK-TUESDAY SHOW.
And héertoo folloed az good a sport (me thooght) prezented in an
historicall ku, by certain good harted men of Couentrée, my Lordes
neighboors thear: who, vnderstanding amoong them _the_ thing that
coold not bee hidden from ony, hoow carefull and studious hiz honor
waz, that by all pleazaunt recreasions her highnes might best fynd her
self wellcom, & bee made gladsum and mery, (the ground-worke indeede,
and foundacion, of hiz Lordship’s myrth and gladnesse of vs all), made
petition that they moought renu noow their olld storiall sheaw: Of
argument, how the Danez whylom héere in a troubloous seazon wear for
quietnesse born withall, & suffeard in peas, that anon, by outrage &
importabl insolency, abuzing both Ethelred, the king then, and all
estates euerie whear beside: at the greuoous complaint & coounsell of
Huna, the king’s chieftain in warz, on Saint Brices night, Ann. Dom.
1012 (Az the book sayz) that falleth yéerely on the thirtéenth of
Nouember, wear all dispatcht, and the Ream rid. And for becauz the matter
mencioneth how valiantly our English women for looue of their cuntrée
behaued themseluez: expressed in actionz & rymez after their maner, they
thought it moought mooue sum myrth to her Maiestie the rather.
The thing, said they, iz grounded on story, and for pastime woont too bee
plaid in oour Citee yéerely: without ill exampl of mannerz, papistry,
or ony superstition: and elz did so occupy the heads of a number,
that likely inoough woold haue had woorz meditationz: had an auncient
beginning, and a long continuauns: tyll noow of late laid dooun, they
knu no cauz why, onless it wear by the zeal of certain theyr Preacherz:
men very commendabl for their behauiour and learning, & swéet in their
sermons, but sumwhat too sour in preaching awey theyr pastime: wisht
therefore, that az they shoold continu their good doctrine in pulpet, so,
for matters of pollicy & gouernauns of the Citie, they woold permit them
to the Mair and Magistratez: and seyed, by my feyth, Master Martyn, they
woold make theyr humbl peticion vntoo her highnes, that they might haue
theyr playz vp agayn.
But aware, kéep bak, make room noow, heer they cum! And fyrst, ...
Captain Cox cam marching on valiantly before, cléen trust, & gartered
aboue the knée, all fresh in a veluet cap (master Goldingha_m_ lent it
him) floorishing with hiz tonswoord, and another fensmaster with him:
thus in the foreward making room for the rest. After the_m_ proudly
prickt on formost, the Danish launsknights on horsbak, and then the
English: each with their allder poll marcially in their hand. Eeuen at
the first entrée the méeting waxt sumwhat warm: that by and by kindled
with corage a both sidez, gru from a hot skirmish vnto a blazing battail:
first by speare and shield, outragious in their racez az ramz at their
rut, with furious encoounterz, that togyther they tumbl too the dust,
sumtime hors and man: and after fall too it with sworde & target, good
bangz a both sidez: the fight so ceassing; but the battail not so ended:
folloed the footmen, both the hostez, ton after toother: first marching
in ranks: then warlik turning, the_n_ fro_m_ ranks into squadrons, then in
too trianglz; fro_m_ that intoo rings, & so winding oout again: A valiant
captain of great prowez, az fiers az a fox assauting a gooz, waz so hardy
to giue the first stroke: then get they grisly togyther: that great waz
the actiuitée that day too be séen thear a both sidez: ton very eager for
purchaz of pray, toother vtterly stoout for redemption of libertie: thus,
quarrell enflamed fury a both sidez. Twise the Danes had _th_e better;
but at the last conflict, beaten doun, ouercom, and many led captiue for
triumph by our English wéemen.
This waz the effect of this sheaw, that, az it waz handled, made mooch
matter of good pastime: brought all indéed intoo the great court, een
vnder her highnes windo too haue been séen: but (az vnhappy it waz for
the bride) that cam thither too soon, (and yet waz it a four a clok).
For her highnes beholding in the chamber delectabl dauncing indéed: and
héerwith the great throng and vnrulines of the people, waz cauz that this
solemnitee of Brideale & dauncing, had not the full muster waz hoped for:
and but a littl of the Couentrée plea her highnes also saw: commaunded
thearfore on the Tuisday folloing to haue it ful oout: az accordingly it
waz prezented, whearat her Maiestie laught well: they wear the iocunder,
and so mooch the more becauz her highnes had giuen them too buckes, and
fiue marke in mony, to make mery togyther: they prayed for her Maiesty,
long, happily to reign, & oft to cum thither, that oft they moought sée
héer: & what, reioycing vpon their ampl reward, and what, triumphing vpon
the good acceptauns, they vaunted their play waz neuer so dignified, nor
euer any players afore so beatified....
Tuisday, according to commandement, cam oour Couentrée men: what their
matter waz, of her highnes myrth and good acceptauns, and rewarde vntoo
them, and of their reioysing thearat, I sheawd you afore, and so say the
less noow.
I
THE INDIAN VILLAGE FEAST
[From Sir Walter Elliot, _On the Characteristics of the
Population of Central India_, in _Journal of the Ethnological
Society of London_, N. S. i. 94 (1869).]
In the north-east corner of the central mountainous region represented on
the map, between the Mahanadi and Godavery rivers, is found a tribe which
has preserved its normal character remarkably free from change and from
external influence. The Konds, or, as they call themselves, the Kuingas,
although only discovered within the last thirty-five years, are better
known than most of the other barbarous tribes from the fact that for ages
they have been in the habit of sacrificing human victims in great numbers
to secure the favour of the deities presiding over their dwellings,
fields, hills, &c., but especially of the earth-goddess.
The successful efforts employed to abolish this barbarous rite have made
the subject familiar to all, and it is remarkable that such knowledge
should have failed to attract attention to a practice precisely similar
in its objects and in its details, which is observed in every village
of Southern India, with this single difference, that a buffalo is
substituted for a human victim. My attention was early drawn to this
practice, which is called the festival of the village goddess (_Devi_,
or _Grama Devati_), the descriptions of which led me to believe it might
throw light on the early condition of the servile classes, and resolving
to witness its celebrations, I repaired to the village of Serúr, in the
Southern Mahratta country, in March, 1829. It would occupy too much time
to describe the ceremony in full, which is the less necessary as the
details vary in different places; but the general features are always the
same.
The temple of the goddess is a mean structure outside the village.
The officiating priests are the Parias, who, on this occasion, and on
it alone, are exempt from the degrading condition which excludes them
from the village, and from contact with the inhabitants. With them are
included the Mangs or workers in leather, the Asádis or Dásaris, _paria_
dancing-girls devoted to the service of the temple, the musician in
attendance on them called Rániga, who acts also as a sort of jester or
buffoon, and a functionary called Pót-raj, who officiates as _pujári_ to
a rural god named also Pót-raj, to whom a small altar is erected behind
the temple of the village goddess. He is armed with a long whip, which he
cracks with great dexterity, and to which also at various parts of the
ceremony divine honours are paid.
All the members of the village community take part in the festival with
the hereditary district officers, many of them Brahmans. The shepherds
or _Dhangars_ of the neighbouring villages are also invited, and they
attend with their priests called _Virgars_ or _Irgars_, accompanied by
the _dhol_ or big drum peculiar to their caste. But the whole is under
the guidance and management of the Parias.
The festival commences always on a Tuesday, the day of rest among the
agricultural classes, both for man and beast. The most important and
essential ceremonies take place on the second and fifth days. On the
former, the sacred buffalo, which had been purchased by the Parias, an
animal without a blemish, is thrown down before the goddess, its head
struck off by a single blow and placed in front of the shrine with one
fore-leg thrust into its mouth. Around are placed vessels containing
the different cereals, and hard by a heap of mixed grains, with a drill
plough in the centre. The carcase is then cut up into small pieces, and
each cultivator receives a portion to bury in his field. The blood and
offal are collected into a large basket, over which some pots of the
cooked food which had been presented as a meat offering (_naivedya_)
had previously been broken, and Pót-raj taking a live kid called the
_hari-mariah_, hews it in pieces over the whole. The mess (_cheraga_)
is then mixed together, and the basket being placed on the head of a
naked Mang, he runs off with it, flinging the contents into the air, and
scattering them right and left, as an offering (_bhut-bali_) to the evil
spirits, and followed by the other Parias, and the village Paiks, with
drawn swords. Sometimes the demons arrest the progress of the party, when
more of the mess is thrown about, and fowls and sheep are sacrificed,
till the spirits are appeased.
During the whole time of the sacrifice the armed paiks keep vigilant
guard, lest any intruder should secrete a morsel of flesh or a drop of
blood, which, if carried off successfully, after declaring the purpose,
would transfer the merit of the offering to the strangers’ village.
On the return of the party from making the circuit of the village another
buffalo, seized by force wherever it can be found (_zulmi-khulga_) is
sacrificed by decapitating it in the same manner as the former; but no
particular importance is attached to it, and the flesh is distributed to
be eaten.
The third and fourth days are devoted to private offerings. On the former
all the inhabitants of caste, who had vowed animals to the goddess during
the preceding three years for the welfare of their families, or the
fertility of their fields, brought the buffaloes or sheep to the _paria
pujári_, who struck off their heads. The fourth day was appropriated
exclusively to the offerings of the Parias. In this way, some fifty or
sixty buffaloes and several hundred sheep were slain, and the heads
piled up in two great heaps. Many women on these days walked naked to
the temple in fulfilment of vows, but they were covered with leaves and
boughs of trees and surrounded by their female relations and friends.
On the fifth and last day (Saturday) the whole community marched in
procession, with music, to the temple, and offered a concluding sacrifice
at the Pót-raj altar. A lamb was concealed close by. The Pót-raj having
found it after a pretended search, struck it simply with his whip, which
he then placed upon it, and, making several passes with his hands,
rendered it insensible; in fact, mesmerised it. When it became rigid and
stiff he lifted it up and carried it about on the palm of his hand, to
the amazement of the spectators, and then laid it down on the ground. His
hands were then tied behind his back by the _pujári_, and the whole party
began to dance round him with noisy shouts, the music and the shepherd’s
drum making a deafening noise. Pót-raj joined in the excitement, his eyes
began to roll, his long hair fell loose over his shoulders, and he soon
came fully under the influence of the _numen_. He was now led up, still
bound, to the place where the lamb lay motionless. He rushed at it,
seized it with his teeth, tore through the skin, and ate into its throat.
When it was quite dead, he was lifted up, a dishful of the meat offering
was presented to him; he thrust his bloody face into it, and it was then,
with the remains of the lamb, buried beside the altar. Meantime his hands
were untied, and he fled the place, and did not appear for three days.
The rest of the party now adjourned to the front of the temple, where the
heap of grain deposited the first day was divided among the cultivators,
to be buried by each one in his field with the bit of flesh. After this
a distribution of the piled-up heads was made by the hand of the Rániga.
About forty sheep’s heads were given to certain privileged persons,
among which two were allotted to the Sircar! For the rest a general
scramble took place, paiks, shepherds, Parias, and many boys and men
of good caste, were soon rolling in the mass of putrid gore. The heads
were flung about in all directions, without regard to rank or caste,
the Brahmans coming in for an ample share of the filth. The scramble
for the buffalo heads was confined to the Parias. Whoever was fortunate
enough to secure one of either kind carried it off and buried it in his
field. The proceedings terminated by a procession round the boundaries of
the village lands, preceded by the goddess, and the head of the sacred
buffalo carried on the head of one of the Mangs. All order and propriety
now ceased. Rániga began to abuse the goddess in the foulest terms; he
then turned his fury against the government, the head man of the village,
and every one who fell in his way. The Parias and Asádis attacked the
most respectable and gravest citizens, and laid hold of the Brahmans,
Lingayats, and Zamindars without scruple. The dancing-women jumped on
their shoulders, the shepherds beat the big drum, with deafening clangor,
and universal license reigned.
On reaching a little temple, sacred to the goddess of boundaries
(_polimera-amma_), they halted to make some offerings, and bury the
sacred head. As soon as it was covered, the uproar began again. Rániga
became more foul-mouthed than ever. In vain the head-men, the government
officers, and others tried to pacify him by giving him small copper
coins. He only broke out with worse imprecations and grosser abuse, till
the circuit being completed, all dispersed; the Parias retired to their
hamlet outside the town, resuming their humble, servile character, and
the village reverted to its wonted peaceful appearance.
Next day (Sunday) the whole population turned out to a great
hunting-party.
I found this remarkable institution existing in every part of India where
I have been, and I have descriptions of it corresponding in all essential
points, from the Dekhan, the Nizam’s country, Mysore, the Carnatic, and
the Northern Circars. The details vary in different places, but the
main features agree in all, and correspond remarkably with the _Mariah_
sacrifice of the Konds, which also varies considerably on minor points in
different places.
J
SWORD-DANCES
I. SWEDEN (_Sixteenth Century_).
[From Olaus Magnus, _Historia de gentibus septentrionalibus_
(1555), Bk. xv. chh. 23, 24.]
Ch. 23, _de chorea gladiatoria vel armifera saltatione_.
Habent septentrionales Gothi et Sueci pro exercenda iuventute alium
ludum, quod inter nudos enses et infestos gladios seu frameas sese
exerceant saltu, idque quodam gymnastico ritu et disciplina, aetate
successiva, a peritis et praesultare sub cantu addiscunt: et ostendunt
hunc ludum praecipue tempore carnisprivii, maschararum Italico verbo
dicto. Ante etenim tempus eiusdem carnisprivii octo diebus continua
saltatione sese adolescentes numerose exercent, elevatis scilicet
gladiis sed vagina reclusis, ad triplicem gyrum. Deinde evaginatis
itidemque elevatis ensibus, postmodo manuatim extensis, modestius gyrando
alterutrius cuspidem capulumque receptantes, sese mutato ordine in modum
figurae hexagoni fingendi subiiciunt, quam rosam dicunt: et illico eam
gladios retrahendo elevandoque resolvunt ut super uniuscuiusque caput
quadrata rosa resultet: et tandem vehementissima gladiorum laterali
collisione, celerrime retrograda saltatione determinant ludum, quem
tibiis vel cantilenis, aut utrisque simul, primum per graviorem, demum
vehementiorem saltum et ultimo impetuosissimum moderantur. Sed haec
speculatio sine oculari inspectione vix apprehenditur quam pulchra
honestaque sit, dum unius parcissimo praecepto etiam armata multitudo
quadam alacritate dirigitur ad certamen: eoque ludo clericis sese
exercere et immiscere licet, quia totus deducitur honestissima ratione.
Ch. 24. Alia etiam iuvenum exercitatio est, ut certa lege arcualem
choream ducant et reducant, aliis quidam instrumentis, sed eadem ut
gladiatorum saltantium disciplina reducta. Arcubus enim seu circulis
inclusis [inclusi?], primum modesto cantu heroum gesta referente vel
tibiis aut tympanis excitati, gyrando incedunt seque dirigentis, qui rex
dicitur, sola voce reducunt, tandem solutis arcubus aliquantulum celerius
properantes mutua inclinatione conficiunt, veluti alias per gladios,
rosam, ut formam sexangularem efficere videantur. Utque id festivius
sonoriusque fiat, tintinnabula seu aereas campanulas genu tenus ligant.
II. SHETLAND (_Eighteenth Century_).
[From Sir Walter Scott’s _Diary_ for August 7, 1814, printed in
Lockhart, _Life of Scott_ (1837), iii. 162; (1878) i. 265.]
At Scalloway my curiosity was gratified by an account of the sword-dance,
now almost lost, but still practised in the Island of Papa, belonging
to Mr. Scott. There are eight performers, seven of whom represent the
Seven Champions of Christendom, who enter one by one with their swords
drawn, and are presented to the eighth personage, who is not named.
Some rude couplets are spoken (in _English_, not _Norse_), containing
a sort of panegyric upon each champion as he is presented. They then
dance a sort of cotillion, as the ladies described it, going through
a number of evolutions with their swords. One of my three Mʳˢ. Scotts
readily promised to procure me the lines, the rhymes, and the form of
the dance.... A few years since a party of Papa-men came to dance the
sword-dance at Lerwick as a public exhibition with great applause....
In a stall pamphlet, called the history of Buckshaven [Fifeshire], it
is said those fishers sprung from Danes, and brought with them their
_war-dance_ or _sword-dance_, and a rude wooden cut of it is given.
[A footnote by Lockhart adds:—]
Mr. W. S. Rose informs me that, when he was at school at Winchester,
the morris-dancers there used to exhibit a sword-dance resembling that
described at Camacho’s wedding in _Don Quixote_; and Mr. Morritt adds
that similar dances are even yet performed in the villages about Rokeby
[Yorks, N.R.] every Christmas.
[The following account was inserted in a note to Scott’s _The
Pirate_ (1821).]
To the Primate’s account of the sword-dance, I am able to add the words
sung or chanted, on occasion of this dance, as it is still performed in
Papa Stour, a remote island of Zetland, where alone the custom keeps its
ground. It is, it will be observed by antiquaries, a species of play
or mystery, in which the Seven Champions of Christendom make their
appearance, as in the interlude presented in _All’s Well that ends Well_.
This dramatic curiosity was most kindly procured for my use by Dr. Scott
of Haslar Hospital [died 1875], son of my friend Mr. Scott of Melbie,
Zetland. Dr. Hibbert has, in his _Description of the Zetland Islands_,
given an account of the sword-dance, but somewhat less full than the
following:—
‘WORDS USED AS A PRELUDE TO THE SWORD-DANCE, A DANISH OR
NORWEGIAN BALLET, COMPOSED SOME CENTURIES AGO, AND PRESERVED IN
PAPA STOUR, ZETLAND.
PERSONÆ DRAMATIS[694].
(_Enter MASTER, in the character of SAINT GEORGE._)
Brave gentles all within this boor[695],
If ye delight in any sport,
Come see me dance upon this floor,
Which to you all shall yield comfort.
Then shall I dance in such a sort,
As possible I may or can;
You, minstrel man, play me a Porte[696],
That I on this floor may prove a man.
[_He bows, and dances in a line._
Now have I danced with heart and hand,
Brave gentles all, as you may see,
For I have been tried in many a land,
As yet the truth can testify;
In England, Scotland, Ireland, France, Italy, and Spain,
Have I been tried with that good sword of steel.
[_Draws, and flourishes._
Yet I deny that ever a man did make me yield;
For in my body there is strength,
As by my manhood may be seen;
And I, with that good sword of length,
Have oftentimes in perils been,
And over champions I was king.
And by the strength of this right hand,
Once on a day I kill’d fifteen,
And left them dead upon the land.
Therefore, brave minstrel, do not care,
But play to me a Porte most light,
That I no longer do forbear,
But dance in all these gentles’ sight.
Although my strength makes you abased,
Brave gentles all, be not afraid,
For here are six champions, with me, staid,
All by my manhood I have raised.
[_He dances._
Since I have danced, I think it best
To call my brethren in your sight,
That I may have a little rest,
And they may dance with all their might;
With heart and hand as they are knights,
And shake their swords of steel so bright,
And show their main strength on this floor,
For we shall have another bout
Before we pass out of this boor.
Therefore, brave minstrel, do not care
To play to me a Porte most light,
That I no longer do forbear,
But dance in all these gentles’ sight.
[_He dances, and then introduces his knights as under._
Stout James of Spain, both tried and stour[697],
Thine acts are known full well indeed;
And champion Dennis, a French knight,
Who stout and bold is to be seen;
And David, a Welshman born,
Who is come of noble blood;
And Patrick also, who blew the horn,
An Irish knight amongst the wood.
Of Italy, brave Anthony the good,
And Andrew of Scotland King;
Saint George of England, brave indeed,
Who to the Jews wrought muckle tinte[698].
Away with this!—Let us come to sport,
Since that ye have a mind to war.
Since that ye have this bargain sought,
Come let us fight and do not fear.
Therefore, brave minstrel, do not care
To play to me a Porte most light,
That I no longer do forbear,
But dance in all these gentles’ sight.
[_He dances, and advances to JAMES of Spain._
Stout James of Spain, both tried and stour,
Thine acts are known full well indeed,
Present thyself within our sight,
Without either fear or dread.
Count not for favour or for feid,
Since of thy acts thou hast been sure;
Brave James of Spain, I will thee lead,
To prove thy manhood on this floor.
[_JAMES dances._
Brave champion Dennis, a French knight,
Who stout and bold is to be seen,
Present thyself here in our sight,
Thou brave French knight,
Who bold hast been;
Since thou such valiant acts hast done,
Come let us see some of them now
With courtesy, thou brave French knight,
Draw out thy sword of noble hue.
[_DENNIS dances, while the others retire to a side._
Brave David a bow must string, and with awe
Set up a wand upon a stand,
And that brave David will cleave in twa[699].
[_DAVID dances solus._
Here is, I think, an Irish knight,
Who does not fear, or does not fright,
To prove thyself a valiant man,
As thou hast done full often bright;
Brave Patrick, dance, if that thou can.
[_He dances._
Thou stout Italian, come thou here;
Thy name is Anthony, most stout;
Draw out thy sword that is most clear,
And do thou fight without any doubt;
Thy leg thou shake, thy neck thou lout[700],
And show some courtesy on this floor,
For we shall have another bout,
Before we pass out of this boor.
Thou kindly Scotsman, come thou here;
Thy name is Andrew of Fair Scotland;
Draw out thy sword that is most clear,
Fight for thy king with thy right hand;
And aye as long as thou canst stand,
Fight for thy king with all thy heart;
And then, for to confirm his band,
Make all his enemies for to smart.
[_He dances.—Music begins._’
‘FIGUIR[701].
‘The six stand in rank with their swords reclining on their shoulders.
The Master (Saint George) dances, and then strikes the sword of James
of Spain, who follows George, then dances, strikes the sword of
Dennis, who follows behind James. In like manner the rest—the music
playing—swords as before. After the six are brought out of rank, they
and the Master form a circle, and hold the swords point and hilt. This
circle is danced round twice. The whole, headed by the Master, pass
under the swords held in a vaulted manner. They jump over the swords.
This naturally places the swords across, which they disentangle by
passing under their right sword. They take up the seven swords, and
form a circle, in which they dance round.
‘The Master runs under the sword opposite, which he jumps over
backwards. The others do the same. He then passes under the right-hand
sword, which the others follow, in which position they dance, until
commanded by the Master, when they form into a circle, and dance round
as before. They then jump over the right-hand sword, by which means
their backs are to the circle, and their hands across their backs. They
dance round in that form until the Master calls “Loose,” when they pass
under the right sword, and are in a perfect circle.
‘The Master lays down his sword, and lays hold of the point of James’s
sword. He then turns himself, James, and the others, into a clew. When
so formed, he passes under out of the midst of the circle; the others
follow; they vault as before. After several other evolutions, they
throw themselves into a circle, with their arms across the breast.
They afterwards form such figures as to form a shield of their swords,
and the shield is so compact that the Master and his knights dance
alternately with this shield upon their heads. It is then laid down
upon the floor. Each knight lays hold of their former points and hilts
with their hands across, which disentangle by figuirs directly contrary
to those that formed the shield. This finishes the ballet.
‘EPILOGUE.
‘Mars does rule, he bends his brows,
He makes us all agast[702];
After the few hours that we stay here,
Venus will rule at last.
Farewell, farewell, brave gentles all,
That herein do remain,
I wish you health and happiness
Till we return again.
[_Exeunt._’
The manuscript from which the above was copied was transcribed from _a
very old one_, by Mr. William Henderson, jun., of Papa Stour, in Zetland.
Mr. Henderson’s copy is not dated, but bears his own signature, and, from
various circumstances, it is known to have been written about the year
1788.
K
THE LUTTERWORTH ST. GEORGE PLAY
[From W. Kelly, _Notices Illustrative of the Drama, &c., ...
from ... Manuscripts of the Borough of Leicester_ (1865), 53.
The version is that ‘performed in some of the villages near
Lutterworth, at Christmas 1863.’]
THE CHRISTMAS MUMMERS’ PLAY.
DRAMATIS PERSONÆ.
1. CAPTAIN SLASHER, _in military costume, with sword and pistol_.
2. King of England, _in robes, wearing the crown_.
3. PRINCE GEORGE, _King’s Son, in robes, and sword by his side_.
4. Turkish Champion, _in military attire, with sword and pistol_.
5. A Noble Doctor.
6. Beelzebub.
7. A Clown.
_Enter Captain Slasher._ I beg your pardon for being so bold,
I enter your house, the weather’s so cold,
Room, a room! brave gallants, give us room to sport;
For in this house we do resort,—Resort,
resort, for many a day;
Step in, the King of England,
And boldly clear the way.
_Enter King of England._ I am the King of England, that boldly does
appear;
I come to seek my only son,—my only son is here.
_Enter Prince George._ I am Prince George, a worthy knight;
I’ll spend my blood for England’s right.
England’s right I will maintain;
I’ll fight for old England once again.
_Enter Turkish Knight._ I am the Turkish Champion;
From Turkey’s land I come.
I come to fight the King of England
And all his noble men.
_Captain Slasher._ In comes Captain Slasher,
Captain Slasher is my name;
With sword and pistol by my side,
I hope to win the game.
_King of England._ I am the King of England,
As you may plainly see,
These are my soldiers standing by me;
They stand by me your life to end,
On them doth my life depend.
_Prince George._ I am Prince George, the Champion bold,
And with my sword I won three crowns of gold;
I slew the fiery dragon and brought him to the slaughter,
And won the King of Egypt’s only daughter.
_Turkish Champion._ As I was going by St. Francis’ School,
I heard a lady cry ‘A fool, a fool!’
‘A fool,’ was every word,
‘That man’s a fool,
Who wears a wooden sword.’
_Prince George._ A wooden sword, you dirty dog!
My sword is made of the best of metal free.
If you would like to taste of it,
I’ll give it unto thee.
Stand off, stand off, you dirty dog!
Or by my sword you’ll die.
I’ll cut you down the middle,
And make your blood to fly.
[_They fight; Prince George falls, mortally wounded._
_Enter King of England._ Oh, horrible! terrible! what hast thou done?
Thou hast ruin’d me, ruin’d me,
By killing of my only son!
Oh, is there ever a noble doctor to be found,
To cure this English champion
Of his deep and deadly wound?
_Enter Noble Doctor._ Oh yes, there is a noble doctor to be found,
To cure this English champion
Of his deep and deadly wound.
_King of England._ And pray what is your practice?
_Noble Doctor._ I boast not of my practice, neither do I study in the
practice of physic.
_King of England._ What can you cure?
_Noble Doctor._ All sorts of diseases,
Whatever you pleases:
I can cure the itch, the pitch,
The phthisic, the palsy and the gout;
And if the devil’s in the man,
I can fetch him out.
My wisdom lies in my wig,
I torture not my patients with excations,
Such as pills, boluses, solutions, and embrocations;
But by the word of command
I can make this mighty prince to stand.
_King._ What is your fee?
_Doctor._ Ten pounds is true.
_King._ Proceed, Noble Doctor;
You shall have your due.
_Doctor._ Arise, arise! most noble prince, arise,
And no more dormant lay;
And with thy sword
Make all thy foes obey.
[_The Prince arises._
_Prince George._ My head is made of iron,
My body is made of steel,
My legs are made of crooked bones
To force you all to yield.
_Enter Beelzebub._ In comes I, old Beelzebub,
Over my shoulder I carry my club,
And in my hand a frying-pan,
Pleased to get all the money I can.
_Enter Clown._ In come I, who’s never been yet,
With my great head and little wit:
My head is great, my wit is small,
I’ll do my best to please you all.
_Song_ (_all join_). And now we are done and must be gone,
No longer will we stay here;
But if you please, before we go,
We’ll taste your Christmas beer.
[_Exeunt omnes._
L
THE PROSE OF THE ASS
[The text is taken from the following sources:—
i. _Beauvais, thirteenth century._—(_a_) [Duc.]—Ducange,
_Glossarium_ (ed. 1733-6), s.v. _Festum_, from a lost MS.;
copied incorrectly by Gasté, 23, and apparently also by
Clément, 158: (_b_) [B¹]—_Brit. Mus. Egerton MS._ 2615, f. 1,
with music for singing in unison: (_c_) [B²]—Same _MS._ f. 43,
with music harmonized in three parts; partly facsimiled in
_Annales Archéologiques_ (1856), xvi. 259, 300.
ii. _Sens, thirteenth century._—[S]—_MS. Senonense_, 46ᵃ, as
printed by G. M. Dreves, _Analecta Hymnica_, xx. 217. The text
has also been given from the MS. by F. Bourquelot, in _Bull. de
la Soc. Arch. de Sens_ (1858), vi. 79, and others. The version
of Clément, 126 is probably, like the facsimile given by him in
_Ann. Arch._ vii. 26, based on one ‘calqué’ from the MS. by a
M. Amé, and, where it differs from that of Dreves, is the less
trustworthy. Dreves, xx. 257 (cf. _infra_) and Millin, _Monum.
Ant. Inédits_, ii. 348, also give the music of the opening
lines. Modern settings are provided by B. De la Borde, _Essai
sur la Musique_ (1780), and Clément, in _Ann. Arch._ vii. 26,
and _Chantes de la Sainte Chapelle_. An old French translation
of the text is printed in Leber, ix. 368.
On these Beauvais and Sens MSS. cf. ch. xiii.
iii. _Bourges._—[Bo.]—The first verse with the music and
variants in the later verses are given by A. Gachet d’Artigny,
_Nouveaux Mémoires_ (1756), vii. 77, from a copy of a book
given to Bourges cathedral by a canon named Jean Pastoris. Part
of the Bourges music is also given by Millin, _loc. cit._
I print the fullest version from Ducange, italicizing the
lines not found elsewhere, and giving all variants, except of
spelling, for the rest.
Outside Beauvais, Sens, and Bourges the only localized allusion
to the prose that I have found is the Autun order of 1411
(vol. i. p. 312) ‘nec dicatur cantilena quae dici solebat
super dictum asinum.’ It is not in the Puy _officium_ for the
Circumcision, which, though in a MS. of 1553, represents a
ceremony as old as 1327 (U. Chevalier, _Prosolarium Ecclesiae
Aniciensis_, 1894). The _officium_ is full of _conductus_ and
_farsumina_, and the _clericuli_ at second Vespers _tripudiant
firmiter_. The _sanctum Praepucium_ was a relic at Puy.
The following passage is from Theoph. Raynaudus, _Iudicium de
puerorum symphoniacorum processione in festo SS. Innocentium_
(_Opera Omnia_, 1665, xv. 209): ‘Legi prosam quandam _de asino_
e Metropolitanae cuiusdam Ecclesiae rituali exscriptam; quae
super sacrum concinebatur in die S. Stephani, et dicebatur
_prosa fatuorum_, qua nihil insulsius aut asino convenientius.
Similis prosa _de bove_, quae canebatur in die S. Ioannis,
intercidisse dicitur, haud magno sane dispendio. Itaque hae
prosae erant particulae festi fatuorum, occoepti a die S.
Stephani.’ I have never come across the ‘Prose of the Ox,’ or
any notice of it which appears to be independent of Raynaud’s.]
I.
Orientis partibus
Adventavit Asinus,
Pulcher et fortissimus,
Sarcinis aptissimus. 4
_Hez, Sire Asnes, car chantez,_
_Belle bouche rechignez,_
_Vous aurez du foin assez_
_Et de l’avoine a plantez._ 8
II.
_Lentus erat pedibus,_
_Nisi foret baculus,_
_Et eum in clunibus_
_Pungeret aculeus._ 12
_Hez, Sire Asnes, etc._
III.
Hic in collibus Sichen
Iam nutritus sub Ruben,
Transiit per Iordanem,
Saliit in Bethleem. 20
_Hez, Sire Asnes, etc._
IV.
_Ecce magnis auribus_
_Subiugalis filius_
_Asinus egregius_
_Asinorum dominus._ 28
_Hez, Sire Asnes, etc._
V.
Saltu vincit hinnulos,
Dammas et capreolos,
Super dromedarios
Velox Madianeos. 36
_Hez, Sire Asnes, etc._
VI.
Aurum de Arabia,
Thus et myrrham de Saba
Tulit in Ecclesia
Virtus Asinaria. 44
_Hez, Sire Asnes, etc._
VII.
Dum trahit vehicula,
Multa cum sarcinula,
Illius mandibula
Dura terit pabula. 52
_Hez, Sire Asnes, etc._
VIII.
Cum aristis hordeum
Comedit et carduum:
Triticum e palea
Segregat in area. 60
_Hez, Sire Asnes, etc._
IX.
Amen dicas, Asine,
Iam satur de gramine,
Amen, Amen, itera,
Aspernare vetera. 68
_Hez va, hez va! hez va, hez!_
_Bialx Sire Asnes, car allez:_
_Belle bouche, car chantez._ 71
B¹ has heading _Conductus asi adducitur_; S, _Conductus ad
tabulam_.
5-8 B¹, ² _Hez, hez, sire Asnes, hez_; S. _Hez, Sir asne, hez_; Bo. _He,
he, he, Sire Ane. He._
18. B¹, ²; S, _Enulritus_.
21-4. B¹ _Hez, hez_ (and so in all verses but last); B² _Hez_ (and so in
all verses); S, _Hez, Sir asne, hez_ (and so in all verses).
vi. B¹, ² omit; Bo. places after viii.
59. Duc. _a palea_.
65. Duc. adds (_hic genuflectebatur_).
66. Bo. _Iam satis de carmine_.
69-71. B² _Hez_; Clément,
_Hez va! hez va! hez va! hez!_
_Bialx, sir asnes, car chantez,_
_Vous aurez du foin assez_
_Et de l’avoine a plantez._
I append the air of the Sens prose, as given by Dreves, _Analecta
Hymnica_, xx. 257.
[Music:
Orientis partibus Adventavit Asinus,
Pulcher et fortissimus, Sarcinis aptissimus.
Hez, Sir Asne, hez.]
M
THE BOY BISHOP
I. THE SARUM OFFICE.
[From C. Wordsworth, _Ceremonies and Processions of the
Cathedral Church of Salisbury_ (1901), 52, which follows the
practically identical texts of the printed _Processionals_
of 1508 (ed. Henderson, 1882, 17) and 1555 and the printed
_Breviary_ (ed. Procter-Wordsworth, I. ccxxix). Mr. Wordsworth
also found the office in two MS. breviaries (_Sarum Chapter
MS._ 152 and _Peterhouse, Cambridge, MS._ 270). In the MS.
(†1445) processional from Salisbury Cathedral (_Chapter MS._
148), on which his book is mainly based, there is a _lacuna_,
probably due to intentional mutilation, where the office
should come. I find no allusion to the Boy Bishop in the
printed _Sarum Missal_ (ed. Dickinson, 67), or in the _Sarum
Consuetudinary_, _Custumary_, or _Ordinal_ (Frere, _Use of
Sarum_).]
⸿ _In die sancti Johannis._
[De Episcopo Puerorum.]
_Ad uesperas, post memoriam de S. Stephano eat processio
Puerorum ad altare Innocencium, uel Sancte Trinitatis et Omnium
Sanctorum quod dicitur Salue, in capis sericis, cum cereis
illuminatis et ardentibus in manibus, cantando, Episcopo
Puerorum pontificalibus induto (executore officij, siue
Episcopo presente) incipiente hoc responsorium._
_Solus Episcopus Innocencium, si assit, Christum Puerum, uerum et
eternum, Pontificem designans, incipiat_:
_R._ Centum quadraginta quattuor millia qui empti sunt de terra: hij sunt
qui cum mulieribus non sunt coinquinati, uirgines enim permanserunt.
Ideo regnant cum Deo et Agno, et Agnus Dei cum illis.
_Tres pueri dicant hunc uersum._
_V._ Hij empti sunt ex omnibus, primicie Deo et Agno, et in ore illorum
non est inventum mendacium. Ideo.
_Omnes pueri dicant cantando simul hanc prosam_
Sedentem in superne.
_Chorus post vnumquemque uersum respondeat cantum prose super vltimam
literam E._
_V._ Sedentem in superne maiestatis arce-e.
_V._ Adorant humillime proclamantes ad te-e.
_V._ Sancte · Sancte · Sancte · Sabaoth rex-e.
_V._ Plena sunt omnia glorie tue-e.
_V._ Cum illis vndeuiginti quinque-e.
_V._ Atque cum innocentissimo grege-e.
_V._ Qui sunt sine vlla labe-e.
_V._ Dicentes excelsa uoce-e.
_V._ Laus Tibi, Domine-e.
Rex eterne glorie-e.
_Chorus respondeat_ Ideo regnant.
_Ad hanc processionem non dicatur_ Gloria Patri _sed dum prosa canitur
tunc Episcopus Puerorum thurificet altare: deinde ymaginem Sancte
Trinitatis_.
_Et postea dicat Sacerdos, modesta uoce, hunc uersum._
_V._ Letamini in Domino, et exvltate iusti.
_R._ Et gloriamini omnes recti corde.
_Deinde dicat Episcopus Puerorum, sine_ Dominus uobiscum, _sed cum_
Oremus, _oracionem_.
Deus, cuius hodierna die preconium innocentes martires non loquendo sed
moriendo confessi sunt: omnia in nobis uitiorum mala mortifica, vt fidem
tuam, quam lingua nostra loquitur, eciam moribus uita fateatur. Qui cum
Deo Patre.
_In redeundo precentor puerorum incipiat responsorium de S. Maria, uel
aliquam antiphonam de eadem._
_R._ Felix namque es, sacra uirgo Maria, et omni laude dignissima. Quia
ex te ortus est Sol iusticie, Christus Deus noster.
_Et, si necesse fuerit, dicatur uersus_:
_V._ Ora pro populo, interueni pro clero, intercede pro deuoto
femineo sexu: senciant omnes tuum leuamen, quicumque celebrant tuam
solempnitatem. Quia ex te Gloria · Quia ·
_Et sic processio chorum intret, per ostium occidentale, vt supra. Et
omnes pueri, ex vtraque parte chori, in superiori gradu se recipiant;
et ab hac hora vsque post processionem diei proximi succedentis nullus
clericorum solet gradum superiorem ascendere, cuiuscumque condicionis
fuerit._
_Ad istam processionem pro disposicione puerorum scribuntur canonici, ad
ministrandum eisdem, maiores ad thuribulandum, et ad librum deferendum,
minores ad candelabra deferenda._
_Responsorio finito, cum suo uersu, Episcopus Puerorum in sede sua dicat
uersum modesta uoce_:
_V._ Speciosus forma pre filijs hominum:
_R._ Diffusa est gracia in labijs tuis.
_Oracio._ Deus qui salutis eterne beate Marie uirginitate fecunda
humano generi premia prestitisti; tribue, quesumus, vt ipsam pro nobis
intercedere senciamus, per quam meruimus Auctorem uite suscipere, Dominum
nostrum Jesum Christum Filium tuum. _Que sic terminetur_: Qui Tecum uiuit
et regnat in vnitate Spiritus Sancti Deus. Per omnia secula seculorum.
Amen.
Pax uobis.
_R._ Et cum spiritu tuo.
_Sequatur_ Benedicamus Domino, _a duobus uicarijs, uel a tribus, extra
regulam_.
_Tunc Episcopus Puerorum intret stallum suum, et in sede sua, benedicat
populum._
_Et interim cruciferarius accipiat baculum episcopi, conuersus ad
Episcopum, et cum uenerit ad istum versum_ Cum mansuetudine _conuertat
se ad populum et incipiat hanc antiphonam sequentem_ (_que non dicatur
Episcopo absente_): _et cantet totam antiphonam vsque ad finem_.
_Ant._ Princeps ecclesie, pastor ouilis, cunctam plebem tuam benedicere
digneris. _Hic conuertat se ad populum sic dicendo_:
Cum mansuetudine et caritate, humilitate uos ad benediccionem.
_Chorus respondeat_: Deo gracias.
_Deinde retradat baculum Episcopo, et tunc Episcopus Puerorum, primo
signando se in fronte, dicat, hoc modo incipiens_:
Adiutorium nostrum in nomine Domini:
_Chorus respondeat sic_: Qui fecit celum et terram.
_Item Episcopus, signando se in pectore, dicat sic_:
Sit nomen Dei benedictum:
_Chorus respondeat_: Ex hoc nunc, et vsque in seculum.
_Deinde Episcopus Puerorum, conuersus ad clerum, eleuet brachium suum, et
dicat hanc benediccionem_:
Crucis signo uos consigno:
_Hic conuertat se ad populum, sic dicendo_:
Nostra sit tuicio.
_Deinde conuertat se ad altare, dicens_:
Qui nos emit et redemit,
_Postea ad seipsum reuersus ponat manum suam super pectus suum dicendo_:
Sue carnis precio,
_Chorus respondeat, vt sequitur_, Amen.
_His itaque peractis incipiat Episcopus Puerorum COMPLETORIUM de die,
more solito, post_ Pater Noster _et_ Aue Maria.
_Et post Completorium dicat Episcopus Puerorum ad chorum conuersus sub
tono supradicto._
Adiutorium nostrum in nomine Domini,
_Chorus respondeat_: Qui fecit celum et terram.
_Episcopus Puerorum dicat_:
Sit nomen Domini benedictum:
_Chorus._ Ex hoc nunc, et vsque in seculum.
_Deinde dicat Episcopus_:
Benedicat nos omnipotens Deus, Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus.
_Chorus_: Amen.
⸿ _In die SS. Innocencium_
si in DOMINICA euenerit:
_Eodem modo processio fiat vt in die S. Stephani, excepto quod hac die
tres pueri prosam in eundo dicant, in medio procedentes: que in ipsa
stacione ante crucem ab eisdem terminetur._
_In eundo, R._ Centum quadraginta.
_V._ Hij empti.
_Prosa._ Sedentem in superne.
_Sequatur._ Gloria Patri, et Filio.
Ideo.
_In introitu chori, de Natiuitate, vt supra._
AD MATUTINAS _in Die Innocencium_:
_In tercio Nocturno, post lecciones et cetera, ad gradum altaris omnes
pueri incipiant nonum Responsorium._
_R._ Centum quadraginta, _ut supra_.
_Omnes simul dicant uersum_:
_V._ Hij empti. Gloria Patri. Ideo.
_V._ Justi autem.
IN LAUDIBUS, _post Ps._ Laudate, _Episcopus Puerorum dicat modesta uoce,
quasi legendo, Capitulum, loco nec habitu mutato, quia per totum diem
capa serica vtitur_ (Apoc. xix.)
_Cap._ Vidi supra montem Syon Agnum stantem, &c.
_Ympnus._ Rex gloriose martirum. _De Communi plurimorum martirorum_
(Brev. Sarum, ii. 406).
_V._ Mirabilis Deus.
_Ant._ Hij sunt qui cum mulieribus, _et cetera, quam precentor dabit
Episcopo_.
_Ps._ Benedictus.
_Oracio._ Deus, cuius hodierna, &c. Qui tecum uiuit.
_Tunc omnes pueri dicant, loco_ Benedicamus, Verbum Patris (Brev. Sarum,
i. p. cxc).
_Chorus respondeat._
_Consequenter dicat Episcopus Puerorum benediccionem super populum eodem
modo quo ad uesperas precedentes._
_Post tres Memorias (scilicet de Natiuitate Domini, de S. Stephano, et de
S. Johanne) dicat Episcopus Puerorum benediccionem super populum, sicut
et post Completorium supra dictum est._
_Deinde tres de secunda forma dicant_ Benedicamus Domino, _more solito_.
AD VESPERAS. _Episcopus Puerorum incipiat._
Deus in adiutorium meum intende.
_Ant._ Tecum principium.
_Ps._ Dixit Dominus (_cix_).
_Capitulum._ Vidi supra montem.
_R._ Centum quadraginta.
_Hoc Responsorium ab vno solo Puero, scilicet Cancellario, incipiatur ad
gradum chori, in capa serica, et suus versus ab omnibus pueris cantetur
in superpelliceis in stacione puerorum, cum prosa, si placet, et eciam
cum_ Gloria Patri.
_V._ Hij empti sunt.
_Ympnus._ Rex gloriose martirum. _De Communi._
_V._ Mirabilis Deus.
_Episcopus Puerorum incipiat antiphonam_:
_Ant._ Ecce vidi Agnum stantem.
_Ps._ Magnificat.
_Oracio._ Deus, cuius hodierna.
_Dicta oracione, omnes pueri loco_ Benedicamus _dicant_ Verbum Patris.
_Ant. ad gradum altaris._
_Et chorus totum respondeant._
⸿ IN DIE S. THOMAE ARCHIEPISCOPI MARTYRIS.
_Ad Vesperas, post memoriam de S. Johanne, accipiat cruciferarius
baculum Episcopi Puerorum, et cantet antiphonam_ Princeps ecclesie,
_sicut ad primas uesperas_.
_Similiter Episcopus Puerorum benedicat populum supradicto modo._
_Et sic compleatur seruicium (officium Puerorum) huius diei._
II. THE YORK COMPUTUS.
[I have expanded the following document from the copy printed
with all the contractions by Dr. E. F. Rimbault in _The Camden
Miscellany_ (C.S.), vii (1875), 31. The original roll was in
the possession of the late Canon Raine.]
Compotus Nicholay de Newerk custodis bonorum Johannis de Cave Episcopi
Innocencium Anno domini etc. nonagesimo sexto.
[Sidenote: _Clausura._]
In primis receptum de xij denariis receptis in oblacione die Nativitatis
domini. Et de xxiiij solidis j denario receptis in oblacione die
Innocentium et j cochleare argenteum ponderis xx_d._ et j annulum
argenteum cum bursa cerica eodem die ad missam. Et de xx_d._ rec. de
Magistro Willelmo de Kexby precentore. Et de ij_s._ rec. de Magistro
Johanne de Schirburne cancellario. Et de vj_s._ viij_d._ rec. de Magistro
Johanne de Newton thesaurario ad Novam. Et de vj_s._ viij_d._ rec. de
Magistro Thoma Dalby archidiacono Richmunde. Et de vj_s._ viij_d._ rec.
de Magistro Nicholao de Feriby. Et de vj_s._ viij_d._ rec. de Magistro
Thoma de Wallworthe.
_Summa_ lv_s._ v_d._
[Sidenote: _Villa._]
Item rec. de vj_s._ viij_d._ rec. de Domino Abbate Monasterii beatae
Mariae virginis extra Muros Eboraci. Et de iij_s._ iiij_d._ rec. de
Magistro Willelmo de Feriby Archidiacono Estridinge.
_Summa_ x_s._
[Sidenote: _Patria._]
Item de iij_s._ iiij_d._ rec. de domino Thoma Ugtreht milite. Et de
ij_s._ rec. de priore de Kyrkham. Et de vj_s._ viij_d._ rec. de priore de
Malton. Et de xx_s._ rec. de comitissa de Northumbria et j anulum aureum.
Et de vj_s._ viij_d._ de priore de Bridlyngtone. Et de iij_s._ iiij_d._
de priore de Watton. Et de iij_s._ iiij_d._ de rectore de Bayntone. Et
de iij_s._ iiij_d._ de Abbate de Melsa. Et de xx_d._ rec. de priore de
Feriby. Et de vj_s._ viij_d._ rec. de domino Stephano de Scrope. Et de
ij_s._ de priore de Drax. Et de vj_s._ viij_d._ de Abbate de Selby. Et
de iij_s._ iiij_d._ rec. de priore de Pontefracte. Et de vj_s._ viij_d._
rec. de priore Sancti Oswaldi. Et de iij_s._ iiij_d._ rec. de priore de
Munkbretton. Et de vj_s._ viij_d._ rec. de domino Johanne Depdene. Et de
vj_s._ viij_d._ rec. de domina de Marmeon et j anulum aureum cum bursa
cerica. Et de iij_s._ iiij_d._ de domina de Harsay. Et de vj_s._ viij_d._
de domina de Rosse. Et de ij_s._ rec. de Abbate Ryavalli. Et de ij_s._
rec. de Abbate Bellalandi. Et de ij_s._ rec. de priore de Novoburgo. Et
de xx_d._ rec. de priore de Marton.
_Summa_ v lib. x_s._
_Summa totalis Receptorum_ viij lib. xv_s._ v_d._
De quibus dictus Nicholaus compotat.
[Sidenote: _Expensae infra civitatem._]
Ad ‘O virgo virginum.’ In pane pro speciebus j_d._ In cervisia vj_d._
Item in sua Cena. In pane vij_d._ Et in pane dominico iiij_d._ In
cervisia xxj_d._ In carne vitulorum et mutulorum ix_d._ obolus. In
sawcetiis iiij_d._ In ij anatibus iiij_d._ In xij gallinis ij_s._ vj_d._
In viij wodkoks et j pluver ij_s._ ij_d._ In iij dos̄ et x feldfars
xix_d._ In parvis avibus iij_d._ In vino ij_s._ iij_d._ In diversis
speciebus xj_d._ In lx wardons v_d._ ob. In melle ij_d._ ob. In cenapio
j_d._ In ij libris candelorum ij_d._ ob. In floure ij_d._ In focali j_d._
ob. Item coco vj_d._
_Summa_ xv_s._ vj_d._ ob.
Item die Innocentium ad cenam. In pane iij_d._ In cervisia v_d._ In carne
vitulorum et mutulorum vij_d._ In pipere et croco j_d._
Diebus veneris et sabbati nichil quia non visitarunt.
Item dominica prima sequentibus diebus lunae Martis Mercurii nichil quia
non visitarunt.
Die Jovis seu die Octavarum Innocentium inierunt versus Kexby ad dominum
de Ugtrehte et revenerunt ad cenam. In pane ij_d._ In cervisia iiij_d._
In carne v_d._
Diebus veneris et sabbati nichil quia non visitarunt.
Dominica ija seu die Sancti Willelmi devillaverunt. In pane ad Jantaculum
ij_d._ In cervisia iij_d._ In carne v_d._
Die lunae cum ebdomade sequente nichil quia extra villam.
Dominica iija cum ebdomade sequente extra villam.
Die sabbati revenerunt ad cenam. In pane j_d._ ob. In cervisia iij_d._ In
lacte et piscibus iij_d._
Dominica iiija nichil.
Die lunae inierunt ad scolas et post Jantaculum devillaverunt. In pane
ij_d._ In cervisia iij_d._ ob. In carne vij_d._
Die sabbati revenerunt ad cenam. In pane ij_d._ ob. In cervisia ij_d._ In
piscibus vj_d._
Dominica va usque ad finem Purificationis nichil.
_Summa_ v_s._ vij_d._ ob.
[Sidenote: _Variae expensae per totam viam._]
In primis. In zona empta pro episcopo iij_d._ In emendacione pilii sui
j_d._ In pane equino ante arreptum itineris ij_d._ In oblacione apud
Bridlyngtone ij_d._ In elemosina ibidem j_d._ In ferilay apud Melsam
iiij_d._ In ferilay apud Drax iiij_d._ In pane equino apud Selby iiij_d._
Item barbitonsori j_d._ In j garth apud Bridlyngton j_d._ In emendacione
j garth ibidem ob. In ij pectinibus equinis emptis apud Bridlyngtone
et Eboracum iiij_d._ In j garth apud Beverlacum j_d._ In ferracione
equorum apud Feriby viij_d._ ob. In emendacione j garth ob. In cena apud
Ledes xvij_d._ In feno et avena ibidem xiij_d._ Item in cena apud Riplay
xvj_d._ In feno et avena ibidem xij_d._ ob. In ferracione equorum apud
Fontans iiij_d._ In ferilay versus Harlsay iiij_d._ In bayting apud
Allertone vj_d._ In vino pro episcopo viij_d._ In pane et feno equorum
apud Helmslay vj_d._ In ferracione equorum apud Novumburgum iij_d._
_Summa_ x_s._ vij_d._
[Sidenote: _Variae expensae ad usum episcopi infra civitatem._]
In primis. In j torchio empto ponderis xij lib. iiij_s._ iij_d._ In j
pilio ix_d._ In j pari cirothecarum linearum iij_d._ In j pari manicarum
iij_d._ In j pari cultellorum xiiij_d._ In j pari calcarium v_d._ Item
pro factura robae xviij_d._ In furura agnina empta pro supertunica
ij_s._ vj_d._ In fururis ex convencione vj_s._ In tortricidiis per totum
tempus viij_d._ In carbone marino vij_d._ In carbone ligneo x_d._ In
paris candelorum iiij_d._ ob. In xxviij paribus cirothecarum emptis pro
vicariis et magistris scolarum iij_s._ iiij_d._ ob. Item pro emendacione
capae cericae ij_d._
_Summa_ xxiij_s._ j_d._
[Sidenote: _Stipendia servientium et equorum._]
In primis Nicholao de Newsome tenori suo xiij_s._ iiij_d._ Et eidem pro
suo equo conducto ij_s._ Item Roberto Dawtry senescallo vj_s._ viij_d._
Et pro predicationibus ejusdem in capella ij_s._ j_d._ ob. Item Johanni
Baynton cantanti medium x_s._ Item Johanni Grene v_s._ Item Johanni Ellay
iij_s._ iiij_d._ Item Johanni Schaptone servienti eidem cum ij equis suis
x_s._ ij_d._ Item Thomae Marschale pro j equo iij_s._ iiij_d._ Item j
sellare pro j equo iij_s._ vj_d._ Item pistori pro j equo iij_s._ vj_d._
Item Ricardo Fowler pro ij equis v_s._
_Summa_ lxvij_s._ xj_d._ ob.
[Sidenote: _Feoda ministrorum in ecclesia ministrancium._]
In primis succentori vicariorum ij_s._ Subcancellario xij_d._ Item
cerae puerorum xij_d._ Item clericis de vestibus xij_d._ Item sacristis
xij_d._ Item pro ornacione cathedrae episcopalis iiij_d._ Item in ligno
pro stallis iiij_d._ Item in denariis communibus xviij_d._ Item custodi
choristarum iij_s._ iiij_d._
_Summa_ xj_s._ vj_d._
Summa totalis Expensarum vj lib. xiiij_s._ x_d._ ob. Et sic Recepta
excedunt expensas xl_s._ vj_d._ ob. ad usum Episcopi.
N
WINTER PROHIBITIONS
I. 190-200. TERTULLIAN.
[From _De Idololatria_ (_Tertulliani Opera_, ed. A.
Reifferscheid and G. Wissowa, in _Corpus Script. Eccles._ xx;
_P. L._ i. 674). Part of the argument of c. 15 is repeated
in _De Corona Militari_, c. 13 (_P. L._ ii. 97). In _De Fuga
in Persecutione_, c. 13 (_P. L._ ii. 119), bribes given by
Christians to avoid persecution are called ‘saturnalitia’ given
to soldiers.]
c. 10. [de ludimagistris]. Ipsam primam novi discipvli stipem Minervae et
honori et nomini consecrat ... quam Minervalia Minervae, quam Saturnalia
Saturni, quae etiam serviculis sub tempore Saturnalium celebrari
necesse est. Etiam strenuae captandae et septimontium, et Brumae et
carae cognationis honoraria exigenda omnia, Florae scholae coronandae:
flaminicea et aediles sacrificant creati; schola honoratur feriis; idem
fit idolo natali: omnis diaboli pompa frequentatur. Quis haec competere
Christiano existimabit, nisi qui putabit convenire etiam non magistris?
c. 14. _Quemadmodum_, inquit, _omnibus per omnia placeo_, nimirum
Saturnalia et Kalendas Ianuarias celebrans hominibus placebat? ...
_Sabbata_, inquit, _vestra et numenias et ceremonias odit anima mea_;
nobis, quibus sabbata extranea sunt et numeniae et feriae a deo aliquando
dilectae, Saturnalia et Ianuariae et Brumae et Matronales frequentantur,
munera commeant et strenae, consonant lusus, convivia constrepunt.
c. 15. Sed luceant, inquit, opera vestra; at nunc lucent tabernae et
ianuae nostrae, plures iam invenias ethnicorum fores sine lucernis et
laureis, quam Christianorum ... ergo, inquis, honor dei est lucernae
pro foribus et laurus in postibus? ... certi enim esse debemus, si quos
latet per ignorantiam litteraturae saecularis, etiam ostiorum deos
apud Romanos, Cardeam a cardinibus appellatam et Forculum a foribus,
et Limentinum a limine et ipsum Ianum a ianua ... si autem sunt qui
in ostiis adorantur, ad eos et lucernae et laureae pertinebunt; idolo
feceris, quicquid ostio feceris ... scis fratrem per visionem eadem nocte
castigatum graviter, quod ianuam eius subito adnuntiatis gaudiis publicis
servi coronassent. Et tamen non ipse coronaverat aut praeceperat; nam
ante processerat et regressus reprehenderat factum ... accendant igitur
quotidie lucernas, quibus lux nulla est; affigant postibus lauros
postmodum arsuras, quibus ignes imminent; illis competunt et testimonia
tenebrarum et auspicia poenarum. Tu lumen es mundi et arbor virens
semper; si templis renuntiasti, ne feceris templum ianuam tuam, minus
dixi; si lupanaribus renuntiasti, ne induaris domui tuae faciem novi
lupanaris.
II. 190-200. TERTULLIAN.
[_Apologeticus_, c. 42 in _P. L._ i. 492.]
Sed si ceremonias tuas non frequento, attamen et illa die homo sum. Non
lavo sub noctem Saturnalibus, ne et noctem et diem perdam: attamen lavo
et debita hora et salubri.
III. †348. PRUDENTIUS.
[_Contra Symmachum_, i. 237 in _P. L._ lx. 139.]
Iano etiam celebri de mense litatur
auspiciis epulisque sacris, quas inveterato
heu! miseri sub honore agitant, et gaudia ducunt
festa Kalendarum.
IV. †370. PACIANUS, BISHOP OF BARCELONA.
[Pacianus, _Paraenesis ad Poenitentiam_ (_P. L._ xiii. 1081).
Jerome, _de Viris illustribus_, c. 106 (_P. L._ xxiii. 703),
says of Pacianus, ‘scripsit varia opuscula, de quibus est
Cervus.’]
Hoc enim, puto, proximus Cervulus ille profecit, ut eo diligentius
fieret, quo impressius notabatur.... Puto, nescierant Cervulum facere,
nisi illis reprehendendo monstrassem.
V. 374-397. ST. AMBROSE.
[From _De Interpellatione Job et David_, ii. 1 (_P. L._ xiv.
813), concluding a passage on the _cervus_ as a type of
David and of Christ. The Benedictine editors think that if
the allusion were to the _Cervulus_, St. Ambrose would have
reprobated it. But in any case it is only a passing allusion.]
Sed iam satis nobis in exordio tractatus, sicut in principio anni, more
vulgi, cervus allusit.
VI. 380-397. ST. CHRYSOSTOM.
[_Oratio Kalendis Habita_ (_P. G._ xlviii. 953). A sermon
preached at Antioch.]
Ἀλλὰ πρὸς ἕτερα κατεπείγοντα ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος ὥρμηται, τὰ σήμερον ὑπὸ τῆς
πόλεως ἁπάσης ἁμαρτηθέντα ... καὶ γὰρ καὶ ἡμῖν πόλεμος συνέστηκε νῦν ...
δαιμόνων πομπευσάντων ἐπὶ τῆς ἀγορᾶς. αἱ γὰρ διαβολικαὶ παννυχίδες αἱ
γινόμεναι τήμερον, καὶ τὰ σκώμματα, καὶ αἱ λοιδορίαι, καὶ αἱ χορεῖαι αἱ
νυκτεριναί, καὶ ἡ καταγέλαστος αὕτη κωμῳδία, παντὸς πολεμίου χαλεπώτερον
τὴν πόλιν ἡμῶν ἐξῃχμαλώτισαν ... περιχαρὴς ἡμῖν ἡ πόλις γέγονε καὶ
φαιδρά, καὶ ἐστεφάνωται, καὶ καθάπερ γυνὴ φιλόκοσμος καὶ πολυτελής,
οὕτως ἡ ἀγορὰ φιλοτίμως ἐκαλλωπίσατο σήμερον, χρυσία περιτιθεμένη,
καὶ ἱσμάτια πολυτελῆ, καὶ ὑποδήματα, καὶ ἕτερά τινα τοιαῦτα, τῶν ἐν
τοῖς ἐργαστηρίοις ἐκάστου τῇ τῶν οἰκείων ἔργων ἐπιδείξει τὸν ὁμότεχνον
παραδραμεῖν φιλονεικοῦντος. Ἀλλ’ αὕτη μὲν ἡ φιλοτιμία, εἰ καὶ παιδικῆς
ἐστι διανοίας, καὶ ψυχῆς οὐδὲν μέγα οὐδὲ ὑψηλὸν φανταζομένης, ἀλλ’
ὅμως οὐ τοσαύτην ἐπισύρεται βλάβην.... Ἀλλ’, ὅπερ ἔφην, οὐ τοσούτων
ἐγκλημάτων ἀξία αὕτη ἡ φιλοτιμία· οἱ δὲ ἐν τοῖς καπηλείοις ἀγῶνες
γινόμενοι τήμερον, οὗτοι μὲν μάλιστα ὀδυνῶσι, καὶ ἀσωτίας καὶ ἀσεβείας
ἐμπεπλημένοι πολλῆς· ἀσεβείας μέν, ὅτι παρατηροῦσιν ἡμέρας οἱ ταῦτα
ποιοῦντες, καὶ οἰωνίζονται, καὶ νομίζουσιν, εἰ τὴν νουμηνίαν τοῦ μηνὸς
τούτου μεθ’ ἡδονῆς καὶ εὐφροσύνης ἐπιτελέσαιεν, καὶ τὸν ἅπαντα τοιοῦτον
ἕξειν ἐνιαυτόν· ἀσωτίας δὲ, ὅτι ὑπὸ τὴν ἕω γυναῖκες καὶ ἄνδρες φιάλας
καὶ ποτήρια πληρώσαντες μετὰ πολλῆς τῆς ἀσωτίας τὸν ἄκρατον πίνουσι....
Ταῦτα ἀπὸ νουμηνίας φιλοσόφει, ταῦτα ἀπὸ τῆς περιόδου τῶν ἐνιαυτῶν
ἀναμιμνήσκου.... Τὸ παρατηρεῖν ἡμέρας οὐ Χριστιανικῆς φιλοσοφίας, ἀλλ’
Ἑλληνικῆς πλάνης ἐστίν.... Οὐδὲν ἔχεις κοινὸν πρὸς τὴν γῆν, ἔνθα ἡλίου
δρόμοι, καὶ περίοδοι, καὶ ἡμέραι.... Τὸ πρὸς ἡμέρας ἐπτοῆσθαι τοιαύτας,
καὶ πλείονα ἐν αὐταῖς δέχεσθαι ἡδονήν, καὶ λύχνους ἅπτειν ἐπὶ τῆς
ἀγορᾶς, καὶ στεφανώματα πλέκειν, παιδικῆς ἀνοίας ἐστίν.... Μὴ τοίνυν
ἐπὶ τῆς ἀγορᾶς ἀνακαύσῃς πῦρ αἰσθητόν, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ τῆς διανοίας ἄναψον
φῶς πνευματικόν.... Μὴ τὴν θύραν τῆς οἰκίας στεφανώσῃς, ἀλλὰ τοιαύτην
ἐπίδειξαι πολιτείαν, ὥστε τὸν τῆς δικαιοσύνης στέφανον σῇ κεφαλῇ παρὰ τῆς
τοῦ Χριστοῦ δέξασθαι χειρός.... Ὅταν ἀκούσῃς θορύβους, ἀταξίας καὶ πομπὰς
διαβολικάς, πονηρῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ ἀκολάστων τὴν ἀγορὰν πεπληρωμένην, οἴκοι
μένε, καὶ τῆς ταραχῆς ἀπαλλάττου ταύτης, καὶ ἔμεινας εἰς δόξαν Θεοῦ.
VII. 380-397. ST. CHRYSOSTOM.
[_Concio de Lazaro_ 1 (_P. L._, xlviii. 963). Preached at
Antioch on the day after No. vi.]
Τὴν χθὲς ἡμέραν, ἑορτὴν οὖσαν σατανικήν, ἐποιήσατε ὑμεῖς ἑορτὴν
πνευματικήν ... Διπλοῦν τούνυν οὕτω τὸ κέρδος ὑμῖν γέγονεν, ὅτι καὶ τῆς
ἀτάκτου τῶν μεθυόντων ἀπηλλάγητε χορείας, καὶ σκιρτήματα ἐσκιρτήσατε
πνευματικά, πολλὴν εὐταξίαν ἔχοντα· καὶ μετέσχετε κρατῆρος, οὐκ ἄκρατον
ἐκχέοντος, ἀλλὰ διδασκαλίας πεπληρωμένου πνευματικῆς· καὶ αὐλὸς ἐγένεσθε
καὶ κιθάρα τῷ Πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ· καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῷ διαβόλῳ χορευόντων,
ὑμεῖς ... ἐδώκατε τῷ Πνεύματι κροῦσαι τὰς ὑμετέρας ψυχάς.
VIII. 388. ST. JEROME.
[_Comm. in Ephes._ vi. 4 in _P. L._ xxvi. 540.]
Legant episcopi atque presbyteri, qui filios suos saecularibus litteris
erudiunt, et faciunt comoedias legere, et mimorum turpia scripta cantare,
de ecclesiasticis forsitan sumptibus eruditos; et quod in corbonam pro
peccato virgo aut vidua, vel totam substantiam suam effundens quilibet
pauper obtulerat, hoc kalendariam strenam, et Saturnalitiam sportulam et
Minervale munus grammaticus, et orator, aut in sumptus domesticos, aut in
templi stipes, aut in sordida scorta convertit.
IX. †396. ASTERIUS OF AMASEA.
[_Sermo adv. Kal. Festum_, in _P. G._ xl. 215.]
Δύο κατὰ ταυτὸν ἑορταὶ συνέδραμον ἐπὶ τῆς χθιζῆς καὶ τῆς ἐνεστώσης
ἡμέρας, οὐ σύμφωνοί τε καὶ ἀδελφοί, πᾶν δὲ τοὐναντίον ἐχθρῶς τε καὶ
ἐναντίως ἔχουσαι πρὸς ἀλλήλας. Ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἐστι τοῦ ἔξωθεν συρφετοῦ, πολὺ
συνάγουσα τοῦ μαμωνᾶ τὸ ἀργύριον ... φιλεῖται μὲν τὸ στόμα, ἀγαπᾶται δὲ
τὸ νόμισμα· τὸ σχῆμα διαθέσεως, καὶ τὸ ἔργον πλεονεξίας ... τὰ δὲ ἄλλα
πῶς ἄν τις εἴποι; μὴ καὶ ἐκκαλυψάμενος γυναικίζεται ὁ ἀριστεύς; κ.τ.λ.
X. 387-430. ST. AUGUSTINE.
[_Sermo_ cxcviii in _P. L._ xxxviii. 1024. In _Sermones_ cxcvi
and cxcvii Augustine also attacks the Calends, but in more
general terms.]
Et modo si solemnitas gentium, quae fit hodierno die in laetitia saeculi
atque carnali, in strepitu vanissimarum et turpissimarum cantionum,
in conviviis et saltationibus turpibus, in celebratione ipsius falsae
festivitatis, si ea quae agunt gentes non vos delectent, congregabimini
ex gentibus.... Qui ergo aliud credit, aliud sperat, aliud amat, vita
probet, factis ostendat. Acturus es celebrationem strenarum, sicut
paganus, lusurus alea, et inebriaturus te: quomodo aliud credis, aliud
speras, aliud amas?... Noli te miscere gentibus similitudine morum
atque factorum. Dant illi strenas, date vos eleemosynas. Avocantur illi
cantionibus luxuriarum, avocate vos sermonibus scripturarum: currunt illi
ad theatrum, vos ad ecclesiam; inebriantur illi, vos ieiunate. Si hodie
non potestis ieiunare, saltem cum sobrietate prandete.... Sed dicis mihi;
quando strenas do, mihi accipio et ego. Quid ergo, quando das pauperi,
nihil accipis?... Etenim illa daemonia delectantur canticis vanitatis,
delectantur nugatorio spectaculo, et turpitudinibus variis theatrorum,
insania circi, crudelitate amphitheatri, certaminibus animosis eorum qui
pro pestilentibus hominibus lites et contentiones usque ad inimicitias
suscipiunt, pro mimo, pro histrione, pro pantomimo, pro auriga, pro
venatore. Ista facientes, quasi thura ponunt daemoniis de cordibus suis.
XI. †400. SEVERIAN.
[_Homilia de Pythonibus et Maleficis_ (Mai, _Spicilegium
Romanum_, x. 222). The author’s name is given as Severian.
A Severian was bishop of Gabala in Syria †400, a prolific
preacher and an opponent of St. Chrysostom in Constantinople.
It seems, however, a little hazardous to ascribe to him a Latin
homily.]
Ecce veniunt dies, ecce kalendae veniunt, et tota daemonum pompa
procedit, idolorum tota producitur officina, et sacrilegio vetusto
anni novitas consecratur. Figurant Saturnum, faciunt Iovem, formant
Herculem, exponunt cum venantibus suis Dianam, circumducunt Vulcanum
verbis haletantem turpitudines suas, et plura, quorum, quia portenta
sunt, nomina sunt tacenda; quorum deformitates quia natura non habet,
creatura nescit, fingere ars laborat. Praeterea vestiuntur homines in
pecudes, et in feminas viros vertunt, honestatem rident, violant iudicia,
censuram publicam rident, inludunt saeculo teste, et dicunt se facientes
ista iocari. Non sunt ioca, sed sunt crimina. In idola transfiguratur
homo. Et, si ire ad idola crimen est, esse idolum quid videtur?... Namque
talium deorum facies ut pernigrari possint, carbo deficit; et ut eorum
habitus pleno cumuletur horrore, paleae, pelles, panni, stercora, toto
saeculo perquiruntur, et quidquid est confusionis humanae, in eorum facie
collocatur.
XII. 408-410. ST. JEROME.
[_Comm. in Isaiam_, lxv. 11 (_P. L._ xxiv. 638).]
_Et vos qui dereliquistis Dominum, et obliti estis montem sanctum meum.
Qui ponitis fortunae mensam et libatis super eam_.... Est autem in
cunctis urbibus, et maxime in Aegypto, et in Alexandria idololatriae
vetus consuetudo, ut ultimo die anni et mensis eorum qui extremus est,
ponant mensam refertam varii generis epulis, et poculum mulso mixtum, vel
praeteriti anni, vel futuri fertilitatem auspicantes. Hoc autem faciebant
Israelitae, omnium simulacrorum portenta venerantes: et nequaquam altari
victimas, sed huiusce modi mensae liba fundebant.
XIII. †412-†465. MAXIMUS OF TURIN.
[_Homilia_ ciii, _de Calendis Gentilium_ (_P. L._ lvii. 491).]
Bene quodammodo Deo providente dispositum est, ut inter medias gentilium
festivitates Christus Dominus oriretur, et inter ipsas tenebrosas
superstitiones errorum veri luminis splendor effulgeret.... Quis enim
sapiens, qui dominici Natalis sacramentum colit, non ebrietatem condemnet
Saturnalium, non declinet lasciviam calendarum?... Sunt plerique, qui
trahentes consuetudinem de veteri superstitione vanitatis, calendarum
diem pro summa festivitate procurent; et sic laetitiam habere velint,
ut sit magis illis tristitia. Nam ita lasciviunt, ita vino et epulis
satiantur, ut qui toto anno castus et temperans fuerit, illa die sit
temulentus atque pollutus; et quod nisi ita fecerit, putet perdidisse
se ferias; quia non intelligit per tales se ferias perdidisse salutem.
Illud autem quale est, quod surgentes mature ad publicum cum munusculo,
hoc est, cum strenis unusquisque procedit; et salutaturus amicos, salutat
praemio antequam osculo? ... Adhuc et ipsam munificentiam strenas
vocant, cum magis strenuum, quod——cogitur.... Hoc autem quale est quod,
interposita die, tali inani exordio, velut incipientes vivere, aut
auspicia colligant, omniaque perquirant; et exinde totius anni sibi vel
prosperitatem, vel tristitiam metiuntur? ... Hoc autem malis suis addunt,
ut quasi de auspicatione domum redeuntes ramusculos gestent in manibus,
scilicet pro omine, ut vel onusti ad hospitium redeant.
XIV. †412-†465. MAXIMUS OF TURIN.
[_Homilia_ xvi, _de Cal. Ian._ (_P. L._ lvii. 255).]
Quamquam non dubitem vos ... universas calendarum supervenientium
vanitates declinare penitus et horrere ... necessarium, nec superfluum
reor ... precedentium patrum vobis repetantur alloquia.... Et illorum
gravior atque immedicabilis languor est, qui superstitionum furore et
ludorum suavitate decepti sub specie sanitatis insaniunt. An non omnia
quae a ministris daemonum illis aguntur diebus falsa sunt et insana,
cum vir, virium suarum vigore mollito, totum se frangit in feminam,
tantoque illud ambitu atque arte agit, quasi poeniteat illum esse,
quod vir est? Numquid non universa ibi falsa sunt et insana, cum se
a Deo formati homines, aut in pecudes, aut in feras, aut in portenta
transformant? Numquid non omnem excedit insaniam, cum decorem vultus
humani Dei specialiter manibus in omnem pulchritudinem figuratum,
squalore sordium et adulterina foeditate deturpant? ... Post omnia, ad
offensionis plenitudinem, dies ipsos annum novum vocant.... Novum annum
Ianuarias appellant calendas, cum vetusto semper errore et horrore
sordescant. Auspicia etiam vanissimi colligere se dicunt, ac statum vitae
suae inanibus indiciis aestimantes, per incerta avium ferarumque signa
imminentis anni futura rimantur.
XV. †412-†465. MAXIMUS OF TURIN?
[_Sermo_ vi, _de Cal. Ian._ (_P. L._ lvii. 543). The _Sermo_
is ascribed to Maximus in three good MSS. and the style agrees
with his. Other MSS. give it to St. Augustine or St. Ambrose,
and it is printed in the Benedictine edition of the latter’s
works (_Sermo_ vii. in _P. L._ xvii. 617). The editors,
however, do not think it his.]
Est mihi adversus plerosque vestrum, fratres, querela non modica: de
iis loquor qui nobiscum natale Domini celebrantes gentilium se feriis
dediderunt, et post illud coeleste convivium superstitionis sibi prandium
praepararunt.... Quomodo igitur potestis religiose Epiphaniam Domini
procurare, qui Iani calendas quantum in vobis est devotissime celebratis?
Ianus enim homo fuit unius conditor civitatis, quae Ianiculum nuncupatur,
in cuius honore a gentibus calendae sunt Ianuariae nuncupatae; unde qui
calendas Ianuarias colit peccat, quoniam homini mortuo defert divinitatis
obsequium. Inde est quod ait Apostolus: _Dies observastis, et menses,
et tempora, et annos; timeo ne sine causa laboraverim in vobis._
Observavit enim diem et mensem qui his diebus aut non ieiunavit, aut ad
Ecclesiam non processit. Observavit diem qui hesterna die non processit
ad ecclesiam, processit ad campum. Ergo, fratres, omni studio gentilium
festivitatem et ferias declinemus, ut quando illi epulantur et laeti
sunt, nunc nos simus sobrii, atque ieiuni, quo intelligant laetitiam suam
nostra abstinentia condemnari.
XVI. _Fifth century._ ST. PETER CHRYSOLOGUS.
[_Sermo_ clv in _P. L._ lii. 609.]
Ubi nostram Christus pie natus est ad salutem, mox diabolus divinae
bonitati numerosa genuit et perniciosa portenta, ut ridiculum de
religione componeret, in sacrilegium verteret sanctitatem.... Quorum
formant adulteria in simulacris, quorum fornicationes imaginibus mandant,
quorum titulant incesta picturis, quorum crudelitates commendant
libris, quorum parricidia tradunt saeculis, quorum impietates personant
tragoediis, quorum obscaena ludunt, hos qua dementia deos crederent, nisi
quia criminum desiderio, amore scelerum possidentur, deos exoptant habere
criminosos?... Haec diximus, quare gentiles hodie faciant deos suos talia
committere, quae sustinemus, et faciant tales qui videntibus et horrori
sunt et pudori; faciant ut eos aliquando et ipsi qui faciunt horreant
et relinquant, et Christiani glorientur a talibus se liberatos esse per
Christum: si modo non eorum ex spectaculis polluantur.... Et si tanta
est de assensione damnatio, quis satis lugeat eos qui simulacra faciunt
semetipsos?... Qui se deum facit, Deo vero contradictor existit; imaginem
Dei portare noluit, qui idoli voluerit portare personam; qui iocari
voluerit cum diabolo, non poterit gaudere cum Christo.... Abstrahat ergo
pater filium, servum dominus, parens parentem, civem civis, homo hominem,
Christianus omnes qui se bestiis compararunt, exaequarunt iumentis,
aptaverunt pecudibus, daemonibus formaverunt.
XVII. 470-542. CAESARIUS OF ARLES?
[_Sermo Pseud.-Augustin._ cxxix _de Kal. Ian._ in _P. L._
xxxix. 2001. Parts of this sermon are reproduced ‘mutatis
mutandis’ in the eighth-century Frankish _Homilia de
Sacrilegiis_ (§§ 23-26), edited by Caspari (cf. No. xxxix,
below), and also in a MS. homily, _De Kalendis Ianuariis_, in
_Cod. Lat. Monac._ 6108 (tenth century), f. 48ᵛ. The rest of
that homily is mainly from Maximus Taurinensis, _Hom._ 16 (No.
xiv, above). And nearly the whole of the present _Sermo_ is
included in the _Homiliarium_ of Burchardus of Würzburg and
printed from his MS. by Eckart, _Francia Orientalis_, i. 837.
On the date and authorship of the _Sermo_, cf. Caspari, 67. It
is ascribed to Augustine by a _Codex Colbertinus_. His editors,
Blancpain and Coutant, treat it as not his (_a_) on account
of the difference of style, (_b_) on account of the reference
to the _ieiunium_ prescribed by the _sancti antiqui patres_
(i.e. amongst others, Augustine himself: cf. No. x). A _Codex
Aceiensis_ ascribes it to Faustinus (i.e. Faustus of Raji), and
this is accepted by the Bollandists (_Acta SS. Ian._ i. 2),
and by Eckart, _op. cit._ i. 433. Finally a _codex Navarricus_
assigns it to Maxentius. This can hardly be the Scythian monk
of that name (†520). Caspari suggests that there has been a
scribal error. The _sermo_ is headed ‘De natali Domini. In
calendis ianuariis.’ There is nothing about the Nativity in
it, and possibly a Nativity sermon and the author’s name of
the Kalends sermon which followed it have dropped out. He
also thinks Maximus Taurinensis may be meant. However Caspari
finally agrees with Blancpain and Coutant, that the style and
the allusion to the _triduum ieiunii_ so closely resembling
that of the Council of Tours (No. xxii) point to a writer of
the first half of the sixth century, and that he may very
likely be Caesarius of Arles, who, as his _Vita_ (cf. No. xx)
states, did preach against the Kalends.]
Dies calendarum istarum, fratres carissimi, quas Ianuarias vocant, a
quodam Iano homine perdito ac sacrilego nomen accepit. Ianus autem iste
dux quidam et princeps hominum paganorum fuit: quem imperiti homines
et rustici dum quasi regem metuunt, colere velut Deum coeperunt....
Diem ergo calendarum hodiernarum de nomine Iani, sicut iam dictum est,
nuncuparunt: atque ut ei homini divinos honores conferre cupiebant, et
finem unius anni et alterius initium deputarunt. Et quia apud illos
Ianuariae calendae unum annum implere, et alterum incipere dicebantur,
istum Ianum quasi in principio ac termino posuerunt, ut unum annum
implere, alterum incipere diceretur. Et hinc est, quod idolorum cultores
ipsi Iano duas facies figurarunt.... Hinc itaque est quod istis diebus
pagani homines perverso omnium rerum ordine obscenis deformitatibus
teguntur; ut tales utique se faciant qui colunt, qualis est iste qui
colitur. In istis enim diebus miseri homines, et, quod peius est, aliqui
baptizati, sumunt formas adulteras, species monstrosas, in quibus quidem
sunt quae primum pudenda, aut potius dolenda sunt. Quis enim sapiens
poterit credere, inveniri aliquos sanae mentis qui cervulum facientes, in
ferarum se velint habitum commutare? Alii vestiuntur pellibus pecudum;
alii assumunt capita bestiarum, gaudentes et exsultantes, si taliter se
in ferinas species transformaverint, ut homines non esse videantur....
Iamvero illud quale et quam turpe est, quod viri nati tunicis muliebribus
vestiuntur, et turpissima demum demutatione puellaribus figuris virile
robur effeminant, non erubescentes tunicis muliebribus inserere militares
lacertos: barbatas facies praeferunt, et videri feminae volunt....
Sunt enim qui calendis ianuariis auguria observant, ut focum de domo
sua, vel aliud quodcumque beneficium, cuicumque petenti non tribuant.
Diabolicas etiam strenas, et ab aliis accipiunt, et ipsi aliis tradunt.
Aliqui etiam rustici, mensulas in ista nocte quae praeteriit, plenas
multis rebus, quae ad manducandum sunt necessariae, componentes, tota
nocte sic compositas esse volunt, credentes quod hoc illis calendae
ianuariae praestare possint, ut per totum annum convivia illorum in tali
abundantia perseverent.... Qui enim aliquid de paganorum consuetudine in
istis diebus observare voluerint, timendum est ne eis nomen christianum
prodesse non possit. Et ideo sancti antiqui patres nostri considerantes
maximam partem hominum diebus istis gulae vel luxuriae deservire,
et ebrietatibus et sacrilegis saltationibus insanire, statuerunt
in universum mundum, ut per omnes Ecclesias publicum indiceretur
ieiunium.... Ieiunemus ergo, fratres carissimi, in istis diebus.... Qui
etiam in istis calendis stultis hominibus luxuriose ludentibus aliquam
humanitatem impenderit, peccati eorum participem se esse non dubitet.
XVIII. ?470-542. CAESARIUS OF ARLES?
[_Sermo Pseud.-Augustin._ cxxx in _P. L._ xxxix. 2003. The
authorship is generally taken to follow that of No. xvii,
although a Fleury MS. ascribes it to Bp. Sedatus of Besiers
†589.]
Sic enim fit ut stultae laetitiae causa, dum observantur calendarum dies
aut aliarum superstitionum vanitas, per licentiam ebrietatis et ludorum
turpem cantum, velut ad sacrificia sua daemones invitentur.... Quid
enim est tam demens quam virilem sexum in formam mulieris, turpi habitu
commutare? Quid tam demens quam deformare faciem, et vultus induere,
quos ipsi etiam daemones expavescunt? Quid tam demens quam incompositis
motibus et impudicis carminibus vitiorum laudes inverecunda delectatione
cantare? indui ferino habitu, et capreae aut cervo similem fieri, ut homo
ad imaginem Dei et similitudinem factus sacrificium daemonum fiat?...
Quicunque ergo in calendis ianuariis quibuscunque miseris hominibus
sacrilego ritu insanientibus, potius quam ludentibus, aliquam humanitatem
dederint, non hominibus, sed daemonibus se dedisse cognoscant. Et
ideo si in peccatis eorum participes esse non vultis, cervulum sive
iuvencam[703], aut alia quaelibet portenta, ante domos vestras venire non
permittatis.... Sunt enim aliqui, quod peius est, quos ita observatio
inimica subvertit, ut in diem calendarum si forte aut vicinis aut
peregrinantibus opus sit, etiam focum dare dissimulent. Multi praeterea
strenas et ipsi offerre, et ab aliis accipere solent. Ante omnia,
fratres, ad confundendam paganorum carnalem et luxuriosam laetitiam,
exceptis illis qui prae infirmitate abstinere non praevalent, omnes
auxiliante Deo ieiunemus; et pro illis miseris qui calendas istas, pro
gula et ebrietate, sacrilega consuetudine colunt, Deo, quantum possumus,
supplicemus.
XIX. 470-542. CAESARIUS OF ARLES?
[_Sermo Pseud.-Augustin._ 265, _De Christiano Nomine cum
Operibus non Christianis_, in _P. L._ xxxix. 2239.]
Licet credam quod illa infelix consuetudo ... iam ... fuerit ... sublata;
tamen, si adhuc agnoscatis aliquos illam sordidissimam turpitudinem de
hinnicula vel cervula exercere ... castigate.
XX. 470-542. CAESARIUS OF ARLES.
[Episcopi Cyprianus, Firminus et Viventius, _Vita S. Caesarii
Arelatensis_, i. 5. 42; _P. L._ lxvii. 1021.]
Predicationes ... contra calendarum quoque paganissimos ritus ... fecit.
XXI. †554. CHILDEBERT.
[_Constitutio Childeberti, De Abolendis Reliquiis Idolatriae_,
in Mansi, ix. 738; Boretius, i. 2.]
Noctes pervigiles cum ebrietate, scurrilitate, vel canticis, etiam in
ipsis sacris diebus, pascha, natale Domini, et reliquis festivitatibus,
vel adveniente die Dominico dansatrices per villas ambulare. Haec omnia,
unde Deus agnoscitur laedi, nullatenus fieri permittimus.
XXII. 567. COUNCIL OF TOURS.
[Maassen, i. 121; Mansi, ix. 803.]
c. 18. [De ieiuniis monachorum]
Quia inter natale Domini et epyfania omni die festivitates sunt,
idemque prandebunt excepto triduum illud, quod ad calcandam gentilium
consuetudinem patris nostri statuerunt, privatas in kalendis Ianuarii
fieri letanias, ut in ecclesia psalletur et ora octava in ipsis kalendis
circumcisionis missa Deo propitio celebretur.
c. 23. Enimvero quoniam cognovimus nonnullos inveniri sequipedes
erroris antiqui, qui Kalendas Ianuarii colunt, cum Ianus homo gentilis
fuerit, rex quidam, sed esse Deus non potuit; quisquis ergo unum Deum
Patrem regnantem cum Filio et Spiritu Sancto credit, non potest integer
Christianus dici, qui super hoc aliqua custodit.
XXIII. 572-574. MARTIN OF BRAGA.
[Martin von Bracara, _De Correctione Rusticorum_, ed. C. P.
Caspari, Christiania, 1883.]
c. 10. Similiter et ille error ignorantibus et rusticis hominibus
subrepit, ut Kalendas Ianuarias putent anni esse initium, quod omnino
falsissimum est. Nam, sicut scriptura dicit, viii. kal. Aprilis in ipso
aequinoctio initium primi anni est factum.
c. 11. ... Sine causa autem miser homo sibi istas praefigurationes ipse
facit, ut, quasi sicut in introitu anni satur est et laetus ex omnibus,
ita illi et in toto anno contingat. Observationes istae omnes paganorum
sunt per adinventiones daemonum exquisitae.
c. 16. ... Vulcanalia et Kalendas observare, menses ornare, lauros
ponere, pedem observare, effundere [in foco] super truncum frugem et
vinum, et panem in fontem mittere, quid est aliud nisi cultura diaboli?
XXIV. †560. MARTIN, BISHOP OF BRAGA.
[Quoted in the _Decretum Gratiani_, Pars ii, Causa 26, Quaestio
7, c. 13 (_C. I. Can._ ed. Friedberg, i. 1044), as from
‘Martinus Papa,’ or ‘Martinus Bracarensis’ [c. 74]. Mansi, ix.
857, gives the canon with a reference to _C. of Laodicea_,
c. 39, which is a more general decree against taking part
in Gentile feasts. Burchardus, x. 15, quotes it ‘ex decreto
Martialis papae.’ Martin of Braga ob. 580. His _Capitula_ are
collected from the councils of Braga and the Great Councils.
Caspari, _Martin von Bracara’s De Con. Rusticorum_, xl, thinks
that several of them, including c. 74, were his own additions.]
Non licet iniquas observationes agere calendarum, et otiis vacare
gentilibus, neque lauro aut viriditate arborum cingere domos: omnis enim
haec observatio paganismi est.
XXV. 573-603. COUNCIL OF AUXERRE.
[Maassen, i. 179.]
c. 1. Non licet kalendis Ianuarii vetolo aut cervolo facere vel streneas
diabolicas observare, sed in ipsa die sic omnia beneficia tribuantur,
sicut in reliquis diebus.
c. 5. Omnino inter supra dictis conditionibus pervigilias, quos in honore
domini Martini observant, omnimodis prohibite.
c. 11. Non licet vigilia paschae ante ora secunda noctis vigilias
perexpedire, quia ipsa nocte non licet post media nocte bibere, nec
natale Domini nec reliquas sollemnitates.
XXVI. 6th cent. ST. SAMSON, BISHOP OF DÔLE.
[Anonymi _Vita S. Samsonis_, ii. 13 (_Acta S. S. Iulii_, vi.
590).]
Nam cum quodam tempore in Resia insula praedicaret, veniente per annuam
vertiginem Kalenda Ianuaria, qua homines supradictae insulae hanc nequam
solemnem inepte iuxta patrum abominabilem consuetudinem prae ceteris
sane celebrare consueverant, ille providus spiritu ob duritiam eorum
mitigandam, convenire eos omnes in unum fecit, ut, Deo revelante, sermo
ad detestanda tam gravia mala sit. Tum hi omnes verum de eo amantes,
pravos ritus anathematizaverunt, ac verum iuxta praecepta tenus sine
suscipere spoponderunt. Ille nihilominus in Domino secundum Apostolos
gaudens, omnes parvulos qui per insulam illam ob hanc nefariam diem
discurrebant, vocavit ad se, eisque singulis per sobriam vocem mercedem
nummismunculi auro quod est mensura domuit, praecipiens in nomine Domini,
ne ulterius ab illis haec sacrilega consuetudo servaretur. Quod ita Deo
operante factum est, ut usque hodie ibidem spiritales ioci eius solide et
catholice remanserint.
XXVII. 588-659. ST. ELIGIUS OF ROUEN?
[_Sermo_ in _Vita Eligii_ of Audoënus of Rouen (_P. L._
lxxxvii. 524). According to E. Vacandard in _R. des Questions
historiques_, lxiv. 471, this is largely a compilation from the
sermons of St. Caesarius of Arles.]
Nullus in Kalendis Ianuarii nefanda et ridiculosa, vetulas aut cervulos,
aut iotticos[704] faciat, neque mensas supra noctem componat, neque
strenas aut bibitiones superfluas exerceat.
XXVIII. †636. ST. ISIDORE OF SEVILLE.
[_De Ecclesiasticis Officiis_, i. 41; _De Ieiunio Kalendarum
Ianuariarum_ (_P. L._ lxxxiii. 774). This is the chief source
of the similar passage in the ninth-century Pseudo-Alcuin, _De
Div. Offic._ c. 4 (_P. L._ ci. 1177).]
1. Ieiunium Kalendarum Ianuariarum propter errorem gentilitatis instituit
Ecclesia. Ianus enim quidam princeps paganorum fuit, a quo nomen mensis
Ianuarii nuncupatur, quem imperiti homines veluti Deum colentes, in
religione honoris posteris tradiderunt, diemque ipsam scenis et luxuriae
sacraverunt.
2. Tunc enim miseri homines, et, quod peius est, etiam fideles, sumentes
species monstruosas, in ferarum habitu transformantur: alii, femineo
gestu demutati, virilem vultum effeminant. Nonnulli etiam de fanatica
adhuc consuetudine quibusdam ipso die observationum auguriis profanantur;
perstrepunt omnia saltantium pedibus, tripudiantium plausibus, quodque
est turpius nefas, nexis inter se utriusque sexus choris, inops animi,
furens vino, turba miscetur.
3. Proinde ergo sancti Patres considerantes maximam partem generis
humani eodem die huiusmodi sacrilegiis ac luxuriis inservire, statuerunt
in universo mundo per omnes Ecclesias publicum ieiunium, per quod
agnoscerent homines in tantum se prave agere, ut pro eorum peccatis
necesse esset omnibus Ecclesiis ieiunare.
XXIX. †685. ST. ALDHELM.
[_Epist._ iii _in Eahfridum_ (_P. L._ lxxxix. 93).]
Et ubi pridem eiusdem nefandae natricis ermuli[705] cervulique cruda
fanis colebantur stoliditate in profanis, versa vice discipulorum
gurgustia (imo almae oraminum aedes) architecti ingenio fabre conduntur.
XXX. 692. QUINISEXTINE COUNCIL.
[_Conc. Quinisextinum_ or _in Trullo_, held at Constantinople,
_versio Latina_, c. 62 (Mansi, xi. 971).]
Kalendas quae dicuntur, et vota [Gk. βότα], et brumalia quae vocantur;
et qui in primo Martii mensis die fit conventum ex fidelium universitate
omnino tolli volumus: sed et publicas mulierum saltationes multam noxam
exitiumque afferentes: quin etiam eas, quae nomine eorum, qui falso
apud gentiles dii nominati sunt, vel nomine virorum ac mulierum fiunt,
saltationes ac mysteria more antiquo et a vita Christianorum alieno,
amandamus et expellimus; statuentes, ut nullus vir deinceps muliebri
veste induatur, vel mulier veste viro conveniente. Sed neque comicas
vel satyricas, vel tragicas personas induat; neque execrati Bacchi
nomen, uvam in torcularibus exprimentes, invocent; neque vinum in doliis
effundentes risum moveant, ignorantia vel vanitate ea, quae ab insaniae
impostura procedunt, exercentes.
XXXI. 714. GREGORY II.
[Gregorius II. _Capitulare datum episcopo et aliis in Bavariam
ablegatis_, c. 9 (Mansi, xii. 260).]
Ut incantationes, et fastidiationes, sive diversae observationes dierum
Kalendarum, quas error tradidit paganorum, prohibeantur.
XXXII. 731-741. GREGORY III.
[_Indicia_, c. 23 (_P. L._ lxxxix. 594). In _Epist._ 3 sent to
Germany on the return of Boniface from Rome in 739, Gregory
gives the more general direction ‘abstinete et prohibete
vosmetipsos ab omni cultu paganorum’ (_P. L._ lxxxix. 579).]
Si quis ... ut frater in honore Iovis vel Beli aut Iani, secundum
paganam consuetudinem, honorare praesumpserit, placuit secundum antiquam
constitutionem sex annos poeniteant. Humanius tres annos iudicaverunt.
XXXIII. †742. ST. BONIFACE (_alias_ WINFRID).
[Bonifatius, _Epistola_ xlix (_P. L._ lxxxix. 746). _Epistola_
xlii (Jaffé, _Monumenta Moguntina_), _Epistola_ 1 (Dümmler,
_Epistolae Merowingici et Karolini Aevi_, i. 301): cf. Kögel,
i. 28; Tille, _Y. ad C._ 88. The letter is _Ad Zachariam
Papam_.]
Quia carnales homines idiotae Alamanni, vel Bagoarii, vel Franci, si
iuxta Romanam urbem aliquid fieri viderint ex his peccatis quae nos
prohibemus, licitum et concessum a sacerdotibus esse putant; et dum nobis
improperium deputant, sibi scandalum vitae accipiunt. Sicut affirmant
se vidisse annis singulis in Romana urbe, et iuxta ecclesiam sancti
Petri, in die vel nocte quando Kalendae Ianuariae intrant, paganorum
consuetudine choros ducere per plateas, et acclamationes ritu gentilium,
et cantationes sacrilegas celebrare, et mensas illa die vel nocte dapibus
onerare, et nullum de domo sua vel ignem, vel ferramentum, vel aliquid
commodi vicino suo praestare velle. Dicunt quoque se ibi vidisse mulieres
pagano ritu phylacteria et ligaturas in brachiis et in cruribus ligatas
habere, et publice ad vendendum venales ad comparandum aliis offerre.
Quae omnia eo quod ibi a carnalibus et insipientibus videntur, nobis hic
improperium et impedimentum praedicationis et doctrinae faciunt.
XXXIV. †742. POPE ZACHARY.
[Zacharias Papa, _Epistola_ ii (_P. L._ lxxxix. 918),
_Epistola_ li (Dümmler, _Epist. Merow. et Karol. Aevi_, i.
301). Written _Ad Bonifatium_ in reply to No. xxxiii. The
_constitutio_ of Pope Gregory referred to appears to be No.
xxxii.]
De Kalendis vero Ianuariis, vel ceteris auguriis, vel phylacteriis,
et incantationibus, vel aliis diversis observationibus, quae gentili
more observari dixisti apud beatum Petrum apostolum, vel in urbe
Roma; hoc et nobis et omnibus Christianis detestabile et perniciosum
esse iudicamus.... Nam et sanctae recordationis praedecessoris atque
nutritoris nostri domini Gregorii papae constitutione omnia haec pie ac
fideliter amputata sunt et alia diversa quam plura.
XXXV. 743. COUNCIL OF ROME.
[Conc. Romanum, c. 9: Mansi, xii. 384. A slightly different
version, headed ‘Zacharias Papa in Conc. Rom. c. 9,’ is in
_Decretum Gratiani_, ii. 26. 7, c. 14 (_C. I. Can._ ed.
Friedberg, i. 1045). This seems to be a result of Nos. xxxiii,
xxxiv.]
Ut nullus Kalendas Ianuarias et broma ritu paganorum colere
praesumpserit, aut mensas cum dapibus in domibus praeparare, aut per
vicos et plateas cantiones et choreas ducere, quod maxima iniquitas est
coram Deo: anathema sit.
XXXVI. †750. PRIMINIUS.
[_Dicta Abbatis Priminii_, c. 22 (Caspari, _Kirchenhistorische
Anecdota_, i. 172). Priminius was a German contemporary of
Boniface.]
Nam Vulcanalia et Kalendas observare ... quid aliut nisi cultura diabuli
est?... Cervulos et vetulas in Kalendas vel aliud tempus nolite anbulare.
Viri vestes femineas, femine vestes virilis in ipsis Kalandis vel in alia
lusa quam plurima nolite vestire.
XXXVII. †766. EGBERT.
[_Penitentiale Egberti_, viii. 4 (Haddan and Stubbs, iii. 424).]
Kalendas Ianuarias secundum paganam causam honorare, si non desinit, v
annos poeniteat clericus, si laicus, iii annos poeniteat.
XXXVIII. †790-800. LOMBARD CAPITULARY.
[_Capit. Langobardicum_, c. 3; Boretius, i. 202; Gröber, _Zur
Volkskunde aus Concilbeschlüssen und Capitularien_ (1893), No.
11.]
De pravos homines qui brunaticus colunt et de hominibus suis subtus
maida[706] cerias incendunt et votos vovent: ad tale vero iniquitas eos
removere faciant unusquisque.
XXXIX. †_Eighth century._ HOMILIA DE SACRILEGIIS.
[C. P. Caspari, _Eine Augustin fälschlich beilegte Homilia de
Sacrilegiis_ (1886), § 17. Caspari (pp. 71, 73) assigns the
homily to a Frankish clerk, probably of the eighth century.
Later on (§§ 23-26) is another passage on the Kalends taken
from the pseud-Augustine, _Sermo_ cxxix, which is No. xvii,
above.]
Quicumque in kalendas ienuarias mensas panibus et aliis cybis ornat et
per noctem ponet et diem ipsum colit et [in eo] auguria aspicet vel arma
in campo ostendit et feclum[707] et cervulum et alias miserias vel lusa
[facit] quę in ipso die insipientes solent facere, vel qui in mense
februario hibernum credit expellere, vel qui in ipso mense dies spurcos
ostendit, [et qui in kalendis ianuariis] aliquid auguriatur, quod in ipso
anno futurum sit, non christianus, sed gentilis est.
XL. _Ninth century._ PSEUDO-THEODORE.
[_Penit. Pseudo-Theod._ c. xii (Wasserschleben, _ut infra_,
597; cf. Haddan and Stubbs, iii. 173). This _Penitential_,
quoted by Tille, _Y. and C._ 98, and others as Theodore’s,
and therefore English, is really a Frankish one, partly
based, but not so far as these sections are concerned, on the
genuine _Penitential_ of Theodore. I do not quote all the
many Penitentials which copy from each other, often _totidem
verbis_, prohibitions of the _Cervulus_ and _Vetula_. They
may be found in F. W. H. Wasserschleben, _Bussordnungen der
abendländ. Kirche_, 368, 382, 395, 414, 424, 428, 480, 517;
H. J. Schmitz, _Die Bussbücher und die Bussdisciplin der
Kirche_, 311, 379, 479, 633. On the general character of these
compilations and their filiation, see Schaff, vii. 371. Their
ultimate authority for the particular prohibition of _cervulus_
and _vetula_, under these names, is probably No. xxv.]
§ 19. Si quis in Kalendas ianuarii in cervolo aut vetula vadit, id
est, in ferarum habitus se communicant et vestiuntur pellibus pecudum,
et assumunt capita bestiarum: qui vero taliter in ferinas species se
transformant, iii annos poeniteant, quia hoc daemoniacum est.
§ 24. Qui ... kalendas Ianuarii, more paganorum, honorat, si clericus
est, v annos poeniteat, laicus iii annos poeniteat.
XLI. †915. REGINO OF PRÜM.
[Regino von Prüm, _De synodalibus causis et disciplina
ecclesiastica_ (ed. Wasserschleben, 1840), i. 304.]
Fecisti aliquid quod pagani faciunt in Kalendis januariis in cervulo vel
vetula tres annos poeniteas.
XLII. Before 1024. BURCHARDUS OF WORMS.
[_Collectio Decretorum_, xix. 5 (Grimm, iv. 1743; _P. L._ cxl.
960). The larger part of the book is from earlier Penitentials,
&c., but the long chapter from which these extracts are
taken appears to be based upon the writer’s own knowledge of
contemporary superstition. On the collection generally, cf. A.
Hauck, in _Sitzb. Akad. Leipzig, phil.-hist. Kl._, xlvi (1894),
65.]
Observasti Kalendas Ianuarias ritu paganorum, ut vel aliquid plus faceres
propter novum annum, quam antea vel post soleres facere, ita dico, ut
aut mensam tuam cum lapidibus vel epulis in domo tua praeparares eo
tempore, aut per vicos et per plateas cantores et choros duceres, aut
supra tectum domus tuae sederes ense tuo circumsignatus, ut ibi videres
et intelligeres, quid tibi in sequenti anno futurum esset? vel in
bivio sedisti supra taurinam cutem, ut et ibi futura tibi intelligeres?
vel si panes praedicta nocte coquere fecisti tuo nomine, ut, si bene
elevarentur et spissi et alti fierent, inde prosperitatem tuae vitae eo
anno praevideres?
Credidisti ut aliqua femina sit quae hoc facere possit, quod quaedam a
diabolo deceptae se affirmant necessario et ex praecepto facere debere,
id est, cum daemonum turba in similitudinem mulierum transformatam, quam
vulgaris stultitia holdam[708] vocat, certis noctibus equitare debere
super quasdam bestias, et in eorum se consortio annumeratam esse?
Fecisti quod quidam faciunt in Kalendis Ianuarii, i.e. in octava Natalis
Domini; qui ea sancta nocte filant, nent, consuunt, et omne opus
quodcunque incipere possunt, diabolo instigante propter novum annum
incipiunt?
Fecisti ut quaedam mulieres in quibusdam temporibus anni facere solent,
ut in domo tuo mensam praeparares, et tuos cibos et potum cum tribus
cultellis supra mensam poneres, ut si venissent tres illae sorores
quas antiqua posteritas et antiqua stultitia parcas nominavit, ibi
reficerentur; et tulisti divinae pietati potestatem suam et nomen suum,
et diabolo tradidisti, ita dico, ut crederes illas quas tu dicis esse
sorores tibi posse aut hic aut in futuro prodesse?
O
THE REGULARIS CONCORDIA OF ST. ETHELWOLD
[The following extracts are taken from the text printed by
W. S. Logemann in _Anglia_, xiii (1891), 365, from _Cotton
MS. Tiberius A. III_, †1020-1030. This MS. has Anglo-Saxon
glosses. Other MSS. are in _Cotton MS. Faustina B. III_, and
_Bodleian MS. Junius_, 52, ii. Earlier editions of the text are
in Reyner, _De Antiquitate Ordinis Benedictinorum in Anglia_,
App. iii. p. 77, and Dugdale, _Monasticum Anglicanum_, i.
xxvii. The literary history is discussed by W. S. Logemann
in _Anglia_, xv (1893), 20; M. Bateson, _Rules for Monks
and Canons_ in _English Hist. Review_, ix (1894), 700; and
F. Tupper, _History and Texts of the Benedictine Reform of
the Tenth Century_, in _Modern Language Notes_, viii. 344.
The _Prooemium_ of the document states that it was drawn up
by the bishops, abbots, and abbesses of England upon the
suggestion of King Edgar at a Council of Winchester, and that
certain additions were made to it by Dunstan. The traditional
ascription by Cotton’s librarian and others of the authorship
of the _Regularis Concordia_ to Dunstan is probably based on
this record of the revision which, as archbishop, he naturally
gave it. The actual author is thought by Dr. Logemann, and by
Dr. Stubbs (_Memorials of Dunstan_, R. S. cx) to have been
Ælfric, a monk, first of Abingdon and then of Winchester,
who became abbot of Cerne, and in 1005 of Eynsham, and was
a considerable writer in Anglo-Saxon. Dr. Logemann’s view
is based on a theory that the _Concordia_ is the ‘Regula
Aluricii, glossata Anglice’ which occurs amongst the titles of
some tracts once in the library of Christ Church, Canterbury
(_Anglia_, xv. 25). But the _Concordia_ is more likely to have
been the ‘Consuetudines de faciendo servitio divino per annum,
glossatae Anglice,’ which is in the same list, and in fact the
Canterbury copy is probably that in _Cotton MS. Faustina, B.
III_ (_E. H. R._ ix. 708). Perhaps the ‘Regula Aluricii’ was
a copy of the letter to the monks of Eynsham, which Ælfric
at some date after 1005 based upon the _Concordia_ and the
_De Ecclesiasticis Officiis_ of Amalarius of Metz. This is
printed, from _C. C. C. C. MS._ 265, by Miss Bateson, in Dean
Kitchin’s _Obedientiary Rolls of St. Swithin’s, Winchester_,
173 (_Hampshire Record Soc._). It omits the _Sepulchrum_ and
its _Visitatio_. In any case this letter makes it clear that
Ælfric was not the author of the _Concordia_, for he says
‘haec pauca de libro consuetudinum quem sanctus Aethelwoldus
Wintoniensis episcopus cum coepiscopis et abbatibus tempore
Eadgari felicissimi regis Anglorum undique collegit ac monachis
instituit observandum.’ The author, therefore, so far as there
was a single author, was Ethelwold, whom I take to be the
‘abbas quidam’ of the _Prooemium_. He became Abbot of Abingdon
about 954, and Bishop of Winchester in 963. In 965 Elfrida, who
is also mentioned in the _Prooemium_, became queen. The date
of the _Concordia_ probably falls, therefore, between 965 and
the death of Edgar in 975. There were Councils of Winchester in
969 and 975 (Wilkins, i. 247, 261): but the Council at which
the _Concordia_ was undertaken may be an earlier one, not
otherwise recorded. The _Concordia_ is said in the _Prooemium_
to have been based in part upon customs of Fleury and of Ghent.
It is worth pointing out that Ethelwold had already reformed
Abingdon after the model of Fleury, and that Dunstan, during
his banishment, had found refuge in St. Peter’s at Ghent
(Stephens-Hunt, _Hist. of the English Church_, i. 347, 349).
Miss Bateson suggests that another source is to be found in the
writings of an earlier Benedictine reformer, Benedict of Aniane
(_E. H. R._ ix. 700).]
_De Consuetudine Monachorum._
Prohemum Regularis Concordiae Anglicae Nationis Monachorum
Sanctimonialiumque Orditur.
[The _Prooemium_ opens with an account of the piety of King Edgar ‘abbate
quodam assiduo monente’ and the purification of the English monasteries.]
... Regulari itaque sancti patris Benedicti norma honestissime suscepta,
tam abbates perplurimi quam abbatissae cum sibi subiectis fratrum
sororumque collegiis sanctorum sequi vestigia una fide non tamen uno
consuetudinis usu certatim cum magna studuerunt hilaritate. Tali igitur
ac tanto studio praefatus rex magnopere delectatus arcana quaeque
diligenti cura examinans synoda le concilium Wintoniae fieri decrevit
... cunctosque ... monuit ut concordes aequali consuetudinis usu ...
nullo modo dissentiendo discordarent.... Huius praecellentissimi regis
sagaci monitu spiritualiter conpuncti non tantum episcopi verum etiam
abbates et abbatissae ... eius imperiis toto mentis conamine alacriter
obtemperantes, sanctique patroni nostri Gregorii documenta quibus beatum
Augustinum monere studuit, ut non solum Romanae verum etiam Galliarum
honestos ecclesiarum usus rudi Anglorum ecclesia decorando constitueret,
recolentes, accitis Floriacensibus beati Benedicti nec non praecipui
coenobii quod celebri Gent nuncupatur vocabulo monachis quaeque ex
dignis eorum moribus honesta colligentes, ... has morum consuetudines
ad vitae honestatem et regularis observantiae dulcedinem ... hoc exiguo
apposuerunt codicello.... Hoc etenim Dunstanus egregius huius patriae
archiepiscopus praesago afflatus spiritu ad corroborandum praefati
sinodalis conventus conciliabulum provide ac sapienter addidit, ut
videlicet.
[On Maundy Thursday] In qua missa sicut in sequentium dierum communicatio
prebetur tam fratribus quam cunctis fidelibus reservata nihilominus ea
die eucharistia quae sufficit ad communicandum cunctis altera die....
In die Parascevae agatur nocturna laus [i.e. the _Tenebrae_] sicut
supra dictum est. Post haec venientes ad primam discalceati omnes
incedant quousque crux adoretur. Eadem enim die hora nona abbas cum
fratribus accedat ad ecclesiam.... Postea legitur passio domini
nostri Ihesu Christi secundum Iohannem.... Post haec celebrentur
orationes.... Quibus expletis per ordinem statim preparetur crux ante
altare interposito spatio inter ipsam et altare sustentata hinc et
inde a duobus diaconibus. Tunc cantent.... Deferatur tunc ab ipsis
diaconibus ante altare, et eos acolitus cum pulvillo sequatur super
quem sancta crux ponatur.... Post haec vertentes se ad clerum nudata
cruce dicant antiphonam _Ecce lignum crucis_.... Ilico ea nudata veniat
abbas ante crucem sanctam ac tribus vicibus se prosternat cum omnibus
fratribus dexterioris chori scilicet senioribus et iunioribus et cum
magno cordis suspirio viiᵐ poenitentiae psalmos cum orationibus sanctae
cruci competentibus decantando peroret.... Et eam humiliter deosculans
surgat. Dehinc sinisterioris chori omnes fratres eadem mente devota
peragant. Nam salutata ab abbate vel omnibus cruce redeat ipse abbas
ad sedem suam usque dum omnis clerus ac populus hoc idem faciat. Nam
quia ea die depositionem corporis salvatoris nostri celebramus usum
quorundam religiosorum imitabilem ad fidem indocti vulgi ac neofitorum
corroborandam equiparando sequi si ita cui visum fuerit vel sibi
taliter placuerit hoc modo decrevimus. Sit autem in una parte altaris
qua vacuum fuerit quaedam assimilatio sepulchri velamenque quoddam in
gyro tensum quod dum sancta crux adorata fuerit deponatur hoc ordine.
Veniant diaconi qui prius portaverunt eam et involvant eam sindone in
loco ubi adorata est. Tunc reportent eam canentes antiphonas ... donec
veniant ad locum monumenti depositaque cruce ac si domini nostri Ihesu
Christi corpore sepulto dicant antiphonam.... In eodem loco sancta crux
cum omni reverentia custodiatur usque dominicae noctem resurrectionis.
Nocte vero ordinentur duo fratres aut tres aut plures si tanta fuerit
congregatio, qui ibidem psalmos decantando excubias fideles exerceant....
[The _Missa de Praesanctificatorum_ follows] ... Sabbato sancto hora nona
veniente abbate in ecclesiam cum fratribus novus ut supra dictum est
afferatur ignis. Posito vero cereo ante altare ex illo accendatur igne.
Quem diaconus more solito benedicens hanc orationem quasi voce legentis
proferens dicat....
In die sancto paschae ... eiusdem tempore noctis antequam matutinorum
signa moveantur sumant editui crucem et ponant in loco sibi congruo....
Dum tertia recitatur lectio quatuor fratres induant se, quorum unus alba
indutus ac si ad aliud agendum ingrediatur atque latenter sepulchri
locum adeat, ibique manu tenens palmam quietus sedeat. Dumque tertium
percelebratur responsorium residui tres succedant, omnes quidem cappis
induti turribula cum incensu manibus gestantes ac pedetemptim ad
similitudinem querentium quid veriant ante locum sepulchri. Aguntur enim
haec ad imitationem angeli sedentis in monumento atque mulierum cum
aromatibus venientium ut ungerent corpus Ihesu. Cum ergo ille residens
tres velut erraneos ac aliquid querentes viderit sibi adproximare
incipiat mediocri voce dulcisono cantare _Quem quaeritis_: quo decantato
fine tenus respondeant hi tres uno ore _Ihesum Nazarenum_. Quibus ille,
_Non est hic: surrexit sicut praedixerat. Ite nuntiate quia surrexit a
mortuis._ Cuius iussionis voce vertant se illi tres ad chorum dicentes
_Alleluia: resurrexit dominus_. Dicto hoc rursus ille residens velut
revocans illos dicat antiphonam _Venite et videte locum_: haec vero
dicens surgat et erigat velum ostendatque eis locum cruce nudatum sed
tantum linteamina posita quibus crux involuta erat. Quo viso deponant
turribula quae gestaverunt in eodem sepulchro sumantque linteum et
extendant contra clerum, ac veluti ostendentes quod surrexerit dominus,
etiam non sit illo involutus, hanc canant antiphonam, _Surrexit dominus
de sepulchro_, superponantque linteum altari. Finita antiphona Prior,
congaudens pro triumpho regis nostri quod devicta morte surrexit,
incipiat hymnum _Te deum laudamus_: quo incepto una pulsantur omnia signa.
P
THE DURHAM SEPULCHRUM
[From _A Description or Breife Declaration of all the Ancient
Monuments, Rites and Customes belonginge or beinge within the
Monastical Church of Durham before the Suppression_ (ed. J.
Raine, Surtees Soc. xv). This anonymous tract was written in
1593. A new edition is in course of preparation for the Surtees
Society.]
p. 9. THE QUIRE—THE PASSION.
Within the Abbye Church of Durham, uppon Good Friday theire was marvelous
solemne service, in the which service time, after the PASSION was sung,
two of the eldest Monkes did take a goodly large CRUCIFIX, all of gold,
of the picture of our Saviour Christ nailed uppon the crosse, lyinge
uppon a velvett cushion, havinge St. Cuthbert’s armes uppon it all
imbroydered with gold, bringinge that betwixt them uppon the said cushion
to the lowest greeces in the Quire; and there betwixt them did hold the
said picture of our Saviour, sittinge of every side, on ther knees, of
that, and then one of the said Monkes did rise and went a pretty way
from it, sittinge downe uppon his knees, with his shooes put of, and
verye reverently did creepe away uppon his knees unto the said Crosse,
and most reverently did kisse it. And after him the other Monke did so
likewise, and then they did sitt them downe on every side of the Crosse,
and holdinge it betwixt them, and after that the Prior came forth of his
stall, and did sitt him downe of his knees, with his shooes off, and in
like sort did creepe also unto the said Crosse, and all the Monkes after
him one after another, in the same order, and in the mean time all the
whole quire singinge an himne. The seruice beinge ended, the two Monkes
did carrye it to the SEPULCHRE with great reverence, which Sepulchre
was sett upp in the morninge, on the north side of the Quire, nigh to
the High Altar, before the service time; and there lay it within the
said SEPULCHRE with great devotion, with another picture of our Saviour
Christ, in whose breast they did enclose, with great reverence, the most
holy and blessed Sacrament of the Altar, senceinge it and prayinge unto
it upon theire knees, a great space, settinge two tapers lighted before
it, which tapers did burne unto Easter day in the morninge, that it was
taken forth.
THE QUIRE—THE RESURRECTION.
There was in the Abbye Church of Duresme verye solemne service uppon
Easter Day, betweene three and four of the clocke in the morninge, in
honour of the RESURRECTION, where two of the oldest Monkes of the
Quire came to the Sepulchre, being sett upp upon Good Friday, after the
Passion, all covered with red velvett and embrodered with gold, and
then did sence it, either Monke with a pair of silver sencers sittinge
on theire knees before the Sepulchre. Then they both rising came to the
Sepulchre, out of which, with great devotion and reverence, they tooke a
marvelous beautifull IMAGE of our SAVIOUR, representing the resurrection,
with a crosse in his hand, in the breast wherof was enclosed in bright
christall the holy Sacrament of the Altar, throughe the which christall
the Blessed Host was conspicuous to the behoulders. Then, after the
elevation of the said picture, carryed by the said two Monkes uppon a
faire velvett cushion, all embrodered, singinge the anthem of _Christus
resurgens_, they brought it to the High Altar, settinge that on the midst
therof, whereon it stood, the two Monkes kneelinge on theire knees before
the Altar, and senceing it all the time that the rest of the whole quire
was in singinge the foresaid anthem of _Christus resurgens_. The which
anthem beinge ended, the two Monkes tooke up the cushions and the picture
from the Altar, supportinge it betwixt them, proceeding, in procession,
from the High Altar to the south Quire dore, where there was four antient
Gentlemen, belonginge to the Prior, appointed to attend theire cominge,
holdinge upp a most rich CANNOPYE of purple velvett, tached round about
with redd silke and gold fringe; and at everye corner did stand one of
theise ancient Gentlemen, to beare it over the said image, with the Holy
Sacrament, carried by two Monkes round about the church, the whole quire
waitinge uppon it with goodly torches and great store of other lights,
all singinge, rejoyceinge, and praising God most devoutly, till they came
to the High Altar againe, whereon they did place the said image there to
remaine untill the Ascension day.
p. 26. THE SOUTH ALLEY OF THE LANTERN.
Over the [second of the iij Alters in that plage] was a merveylous
lyvelye and bewtiful Immage of the picture of our Ladie, so called the
LADY OF BOULTONE, which picture was maide to open with gymmers from her
breaste downdward. And within the said immage was wrowghte and pictured
the immage of our Saviour, merveylouse fynlie gilted, houldinge uppe his
handes, and houlding betwixt his handes a fair large CRUCIFIX OF CHRIST,
all of gold, the which crucifix was to be taiken fourthe every Good
Fridaie, and every man did crepe unto it that was in that church at that
daye. And ther after yt was houng upe againe within the said immage.
Q
THE SARUM SEPULCHRUM
[I give the various directions and rubrics referring to the
sepulchre from the _Consuetudinary_ (†1210), _Ordinal_ (†1270),
_Customary_ (first half of fourteenth century), _Processional_
(1508, &c.), _Missal_ (1526, &c.), and _Breviary_ (1531). The
printed sixteenth-century rubrics practically reproduce the
later _Ordinal_ of the middle of the fourteenth century.]
_The Depositio._
[From the _Processional_, with which the _Missal_ practically
agrees.]
Finitis vesperis, exuat sacerdos casulam, et sumens secum unum de
praelatis in superpelliceis discalceati reponant crucem cum corpore
dominico [scilicet in pixide, _Missal_] in sepulcrum incipiens ipse solus
hoc responsorium _Aestimatus sum_, genuflectendo cum socio suo, quo
incepto statim surgat. Similiter fiat in responsorio _Sepullo Domino_.
Chorus totum responsorium prosequatur cum suo versu, genuflectendo per
totum tempus usque ad finem servitii. Responsoria ut sic: _Aestimatus
sum_. Chorus prosequatur _cum descendentibus in lacum_.... Dum praedictum
responsorium canitur cum suo versu, praedicti duo sacerdotes thurificent
sepulcrum, quo facto et clauso ostio, incipiet idem sacerdos responsorium
_Sepulto Domino_.... Item praedicti duo sacerdotes dicant istas tres
antiphonas sequentes genuflectendo continue: _In pace.... In pace
factus est.... Caro mea...._ His finitis, et dictis prius orationibus
ad placitum secrete ab omnibus cum genuflexione, omnibus aliis ad
libitum recedentibus, ordine [non, _Missal_] servato, reinduat sacerdos
casulam, et eodem modo quo accessit in principio servitii, cum diacono et
subdiacono et ceteris ministris abscedat.
_The Sepulchre Light._
[From the _Consuetudinary_.]
In die parasceues post repositum corpus domini in sepulcro, duo cerei
dimidie libre ad minus in thesauraria tota die ante sepulcrum ardebunt.
In nocte sequente et exinde usque ad processionem quae fit in die pasche
ante matutinas, unus illorum tantum, magnum eciam cereum paschalem.
[From the _Processional_, with which the _Missal_ and
_Customary_ practically agree.]
Exinde [i.e. from the _Depositio_] continue ardebit unus cereus ad minus
ante sepulcrum usque ad processionem quae fit in Resurrectione Dominica
in die Paschae: ita tamen quod dum Psalmus _Benedictus_ canitur et cetera
quae sequuntur, in sequenti nocte extinguatur: similiter et extinguatur
in Vigilia Paschae, dum benedicitur novus ignis, usque accendatur cereus
paschalis.
_The Elevatio._
[From the _Consuetudinary_.]
In die pasche ante matutinas conueniant clerici ed ecclesiam accensis
cunctis cereis per ecclesiam: duo excellenciores presbiteri in
superpelliceis ad sepulchrum accedant prius incensato ostio sepulchri cum
magna ueneratione, corpus dominicum super altare deponant: deinde crucem
de sepulchro tollant, excellenciore presbitero inchoante antiphonam
_Christus resurgens_ et sic eant, per ostium australe presbiterii
incedentes, per medium chori regredientes, cum thuribulario et
ceroferariis precedentibus, ad altare sancti martini canentes praedictam
antiphonam cum uersu suo. Deinde dicto uersiculo _Surrexit dominus de
sepulchro_, et dicta oracione ab excellenciore sacerdote post debitam
campanarum pulsacionem inchoentur matutine.
[From the _Ordinal_.]
_In Die Pasche_
_Ad Processionem ante Matutinas_ conueniant omnes clerici ad ecclesiam
ac accendantur luminaria per ecclesiam. Episcopus uel decanus in
superpelliceo cum ceroferariis thuribulariis et clero in sepulcrum
accedant, et incensato prius sepulcro cum magna ueneracione corpus domini
assumant et super altare ponant. Iterum accipientes crucem de sepulcro
inchoet episcopus uel decanus Ant. _Christus resurgens._ Tunc omnes cum
gaudio genua flectant et ipsam crucem adorent, idipsum canentes cum ℣.
_Dicant nunc_. Tunc omnes campane in classicum pulsentur, et cum magna
ueneracione deportetur crux ad locum ubi prouisum sit, clero canente
predictam antiphonam. Quo facto dicat Sacerdos ℣. _Surrexit dominus de
sepulcro_. Or. _Deus qui pro nobis._ Que terminetur sic, _Per eundem
christum dominum nostrum_.
[From the _Breviary_, with which the _Processional_, although
less full, practically agrees.]
In die sancto Paschae ante Matutinas et ante campanarum pulsationem
conveniant Clerici ad ecclesiam, et accendantur luminaria per totam
ecclesiam. Tunc duo excellentiores Presbyteri in superpelliceis cum
duobus Ceroferariis, et duobus thuribulis, et clero ad sepulchrum
accedant: et incensato a praedictis duobus Presbyteris prius
sepulchro cum magna veneratione, videlicet genuflectendo, statim post
thurificationem corpus Dominicum super altare privatim deponant: iterum
accipientes crucem de sepulchro, choro et populo interim genuflectente
incipiat excellentior persona Ant. _Christus resurgens_. Et Chorus
prosequatur totam antiphonam sic, _ex mortuis ... Alleluya_. Et tunc
dum canitur Antiphona, eat processio per ostium australe presbyterii
incedens et per medium chori regrediens [per ostium presbyterii
australe incedendo per medium chori, et ingrediens, _Processional_]
cum praedicta cruce de sepulchro inter praedictos duos Sacerdotes
supereorum brachia venerabiliter portata, cum thuribulis et Ceroferariis
praecedentibus, per ostium presbyterii boreale exeundo, ad unum altare
ex parte boreali ecclesiae, Choro sequente, habitu non mutato, minoribus
[excellentioribus, _Processional_] praecedentibus: ita tamen quod
praedicti duo excellentiores in fine processionis subsequantur, corpore
Dominico super altare in pixide dimisso et sub Thesaurarii custodia [in
subthesaurarii custodia, _Processional_], qui illud statim in praedicta
pixide in tabernaculo deponat [dependat ut potest in ista statione
praecedente, _Processional_]: et tunc pulsentur omnes campanae in
classicum.
Finito Antiphona praedicta, sequatur a toto Choro
V. _Dicant nunc Iudei ... Alleluya._
Finita autem Antiphona cum suo Versu a toto Choro, dicat excellentior
persona in sua statione ad altare conversus hunc Versum.
V. _Surrexit Dominus de sepulchro._
R. _Qui pro nobis pependit in ligno. Alleluya._
_Oremus._
Oratio. _Deus, qui pro nobis.... Per Christum Dominum nostrum._
Et terminetur sub Dominicali tono ad processionem: nec praecedat nec
subsequatur _Dominus vobiscum_.
Finita Oratione omnes cum gaudio genuflectent ibidem et ipsam crucem
adorent, in primis digniores, et tunc secrete sine processione in chorum
redeant.
His itaque gestis discooperiantur ymagines et cruces per totam ecclesiam:
et interim pulsentur campanae, sicut in Festis principalibus, ad
Matutinas more solito.
_The Censing in Easter Week._
[From the _Customary_.]
Ad primas uesperas ... post inchoacionem antiphone super psalmum
_Magnificat_ procedat executor officii cum alio sacerdote ...
ad thurificandum altare.... In die tamen pasche et per ebdomadam
thurificetur sepulchrum domini post primam thurificacionem altaris,
scilicet antequam thurificator altaris circumeat.
_The Removal of the Sepulchre._
[From the _Customary_.]
Die ueneris in ebdomada pasche ante missam amoueatur sepulchrum.
R
THE DUBLIN QUEM QUAERITIS
[From _Bodleian MS._ 15,846 (_Rawlinson Liturg._ D. 4), f.
130, a Sarum processional written in the fourteenth century
and belonging in the fifteenth to the church of St. John
the Evangelist, Dublin. A less good text from _Dublin, Abp.
Marsh’s Library, MS._ V. 3, 2, 10, another fourteenth century
processional from the same church, is facsimiled by W. H.
Frere, _Winchester Troper_, pl. 26ᵇ, and printed therefrom
by Manly, i. xxii. I give all the important variants of this
version.]
[709]Finito iij ℟ᵒ cum suo ℣ et G_lo_ria p_at_ri uenient tres p_er_sone
in s_upe_rpell_iceis_ et i_n_ capis[709] s_er_icis capitib_us_ uelatis
quasi tres Marie querentes Ih_esu_m[710], si_n_gule portantes pixidem in
manib_us_ q_uas_i aromatib_us_, qua_rum_ prima ad ingressu_m_ chori usque
sepulcru_m_ procedat p_er_ se[711] quasi lamentando dicat:
Heu! pius pastor occiditur,
Quem nulla culpa infecit:
O mors lugenda!
Factoq_ue_ modico int_er_uallo, i_n_tret s_e_c_un_da M_a_ria
co_n_simili[712] modo et dicat:
Heu! nequam gens Iudaica,
Quam dira frendet uesania,
Plebs execranda!
Deinde iij Maria consimili m_od_o d_ica_t[713]:
Heu! uerus doctor obijt,
Qui uita_m_ f_un_ctis contulit:
O res plangenda!
Ad huc paululu_m_ procede_n_do prima Maria dicat[714]:
Heu! misere cur contigit[715]
Uidere mortem Saluatoris?
Deinde secunda Maria d_ica_t[716]:
Heu! Consolacio nostra,
Ut quid mortem sustinuit!
Tu_n_c[717] iij Maria:
Heu! Redempcio nostra,
Ut quid taliter agere uoluit!
Tu_n_c se co_n_iu_n_ga_n_t et procedant ad gradu_m_ cho_ri_ an_te_
altar_e_ si_mu_l[718] dice_n_tes:
Iam, iam, ecce, iam properemus ad tumulum
Unguentes[719] Delecti[720] corpus sanctissimum
[721]Dei_n_de proceda_n_t si_mi_l_iter_ p_ro_pe sepulchru_m_ et p_ri_ma
Maria d_ica_t p_er_ se
Condumentis aromatu_m_
Ungam_us_ corpus sanctissimu_m_
Quo preciosa[721].
Tu_n_c s_e_c_un_da Maria dicat p_er_ se:
Nardi uetet commixtio,
Ne putrescat in tumulo
Caro beata!
Deinde iij Maria [722]dicat per se[722]:
Sed nequimus hoc patrare sine adiutorio.
Quis nam saxum reuoluet[723] a monumenti ostio?
Facto int_er_uallo, ang_e_l_us_ nix_us_ sepulcru_m_ apparuit[724] eis et
dicat hoc modo:
Quem queritis ad sepulcrum, o Cristicole?
Deinde respo_n_deant tres Marie simul d_ice_nt_es_[725]:
Ih_esu_m Nazarenum crucifixum, o celicola!
Tu_n_c angelus dicet[726]:
Surrexit, non est hic, sicut dixit;
Uenite et uidete locum ubi positus fuerat.
Deinde p_re_d_i_c_t_e M_a_rie sepulcru_m_ intrent _et_[727] inclinantes
se _et_ prospicientes undiq_ue_ intra sepulcru_m_, alta uoce quasi
gaudentes[728] _et_ admirantes _et_ paru_m_ a sepulcro recedentes sim_u_l
dica_n_t[729]:
Alleluya! resurrexit Dominus!
Alleluya! resurrexit Dominus hodie!
Resurrexit potens, fortis, _Christus_, Filius Dei!
Deinde ang_e_l_us_ ad eas[730]:
Et euntes dicite discipulis eius et Petro quia surrexit.
In quo reu_er_tant ad angelum quasi mandatu_m_ suu_m_ ad imple_n_du_m_
parate simul dicentes[731]:
Eya! pergamus propere
Mandatum hoc perficere!
Int_er_im ueniant ad ingressu_m_ cho_ri_ due p_er_sone nude pedes sub
personis ap_osto_lo_rum_ Iohannis _et_ Pet_ri_ indute albis sine paruris
cu_m_ tunicis, quo_rum_ Ioh_ann_es amictus tunica alba palma_m_ in manu
gestans, Petrus uero rubea tunica indutus claues in manu ferens[732];
_et_ p_re_dicte mulieres de sepulcro reuertentes _et_ quasi de choro
simul exeuntes, dicat prima Maria [733]p_er_ se[733] sequentiam:
Victime paschali laudes
Immolant _Christ_iani.
Agnus redemit oues:
Christus innocens Patri
Reconsiliauit peccatores.
Mors et uita duello
Conflixere mirando:
Dux uite mortuis[734]
Regnat uiuus.
Tu_n_c obuiantes eis in medio chori predicti discipuli, interrogantes
simul dicant:
Dic nobis, Maria,
Quid uidisti in uia?
Tu_n_c p_ri_ma Maria respondeat quasi monstrando:
Sepulcrum _Christi_ uiuentis
Et gloriam uidi resurgentis.
Tu_n_c ij Maria r_espon_det si_mi_l_iter_[735] mo_n_strando:
Angelicos testes,
Sudarium et uestes.
Tunc iij[736] M_a_ria respondeat:
Surrexit _Christus_, spes nostra,
Precedet uos in Galileam.
Et sic p_ro_cedant sim_u_l ad ostium chori; int_er_im[737] currant duo
ad monumentu_m_; ueru_m_ptamen ille discip_u_l_u_s que_m_ diligebat
Ih_esus_ uenit p_ri_or ad monume_n_tu_m_, iuxta eu_a_ng_e_liu_m_:
‘Currebant au_tem_ duo sim_u_l _et_ ille alius discipulus p_re_cucurrit
cicius Petro _et_ uenit p_ri_or ad monume_n_tu_m_, non t_ame_n
introiuit.’ Uidentes discipuli p_re_d_ic_ti[738] sepulcru_m_ uacuu_m_
_et_ uerbis Marie credentes reu_er_ta_n_t se ad chorum dicentes[739]:
Credendum est magis soli Marie ueraci
Q_uam_ Iudeo_rum_ turbe fallaci!
Tunc audita[740] _Christ_i resurreccione, chorus p_ro_seq_ua_t_ur_ alta
uoce quasi gaude_n_tes _et_ exultantes s_ic_ dicentes[741]:
Scimus _Christu_m surrexisse
A mortuis uere.
Tu nobis, uictor Rex, miserere!
Qua fi_ni_ta, executor officii incipiat:
Te Deum laudamus.
[742]Tu_n_c receda_n_t s_a_n_ctae_ Mar_i_e ap_os_t_ol_i _et_ angelus[742].
S
THE AUREA MISSA OF TOURNAI
[Communicated from _Lille Bibl. Munic. MS._ 62 (sixteenth
century) by L. Deschamps de Pas to the _Annales
archéologiques_, xvii (1857), 167.]
Sequuntur ceremonie et modus observandus pro celebratione misse MISSUS
EST GABRIEL ANGELUS, &c., vulgariter dicte AUREE MISSE quolibet anno in
choro ecclesie Tornacensis decantande feria xᵃ ante festum nativitatis
Domini nostri Iesu-Christi, ex fundatione venerabilis viri magistri Petri
Cotrel, canonici dicti ecclesie Tornacensis et in eadem archidiaconi
Brugensis, de licentia et permissione dominorum suorum decani et capituli
predicte ecclesie Tomacensis.—Primo, feria tercia, post decantationem
vesperum, disponentur per carpentatorem ecclesie in sacrario chori
dicte ecclesie Tornacensis, in locis iam ad hoc ordinatis et sibi
oppositis, duo stallagia, propter hoc appropriata, que etiam ornabuntur
cortinis et pannis cericeis ad hoc ordinatis per casularium iam dicte
ecclesie, quorum alterum, videlicet quod erit de latere episcopi,
serviet ad recipiendam beatam virginem Mariam, et alterum stallagium
ab illo oratorio oppositum, quod erit de latere decani, serviat ad
recipiendum et recludendum Angelum.—Item similiter eodem die deputatus
ad descendendum die sequenti columbam, visitabit tabernaculum in altis
carolis dispositum, disponet cordas, et parabit instrumentum candelis
suis munitum, per quod descendet Spiritus Sanctus in specie columbe,
tempore decantationis ewangelii, prout postea dicetur, et erit sollicitus
descendere cordulam campanule, et illam disponere ad stallagium Angeli,
ad illam campanulam pulsandam suo tempore, die sequenti, prout post
dicetur.—Item in crastinum durantibus matutinis, magistri cantus erunt
solliciti quod duo iuvenes, habentes voces dulces et altas, preparentur
in thesauraria, hostio clauso, unus ad modum virginis seu regine, et
alter ad modum angeli, quibus providebitur de ornamentis et aliis
necessariis propter hoc per fundatorem datis et ordinatis.—Item post
decantationem septime lectionis matutinarum, accedent duo iuvenes,
Mariam videlicet et Angelum representantes, sic parati de predicta
thesauraria, ad chorum intrando per maius hostium dicti chori, duabus
thedis ardentibus precedentibus: Maria videlicet per latus domini
episcopi, in manibus portans horas pulchras, et Angelus per latus domini
decani, portans in manu dextra sceptrum argenteum deauratum, et sic
morose progredientur, cum suis magistris directoribus, usque ad summum
altare, ubi, genibus flexis, fundent ad Dominum orationem. Qua facta,
progredientur dicti iuvenes quilibet ad locum suum, Maria videlicet ad
stallagium, de parte episcopi preparatum, cum suo magistro directore, et
Angelus ad aliud stallagium de parte decani similiter preparatum, etiam
cum suo alio magistro directore, et ubique cortinis clausis. Coram quibus
stallagiis remanebunt predicte thede, ardentes usque ad finem misse.—Item
clerici thesaurarie, durantibus octava et nona lectionibus matutinarum,
preparabunt maius altare solemniter, ut in triplicibus festis, et
omnes candele circumquaque chorum sacrarum de rokemes, et in corona
nova existentes accendentur. Et clerici revestiarii providebunt quod
presbyter, dyaconus, subdiaconus, choriste, cum pueris revestitis, sint
parati, in fine hymni TE DEUM, pro missa decantanda, ita quod nulla sit
pausa inter finem dicti himpni TE DEUM et missam. Et in fine praedicte
misse sit paratus presbiter ebdomarius cantandi versum _Ora pro nobis_,
et deinde, _Deus in adiutorium_, de laudibus illas perficiendo per
chorum, et in fine psalmi _De profundis_ dicendi, in fine matutinarum,
more consueto, adiungetur collecta _Adiuva nos_ pro fundatore ultra
collectam ordinariam.—Item, cum celebrans accesserit ad maius altare,
pro incipienda missa, et ante _Confiteor_ immediate cortine circumquaque
oratorium Virginis solum aperientur, ipsa Virgine attente orante et ad
genua existente suo libro aperto, super pulvinari ad hoc ordinato, Angelo
adhuc semper clauso in suo stallagio remanente.—Item cum cantabitur
_Gloria in Excelsis Deo_ tunc cortine stallagii, in quo erit Angelus,
aperientur. In quo stallagio stabit dictus Angelus erectus, tenens in
manibus suis suum sceptrum argenteum, et nichil aliud faciens, quousque
fuerit tempus cantandi ewangelium, nec interim faciet Virgo aliquod
signum videndi dictum angelum, sed, submissis oculis, erit semper intenta
ad orationem.—Item cum appropinquarit tempus cantandi dictum ewangelium,
diaconus cum subdiacono, pueris cum candelis et cruce precedentibus,
progredientur ad locum in sacrario sibi preparatum, et cantabit
ewangelium _Missus est Gabriel_, et etiam cantabunt partes suas Maria et
Angelus, prout ordinatum et notatum est in libro ad hoc ordinato.—Item
cum Angelus cantabit hec verba ewangelii, _Ave, gratia plena, Dominus
tecum_, faciet tres ad Virginem salutationes; primo ad illud verbum
_Ave_, humiliabit se tam capite quam corpore, post morose se elevando; et
ad illa verba, _gratia plena_, faciet secundam humiliationem, flectendo
mediocriter genua sua, se postea relevando; et ad illa verba, _Dominus
tecum_, quae cantabit cum gravitate et morose, tunc faciet terciam
humiliationem ponendo genua usque ad terram et finita clausula assurget,
Virgine interim se non movente. Sed dum Maria virgo cantabit _Quomodo
fiet istud_, assurget et vertet modicum faciem suam ad Angelum cum
gravitate et modestia, non aliter se movendo. Et dum cantabit Angelus
_Spiritus Sanctus superveniet in te_, etc., tunc Angelus vertet faciem
suam versus columbam illam ostendendo, et subito descendet ex loco in
altis carolis ordinato, cum candelis in circuitu ipsius ardentibus, ante
stallagium sive oratorium Virginis, ubi remanebit, usque post ultimum
_Agnus Dei_, quo decantato, revertetur ad locum unde descenderat.—Item
magister cantus, qui erit in stallagio Angeli, sit valde sollicitus pro
propria vice pulsare campanam in altis carolis, respondente in initio
ewangelii, ut tunc ille qui illic erit ordinatus ad descendendum columbam
sit preadvisatus et preparet omnia necessaria et candelas accendat. Et
secunda vice sit valde sollicitus pulsare dictam campanulam, ita quod
precise ad illud verbum _Spiritus Sanctus_ descendat ad Virginem columbam
ornatam candelis accensis, et remaneat ubi descenderit, usque ad ultimum
_Agnus Dei_ decantatum, prout dictum est. Et tunc idem magister cantus
iterum pulsabit pro tercia vice eamdem campanulam, ut revertatur columba
unde descenderit. Et sit ille disponendus vel deputandus ad descendendum
dictam columbam bene preadvisatus de supra dicta triplici pulsatione et
quid quilibet significabit ne sit in aliquo defectus.—Item predicti,
diaconus, Maria, et Angelus complebunt totum ewangelium in eodem tono
prout cuilibet sibi competit, et ewangelio finito reponet se Maria ad
genua et orationem, et Angelus remanebit rectus, usque in finem misse,
hoc excepto, quod in elevatione corporis Christi ponet se ad genua.—Item
postea proficietur missa, Maria et Angelo in suis stallagiis usque in
fine permanentibus.—Item missa finita, post _Ite, missa est_, Maria
et Angelus descendent de suis stallagiis et revertentur cum reliquiis
et revestitis usque ad revestiarium predictum eorum, flambellis
precedentibus. In quo revestiario presbiter celebrans cum predictis
revestitis Maria et Angelo dicet psalmum _De profundis_, prout in choro
cum adiectione collecte _Adiuva_ pro fundatore.—Item fiet missa per
omnia, ut in die Annunciationis dominice cum sequentia sive prosa _Mittit
ad virginem_, cum organis et discantu prout in triplicibus.
T
SUBJECTS OF THE CYCLICAL MIRACLES
[This comparative table is based on that drawn up by Prof.
Hohlfeld in _Anglia_, xi. 241. The episodes are taken in their
scriptural order, which is not always that of the plays. I have
added the Cornish data, using O. P. R. to indicate the _Origo
Mundi_, _Passio Domini_, and _Resurrectio Domini_ of the older
text, and J. for William Jordan’s _Creation of the World_. I
have quoted Halliwell’s divisions of the _Ludus Coventriae_,
really a continuous text, for convenience sake.]
-------------------------------+--------------+--------------+----------+
_Episodes._ | _York._ | _Townley._ |_Chester._|
-------------------------------+--------------+--------------+----------+
1. Fall of Lucifer | i | i | i |
2. Creation and Fall of Man | ii-vi | i[744] | ii |
3. Cain and Abel | vii | ii | ii |
4. Wanderings of Cain | —— | —— | —— |
5. Death of Cain | —— | —— | —— |
6. Seth in Paradise and Death | —— | —— | —— |
of Adam | | | |
7. Enoch | —— | —— | —— |
8. Noah and the Flood | viii, ix | iii | iii |
9. Abraham and Melchisedec | —— | —— | iv |
10. Abraham and Isaac | x | iv | iv |
11. Jacob’s Blessing | —— | v[744] | —— |
12. Jacob’s Wanderings | —— | vi | —— |
13. Moses and the Exodus | xi | viii | —— |
14. Moses in the Wilderness | —— | vii | v |
15. Balaam | —— | —— | v |
16. David and the Rods | —— | —— | —— |
17. David and Bathsheba | —— | —— | —— |
18. Building of the Temple | —— | —— | —— |
19. Prophecy of Maximilla | —— | —— | —— |
20. Bridge over Cedron | —— | —— | —— |
21. _Prophetae_ | xii[746] | vii | —— |
22. Joachim and Anna | —— | —— | —— |
23. Mary in the Temple | —— | —— | —— |
24. Betrothal of Mary | —— | x[743] | —— |
25. Annunciation | xii | x | vi |
26. Salutation of Elizabeth | xii | xi | vi |
27. Suspicion of Joseph | xiii | x | vi |
28. Purgation of Mary | —— | —— | —— |
29. Augustus and Cyrenius | —— | ix | —— |
30. Nativity | xiv | —— | vi |
31. Conversion of Octavian | —— | —— | vi |
32. _Pastores_ | xv |xii, xiii[747]| vii |
33. Purification | xli[748] | xvii[749] | xi |
34. _Magi_ before Herod |xvi, xvii[744]| xiv | viii |
35. Offering of _Magi_ | xvii | xiv | ix |
36. Flight into Egypt | xviii | xv | x |
37. Massacre of Innocents | xix | xvi | x |
38. Death of Herod | —— | —— | —— |
39. Presentation in Temple | xx | xviii[746] | —— |
40. Baptism | xxi | xix | —— |
41. Temptation | xxii | —— | xii |
42. Marriage in Cana | [lost] | —— | —— |
43. Transfiguration | xxiii | —— | |
44. Woman in Adultery | xxiv | —— | xii |
45. Healing of Blind in Siloam | —— | —— | xiii |
46. Raising of Lazarus | xxiv | xxxi[745] | xiii |
47. Healing of Bartimaeus | —— | —— | —— |
48. Entry into Jerusalem | xxv | —— | xiv |
49. Cleansing of Temple | —— | —— | xiv |
50. Jesus in House of Simon | [lost] | xx[743] | xiv |
the Leper | | | |
51. Conspiracy of Jews | xxvi | xx | xiv |
52. Treachery of Judas | xxvi | xx | xiv |
53. Last Supper | xxvii | xx | xv |
54. Gethsemane | xxviii | xx | xv |
55. Jesus before Caiaphas | xxix | xxi | xvi |
56. Jesus before Pilate | xxx | —— | xvi |
57. Jesus before Herod | xxxi | —— | xvi |
58. Dream of Pilate’s Wife | xxx | —— | —— |
59. Remorse and Death of Judas | xxxii | xxxii[750] | —— |
60. Condemnation | xxxiii | xxii | xvi |
61. Cross Brought from Cedron | —— | —— | —— |
62. Bearing of the Cross | xxxiv | xxii | xvii |
63. Veronica | xxxiv | —— | —— |
64. Crucifixion | xxxv | xxiii | xvii |
65. Casting of Lots | xxxv | xxiii, xxiv | xvii |
66. _Planctus Mariae_ | xxxvi | xxiii | xvii |
[cf. p. 39] | | | |
67. Death of Jesus | xxxvi | xxiii | xvii |
68. Longinus | xxxvi | xxiii | xvii |
69. Descent from Cross | xxxvi | xxiii | xvii |
70. Burial | xxxvi | —— | —— |
71. Harrowing of Hell | xxxvii | xxv | xviii |
72. Release of Joseph and | —— | —— | —— |
Nicodemus | | | |
73. Setting of Watch | xxxviii | xxvi | xix |
74. Resurrection | xxxviii | xxvi | xix |
75. _Quem Quaeritis_ | xxxviii | xxvi | xix |
76. _Hortulanus_ | xxxix | xxvi | xix[751]|
77. _Peregrini_ | xl | xxvii | xx |
78. Incredulity of Thomas | xlii | xxviii | xx |
79. Death of Pilate | —— | —— | —— |
80. Veronica and Tiberius | —— | —— | —— |
81. Ascension | xliii | xxix | xxi |
82. Pentecost | xliv | [? lost] | xxii |
83. Death of Mary | xlv | —— | —— |
84. Burial of Mary | [lost] | —— | —— |
85. Apparition of Mary to | xlvi | —— | —— |
Thomas | | | |
86. Assumption and Coronation | xlvii[752] | —— | [lost] |
87. Signs of Judgement | —— | —— | xxiii |
[cf. p. 53] | | | |
88. Antichrist [cf. p. 62] | —— | —— | xxiv |
89. Doomsday | xlviii | xxx | xxv |
-------------------------------+--------------+--------------+----------+
-------------------------------+------------+----------------------------
_Episodes._ |_Ludus Cov._| _Cornwall._
-------------------------------+------------+----------------------------
1. Fall of Lucifer | i | O. 48[743]: J. 114-334.
2. Creation and Fall of Man | i, ii | O. 1-437: J. 1-113,
| | 335-1055.
3. Cain and Abel | iii | O. 438-633: J. 1056-1317.
4. Wanderings of Cain | —— | J. 1332-1393.
5. Death of Cain | iv | J. 1431-1726.
6. Seth in Paradise and Death | —— | O. 634-916: J. 1318-1331,
of Adam | | 1394-1430, 1727-2093,
| | 2146-2210.
7. Enoch | —— | J. 2094-2145.
8. Noah and the Flood | iv | O. 917-1258: J.
| | 2211-2530[745].
9. Abraham and Melchisedec | —— |
10. Abraham and Isaac | v | O. 1259-1394.
11. Jacob’s Blessing | —— |
12. Jacob’s Wanderings | —— |
13. Moses and the Exodus | vi | O. 1395-1714.
14. Moses in the Wilderness | vi | O. 1715-1898.
15. Balaam | —— |
16. David and the Rods | —— | O. 1899-2104.
17. David and Bathsheba | —— | O. 2105-2376.
18. Building of the Temple | —— | O. 2377-2628.
19. Prophecy of Maximilla | —— | O. 2629-2778.
20. Bridge over Cedron | —— | O. 2779-2824.
21. _Prophetae_ | vii |
22. Joachim and Anna | viii |
23. Mary in the Temple | ix |
24. Betrothal of Mary | x |
25. Annunciation | xi |
26. Salutation of Elizabeth | xiii |
27. Suspicion of Joseph | xii |
28. Purgation of Mary | xiv |
29. Augustus and Cyrenius | —— |
30. Nativity | xv |
31. Conversion of Octavian | —— |
32. _Pastores_ | xvi |
33. Purification | xviii |
34. _Magi_ before Herod | xvii |
35. Offering of _Magi_ | xvii |
36. Flight into Egypt | xix |
37. Massacre of Innocents | xix |
38. Death of Herod | xix |
39. Presentation in Temple | xx |
40. Baptism | xxi |
41. Temptation | xxii | P. 1-172.
42. Marriage in Cana | —— |
43. Transfiguration | |
44. Woman in Adultery | xxiii |
45. Healing of Blind in Siloam | —— |
46. Raising of Lazarus | xxiv |
47. Healing of Bartimaeus | —— | P. 393-454.
48. Entry into Jerusalem | xxvi | P. 173-330.
49. Cleansing of Temple | —— | P. 331-392.
50. Jesus in House of Simon | xxvii | P. 455-552.
the Leper | |
51. Conspiracy of Jews | xxv | P. 553-584.
52. Treachery of Judas | xxvii | P. 585-616.
53. Last Supper | xxvii | P. 617-930.
54. Gethsemane | xxviii | P. 931-1200.
55. Jesus before Caiaphas | xxx | P. 1200-1504.
56. Jesus before Pilate | xxx | P. 1567-1616.
57. Jesus before Herod | xxix, xxx | P. 1617-1816.
58. Dream of Pilate’s Wife | xxxi | P. 1907-1968, 2193-2212.
59. Remorse and Death of Judas | xxxii | P. 1505-1566.
60. Condemnation | xxxii | P. 1817-2533.
61. Cross Brought from Cedron | —— | P. 2534-2584.
62. Bearing of the Cross | xxxii | P. 2585-2662.
63. Veronica | xxxii | ——
64. Crucifixion | xxxii | P. 2663-2840.
65. Casting of Lots | —— | P. 2841-2860.
66. _Planctus Mariae_ | xxxii | P. 2925-2954.
[cf. p. 39] | |
67. Death of Jesus | xxxii | P. 2861-3098.
68. Longinus | xxxiv | P. 3003-3030.
69. Descent from Cross | xxxiv | P. 3099-3201.
70. Burial | xxxiv | P. 3202-3216.
71. Harrowing of Hell | xxxiii, | P. 3031-3078:
| xxxv | R. 97-306.
72. Release of Joseph and | —— | R. 1-96, 307-334, 625-662.
Nicodemus | |
73. Setting of Watch | xxxv | R. 335-422.
74. Resurrection | xxxv | R. 423-678.
75. _Quem Quaeritis_ | xxxvi | R. 679-834.
76. _Hortulanus_ | xxxvii | R. 835-892.
77. _Peregrini_ | xxxviii | R. 1231-1344.
78. Incredulity of Thomas | xxxviii | R. 893-1230, 1345-1586.
79. Death of Pilate | —— | R. 1587-2360.
80. Veronica and Tiberius | —— | R. 1587-2360.
81. Ascension | xxxix | R. 2361-2630.
82. Pentecost | xl |
83. Death of Mary | xli |
84. Burial of Mary | xli |
85. Apparition of Mary to | —— |
Thomas | |
86. Assumption and Coronation | xli |
87. Signs of Judgement | —— |
[cf. p. 53] | |
88. Antichrist [cf. p. 62] | —— |
89. Doomsday | xlii[753] |
-------------------------------+------------+----------------------------
U
INTERLUDIUM DE CLERICO ET PUELLA
[Printed by Wright and Halliwell, _Reliquiae Antiquae_ (1841),
i. 145, from an early fourteenth-century MS., then belonging to
the Rev. R. Yerburgh, of Sleaford. On the piece and its sources
in the Latin, French, and English _fabliaux_ of _Dame Siriz_,
cf. Ten Brink, i. 255; ii. 295; Jusserand, _Lit. Hist._ i. 446.
Ten Brink assigns the dramatic text, which is in the South
Northumbrian dialect, to the reign of Edward I (1272-1307).]
_Hic incipit Interludium de Clerico el Puella._
[Scene 1.]
_Clericus._ Damishel, reste wel.
_Puella._ Sir, welcum, by Saynt Michel!
_Clericus._ Wer esty sire, wer esty dame?
_Puella._ By Gode, es noner her at hame.
_Clericus._ Wel wor suilc a man to life,
That suilc a may mithe have to wyfe!
_Puella._ Do way, by Crist and Leonard,
No wily lufe, na clerc fayllard,
Na kepi herbherg, clerc, in huse no y flore
Bot his hers ly wit-uten dore.
Go forth thi way, god sire,
For her hastu losye al thi wile.
_Clericus._ Nu, nu, by Crist and by sant Jhon,
In al this land ne wis hi none,
Mayden, that hi luf mor than the,
Hif me mithe ever the bether be.
For the hy sory nicht and day,
Y may say, hay wayleuay!
Y luf the mar than mi lif,
Thu hates me mar than gayt dos chuief.
That es noute for mys-gilt,
Certhes, for thi luf ham hi spilt.
A, suythe mayden, reu ef me
That es ty luf, hand ay salbe.
For the luf of [the] y mod of efne;
Thu mend thi mode, and her my stevene.
_Puella._ By Crist of heven and sant Jone!
Clerc of scole ne kepi non;
For many god wymman haf thai don scam.
By Crist, thu michtis haf be at hame.
_Clericus._ Synt it nothir gat may be,
Jhesu Crist, by-tethy the,
And send neulit bot thar inne,
That thi be lesit of al my pyne.
_Puella._ Go nu, truan, go nu, go,
For mikel thu canstu of sory and wo.
[Scene 2.]
_Clericus._ God te blis, Mome Helwis.
_Mome Helwis._ Son, welcum, by san Dinis!
_Clericus._ Hic am comin to the, Mome,
Thu hel me noth, thu say me sone.
Hic am a clerc that hauntes scole,
Y hidy my lif wyt mikel dole;
Me wor lever to be dedh,
Than led the lif that hyc ledh,
For ay mayden with and schen,
Fayrer ho lond hawy non syen.
Tho hat mayden Malkyn, y wene;
Nu thu wost quam y mene,
Tho wonys at the tounes ende,
That suyt lif, so fayr and hende.
Bot if tho wil hir mod amende,
Neuly Crist my ded me send.
Men send me hyder, vyt uten fayle,
To haf thi help anty cunsayle.
Thar for amy cummen here,
That thu salt be my herand-bere,
To mac me and that mayden sayct,
And hi sal gef the of my nayct,
So that hever al thi lyf
Saltu be the better wyf.
So help me Crist! and hy may spede,
Rithe saltu haf thi mede.
_Mome Ellwis._ A, son, wat saystu? benedicite,
Lift hup thi hand, and blis the.
For it es boyt syn and scam,
That thu on me hafs layt thys blam.
For hic am an ald quyne and a lam.
Y led my lyf wit Godis love.
Wit my roc y me fede,
Cani do non othir dede,
Bot my pater noster and my crede,
Tho say Crist for missedede,
And my navy Mary,
For my scynne hic am sory,
And my de profundis,
For al that yn sin lys.
For cani me non othir think,
That wot Crist, of heven kync.
Ihesu Crist, of heven hey,
Gef that hay may heng hey,
And gef that by may se,
That thay be henge on a tre,
That this ley as leyit onne me.
For aly wymam (_sic_) ami on.
V
TERENTIUS ET DELUSOR
[I follow the text of P. de Winterfeld, _Hrotsvithae Opera_
(1902), xx; the piece was previously edited by C. Magnin in
_Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartes_, i (1840), 517; A. de
Montaiglon in _L’Amateur des Livres_ (1849); A. Riese, in
_Zeits. f. d. österreich. Gymn._ xviii. 442; R. Sabbadini
(1894). The only manuscript is _B. N. Lat. MS._ 8069 of
the late tenth or early eleventh century. Various scholars
have dated the poem from the seventh to the tenth century;
Winterfeld declares for the ninth. It might have been intended
as a prologue to a Terentian revival or to a mime. The homage
paid to the _vetus poeta_ by the _delusor_ in his asides rather
suggests the former; cf. Cloetta, i. 2; Creizenach, i. 8.]
[DELUSOR.]
Mitte recordari monimenta vetusta, Terenti;
cesses ulterius: vade, poeta vetus.
vade, poeta vetus, quia non tua carmina curo;
iam retice fabulas, dico, vetus veteres.
dico, vetus veteres iamiam depone camenas,
quae nil, credo, iuvant, pedere ni doceant.
tale decens carmen, quod sic volet ut valet istud;
qui cupit exemplum, captet hic egregium.
huc ego cum recubo, me taedia multa capescunt:
an sit prosaicum, nescio, an metricum.
dic mihi, dic, quid hoc est? an latras corde sinistro?
dic, vetus auctor, in hoc quae iacet utilitas?
_Nunc TERENTIUS exit foras audiens haec et ait_:
quis fuit, hercle, pudens, rogo, qui mihi tela lacessens
turbida contorsit? quis talia verba sonavit?
hic quibus externis scelerosus venit ab oris,
qui mihi tam durum iecit ridendo cachinnum?
quam graviter iaculo mea viscera laesit acuto!
hunc ubi repperiam, contemplor, et hunc ubi quaeram?
si mihi cum tantis nunc se offerat obvius iris,
debita iudicio persolvam dona librato.
_Ecce persona DELUSORIS praesentatur et hoc audiens inquit_:
quem rogitas ego sum: quid vis persolvere? cedo;
huc praesens adero, non dona probare recuso.
TERENTIUS.
tunc, sceleste, meas conrodis dente Camenas?
tu quis es? unde venis, temerarie latro? quid istis
vocibus et dictis procerum me, a! perdite, caedis?
tene, superbe, meas decuit corrumpere Musas?
PERSONA DELUSORIS.
si rogitas, quis sum, respondeo: te melior sum:
tu vetus atque senex, ego tyro valens adulescens;
tu sterilis truncus, ego fertilis arbor, opimus.
si taceas, vetule, lucrum tibi quaeris enorme.
TERENTIUS.
quis tibi sensus inest? numquid melior me es? ...
nunc, vetus atque senex quae fecero, fac adolescens.
si bonus arbor ades, qua fertilitate redundas?
cum sim truncus iners, fructu meliore redundo.
PERSONA _secum_.
nunc mihi vera sonat; set huic contraria dicam—
quid magis instigas? quid talia dicere certas?
haec sunt verba senum, qui cum post multa senescunt
tempora, tunc mentes in se capiunt pueriles.
TERENTIUS.
hactenus antiquis sapiens venerandus ab annis
inter et egregios ostentor et inter honestos.
sed mihi felicem sapientis tollis honorem,
qui mihi verba iacis et vis contendere verbis.
PERSONA.
si sapiens esses, non te mea verba cierent.
o bone vir, sapiens ut stultum ferre libenter,
obsecro, me sapias; tua me sapientia firmet.
TERENTIUS.
cur, furiose, tuis lacerasti carmina verbis?
me retinet pietas, quin haec manus arma cerebro
implicet ista tuo: pessumdare te miseresco.
PERSONA _secum_.
quam bene ridiculum mihi personat iste veternus.—
te retinet pietas? nam fas est credere, credo.
me, peto, ne tangas, ne sanguine tela putrescant.
TERENTIUS.
cur, rogo, me sequeris? cur me ludendo lacessis?
[PERSONA.]
sic fugit horrendum praecurrens damna leonem.
[TERENTIUS.]
vix ego pro superum teneor pietate deorum,
ad tua colla meam graviter lentescere palmam.
PERSONA.
vae tibi, pone minas: nescis quem certe minaris.
verba latrando, senex cum sis vetus, irrita profers.
i, rogo, ne vapules et, quod minitare, reportes;
nunc ego sum iuvenis: patiarne ego verba vetusti?
TERENTIUS.
o iuvenis, tumidae nimium ne crede iuventae:
saepe superba cadunt, et humillima saepe resurgunt.
o mihi si veteres essent in pectore vires,
de te supplicium caperem quam grande nefandum.
si mihi plura iacis et tali voce lacessis,
p....
W
REPRESENTATIONS OF MEDIAEVAL PLAYS
[I have attempted to bring together, under a topographical
arrangement, the records of such local plays of the mediaeval
type as I am acquainted with. Probably the number could
be increased by systematic search in local histories and
transactions of learned societies. But my list is a good deal
longer than those of L. T. Smith, _York Plays_, lxiv; Stoddard,
53; or Davidson, 219. For convenience I have also noted here
a few records of Corpus Christi processions, and of folk
‘ridings’ and other institutions. The following index-table
shows the geographical distribution of the plays. The names
italicized are those of places where plays have been reported
in error or are merely conjectural.]
INDEX.
BEDFORDSHIRE.
Dunstable, page 366.
BERKSHIRE.
Abingdon, 337.
Reading, 392.
Windsor, 396.
BUCKINGHAMSHIRE.
Wycombe, 398.
CAMBRIDGESHIRE.
Bassingbourne, 338.
Cambridge, 344.
CHESHIRE.
Chester, 348.
CORNWALL.
_Camborne_, 344.
_Penrhyn_, 390.
Per Ranzabulo, 390.
St. Just, 393.
DENBIGHSHIRE.
Wrexham, 398.
DEVONSHIRE.
Morebath, 384.
DORSETSHIRE.
Wimborne Minster, 396.
DURHAM.
Bishop Auckland, 342.
ESSEX.
Baddow, 338.
Billericay, 341.
Boreham, 342.
Braintree, 342.
Brentwood, 342.
Burnham, 343.
Chelmsford, 345.
Coggeshall, 357.
Colchester, 357.
Easterford, 367.
Hadleigh, 367.
Halstead, 367.
Hanningfield, 368.
Heybridge, 370.
High Easter, 370.
Kelvedon, 373.
Lanchire (?), 375.
Little Baddow, 379.
Malden, 384.
Manningtree, 384.
Nayland, 385.
Sabsford (?), 393.
Saffron Walden, 393.
Stapleford (?), 395.
Stoke-by-Nayland, 395.
Witham, 397.
Woodham Walter, 397.
Writtle, 398.
GLOUCESTERSHIRE.
_Bristol_, 342.
Tewkesbury, 396.
HAMPSHIRE.
Winchester, 396.
HEREFORDSHIRE.
_Hereford_, 368.
KENT.
Appledore, 337.
Bethersden, 338.
Brookland, 343.
Canterbury, 344.
Folkestone, 367.
Great Chart, 367.
Ham Street, 367.
Herne, 370.
High Halden, 370.
Hythe, 371.
Lydd, 383.
New Romney, 385.
Ruckinge, 393.
Stone, 396.
Wittersham, 397.
Wye, 398.
LANCASHIRE.
Lancaster, 375.
Preston, 392.
LEICESTERSHIRE.
Foston, 367.
Leicester, 376.
LINCOLNSHIRE.
Holbeach, 370.
Lincoln, 377.
Louth, 383.
Sleaford, 395.
MIDDLESEX.
London, 379.
Mile End, 384.
NORFOLK.
_Croxton_, 363.
Garboldisham, 367.
Harling, 368.
Kenninghall, 374.
King’s Lynn, 374.
Lopham, 383.
Middleton, 384.
Norwich, 386.
Shelfhanger, 393.
Wymondham, 398.
Yarmouth, 399.
NORTHAMPTONSHIRE.
Daventry, 363.
_Northampton_, 386.
NORTHUMBERLAND.
Newcastle, 385.
OXFORDSHIRE.
Fyfield, 367.
Idbury, 371.
Langley, 375.
Lyneham, 383.
Milton, 384.
Oxford, 389.
Shipton, 394.
SHROPSHIRE.
Shrewsbury, 394.
SOMERSETSHIRE.
Bath, 338.
Tintinhull, 396.
STAFFORDSHIRE.
Lichfield, 377.
SUFFOLK.
Boxford, 342.
_Bury St. Edmunds_, 343.
Bungay, 343.
Ipswich, 371.
Ixworth, 373.
Lavenham, 375.
Mildenhall, 384.
SURREY.
Hascombe, 368.
Kingston, 374.
SUSSEX.
Rye, 393.
WARWICKSHIRE.
Coleshill, 357.
Coventry, 357.
Maxstoke, 384.
Nuneaton, 389.
WESTMORELAND.
Kendal, 373.
WILTSHIRE.
Salisbury, 393.
WORCESTERSHIRE.
Worcester, 398.
YORKSHIRE.
Beverley, 338.
Hull, 370.
Leconfield, 375.
_Leeds_, 375.
_Wakefield_, 396.
_Woodkirk_, 398.
York, 399.
SCOTLAND.
Aberdeen, 330.
Edinburgh, 366.
IRELAND.
Dublin, 363.
Kilkenny, 374.
ABERDEEN, SCOTLAND.
I summarize the references to plays and pageants in the Burgh
Records[754].
_May 13, 1440._ Richard Kintor, abbot of Boneacord, was granted ‘unus
burgensis futurus faciendus’ (i.e. the fees on taking up the freedom),
‘pro expensis suis factis et faciendis in quodam ludo de ly Haliblude
ludendo apud ly Wyndmylhill.’
_Sept. 5, 1442._ ‘Thir craftes vndirwritten sal fynd yerly in the
offerand of our Lady at Candilmes thir personnes vnderwrittin; that is to
say,
The littistares sal fynd,
The empriour and twa doctoures, and alsmony honeste squiares as thai may.
The smythes and hammermen sal fynd,
The three kingis of Culane, and alsmony honeste squiares as thai may.
The talzoures sal fynd,
Our lady Sancte Bride, Sancte Helone, Joseph, and alsmony squiares as
thai may.
The skynnares sal fynd,
Two bischopes, four angeles, and alsmony honeste squiares as thai may.
The webstares and walkares sal fynd,
Symon and his disciples, and alsmony honeste squiares, etc.
The cordinares sal fynd,
The messyngear and Moyses, and alsmony honeste squiares, etc.
The fleschowares sal fynd,
Twa or four wodmen, and alsmony honest squiares, etc.
The brethir of the gilde sall fynd,
The knyghtes in harnace, and squiares honestely araiit, etc.
The baxsteiris sal fynd,
The menstralis, and alsmony honest squyares as thai may.’
_May 21, 1479._ Order for the alderman ‘to mak the expensis and costis of
the comon gude apon the arayment, and uthris necessaris, of the play to
be plait in the fest of Corpos Xristi nixttocum.’
_Feb. 1, 1484/5._ Order for all craftsmen to ‘beyr thare takyinis of
thare craft apon thare beristis, and thare best aray on Canddilmes day at
the Offerand.’
_Feb. 3, 1502/3._ Fine imposed upon certain websters, because ‘thai did
nocht it that accordit thame to do one Candilmese day, in the Passioun [?
Pr’ssioun, “Procession”],’ owing to a dispute as to precedence with the
tailors.
_Jan. 30, 1505/6._ Order for continuance of ‘the ald lovabile consuetud
and ryt of the burgh’ that the craftsmen ‘kepit and decorit the
procession one Candilmes day yerlie; ... and thai sale, in order to the
Offering in the Play, pass tua and ij togidr socialie; in the first
the flesshoris, barbouris, baxturis, cordinaris, skineris, couparis,
wrichtis, hat makars [and] bonat makars togidr, walcaris, litstaris,
wobstaris, tailyeouris, goldsmiths, blaksmithis and hammermen; and the
craftsmen sal furnyss the Pageants; the cordinaris, the Messing[er];
wobstaris and walcaris, Symeon; the smyths [and] goldsmiths, iij Kingis
of Cullane; the litstaris, the Emperour; the masons, the Thrie Knichtis;
the talyors, our Lady, Sanct Brid, and Sanct Elene; and the skynners, the
Tua Bischopis; and tua of ilke craft to pass with the pageant that thai
furnyss to keip thair geir.’
_May 28, 1507._ Order for precedence ‘in ale processiounis, baitht in
Candilmes play and utheris processionis.’
_Jan. 30, 1510/1._ The order of Jan. 30, 1505/6 repeated _verbatim_.
_Feb. 3, 1510/1._ Citizens fined ‘becauss thai passt not in the
procession of Candilmes day to decoir the samyn.’
_Feb. 5, 1523/4._ Johne Pill, tailor, to do penance, ‘for the disobeing
of David Anderson, bailze, becaus he refusit to pas in the Candilmess
processioun with his taikin and sing of his craft in the place lemit
to his craft, and in likewise for the mispersoning of the said Dauid
Andersoun, the merchandis of the said guid town, in calling of thame
Coffeis, and bidding of thame to tak the salt pork and herboiss in thair
handis.’
_May 22, 1531._ Order for the craftsmen to ‘keipe and decoir the
processioun on Corpus Cristi dais, and Candilmes day ... every craft with
thair awin baner.... And euery ane of the said craftis, in the Candilmes
processioun, sall furneiss thair pageane, conforme to the auld statut,
maid in the yeir of God jai vᶜ and x yeris....
The craftis ar chargit to furneiss thair panzeanis vnder writtin.
The flescharis, Sanct Bestian and his Tourmentouris.
The barbouris, Sanct Lowrance and his Tourmentouris.
The skynnaris, Sanct Stewin and his Tourmentouris.
The cordinaris, Sanct Martyne.
The tailzeouris, the Coronatioun of Our Lady.
Litstaris, Sanct Nicholes.
Wobstaris, walcaris, and bonet makaris, Sanct John.
Baxstaris, Sanct Georg.
Wrichtis, messonis, sclateris, and cuparis, The Resurrectioun.
The smithis and hemmirmen to furneiss The Bearmen of the Croce.’
_June 13, 1533._ A very similar order, but without the list of pageants,
and so worded as to extend the obligation of furnishing pageants to the
Corpus Christi, as well as the Candlemas procession:—‘The craftismen
... sall ... keip and decoir the processionis on XXi day and Candelmes
day ... euery craft with thair avin banar ... with thair pegane.... And
euery craft in the said processionis sall furneiss thair pegane and banar
honestlie as effers, conforme to the auld statut maid in the yeir of God
jaj vᶜ and tene yers.’
_June 21, 1538._ Dispute between goldsmiths and hammermen as to
precedence ‘in the processioun of Corpus Xri.’
_June 25, 1546._ Litsters ordered to ‘haue thar banar and Pagane, as
uther craftis of the said Burgh hes, ilk yeir, on Corpus Xhri day, and
Candilmess dayis processiounis.’
_June 4, 1553._ Disputes as to ordering of Corpus Christi procession.
_May 21, 1554._ Similar disputes. A ‘Pagane’ in procession mentioned.
_May 29, 1556._ Order for observance of statute as to Corpus Christi
procession.
The interpretation of these notices is not quite clear. Davidson,
220, seems to think that there was never more than a _mystère mimé_
at Candlemas. But the ‘play’ is mentioned in 1506, 1507, and 1510. I
conjecture that the Passion and Nativity cycles were not merged in
Aberdeen. The Passion (Haliblude play) was performed, perhaps only
occasionally, on Corpus Christi day; the Nativity annually, at Candlemas.
The ‘persones’ of 1442 and the ‘Pageants’ of 1505/6 are practically
identical, and would furnish a short play, with Moses and Octavian
to represent the _Prophetae_, a _Stella_, and a _Presentation in the
Temple_. But there was certainly also a procession in which the ‘honest
squiares’ of 1442 figured. This may have preceded the play, but it may
have been in some way introduced into it at ‘the offerand’ (of the
Virgin in the Temple, or of the Magi?). The pageants in the list of 1531
are such as cannot all have formed part of a connected cycle. But some
of them might come from the ‘Haliblude’ play, and I take it that this
list was meant for the Corpus Christi procession only, the Candlemas
procession being still regulated by the order of 1507.
_Bon Accord._
The Haliblude play of 1440 was directed by the Abbot of Bon Accord. This
was the Aberdeen name for the Lord of Misrule. There are many notices of
him.
_April 30, 1445._ Order ‘for letting and stanching of diuerse enormyteis
done in time bygane be the abbotis of this burgh, callit of bone acorde,
that in time to cum thai will giue na feis to na sic abbotis. Item, it is
sene speidful to thame that for the instant yher thai will haue na sic
abbot; but thai will that the alderman for the tyme, and a balyhe quhom
that he will tak til him, sall supple that faute.’
_August 17, 1491._ Dispute as to fee of ‘Abbat of Bonacord.’
_May 8, 1496._ Choice, ‘for vphaldin of the auld lovable consuetud,
honour, consolacioun, and pleasour of this burgh,’ of two ‘coniunctlie
abbotis and priour of Bonacord,’ with fee of five marks.
_Nov. 30, 1504._ All ‘personis burges nichtbours, and burgyes sonnys’ to
ride with ‘Abbot and Prior of Bonaccord’ on St. Nicholas day annually
when called on by them.
[In 1511 and 1515 this function of the Abbot has passed to the provost
and baillies.]
_May 16, 1507._ ‘All manere of youthis, burgeis and burges sonnys salbe
redy everie halyday to pass with the Abbat and Prior of Bonacord.’
_May 8, 1508._ ‘All personis that are abill within this burghe sall be
ready with thair arrayment maid in grene and yallow, bowis, arrowis,
brass, and all uther convenient thingis according thairto, to pass with
Robyne Huyd and Litile Johnne, all tymes convenient tharto, quhen thai be
requirit be the saidis Robyne and Litile Johnne.’
_Nov. 17, 1508._ Order for St. Nicholas riding ‘with Robert Huyid and
Litile Johne, quhilk was callit, in yers bipast, Abbat and Prior of
Bonacord.’
_April 13, 1523._ Choice of ‘Lordis of Bonaccord,’ young men ‘to rise and
obey to thame.’ They are also to be ‘Mastris of Artuilyery.’
_April 30, 1527._ Grant of ‘x marks of the fyrst fremen that hapynnis to
be frathinfurht’ to ‘the Lord of Bonnacord and his fellow.’
_Aug. 3, 1528._ Similar grant to ‘thair lovits, Jhone Ratray and Gilbert
Malisoun, thair Abbatis out of ressoun.’
_April 16, 1531._ One of those chosen to be ‘lords of Bonacord, to do
plesour and blythnes to the toune in this sessoun of symmir incumming’
protests against his appointment.
_Oct. 11, 1533._ Grant of fee to ‘lordis of Bonaccord.’
_April 30, 1535._ Order ‘that all the zoung abil men within this guid
[toune] haue thair grene cottis, and agit men honest cottis, efferand to
thame, and obey and decor the lordis of Bonaccord.’
_April 4, 1539._ ‘The lordis of Bonacordis desyr’ for their fee, and for
‘all the yong able men within this guid towne to conwey ws euery Sunday
and halyday, and wther neidfull tymes, aboulzeit as your M. has deuisit,
and agit men to meit us at the crabstane or kirkyard’ is granted.
_June 23, 1539._ Fee to ‘lordis of Bonacord.’
_April 17, 1541._ Similar fee ‘to help to the decoration and plesour to
be done be thaim to this guid towne.’
_April 17, 1542._ Similar fee.
_April 24, 1542._ ‘Alex. Kayn, accusit in gugment for his wyff ... for
the hawy strublens and vile mispersoning of Alex. Gray and Dauid Kintoir,
lordis of Bonacord, and thair company present with thame for the tyme,
sayand common beggaris and skafferis, thair meltyd was but small for all
thair cuttit out hoyss, with moy oder inurious wordis, unleful to be
expremit.’
_July 24, 1545._ Grant of ‘compositioun siluer’ as fee.
_April 20, 1548._ Similar fee.
_April 14, 1552._ ‘The said day, the counsell, all in ane voce, havand
respect and consideratioune that the lordis of Bonnacord in tymes bygane
hase maid our mony grit, sumpteous, and superfleous banketing induring
the tyme of thair regnn, and specialie in May, quhilks wes thocht nother
profitabill nor godlie, and did hurt to sundry young men that wer elekit
in the said office, becaus the last elekit did aye pretent to surmont in
thair predecessouris in thair ryetouss and sumpteous banketing, and the
causs principal and gud institutiounn thairof, quhilk wes in halding of
the gud toun in glaidnes and blythtnes, witht danssis, farsiis, playis,
and gamis, in tymes convenient, necleckit and abusit; and thairfor
ordinis that in tyme cummin all sic sumpteous banketing be laid doun
aluterlie except thre sobir and honest, vizt., upoun the senze day, the
first Sonday of May, and ane [ ] upoun Tuisday efter Pasche day, and na
honest man to pass to ony of thair banketis except on the said thre dais
allanerlie; and in ane place of the forsaid superfleouss banketing to be
had and maid yeirly to generall plais, or ane at the lest, with danssis
and gammes usit and wont; and quha souer refuisis to accept the said
office in tyme cumming, beand elekit thairto be the toun, to tyne his
fredome, priuelege, takis, and profit he hes or ma haf of the toun, and
neuer to be admittit frathinfurtht to office, honour, nor dingnete.’
_May 27, 1552._ Grant of fee, larger than usual, ‘be ressoune that thai
ar put to grytar coist this yeir nor utheris that bar office before thaim
hes bene put to, and that be ressoune of cummyng of the quenis grace, my
lord governor, and the maist of the lords and grit men of this realme,
presently to this toun.’
[1555. Parliament ‘statute and ordanit that in all tymes cumming na maner
of persoun be chosin Robert Hude nor Lytill Johne, Abbot of vnressoun,
Quenis of Maij, nor vtherwyse, nouther in Burgh nor to landwart in ony
tyme to cum, and gif ony Prouest, Baillies, counsall, and communitie,
chesis sic ane Personage as Robert Hude, Lytill Johne, Abbottis of
vnressoun, or Quenis of Maij within Burgh, the chesaris of sic sall tyne
thair fredome for the space of fyve zeiris, and vther wyse salbe punist
at the Quenis grace will, and the acceptar of sicklyke office salbe
banist furth of the Realme. And gif ony sic persounis sic as Robert Hude,
Lytill Johne, Abbottis of vnresson, Quenis of Maij, beis chosin outwith
Burgh and vthers landwart townis, the chesars sall pay to our Souerane
Lady x pundis, and thair persounis put in waird, thair to remane during
the Quenis grace plesoure. And gif ony wemen or vthers about simmer treis
singand makis perturbatioun to the Quenis liegis in the passage throw
Burrows and vthers landwart townis, the wemen perturbatouris for skafrie
of money or vtherwyse salbe takin handellit and put upon the Cukstulis of
everie Burgh or towne.’]
_May 4, 1562._ ‘John Kelo, belman, wes accusit in jugement for the
passing throw the rewis of the toune with the hand bell, be oppin voce,
to convene the haill communitie, or sa mony thairof as wald convene,
to pass to the wood to bring in symmer upoun the first Sonday of Maii,
contravinand the actis and statutis of the quenis grace, and lordis of
consell, eppeirandlie to raise tumult and ingener discord betuix the
craftismen and the fre burgessis of gild, and the saidis craftismen to
dissobey and adtempt aganis the superioris of the toun, gif it stuid in
thair power, as the saidis prowest and baillies ar informit, the said
Johnne hawing na command of the saidis prowest and baillies to do the
same; and inlykwyise, Alexander Burnat _alias_ Potter wes accusit for
passing throw the toun with ane swech, to the effect and occasioun aboun
wryttin.’
_May 14 and 18, 1565._ Several citizens disfranchised for disobeying the
proclamation made by ‘Johnne Kelo, belman,’ forbidding any persons ‘to
mak ony conventione, with taburne plaing, or pype, or fedill, or have
anseinges, to convene the quenis legis, in chusing of Robin Huid, Litill
Johnne, Abbot of Ressoune, Queyne of Maii, or sicklyk contraveyne the
statutis of parliament, or mak ony tumult, scism, or conventione.’
_Royal Entry._
The entertainment of Queen Margaret, wife of James IV, in May, 1511,
seems to have included some of the pageants from the Nativity cycle.
The following extract is from Dunbar’s _The Quenis Reception at
Aberdein_[755]:—
‘Ane fair processioun mett hir at the Port,
In a cap of gold and silk, full pleasantlie,
Syne at hir entrie, with many fair disport,
Ressauet hir on streittis lustilie;
Quhair first the salutatioun honorabilly
Of the sweitt Virgin, guidlie mycht be seine;
The sound of menstrallis blawing to the sky;
Be blyth and blisfull, burgh of Aberdein.
And syne thow gart the orient kingis thrie
Offer to Chryst, with benyng reuerence,
Gold, sence, and mir, with all humilitie,
Schawand him king with most magnificence;
Syne quhow the angill, with sword of violence,
Furth of the joy of paradice putt clein
Adame and Eve for innobedience;
Be blyth and blisfull, burgh of Aberdein.
And syne the Bruce, that euir was bold in stour,
Thow gart as roy cum rydand vnder croun,
Richt awfull, strang, and large of portratour,
As nobill, dreidfull, michtie campioun;
The [nobill Stewarts] syne, of great renoun,
Thow gart upspring, with branches new and greine,
Sa gloriouslie, quhill glaided all the toun:
Be blyth and blisfull, burgh of Aberdein.
Syne come thair four and twentie madinis ȝing,
All claid in greine of mervelous bewtie,
With hair detressit, as threidis of gold did hing,
With quhyt hattis all browderit rycht bravelie,
Playand on timberallis, and syngand rycht sweitlie;
That seimlie sort, in ordour weill besein,
Did meit the quein, hir saluand reverentlie:
Be blyth and blisfull, burgh of Aberdein.
The streittis war all hung with tapestrie,
Great was the press of peopill dwelt about,
And pleasant padgeanes playit prattelie;
The legeiss all did to thair lady loutt,
Quha was convoyed with ane royall routt
Off gryt barrounes and lustie ladyis [schene];
Welcum, our quein! the commoness gaif ane schout:
Be blyth and blisfull, burgh of Aberdein.
ABINGDON, BERKSHIRE.
Certain ‘jeweis de Abyndon’ were at Court at Xmas 1427 (Appendix E, viii).
A seventeenth-century account of the Hospital of Christ says that the
fraternity held their feast on May 3 (Holy Cross day), 1445, with
‘pageantes and playes and May games.’ They employed twelve minstrels[756].
APPLEDORE, KENT.
Appledore players were at New Romney in 1488.
BADDOW, ESSEX.
The Chelmsford (q.v.) wardrobe was hired by ‘children of Badow’ during
1564-6.
BASSINGBOURNE, CAMBRIDGESHIRE.
A play ‘of the holy martyr St. George’ was held in a field at
Bassingbourne on the feast of St. Margaret, July 20, 1511. The
churchwardens’ accounts for the play show, besides payments for
refreshments:—
‘First paid to the garnement man for garnements and propyrts and
playbooks, xxˢ.
To a minstrel and three waits of Cambridge....
Item ... for setting up the stages.
Item to John Beecher for painting of three Fanchoms and four Tormentors.
Item to Giles Ashwell for easement of his croft to play in, iˢ.
Item to John Hobarde, Brotherhood Priest, for the play book, iiˢ. viiiᵈ.’
Twenty-seven neighbouring villages contributed to these expenses[757].
BATH, SOMERSETSHIRE.
The accounts of St. Michael’s, Bath, for 1482, include ‘pro potatione le
players in recordacione [‘rehearsing’?] ludorum diversis vicibus,’ with
other expenditure on players and properties. As one item is ‘et Iohī
Fowler pro cariando le tymbe a cimiterio dicto tempore ludi,’ the play
was perhaps a _Quem quaeritis_[758].
Chaucer’s Wife of Bath, in her husband’s absence at London during Lent,
would make her ‘visitaciouns’—
‘To pleyes of miracles and mariages[759].’
BETHERSDEN, KENT.
The churchwardens’ accounts record _ludi beatae Christinae_, in 1522. St.
Christina’s day was July 24[760]. Bethersden players were at New Romney
in 1508.
BEVERLEY, YORKSHIRE.
A thirteenth-century _continuator_ of the _Vita_ of St. John of Beverley
records a recent (†1220) miracle done in the Minster:—
‘Contigit, ut tempore quodam aestivo intra saepta polyandri ecclesiae B.
Ioannis, ex parte aquilonari, larvatorum, ut assolet, et verbis et actu
fieret repraesentatio Dominicae resurrectionis. Confluebat ibi copiosa
utriusque sexus multitudo, variis inducta votis, delectationis videlicet,
seu admirationis causa, vel sancto proposito excitandae devotionis. Cum
vero, prae densa vulgi adstante corona, pluribus, et praecipue statura
pusillis, desideratus minime pateret accessus, introierunt plurimi in
ecclesiam; ut vel orarent, vel picturas inspicerent, vel per aliquod
genus recreationis et solatii pro hoc die taedium evitarent.’ Some
boys climbed into the _triforium_, in order that, through the windows,
‘liberius personarum et habitus et gestus respicerent, et earundem
dialogos auditu faciliori adverterent.’ One of these fell into the
church, but was miraculously preserved[761].
The Corpus Christi play is first mentioned in 1377. It was ‘antiqua
consuetudo’ in 1390, when an ‘ordinacio ludi Corporis Christi cum pena’
was entered in the Great Guild Book, requiring the crafts or ‘artes’ to
produce ‘ludos suos et pagentes’ under a penalty of 40_s._ The plays were
held annually, subject to an order by the oligarchical town council of
twelve _custodes_ or _gubernatores_ on St. Mark’s day. The _custodes_
‘governed’ the play, and met certain general expenses. In 1423 they paid
Master Thomas Bynham, a friar preacher, for writing ‘banis’; also the
waits (‘_spiculatores_’) who accompanied the ‘banis.’ In the same year
they gave a breakfast to the Earl of Northumberland. In 1460 they put
up a scaffold for their own use. Apparently the pageants and properties
belonged to them, for in 1391 they handed over to John of Arras, on
behalf of the ‘hairers,’ for his life and under surety, the necessaries
for the play of Paradise; ‘viz. j karre, viij hespis, xviij stapels,
ij visers, ij wenges angeli, j fir-sparr, j worme, ij paria caligarum
linearum, ij paria camisarum, j gladius.’ Otherwise the expenses were
met by the crafts, whose members paid a fixed levy towards the play,
the ‘serge’ or light maintained by the craft in some chapel, and the
wooden ‘castle’ erected at the procession of St. John of Beverley on
Monday in Rogation week. Thus the Barbers’ _Ordinances_ in 1414 require
their members to pay 2_s._ and a pound of wax on setting up shop, and
2_s._ on taking an apprentice. Certain fines also were in this company
appropriated to the same purposes. In 1469 journeymen cappers paid 8_d._
for any year when there was a play, and 6_d._ when there was not. The
town _Ordinances_ of 1467 contemplate annual payments by all craftsmen.
In 1449 the _custodes_ contributed 4_s._ to the Skinners’ play as ‘alms
of the community.’ If a craft failed to produce its play, the _custodes_
exacted the whole or a part of the fine of 40_s._ specified in the
_Ordinacio_ of 1390. They also levied other disciplinary fines; as on
John ‘cordewainer’ in 1423, for hindering the play, on Henry Cowper,
‘webster,’ in 1452, ‘quod nesciebat ludum suum’; on the alderman of the
‘paynetors,’ in 1520-1 ‘because their play was badly and confusedly
played, in contempt of the whole community, before many strangers’; and
so forth. The order of 1390 specified thirty-eight crafts to play; ‘viz.
mercers et drapers, tannatores, masons, skynners, taillors, goldsmyths,
smyths, plummers, bollers, turnors, girdelers, cutlers, latoners,
broche-makers, horners, sponers, ladilers, furburs, websters, walkers,
coverlid-wevers, cartwrightes, coupars, fletchers, bowers, cordewaners,
baksters, flesshewers, fysshers, chaundelers, barburs, vynters, sadilers,
rapers, hayrers, shipmen, glovers, and workmen.’ As elsewhere, changing
conditions of social life led to alterations in this list, and consequent
divisions and mergings of the plays. Thus in 1411 it seems to have been
felt as a grievance that certain well-to-do inhabitants of Beverley, who
belonged to no craft, escaped all charge for the plays, and it was agreed
that in future the ‘digniores villae’ should appoint four representatives
and contribute a play. In 1493 the Drapers formed a craft of their own
apart from the Mercers, and consequently a play was divided, the Drapers
taking ‘Demyng Pylate,’ and leaving to the Mercers ‘Blak Herod.’ On the
fly-leaf of the _Great Guild Book_ is a list of crafts and their plays,
dated by Mr. Leach †1520, which differs considerably from that of 1390.
It is as follows:—
‘Gubernacio Ludi _Corporis Christi_.
_Tylers_: the fallinge of Lucifer.
_Saddelers_: the makinge of the World.
_Walkers_: makinge of Adam and eve.
_Ropers_: the brekinge of the Comaundments of God.
_Crelers_: gravinge and Spynnynge.
_Glovers_: Cayn.
_Shermen_: Adam and Seth.
_Wattermen_: Noe Shipp.
_Bowers and Fletshers_: Abraham and Isaak.
_Musterdmakers and Chanlers_: Salutation of Our Lady.
_Husbandmen_: Bedleem.
_Vynteners_: Sheipherds.
_Goldsmyths_: Kyngs of Colan.
_Fyshers_: Symeon.
_Cowpers_: fleyinge to Egippe.
_Shomakers_: Children of Ysraell.
_Scryveners_: Disputacion in the Temple.
_Barbours_: Sent John Baptyste.
_Laborers_: the Pynnacle.
_The Mylners_: rasynge of Lazar.
_Skynners_: ierusalem.
_Bakers_: the Mawndy.
_Litsters_: prainge at the Mownte.
_Tailyours_: Slepinge Pilate.
_Marchaunts_ [i.e. _Mercers_]: Blak Herod.
_Drapers_: Demynge Pylate.
_Bocheours_: Scorgynge.
_Cutlers and Potters_: the Stedynynge.
_Wevers_: the Stanginge.
_Barkers_: the Takinge of the Crose.
_Cooks_: Haryinge of hell.
_Wrights_: the Resurrection.
_Gentylmen_: Castle of Emaut.
_Smyths_: Ascencion.
_Prestes_: Coronacion of Our Lady.
_Marchaunts_: Domesday.
The thirty-eight pageants of 1390 have become thirty-six in 1520. Besides
the ‘Gentylmen,’ dating from 1411, the ‘Prestes’ are noticeable. These
are probably the ‘clerus Gildae Corporis Christi,’ who in 1430 led the
Corpus Christi procession in which many of the crafts with their lights
took part. Procession and play, though on the same day, seem to have been
in 1430 quite distinct. The play lasted only one day, and was given in
1449 at six stations; viz. at the North Bar, by the Bull-ring, between
John Skipworth and Robert Couke in Highgate, at the Cross Bridge, at the
Fishmarket (now called Wednesday Market), at the Minster Bow, and at the
Beck. Poulson stated that the performances lasted into the reign of James
I. Mr. Leach could find no trace of them in the municipal archives after
1520[762]. But the _Ordinances_, dated 1555, of the Minstrels’ guild ‘of
our Lady of the read arke’ provide that certain forfeits shall go to the
‘comon place’ (which I take to be ‘common plays’) of Beverley.
A second craft-play appears in 1469, when a number of crafts, thirty-nine
in all, gave a Pater Noster play on the Sunday after St. Peter and
Vincula (August 1). Copies of the text (_registra_) were made for the
crafts. The stations were those of the Corpus Christi play. There
were eight ‘pagends’ named after the eight principal ‘lusores,’ viz.
‘Pryde: Invy: Ire: Avaryce: Sleweth (also called ‘Accidie’): Glotony:
Luxuria: Vicious.’ A number of crafts united to furnish each of these;
apparently the most important was that of ‘Vicious,’ provided by the
‘gentilmen, merchands, clerks and valets.’ Aldermen of the pageants were
appointed[763].
BILLERICAY, ESSEX.
The Chelmsford (q.v.) wardrobe was twice hired by men of ‘Beleryca,’ or
‘Belyrica’ during 1564-6.
BISHOP AUCKLAND, DURHAM.
The _lusores_ of ‘Auklande’ received a present from Durham Priory for
playing before Master Hyndley, at Christmas, 1539. (App. E, i.)
BOREHAM, ESSEX.
‘Casse of Boreham’ hired the Chelmsford (q.v.) wardrobe in 1566 and 1573,
and the ‘players of Boreham,’ at Twelfth Night, 1574.
BOXFORD, SUFFOLK.
A play appears in the churchwardens’ accounts for 1535[764].
BRAINTREE, ESSEX.
The churchwardens’ accounts of St. Michael’s include the following:—
‘_Anno 1523._ A Play of Sᵗ Swythyn, acted in the Church on a Wednesday,
for which was gathered 6: 14: 11½; Pᵈ at the said Play, 3: 1: 4; due to
the Church, 3: 13: 7½.
_Anno 1525._ There was a Play of Sᵗ Andrew acted in the Church the Sunday
before Relique Sunday; Rcᵈ, 8: 9: 6; Pd, 4: 9: 9; Due to the Church, 3:
19: 8.
_Anno 1529._ A Play in Halstead Church.
_Anno 1534._ A Play of Placidas _alias_ Sᵗ Eustace. Rᵈ, 14: 17: 6½; Pᵈ,
6: 13: 7½; due, 8: 2: 8½.
_Anno 1567._ Rᵈ of the Play money, 5: 0: 0.
_Anno 1570._ Recᵈ of the Play money, 9: 7: 7; and for letting the Playing
garments, 0: 1: 8.
_Anno 1571._ Rcᵈ for a Playbook, 20ᵈ; and for lending the Play gere, 8:
7ᵈ.
_Anno 1579._ For the Players Apparel, 50ˢ[765].’
Nicholas Udall was vicar of Braintree, 1533-1537. The plays were probably
in aid of the large expenditure on the fabric of the church between 1522
and 1535.
The Chelmsford (q.v.) play was given at Braintree in 1562.
BRENTWOOD, ESSEX.
‘Mr. Johnston of Brentwoode’ hired the Chelmsford (q.v.) wardrobe in 1566.
BRISTOL, GLOUCESTERSHIRE.
A town-clerk’s account of municipal customs, after describing the banquet
on St. Katharine’s Eve (Nov. 24), concludes:—
‘And then to depart, euery man home: the Maire, Shiref, and the
worshipfull men redy to receyue at theire dores Seynt Kateryns players,
makyng them to drynk at their dores, and rewardyng theym for theire
plays[766].’ Were these plays more than a ‘catterning’ _quête_ (vol. i.
p. 253)?
There is no mention of plays amongst the records, including several
craft-guild ordinances, in the _Little Red Book of Bristol_ (ed. W. B.
Bickley, 1901). But ‘the Shipwrights Pageannt’ was used at the reception
of Henry VII in 1486 (p. 175).
BROOKLAND, KENT.
Brookland players were at New Romney in 1494.
BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.
On the night after Corpus Christi day, June 16, 1514, certain persons
‘brake and threw down five pageants of the said inhabitants, that is
to saye, hevyn pagent, the pagent of all the world, Paradyse pagent,
Bethelem pagent, and helle pagent, the whyche wer ever wont tofore to be
caryed abowt the seyd town upon the seyd daye in the honor of the blissyd
Sacrement.’
The churchwardens’ accounts of St. Mary’s show payments in 1526 for
copying the game-book, and to Stephen Prewett, a Norwich priest, for his
labour in the matter.
The accounts of Holy Trinity show payments: in 1558, to a man riding to
Yarmouth for the ‘game gear,’ ‘to William Ellys for the interlude and
game booke, iiijᵈ,’ ‘for writing the partes, ijˢ’; in 1566, on occasion
of ‘the interlude in the churchyarde,’ for apparel borrowed from Lord
Surrey, ‘for visors,’ and ‘to Kelsaye, the vyce, for his pastyme before
the plaie, and after the playe, both daies, ijˢ.’ In 1577, a churchwarden
gave a receipt to his predecessor for ‘game pleyers gownes and coats,
that were made of certayne peces of olld copes.’ In 1591, 5_s._ was
received for ‘players cootes[767].’
BURNHAM, ESSEX.
‘Wᵐ Crayford of Burnam’ hired the Chelmsford (q.v.) wardrobe in 1568.
BURY ST. EDMUND’S, SUFFOLK.
The _Ordinances_ of the Weavers (1477) assign half of certain fines to
‘the sustentacione and mayntenaunce of the payent of the Assencione of
oure Lord God and of the yiftys of the Holy Gost, as yt hath be customed
of olde tyme owte of mynde yeerly to be had to the wurschepe of God,
amongge other payenttes in the processione in the feste of Corpus Xr̄i.’
Journeymen weavers are to pay ‘iiijᵈ’ yearly to the ‘payent’ and all
‘foreyne’ as well as ‘deyzin’ weavers are to be contributory to it[768].
It is not clear whether the ‘payent’ had a _ludus_ or was a dumb-show.
CAMBORNE, CORNWALL.
See Texts (i), _Cornish Plays_, _St. Meriasek_.
CAMBRIDGE, CAMBRIDGESHIRE.
William de Lenne and Isabel his wife, joining the guild of Corpus Christi
(†1350), spent half a mark ‘_in ludo Filiorum Israelis_[769].’
Warton says:—
‘The oldest notice I can recover of this sort of spectacle [Latin plays]
in an English University is in the fragment of an ancient accompt-roll
of the dissolved college of Michael-House in Cambridge; in which, under
1386, the following expense is entered: ‘Pro ly pallio brusdato et pro
sex larvis et barbis in comedia[770].’
CANTERBURY, KENT.
A Burghmote order (†1500) directed ‘a play called Corpus Christi play
... maintained and played at the costs of the Crafts and Mysteries,’
although ‘of late days it hath been left and laid apart,’ to be revived
at Michaelmas[771].
A book of the play of Abraham and Isaac, belonging to the ‘schaft’ or
parochial guild of St. Dunstan’s, lay in the keeping of the churchwardens
of that church from 1491 to 1520[772].
On Jan. 6, 1503, the corporation paid for a play of the _Three Kyngs of
Coleyn_ in the guildhall. The account mentions three ‘bests’ made of
hoops and laths and painted canvas, ‘heddyng of the Hensshemen,’ a castle
in the courthall, and a gilt star.
Annual accounts for ‘the pagent of St. Thomas’ on the day of his
martyrdom (Dec. 29), appear amongst the financial records of the
corporation from 1504-5 until ‘far on in the reign of Queen Elizabeth.’ I
select some items:—
‘1504-5.
Paied to Sampson Carpenter and hys man hewyng and squeryng of tymber
for the Pagent.
For makyng Sᵗ Thomas Carte with a peyer of whyles.
To iiij men to helpe to cary the Pagent.
For a newe myghter.
For two bagges of leder.
For payntyng of the awbe and the hedde.
For gunpowder.
For lynnen cloth bought for Sᵗ Thomas garment.
For forgyng and makyng the knyghts harnes.
For the hyre of a sworde.
For wasshynge of an albe and an amys.’
_In later years._
‘Pro le yettyng sanguynem.
Pro le payntyng capitis Sci Thomae.
For them that holpe to dress the Pagent and for standyng of the same
in the barne.
For a payer of new gloves for Seynt Thomas.
For payntyng of the hede and the Aungell of the pagent.
Paied to hym that turned the vyce.
Paied for wyre for the vyce of the Angell.
For 1 quarter of lambe and brede and drynke gevyn to the children
that played the knyghtes, and for them that holpe to convey
the Pagent abowte.
For a new leder bag for the blode.
For wasshyng of the albe and other clothys abowte the Auter, and
settyng on agayn the apparell.’
Until 1529 the pageant stood in the barn of St. Sepulchre’s convent;
thenceforward in the archbishop’s palace. In 1536-7 ‘Seynt Thomas’ became
‘Bysshop Bekket,’ and the show was suppressed, to be revived with some
added ‘gyaunts’ under Mary[773].
This pageant was probably a dumb-show of the martyrdom of Becket.
CHELMSFORD, ESSEX.
The Earl of Surrey rewarded the players of ‘Chemsford’ on Dec. 27, 1490
(Appendix E, vii).
The churchwardens’ accounts give minute details of a play held in 1562
and 1563. The following are the chief items:—
‘Inprms paid unto the Mynstrolls for the Show day and for the play day.
Unto Willm. Hewet for makinge the vices coote, a fornet of borders, and a
Jerken of borders.
To John Lockyer for making iiij shep hoks and for iron work that Burle
occupied for the hell.
Item paide to Robᵗ Mathews for a pair of wombes.
to Lawrence for watching in the Churche when the temple was a-dryenge.
for carrying of plonk for the stages.
for ... the scaffold.
to M. Browne for the waightes of Bristowe.
for makyng the conysants.
forty Mynstrells meate and drinke.
to William Withers for making the frame for the heaven stage and tymber
for the same.
for writtinge.
to William Withers for makynge the last temple, the waies, and his
paynnes.
to John Wryght for makynge a cotte of lether for Christ.
to Solomon of Hatfild for parchmente.
to Mother Dale and her company for reaping flagges for the scaffold.
to Polter and Rosse for watching in the pightell on the play show.
for fyftie fadam of lyne for the cloudes.
for tenn men to beare the pagiante.
to Browne for keapinge the cornehill on the showe daye.
to Roistone for payntenge the Jeiants, the pagiante, and writing the
plaiers names.
for paper to wright the Bookes.’
There are many other payments to workmen and for refreshments, and
large sums to various people ‘for suinge the play.’ Is this ‘showing,’
‘stage-managing’? One Burles, who was twice paid for ‘suinge,’ was also
boarded with his boy for three weeks.
An inventory of garments made in February, 1564, includes, with many
velvet gowns and jerkins, &c.:—
‘ij vyces coates, and ij scalpes, ij daggers (j dagger wanted).
v prophets cappes (one wantinge).
iij flappes for devils.
iiij shepehoks, iiij whyppes (but one gone).’
I infer that the play was a cyclical one, extending at least from
Creation to Crucifixion. The temple, which required renewing, was
probably rent in twain. There were heaven, hell, _Prophetae_, _Pastores_.
The performance was not in the church, although the temple was put to dry
there, but in a ‘pightell’ or enclosure, upon a scaffold, with stages for
the spectators. It was held in connexion with a ‘showe,’ which was on
Cornhill, and to which I assign the ‘pagiante’ and ‘jeiantes.’ The time
was therefore probably Midsummer.
The accounts seem to cover two years and at least four performances. In
1562, Midsummer day with its show fell on a Saturday. The play was on
Monday. On Tuesday it was repeated at Braintree, and later on at Malden,
and possibly elsewhere. Then in 1563 it was again given in Chelmsford at
Midsummer.
The total expenditure was over £50, although, unless the forty minstrels
acted, nothing was paid to actors. Against this was received ‘at the
seconde play’ £17 11_s._ 3_d._, and ‘at the ij last plaies’ £19 19_s._
4_d._, and £2 19_s._ was realized by letting out the garments to the
men of Sabsford in 1562 and 1563, and 16_s._ more for letting them to
‘Mʳ William Peter, Knyght.’ Nor did this source of income soon close.
A second inventory of 1573 shows that the garments were carefully
preserved. They became a valuable stock. In 1564-6 alone the hire of them
brought in £10 14_s._ 3_d._ They were let to men of Colchester, Walden,
Beleryca, Starford, Little Badow, and to ‘children of Badow.’ Further
loans are noted as follows in later years:—
‘Receipts, June 3, 1566.
Sabsforde men.
Casse of Boreham.
Somers of Lanchire.
Barnaby Riche of Witham.
Willᵐ Monnteyne of Colchester.
Mʳ. Johnston of Brentwoode, the 10th Dec.
Richard More of Nayland.
Frauncis Medcalfe, the iiij of June, 1568.
Wᵐ Crayford of Burnam, the ij of June, 1568.
1570-1572.
High Ester men.
Parker of Writtell.
Mʳˢ Higham of Woodham Walter.
1572.
Parker of Writtell, Aprill.
The Earle of Sussex players.
John Walker of Hanfild.
1573.
Casse of Boreham.
1574.
Players of Boreham, till the mondaye after twelfe day.
In 1574 the ‘playe books’ were valued at £4, and in the same year all
the garments, &c., included in the inventory of 1573 were sold to George
Studley and others for £6 12_s._ 4_d._ In 1575 one Mr. Knott was paid
8_d._ ‘for the makinge of two oblijacyons for the assurance of the
players garments belonginge to the Pyshe[774].’
CHESTER, CHESHIRE.
[_Authorities._—(i) Editions of the plays by Wright and
Deimling, described on p. 408. (ii) Notices in Furnivall,
_Digby Plays_, xviii, from (_a_) _Harl. MSS._ 1944, 1948, which
are versions of a _Breviary of the City of Chester_, compiled
in 1609 by David Rogers from the collections of his father,
Robert Rogers, Archdeacon of Chester, who died in 1595; (_b_)
local _Annales_ in _Harl._ 2125 (Randle Holme’s _Collections_),
and Daniel King’s _Vale-Royall_ (1656). (iii) Notices in R. H.
Morris, _Chester in the Plantagenet and Tudor Reigns_ (1894),
from (_a_) Corporation archives, (_b_) accounts of the Smiths’
Company in _Harl._ 2054, (_c_) a copy in _Harl._ 2150 (cited
in error as _Harl._ 2050) of part or all of the contents
of a record known as the _White Book of the Pentice_. This
was bound with other documents by Randle Holme, and indexed
by him in 1669. I do not find any mention of such a ‘White
Book’ in the calendar of extant Corporation archives by Mr.
J. C. Jeaffreson, in _Hist. MSS._ viii. 1. 355, unless it is
identical with the _Pentice Chartulary_ compiled in 1575-6 on
the basis, partly of an older ‘Black Book,’ ‘translated oute
of Laten and Frenche’ in 1540, and partly of loose ‘sceduls,
papers and books’ in the Treasure House.]
_The Whitsun Plays: The Tradition._
The Chester plays are traditionally ascribed to the mayoralty of one
John Arneway. As ‘John Arneway,’ ‘de Arnewey,’ ‘Hernwey,’ or ‘Harnwey’
served continuously as mayor from 1268 to 1277[775], and as no other of
the great English cycles of municipal plays can claim anything like this
antiquity, it is worth while to examine the evidence pretty closely. I
therefore put the versions of the tradition in chronological order.
(_a_) 1544. The following document is headed ‘The proclamation for the
Plaies, newly made by William Newhall, clarke of the Pentice, the first
yere of his entre.’ It is dated ‘tempore Willi Sneyde, draper, secundo
tempore sui maioritatis’ [Oct. 9, 1543-1544], endorsed as made ‘opon the
rode ee’ [Rood-eye], and stated on an accompanying sheet to be ‘of laten
into Englishe translated and made by the said William Newhall the yere
aforesaid[776].’
‘For as moche as of old tyme, not only for the Augmentacon and increase
of [the holy and catholick] faith of our Savyour, Jhu’ Crist, and to
exort the mynds of the co’mon people to [good devotion and holsome]
doctryne thereof, but also for the co’men Welth and prosperitie of this
Citie a plaie [and declaration—] and diverse stories of the bible,
begynnyng with the creacon and fall of Lucifer, and [ending with the
general] jugement of the World to be declared and plaied in the Witson
wek, was devised [and made by one Sir] Henry Fraunces, somtyme monk of
this dissolved monastery, who obtayned and gate of Clement, then beyng
[bushop of Rome, a thousand] daies of pardon, and of the Busshop of
Chester at that time beyng xlᵗⁱ daies of pardon graunted from thensforth
to every person resortyng in pecible maner with good devocon to here
and se the sayd [piaies] from tyme to tyme as oft as they shalbe plaied
within this Citie [_and that every person disturbing the same piaies in
any manner wise to be accursed by thauctoritie of the said Pope Clement
bulls unto such tyme as he or they be absolved therof_ (_erased_)], which
piaies were devised to the honour of God by John Arneway, then maire of
this Citie of Chester, and his brethren, and holl cominalty therof to
be brought forthe, declared and plead at the cost and charges of the
craftsmen and occupacons of the said Citie, whiche hitherunto have frome
tyme to tyme used and performed the same accordingly.
Wherfore Maister Maire, in the Kynges name, straitly chargeth and
co’mandeth that every person and persons of what estate, degre or
condicion soever he or they be, resortyng to the said piaies, do use
[themselves] pecible without makyng eny assault, affrey, or other
disturbance whereby the same piaies shalbe disturbed, and that no maner
person or persons who soever he or they be do use or weare eny unlaufull
wepons within the precynct of the said Citie duryng the tyme of the said
piaies [_not only upon payn of cursyng by thauctoritie of the said Pope
Clement Bulls, but also_ (_erased_)] opon payn of enprisonment of their
bodies and makyng fyne to the Kyng at Maister Maires pleasure. And God
save the Kyng and Mr. Maire, &c.[777]’
(_b_) †1544-7[778]. The documents concerning the plays copied for Randle
Holme out of the ‘White Book of the Pentice[779]’ are (1) a list of
the plays and the crafts producing them (cf. p. 408); (2) a note that
‘On Corpus Χρi day the colliges and prestys bryng forth a play at the
assentement of the Maire’; (3) a note that all the arrangements detailed
are subject to alteration by the Mayor and his brethren; (4) a version,
without heading, of Newhall’s proclamation which entirely omits the
allusions to Sir Henry Fraunces and the pardons, while retaining that to
Arneway; (5) verses headed ‘The comen bannes to be proclaymed and Ryddon
with the Stewardys of every occupacon.’ These are printed in Morris, 307.
They give a list of the plays (cf. p. 408), and add that there will be
a ‘solempne procession’ with the sacrament on Corpus Christi day from
‘Saynt Maries on the Hill’ to ‘Saynt Johns,’ together with ‘a play sett
forth by the clergye In honor of the fest.’ The passage referring to
Corpus Christi is marked by Randle Holme’s copyist as ‘Erased in the
Booke[780].’ The only historical statement in the Banns is that
‘Sir John Arnway was maire of this citie
When these playes were begon truly.’
(_c_) †1551-1572. The later Banns, given most fully in Rogers’s
_Breauarye of Chester_ (cf. Furnivall, xx), but also more or less
imperfectly in MSS. _h_ and _B_ of the plays (Deimling, i. 2), were
probably written for one or other of the post-Reformation performances,
but not that of 1575, as they contemplate a Whitsun performance, while
that of 1575 was after Midsummer. They state that
‘some tymes there was mayor of this Citie
Sir John Arnway, Knyght, who most worthilye
contented hym selfe to sett out in playe
The devise of one done Rondall, moonke of Chester abbe.’
(_d_) 1609. The _Breauarye_ itself, in an account probably due to the
elder Rogers, who may have himself seen some of the later performances,
says (Furnivall, xviii):—‘Heare note that these playes of Chester called
yᵉ whitson playes weare the woorke of one Rondoll, a monke of yᵉ Abbaye
of Sᵗ Warburge in Chester, who redused yᵉ whole history of the byble
into Englishe storyes in metter, in yᵉ englishe tounge; and this moncke,
in a good desire to doe good, published yᵉ same, then the firste mayor
of Chester, namely Sir Iohn Arneway, Knighte, he caused the same to be
played [“anno domini, 1329”][781].’ In a list of Mayors contained in the
same MS. is given (Furnivall, xxv), under the year 1328 and the mayoralty
of Sir John Arneway, ‘The whitson playes Inuented, in Chester, by one
Rondoll Higden, a monke in Chester abbaye.’
(_e_) 1628. On the cover of MS. _H_ of the plays (_Harl. MS._ 2124) is
this note:—‘The Whitsun playes first made by one Don Randle Heggenet, a
Monke of Chester Abbey, who was thrise at Rome, before he could obtain
leaue of the Pope to haue them in the English tongue.
The Whitsun playes were playd openly in pageants by the Cittizens of
Chester in the Whitsun Weeke.
Nicholas the fift Then was Pope in the year of our Lord 1447.
Ano 1628.
Sir Henry ffrancis, sometyme a Monke of the Monestery of Chester,
obtained of Pope Clemens a thousand daies of pardon, and of the Bishop
of Chester 40 dayes pardon for every person that resorted peaceably to
see the same playes, and that every person that disturbed the same, to
be accursed by the said Pope untill such tyme as they should be absolued
therof.’
(_f_) 1669. Randle Holme made a note upon his copy of the ‘White Book of
the Pentice’ (_Harl._ 2150, f. 86ᵇ), of the ‘Whitson plaies ... being
first presented and putt into English by Rand. Higden, a monck of Chester
Abbey.’
(_g_) _Seventeenth century._ A ‘later hand’ added to the copy of
Newhall’s proclamation on the fly-leaf of MS. _h_ (1600) of the plays:
‘Sir Io Arnway, maior 1327 and 1328, at which tyme these playes were
written by Randall Higgenett, a monk of chester abby, and played openly
in the witson weeke.’
(_h_) _Seventeenth century._ An account of the plays amongst Lord De
Tabley’s MSS.[782] assigns them to ‘Randall Higden, a monk of Chester
Abbey, A. D. 1269.’
Up to a certain point these fragments of tradition are consistent and,
_a priori_, not improbable. About 1328 is just the sort of date to which
one would look for the formation of a craft-cycle. Randall or Randulf
Higden[783], the author of the _Polychronicon_, took the vows at St.
Werburgh’s in 1299 and died in 1364. An accident makes it possible also
to identify Sir Henry Francis, for he is mentioned as senior monk of
Chester Abbey in two documents of May 5, 1377, and April 17, 1382.[784]
The occurrence of the name of this quite obscure person in a tradition
of some 200 years later is, I think, evidence that it is not wholly an
unfounded one. It is true that Newhall’s proclamation states that Francis
‘devised and made’ the plays, whereas the Banns of 1575 and the later
accounts assign the ‘devise’ to ‘done Rondall.’ But this discrepancy
seems to have afforded no difficulty to the writer of 1628, who clearly
thought that Heggenet ‘made’ the plays, and Francis obtained the ‘pardon’
for them. The Pope Clement concerned is probably Clement VI (1342-52),
but might be the Antipope Clement VII (1378-94). The one point which
will not harmonize with the rest is that about which, unfortunately, the
tradition is most uniform, namely, the connexion of the plays with the
mayoralty of Sir John Arneway. For neither Higden nor Francis could have
worked for a mayor whose terms of office extended from 1268 to 1277. But
even this difficulty does not appear to be insoluble. I find from Canon
Morris’s invaluable volume that a later mayor bearing a name very similar
to Arneway’s, one Richard Erneis or Herneys, was in office from 1327
to 1329, precisely at the date to which the tradition, in some of its
forms, ascribes the plays. Is it not then probable that to this Richard
Herneys the establishment of the plays is really due, and that he has
been confused in the memory of Chester with his greater predecessor, the
‘Dick Whittington’ of the city, John Arneway or Hernwey? I am glad to be
the means of restoring to him his long withheld tribute of esteem.
_The Records._
If the plays were actually established in 1327-9, the first hundred
years of their history is a blank. The earliest notice in any record is
in 1462, when the Bakers’ charter refers to their ‘play and light of
Corpus Christi.’ The Saddlers’ charter of 1471 similarly speaks of their
‘paginae luminis et ludi corporis Christi[785].’ It will be observed
that the play is here called a Corpus Christi play. The term ‘Whitson
Playe’ first occurs in a record of 1520[786], but there is no doubt that
during the sixteenth century the regular season for the performances was
Whitsuntide. As the ‘White Book’ (†1544) still speaks of ‘pagyns in play
of Corpus Χρi[787],’ it is possible that a cyclical play was so called,
whether actually given on Corpus Christi day or not. It is also, I think,
possible that the Chester plays may have been transferred from Corpus
Christi to Whitsuntide in order to avoid clashing with the procession,
without quite losing their old name; and this may be what is meant by
the statement on the cover of MS. ‘H’ of the plays that they were ‘playd
openly ... in the Whitsun Weeke’ in 1447. It was in 1426 that a question
as to the clashing of procession and plays arose in York (cf. p. 400).
Nearly all the extant notices of the plays belong to the sixteenth
century. Originally annual, they became occasional at the Reformation.
They can be traced in 1546, 1551, 1554, 1561, 1567 (at Christmas), 1568,
1569, 1572, and 1575. The two last performances aroused considerable
opposition. In 1572 Mayor John Hankey ‘would needs have the playes
go forward, against the wills of the Bishops of Canterbury, York and
Chester.’ Apparently an inhibition was sent by Archbishop Grindal; ‘but
it came too late.’ In 1575, under Mayor Sir John Savage, the plays
were subjected to revision, and such of them as were thought suitable
given ‘at the cost of the inhabitants’ on Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, and
Wednesday after Midsummer. This performance was ‘to the great dislike
of many, because the playe was in on parte of the Citty.’ It was also
in direct contravention of inhibitions from the Archbishop and the
Earl of Huntingdon. As a result both Hankey and Savage were cited
before the Privy Council, but the aldermen and common council took the
responsibility upon themselves, and apparently nothing further came of
the matter[788].
Probably 1575 was the last year in which the plays were given as a whole.
A performance in 1600 has been alleged[789], but this date is probably
taken from the heading of the Banns in MS. ‘h’ of the plays, which runs:—
‘The reading of the banes, 1600.
The banes which are reade Beefore the beginning of the playes
of Chester 1600.
4 June 1600.’
Doubtless 1600 is the date of the transcript, as it is repeated after
the signature to several of the plays. It is quite possible that this
manuscript was made in view of an intended performance. George Bellin,
the scribe, seems to have been of a Chester family. But if so, the
intention was frustrated, for the annalists declare that Henry Hardware,
mayor in 1600 ‘would not suffer any Playes.’ It is to be noted also that
David Rogers, whose _Breauarye_ was completed in 1609 and certainly
contains matter subsequent to the death of his father in 1595, states
that 1575 was the last time the plays were played[790].
_Mode of Performance._
The Banns were proclaimed on St. George’s day by the city crier, with
whom rode the Stewards of each craft. The Mayor’s proclamation against
disturbers of the peace was read upon the Roodee. The plays themselves
lasted through the first three week-days of Whitsuntide. Nine were given
on the Monday, nine on the Tuesday, and seven on the Wednesday. The first
station was at the Abbey gates, the next by the pentice at the high cross
before the Mayor, others in Watergate Street, Bridge Street, and so on
to Eastgate Street. Scaffolds and stages were put up to accommodate the
spectators, and in 1528 a law-suit is recorded about the right to a
‘mansion, Rowme, or Place for the Whydson plaies.’ Rogers describes the
‘pagiente’ or ‘cariage’ as
‘a highe place made like a howse with ij rowmes, being open
on yᵉ tope: the lower rowme they apparrelled & dressed them
selues; and in the higher rowme they played; and they stood
vpon 6 wheeles [_Harl._ 1944. It is “4 wheeles” in _Harl._
1948].’
The term ‘pageant’ is used at Chester both for the vehicle and for the
play performed on it; but, contrary to the custom elsewhere, more usually
for the latter. The vehicle is generally called a ‘carriage.’ It was kept
in a ‘caryadghouse’ and occasionally served two crafts on different days.
The expenses of carriage, porters, refreshments, actors, and rehearsals
fell, as shown by the extant _Accounts_ of the Smiths’ company, on
the crafts. They were met by a levy upon each member and journeyman.
Vestments were hired from the clergy; both minstrels and choristers
were in request for songs and music. The Corporation supervised the
performances, questions as to the incidence of the burden upon this or
that craft coming before the Pentice court. In 1575 the Smiths submitted
two alternative plays for the choice of the aldermen. The authoritative
copy or ‘originall booke’ of the plays seems to have belonged to the
city. The Smiths paid for reading the ‘Regenall,’ ‘an Rygynall’ or
‘orraginall.’ In 1568 one ‘Randall Trevor, gent.’ seems to have lost the
book. There is an interesting allusion to the unprofessional quality of
the actors, in the copy of the later Banns preserved by Rogers. The plays
are not
‘contryued
In such sorte & cunninge, & by such playeres of price,
As at this day good playeres & fine wittes coulde devise,
...
By Craftes men & meane men these Pageauntes are played
And to Commons and Contryemen acustomablye before.
If better men & finer heades now come, what canne be saide?
But of common and contrye playeres take thou the storye;
And if any disdaine, then open is yᵉ doore
That lett him in to heare; packe awaye at his pleasure;
Oure playeinge is not to gett fame or treasure[791].’
_Exceptional Performances._
In 1567 ‘Richard Dutton, mayor, kept a very worthy house for all comers
all the tyme of Christmas with a Lorde of Misrule and other pastymes in
this city as the Whitson Plays.’
Single plays from the cycle were similarly used for purposes of special
entertainment. In 1488 was the _Assumption_ before Lord Strange at the
High Cross; in 1497 the _Assumption_ before Prince Arthur at the Abbey
gates and the High Cross; in 1515 the _Assumption_ again together with
the _Shepherds’_ play in St. John’s churchyard. In 1576, the Smiths had
‘our plas’ (the _Purification_) ‘at Alderman Mountford’s on Midsomer
Eve.’ Finally, in 1578, Thomas Bellin, mayor, caused the Shepherds’ play
‘and other triumphs’ to be played at the high cross on the Roodee before
the Earl of Derby, Lord Strange, and others[792].
_Other plays._
The play by the ‘colliges and prestys’ on Corpus Christi day mentioned in
the ‘White Book’ and in the ‘Banes’ preserved therein has already been
noted.
In 1529 _King Robert of Sicily_ was shown at the High Cross. This is
doubtless the play on the same subject referred to in a fragmentary
letter to some ‘Lordshypp’ among the State Papers as to be played on St.
Peter’s day at the cost of some of the companies. It was said to be ‘not
newe at thys time, but hath bin before shewen, evyn as longe agoe as the
reygne of his highnes most gratious father of blyssyd memorye, and yt was
penned by a godly clerke.’
In 1563 ‘upon the Sunday after Midsommer day, the History of _Eneas_
and Queen _Dido_ was play’d in the _Roods Eye_. And were set out by one
_William Croston_, gent. and one Mr. _Man_, on which Triumph there was
made two Forts, and shipping on the Water, besides many horsemen well
armed and appointed.’
The entertainment of Lords Derby and Strange by Thomas Bellin in 1578
included a ‘comedy’ by the ‘scollers of the freescole’ at the mayor’s
house. Was this theatrical mayor a relative of George Bellin, the scribe
of MSS. ‘W’ and ‘h’ of the Chester plays?
In 1589 _King Ebranke with all his Sons_ was shown before the Earl of
Derby at the High Cross[793].
_The Midsummer Show._
This was doubtless in its origin a folk procession. Traditionally, it
was founded in 1498 and only went in years when there were no Whitsun
plays. The crafts were represented by personages out of their plays,
‘the Doctors and little God’ riding for the Smiths, the Devil for the
Butchers, Abraham and Isaac for the Barbers, Balaam and his Ass for the
Bricklayers, and so forth. It does not appear that the ‘carriages’ were
had out. Other features of the ‘Show’ were four giants, an elephant and
castle, an unicorn, a camel, a luce, an antelope, a dragon with six
naked boys beating at it, morris-dancers, the ‘Mayor’s Mount’ and the
‘Merchants’ Mount,’ the latter being of the nature of a hobby-ship. In
1600, Mayor Henry Hardware, a ‘godly zealous man,’ would not let the
‘Graull’ go at Midsummer Watch, but instead a man in white armour. He
suppressed also ‘the divill in his fethers,’ a man in woman’s clothes
with another devil called ‘cuppes and cans,’ ‘god in stringes,’ the
dragon and the naked boys, and had the giants broken up. But next year
the old customs were restored. The Midsummer Show again suffered eclipse
under the Commonwealth, but was revived at the Restoration and endured
until 1678[794].
COGGESHALL, ESSEX.
Lord Howard rewarded the players of ‘Kokesale’ or ‘Coksale’ on Dec. 26,
1481, and Dec. 25, 1482 (Appendix E, vii).
COLCHESTER, ESSEX.
The Chelmsford (q.v.) wardrobe was twice hired by Colchester men during
1564-6; also by William Monnteyne of Colchester in 1566.
COLESHILL, WARWICKSHIRE.
The ‘lusores de Coleshille’ played at Maxstoke Priory between 1422 and
1461 (Appendix E, ii).
COVENTRY, WARWICKSHIRE.
[_Authorities._—The facts are taken, where no other reference
is given, from T. Sharp, _A Dissertation on the Pageants or
Dramatic Mysteries Anciently Performed at Coventry_ (1825), and
J. B. Gracie, _The Weavers’ Pageant_ (1836: Abbotsford Club).
The latter accounts of J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps, _Outlines of
the Life of Shakespeare_ (ninth edition, 1890), i. 335, ii.
289, and M. D. Harris, _Life in an Old English Town_, 319, add
a little. The _Leet-Book_ and other municipal archives used
by Sharp are described by Harris, 377; his private collection
passed into that of Mr. Staunton at Longbridge House, and
thence into the Shakespeare Memorial Library at Birmingham,
where it was burnt in 1879. It included two craft-plays, the
account-books of the Smiths, Cappers, Drapers, and Weavers, and
one or two MSS. (one of which is referred to as ‘Codex Hales’)
of a set of brief local seventeenth-century _Annales_, of which
other texts are printed by Dugdale, _Hist. of Warwickshire_, i.
147, and Hearne, _Fordun’s Scotichronicon_, v. 1438. Several
versions of these _Annales_ are amongst the manuscripts of the
Coventry Corporation (cf. E. S. Hartland, _Science of Fairy
Tales_, 75). On their nature, cf. C. Gross, _Bibl. of Municipal
History_, xviii.]
_Corpus Christi Craft-Plays._
The earliest notice is a mention of the ‘domum pro le pagent pannarum’ in
a deed of 1392. There must therefore be an error, so far as the pageants
go, in the statement of the _Annals_, under the mayoral year 1416-7,
‘The pageants and Hox tuesday invented, wherein the king and nobles took
great delight[795].’ Henry V was more than once at Coventry as prince,
in 1404 for example, and in 1411. His only recorded visit as king was in
1421, too early for Corpus Christi or even Hox Tuesday[796]. There is
frequent reference to the plays in corporation and craft documents of
the fifteenth century. In 1457 they were seen by Queen Margaret, who
‘lodged at Richard Wodes, the grocer,’ whither the corporation sent an
elegant collation, including ‘ij cofyns of counfetys and a pot of grene
gynger.’ With her were the Duke and Duchess of Buckingham, Lord and Lady
Rivers, the elder and younger Lady of Shrewsbury, and ‘other mony moo
lordes and ladyes.’ They were seen also by Richard III in 1485 and twice
by Henry VII. The first occasion was on St. Peter’s day (June 29) in
1486, and the second in 1493, when say the _Annals_, rather oddly (cf.
p. 420), ‘This yeare the King came to se the playes acted by the Gray
Friers, and much commended them.’ In 1520 the _Annals_ record ‘New playes
at Corpus Christi tyde, which were greatly commended.’ In 1539 the mayor
of Coventry, writing to Cromwell, told him that the poor commoners were
at such expense with their plays and pageants that they fared the worse
all the year after[797]. In the sixteenth century the Coventry plays
were probably the most famous in England. The _C. Mery Talys_ (1526)
has a story of a preacher, who wound up a sermon on the Creed with ‘Yf
you beleue not me then for a more suerte & suffycyent auctoryte go your
way to Couentre and there ye shall se them all playd in Corpus Cristi
playe[798].’ And John Heywood, in his _Foure PP_, speaks of one who
‘Oft in the play of Corpus Cristi
He had played the deuyll at Couentry[799].’
Foxe, the martyrologist, records that in 1553 John Careless, in Coventry
gaol for conscience sake, was let out to play in the pageant about the
city. There is some confusion here, as Careless was only in gaol in
Coventry for a short time in November before he was sent to London[800].
When the _Annals_ say that in 1575-6 ‘the Pageants on Hox Tuesday that
had been laid down eight years were played again,’ there is probably some
confusion between ‘Hox Tuesday’ and ‘the Pageants,’ for the account-books
show that the latter were played regularly, except in 1575, until 1580,
when the _Annals_ report them as ‘again laid down.’ In 1584 a different
play was given (cf. _infra_), and possibly also in 1591, although the
fact that the songs of the Taylors and Shearmen’s pageant are dated 1591
rather suggests that after all the regular plays may have been revived
that year. Some of the pageants were sold in 1586 and 1587, but the
Cappers preserved the properties of their play in 1597, and the Weavers
had still players’ apparel to lend in 1607. According to the _Annals_, by
1628 the pageants had ‘bine put downe many yeares since.’
The plays were given annually and in one day at the feast of Corpus
Christi. Contrary to the custom of the northern towns, there were only
some ten or twelve pageants, each covering a fairly wide range of
incident (cf. p. 423). Nor can the performances be shown to have been
repeated at more than three or four stations. ‘Gosford Street,’ ‘Mikel’
or ‘Much Park Street end’ and ‘Newgate’ are recorded, and in one of these
may have been the house of Richard Wodes, where Queen Margaret lay. The
Drapers only provided three ‘worlds’ for their pageant, and probably
one was burnt at each station. According to the _Annals_, part of the
charges of the plays was met by the enclosure of a piece of common land
(possibly to build pageant houses upon). Otherwise they fell wholly upon
the crafts, to some one of which every artisan in the town was bound to
become contributory for the purpose. The principal crafts were appointed
by the Leet to produce the pageants, and with each were grouped minor
bodies liable only for fixed sums, varying from 3_s._ 4_d._ to 16_s._
8_d._ In 1501 an outside craft, the Tilemakers of Stoke, is found
contributing 5_s._ to a pageant. These combinations of crafts varied
considerably from time to time. Within the craft the necessary funds were
raised, in part at least, by special levies. Strangers taking out their
freedom were sometimes called upon for a contribution. Every member of
the craft paid his ‘pagent pencys.’ In several crafts the levy was 1_s._
Amongst the Smiths it must have been less, as they only got from 2_s._
2_d._ to 3_s._ 4_d._ in this way, whereas the Cappers in 1562 collected
22_s._ 4_d._ In 1517 William Pisford left a scarlet and a crimson gown to
the Tanners for their play, together with 3_s._ 4_d._ to each craft that
found a pageant. The total cost of the Smiths’ play in 1490 was £3 7_s._
5½_d._ In 1453 we find the Smiths contracting with one Thomas Colclow
to have ‘the rewle of the pajaunt’ for twelve years, and to produce the
play for a payment of 46_s._ 8_d._ A similar contract was made in 1481.
But as a rule, the crafts undertook the management themselves, and the
account-books studied by Sharp afford more detailed information as to
the mode of production than happens to be available for any other of the
great cycles.
It is therefore worth while to give some account of the chief objects of
expenditure. First of all there was the pageant itself. The name appears
in every possible variety of spelling in Coventry documents. Dugdale,
on the authority of eye-witnesses, describes the pageants as ‘Theaters
for the severall Scenes, very large and high, placed upon wheels.’
Painted cloths were used ‘to lap aboubt the pajent,’ and there was a
carved and painted top, adorned with a crest, with vanes, pencils, or
streamers. On the platform of the pageant such simple scenic apparatus
as a seat for Pilate, a pillar for the scourging, a ‘sepulchre,’ and the
like, was fixed. The Weavers’ pageant seems to have had an ‘upper part’
representing the Temple; also divisions described in the stage directions
as ‘the for pagand’ and ‘the tempull warde.’ The Cappers’ pageant was
fitted up with a ‘hell-mouth.’ The Drapers also had a ‘hell-mouth,’ with
a windlass, and fire at the mouth, and a barrel for the earthquake, and
three worlds to be set afire. ‘Scaffolds,’ distinct from the pageant
itself, were drawn round with it. These, according to Sharp, were for
spectators, but they may have been supplementary stages, made necessary
by the number of episodes in each play at Coventry. Certainly the action
was not wholly confined to the pageant, for in the Shearmen and Taylors’
play, ‘Here Erode ragis in the pagond & in the strete also’; and again,
‘the iij Kyngis speykyth in the strete.’ The pageant was constantly in
need of repairs. A pageant-house had to be built or hired for it. On
the day of the feast it was cleaned, strewn with rushes; and the axle
was greased with soap. Men were paid to ‘drive’ or ‘horse’ it, and the
Cappers expected their journeymen to undertake this job.
The players received payments varying with the importance of their parts.
The sums allowed by the Weavers in 1525 ranged from 10_d._ to 2_s._ 4_d._
Minstrels, both vocalists and instrumentalists, were also hired, and in
1573 one Fawston, evidently an artist of exceptional talent, received
from the Smiths, besides 4_d._ ‘for hangyng Judas,’ another 4_d._ ‘for
Coc croyng.’ The Drapers paid as much as 3_s._ 4_d._ ‘for pleayng God,’
and 5_s._ ‘to iij whyte sollys’ or ‘savyd sowles,’ 5_s._ ‘to iij blake
sollys,’ or ‘dampnyd sowles,’ 16_d._ ‘to ij wormes of conscyence,’ and
the like. Payments also occur for speaking the prologue, preface, or
‘protestacyon.’
The corporation exercised control over the players, and in 1440 ordered
under a penalty of 20_s._ ‘quod Robertus Gñe et omnes alii qui ludunt
in festo Corporis Christi bene et sufficienter ludant ita quod nulla
impedicio fiat in aliquo ioco.’ In 1443, an order forbade members of
certain crafts to play in any pageant except their own without the
mayor’s licence.
The players required refreshment at intervals during the day, and
probably the craftsmen who attended the pageant took their share. Further
expenses, both for refreshment, and for the hire of a room or hall, were
incurred at rehearsals. The Smiths in 1490 had their first ‘reherse’ in
Easter week, and their second in Whitsun week.
Each craft had its own ‘orygynall’ or ‘play-boke,’ and paid for making
the necessary copies, for setting or ‘pricking’ songs, for ‘beryng of ye
Orygynall’ or prompting, and occasionally for bringing the text up to
date. Thus the Smiths had a ‘new rygenale’ in 1491, and in 1573 a ‘new
play,’ by which is apparently meant an additional scene to their existing
play (cf. p. 423). The Drapers added ‘the matter of the castell of
Emaus’ in 1540. The Weavers paid 5_s._ ‘for makyng of the play boke’ in
1535, and the colophon of their extant text shows it to have been ‘newly
translate’ in that year by Robert Croo. This was a regular theatrical
man of all work. The matter of the Shearmen and Taylors’ play was ‘nevly
correcte’ by him in the same year. In 1557 he got 20_s._ from the Drapers
‘for makyng of the boke for the paggen.’ The Smiths paid him in 1563 ‘for
ij leves of our pley boke.’ And between 1556 and 1562 he further assisted
the Drapers, by playing God, mending the ‘devells cottes,’ supplying a
hat for the Pharisee, and manufacturing the requisite ‘iij worldys.’
Finally, there was the not inconsiderable cost of costumes and
properties, including the gloves for the performers which figure so
invariably in mediaeval balance sheets. Further details as to these and
all other objects of expenditure than I have here room for will be found
in the invaluable volumes of Mr. Sharp.
_The Destruction of Jerusalem._
In 1584, four years after the ordinary Corpus Christi plays were laid
down, the _Annals_ record ‘This year the new Play of the Destruction of
Jerusalem was first played.’ This is confirmed by the accounts of the
corporation, which include a sum of £13 6_s._ 8_d._ ‘paid to Mr. Smythe
of Oxford the xvᵗʰ daye of Aprill 1584 for hys paynes for writing of
the tragedye.’ This was one John Smythe, a scholar of the Free School
in Coventry and afterwards of St. John’s College, Oxford. The play was
produced at considerable expense upon the pageants of the crafts, but
the day of performance is not stated. From the detailed accounts of the
Smiths and the Cappers, Mr. Sharp infers that it was based upon the
narrative of Josephus.
In 1591, the old Corpus Christi plays seem to have been proposed for
exhibition, as the MS. of the Shearmen and Taylors’ songs bears the date
of May 13 in that year. But on May 19 the corporation resolved ‘that the
destruction of Jerusalem, the Conquest of the Danes, or the historie of
K[ing] E[dward] the X [Confessor], at the request of the Comons of this
Cittie shal be plaied on the pagens on Midsomer daye & St. Peters daye
next in this Cittie & non other playes.’ The two last-named plays may
have been inspired by the traditional interpretations of the Hox Tuesday
custom (cf. vol. i. p. 154). Which was chosen does not appear; but some
performance or other was given. Several of the crafts had by this time
sold their pageants. Those who had not lent them; and all compounded for
the production of a scene by the payment of a sum down. This appears to
have gone to one Thomas Massey, who contracted for the production. He
had already supplied properties in 1584. In 1603 he quarrelled with the
corporation about certain devices shown on the visit of the Princess
Elizabeth to Coventry. In 1606 he hired some acting-apparel from the
Weavers’ company[801].
_Miscellaneous Plays._
The _Annals_ record:—
1490-1. ‘This year was the play of St. Katherine in the little
Park.’
1504-5. ‘This yeare they played the play of St. Crytyan in the
little parke[802].’
In 1511, one of the pageants at the entry of Henry VIII had a
‘goodly Stage Play’ upon it[803].
The Dyers in 1478, the Cappers in 1525, and the Drapers in 1556, 1566,
and 1568 appear to have had plays at their dinners. Probably ‘the Golden
Fleece,’ for which the Cappers paid the inevitable Robert Crowe and two
others, was a play[804].
The ‘lusores de Coventry’ played at Maxstoke Priory between 1422 and 1461
(Appendix E, ii). ‘Certain Players of Coventrye’ were at court in 1530
(Appendix E, viii).
Towards the end of the sixteenth century occur notices of travelling
‘players of Coventrie.’ They were at Bristol and Abingdon in 1570, and
at Leicester in 1569 and 1571. At Abingdon they are described as ‘Mr.
Smythes players of Coventree.’ John Smythe, the writer of the Destruction
of Jerusalem, was only seven years old in 1570. Mr. Halliwell-Phillipps
would read ‘_the_ Smythes’ players[805].’
_The Corpus Christi Procession._
The procession or ‘Ridyng’ on Corpus Christi day is first mentioned in
the _Leet Book_ in 1444, and in 1446 is an order ‘quod le Ruydyng in
festo Corporis Christi fiat prout ex antiquo tempore consueverint.’ It
took place early in the day after a ‘breakfast.’ The craft-guilds rode in
it, and provided minstrels and torchbearers. The Trinity Guild seems to
have borne a crucifix, and the Guild of Corpus Christi and St. Nicholas
the host under a canopy. The accounts of the Smiths include the following
items:—
‘1476. Item ffor hors hyre to Herod, iijᵈ.
1489. Item payd for Aroddes garment peynttyng that he went a
prossasyon in, xxᵈ.’
The other extant guild accounts throw no light on the presence of
representatives of the plays in the procession; but the Corpus Christi
guild itself provided dramatic personages.
‘1501. payd for a Crown of sylver & gyld for the Mare on Corpus Christi
day, xliijˢ ixᵈ.
1539. peny bred for the appostells, vjᵈ.
beiff for the appostles, viijᵈ.
to the Marie for hir gloves and wages, ijˢ.
the Marie to offer, jᵈ.
Kateryne & Margaret, iiijᵈ.
viij virgyns, viijᵈ.
to Gabriell for beryng the lilly, iiijᵈ.
to James & Thomas of Inde, viijᵈ.
to x other apostells, xxᵈ.
1540. for makyng the lilly, iijˢ iiijᵈ.
1541. to Gabryel for beryng the light [lilly?] iiijᵈ.
xij torches of wax for the apostles.
1544. a new coat & a peir of hoes for Gabriell, iijˢ. iiij.[806]’
CROXTON, NORFOLK(?).
See s.v. _Texts_ (i), _Croxton Play_, _The Sacrament_.
DAVENTRY, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE.
The ‘lusores de Daventry’ played at Maxstoke Priory between 1422 and 1461
(Appendix E, ii).
DUBLIN, IRELAND.
The version of the _Quem quaeritis_ used at the Church of St. John the
Evangelist in the fourteenth century is printed in Appendix R.
The Chain Book of the City contains the following memorandum, apparently
entered in 1498.
Corpus Christi day a pagentis:—
‘The pagentis of Corpus Christi day, made by an olde law and confermed
by a semble befor Thomas Collier, Maire of the Citte of Divelin, and
Juries, Baliffes and commones, the iiiith Friday next after midsomer, the
xiii. yere of the reign of King Henri the VIIth [1498]:
‘Glovers: Adam and Eve, with an angill followyng berryng a swerde. Peyn,
xl._s._
‘Corvisers: Caym and Abell, with an auter and the ofference. Peyn, xl._s._
‘Maryners, Vynters, Shipcarpynderis, and Samountakers: Noe, with his
shipp, apparalid acordyng. Peyn, xl._s._
‘Wevers: Abraham [and] Ysack, with ther auter and a lambe and ther
offerance. Peyn, xl._s._
‘Smythis, Shermen, Bakers, Sclateris, Cokis and Masonys: Pharo, with his
hoste. Peyn, xl._s._
‘Skynners, House-Carpynders, and Tanners, and Browders: for the body of
the camell, and Oure Lady and hir chil[d]e well aperelid, with Joseph to
lede the camell, and Moyses with the children of Israell, and the Portors
to berr the camell. Peyn, xl._s._ and Steyners and Peyntors to peynte the
hede of the camell. [Peyn,] xl._s._
‘[Goldsmy]this: The three kynges of Collynn, ridyng worshupfully, with
the offerance, with a sterr afor them. Peyn, xl._s._
‘[Hoopers]: The shep[er]dis, with an Angill syngyng Gloria in excelsis
Deo. Peyn, xl._s._
‘Corpus Christi yild: Criste in his Passioun, with three Maries, and
angilis berring serges of wex in ther hands. [Peyn,] xl._s._
‘Taylors: Pilate, with his fellaship, and his lady and his knyghtes, well
beseyne. Peyn, xl._s._
‘Barbors: An[nas] and Caiphas, well araied acordyng. [Peyn,] xl._s._
‘Courteours: Arthure, with [his] knightes. Peyn, xl._s._
‘Fisshers: The Twelve Apostelis. Peyn, xl._s._
‘Marchauntes: The Prophetis. Peyn, xl._s._
‘Bouchers: tormentours, with ther garmentis well and clenly peynted.
[Peyn,] xl._s._
‘The Maire of the Bulring and bachelers of the same: The Nine Worthies
ridyng worshupfully, with ther followers accordyng. Peyn, xl._s._
‘The Hagardmen and the husbandmen to berr the dragoun and to repaire the
dragoun a Seint Georges day and Corpus Christi day. Peyn, xl._s._’
This list is immediately followed by a second, practically identical with
it, of ‘The Pagentys of Corpus Christi Processioun.’
These pageants, though the subjects are drawn from the usual Corpus
Christi play-cycle (with the addition of King Arthur and the nine
Worthies), appear, from their irregular order, to be only dumb-show
accompaniments of a procession. In 1569 the crafts were directed to keep
the same order in the Shrove Tuesday ball riding (cf. vol. i. p. 150),
‘as they are appointed to go with their pageants on Corpus Christi daye
by the Chayne Boke[807].’
The same intermixture of profane and sacred elements marks the late and
scanty records of actual plays in Dublin.
‘Tho. Fitzgerald, Earl of Kildare and Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in the
year 1528, was invited to a new play every day in Christmas, Arland Usher
being then mayor, and Francis Herbert and John Squire bayliffs, wherein
the taylors acted the part of Adam and Eve; the shoemakers represented
the story of Crispin and Crispinianus; the vintners acted Bacchus and his
story; the Carpenters that of Joseph and Mary; Vulcan, and what related
to him, was acted by the Smiths; and the comedy of Ceres, the goddess of
corn, by the Bakers. Their stage was erected on Hoggin Green (now called
College Green), and on it the priors of St. John of Jerusalem, of the
blessed Trinity, and All Hallows caused two plays to be acted, the one
representing the passion of our Saviour, and the other the several deaths
which the apostles suffered[808].’ In 1541 there were ‘epulae, comoediae,
et certamina ludicra’ when Henry VIII was proclaimed King of Ireland.
These included ‘the nine Worthies.’ On the return of Lord Sussex from an
expedition against James MacConnell in 1557, ‘the Six Worthies was played
by the city[809].’
A seventeenth-century transcript of a lost leaf of the Chain Book has the
following order for the St. George’s day procession:—
‘The Pageant of St. George’s day, to be ordered and kept as hereafter
followeth:
‘The Mayor of the yeare before to finde the Emperour and Empress with
their followers, well apparelled, that is to say, the Emperor, with two
Doctors, and the Empress, with two knights, and two maydens to beare the
traynes of their gownes, well apparelled, and [the Guild of] St. George
to pay their wages.
‘Item: Mr. Mayor for the time being to find St. George a-horseback, and
the wardens to pay three shillings and four pence for his wages that
day. And the Bailives for the time being to find four horses, with men
upon them, well apparelled, to beare the pole-axe, the standard, and the
Emperor and St. George’s sword.
‘Item: The elder master of the yeald to find a mayd well aparelled to
lead the dragon; and the Clerk of the Market to find a good line for the
dragon.
‘Item: The elder warden to find St. George, with four trumpettors, and
St. George’s [Guild] to pay their wages.
‘Item: the yonger warden to finde the king of Dele and the queene of
Dele, and two knightes to lead the queene of Dele, with two maydens to
beare the trayne of her goune, all wholy in black apparell, and to have
St. George’s chappell well hanged and apparelled to every purpose with
cushins ... russhes and other necessaries belonging for said St. George’s
day[810].’
DUNSTABLE, BEDFORDSHIRE.
One Geoffrey, a Norman, was ‘apud Dunestapliam, expectans scholam S.
Albani sibi repromissam; ubi quendam ludum de S. Katerina (quem Miracula
vulgariter appellamus) fecit; ad quae decoranda petiit a Sacrista
S. Albani, ut sibi capae chorales accommodarentur, et obtinuit.’
Unfortunately the ‘capae’ were burnt. This must have been early in the
twelfth century, as Geoffrey in grief became a monk, and was Abbot of St.
Albans by 1119[811].
EDINBURGH, SCOTLAND.
The civic records show traces of municipal plays in 1554, but it is not
clear that they were miracle-plays proper or of long standing. Sir David
Lyndsay’s _Satyre of the Thrie Estaitis_ was played in the Greenside
between 1550 and 1559 (cf. p. 442). On June 15, 1554, a payment was made
to Sir William Makdougall, ‘maister of werk,’ for those ‘that furneist
the grayth to the convoy of the moris to the Abbay and of the play maid
that samyn day the tent day of Junii instant.’ Makdougall was to deliver
to the dean of guild the handscenye [ensign] and canves specifiit in the
said tikkit to be kepit to the behuif of the town.’ Sums were also paid
this summer for ‘the playing place’ or ‘the play field now biggand in the
Grenesid.’
On Oct. 12 Walter Bynnyng was paid for ‘the making of the play graith’
and for painting the ‘handsenye’ and ‘playariss facis.’ He was to ‘mak
the play geir vnderwrittin furthcumand to the town, quhen thai haif ado
thairwith, quhilkis he has now ressauit; viz. viij play hattis, ane
kingis crown, ane myter, ane fulis hude, ane septour, ane pair angell
wingis, twa angell hair, ane chaplet of tryvmphe.’
On Dec. 28 ‘the prouest, baillies and counsale findis it necessar and
expedient that the litill farsche and play maid be William Lauder be
playit afoir the Quenis grace[812].’ I trace a note of regret for the
doubtful morals and certain expense of the entertainments which the
presence in Edinburgh of the newly-made Regent, Mary of Lorraine, imposed
upon the burghers.
EASTERFORD, ESSEX.
Lord Howard rewarded the players of ‘Esterforde’ on Jan. 7, 1482
(Appendix E, vii). This place is now known as Kelvedon.
FOLKESTONE, KENT.
Folkestone players were at New Romney in 1474, and at Lydd in 1479.
FOSTON, LEICESTERSHIRE.
In 1561 the players of ‘Fosson’ borrowed ‘serten stufe’ from the
churchwardens of St. Martin’s, Leicester[813].
FYFIELD, OXFORDSHIRE.
See s.v. SHIPTON.
GARBOLDISHAM, NORFOLK.
‘Garblesham game’ was at Harling (q.v.) in 1457.
GREAT CHART, KENT.
‘Chart’ players were at New Romney in 1489.
HADLEIGH, ESSEX.
Lord Howard rewarded the ‘Plaiers of Hadley’ on Dec. 27, 1481 (Appendix
E, vii).
HALSTEAD, ESSEX.
There was a play in the church in 1529[814].
HAM STREET, KENT.
Ham players were at Lydd in 1454.
HANNINGFIELD, ESSEX.
‘John Walker of Hanfild’ hired the Chelmsford (q.v.) wardrobe in 1572.
HARLING, NORFOLK.
In 1452 the wardens paid for the ‘original of an Interlude pleyed
at the Cherch gate.’ In 1457 payments were made for ‘Lopham game,’
and ‘Garblesham game,’ in 1463 for ‘Kenningale game,’ in 1467 to the
‘Kenyngale players[815].’
HASCOMBE, SURREY.
Amongst the _Loseley MSS._ is a deposition of 1578/9:
‘Coram me Henr. Goringe, ar. xijᵒ die Januar. 1578. George Longherst and
John Mill exᵈ sayeth, that on Sondaye last they were together at widow
Michelles house, in the parish of Hascombe, and there delyvered their
mares to kepe till they came agayne, and sayde that they wold goo to
Hascombe Churche, to a kynge playe wᶜʰ then was there. And sayeth yᵗ they
went thither and there contynued about an houre, at which tyme the sonne
was then downe[816].’
The date suggests a performance on Jan. 6. Evidently a May ‘kynge playe’
is out of the question; but a Twelfth Night King, or a ‘Stella’ belated
in the afternoon, are both possible.
HEREFORD, HEREFORDSHIRE.
On April 30, 1440, John Hauler and John Pewte sued Thomas Sporyour in
the city court ‘de placito detencionis unius libri de lusionibus, prec.
ii_s._ iiij_d._[817]’
The Register of the Corporation for 1503 contains a list of
‘The paiants for the procession of Corpus Christi:
Furst, Glovers. Adam, Eve, _Cayne and Abell_ (erased).
Eldest seriant. Cayne, Abell, and Moysey, Aron.
Carpenters. Noye ship.
Chaundelers. Abram, Isack, Moysey cum iiiiᵒʳ pueris.
Skynners. Jesse.
Flacchers. Salutac̄on of our Lady.
Vynteners. Nativite of our Lord.
Taillours. The iii Kings of Colen.
The belman. The purificac̄on of our Lady, with Symyon.
Drapers. The ... (_blank_) deitours, goyng with the good Lord.
Sadlers. Fleme Jordan.
Cardeners. The castell of Israell.
Walkers. The good Lord ridyng on an asse (“judging at an assize,” in
Johnson!) with xii Appostelles.
The tanners. The story of Shore Thursday.
Bochours. The takyng of our Lord.
The eldest seriant. The tormentyng of our Lord with iiii tormentoures,
with the lamentac̄on of our Lady [and Seynt John the evaungelist:
_faintly added by another hand_].
[Cappers. Portacio crucis usque montem Oilverii: _added_.]
Dyers. Iesus pendens in cruce [_altered by the second hand from_ Portacio
crucis et Iohanne evangelista portante Mariam].
Smythes. Longys with his knyghtes.
The eldest seriant. Maria and Iohannes evangelista (_interlined_).
Barbours. Joseth Abarmathia.
Dyers. Sepultura Christi.
The eldest seriant. Tres Mariae.
Porters. Milites armati custodes sepulcri.
Mercers. Pilate, Cayfes, Annas, and Mahounde. [_This last name has been
partly erased._]
Bakers. Knyghtes in harnes.
Journeymen cappers. Seynt Keterina with tres(?) tormentors[818].’
At a law day held on Dec. 10, 1548, it was agreed that the crafts who
were ‘bound by the grantes of their corporacions yerely to bring forthe
and set forward dyvers pageaunttes of ancient history in the processions
of the cytey upon the day and fest of Corpus Χρi, which now is and are
omitted and surceased’ should instead make an annual payment towards the
expense of repairing walls, causeways, &c.[819] The 1503 list seems to
concern a dumb-show only, and it cannot be positively assumed that the
_lusiones_ of 1440 were a Corpus Christi play.
In 1706 a labourer went through the city in the week before Easter, being
Passion week, clothed in a long coat with a large periwig, with a great
multitude following him, sitting upon an ass, to the derision of our
Saviour Jesus Christ’s riding into Jerusalem, to the great scandal of the
Christian religion, to the contempt of our Lord and his doctrine, and to
the ill and pernicious example of others[820].
HERNE, KENT.
Herne players were at New Romney in 1429.
HEYBRIDGE, ESSEX.
The churchwardens’ accounts for 1532 show a play, with ‘a fool’ and
‘pagent players,’ apparently in the church[821].
HIGH EASTER, ESSEX.
High Easter men hired the Chelmsford (q.v.) wardrobe in 1570-2.
HIGH HALDEN, KENT.
‘Haldene’ players were at New Romney in 1499.
HOLBEACH, LINCOLNSHIRE.
In 1548 the churchwardens paid vˢ viijᵈ for the ‘costs of the iij kyngs
of Coloyne[822].’
HULL, YORKSHIRE.
The accounts of the Trinity House, a guild of master mariners and pilots,
contain entries concerning a play of Noah.
‘1483. To the minstrels, vjᵈ.
To Noah and his wife, jˢ vjᵈ.
To Robert Brown playing God, vjᵈ.
To the Ship-child, jᵈ.
To a shipwright for clinking Noah’s ship, one day, vijᵈ.
22 kids for shoring Noah’s ship, ijᵈ.
To a man clearing away the snow, jᵈ.
Straw, for Noah and his children, ijᵈ.
Mass, bellman, torches, minstrels, garland, &c., vjˢ.
For mending the ship, ijᵈ.
To Noah for playing, jˢ.
To straw and grease for wheels, ¼ᵈ.
To the waits for going about with the ship, vjᵈ.
1494. To Thomas Sawyr playing God, xᵈ.
To Jenkin Smith playing Noah, jˢ.
To Noah’s wife, viijᵈ.
The clerk and his children, jˢ vjᵈ.
To the players of Barton, viijᵈ.
For a gallon of wine, viijᵈ.
For three skins for Noah’s coat, making it, and a rope to hang
the ship in the kirk, vijˢ.
To dighting and gilding St. John’s head, painting two tabernacles,
beautifying the boat and over the table, vijˢ ijᵈ.
Making Noah’s ship, vˡⁱ viijˢ.
Two wrights a day and a half, jˢ vjᵈ.
A halfer (rope) 4 stone weight, iiijˢ viijᵈ.
Rigging Noah’s ship, viijᵈ.’
Hadley, the historian of Hull, extracts these items ‘from the expences on
Plough-day,’ and says, ‘This being a maritime society, it was celebrated
by a procession adapted to the circumstance[823].’ There are continental
parallels for ship-processions at spring feasts (vol. i. p. 121); but
evidently that at Hull had been assimilated, perhaps under the influence
of Beverley, to a miracle-play or pageant. A recent writer, apparently
from some source other than Hadley, says that the entries in the accounts
run from before 1421 to 1529. Amongst his additional extracts are:—
‘A payr of new mytens to Noye, iiijᵈ.
Amending Noye Pyleh, iiijᵈ.
Nicholas Helpby for wrytᵍ the pley, vijᵈ.
A rope to hyng the shipp in ye kyrk, ijᵈ.
Takyng down shype and hyngyng up agayn, ijˢ.
Wyn when the shype went about, ijᵈ.
1421. New shype, vˡⁱ viijˢ iiijᵈ[824].’
HYTHE, KENT.
Hythe players were at New Romney in 1399 and at Lydd in 1467.
IDBURY, OXFORDSHIRE.
See s.v. SHIPTON.
IPSWICH, SUFFOLK.
In 1325 the former Guild Merchant was reconstituted as a Guild of Corpus
Christi. The Constitution provides for a procession, on Corpus Christi
day, unless it is hindered ‘pro qualitate temporis[825].’
The notices in the seventeenth-century Annals of the town point to a play
as well as a procession[826]. The Guild included all the burgesses; each
paying 16_d._ a year and attending the dinner on Corpus Christi day.
In 1443 the common marsh was devised ‘to maintaine and repaire the
pageants of the Guilde.’
In 1445 J. Causton was admitted burgess on condition of maintaining for
seven years ‘the ornaments belonging to Corpus Χⁱ pageant and the stages,
receiving the Charges thereof from the farmers of the Common Marshe and
the Portmen’s medow, as the Bayliffs for the time being shall think
meete.’ Arrears were paid to J. Caldwell for his charge of ‘Corpus Chr.
pageant.’
In 1491 an order was made, laying down, ‘Howe euery occupacion of
craftsmen schuld order themselves in the goyng with their pageantes in
the procession of Corpus Christi.’ The list closes with the ‘Friers
Carmelites,’ ‘Friers Minors,’ and ‘Friers Prechors.’ The subjects of the
pageants are unfortunately not given. The pageant cost 45_s._ 1_d._
In 1492 ‘areres of yᵉ Pageant’ were paid, and ‘kepers of the Ornaments
and utensiles of Corpus Christi appointed.’
In 1493, 1494, 1495, 1496 orders were made for the provision of the
‘pageant.’ In 1495 there was a grant of £3 11. 0 for it. In 1496 it was
‘at the charge of such as have been used.’
In 1502 ‘Corpus Christi pageant shall hereafter be observed, and a
convenient artificer shall be intertained to that end, and shall have
40_s._’ Each Portman was to pay 1_s._ 4_d._, each of the ‘twenty-four’
8_d._; the other 6_s._ 8_d._ to be levied. ‘Noe Bayliff shall interrupt
or hinder the pageant, unless by order of the great court or uppon
special cause.’ Collectors for the pageant were chosen.
In 1504 the ‘collectors for the play of Corpus Christi’ were ‘to make a
free burgess for their expences at Corpus Christi play.’ These collectors
are again mentioned in 1505 and 1506, and in the latter year ‘ornaments’
and ‘stageing for Corpus Christi play.’
In 1509 all inhabitants are to have ‘their Tabernas and attendance at the
ffeast of Corpus Christi’ and ‘everyone shall hold by the order of their
procession, according to the Constitutions.’
In 1511 a contribution is ordered to a pageant of St. George, and the
Corpus Christi dinner and pageant are laid aside.
From 1513 to 1519 the play is ordered to be laid aside in every year
except 1517. In 1520 it ‘shall hold this yere,’ and the pageant is
ordered to be ready. It is laid aside in 1521 until further order, and
the master of the pageant called ‘the shipp’ is to have the same ready
under forfeiture of £10. It is ‘deferred’ in 1522 and ‘laid aside for
ever’ in 1531.
Probably it was never revived. But there is an order for the procession
with the Sacrament in 1540, and in 1542 this had its ‘pageants’ to which
each householder was rated at 1_d._
In 1552 the guild is held on the Sunday after Trinity Sunday, and similar
meetings continue until 1644.
On a possible performance of Bale’s _King John_ at the visit of Elizabeth
to Ipswich in 1561 see _Texts_ (iii), s.v. _Bale_.
IXWORTH, SUFFOLK.
Thetford Priory made a payment ‘in regard to Ixworth play,’ in 1507-8
(Appendix E, iii).
KELVEDON, ESSEX.
See s.v. EASTERFORD.
KENDAL, WESTMORELAND.
The ‘Boke of Record,’ a municipal register begun at the incorporation in
1575, refers to the Corpus Christi play by the crafts as established at
that date. On Feb. 14, 1575, the corporation forbade feasts of more than
twelve guests;
‘Such lyke ... as have bene comonlye used at ... metyings of men off
Occupacyons aboute orders for their severall pagiands off Corpus xpi
playe ... exceptyd and reserved.’
An order ‘ffor the playe’ of Sept. 22, 1586, forbade the alderman to give
permission for the acting of the play in any year without the consent of
his brethren[827].’
The plays lasted into the seventeenth century. Thomas Heywood says in
1612, that, ‘to this day,’ Kendall holds the privilege of its fairs and
other charters by yearly stage-plays[828]. And Weever, about 1631, speaks
of—
‘Corpus Christi play in my countrey, which I have seene acted at Preston,
and Lancaster, and last of all at Kendall, in the beginning of the raigne
of King James; for which the Townesmen were sore troubled; and upon good
reasons the Play finally supprest, not onely there, but in all other
Townes of the Kingdome[829].’
In the MS. life of the Puritan vicar of Rotherham, John Shaw, is a
description of how he spoke to an old man at Cartmel of salvation by
Christ:—
‘Oh Sir,’ said he, ‘I think I heard of that man you speak of once in a
play at Kendall, called Corpus Christ’s play, where there was a man on
a tree, and blood ran down, &c. And afterwards he professed he could not
remember that he ever heard of salvation by Jesus, but in that play[830].’
KENNINGHALL, NORFOLK.
‘Kenningale game’ was at Harling (q.v.) in 1463, and the ‘Kenyngale
players’ in 1467.
KILKENNY, IRELAND.
John Bale, in his description of his brief episcopate of Ossory, gives
an account of the proclamation of Queen Mary, at Kilkenny, on August
20, 1553, ‘The yonge men, in the Forenone, played a Tragedye of God’s
Promyses in the olde Lawe, at the Market Crosse, with Organe, Plainges,
and Songes very aptely. In the Afternone agayne they played a Commedie
of Sanct Johan Baptistes Preachinges, of Christes Baptisynge, and of his
Temptacion in the Wildernesse, to the small contentacion of the Prestes
and other Papistes there[831].’
These plays are extant; cf. _Texts_ (iii), s.v. _Bale_.
KING’S LYNN, NORFOLK.
There was a Corpus Christi guild as early as 1400, and the Tailors’
_Ordinances_ of 1449 require them to take part in the Corpus Christi
procession; but I do not find evidence of regular annual plays. The
Chamberlains’ Accounts for 1385, however, include:—
‘iijˢ iiijᵈ to certain players, playing an interlude on Corpus Christi
day.’
‘iijˢ iiijᵈ paid by the Mayor’s gift to persons playing the interlude of
St. Thomas the Martyr.’
And those for 1462—
‘iijˢ paid for two flagons of red wine, spent in the house of Arnulph
Tixonye, by the Mayor and most of his brethren, being there to see a
certain play at the Feast of Corpus Christi.’ In the same year the
Skinners and Sailors ‘of the town’ received rewards ‘for their labour
about the procession of Corpus Christi this year[832].’
In 1409-10 Lady de Beaufort came to see a play[833].
See also s.v. MIDDLETON.
KINGSTON-ON-THAMES, SURREY.
On May 20, 1505, Henry VII made a payment
‘To the Players of Kingeston toward the bilding of the churche steple, in
almasse, iijˢ iiijᵈ[834].’
The churchwardens’ accounts for 1505-6 include
‘That we, Adam Backhous and Harry Nycol, amountyd of a play, 4ˡⁱ.’
A few later items relate to plays at Easter.
‘1513-4. For thred for the resurrection, jᵈ.
For 3 yards of dorneck for a player’s cote, and the makyng,
xvᵈ.
1520-1. Paid for a skin of parchment and gunpowder for the play
on Ester-day, viijᵈ.
For bred and ale for them that made the stage and other
thinges belonginge to the play, jˢ ijᵈ.
1565. Recᵈ. of the players of the stage at Easter, jˢ ijᵈ
ob.[835]’
LANCASTER.
A Corpus Christi play was acted within the lifetime of Weever, who was
born 1576, and wrote 1631[836].
LANCHIRE(?), ESSEX.
‘Somers of Lanchire’ hired the Chelmsford (q.v.) wardrobe in 1566. But I
can find no such place.
LANGLEY, OXFORDSHIRE.
See s.v. SHIPTON.
LAVENHAM, SUFFOLK.
The Earl of Surrey rewarded the players of ‘Lanam’ on Jan. 8, 1492
(Appendix E, vii).
LECONFIELD, YORKSHIRE.
The list of customary rewards given by the fifth Earl of Northumberland
to his servants, drawn up †1522, includes:—
‘Them of his Lordschipes Chapell if they doo play the Play of the
Nativite uppon Cristynmes-Day in the mornynge in my Lords Chapell befor
his Lordship, xxˢ.
... Them of his Lordship Chappell and other, if they doo play the play of
Resurrection upon Esturday in the morning in my Lords Chapell, xxˢ[837].’
LEEDS, YORKSHIRE.
Ten Brink, ii. 256, says that Leeds formed a centre ‘for the art of the
cyclic plays, which were represented yearly’; and Ward, i. 55, that at
Leeds ‘the religious drama was assiduously cultivated by the citizens.’
I cannot find any authority for this, and can only suggest that it is
a misapprehension of an entry in the _Catalogue_ of Ralph Thoresby’s
manuscripts appended to his _Ducatus Leodensis_ (1715), 517. This
was copied by Sharp, 141. But it refers to the _York Plays_, then in
Thoresby’s possession.
LEICESTER.
The Hall book of the Corporation contains the following entries:—
1477, March 26. ‘The pleyers the which pleed the passion play the yere
next afore brought yne a byll the whiche was of serten devties of mony
and whedʳ the passion shulbe put to crafts to be bounden or nay. And at
yᵗ tyme the seid pleyers gaff to the pachents yʳ mony which that thei
had getten yn playng of the seid play euer fore to that day and all yʳ
Rayments wʰ al othʳ maner of stuff yᵗ they had at that tyme. And at
the same Common Halle be the advyse of all the Comons was chosen thies
persones after named for to have the gydyng and Rule of the said play’
[19 persons with 2 ‘bedalls’ named][838].
1495, Friday after xijᵗᵉ day. ‘Yᵗ ys ordent agreyt stabelechyd & acte for
the comon well of the towne and of seche guds as ys yn a store hows in
the Setterday marcat yᵗ ys to say wodde tymber and vdyr playyng germands
yf ther be ony her hys chosyn to be ouersears thereof’ [6 names][839].
It is not clear on what day the Passion play took place. There were great
processions on Whit Monday from the churches of St. Martin and St. Mary
to that of St. Margaret, and in these the Twelve Apostles figured[840].
The accounts of the same churches show plays apparently distinct from the
Passion play.
_St. Mary’s._
1491. Paid to the Players on New-year’s day at even in the
church, vjᵈ.
1499. Paid for a play in the church, in Dominica infra Octavam
Epiphaniae, ijˢ.
1504. Paid for mending the garment of Jesus and the cross
painting, jˢ iijᵈ.
Paid for a pound of hemp to mend the angels heads, iiijᵈ.
Paid for linen cloth for the angels heads, and Jesus hoose,
making in all, ixᵈ.
1507. Paid for a pound of hemp for the heads of the angels,
iijᵈ. Paid for painting the wings and scaff, &c., viijᵈ[841].
These entries suggest a _Quem quaeritis_, but perhaps only a puppet-show.
_St. Martin’s._
1492. Paid to the players on New-year’s day at even in the
church, vjᵈ.
1546-7. Pᵈ. for makynge of a sworde & payntynge of the same for
Harroode.
1555-6. Pᵈ. to the iij shepperds at Whytsontyde, vjᵈ.
1559-60. Pᵈ. to ye plears for ther paynes.
1561. Rᵈ. for serten stufe lent to the players of Fosson[842].
In 1551 the Corporation came not to a feast ‘because of the play that was
in the church[843].’
LICHFIELD, STAFFORDSHIRE.
The Cathedral Statutes of Bishop Hugh de Nonant (1188-98) provide for
the _Pastores_ at Christmas and the _Quem quaeritis_ and _Peregrini_ at
Easter.
‘Item in nocte Natalis representacio pastorum fieri consueuit et in
diluculo Paschae representacio Resurreccionis dominicae et representacio
peregrinorum die lunae in septimana Paschae sicut in libris super hijs ac
alijs compositis continetur.’
Similarly in the account of the _officium_ of the _Succentor_ it is
provided:
‘Et prouidere debet quod representacio pastorum in nocte Natalis domini
et miraculorum in nocte Paschae et die lunae in Pascha congrue et
honorifice fiant[844].’
LINCOLN.
About 1244 Bishop Grosseteste names ‘miracula’ amongst other ‘ludi’
which the archdeacons, so far as possible, are to exterminate in the
diocese[845].
Chapter _computi_ for 1406, 1452, and 1531 include entries of payments,
‘In serothecis emptis pro Maria et Angelo et Prophetis ex consuetudine in
Aurora Natalis Dñi hoc anno[846].’
‘In 1420 tithes to the amount of 8ˢ 8ᵈ were assigned to Thomas
Chamberleyn for getting up a spectacle or pageant (“cuiusdam excellentis
visus”) called _Rubum quem viderat_ at Christmas.... An anthem sung at
Lauds on New Year’s day ... begins thus[847]’ (cf. _Sarum Breviary_,
ccxciii). Was this spectacle a Moses play forming part of, or detached
from, an _Ordo Prophetarum_?
A set of local annals (1361-1515) compiled in the sixteenth century
records the following plays:—
1397-8. Ludus de Pater Noster lvi anno.
1410-11. Ludus Pater Noster.
1424-5. Ludus Pater Noster.
1441-2. Ludus Sancti Laurentii.
1447-8. Ludus Sanctae Susannae.
1452-3. Ludus de Kyng Robert of Cesill.
1455-6. Ludus de Sancta Clara.
1456-7. Ludus de Pater Noster.
1471-2. Ludus Corporis Christi.
1473-4. Ludus de Corporis Christi.
Canon Rock, apparently quoting the same document, also mentions a ‘Ludus
de Sancto Iacobo[848].’
On Dec. 13, 1521, the Corporation ‘agreed that Paternoster Play shall be
played this year[849].’
In 1478-80 the Chapter _Curialitates_ include ‘In commun’ canonicorum
existent’ ad videndum ludum Corporis Christi in camera Iohannis Sharpe
infra clausum, 17ˢ 11ᵈ[850].’
But the Corpus Christi play, although so called, would appear not to
have been played upon Corpus Christi day, but to be identical with the
_visus_ or ‘sights’ of St. Anne’s day (July 26). These are mentioned
almost yearly in the city minute-books of the early sixteenth century,
and appear to have been cyclic and processional. They certainly included
Noah’s Ship, the Three Kings of Cologne, the Ascension, and the
Coronation of the Virgin. The Corporation ordered them to be played; the
mayor and the ‘graceman,’ or chief officer of the guild of Saint Anne,
directed them; the guild priest gave his assistance in the preparations.
In 1517 Sir Robert Denyer was appointed on condition of doing this.
Garments were often borrowed from the priory and the local magnates. In
1521 Lady Powys lent a gown for one of the Maries, and the other had a
crimson gown of velvet belonging to the guild. Each craft was bound under
penalty to provide a pageant. In 1540 some of the crafts had broken their
pageants and were ordered to restore them. In the same year a large door
was made at the late school-house that the pageants might be sent in, and
4_d._ was charged for housing every pageant, ‘and Noy schippe 12ᵈ.’ In
1547 the valuables of the procession were sold, but the ‘gear’ (i.e. the
theatrical properties) still existed in 1569. During the Marian reaction
in 1554 and 1555 ‘it was ordered that St. Anne’s Gild with Corpus Christi
Play shall be brought forth and played this year[851].’
The friendly relations of the Cathedral Chapter to the civic play are
noteworthy. In 1469 the chapter paid the expenses of the _visus_ of the
Assumption given on St. Anne’s day in the nave of the church. In 1483 it
was similarly agreed to have ‘Ludum, sive Serimonium, de Coronatione,
sive Assumptione, beatae Mariae, prout consuetum fuerat, in navi dictae
Ecclesiae.’ This was to be played and shown in the procession to be
made by the citizens on St. Anne’s day. Apparently the crafts played
the earlier plays of the cycle during the progress of the St. Anne’s
procession through the streets, and the Chapter gave the Assumption as a
finale to the whole in the cathedral itself. But their interest extended
beyond their own _visus_. In 1488 Robert Clarke received an appointment,
because ‘he is so ingenious in the show and play called the Ascension,
given every year on St. Anne’s Day[852].’
Under Elizabeth a new play appears. In 1564 the Corporation ordered
‘that a standing [i.e. non-processional?] play of some story of the
Bible shall be played two days this summertime.’ The subject chosen was
Tobias, and the place the Broadgate. Some of the properties, e.g. ‘Hell
mouth, with a nether chap,’ were possibly the old ‘gear’ of St. Anne’s
guild. In 1567 ‘the stage-play of the story of Toby’ was again played at
Whitsuntide[853].
LITTLE BADDOW, ESSEX.
Little Baddow men hired the Chelmsford (q.v.) wardrobe during 1564-6.
LONDON.
William Fitzstephen (†1170-82), in a description of London prefatory to
his _Vita_ of St. Thomas à Becket, says:—
‘Lundonia pro spectaculis theatralibus, pro ludis scenicis, ludos habet
sanctiores, representationes miraculorum quae sancti confessores
operati sunt, seu representationes passionum quibus claruit constantia
martyrum[854].’
Nothing more is heard of plays in London until 1378, when the scholars of
St. Paul’s petitioned Richard II,
‘to prohibit some unexpert people from representing the History of the
Old Testament, to the great prejudice of the said Clergy, who have been
at great expence in order to represent it publickly at Christmas[855].’
The chronicler Malvern records that in 1384,—
‘Vicesimo nono die Augusti clerici Londoniae apud Skynnereswelle fecerunt
quendam ludum valde sumptuosum, duravitque quinque diebus[856].’
In 1391 Malvern again records,—
‘Item xviijᵒ die Iulii clerici Londonienses fecerunt ludum satis curiosum
apud Skynnereswell per dies quatuor duraturum, in quo tam vetus quam
novum testamentum oculariter ludendo monstrabant[857].’
In 1393, according to the _London Chronicle_, ‘was the pley of seynt
Katerine[858].’
Other chronicles record a play in 1409:—
‘This yere was the play at Skynners Welle, whiche endured Wednesday,
Thorsday, Friday, and on Soneday it was ended[859].’
The accounts of the royal wardrobe show that a scaffold of timber was
built for the King (Henry IV), prince, barons, knights, and ladies on
this occasion, and that the play showed,—
‘how God created Heaven and Earth out of nothing, and how he created Adam
and so on to the Day of Judgment[860].’
Finally, the Grey Friars Chronicle mentions a yet longer play in 1411:—
‘This year beganne a gret pley from the begynnyng of the worlde at the
skynners’ welle, that lastyd vij dayes contynually; and there ware the
moste parte of the lordes and gentylles of Ynglond[861].’
The performers in most, if not all, of this group of plays were the
clerks in minor orders who naturally abounded in London. The Guild of St.
Nicholas of Parish Clerks had existed since 1233. In 1442 they received
a charter, which refers to ‘diversis charitatis et pietatis operibus
per ipsos annuatim exhibitis et inventis[862].’ These _opera_ possibly
include the plays, which may have become annual between 1411 and 1442.
They seem to have been given at various times of year, and hard by the
well, variously described as Skinners Well or Clerkenwell. The Priory of
St. Bartholomew is not far, and the plays may have had some connexion,
at one time or another, with the famous Bartholomew Fair[863]. It was
probably the double name of the well that led Stowe to say that ‘the
skinners of London held there certain plays yearly, played of Holy
Scripture[864].’
There is another gap of a century in the history of these greater London
plays. But on July 20, 1498, Henry VII rewarded ‘the pleyers of London’
(Appendix E, viii), and of 1508 the annalist of Henry VII, Bernard
Andrew, says:—
‘Spectacula vero natalis divi Iohannis vespere longe praeclarissima hoc
anno ostensa fuerunt, quemadmodum superioris mensis huiusque aliquot
festis diebus pone Christi ecclesiam circa urbis pomaria divinae
recitatae fuere historiae[865].’
Some of the London churches had their own plays, as may be seen from
their churchwardens’ accounts. Those of St. Margaret’s, Southwark, have
the following entries:—
‘1444-5. Peid for a play vpon Seynt Lucy day [Dec. 13], and for a pley
vpon Seynt Margrete day [July 20], xiijˢ iiijᵈ.
1445-6. [Similar entry.]
1447-8. Also peid for a pley vpon Seynt Margrete day, vijˢ.
1449-50. Item, peyd vpon Seynt Lucy day to the Clerkes for a play, vjˢ
viijᵈ.
1450-1. [Similar entry.]
1451-2. Fyrste, peyd to the Pleyrs vpon Seynt Margretes day, vijˢ.
Also peyd for hyryng of Germentes xiiijᵈ.
1453-7 and 1459 [a play on St. Margaret’s day in each year[866]].’
Towards the end of Henry VIII’s reign the Revels office was able to
borrow ‘frames for pageants’ from the wardens of St. Sepulchre’s[867].
Probably the guild of Parish Clerks made it a profession to supply such
church plays as these for a regular fee. They were employed also at the
feasts of the city guilds. The Brewers, for instance, had plays in 1425
and 1433, and in 1435 paid ‘4 clerkis of London, for a play[868].’ The
Carpenters paid iiijˢ iiijᵈ for a play in 1490[869]. London players
occasionally performed before Henry VII. Besides ‘the players of London’
in 1498, he rewarded in 1501 the players at ‘Myles ende[870].’
Attempts were made to revive religious plays during the Marian reaction.
On June 7, 1557, ‘be-gane a stage play at the Grey freers of the Passyon
of Cryst[871].’ On St. Olave’s day, July 29, in the same year ‘was the
church holiday in Silver street; and at eight of the clock at night began
a stage play of a goodly matter, that continued until xij at mydnyght,
and then they mad an end with a good song[872].’
The last such play in London was ‘the acting of Christ’s Passion at Elie
house in Holborne when Gundemore [Gondomar] lay there, on Good-Friday at
night, at which there were thousands present[873].’ This would be between
1613 and 1622.
_Midsummer Watch._
A ‘marching watch’ was kept on the eves of Midsummer and SS. Peter and
Paul (June 29) until 1538, and revived, for one year only, in 1548. Some
2,000 men went in armour; lamps and bonfires were lit in the streets,
and ‘every man’s door shadowed with green birch, long fennel, St. John’s
wort; orpine, white lilies and such like, garnished upon with garlands
of beautiful flowers.’ It seems to have been customary for the guilds
to which the Lord Mayor and Sheriffs for the year belonged to furnish
pageants. Stowe says that ‘where the mayor had besides his giant three
pageants, each of the sheriffs had besides their giants but two pageants,
each their morris dance.’ In 1505 the Grocers had ‘a pageant for the
maire [Sir John Wyngar] at Midsomer.’ In 1510 Henry VIII, disguised as
a groom, came to see the Midsummer Watch, and on St. Peter’s eve came
openly with the queen. There were ‘diverse goodlie shewes, as had beene
accustomed.’ In 1522 the Drapers resolved ‘that there shall be no Mydsomʳ
pageant becaus there was so many pageants redy standyng for the Emperors
coming into London,’ and ‘for divers considerations’ to ‘surcease the
said pageants and find xxx men in harness instead.’ But later they
decided to ‘renew all the old pageants for the house; including our newe
pageant of the Goldyn Flees for the mayr against mydsomʳ; also the gyant,
lord Moryspyks, and a morys daunce, as was used the last year.’ The
account-books mention Lord Moryspyks or ‘Marlingspikes,’ and a ‘king of
the Moors,’ with a ‘stage’ and ‘wyld fire.’ In 1523, the King of Denmark
being in London, the Drapers allowed the Sheriff two pageants, ‘but to
be no precedent hereafter.’ They paid ‘for garnyshyng and newe repayring
of th’ Assumpcion, and also for making a new pageant of St. Ursula.’ The
King of Denmark was duly brought to see the watch. In 1524 they again had
a pageant, the nature of which is not specified[874].
LOPHAM, NORFOLK.
‘Lopham game’ was at Harling (q.v.) in 1457.
LOUTH, LINCOLNSHIRE.
An inventory of documents in the rood-loft in 1516 includes the ‘hole
Regenall of corpus xr̄i play.’ In 1558 the corporation paid for a play
‘in the markit-stede on corpus xr̄i day.’[875]
LYDD, KENT.
The town accounts show a play of St. George on July 4, 1456, and payment
to the ‘bane cryars’ of ‘our play’ in 1468. In 1422 the Lydd players
acted at New Romney, and in 1490 the chaplain of the guild of St. George
at New Romney went to see a play at Lydd, with a view to reproducing
it. Between 1429 and 1490 the New Romney players acted often at Lydd,
and also players of Ruckinge (1431), Wytesham (1441), Ham (1454), Hythe
(1467), Folkestone (1479), Rye (1480), Stone (1490). Unnamed players were
in the high street in 1485[876].
LYNEHAM, OXFORDSHIRE.
See s.v. SHIPTON.
MALDEN, ESSEX.
The Chelmsford (q.v.) play was shown at Malden in 1562.
MANNINGTREE, ESSEX.
John Manningham, of the Middle Temple, wrote in his Diary, on Feb. 8,
1602, ‘The towne of Manitree in Essex holds by stage plays[877].’ So
Heywood, in his _Apology for Actors_ (1612), ‘To this day there be townes
that hold the priviledge of their fairs and other charters by yearly
stage-plays, as at Manningtree in Suffolke, Kendall in the North, and
others[878].’ There are further allusions to these plays in T. Nash, _The
Choosing of Valentines_,
‘a play of strange moralitie,
Showen by bachelrie of Manning-tree,
Whereto the countrie franklins flock-meale swarme[879]’;
and in Dekker, _Seven Deadly Sins of London_ (1607), ‘Cruelty
has got another part to play; it is acted like the old morals at
Manning-tree[880].’
MAXSTOKE, WARWICKSHIRE.
The accounts of Maxstoke Priory (a house of Augustinian canons) for 1430
include, ‘pro ientaculis puerorum eleemosynae exeuntium ad aulam in
castro ut ibi ludum peragerent in die Purificationis, xivᵈ. Unde nihil a
domini [Clinton] thesaurario, quia saepius hoc anno ministralli castri
fecerunt ministralsiam in aula conventus et Prioris ad festa plurima sine
ullo regardo[881].’
MIDDLETON, NORFOLK.
In 1444 the corporation of Lynn (q.v.) showed a play with Mary and
Gabriel before Lord Scales[882].
MILDENHALL, SUFFOLK.
Thetford Priory made a payment to ‘the play of Mydenale’ in 1503-4
(Appendix E, iii).
MILE END, MIDDLESEX.
Henry VII rewarded ‘the Pleyers at Myles End’ on Aug. 6, 1501 (Appendix
E, viii).
MILTON, OXFORDSHIRE.
See s.v. SHIPTON.
MOREBATH, DEVONSHIRE.
The churchwardens’ accounts record an Easter play at some date between
1520 and 1574[883].
NAYLAND, ESSEX.
Richard More, of Nayland, hired the Chelmsford (q.v.) wardrobe in 1566.
NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE, NORTHUMBERLAND.
The craft-plays on Corpus Christi day are mentioned in several
fifteenth-century ordinaries, the earliest being that of the Coopers in
1426/7. The last years in which performances can be proved to have been
given are 1561 and 1562. Ordinaries dated from 1578 to 1589 stipulate
for a performance by the crafts ‘whensoever the generall plaies of the
town of Newcastle, antiently called the Corpus Christi plays, shall
be plaied,’ or the like. The determination of this point rested with
the Corporation. The Goldsmiths drew up an ‘invoic of all the players
apperell pertainyng to’ them in 1598/9. The cost of the plays fell on the
crafts, who took fixed contributions from their members. The Taylors in
1536 required iijᵈ from each hireling, and vijᵈ from each newly admitted
member. The Fullers and Dyers paid 9_s._ in 1561 for ‘the play lettine’
to four persons.
The mentions of ‘bearers of the care and baneres’ of them ‘that wated
of the paient’ and of ‘the carynge of the trowt and wyn about the town’
seem to show that the plays were processional. On the other hand the one
extant play (cf. p. 424) ends with a remark of the _Diabolus_ to ‘All
that is gathered in this stead.’ Perhaps the pageants first took part in
the Corpus Christi procession proper and afterwards gathered in a field.
The Mercers’ ordinary of 1480 shows that the procession was ‘by vij in
morning,’ and the plays were certainly in the evening, for it was deposed
in a law-suit at Durham in 1569 that Sir Robert Brandling of Newcastle
said on Corpus Christi day, 1562, that ‘he would after his dinner draw
his will, and after the plays would send for his consell, and make it up’
(_Norfolk Archaeology_, iii. 18).
For the list of plays, so far as it can be recovered, see p. 424. The
ordinary of the Goldsmiths (1536) requires their play (Kynges of Coleyn)
to be given at their feast[884].
NEW ROMNEY, KENT.
There are many notices of a play in the town accounts between 1428
and 1560. In 1456 the wardens of the play of the _Resurrection_ are
mentioned. In 1463 the jurats paid Agnes Ford 6_s._ 8_d._ ‘for the play
of the Interlude of our _Lord’s Passion_.’ From 1474 the banns of the
play are mentioned. In 1477 the play was on Whit-Tuesday. In 1518 the
Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports forbade the play, but it was revived
elaborately in 1560. The accounts mention the purchase of copes and
vestures from the corporation of Lydd, and refer to ‘a fool,’ ‘the Cytye
of Samarye,’ ‘our last play,’ ‘the iijᵗʰ play,’ ‘the iiijᵗʰ play,’ and
the ‘bane cryers.’ No crafts are mentioned: perhaps the play was produced
by the corporation itself. The performances may have been on Crockhill
or Crockley Green. ‘Playstool’ is a common name for a bit of land in
Kent. Performances were often given in other towns: see s.v. LYDD. The
play seems to have been only a _Passion and Resurrection_ play, and not
a complete cycle. ‘Le Playboke’ is mentioned from 1516. It is in an
Elizabethan inventory of town records. A second play of _St. George_
was probably started in 1490 when a chaplain of the guild of St. George
went to see the Lydd _St. George_ play, with a view to reproducing it.
In 1497 the chaplains received the profits of the play. Players from
the following towns are found acting at New Romney: Hythe (1399), Lydd
(1422), Wittersham (1426, they ‘shewed th’ interlude’), Herne (1429),
Ruckinge (1430), Folkestone (1474), Appledore (1488), Chart (1489),
Rye (1489), Wye (1491), Brookland (1494), Halden (1499), Bethersden
(1508)[885].
NORTHAMPTON, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE.
Brotanek (_Anglia_, xxi. 21) conjectures that the _Abraham and Isaac_ of
the Dublin MS. may come from Northampton (cf. p. 427), and hints at an
explanation of the ‘N. towne’ in the prologue to the _Ludus Coventriae_
as ‘N[orthampton] towne’ (cf. p. 421).
But the only allusion even remotely suggesting miracle-plays that I
can find in the printed civic records is in 1581, in which year some
interrogatories as to St. George’s Hall contain a deposition by an old
man to the effect that he had known the hall fifty years, and that the
mayor and chamberlains had been wont to lay therein pageants, &c.[886]
NORWICH, NORFOLK.
_Whitsun Plays._
J. Whetley writes from Norwich on Corpus Christi even (May 20), 1478,
to Sir John Paston in London, of a visit of Lord Suffolk to Hellesden,
‘at hys beyng ther that daye ther was never no man that playd Herrod
in Corpus Crysty play better and more agreable to hys pageaunt than he
dud[887].’
I do not know whether it is fair to infer from this that in 1478 the
Norwich plays were not at Whitsuntide, but at Corpus Christi; but this
would account for J. Whetley’s trope.
On Sept. 21, 1527, the guild of St. Luke, composed of painters, braziers,
plumbers, &c., made a presentment to the Assembly of the town that,—
‘where of longtime paste the said Guylde of Seynt Luke yerly till nowe
hath ben used to be kept and holden within the citie aforesaid upon the
Mundaye in pentecoste weke at which daye and the daye next ensuyng many
and divers disgisyngs and pageaunts, as well of the lieffs and martyrdoms
of divers and many hooly Saynts, as also many other light and feyned
figurs and picturs of other persones and bests; the sight of which
disgisings and pageaunts, as well yerly on the said Mondaye in pentecoste
weke in the time of procession then goyng about a grett circuitte of the
forsaid citie, as yerly the Tuysday in the same weke [serving] the lord
named the Lord of Misrule at Tumlond within the same citie, hath ben and
yet is sore coveted, specially by the people of the countre.’
The presentment goes on to show that much resort and profit have accrued
to the city, but all the cost has fallen on the guild, which ‘is almost
fully decayed’; and urges an order,—
‘that every occupacion wythyn the seyd Citye maye yerly at the said
procession upon the Mondaye in Pentecost weke sette forth one pageaunt.’
It was agreed that each craft should play,—
‘one such pageaunt as shalbe assigned and appoynted by Master Mair and
his brethern aldermen, as more playnly appereth in a boke thereof made.’
In the same hand is a list of crafts and plays (cf. p. 425)[888].
Some extracts made in the eighteenth century from the, now lost, books of
the Grocers’ Company, contain (_a_) two versions of their play on _The
Fall_, dating from 1533 and 1565 respectively (cf. p. 425), and (_b_)
various notices of the same from the Assembly Book.
The latter begin in 1534, when ‘4 Surveyors of yᵉ Pageant’ with a
‘Bedell’ were chosen, and an assessment of 22_s._ 10_d._ made for the
pageant and the Corpus Christi procession. The expenses include, besides
repairs to the pageant, fees to actors, refreshments, &c.,—
‘It. to Sʳ Stephen Prowet for makyng of a newe ballet, 12ᵈ.
House ferme for ye Pageant, 2ˢ.’
The pageant went in 1535 and 1536. In 1537 it ‘went not at Wytsontyde,’
but went in October ‘in yᵉ Processyon for yᵉ Byrthe of Prynce Edward.’
From 1538 to 1546 it went, the assessment for pageant and procession
being about 20_s._ to 30_s._ As to 1547 the record is not clear. Then
there is a gap in the extracts, and from 1556 onwards the ‘Gryffon,’
‘Angell,’ and ‘Pendon’ of the Corpus Christi procession, with flowers,
grocery, and fruit ‘to garnish yᵉ tre wᵗʰ,’ &c., appear alone in the
accounts. In 1559 was ‘no solemnite’ at all. In 1563 it was agreed that
the pageant should be ‘preparyd ageynst yᵉ daye of Mʳ Davy his takyng
of his charge of yᵉ Mayralltye,’ with a ‘devyce’ to be prepared by the
surveyors at a cost of 6_s._ 8_d._ The play cannot have quite lapsed,
for in 1565 a new version was written (cf. p. 425). It was apparently
contemplated that it might be played either alone or in a cycle. To the
same year belongs the following
‘_Inventory of yᵉ p’ticulars appartaynyng to yᵉ Company of yᵉ Grocers,
a.d. 1565._
A Pageant, yᵗ is to saye, a Howse of Waynskott paynted and buylded on a
Carte wᵗ fowre whelys.
A square topp to sett over yᵉ sayde Howse.
A Gryffon, gylte, wᵗ a fane to sette on yᵉ sayde toppe.
A bygger Iron fane to sett on yᵉ ende of yᵉ Pageante.
iiijˣˣ iij small Fanes belongyng to yᵉ same Pageante.
A Rybbe colleryd Red.
A cote & hosen wᵗ a bagg & capp for doloʳ, steyned.
2 cotes & a payre hosen for Eve, stayned.
A cote & hosen for Adam, Steyned.
A cote wᵗ hosen & tayle for yᵉ serpente, steyned, wᵗ a wᵗ heare.
A cote of yellow buckram wᵗ yᵉ Grocers’ arms for yᵉ Pendon bearer.
An Angell’s Cote & over hoses of Apis Skynns.
3 paynted clothes to hang abowte yᵉ Pageant.
A face & heare for yᵉ Father.
2 hearys for Adam & Eve.
4 head stallis of brode Inkle wᵗʰ knopps & tassells.
6 Horsse Clothes, stayned, wᵗ knopps & tassells.
Item, Weights, &c.’
There is a final memorandum that in 1570 the pageant was broken to pieces
for six years ‘howse ferm’ due. There had been no ‘semblye nor metynge’
of the Company for eight years. The pageant had stood for six years in a
‘Gate howse,’ and then ‘at yᵉ Black Fryers brydge in open strete,’ where
it became ‘so weather beaten, yᵗ yᵉ cheife parte was rotton[889].’
_Processions._
There were three notable annual processions at Norwich.
(_a_) The _Corpus Christi_ Procession, in which the crafts were held to
take part in 1489, and which appears, as above stated, in the Grocers’
records until 1558. They seem to have been represented by the ‘griffon’
from the top of their pageant, a banner with their arms, a crowned angel,
and an emblematic ‘tree’ of fruit and grocery (possibly the ‘tree of
knowledge’)[890].
(_b_) The Procession of the Guild of _St. Thomas à Becket_ on the day of
his Translation (July 7) to his chapel in the wood. Here interludes were
played[891].
(_c_) The Riding of the Guild of _St. George_ on his day (April 23).
This dates from at least 1408, and a good many details as to it are
preserved[892].
NUNEATON, WARWICKSHIRE.
The ‘lusores de Eaton’ played at Maxstoke Priory between 1422 and 1461
(Appendix E, ii).
OXFORD, OXFORDSHIRE.
The following extracts from the Bursars’ _computi_ of Magdalen College
point to a _Quem quaeritis_ of the longer type, with the ‘Noli me
tangere’ episode.
1486-7. ‘pro factura sepulturae erga pascham. xijᵈ.’
1506-7. ‘pro scriptura lusi’ of St. Mary Magdalen. xᵈ.’
[There were further payments in connexion with this play, and for music.]
1509-10. ‘pro pane, cibo et aliis datis pueris ludentibus in die Paschae
... xvijᵈ ob.’
1514-5. ‘pro carnibus consumptis in capella tribus noctibus ante Pascha
et in tempore Nativitatis. ijˢ.’
1518-9. ‘pro tinctura et factura tunicae eius qui ageret partem Christi
et pro crinibus mulieribus. ijˢ vjᵈ.’
1536-7. ‘pro carbonibus consumptis in sacrario per custodes sepulchri, et
per pueros in festis hiemalibus.’
[Repeated in other years.]
A chapel inventory of 1495 includes ‘unum frontale ... et unum dorsale
cum quibus solet sepulcrum ornari.’
The same accounts (cf. p. 248) show items for plays in the hall at
various seasons, and for the Boy Bishop at Christmas[893].
The churchwardens of St. Peter’s in the East kept between 1444 and 1600 a
stock of players’ garments, and let them out on hire[894].
PENRHYN, CORNWALL.
See _Texts_ (i), _Cornish Plays_, _Origo Mundi_.
PERRANZABULO, CORNWALL.
The earliest historical notice of plays in Cornwall is by Richard Carew
in 1602:—
‘The Guary miracle, in English, a miracle-play, is a kinde of Enterlude,
compiled in _Cornish_ out of some Scripture history, with that grossenes
which accompanied the Romanes _vetus Comoedia_. For representing it they
raise an earthen Amphitheatre in some open field, hauing the Diameter of
his enclosed playne some 40 or 50 foot. The Country people flock from
all sides, many miles off, to hear and see it: for they haue therein,
deuils and deuices, to delight as well the eye as the eare; the players
conne not their parts without booke, but are prompted by one called the
Ordinary, who followeth at their back with the book in his hand, and
telleth them softly what they must pronounce aloud.’
Whereupon Carew has a story of a ‘pleasant conceyted gentleman’ who
raised laughter by repeating aloud all the Ordinary’s asides to himself.
One Mr. Scawen (†1660) describes the Guirremears as—
‘solemnized not without shew of devotion in open and spacious downs, of
great capacity, encompassed about with earthen banks, and in some part
stonework of largeness to contain thousands, the shapes of which remain
in many places to this day, though the use of them long since gone.’
Bp. Nicholson, writing in 1700, says that the plays were:—
‘called Guirimir, which Mʳ Llhuyd supposes a corruption of Guarimirkle,
and in the Cornish dialect to signify a miraculous play or interlude.
They were composed for begetting in the common people a right notion
of the Scriptures, and were acted in the memory of some not long since
deceased.’
The eighteenth-century antiquary, Borlase, identifies the places in
which the miracle-plays were given with those known as ‘rounds’ or,
in Cornish, _plân an guare_. Of these he describes and figures two.
That of St. Just was of stone, 126 feet in diameter, with seven rows of
seats inside. It was much decayed when Norris wrote in 1859. That of
Perranzabulo, or Piran-sand, was of earth, 130 feet in diameter, with a
curious pit in the centre, joined to the outer ring by a narrow trench.
Borlase thought that this was used for a Hell[895]. It was more likely
filled with water for Noah’s ship to float upon.
The _Ordinalia_ printed by Mr. Norris take the Cornish plays back to
at least the fourteenth, if not the thirteenth century. The circular
diagrams in the manuscript exactly fall in with the round _plân an guare_
described by Borlase and others. They show a ring of eight _loci_ or
_sedes_ (cf. p. 83), for which the terms used in the stage-directions
are _pulpita_ or _tenti_, with an open circular space in the middle,
which the stage-directions call the _platea_. The action is partly at
the _pulpita_, partly in the _platea_. A new character often marks his
appearance by strutting about his _pulpitum_, or perhaps around the
ring—_Hic pompabit Abraham_, &c.
In the English stage-directions to the later (before 1611) _Creation of
the World_, the _platea_ becomes the _playne_, and for _pulpitum_ the
term _room_ is used. The manager of the play is the ‘conveyour.’ Some
of the directions are curious and minute. At the opening, ‘The father
must be in a clowde, and when he speakethe of heaven let yᵉ levys open.’
Within is a ‘trone,’ which Lucifer tries to ascend. After the fight,
‘Lucifer voydeth & goeth downe to hell apareled fowle wᵗʰ fyre about hem
turning to hell and every degre of devylls of lether & spirytis on cordis
runing into yᵉ playne and so remayne ther.’ Meanwhile are got ready ‘Adam
and Eva aparlet in whytt lether in a place apoynted by the conveyour &
not to be sene tyll they be called & thei knell & ryse.’ Paradise has ‘ii
fayre trees in yt’ and a ‘fowntaine’ and ‘fyne flowers,’ which appear
suddenly. Similarly, a little later, ‘Let fyshe of dyuers sortis apeare
& serten beastis as oxen kyne shepe & such like.’ Lucifer incarnates as
‘a fyne serpent made wᵗʰ a virgyn face & yolowe heare vpon her head.’
Presently comes the warning, ‘ffig leaves redy to cover ther members,’
and at the expulsion, ‘The garmentis of skynnes to be geven to adam and
eva by the angell. Receave the garmentis. Let them depart out of paradice
and adam and eva following them. Let them put on the garmentis and shewe
a spyndell and a dystaff’ The Cain and Abel scene requires ‘a chawbone’
(‘Cain’s jawbone, that did the first murder’). Seth is led to Paradise
and ‘Ther he vyseth all thingis, and seeth ij trees and in the one tree
sytteth mary the virgyn & in her lappe her son jesus in the tope of the
tree of lyf, and in the other tree yᵉ serpent wᶜʰ caused Eva to eat the
appell.’ When Adam dies, his soul is taken ‘to lymbo,’ and he is buried
‘in a fayre tombe wᵗʰ som churche songis at hys buryall.’ The Noah scene
requires ‘tooles and tymber redy, wᵗʰ planckis to make the arcke, a beam
a mallet a calkyn yre[n] ropes mass[t]es pyche and tarr.’ Presently ‘let
rayne appeare’ and ‘a raven & a culver ready.’ When the flood ends, ‘An
alter redy veary fayre,’ at which ‘som good church songes’ are sung, and
‘a Rayne bowe to appeare.’ Like the earlier plays, this ends with a call
on the minstrels to pipe for a dance.
A study of the place names in the _Ordinalia_ led Mr. Pedler to suggest
that they probably belonged to the neighbourhood of Penrhyn, and may have
been composed at the collegiate house of Glasney. The St. Meriasek play
is assigned by Mr. Stokes to Camborne, of which that saint was patron. It
ends with an invocation of St. Meriasek, St. Mary of Camborne, and the
Apostles.
PRESTON, LANCASHIRE.
A Corpus Christi play was acted within the lifetime of Weever, who was
born 1576 and wrote 1631[896].
I find no trace of plays at the meetings of the Guild Merchant, although
there was always a great procession, which from 1762 or earlier included
such allegorical figures as Adam and Eve for the Tailors, Vulcan for the
Smiths, &c.[897]
READING, BERKSHIRE.
The churchwardens’ accounts of St. Lawrence’s record ‘a gaderyng of a
stage-play’ in 1498.
In 1507 a play of _Adam and Eve_ was held on ‘the Sonday afore
Bartylmastyde’ ‘in the Forbury.’ There was a ‘schapfold,’ but ‘pagentts’
were also used. A Corpus Christi procession is also mentioned in 1509,
1512, and 1539.
In 1512 also was the ‘play of Kayme,’ and in 1515, ‘Cayme’s pageaunt’ in
the market-place.
On May 1, 1499, and again in 1539, was the _Kings of Cologne_. This was
distinct, no doubt, from the ‘king play,’ with its ‘tree,’ ‘king game,’
or ‘kyng ale,’ which took place at Whitsuntide (cf. vol. i. p. 173). But
the date, May 1 (for which cf. Abingdon), is curious for a miracle-play,
and must have been influenced by the folk feast.
A payment for ‘rosyn to the resurrecyon pley’ (possibly for making a
blaze: cf. p. 23, note 5) occurs in 1507, and in 1533-5 payments to ‘Mʳ
Laborne’ ‘for reforming the Resurrecon pley,’ and ‘for a boke’ of it.
In 1508 was a ‘pageaunt of the Passion on Easter Monday[898].’
RUCKINGE, KENT.
Ruckinge players were at New Romney in 1430, and Lydd in 1431.
RYE, SUSSEX.
Rye players were at Lydd in 1480, and at New Romney in 1489.
SABSFORD (?), ESSEX.
‘Sabsforde men’ hired the Chelmsford (q.v.) wardrobe in 1562, 1563, and
1566. But I can find no such place.
SAFFRON WALDEN, ESSEX.
‘Men of Waldyne’ hired the Chelmsford (q.v.) wardrobe during 1564-6.
ST. JUST, CORNWALL.
See s.v. PERRANZABULO.
SALISBURY, WILTSHIRE.
A cathedral inventory of 1222 includes:—
‘Coronae ij de latone ad representationes faciendas.’
These latten ‘coronae’ may, I suppose, have been either crowns for the
Magi, or ‘stellae[899].’
The churchwardens’ accounts of St. Edmund’s for 1461 include an item ‘for
all apparel and furniture of players at the Corpus Christi[900].’
SHELFHANGER, NORFOLK.
Thetford Priory made a payment ‘in regard to Schelfanger play’ in 1507-8
(Appendix E, iii).
SHIPTON, OXFORDSHIRE.
It was decided (†1220-28), as part of an award concerning the rights
of collation to the churches of Shipton and Bricklesworth, both being
prebends in Sarum cathedral, as follows:—
‘Actiones autem, si quae competant, in villa de Fifhide et de Idebire
cedant canonico de Brikeleswrth. Actiones vero, si quae competant,
in villa de Mideltone et de Langele, cedant canonico de Schiptone.
Emolumentum vero actionum, si quae competant, in villa de Linham
aequaliter inter se dividant[901].’
The editor of the _Sarum Charters_ can only explain _actiones_ as
‘plays.’ Ducange gives the word in the sense of _spectacula_.
All the places named, Fyfield, Idbury, Milton, Langley, and Lyneham, are
in Wychwood, and may have formed in the thirteenth century, if they do
not all now, part of the parish of Shipton-under-Wychwood.
SHREWSBURY, SHROPSHIRE.
The civic orders and accounts refer occasionally to plays. The first
on record was given before Prince Arthur in 1495. In 1516 the abbot
of Shrewsbury, in 1533 the bishop of Exeter, and in 1542 the royal
commissioners were present. The subject in 1516 was the martyrdoms of
Saints Feliciana and Sabina. In 1518 it was the Three Kings of Cologne.
In 1510, 1518, 1533, 1553, and 1556 the performances were at Whitsuntide.
The bailiffs, according to a notice in 1556, ‘set forward’ the plays, and
the ‘lusores’ belonging to the town, who are mentioned in 1527 and 1549,
were perhaps the performers. The locality was, in 1542, the churchyard of
St. Chad’s. In 1495, 1516, and 1533 it was the quarry outside the walls,
where it is stated in 1570 that ‘the plases have bin accustomyd to be
usyd[902].’ Here there were traces of a seated amphitheatre as late as
1779[903]. Thomas Ashton became master of the free school in 1561, and he
produced plays in the quarry. Elizabeth was to have been at his _Julian
the Apostate_ in 1565, but came too late. In 1567 he gave the _Passion of
Christ_[904]. An undated list of Costs for the Play includes ‘a desert’s
(_disard’s_) hed and berd,’ ‘vi dossen belles’ for a morris, ‘gonne
poudoʳ’ and other attractions for a devil[905].
_Shrewsbury Show._
The craft-guilds took part in the Corpus Christi procession, and the
guild of Mercers inflicted a penalty of 12_d._ on brethren who on that
feast should ‘happen to ride or goe to Coventre Faire or elleswhere
out of the town of Shrewesburye to by or sell[906].’ Until about 1880
Shrewsbury Show was held on the Monday after Corpus Christi day.
The crafts had tableaux which, after the Reformation at least, were
emblematic rather than religious[907]; thus—
Tailors. Adam and Eve or Elizabeth.
Shearmen. St. Blasius or Edward IV.
Skinners and Glovers. King of Morocco.
Smiths. Vulcan.
Painters. Rubens.
Bricklayers. King Henry VIII.
Shoemakers. SS. Crispin and Crispinian.
Barbers. St. Katharine.
Bakers. Venus and Ceres.
SLEAFORD, LINCOLNSHIRE.
The accounts of the guild of Holy Trinity for 1480 include:—
‘It. payd for the Ryginall of ye play for ye Ascencon & the wrytyng of
spechys & payntyng of a garmet for god, iijˢ. viijᵈ.[908]’
Miss Toulmin Smith finds in the same accounts for 1477, a ‘kyngyng,’
i.e. _Three Kings of Cologne_ on Corpus Christi day[909]; but I read the
entry:—
‘It. payd for the ryngyng of ye same day, ijᵈ.’
Oliver, the historian of the guild, reads ‘hymnall’ for ‘Ryginall’ in the
1480 entry. He also asserts that there was a regular Corpus Christi play
by the crafts. This seems improbable in a place of the size of Sleaford,
and in fact Oliver’s elaborate description is entirely based upon data
from elsewhere, especially the _Gubernacio Ludi_ of Beverley (cf. p.
340)[910].
STAPLEFORD, ESSEX.
‘Men of Starford’ hired the Chelmsford (q.v.) wardrobe during 1564-6.
I find no Starford, but a Stapleford Tawney and a Stapleford Abbots in
Essex.
STOKE BY NAYLAND, ESSEX.
Sir John Howard ‘ȝafe to the pleyeres of Stoke, ijˢ’ on Jan. 12, 1466.
Lord Howard ‘paid to the pleirs of Turton Strete xxᵈ’ on Aug. 29, 1481.
Thorington is still the name given to part of Stoke. There is also an
independent township so named in Essex.
On May 22, 1482, Lord Howard ‘yaff to the cherche on Whitson Monday at
the pley xˢ.’
On Jan. 2, 1491, the Earl of Surrey paid iijˢ iiijᵈ ‘in reward to the
panget’ [? pageant][911].
STONE, KENT.
Stone players were at Lydd in 1490.
TEWKESBURY, GLOUCESTERSHIRE.
The churchwardens’ accounts in 1578 mention payments for ‘the players’
geers, six sheep-skins for Christ’s garments’; and an inventory of 1585
includes ‘eight heads of hair for the Apostles, and ten beards, and a
face or vizier for the Devil[912].’
TINTINHULL, SOMERSET.
The churchwardens’ accounts for 1451-2 include a receipt:—
‘de incremento unius ludi vocati Christmasse play[913].’
WAKEFIELD, YORKSHIRE.
See _Texts_ (i), _Towneley Plays_.
WIMBORNE MINSTER, DORSETSHIRE.
Players of ‘Wymborne Minster’ were rewarded by Henry VII on Jan. 1, 1494
(Appendix E, viii).
WINCHESTER, HAMPSHIRE.
The early use of the _Quem quaeritis_ in the liturgy of the cathedral
served by the Benedictines of St. Swithin’s Priory has been fully
discussed in Chapter xviii and Appendix O.
In 1486, Henry VII was entertained at dinner on a Sunday in the castle
with a performance of _Christi descensus ad inferos_ by the ‘pueri
eleemosynarii’ of the monasteries of St. Swithin’s and Hyde[914].
WINDSOR, BERKS.
On May 24, 1416, Henry V invested the Emperor Sigismund with the Garter,
the annual feast being deferred from April 23 for that purpose. Mr. John
Payne Collier says, ‘A chronicle in the Cottonian collection gives a
description of a performance before him and Henry V, on the incidents of
the life of St. George. The representation seems to have been divided
into three parts, and to have been accomplished by certain artificial
contrivances, exhibiting, first, “the armyng of Seint George, and an
Angel doyng on his spores [spurs]”; secondly, “Seint George riding and
fightyng with the dragon, with his spere in his hand”; and, thirdly, “a
castel, and Seint George and the Kynges daughter ledyng the lambe in at
the castel gates.” Here we have clearly the outline of the history of St.
George of Cappadocia, which often formed the subject of a miracle-play;
but whether, in this instance, it was accompanied with dialogue, or was
(as is most probable) merely a splendid dumb show, assisted by temporary
erections of castles, &c., we are not informed.’ This performance is
accepted from Collier, i. 29, by Ward, i. 50, Pollard, xx, and other
distinguished writers. They ought to have known him better. The authority
he quotes, _Cotton. MS. Calig. B. II_, is wrong. But in _Cotton. MS.
Julius B. I_, one of the MSS. of the _London Chronicle_, is the following
passage, ‘And the first sotelte was our lady armyng seint George, and an
angel doyng on his spores; the ijᵈᵉ sotelte was seint George ridyng and
fightyng with the dragon, with his spere in his hand; the iijᵈᵉ sotelte
was a castel, and seint George, and the kynges doughter ledynge the
lambe in at the castel gates. And all these sotelties were served to the
emperor, and to the kyng, and no ferther: and other lordes were served
with other sotelties after theire degrees[915].’ The representation,
then, was in cake or marchpane. The term ‘soteltie’ is surely not
uncommon[916]. But it has led a French scholar into another curious
mistake. According to M. E. Picot ‘La sotelty paraît n’avoir été qu’une
simple farce, comme la sotternie néerlandaise[917].’ A mumming by Lydgate
in 1429-30 seems to have introduced a ‘miracle’ of St. Clotilda and the
Holy Ampulla (cf. vol. i. p. 397).
WITHAM, ESSEX.
‘Barnaby Riche of Witham’ hired the Chelmsford (q.v.) wardrobe in 1566.
WITTERSHAM, KENT.
Wittersham players were at New Romney in 1426 and Lydd in 1441.
WOODHAM WALTER, ESSEX.
‘Mrs. Higham of Woodham Walter’ hired the Chelmsford (q.v.) wardrobe in
1570-2.
WOODKIRK, YORKSHIRE.
See _Texts_, (i) _Towneley Plays_.
WORCESTER, WORCESTERSHIRE.
A cathedral inventory of 1576 includes:—
‘players gere
A gowne of freres gyrdles. A woman’s gowne. A Kˢ cloke of
Tysshew. A Jerkyn and a payer of breches. A lytill cloke of
tysshew. A gowne of silk. A Jerkyn of greene, 2 cappes, and the
devils apparell[918].’
There was a Corpus Christi play, mentioned in 1467 and 1559. It consisted
of five pageants, maintained by the crafts, and was held yearly, if the
corporation so decided. In 1584 a lease of the ‘vacant place where the
pagantes do stand’ was granted for building, and there was a building
known as the ‘Pageant House’ until 1738[919].
WREXHAM, DENBIGHSHIRE.
The corporation of Shrewsbury saw a play by ‘quibusdam interlusoribus de
Wrexam’ in 1540 (Appendix E, vi).
WRITTLE, ESSEX.
‘Parker of Writtell’ twice hired the Chelmsford (q.v.) wardrobe during
1570-2. See also p. 184, n. 2.
WYCOMBE, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE.
Henry VII rewarded players of Wycombe on Dec. 31, 1494 (Appendix E, viii).
WYE, KENT.
Wye players were at New Romney in 1491.
WYMONDHAM, NORFOLK.
An account of the ‘husbands for the wache and play of Wymondham,’ made
up to June, 1538, includes payments for ‘the play,’ ‘devyls shoes,’ ‘the
giant,’ a man ‘in armour,’ ‘the revels and dances[920].’ It was at this
play on July 1, 1549, that Kett’s rebellion broke out. According to
Alexander Neville, the ‘ludi ac spectacula ... antiquitus ita instituta’
lasted two days and nights; according to Holinshed, ‘one day and one
night at least[921].’
YARMOUTH, NORFOLK.
The churchwardens’ accounts of St. Nicholas’s contain items between 1462
and 1512 for ‘making a new star,’ ‘leading the star,’ ‘a new balk line to
the star and ryving the same star.’ In 1473 and 1486 are mentioned plays
on Corpus Christi day; in 1489, a play at Bartholomew tide; in 1493, a
game played on Christmas day[922].
YORK, YORKSHIRE.
[_Authorities._—The chief are R. Davies, _Municipal Records
of the City of York_ (1843); L. Toulmin Smith, _York Plays_
(1885). From one or other of these all statements below, of
which the authority is not given, are taken. The municipal
documents used are enumerated in _York Plays_, ix. The earliest
date from 1371. F. Drake, _Eboracum_ (1736); R. H. Skaife,
_Guild of Corpus Christi_ (Surtees Soc.); H. T. Riley, in
_Hist. MSS. Comm._ i. 109; M. Sellers, _City of York in the
Sixteenth Century_, in _Eng. Hist. Rev._ ix. 275; and some
craft-guild documents in _Archaeological Review_, i. 221;
_Antiquary_, xi. 107; xxii. 266; xxiii. 27, may also be
consulted.]
_Liturgical Plays._
The traditional _Statutes_ of York Cathedral, supposed to date in their
present form from about 1255, provide for the _Pastores_ and the _Stella_.
‘Item inueniet [thesaurarius] stellas cum omnibus ad illas pertinentibus,
praeter cirpos, quos inueniet Episcopus Puerorum futurorum [? fatuorum],
vnam in nocte natalis Domini pro pastoribus, et ijᵃˢ in nocte Epiphaniae,
si debeat fieri presentacio iijᵘᵐ regum[923].’
_Corpus Christi Plays._
The first mention is in 1378, when part of a fine levied on the Bakers
is assigned ‘a la pagine des ditz Pestours de corpore cristi.’ In 1394 a
civic order required all the pageants to play in the places ‘antiquitus
assignatis,’ in accordance with the proclamation, and under penalty of
a fine. In 1397 Richard II was present to view the plays. In 1415 the
town clerk, Roger Burton, entered in the _Liber Memorandorum_ a copy of
the _Ordo paginarum ludi Corporis Christi_, which was a schedule of the
crafts and their plays, together with the _Proclamacio ludi corporis
cristi facienda in vigilia corporis cristi_. At this date the plays were
given _annuatim_. About 1440 the existing manuscript of the plays was
probably written. It was a ‘register,’ drawn up from the ‘regynalls’ or
‘origenalls’ in the possession of the several crafts, and kept by the
city[924]. Halfway through the sixteenth century performances become
irregular. In 1535 the Creed play, in 1558 the Paternoster play was given
instead. In 1548 ‘certen pagyauntes ... that is to say, the deyng of our
lady, the assumption of our lady, and the coronacion of our lady,’ were
cast out. In 1550 and 1552 the play was suppressed on account of the
plague, half the ‘pageant silver’ in 1552 being given to the sick. In
1562 the corporation attempted in vain to defer it to St. Barnabas day.
In 1564, 1565, and 1566 it was not given, on account of war and sickness.
In 1568 there was a dispute as to whether it should be played, and it was
ordered that it must be ‘perused and otherwaise amended’ first. In 1569
it was given on Whit-Tuesday. It then seems to have lain dormant until
1579, when the Council made an order that it should be played but ‘first
the booke shalbe caried to my Lord Archebisshop [Edwin Sandys] and Mr.
Deane [Mathew Hutton] to correcte, if that my Lord Archebisshop doo well
like theron.’ Various notes upon the ‘register,’ addressed to a ‘Doctor,’
and indicating that this or that play had been revised, were probably
written at this time. In 1580 the citizens petitioned for the play, and
the mayor replied that the request would be considered. There is no proof
that any performance took place after this date; although the Bakers were
still choosing ‘pageant-masters’ in 1656[925].
The ordering of the plays about 1415 was as follows: Yearly in the first
or second week in Lent, the town clerk copied the ‘sedulae paginarum’
from the _Ordo_ in the _Liber Memorandorum_ and delivered it to the
crafts ‘per vj servientes maioris ad clavam.’ On the eve of Corpus
Christi a proclamation of mayor and sheriffs forbade ‘distorbaunce of
the kynges pees, and ye play, or hynderyng of ye processioun of Corpore
Christi.’ It went on to direct that the pageants must be played at
the assigned places, that the men of the crafts are to come forth in
customary array and manner, ‘careynge tapers of ye pagentz,’ that there
shall be provided ‘good players, well arayed and openly spekyng,’ and
that all shall be ready to start ‘at the mydhowre betwix iiijᵗʰ and vᵗʰ
of the cloke in the mornynge, and then all oyer pageantz fast followyng
ilk one after oyer as yer course is, without tarieng.’ Fines are imposed
for any neglect or failure. At this date the play and the Corpus Christi
procession were on the same day. In 1426 it is recorded that a Franciscan
preacher, William Melton, while commending the play, ‘affirmando quod
bonus erat in se et laudabilis valde,’ urged that it should be put
on the day before Corpus Christi, so as not to interfere with the
ecclesiastical feast[926]. This seems to have been agreed to, but the
arrangement did not last. The procession was under the management of a
Corpus Christi guild, founded in 1408, and the statutes of this guild
dated in 1477 show that it was then the procession which was displaced,
falling on the Friday after Corpus Christi day[927].
Thus the plays were essentially the affair of the whole community, and
the control of them by the mayor and council may be further illustrated.
In 1476 the council made an order regulating the choice of actors, and
laid down—
‘That yerely in the tyme of lentyn there shall be called afore the maire
for the tyme beyng iiij of the moste connyng discrete and able players
within this Citie, to serche, here, and examen all the plaiers and plaies
and pagentes thrughoute all the artificers belonging to Corpus Xᵗⁱ Plaie.
And all suche as thay shall fynde sufficiant in personne and connyng, to
the honour of the Citie and worship of the saide Craftes, for to admitte
and able; and all other insufficiant personnes, either in connyng, voice,
or personne to discharge, ammove, and avoide. And that no plaier that
shall plaie in the saide Corpus Xᵗⁱ plaie be conducte and reteyned to
plaie but twise on the day of the saide playe; and that he or thay so
plaing plaie not ouere twise the saide day, vpon payne of xlˢ to forfet
vnto the chaumbre as often tymes as he or thay shall be founden defautie
in the same.’
By ‘twise’ is probably meant ‘in two distinct pageants’; for each pageant
repeated its performance at several stations. In 1394 these stations were
‘antiquitus assignatis.’ In 1399 the commons petitioned the council to
the effect that ‘le juer et les pagentz de la jour de corpore cristi’
were not properly performed on account of the number of stations, and
these were limited to twelve. In later years there were from twelve
to sixteen, and from 1417 the corporation made a profit by letting to
prominent citizens the right to have stations opposite their houses.
A list of ‘Leases for Corpuscrysty Play’ in 1554, for instance, shows
twelve stations bringing in from xiijᵈ to iijˢ iiijᵈ each, while nothing
was charged for the places ‘at the Trinitie yaits where the clerke kepys
the register,’ ‘at the comon Hall to my Lord Maior and his bredren,’ ‘at
Mr. Bekwyth’s at Hosyerlane end, where as my Lady Mayres and her systers
lay’ and ‘uppon the Payment.’
Outward signs of the civic control were the ‘vexilla ludi cum armis
civitatis,’ which were set up at the stations by order of the mayor on
Corpus Christi eve. Apparently the city claimed also to put its mark
on the pageants themselves, for in an agreement of 1422 merging the
pageants of the Shoemakers, Tilemakers, Hayresters, and Millers it was
declared, ‘quod nulla quatuor artium praedictarum ponet aliqua signa,
arma, vel insignia super paginam praedictam, nisi tantum arma huius
honorabilis civitatis.’ But the more important crafts, who had a pageant
to themselves, may not have been subject to this restriction.
Although the corporation profited from the ‘dimissio locorum ludi
Corporis Christi,’ they did not meet many of the expenses. They paid
for the services of the minstrels employed, and for refreshments for
themselves and for important visitors to the town. They occasionally
helped out the resources of a poor craft. The following extract from the
Chamberlains’ accounts for 1397 seems to be quite exceptional:—
‘Expens’ in festo de Corpore Xp’ i.
Item: pro steyning de iiijᵒʳ pannos ad opus paginae, iiijˢ.
Et pro pictura paginae, ijˢ.
Et pro vexillo novo cum apparatu, xijˢ ijᵈ.
Et in portacione et reportacione meremii ad barras coram Rege,
ijˢ jᵈ.
Et pro xx fursperres ad barras praedictas coram Rege, vˢ xᵈ.
Et pro xix sapplynges emptis de Iohanne de Craven pro barris
praedictis, vjˢ viijᵈ.
Et viij portitoribus ducentibus et moventibus paginam, vˢ iiijᵈ.
Et Ianitori Sanctae Trinitatis pro pagina hospitanda, iiijᵈ.
Et ludentibus, iiijᵈ.
Et ministrallis in festo de Corpore Xp’i, xiijˢ iiijᵈ.
Et in pane, cervisiis, vino, et carnibus, et focalibus pro
maiore et probis hominibus in die ad ludum, xviijˢ viijᵈ.
Et in ministrallis domini Regis ac aliorum dominorum
supervenientibus, vijˡⁱ vijˢ iiijᵈ.
Et ministris camerae in albo panno et rubeo pro adventu Regis,
lviijˢ xᵈ.’
Certainly the corporation did not themselves provide a ‘pagina’ in
1415 or later years. I think that in 1397 they prepared one for some
allegorical performance of welcome, distinct from the play itself, to
Richard II. The king was evidently placed at the gate of Trinity Priory,
where was the first station as late as 1569.
But the bulk of the cost fell upon the crafts. They had to build, repair,
decorate, and draw the pageant (Latin, _pagina_; English, _pagiaunt_,
_paiaunt_, _pachent_, _pagende_, _pagyant_, _padgin_, _padgion_,
_paidgion_, _padzhand_, &c., &c.). They had to house it in one of the
‘pageant howses’ which until recently gave a name to ‘Pageant green,’
and for each of which a yearly rent of xijᵈ seems to have been the
usual charge. They had also doubtless to provide dress and refresh the
actors; and some of their members were bound personally to conduct the
pageant on its journey. The fully organized craft-guilds appointed
annual ‘pageant-masters,’ and met the ordinary charges by a levy of
‘pageant-silver’ upon each member according to his status. The amounts
varied from 1_d._ to 8_d._, and were supplemented by the proceeds of
fines and payments on admissions and on setting up shop. Smaller guilds
were often grouped together, and produced one pageant amongst three or
four of them. Even the unincorporated trades did not escape. In 1483
four Innholders undertook the responsibility of producing a pageant for
eight years on condition of a fixed payment of 4_d._ from each innholder
in the city. Exceptional expenses were sometimes met in exceptional
ways. The Mercers gave free admission into their fraternity to one
Thomas Drawswerd, on condition that he should ‘mak the Pagiant of the
Dome ... of newe substanciale for vij marks and the old pageant.’[928]
In 1501 the Cartwrights made four new wheels to a pageant, and were
thereupon discharged from further charges for 6_d._ a year. Evidently the
obligation of producing a pageant was considered an onerous one, and as
trades rose and fell in York, the incidence of it upon this or that trade
or trades was frequently altered. All such rearrangements came before
the civic authorities, and many of them are upon record. Naturally they
involved some corresponding revision, piecing together, or splitting up
of plays (cf. p. 412). I only find one example of a play produced by any
other body than a craft. The Hospital of St. Leonard produced the play of
the Purification in 1415, but had ceased to do so some time before 1477.
It is to be noted that in 1561 the Minstrels took their place with the
other crafts, and became responsible for the Herod play[929].
_Pater-Noster Play._
Wyclif in his _De Officio Pastorali_, cap. 15 (1378), says that,—
‘herfore freris han tauȝt in Englond þe Paternoster in Engliȝcsh tunge,
as men seyen in þe pleye of Yorke[930].’ The reference here is to a
performance distinct from the Corpus Christi play. The preamble to a
return of the ordinances and so forth of the guild ‘Orationis Domini,’
made in 1389, states that
‘Once upon a time, a Play setting forth the goodness of the Lord’s Prayer
was played in the city of York; in which play all manner of vices and
sins were held up to scorn, and the virtues were held up to praise.’
The guild was formed to perpetuate this play, and the members were bound
to produce it and accompany it through the streets. In 1389 they had no
possessions beyond the properties of the play and a chest. A _computus_
of the guild for 1399 contains an entry of an old debt of 2_s._ 2_d._,
owed by John Downom and his wife for entrance fee:—
‘Sed dictus Iohannes dicit se expendisse in diuersis expensis circa
ludum Accidiae ex parte Ric. Walker ijˢ jᵈ, ideo de praedicto petit
allocari[931].’
It would appear that by 1488 the guild had been converted to or absorbed
in a guild of the Holy Trinity, which was moreover the craft-guild of
the Merchants or Mercers. Certainly in that year this guild chose four
pageant-masters to bring forth the Paternoster play. They were to bring
in the pageants ‘within iiij days next after Corpus Christi Day[932].’ In
1488 the Paternoster play was presumably a variant for the usual Corpus
Christi plays. It was similarly played on Corpus Christi day in 1558. The
management was in the hands of one of the few unsuppressed guilds, that
of St. Anthony; but the corporation gathered ‘pageant silver’ from the
crafts and met the charges. A ‘bayn,’ or messenger, rode to proclaim the
play on St. George’s day, and another on Whit Monday. Another performance
took place on Corpus Christi day (now called ‘Thursday next after
Trinitie Sonday’), 1572. The book was ‘perused, amended and corrected.’
Nevertheless, on July 30 the council sent a ‘trewe copie’ of it, at
his request, to the Archbishop [Grindal] of York, and although in 1575
they sent a deputation to urge him to appoint a commission to reform
‘all suche the play bookes as perteyne this cittie now in his grace’s
custodie,’ there is no proof that his grace complied.
_Creed Play._
As already stated, the guild of Corpus Christi had nothing to do with the
regular craft-plays. But in 1446, William Revetor, a chantry priest and
warden of the guild, bequeathed to it a ‘ludus incomparabilis’ called
the ‘Crede play,’ to be performed every tenth year ‘in variis locis
dictae civitatis.’ An inventory of 1465 includes:—
‘Liber vocatus Originale continens Articulos Fidei Catholicae in lingua
anglicana, nuper scriptum, appreciatum xˡⁱ.
Et alius liber inveteratus de eodem ludo, cˢ.
Et alius liber de eodem anglice vocatus _Crede Play_ continens xxij
quaternos.’
There were also many banners and properties, amongst which
‘Et xij rotulae nuper scriptae cum articulis fidei catholicae, apprec’
iijˢ iiijᵈ.
Et una clavis pro sancto Petro cum ij peciis unius tunicae depictae,
apprec’ xijᵈ.
Et x diademata pro Xp’o et apostolis cum una larva et aliis novem
cheverons, vjˢ.’
Various performances of the Creed play are recorded. In 1483 it was given
on Sunday, September 7, before Richard III, by order of the Council,
‘apon the cost of the most onest men of every parish in thys Cite.’ From
1495 decennial performances can be traced, generally about Lammas (August
1), and ‘at the common hall.’ In 1535 the Corpus Christi play proper was
omitted, and the crafts contributed ‘pageant silver’ to the Creed play
at Lammas. But they refused to give way to it again in 1545. The guild
was suppressed in 1547, and the ‘original or regestre’ passed into the
hands of the hospital of St. Thomas. In 1562 the corporation proposed the
Creed play as a possible alternative for ‘th’ ystories of the old and
new testament’ on St. Barnabas day; and in 1568 they again designed to
replace the regular Corpus Christi play by it. But first they submitted
it to the Dean of York, Matthew Hutton, who, in a letter still extant,
advised that—
‘thogh it was plawsible to yeares ago, and wold now also of the ignorant
sort be well liked, yet now in this happie time of the gospell, I knowe
the learned will mislike it, and how the state will beare with it, I
knowe not.’
Consequently the book was ‘delyveryd in agayn,’ and no more is heard of
it.
Mr. Davies suggests that the play probably fell into twelve scenes, in
each of which one of the apostles figured. If so, there is perhaps an
allusion to a performance of it in a letter of Henry VIII to the justices
of York in which he speaks of a riot which took place—
‘at the acting of a religious interlude of St. Thomas the Apostle made
in the said city on the 23ʳᵈ of August now last past ... owing to the
seditious conduct of certain papists who took a part in preparing for the
said interlude.’
He requires them to imprison any who in ‘performing interludes which are
founded on any portions of the Old or New Testament’ use language tending
to a breach of the peace[933].
_St. George Riding._
In April, 1554, the Council made an order for ‘Seynt George to be brought
forth and ryde as hath been accustomed,’ and the following items in the
accounts show that the personages in the procession were much the same as
at Dublin (q.v.):—
‘to the waites for rydyng and playing before St. George and the play.’
‘to the porters for beryng of the pagyant, the dragon and St. Xp’ofer.’
‘to the King and Quene [of Dele] that playd.’
‘to the May [the Maid].’
‘to John Stamper for playing St. George[934].’
_Midsummer Show._
As the regular plays waned, the ‘show’ or ‘watch’ of armed men on
Midsummer eve became important. There is an ordinance for it in 1581. In
1584 it took place in the morning, and in the afternoon John Grafton,
a schoolmaster, gave at seven stations a play with ‘certaine compiled
speaches,’ for which the council allowed him to have ‘a pageant
frame.’ Apparently the Baker’s pageant was repaired for the purpose.
In 1585 Grafton borrowed the pageants of the Skinners, Cooks, Tailors,
Innholders, Bakers, and Dyers, and gave another play. Grafton’s account
for 1585 mentions ‘the hearse,’ ‘the angell,’ ‘the Queene’s crowne,’
‘the childe one of the furyes bare.’ He got iijˢ, vjˢ, viijᵈ for his
pains[935].
X
TEXTS OF MEDIAEVAL PLAYS AND EARLY TUDOR INTERLUDES
I. MIRACLE-PLAYS.
CHESTER PLAYS.
_Manuscripts._
(i) Hg. †1475-1500. _Hengwrt MS._ 229, in the library of Mr. Wynne of
Peniarth, containing Play xxiv (_Antichrist_) only. Probably a prompter’s
copy, as some one has ‘doubled it up and carried it about in his pocket,
used it with hot hands, and faded its ink.’
(ii) D. 1591. _Devonshire MS._, in the library of the Duke of Devonshire,
written by ‘Edward Gregorie, a scholar of Bunbury.’
(iii) W. 1592. _Brit. Mus. Addl. MS._ 10,305. Signed at the end of each
play ‘George Bellin.’
(iv) h. 1600. _Brit. Mus. Harl. MS._ 2013, also signed after some of the
plays by ‘George Bellin’ or ‘Billinges.’ A verse proclamation or ‘banes’
is prefixed, and on a separate leaf a copy of the prose proclamation made
by the clerk of the pentice in 1544 (cf. p. 349) with a note, in another
hand.
(v) B. 1604. _Bodl. MS._ 175, written by ‘Gulielmus Bedford,’ with an
incomplete copy of the ‘banes.’
(vi) H. 1607. _Brit. Mus. Harl. MS._ 2124, in two hands, the second being
that of ‘Jacobus Miller.’ An historical note, dated 1628, is on the cover.
(vii) M. MS. in Manchester Free Library, containing fragment of Play xix
(_Resurrection_) only.
[The MSS. D, W, h, B are derived from a common source, best represented
by B. MS. H varies a good deal from this group, and is the better text.
MS. Hg is probably related to H.]
_Editions._
(a) 1818. Plays iii, x (_Noah_, _Innocents_) and Banes; J. H. Markland,
for Roxburghe Club (No. 11).
(b) 1836. Play xxiv (_Antichrist_); J. P. Collier, _Five Miracle-Plays_.
(c) 1838. Plays iii, xxiv (_Noah_, _Antichrist_); W. Marriott, _English
Miracle-Plays_.
(d) 1843-7, 1853. Cycle; Thomas Wright, from MS. W, for Shakespeare
Society.
(e) 1883. Part of Play xix (_Resurrection_), from MS. M, in _Manchester
Guardian_, for May 19, 1883.
(f) 1890. Plays iii, part of iv (_Noah_, _Isaac_); Pollard, 8.
(g) 1893-. Cycle (vol. i with Introduction, Banes and Plays i-xiii only
issued by 1902); H. Deimling, from MS. H (with collation), for E. E. T.
S. (Extra Series, lxii).
(h) 1897. Plays v, xxiv (_Prophetae_, _Antichrist_); Manly, i. 66, 170,
from (g) and MS. Hg respectively.
[F. J. Furnivall, _Digby Plays_, xx, prints eighteen additional lines to
the Banns as given by Deimling from MSS. h, B. These are from a copy in
Rogers’s _Breviary of Chester_ (cf. p. 350), _Harl. MS._ 1944. A distinct
and earlier (pre-Reformation) Banns is printed by Morris, 307, from
_Harl. MS._ 2150 (cited in error as 2050), which is a copy of the White
Book of the Pentice belonging to the City of Chester.]
_The Cycle._
The list of ‘pagyns in play of Corpus Χρi’ contained in the ‘White Book
of the Pentice’ (_Harl. MS._ 2150, f. 85 b), and given apparently from
this source, by Rogers (Furnivall, xxi), makes them twenty-five in
number, as follows:—
i. The fallinge of Lucifer.
ii. The creation of yᵉ worlde.
iii. Noah & his shipp.
iv. Abraham & Isacke.
v. Kinge Balack & Balaam with Moyses.
vi. Natiuytie of our Lord.
vii. The shepperdes offeringe.
viii. Kinge Harrald & yᵉ mounte victoriall.
ix. Yᵉ 3 Kinges of Collen.
x. The destroyeinge of the Childeren by Herod.
xi. Purification of our Ladye.
xii. The pinackle, with yᵉ woman of Canan.
xiii. The risinge of Lazarus from death to liffe.
xiv. The cominge of Christe to Ierusalem.
xv. Christs maundy with his desiples.
xvi. The scourginge of Christe.
xvii. The Crusifienge of Christ.
xviii. The harrowinge of hell.
xix. The Resurrection.
xx. The Castle of Emaus & the Apostles.
xxi. The Ascention of Christe.
xxii. Whitsonday yᵉ makeinge of the Creede.
xxiii. Prophetes before yᵉ day of Dome.
xxiv. Antecriste.
xxv. Domes Daye.
The list of plays contained in the pre-Reformation Banns is the same as
this, with one exception. Instead of twenty-five plays it has twenty-six.
After _Wyt Sonday_ is inserted the play ‘of our lady thassumpcon,’ to be
brought forth by ‘the worshipfull wyves of this towne.’ This play of _The
Assumption_ was given in 1477, and as a separate performance in 1488,
1497, and 1515 (Morris, 308, 322, 323). Doubtless it was dropped, as at
York, out of Protestantism. The post-Reformation Banns and the extant
MSS. of the cycle have it not. Further, they reduce the twenty-five plays
of the ‘White Book’ list to twenty-four, by merging the plays of the
_Scourging_ and _Crucifixion_ into one. In MSS. B, W, h, the junction is
plainly apparent (see Deimling, i. ix; Wright, ii. 50). In MS. H there is
no break (Deimling, i. xxiv).
_Literary Relations._
Wright, i. xiv, and Hohlfeld, in _Anglia_, xi. 223, call attention to
the parallels between the Chester plays and the French _Mystère du Viel
Testament_ and to the occurrence in them of scraps and fragments of
French speech. The chief of these are put into the mouths of Octavian,
the _Magi_, Herod, and Pilate, and may have been thought appropriate
to kings and lordings. They may also point to translation from French
originals. Davidson, 254, suggests that the earliest performances at
Chester were in Anglo-Norman, and points to the tradition of MS. H (cf.
p. 351) as confirming this. There are slight traces of influence upon
some of the Chester plays by the York cycle (Hohlfeld, loc. cit. 260;
Davidson, 287). Hohlfeld, in _M.L.N._ v. 222, regards Chester play iv as
derived from a common original with the Brome _Abraham and Isaac_. H.
Ungemacht, _Die Quellen der fünf ersten Chester Plays_, discusses the
relation of the plays to the Brome play and the French _mystères_, and
also to the _Vulgate_, the Fathers, Josephus, and the _Cursor Mundi_.
YORK PLAYS.
_Manuscripts._
(i) _Brit. Mus. Addl. MS._ 35,290, recently _Ashburnham MS._ 137, fully
described by L. T. Smith, _York Plays_, xiii. The MS. dates from about
1430-40, and appears to be a ‘register’ or transcript made for the
corporation of the ‘origenalls’ in the hands of the crafts. In 1554 the
‘register’ was kept by the clerk at the gates of the dissolved Holy
Trinity Priory. After the plays ceased to be performed it got into the
hands of the Fairfaxes of Denton. In 1695 it belonged to Henry Fairfax,
and its ownership can be traced thence to the present day.
(ii) _Sykes MS._ in possession of the York Philosophical Society, fully
described in _York Plays_, 455. This is of the early sixteenth century.
It contains only the Scriveners’ play, of ‘The Incredulity of Thomas,’
is not a copy from the Ashburnham MS., and may be an ‘origenall,’ or a
transcript for the prompter’s use. It has a cover with a flap, and has
been folded lengthwise, as if for the pocket.
_Editions._
(a) 1797. Play xlii (_Incredulity of Thomas_), from _Sykes MS._, in J.
Croft, _Excerpta Antiqua_, 105.
(b) 1859. Play xlii (_Incredulity of Thomas_), from _Sykes MS._, ed. J.
P. Collier, in _Camden Miscellany_, vol. iv.
(c) 1885. Cycle, from _Ashburnham MS._, in L. Toulmin Smith, _York Plays_.
(d) 1890. Play i (_Creation and the Fall of Lucifer_), from _York Plays_,
in Pollard, 1.
(e) 1897. Plays xxxviii, xlviii (_Resurrection_, _Judgment Day_), from
_York Plays_, in Manly, i. 153, 198.
_The Cycle._
The subjects of the forty-eight plays and one fragment contained in the
_Ashburnham MS._ are as follows:—
i. _The Barkers._ The Creation, Fall of Lucifer.
ii. _Playsterers._ The Creation to the Fifth Day.
iii. _Cardmakers._ God creates Adam and Eve.
iv. _Fullers._ Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.
v. _Cowpers._ Man’s disobedience and Fall.
vi. _Armourers._ Adam and Eve driven from Eden.
vii. _Glovers._ Sacrificium Cayme et Abell.
viii. _Shipwrites._ Building of the Ark.
ix. _Fysshers and Marynars._ Noah and the Flood.
x. _Parchmyners and Bokebynders._ Abraham’s Sacrifice.
xi. _The Hoseers._ The Israelites in Egypt, the Ten Plagues,
and Passage of the Red Sea.
xii. _Spicers._ Annunciation, and visit of Elizabeth to Mary.
xiii. _Pewtereres and Foundours._ Joseph’s trouble about Mary.
xiv. _Tille-thekers._ Journey to Bethlehem: Birth of Jesus.
xv. _Chaundelers._ The Angels and the Shepherds.
xvi. _Masonns._ Coming of the three Kings to Herod.
xvii. _Goldsmyths._ Coming of the three Kings, the Adoration.
xviii. _Marchallis._ Flight into Egypt.
xix. _Gyrdillers and Naylers._ Massacre of the Innocents.
xx. _Sporiers and Lorimers._ Christ with the Doctors in the
Temple.
xxi. _Barbours._ Baptism of Jesus.
xxii. _Smythis._ Temptation of Jesus.
xxiii. _Coriours._ The Transfiguration.
xxiv. _Cappemakers._ Woman taken in Adultery. Raising of Lazarus.
xxv. _Skynners._ Entry into Jerusalem.
xxvi. _Cutteleres._ Conspiracy to take Jesus.
xxvii. _Baxteres._ The Last Supper.
xxviii. _Cordewaners._ The Agony and Betrayal.
xxix. _Bowers and Flecchers._ Peter denies Jesus: Jesus examined
by Caiaphas.
xxx. _Tapiterers and Couchers._ Dream of Pilate’s Wife: Jesus
before Pilate.
xxxi. _Lytsleres._ Trial before Herod.
xxxii. _Cokis and Waterlederes._ Second accusation before Pilate:
Remorse of Judas: Purchase of Field of Blood.
xxxiii. _Tyllemakers._ Second trial continued: Judgment on Jesus.
xxxiv. _Shermen._ Christ led up to Calvary.
xxxv. _Pynneres and Paynters._ Crucifixio Christi.
xxxvi. _Bocheres._ Mortificacio Christi.
xxxvii. _Sadilleres._ Harrowing of Hell.
xxxviii. _Carpenteres._ Resurrection: Fright of the Jews.
xxxix. _Wyne-drawers._ Jesus appears to Mary Magdalen after the
Resurrection.
xl. _The Sledmen._ Travellers to Emmaus.
xli. _Hatmakers, Masons, and Laborers._ Purification of Mary:
Simeon and Anna prophesy.
xlii. _Escreueneres._ Incredulity of Thomas.
xliii. _Tailoures._ The Ascension.
xliv. _Potteres._ Descent of the Holy Spirit.
xlv. _Draperes._ The Death of Mary.
xlvi. _Wefferes._ Appearance of our Lady to Thomas.
xlvii. _Osteleres._ Assumption and Coronation of the Virgin.
xlviii. _Merceres._ The Judgement Day.
(Fragment.) _Inholders._ Coronation of our Lady.
The majority of these plays were entered in the register about 1440. The
fragment of a later play on _The Coronation of Our Lady_ was added at the
end of the fifteenth century. It was doubtless intended to supersede
xlvii. _Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden_ (iv) and _The Purification of
Mary, Simeon and Anna prophesy_ (xli) were inserted in 1558. The former
is probably of the same date as the rest; the latter is thought by the
editor to be later. It is misplaced both in the MS. and the printed text.
It should follow xvii, but there was no room for it in the MS. Some
notes, probably written when the plays were submitted to the Dean of York
in 1579, state that xii, xviii, xxi, xxviii had been rewritten since the
register was compiled.
The register does not represent quite all the plays ever performed at
York. Spaces are left for _The Marriage at Cana_ and _Christ in the House
of Simon the Leper_, which were never written in; and the corporation
archives refer to a play of _Fergus_ or _Portacio Corporis Mariae_,
which came between xlv and xlvi and was ‘laid apart’ in 1485; and to a
scene of _Suspencio Iudae_, which was in 1422 an episode of xxxiii. In
other respects the contents of the register agree substantially with
the fifty-one plays of the _Ordo paginarum_ entered by the Town Clerk
in the _Liber Memorandorum_ in 1415[936] and with the fifty-seven plays
of a second _Ordo_ of uncertain date which comes a little later in the
same _Liber_[937]. The three lists show some variations in the grouping
of the subject-matter into pageants, due to the constant shifting of
responsibility amongst the crafts.
_Literary Relations._
Davidson, 252 sqq., attempts to trace the growth of the York plays out
of a parent cycle, from which the Towneley and Coventry plays borrowed.
The biblical and apocryphal sources are discussed by L. Toulmin Smith,
_York Plays_, xlvii; A. R. Hohlfeld, in _Anglia_, xi. 285; P. Kamann,
_Die Quellen der York-Spiele_, in _Anglia_, x. 189; F. Holthausen, in
_Arch. f. d. Studium d. neueren Sprachen und Litteratur_, lxxxv. 425;
lxxxvi. 280; W. A. Craigie, in _Furnivall Miscellany_, 52. I have not
been able to see O. Herrtrich, _Studien zu den York Plays_ (Breslau
Diss. 1886). There are textual studies by F. Holthausen as above, and
in _Philologische Studien_ (Sievers-Festgabe), 1896; E. Kölbing, in
_Englische Studien_, xvi. 279; xx. 179; J. Hall, in _Eng. Stud._ ix.
448; Zupitza, in _Deutsche Litteraturzeitung_, vi. 1304; K. Luick, in
_Anglia_, xxii. 384.
TOWNELEY PLAYS.
_Manuscript._
Written in the second half of the fifteenth century, formerly in the
library of Towneley Hall, long in the possession of Mr. Quaritch, the
bookseller, and now in that of Major Coates, of Ewell, Surrey. There are
thirty-two plays in all, but twenty-six leaves are missing.
_Editions._
(a) 1822. Play xxx (_Iudicium_); F. Douce, for Roxburghe Club
(_Publications_, No. 16).
(b) 1836. Play xiii (_Secunda Pastorum_); J. P. Collier, in _Five
Miracle-Plays_.
(c) 1836. Complete cycle; for _Surtees Soc._ (It is uncertain whether the
editor was J. Raine, J. Hunter, or J. S. Stevenson.)
(d) 1838. Plays viii, xiii, xxiii, xxv, xxx (_Pharao_, _Secunda
Pastorum_, _Crucifixio_, _Extractio Animarum ab Inferno_, _Iudicium_); W.
Marriott, _English Miracle-Plays_.
(e) 1867. Play iii (_Processus Noe cum filiis_), E. Mätzner,
_Altenglische Sprachproben_, 360.
(f) 1875. Play ii (_Mactacio Abel_); T. Valke, _Der Tod des Abel_
(Leipzig).
(g) 1885. Plays viii, xviii, xxv, xxvi, xxx (_Pharao_, _Pagina Doctorum_,
_Extraccio Animarum_, _Resurreccio Domini_, _Iudicium_); L. Toulmin
Smith, _York Plays_, 68, 158, 372, 397, 501 (not quite in full, for
comparison with corresponding York plays).
(h) 1890. Play xiii (_Secunda Pastorum_), abridged; Pollard, 31.
(i) 1897. Cycle, G. England and A. W. Pollard, for E. E. T. S. (Extra
Series, lxxi).
(k) 1897. Plays iii, v, vi, xiii (_Processus Noe_, _Isaac_, _Iacob_,
_Secunda Pastorum_) from (i); Manly, i. 13, 58, 94.
_The Cycle._
There are thirty-two extant plays, as follows:—
i. The Creation (The Barkers, Wakefeld).
ii. Mactacio Abel (The Glovers).
iii. Processus Noe cum filiis (Wakefeld).
iv. Abraham (incomplete).
v. [Isaac].
vi. Iacob.
vii. Processus Prophetarum (incomplete).
viii. Pharao (the Litsters or Dyers).
ix. Cesar Augustus.
x. Annunciacio.
xi. Salutacio Elezabeth.
xii. Una pagina Pastorum (Prima).
xiii. Alia eorundem (Secunda).
xiv. Oblacio Magorum.
xv. Fugacio Iosep & Mariae in Egyptum.
xvi. Magnus Herodes.
xvii. Purificacio Mariae (incomplete at end).
xviii. Pagina Doctorum (incomplete at beginning).
xix. Iohannes Baptista.
xx. Conspiracio (et Capcio).
xxi. Coliphizacio.
xxii. Fflagellacio.
xxiii. Processus Crucis (et Crucifixio).
xxiv. Processus Talentorum.
xxv. Extraccio Animarum.
xxvi. Resurreccio Domini.
xxvii. Peregrini (the Fishers).
xxviii. Thomas Indiae (et Resurreccio Domini).
xxix. Ascencio Domini (incomplete).
xxx. Iudicium.
xxxi. Lazarus.
xxxii. Suspencio Iudae (incomplete).
Plays xxxi and xxxii (a fragment) are obviously misplaced. The former
should come between xix and xx; the latter, which is added to the MS. in
an early sixteenth-century hand, between xxii and xxiii. Probably two
plays at least are lost. Twelve leaves are missing after Play i, and
twelve more after Play xxix. These doubtless contained plays of _The
Fall_ and _Pentecost_.
_Literary Relations._
The Towneley Cycle is a composite one (Ten Brink, ii. 257; iii. 274;
Davidson, 253; England-Pollard, xxi). Mr. Pollard distinguishes
three fairly well-marked strata, and this classification is probably
not exhaustive. There are (a) a group of plays of the ordinary
didactico-religious type; (b) a group derived from the York plays in
an earlier form than the extant text; (c) a group written by a single
writer of marked power and a bold sense of humour. The plays of this
group include iii, xii, xiii, xiv, xxi, and are, for literary quality,
the pick of the vernacular religious drama. Mr. Pollard considers the
cycle practically complete by about 1420. The horned female headdress
(xxx. 269) which led the Surtees editor to put the composition in 1388,
is found in miniatures of the later date. The relation of the cycle to
that of York is also studied by Davidson, 271 sqq., and A. R. Hohlfeld,
in _Anglia_, xi. 253, 285. Ten Brink, ii. 244; iii. 274, thinks that a
much earlier (late thirteenth century) play is preserved in Plays v and
vi (_Isaac_ and _Iacob_). I agree with Mr. Pollard that this conjecture
lacks proof.
A. Ebert has a study, _Die englischen Mysterien, mit besonderer
Berücksichtigung der Townley-Sammlung_, in _Jahrbuch f. rom. u. engl.
Lit._ i. 44, 131. The folk-lore incident of the _Secunda Pastorum_ is
supplied with parallels by E. Kölbing, in England-Pollard, xxxi, and
by H. A. Eaton, in _M.L.N._ xiv. 265, from _The Merry Tales of Gotham_
(H. Oesterley, _A Hundred Merry Tales_ (1526), No. xxiv; Hazlitt,
_Shakespeare’s Jest-Books_, iii. 4). There is an allusion to the ‘foles
of Gotham,’ in Play xii. 180. J. Hugienen, in _M.L.N._ xiv. 255, finds in
Play iv. 49 an adaptation of the French _Viel Testament_, 9511.
_The Locality._
Douce described the manuscript for the sale of Towneley MSS. in 1814 as
supposed to have ‘belonged to the Abbey of Widkirk, near Wakefield, in
the county of York.’ In his Roxburghe Club edition of the _Iudicium_ he
substitutes the name of the Abbey of Whalley, near Towneley Hall. How
far either of these statements or conjectures rests upon Towneley family
tradition is unknown. Widkirk is merely another form (cf. Prof. Skeat,
in _Athenæum_ for Dec. 2, 1893) of Woodkirk, also called West Ardsley,
a small place four miles north of Wakefield. There was not, strictly
speaking, an abbey at Woodkirk, but a small cell of Augustinian canons,
dependent upon the great house of St. Oswald at Nostel.
The MS. itself seems to bear witness to a connexion of the plays with the
crafts of Wakefield. Play i is headed ‘Assit Principio, Sancta Maria,
Meo. Wakefeld.’ In the margin of Play ii is written ‘Glover Pag.’ in a
later hand. Play iii is headed ‘Processus Noe cum filiis. Wakefeld.’ In
the margin of Play viii is ‘Litsters Pagonn’ in a later hand, and further
down, in a third hand, is ‘lyster play.’ Under the title of Play xxvii
is ‘fysher pagent’ in a later hand. Further in Play xiii is a mention
of ‘Horbury Shroges,’ Horbury being a village two or three miles from
Wakefield, and a ‘crokyd thorne’ which may be a ‘Shepherd’s Thorn’ near
Horbury in Mapplewell. These indications are spread over the three groups
of plays distinguished by Mr. Pollard, and certainly suggest that the
whole cycle belonged to the Wakefield crafts. On the other hand, I find
no hint of any plays in the local histories of Wakefield. The evidence
for a connexion with Wakefield is strengthened by M. H. Peacock, _The
Wakefield Mysteries_, in _Anglia_, xxiv. 509, from which it appears
that there are places called Thornhill and Thornes to the E. and W.
respectively of Horbury. Play ii, line 367 ‘bery me in gudeboure at the
quarell hede’ points to Goodybower Close in Wakefield, which once had a
quarry. Play xxiv, line 155 ‘from this towne vnto lyn’ suggests at least
a borrowing from East Anglia.
Perhaps we may combine the data of the manuscript and of tradition by
supposing that the plays were acted by the crafts of Wakefield, not
in the town at Corpus Christi or Whitsuntide, but at one of the great
fairs which the canons of Nostel held under charter at Woodkirk about
the feasts of the Assumption (Aug. 15) and the Nativity (Sept. 8) of the
Virgin. These fairs, run into one continuous horse fair, and known from a
local family of Legh, as Lee fair, lasted until quite recently[938].
LUDUS COVENTRIAE.
_Manuscript._
_Brit. Mus. Cotton MS. Vespasian_ D. viii. Forty-two plays, the last
incomplete. On f. 100ᵛ is the date 1468. At the beginning is written
‘Robert Hegge, Dunelmensis’ and before the twenty-ninth play ‘Ego R.
H. Dunelmensis, Possideo: Ου κτησις αλλα χρησις.’ On the fly-leaf, in
an Elizabethan hand, is ‘The plaie called Corpus Christi,’ and in the
hand of Cotton’s librarian, Richard James, ‘Contenta Novi Testamenti
scenice expressa et actitata olim per monachos sive fratres mendicantes:
vulgo dicitur hic liber Ludus Coventriae, sive ludus Corporis Christi:
scribitur metris Anglicanis.’ The following account was given by a later
librarian, Dr. Smith, in his printed catalogue (1696) of the Cottonian
MSS.: ‘A collection of plays, in Old English metre: h.e. Dramata sacra,
in quibus exhibentur historiae veteris & N. Testamenti, introductis quasi
in scenam personis illic memoratis quas secum invicem colloquentes pro
ingenio finget Poeta. Videntur olim coram populo, sive ad instruendum
sive ad placendum, a Fratribus mendicantibus representata.’
_Editions._
(a) 1830. Plays i-v (_Fall of Lucifer_, _Days of Creation and Fall of
Adam_, _Cain and Abel_, _Noah’s Flood_, _Abraham and Isaac_) in Dugdale,
_Monasticon Anglicanum_ (ed. 2). vi, pt. 3, 1534.
(b) 1836. Play x (_Betrothal of Mary_), Collier, _Five Miracle-Plays_.
(c) 1838. Plays xii, xiv (_Doubt of Joseph_, _Trial of Mary_), William
Marriott, _English Miracle-Plays_.
(d) 1841. Cycle: J. O. Halliwell[-Phillipps] for Shakespeare Society.
(e) 1890. Play xi (_Annunciation_), Pollard, 44.
(f) 1897. Plays iv, xi (_Noah’s Flood_, _Annunciation_), Manly, i. 31, 82.
(g) A new edition of the complete cycle is promised in the ‘Extra Series’
of the Early English Text Society.
_The Cycle._
The text is not definitely divided up into plays in the MS., although
some such indication as an _Explicit_ occasionally helps. Probably the
following division is correct. Halliwell’s is clearly wrong, but for
convenience of reference I give his numbers in brackets.
i. Fall of Lucifer (Halliwell, i).
ii. Days of Creation. Fall of Adam (H. i, ii).
iii. Cain and Abel (H. iii).
iv. Noah’s Flood (H. iv).
v. Abraham and Isaac (H. v).
vi. Moses (H. vi).
vii. Prophets (H. vii).
Then a prologue by Contemplacio, promising a ‘matere’ of ‘the modyr
of mercy’ from her conception to the meeting with Elizabeth, and a
‘conclusyon.’
viii. Joachim and Anna (H. viii).
ix. Mary in the Temple (H. ix).
x. Betrothal of Mary (H. x).
xi. Annunciation (H. xi).
Opens with scene between Contemplacio, Virtutes, Pater, Veritas,
Misericordia, Iusticia, Pax, Filius.
xii. Doubt of Joseph (H. xii).
xiii. Visit to Elizabeth (H. xiii).
This group of plays closes with the promised ‘conclusyon,’ namely ‘Ave
regina coelorum,’ and Contemplacio disappears.
xiv. Trial of Mary (H. xiv).
xv. Nativity (H. xv).
xvi. _Pastores_ (H. xvi).
xvii. _Magi_ (H. xvii).
xviii. Purification (H. xviii).
xix. Slaughter of Innocents (H. xix).
xx. Death of Herod (H. xix).
xxi. Dispute in Temple (H. xx).
xxii. Baptism (H. xxi).
xxiii. Temptation (H. xxii).
xxiv. Woman Taken in Adultery (H. xxiii).
xxv. Lazarus (H. xxiv).
xxvi. Conspiracy of Jews (H. xxv).
xxvii. Entry into Jerusalem (H. xxvi).
xxviii. Last Supper (H. xxvii).
xxix. Mount of Olives (H. xxviii).
Another group of scenes begins. Contemplacio, called in the stage
direction ‘an exposytour, in doctorys wede,’ reappears; and after a
procession has ‘enteryd into the place, and the Herowdys taken his
schaffalde and Pylat and Annas and Cayphas here schaffaldys,’ says:—
‘Be the leve and soferauns of allemythty God,
We intendyn to procede the matere that we lefte the last ȝere;
...
The last ȝere we shewyd here how oure Lord for love of man
Cam to the cety of Jherusalem mekely his deth to take;
And how he made his mawndé.
...
Now wold we procede, how he was browth than
Beforn Annas and Cayphas, and sythe beforn Pylate:
And so forth in his passyon how mekely he toke it for man.’
This group does not well bear splitting up into plays. The action is
continuous, although it takes place now at one scaffold, now at another.
xxx. Herod desires to see Christ. Trial before Caiaphas (H. xxix,
xxx).
xxxi. Death of Judas. Christ before Pilate and Herod (H. xxx).
xxxii. Pilate’s Wife’s Dream. The Condemnation (H. xxxi, xxxii).
xxxiii. Crucifixion (H. xxxii, xxxiii).
xxxiv. Longinus. Burial of Christ (H. xxxiv).
xxxv. Harrowing of Hell. Resurrection (H. xxxv).
Here, possibly, the group ends. Then follow:—
xxxvi. _Quem quaeritis_ (H. xxxvi).
xxxvii. _Hortulanus_ (H. xxxvii).
xxxviii. _Peregrini_ (H. xxxviii).
xxxix. Incredulity of Thomas (H. xxxviii).
xl. Ascension (H. xxxix).
xli. Pentecost (H. xl).
xlii. Assumption of Virgin (H. xli).
The Assumption play, according to Halliwell, is inserted in a hand of the
time of Henry VIII.
xliii. Doomsday (H. xlii).
A few lines appear to be missing at the end.
In dividing the plays, I have been helped by a prologue which is put in
the mouths of three _Vexillatores_. Says _Primus_:—
‘We purpose us pertly stylle in this prese,
The pepyl to plese with pleys full glad.
Now lystenyth us, lovely, bothe more and lesse,
Gentyllys and ȝemanry of goodly lyff lad, This tyde.’
The _Vexillatores_ then take turns to describe the ‘ffyrst pagent,’
‘secunde pagent,’ and so on, up to ‘the xlᵗⁱ pagent.’ This should be
‘xlii,’ but by a slip two numbers are used twice. The prologue ends:—
‘A Sunday next, yf that we may,
At vj of the belle we gynne oure play,
In N. towne, wherfore we pray,
That God now be ȝoure spede. _Amen._’
The prologue so far agrees with the plays that it must have been written
for them; but it was not written for them as they stand. It gives some of
the incidents, especially of the trial scenes, in a different order from
the text. Plays viii, xiii, xviii, xxvi, and xlii are omitted altogether.
Of these xlii is a late interpolation in the text; but the fact that
the numbers viii and xiii are skipped over in the enumeration, although
the order in which the _Vexillatores_ speak proceeds regularly, shows
that the prologue is later in date than the text, and contemplates the
omission of existing plays.
_The Problem._
The exact nature of the _Ludus Coventriae_ is a nice literary point.
It is much doubted whether they have anything to do with Coventry at
all. Cotton’s librarians regarded them as Coventry plays, acted not
by craft-guilds, but by monks or begging friars. But what was their
authority? The earliest possessor of the MS. who can be traced is Robert
Hegge, a Durham man by birth, and a Fellow of C. C. C., Oxford. Hegge
died in 1629, and probably the MS. then passed into Sir Robert Cotton’s
collection through Richard James, who happened to be also a C. C. C. man,
and was in the habit of picking up finds for Cotton in Oxford[939]. The
note on the MS. may represent a tradition as to its origin gathered by
James from Hegge.
With this note should be compared the following passage in Dugdale’s
_History of Warwickshire_, referring to the house of Franciscans or Grey
Friars at Coventry:—
‘Before the suppression of the monasteries, this city was very famous
for the _Pageants_ that were play’d therein, upon _Corpus-Christi_-day;
which occasioning very great confluence of people thither from far and
near, was of no small benefit thereto; which _Pageants_ being acted with
mighty state and reverence by the Friers of this House, had Theaters
for the severall Scenes, very large and high, placed upon wheels, and
drawn to all the eminent parts of the City, for the better advantage
of Spectators: And contain’d the story of the New-Testament, composed
into Old English Rithme, as appeareth by an antient MS. intituled _Ludus
Corporis Christi_ or _Ludus Coventriae_’ [_in bibl._ Cotton, _sub effigie
Vesp._ D. 9].
‘I have been told by some old people, who in their younger years were
eye-witnesses of these Pageants so acted, that the yearly confluence of
people to see that shew was extraordinary great, and yielded no small
advantage to this City[940].’
Dugdale, it is to be observed, has the MS. as one of his authorities,
but he goes further than the librarians by ascribing the plays to a
particular house of friars. Unfortunately his account will not hold
water. He was born in 1605, and educated for five years in Coventry. Now
there could have been no plays performed by the Grey Friars after 1538,
for they were suppressed in that year. But the craft-plays survived,
with great _éclat_, until 1580, and it is manifest that it is these
plays which his informants described to him. They were acted on Corpus
Christi day, obviously leaving no room for Grey Friars plays on the same
day. The craft-plays seem to have been confined to the history of the
New Testament (cf. p. 423), but the _Ludus Coventriae_ is not. There
is, however, a not very trustworthy bit of evidence which makes it just
possible that the Grey Friars did act, not at Corpus Christi, but at
Whitsuntide. This is the statement of the Coventry _Annals_ that in
1492-3, Henry VII came to see the plays acted by the Grey Friars[941].
But the _Annals_ only date from the seventeenth century, and they are
not trustworthy (cf. p. 358) as to the history of the plays. I incline
to think that the Grey Friars connexion is an Oxford guess of Hegge or
his friends, which has found its way alike into the accounts of Richard
James and Dugdale, and into the _Annals_. But is the connexion of the
plays with Coventry also part of the guess, inspired by the fact that
the Coventry mysteries, and these alone, obtained literary notice in
the sixteenth century? Or have we Coventry guild-plays to deal with?
The _Ludus Coventriae_ is quite distinct from the two extant Coventry
plays (p. 422); but those are of the sixteenth century, and appear to
represent a recension in 1535 of ‘new plays’ produced, according to the
_Annals_, in 1520 (p. 358). So far as this goes, the _Ludus Coventriae_
might be the discarded fifteenth-century cycle of the Coventry crafts.
Ten Brink points out certain features in the _Ludus_ which seem,
from the Cappers’ accounts extracted by Sharp, to have existed also
at Coventry[942]. On the other hand, the Coventry plays, unlike the
_Ludus_, seem to have been confined to the New Testament. The _Ludus_
does not give those opportunities for showing off artisanship which are
characteristic of other craft-cycles[943]. And, strongest of all, while
the Coventry plays were processional, a study of the _Ludus_ will make
it quite clear that it was intended for a stationary performance. The
‘pagents’ contemplated by the prologue can only be episodes artificially
distinguished in a practically continuous action. Often there is no
well-marked break between pageant and pageant. The same personages appear
and reappear in more than one; and the whole performance evidently takes
place in and around a ‘place’ or _locus interludii_ (Halliwell, 44) upon
which are situated various ‘scaffolds’ or ‘stages[944],’ a heaven, a
hell, a temple, a _sepulchrum_, and so forth. The _navis_ for Noah is
practicable, and can come and go.
If the plays are not from Coventry, can they be located elsewhere?
They have been ascribed to Durham, but merely, I think, because Robert
Hegge was ‘Dunelmensis.’ Mr. Pollard follows Ten Brink in assigning
their dialect and scribal peculiarities to the North-East Midlands,
and in ascribing them to a strolling company[945]. They regard ‘N.
towne’ in the prologue as a common form (N = ‘nomen,’ as in the Church
Catechism and Marriage Service). As to the dialect I offer no opinion;
I am sorry not to have been able to see M. Kramer, _Sprache und Heimath
der Coventry-Plays_. But I do not think that the strolling company is
proved. The _vexillatores_ may be merely proclaimers of banns sent round
the villages hard by the town where the play was given. And ‘N.’ may be
an abbreviation for a definite town name. Northampton (q.v.) has been
suggested; but would not scan. Norwich (q.v.) would; and these might
conceivably be a cycle played by the guild of St. Luke at Norwich before
the crafts took the responsibility for the Whitsun plays from it. But the
elaborate treatment of the legends of the Virgin suggests a performance,
like that of the Lincoln plays, and of the _Massacre of the Innocents_
in the _Digby MS._, on St. Anne’s day (July 26). It is to be observed
that both these examples are in the E. Midland area to which philologists
assign the text of the _Ludus Coventriae_.
_Literary Relations._
Ten Brink, ii. 283, calls attention to the composite character of the
cycle, in which groups of various origin are placed side by side without
much attempt at imposing a literary unity upon them. He thinks, however,
that all the plays received their form in the same part of England, and
considers the dialect to be that of the North-East Midlands. In a note
(iii. 276) he finds an analogy in the treatment of certain themes between
the _Ludus Coventriae_ and the Coventry plays proper. Davidson, 259,
thinks that the author might have been ‘connected with one of the great
religious houses of the Fen District.’ Hohlfeld (_Anglia_, xi. 219) has
some interesting remarks on the cycle. It may be observed that Plays
xxx-xxxv in my grouping are evidently taken from a cycle of which only
a part was given in each year. The _Purification and Presentation in
the Temple_ of the Digby MS. affords a parallel example. Possibly Plays
viii-xiii in which, as in Plays xxx-xxxv, Contemplacio appears, have the
same source.
COVENTRY PLAYS.
[See also account of _Ludus Coventriae_.]
_Manuscripts._
A copy, probably the ‘original’ of the Shearmen and Tailors’ play, was in
the possession of Thomas Sharp. It is described in a colophon as ‘T[h]ys
matter nevly correcte by Robert Croo the xiiijᵗʰ day of marche fenysschid
in the yere of owre lorde god MCCCCC & xxxiiijᵗᵉ [1534/5].’ At the end
are three songs, with the date 1591. A similar copy of the Weavers’
play ‘nevly translate be Robert Croo in the yere of oure Lorde God Mlvᶜ
xxxiiijᵗᵉ ... yendide the seycond day of Marche in yere above sayde,’ was
‘unexpectedly discovered in 1832,’ and a transcript made by Sharp. This
also has songs at the end, but no date. The collections of Sharp passed
into the Staunton collection at Longbridge House, and thence into the
Shakespeare Memorial Library at Birmingham, where they were burnt in 1879.
_Editions._
(a) 1817. _Shearmen and Tailors Play._ Thos. Sharp in a series,
separately paged, of _Illustrative Papers of the History and Antiquities
the City of Coventry_. [Reprinted 1871 under editorship of W. G. Fretton.]
(b) 1825. _Shearmen and Tailors’ Play._ Reprinted from (a) by Thomas
Sharp, with full illustrative matter, in _A Dissertation on the Coventry
Mysteries_, 83.
(c) 1836. _Weavers’ Play._ J. B. Gracie for the Abbotsford Club.
(d) 1838. _Shearmen and Tailors’ Play._ William Marriott, _English
Miracle-Plays_.
(e) 1897. _Shearmen and Tailors’ Play._ Manly, i. 120, from (b).
(f) 1902. _Weavers’ Play._ Edited from (c) by F. Holthausen, in _Anglia_,
xxv. 209.
(g) 1903. _Shearmen and Tailors’ Play._ A. W. Pollard, in _Fifteenth
Century Prose and Verse_ (_English Garner_), 245.
(h) Both plays are being edited by H. Craig for the E. E. T. S.
_The Cycle._
The _Shearmen and Tailors’ Play_ has a prologue by ‘Isaye the profet.’
Then follow in order, the Annunciation, the Doubt of Joseph, the Journey
to Bethlehem, the Nativity and Shepherds, a dialogue of two ‘Profettis,’
Herod and the Magi, the Flight to Egypt, the Massacre of the Innocents.
The _Weavers’ Play_ must have followed next in the cycle. It opens with
a dialogue of two ‘_Profetae_’. Then come the Presentation in the Temple
and the Dispute with the Elders. The subjects of four of the other plays
can be pretty clearly identified. The Smiths’ accounts show them to have
played the Trial and Crucifixion, to which was added in 1573 the ‘new
play’ of the Death of Judas; the Descent from the Cross passed through
various hands from the Pinners and Needlers in 1414 to the Coopers in
1547; the Cappers’ accounts point to the Resurrection, Harrowing of Hell,
and _Quem quaeritis_, with from 1540 the ‘Castell of Emaus’; and those
of the Drapers to Doomsday. It is difficult to say how many plays remain
unidentified. The crafts were grouped and regrouped, and the total number
of plays may have varied. But it would seem that besides the crafts
already named, the Mercers, Whittawers, Girdlers, Cardmakers, and Tanners
were playing in the middle of the fifteenth century. The ‘jest’ quoted on
p. 358 points to a Pentecost play with the ‘xij Articles of the Creed,’
similar to that of Chester. It is noticeable that no Old Testament play
can be established at Coventry.
_Literary Relations._
These plays, of which the _Weavers’ Play_ was, until recently, difficult
to procure, have been but little studied. Two communications by C.
Davidson and A. R. Hohlfeld in _Modern Language Notes_, vii. 184, 308,
call attention to the fact that the larger part of the dialogue in the
_Dispute in the Temple_ scene is practically the same as that common to
the York, Towneley, and Chester plays (cf. _York Plays_, 158, and A. R.
Hohlfeld in _Anglia_, xi. 260).
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE.
_Manuscript._
The Shipwrights’ Play of _Noah’s Ark_ was in the hands of its first
editor, Henry Bourne; but is not known to be now preserved (Holthausen,
32).
_Editions._
(a) 1736. _Noah’s Ark; or, The Shipwrights’ Ancient Play or Dirge_; in H.
Bourne, _Hist. of Newcastle_, 139.
(b) 1789. Reprint of (a) in J. Brand, _Hist. of Newcastle_, ii. 373.
(c) 1825. Reprint of (a) in T. Sharp, _Dissertation on Coventry
Mysteries_, 223.
(d) 1897. F. Holthausen, in _Göteborg’s Högskola’s Ärsskrift_, and
separately.
(e) 1899. R. Brotanek, in _Anglia_, xxi. 165.
Both (d) and (e) are founded on Bourne’s text; but Brotanek has
endeavoured to restore what he considers to have been the probable MS.
text. This he dates, conjecturally, at about 1425-50.
_The Cycle._
The Shipwrights’ play deals with the Making of the Ark, but stops short
of the Deluge. The personages are Deus, Angelus, Diabolus, Noah, Uxor
Noah. The subjects of most of the plays of the other crafts can be
recovered, as follows:—
Creation of Adam.
Noah’s Ark.
Offering of Isaac.
Israel in Egypt.
Kings of Cologne.
Flight into Egypt.
Baptism.
Last Supper.
Bearing of Cross.
Burial of Christ.
Descent into Hell.
Burial of Our Lady.
Of these, two, the Creation of Adam and the Flight into Egypt, were
maintained, in 1454, by one craft, the Bricklayers and Plasterers.
The Merchant Adventurers, in 1552, paid for ‘fyve playes, whereof
the towne must pay for the ostmen playe.’ There are six guilds whose
plays are not known; so that the total number may have been as many as
twenty-three[946].
The accounts of the Merchant Adventurers also include in 1554 and 1558
charges in and about ‘Hoggmaygowyk’ or ‘Hogmagoge[947].’ I do not think,
with Holthausen, that this was one of the Corpus Christi plays. I think
it was a spring or summer folk-feast. One of the London ‘giants’ is
Gogmagog.
NORWICH.
_Manuscript._
The extracts, made early in the seventeenth century from the Grocers’
Book, and in the possession (1856) of Mr. Fitch, included two versions
of the play of the _Fall_. The first was copied into the Book in 1533.
It is headed _The Story of yᵉ Creac̄on of Eve, wᵗ yᵉ expellyng of Adam &
Eve out of Paradyce_. It ends with a ‘dullfull song,’ perhaps the ‘newe
ballet’ paid for in 1534 (cf. p. 388). It appears to have a _lacuna_. The
second version is ‘newely renvid & accordynge unto yᵉ Skrypture, begon
thys yere Aᵒ 1565. Aᵒ 7 Eliz.’ It is quite a new text. It is provided
with two speeches by a Prolocutor, one to be used ‘when yᵉ Grocers
Pageant is played wᵗ owte eny other goenge befor yᵗ,’ the other for
use ‘yf ther goeth eny other Pageants before yᵗ.’ The former speaks of
the ‘Pageants apparellyd in Wittson dayes’ that ‘lately be fallen into
decayes.’
_Editions._
(a) 1856. Robert Fitch in _Norfolk Archaeology_, v. 8, and separately.
(b) 1897. Manly, i. 1, from (a).
_The Cycle._
The Grocers’ play begins in both versions with the creation of Eve. The
first ends with the expulsion from Paradise. The _dramatis personae_
are _Pater_, _Adam_, _Eva_, _Serpens_. In the second is added an Angel,
and after the expulsion Adam and Eve depart ‘to yᵉ nether parte of yᵉ
Pageants,’ are threatened by _Dolor_ and _Myserye_, and comforted by the
_Holy Ghost_.
A list, dating probably from 1527, makes it possible to complete the
outline of the cycle[948]:—
Creation off the world.
Paradyse [_Grocers’ play_].
Helle Carte.
Abell & Cain.
Noyse Shipp.
Abraham & Isaak.
Moises & Aaron, with the Children of Israel & Pharo with his Knyghts.
Conflict off David and Golias.
The Birth off Christ with Shepherds and iij Kyngs of Colen.
The Baptysme of Criste.
The Resurrection.
The Holy Gost.
ABRAHAM AND ISAAC (Dublin MS.).
_Manuscript._
_Trinity College, Dublin, MS._ D. iv. 18, f. 16ᵛ. In the same hand are
a list of mayors and bailiffs of North[ampton] up to 1458 and a brief
chronicle, in which N[orthampton] recurs.
_Editions._
(a) 1836. J. P. Collier, in _Five Miracle-Plays_.
(b) 1899. R. Brotanek, in _Anglia_, xxi. 21.
_Literary Relations._
The play has probably no connexion with Dublin, beyond the fact that
the MS. is there. Brotanek conjectures from the character of the MS.
that it belongs to Northampton (cf. p. 386). The dialect appears to be
South Midland of about the first half of the fifteenth century, and the
text to be based on the corresponding play (xi) in the _Viel Testament_
(Julleville, _Les Myst._ ii. 363).
ABRAHAM AND ISAAC (Brome MS.).
_Manuscript._
‘The Book of Brome,’ a commonplace book of 1470-80 in the possession of
Sir Edward Kerrison of Brome Manor, Norfolk.
_Editions._
(a) 1884. L. T. Smith, in _Anglia_, vii. 316.
(b) 1886. L. T. Smith, in _A Commonplace Book of the Fifteenth Century_.
(c) 1887. W. Rye, in _Norfolk Antiquarian Miscellany_, iii. 1.
(d) 1897. Manly, i. 41, from (a) and (b).
_Literary Relations._
The play is 465 lines long. There is an epilogue by a _Doctor_, but no
title or prologue, and nothing to show that it was, or was not, part of a
cycle. The text is probably derived from a common source with that of the
corresponding Chester play: cf. Pollard, 185; A. R. Hohlfeld, in _M. L.
N._ v. 222.
F. Holthausen has some critical notes on the text in _Anglia_, xiii. 361.
CROXTON PLAY: THE SACRAMENT.
_Manuscript._
_Trinity College, Dublin, MS._ F. 4. 20, of the latter half of the
fifteenth century.
_Editions._
(a) 1861. Whitley Stokes, in _Transactions of Philological Society_,
1860-1 (Appendix).
(b) 1897. Manly, i. 239.
There is a prologue by two _Vexillatores_, ending—
‘And yᵗ place yow, thys gaderyng that here yˢ,
At Croxston on Monday yᵗ shall be sen;
To see the conclusyon of this lytell processe
Hertely welcum shall yow bene.
...
Now, mynstrell, blow vp with a mery stevyn!’
Then comes a title: ‘Here after foloweth the Play of the Conversyon of
Ser Jonathas the Jewe by Myracle of the Blyssed Sacrament.’ The play is
927 lines long, with occasional lines in Latin. It ends with a _Te Deum_.
The colophon runs: ‘Thus endyth the Play of the Blyssyd Sacrament, whyche
myracle was don in the forest of Aragon, in the famous cite Eraclea, the
yere of ower Lord God Mˡcccc.lxi, to whom be honower. Amen!’ This account
of the event on which the play is founded is confirmed by ll. 56-60 of
the prologue. The date of composition cannot therefore be earlier than
1461, and probably is not much later. After the colophon is a list of
the _dramatis personae_, who are twelve in all, and the note ‘IX may
play it at ease,’ signed ‘R.C.’ The name Croxton is common to places in
Norfolk, Cambridgeshire, Leicestershire, and other counties. Further
identification may perhaps be helped by ll. 540-1—
‘Inquyre to the Colkote, for ther ys hys loggyng,
A lytylle besyde Babwelle Mylle.’
The stage-directions imply a ‘place,’ with ‘stages’ for the chief
players, a ‘tabyll,’ and a ‘chyrche’ (ll. 149, 288, 305, 445).
F. Holthausen has some textual criticism on the play in _Englische
Studien_, xvi. 150, and _Anglia_, xv. 198.
SHREWSBURY FRAGMENTS.
On these, which are transitional between the liturgical play and the
miracle-play proper, cf. p. 90.
DIGBY PLAYS.
[_Authorities._—The best edition is that of Dr. Furnivall.
The careful study by K. Schmidt, published partly as a Berlin
dissertation (1884), partly in _Anglia_, viii (1885), 371,
should be consulted.]
_Manuscript._
_Bodleian Digby MS._ 133. The dramatic contents of this composite
manuscript are as follows:—(i) f. 37. _The Conversion of St. Paul._
This is written in a single hand, except that a second has inserted
on f. 45 a scene between two devils, Belial and Mercury. At the end
(f. 50ᵛ), is ‘ffinis conuercionis sancti pauli.’ There is a prologue,
headed _Poeta_, against which has been written in a later hand ‘Myles
Blomefylde.’ Schmidt, _Diss._ 6, identifies a Miles Blomefylde as a
monk of Bury born in 1525. (ii) f. 95. _St. Mary Magdalen_, written in
the second hand of (i). At the beginning are the initials M. B.; at the
end (f. 145) ‘Explycit oreginale de sancta Maria magdalena.’ (iii) f.
146. _Massacre of Innocents_ and _Purification_, written in the first
hand of (i). At the beginning is ‘candelmes day & the kyllynge of the
children of Israell, anno domini 151’; at the end ‘Anno domini Millesimo,
cccccxij,’ and after a list of ‘The Namys of the Pleyers’ the entry
‘Ihon Parfre ded wryte thys booke.’ None of these notes seem to be in
the hand of the text. (iv) f. 158. Fragment of morality of _Mind, Will,
and Understanding_, found complete in the _Macro MS._ (cf. p. 437), in
a hand apparently distinct from those of (i), (ii), (iii). This also
has ‘M. B.’ at the beginning.—The texts in the MS. are probably early
sixteenth-century copies of late fifteenth-century plays. There is
nothing to show that Parfre or Blomfield was concerned in the authorship.
They may have been the copyists. If Blomfield was really the monk of Bury
born in 1525, he was probably only an owner of the MS.
_Editions._
(a) 1773. _Massacre of Innocents_, in T. Hawkins, _Origin of the English
Drama_.
(b) 1835. _Massacre of Innocents_, _Conversion of St. Paul_, _St. Mary
Magdalen_, in T. Sharp, _Ancient Mysteries from the Digby Manuscripts_
(Abbotsford Club).
(c) 1838. _Massacre of Innocents_, in W. Marriott, _English
Miracle-Plays_.
(d) 1882. Complete series in F. J. Furnivall, _The Digby Mysteries_ (New
Shakspere Soc., reprinted in 1896 for E. E. T. S.).
(e) 1890. _St. Mary Magdalen_ (part only), from (d), in Pollard, 49.
(f) 1897. _Conversion of St. Paul_, from (d), in Manly, i. 215.
_The Plays._
The plays appear to have been accidentally brought together in one MS.,
and should be treated separately for the purposes of literary history.
A. _Conversion of St. Paul._
Schmidt, _Diss._ 28, assigns this to an East Midland author, and a
Southern scribe. The play opens with a prologue by the _Poeta_ who speaks
of ‘owr processe.’ In the first scene or ‘station,’ Saul starts for
Damascus and ‘rydyth forth with hys seruantes a-bout the place & owt of
the place.’ There is a ‘conclusyon’ by the ‘Poeta—si placet,’—
‘ffynally of this stacon we mak a conclusyon,
besechyng thys audyens to folow and succede
with all your delygens this generall processyon.’
After a stage-direction ‘ffinis Istius stacionis, et altera sequitur,’
the _Poeta_ introduces another ‘prosses,’—
‘Here shalbe brefly shewyd with all our besynes
At thys pagent saynt poullys conuercyon.’
This scene takes place outside and in Damascus. There is a tempest,
and ‘godhed spekyth in heuyn.’ Saul meets Ananias, and ‘thys stacion’
is concluded by the _Poeta_, and ‘ffinis istius secunde stacionis et
sequitur tarcia.’
Again the _Poeta_ calls on the audience ‘To vnderstond thys pagent at
thys lytyll stacion.’ Saul returns to Jerusalem, preaches and plans to
escape over the wall in a basket. Here the later hand inserted the devil
scene. The _Poeta_ has his ‘Conclusyo,’ which ends:—
‘Thys lytyll pagent thus conclud we
as we can, lackyng lytturall scyens;
besechyng yow all of hye and low degre,
owr sympylnes to hold excusyd, and lycens,
That of Retoryk haue non intellygens;
Commyttyng yow all to owr lord Ihesus,
To whoys lawd ye syng,—Exultet celum laudibus.’
The play, but for the devil scene, follows closely the biblical
narrative. It was probably written for a small village, and for scene had
a _platea_, and two _loca_, for Damascus and Jerusalem (with possibly a
third for heaven). The audience moved with the actors from one ‘station’
or ‘pageant’ to the other, and back again. A later hand has inserted
marginal directions for a ‘Daunce’ at various points in the speeches of
the _Poeta_.
B. _St. Mary Magdalen._
Schmidt, _Anglia_, viii. 385, assigns this to a West Midland author and
Kentish scribe. Furnivall, 53, thinks the dialect East Midland. The plot
covers the whole legendary life of the Magdalen, as it appears in the
_Golden Legend_. The characters are very numerous, and include Satan and
other devils, with allegorical figures such as the ‘Kyngs of the World
and the Flesch’ and the ‘Seven Dedly Synnes.’ The action is not in any
way divided in the manuscript, and implies an elaborate stationary _mise
en scène_ with various _loca_. These include the ‘castell of Maudleyn’ or
Magdalum, thrones for the _Imperator_, who opens the play by calling for
silence, Herod and Pilate, ‘a stage, and Helle ondyr-neth that stage’ for
‘the prynse of dylles,’ Jerusalem with a ‘place,’ an ‘erbyr’ or arbour,
a tavern, the ‘howse of symont leprovs,’ a _sepulchrum_ for Lazarus,
and another for the _Quem quaeritis_ and _Hortulanus_ scenes which are
introduced, a palace for the King of ‘Marcylle’ (Marseilles), a heathen
temple, a ‘hevyne’ able to open, a lodge for the Magdalen in Marcylle,
another castle, a rock, and a wilderness. There is also a practicable
ship which goes to and from Marcylle (l. 1395 ‘Here xall entyre a shyp
with a mery song’; l. 1445 ‘Her goth the shep owt of the place’; l. 1717
‘Ett tunc navis venit in placeam’; l. 1797 ‘tunc remigat a montem’; l.
1879 ‘et tunc navis venit adcirca plateam’; l. 1915 ‘et tunc remigant a
monte’; l. 1923 ‘Here goth the shep owȝt ofe the place’). The play ends
with a _Te Deum_; but the following lines, added after the _Explicit_,
suggest that the author had readers as well as spectators in mind:—
‘yff Ony thyng Amysse be,
blame connyng, and nat me:
I desyer the redars to be my frynd,
yff ther be ony amysse, that to amend.’
C. _Massacre of the Innocents._
Assigned by Schmidt, _Diss._ 18, to a Midland author and Southern scribe.
Against the title of the play has been written, in a hand identified as
that of the chronicler Stowe, ‘the vij booke.’ Evidently the play was one
of a series, spread over successive years, and given on Saint Anne’s day
(July 26). This is shown by the opening speech of a _Poeta_, from which I
extract:—
‘This solenne fest to be had in remembraunce
Of blissed seynt Anne moder to our lady,
...
The last yeer we shewid you in this place
how the shepherdes of Cristes birth made letificacion,
And thre kynges that came fro ther Cuntrees be grace
To worshipe Iesu, with enteer deuocion;
And now we purpose with hooll affeccion
To procede in oure mater as we can,
And to shew you of our ladies purificacion
That she made in the temple, as the vsage was than.
...
ffrendes, this processe we purpose to pley as we can
before you all, here in your presens,
To the honour of god, our lady, & seynt Anne,
besechyng you to geve vs peseable Audiens
And ye menstrallis, doth your diligens,
& ye virgynes, shewe summe sport & plesure,
These people to solas, & to do god reuerens,
As ye be appoynted; doth your besy cure!
¶ Et tripident.’
The action includes the Wrath of Herod, with a comic knight, Watkin, the
Flight into Egypt, the Massacre of the Innocents, the Death of Herod, the
Purification. The stage-directions mention a ‘place’ and a ‘tempill.’ In
the latter are the virgins, who ‘tripident’ with Anne at the end. The
_Poeta_ excuses the ‘rude eloquens’ and ‘sympyll cunnyng’ of his company,
promises ‘the disputacion of the doctours’ for next year, and calls on
the minstrels and virgins for a final dance.
D. _Morality of Wisdom._
See _Texts_ (ii), s.v. _Macro Morals_.
BURIAL AND RESURRECTION.
_Manuscript._
_Bodleian MS. e Museo_, 160, f. 140. Furnivall, vii. 166, asserts that
this once formed part of the _Digby MS._ 133, but offers no proof.
The copy seems to date from the early fifteenth century. After the
_Explicit_, in a later hand, is ‘written by me ...’; unfortunately the
name is torn off. Lines here and there in the earlier part of the piece
have been crossed out.
_Editions._
(a) 1843. Wright and Halliwell, _Reliquiae Antiquae_, ii. 124.
(b) 1882. F. J. Furnivall, _The Digby Plays_, 171 (New Shakspere Soc.,
reprinted 1896 for E. E. T. S.).
See study by K. Schmidt in _Anglia_, viii. 393.
_The Play._
Schmidt assigns the play to a writer whose dialect was a mixture of
Northern and East Midland forms; Morris to a Northern author and West
Midland scribe. Ten Brink, ii. 287, also thinks it to be Northern, and
to date from 1430-60. Apparently the author set out to write, not a
drama, but a narrative poem, mainly in dialogue. The first fifteen lines
are headed ‘The prologe of this treyte or meditatione off the buryalle
of Criste & mowrnynge therat,’ and contain a request to ‘Rede this
treyte.’ The first 419 lines have a few narrative phrases introducing
the speeches, such as ‘Said Maudleyn,’ ‘Said Joseph.’ At this point the
writer seems to have stopped these, crossed out such as he had already
written, and inserted in the margin of his second page,—
‘This is a play to be playede, on part on gudfriday after-none, & the
other part opon Esterday after the resurrectione, In the morowe, but at
the begynnynge ar certene lynes [the prologue] which must not be saide if
it be plaiede, which (_... a line cut off_).’
The Good Friday scene is an elaborate _planctus_. It is opened by Joseph
of Arimathea, and the three Maries. Then comes Nicodemus, and the body
of Christ is taken from the cross. The Virgin Mary enters with St. John,
and the _planctus_ is resumed. The body is laid in the sepulchre, and the
scene is closed with—
‘Thus her endes the most holy
Beriall of the body of Crist Iesu.’
The Easter morning scene begins with—
‘Her begynnes his resurrection
On pashe daye at Morn.’
It contains a _Quem quaeritis_, a scene of lamentation between Peter,
Andrew, and John, a _Hortulanus_, with a second apparition to all
three Maries. They sing the first part of the _Victimae paschali_, ‘in
cantifracto vel saltem in pallinodio,’ and the Apostles come in for the
dialogue part. Then the tidings are announced, and Peter and John visit
the sepulchre; after which, ‘Tunc cantant omnes simul _Scimus Christum_
vell aliam sequentiam aut ympnum de resurrectione.’
UNIDENTIFIED PLAYS.
(i) C. Hastings, _Le Théâtre Français et Anglais_, 167, says:—
‘Il existe, en plus des quatre cycles de Mystères dont nous avons parlé
dans les chapitres précédents, une cinquième collection (manuscrit),
propriété d’un simple particulier, M. Nicholls.’
(ii) W. C. Hazlitt, _Manual for the Collector and Amateur of Old English
Plays_, 274, says:—
‘Mr. F. S. Ellis told me (Dec. 10, 1864) that a gentleman at Leipsic then
had a fragment of a large sheet on which was printed in types formed from
a block and of a very large size an English Miracle-Play. In its perfect
state it seems to have been intended to attach to a church door or any
other suitable place.’
CORNWALL.
i. _Origo Mundi: Passio Domini: Resurrexio Domini._
_Manuscripts._
(i) _Bodl. MS._ 791. Fifteenth century, with some alterations and
additional stage-directions in a later hand. The text is Cornish, not
earlier in date than the fourteenth century. Mr. Pedler (Norris, ii. 506)
puts it, not very convincingly, at the end of the thirteenth.
(ii) _Bodl. MS._ 28,556. Seventeenth-century copy of (i), with an English
translation of the larger part of the text by John Keigwyn, of Mousehole,
1695.
_Edition._
1859. In Edwin Norris, _The Ancient Cornish Drama_, from (i), with modern
translation by the editor.
_Analysis._
The text forms three dramas, intended, as the closing words of the first
two show, for performance on three consecutive days. At the end of each
is a diagram of the disposition of the _pulpita_ or _tenti_ (cf. p. 391)
for the day. The action on each day is continuous, but for the sake of
comparison I divide it into scenes. These are sometimes indicated by a
_Hic incipit_ or similar formula.
(1) _Hic Incipit Ordinale de Origine Mundi._
Fall of Lucifer (line 48).
Creation and Fall of Man (1-437).
Cain and Abel (438-633).
Seth in Paradise, and Death of Adam (634-916).
Noah and the Flood (917-1258).
Abraham and Isaac (1259-1394).
Moses and the Exodus (1395-1708).
Moses in the Wilderness (1709-1898).
David and the Rods (1899-2104).
David and Bathsheba (2105-2376).
Building of the Temple (2377-2628).
Prophecy of Maximilia (2629-2778).
Bridge over Cedron (2779-2824).
The diagram gives _Celum_, _Tortores_, _Infernum_, _Rex Pharao_, _Rex
Dauid_, _Rex Sal[omon]_, _Abraham_, _Ortus_.
(2) _Hic Incipit Passio Domini Nostri Jhesu Christi._
Temptation (1-172).
Entry into Jerusalem (173-330).
Cleansing of the Temple (331-392).
Healing of Bartimaeus (393-454).
Jesus in House of Simon the Leper (455-552).
Conspiracy of Jews (533-584).
Treachery of Judas (585-616).
Last Supper (617-930).
Gethsemane (931-1200).
Jesus before Caiaphas (1200-1504).
Remorse and Death of Judas (1505-1566).
Jesus before Pilate (1567-1616).
Jesus before Herod (1617-1816).
Condemnation (1817-2533), including—
Dream of Pilate’s Wife (1907-1968, 2193-2212).
Cross brought from Cedron (2534-2584).
Bearing of the Cross (2585-2662).
Crucifixion (2663-2840).
Casting of Lots (2841-2860).
Death of Jesus (2861-3098), including—
_Planctus Mariae_ (2925-2954).
Longinus (3003-3030).
Harrowing of Hell (3031-3078).
Descent from Cross (3099-3201).
Burial (3202-3216).
The diagram gives _Celum_, _Tortores_, _Doctores_, _Pilatus_, _Herodes_,
_Princeps Annas_, _Cayaphas_, _Centurio_.
(3) _Hic Incipit Ordinale de Resurrexione Domini Nostri Jhesu Christi._
Release of Joseph and Nicodemus (1-96, 307-334, 625-662).
Harrowing of Hell, resumed (97-306).
Setting of Watch (335-422).
Resurrection (423-678).
_Quem quaeritis_ (679-834).
_Hortulanus_ (835-892).
Incredulity of Thomas (893-1230, 1345-1586).
_Peregrini_ (1231-1344).
Death of Pilate (1587-2360), including—
Veronica and Tiberius (1587-2360).
Ascension (2361-2630).
The diagram gives _Celum_, _Tortores_, _Infernum_, _Pilatus_,
_Imperator_, _Josep Abar[imat]_, _Nichodemus_, _Milites_.
At the end of (1) and (3) the minstrels are directed to pipe for a dance.
_Locality._
Mr. Norris prints an opinion of Mr. Pedler that the place-names suggest
the neighbourhood of Penrhyn, and that the plays may have been composed
in the collegiate house, hard by, of Glasney.
ii. _Creation of the World._
_Manuscripts._
(i) _Bodl._ 219, with colophon ‘Heare endeth the Creacion of the worlde
wᵗʰ noyes flude wryten by William Jordan: the xiiᵗʰ of August, 1611.’ The
text is Cornish, with English stage-directions containing forms earlier
than 1611.
(ii) _Bodl._ 31,504 (MS. Corn. C. 1). Copy of (i), with English
translation by John Keigwyn, 1693, written by ‘H. Usticke.’
(iii) _Harl._ 1867. Similar copy of (i), with Keigwyn’s translation.
(iv) MS. belonging (in 1864) to J. C. Hotten the bookseller, containing
also a copy of the narrative _Passion_ or _Mount Calvary_.
_Editions._
(a) 1827. _The Creation of the World, with Noah’s Flood._ Edited from
(iii) by Davies Gilbert (with Keigwyn’s translation).
(b) 1864. _Gwreans an Bys. The Creation of the World._ Edited from (i),
with a [new] translation by Whitley Stokes, as appendix to _Transactions
of Philological Society_ (1863).
_The Play._
The text is headed ‘The first daie [of] yᵉ playe’ and ends with a
direction to minstrels to pipe for dancing, and an invitation to
return on the morrow to see the Redemption. It is, therefore, probably
unfinished. It appears to be based, with certain additions, on the _Origo
Mundi_. It is continuous, but may be divided as follows:—
Creation and Fall of Lucifer (1-334).
Temptation and Fall (335-1055).
Cain and Abel. Birth of Seth (1056-1430).
Death of Cain (1431-1726).
Visit of Seth to Paradise (1727-1964).
Death of Adam (1965-2093).
Seth and Enoch (2094-2210).
Noah’s Flood (2211-2530).
iii. _St. Meriasek._
_Manuscript._
In _Hengwrt MSS._ of Mr. Wynne at Peniarth. Cornish _Ordinale de Vita
Sancti Mereadoci Episcopi et Confessoris_, written by ‘dominus Hadton’ in
1504. At the end is a circular diagram.
_Edition._
1872. _Beunans Meriasek: The Life of Saint Meriasek._ Edited and
translated by Whitley Stokes.
_Locality._
Mr. Stokes suggests Camborne, of which place St. Meriasek was patron. The
play invokes St. Meriasek and St. Mary of Camborne at the close.
II. POPULAR MORALITIES.
THE PRIDE OF LIFE.
_Manuscript._
Written in two hands of the first half of the fifteenth century on
blank spaces of a _Computus_ of Holy Trinity Priory, Dublin, for 1343,
preserved in the Irish Record Office, Dublin (Christ Church collection).
_Editions._
1891. J. Mills in _Proceedings of Royal Soc. of Antiquaries of Ireland_.
1898. Brandl, 2.
Cf. H. Morley, _English Writers_, vii. 1730.
The play was probably written early in the fifteenth century. The dialect
is that of the South of England, not far from London, modified by
Northern scribes.
Only a fragment (502 ll.) is preserved, but a prologue gives the plot.
There is no title; but ‘[A mens]ke gam schal gyn & ende’ (l. 7), and ‘[Of
Kyng of] lif I wol ȝou telle’ (l. 17). The extant characters are _Rex
Vivus_, _Primus Miles Fortitudo_, _Secundus Miles Sanitas_, _Regina_,
_Nuntius Mirth_, _Episcopus_. The King rejoices with Mirth and his
soldiers, and Queen and Bishop vainly call on him to repent. Later in
the play Death and Life strove for the King, and Death took him. He was
claimed by the ‘ffendis,’ but ‘oure lady mylde’ prayed to have him.
The play was out of doors (l. 10); the King had a _tentorium_ which could
be closed (l. 306); the Bishop sat on his ‘se’ (_sedes_); and so probably
with the other actors, except Mirth, who perhaps came in ‘oure þe lake’
(l. 269); cf. Brandl, xix.
MACRO MORALS.
_Manuscripts._
(a) _Macro MS._, formerly in the possession of Mr. Cox Macro, now in that
of Mr. Gurney, of Keswick Hall, Norfolk. The MS. appears from a gloss in
_Mankind_ (l. 674; cf. Brandl, xxvi), naming King Edward, to have been
written during the reign of Edward IV (1461-1483). At the end of two of
the plays is the name of Hyngham, a monk, to whom the MS. belonged.
(b) _Digby MS._ 133, on which cf. p. 428, has on f. 158 the first 754
lines of _Mind, Will, and Understanding_. The handwriting is said to be
the same as that of the _Macro MS._ (Collier, ii. 207).
[A complete edition of the three moralities of the _Macro MS._ has long
been contemplated by the E. E. T. S.]
i. _The Castle of Perseverance._
_Edition._
1890. Pollard, 64 (408 lines only).
Pollard dates the play not later than the middle of the reign of Henry
VI. It contains about 3,500 lines.
The subject is the struggle of good and bad qualities for _Humanum
Genus_. On the one side are _Malus Angelus_ and _Mundus_, _Belial_, and
_Caro_, aided by the Seven Deadly Sins and _Voluptas_, _Stultitia_,
_Detractio_: on the other _Bonus Angelus_, with _Confessio_, _Schrift_,
_Penitencia_, and the Six Divine Graces. Amongst other episodes
_Humanum Genus_ is besieged in the _Castle of Perseverance_. At the end
_Misericordia_, _Iustitia_, _Pax_, _Veritas_, dispute in heaven, and
_Pater sedens in trono_ inclines to mercy.
The indications of _mise en scène_ are very valuable. On the first leaf
of the MS. is a diagram of the playing place, reproduced by Sharp, 23.
There is a large circle with a double circumference, in which is written,
‘This is the watyr a bowte the place, if any dyche may be mad ther it
schal be pleyed; or ellys that it be stronglye barryd al a bowte: & lete
nowth ower many stytelerys be withinne the plase.’ Within the circle
is a rude representation of a castle, and above, ‘This is the castel
of perseveranse that stondyth in the myddys of the place; but lete no
men sytte ther for lettynge of syt, for ther schal be the best of all.’
Beneath the castle is a small bed, with the legend, ‘Mankynde is bed
schal be under the castel, & ther schal the sowle lye under the bed tyl
he schal ryse & pleye.’ At the side is a further direction, ‘Coveytyse
cepbord schal be at the ende of the castel, be the beddys feet.’
Outside the circle are written five directions for scaffolds, ‘Sowth,
Caro skaffold—West, Mundus skaffold—Northe, Belial skaffold—North Est,
Coveytyse skaffold—Est, deus skaffold.’ At the foot of the page are some
notes for costume: ‘& he that schal pley belyal, loke that he have gunne
powder brennyng in pypys in his hands and in his ers, and in his ars
whanne he gothe to batayle. The iiij dowters schul be clad in mentelys,
Mercy in wyth, rythwysnesse in red al togedyr, Trewthe in sad grene, &
Pes al in blake, and they schul pleye in the place al to gedyr tyl they
brynge up the sowle.’
There is a prologue by two _vexillatores_, who declare—
‘These percell in propyrtes we spose us to playe,
This day sevenenyt before you in syth,
At N on the grene in ryal aray.’
They add that they will ‘be onward be underne of the day’ (9 a.m.).
ii. _Mind, Will, and Understanding._
_Editions._
1835. T. Sharp, _Ancient Mysteries_ (Abbotsford Club, 754 lines from
_Digby MS._).
1837. W. B. D. D. Turnbull (Abbotsford Club, the rest from _Macro MS._).
1882. F. J. Furnivall, _Digby Plays_, 139 (754 lines only).
Lucifer seduces Mind, Will, and Understanding. These are the three
parts of Anima, who enters with devils running from under her skirts.
Everlasting Wisdom effects a re-conversion. There are a number of mute
persons attendant on the chief characters, whose coming and going,
‘dysgysyde,’ create scenic effects, as in a masque. There are minstrels
and a hornpipe, songs and dances. At one point Lucifer snatches up
‘a shrewde boy’ (perhaps from the audience), and carries him off. An
allusion to the Holborn quest suggests a London origin, but Schmidt
(_Anglia_, viii. 390) thinks the dialect to be that of the north border
of the West Midlands.
iii. _Mankind._
_Editions._
1897. Manly, i. 315.
1898. Brandl, 37.
The text is 901 lines long. A list of place-names (l. 491) makes it
probable that it belongs to the borders of Norfolk and Cambridgeshire.
Mercy and Mischief, the latter helped by Nought, New Gyse, Nowadays, and
the devil Titivillus, essay in turns to win the soul of Mankind.
The scene is divided. Part represents a tavern, of which Titivillus is
host; part a ‘deambulatorye’ outside. A reference to the spectators (l.
29) runs, ‘O ȝe souerens, þat sytt, and ȝe brotherne, þat stonde ryghte
wppe’: cf. Brandl, xxxii.
THE SUMMONING OF EVERYMAN.
_Editions._
[1509-1530.] Richard Pynson (fragment in B. M.).
[1509-1530.] Richard Pynson (fragment in Bodl.).
[1521-1537.] John Skot. ‘Here begynneth a treatyse how the hye fader of
heuen sendeth dethe to somon euery creature to come and gyue a counte of
theyr lyues in this Worlde, and is in maner of a morall playe’ (B. M. and
Huth Library).
[1529-1537.] John Skot (in St. Paul’s Churchyard).
There are modern editions by Hawkins (1773, vol. i), Gödeke (1865),
Hazlitt-Dodsley (1874. vol. i), Pollard (1890, part only, and in full in
_Fifteenth Century Prose and Verse_, 1903), H. Logeman, _Elckerlijk and
Everyman_ (1892), F. Sidgwick (1902). Another is announced in a series
edited by I. Gollancz.
There are about 900 lines. Pollard, 202, assigns the text to the end
of the fifteenth century; Ten Brink, ii. 302, to the reign of Edward
IV. Prof. H. Logeman, _Elckerlijk_ (1892), argues the play to be an
English version of the closely similar Dutch _Elckerlijk_, attributed to
Petrus Dorlandus of Diest, but K. H. de Raaf, _Spyeghel der Salicheyt
van Elckerlijk_ (1897), would invert the relation: cf. Brandl, xiv. The
characters are Messenger, God, Death, Everyman, Fellowship, Kindred,
Goods, Good Deeds, Knowledge, Confession, Beauty, Strength, Discretion,
Five Wits, Angel, Doctor. The Messenger prologizes. God sends Death for
Everyman, who finds that no one will accompany him save Good Deeds. The
Doctor epilogizes. There are no indications of the _mise en scène_,
except that there was a central scaffold for the ‘House of Salvation’
(Gödeke, 174, 200, cf. Brandl, xx).
THE WORLD AND THE CHILD.
_Editions._
An Oxford bookseller, John Dorne, had a copy of ‘mundus, a play’ in
1520[949].
1522. Wynkyn de Worde. ‘Here begynneth a propre newe Interlude of the
Worlde and the chylde, otherwyse called (Mundus & Infans)....’
1523. Wynkyn de Worde.
There are a reprint by Lord Althorp (Roxburghe Club, 1817) and modern
editions in Hazlitt-Dodsley, vol. i; Manly, i. 353.
The _dramatis personae_ are Mundus or the World, Infans or Dalliance or
Wanton or Love-Lust and Liking or Manhood or Shame or Age or Repentance,
Conscience, Folly, Perseverance. The representative of Man in various
ages is alternately won over to good and evil. There are 979 lines.
Collier, ii. 224; Pollard, li, assign the play to the reign of Henry VII;
Brandl, xlii, thinks that the use of the _Narrenmotif_ points to a date
of composition not long before that of publication. Mundus says, ‘Here I
sette semely in se’ (l. 22), and Manhood ‘Here in this sete sytte I’ (l.
285).
JOHN SKELTON. (_Magnificence._)
Skelton was born, probably in Norfolk, about 1460. He studied at
Cambridge and acquired fame as a scholar. Both universities honoured him
with the degree of _poeta laureatus_. He was tutor to Henry VIII as a
boy, and became rector of Diss in Norfolk. But he died in sanctuary at
Westminster (1529), driven there on account of his bitter satires against
Wolsey. In his _Garland of Laurell_ (pr. 1523), a late work, he has a
list of his writings, including—
‘Of Vertu also the souerayne enterlude:
...
His commedy, Achademios callyd by name:
...
And of Soueraynte a noble pamphelet;
And of Magnyfycence a notable mater.’
Bale, _Scriptores_, i. 652, ascribes to him _Comoediam de uirtute_, Lib.
1; _De magnificentia comoediam_, Lib. 1; _Theatrales ludos_, Lib. 1; _De
bono or dine comoediam_, Lib. 1. _Magnificence_ is, however, his only
extant play.
Warton (Hazlitt-Warton, iii. 287) describes a piece shown him by William
Collins, the poet, at Chichester, about 1759. He says:—
‘It is the Nigramansir, a morall _Enterlude_ and a pithie, written by
Maister Skelton laureate, and plaid before the King and other estatys at
Woodstoke on Palme Sunday. It was printed by Wynkyn de Worde in a thin
quarto, in the year 1504. It must have been presented before Henry VII,
at the royal manor or palace at Woodstock in Oxfordshire, now destroyed.
The characters are a Necromancer or conjurer, the devil, a notary public,
Simony, and Philargyria or Avarice. It is partly a satire on some abuses
in the church.... The story, or plot, is the trial of Simony and Avarice.’
Warton proceeds to describe the action at some length. Nothing further
is known of the play. Ritson, _Bibliographia Poetica_, 106, said ‘it is
utterly incredible that the _Nigramansir_ ... ever existed,’ and Mr. H.
E. D. Blakiston (_Eng. Hist. Rev._ for April, 1896) has called attention
to several cases in which Warton showed _mala fides_ as a literary
historian. In another place (iii. 310) Warton incidentally calls the
piece ‘Skelton’s _The Trial of Simonie_.’ E. G. Duff, _Hand Lists of
English Printers_, Part i, knows of no extant copy.
_Magnificence._
_Editions._
[1529-1533.] John Rastell. ‘Magnyfycence, a goodly interlude and a mery,
deuysed and made by mayster Skelton, poet laureate, late deceasyd.’ Folio.
1533. John Rastell. Quarto.
1821. J. Littledale (Roxburghe Club).
1843. A. Dyce, _Poetical Works of Skelton_, i. 225.
1890. Pollard, 106 (extract).
The characters are Felicity, Liberty, Measure, Magnificence, Fancy,
Counterfeit Countenance, Crafty Countenance, Cloked Collusion, Courtly
Abusion, Folly, Adversity, Poverty, Despair, Mischief, Good Hope,
Redress, Sad Circumspection, Perseverance. The plot shows Magnificence
brought low by evil counsellors, and restored by good ones. The players
come in and out of ‘the place.’ There are 2,596 lines. The play was
written later than 1515, as a reference to the liberality of the dead
Louis of France (l. 283) must intend Louis XII who died in that year, not
the niggard Louis XI.
SIR DAVID LYNDSAY. (_Ane Satyre of the Thrie Estaitis._)
Sir David Lyndsay ‘of the Mount’ in Fifeshire was born in 1490. By 1511
he was employed in the royal household, first as an actor or musician,
then as ‘Keeper of the Kingis Grace’s person.’ In 1529 he became Lyon
King at Arms, a post which included the charge of court entertainments.
His satire did not spare the church, and he seems to have been in
sympathy with Knox and other reformers, but he did not so far commit
himself as to endanger his office, which he held until his death in 1555.
_The Thrie Estaitis._
_Performances._
(i) _Jan. 6, 1540_, _Linlithgow_, before James V. This performance, the
first of which there is any satisfactory evidence, was described by Sir
W. Eure in a letter to Cromwell (Ellis, _Original Letters_, 3rd Series,
iii. 275; Brewer-Gairdner, xv. 36), enclosing a ‘Copie of the Nootes of
the Interluyde.’ The version seems to have been different from that now
extant. ‘Solaice’ figured as the presenter. Eure mentions the ‘scaffald’
and ‘the interluyds of the Play.’ He adds that, as a result, James V
admonished the Bishops to reform their ways.
(ii) _June 7_ (_Whit-Tuesday_), 1552, _Cupar of Fife_. The Bannatyne
MS. (see below) has the ‘Proclamation maid at Cowpar of Fyffe, upon the
Castell-hill, 7 June, beginning at seven.’ This was therefore the extant
version. The year is fixed by an incidental reference to the day (June 7)
as Whit-Tuesday.
(iii) 1554 (?), _Edinburgh_. Henry Charteris, in his preface to Lyndsay’s
_Warkis_ of 1568 (Laing, iii. 231), says of the ‘makar’s’ relations to
the clergy, ‘Sic ane spring he gaif thame in the Play, playit besyde
Edinburgh, in presence of the Quene Regent, and are greit part of the
Nobilitie, with ane exceding greit nowmer of pepill, lestand fra ix
houris afoir none till vj houris at evin.’ The Bannatyne MS. gives the
play as ‘maid in the Grenesyd besyd Edinburgh,’ and ‘in anno 155-ȝeiris.’
Cf. Appendix W, p. 366.
_Editions._
(_a_) 1602. Robert Charteris. ‘Ane satyre of the thrie estaits, in
commendation of vertew in vituperation of vyce. Maid be Sir Dauid
Lindesay of the Mont, alias, Lyon King of Armes.’
Diligence, as presenter, summons the three estates before Rex Humanitas.
Many ‘Vycis’ and other allegorical personages appear before the Rex on
his ‘royall sait.’ In ll. 1288-1411 comes the first interlude (although
the term is not used in the text) of ‘The Sowtar and Tailor.’ At l. 1931
is the ‘End of the First Part of the Satyre,’ with the direction, ‘Now
sall the Pepill mak collatioun: then beginnis the Interlude: the Kings,
Bischops, and principal Players being out of their seats.’ This interlude
introduces the Pauper, Pardoner, Sowtar, and others. Part ii begins at
l. 2298. At l. 4283, ‘Heir sall enter Folie,’ and at l. 4483, ‘Heir sall
Folie begin his Sermon, as followis.’ The theme is, of course, _Stultorum
numerus infinitus_, and at the close the preacher names recipients of
his ‘Follie Hattis or Hudes’ (cf. ch. xvi). At l. 4629, the people are
finally dismissed to dance and drink, Diligence calling on a minstrel.
(_b_) †1568. Bannatyne MS. (ed. Hunterian Club, 1873-1896, Part iv).
George Bannatyne included in his collection of pieces by the Scots
‘makaris’ (_a_) the ‘Proclamation’ at Cupar of Fife (see above), (_b_) a
preliminary interlude, not in Charteris’s edition, of a Cottar, an Auld
Man and his Wife, a ‘Fuill,’ &c.; (_c_) seven extracts from the play,
headed, ‘Heir begynnis Schir Dauid Lyndsay Play maid in the Grenesyd
besyd Edinburgh, quhilk I writtin bot schortly be Interludis, levand
the grave mater thereof, becaws the samyne abuse is weill reformit in
Scotland, praysit be God, quhairthrow I omittit that principall mater and
writtin only Sertane mirry Interludis thairof verry pleasand, begynnyng
at the first part of the Play.’
1869. F. Hall, _Works of Lindsay_, Pt. iv (E. E. T. S. o. s. 37).
1879. D. Laing, _Works of Lindsay_, vol. ii.
[Other editions are enumerated by Laing, iii. 259. There is an analysis
of the play in T. F. Henderson, _Scottish Vernacular Literature_, 219.]
III. TUDOR MAKERS OF INTERLUDES.
HENRY MEDWALL.
Medwall was chaplain to John Morton, cardinal and Archbishop of
Canterbury (1486-1500), who is probably the ‘my lord’ of _Nature_, i.
1438. Besides _Nature_, he wrote an interlude ‘of the fyndyng of Troth,
who was carried away by ygnoraunce and ypocresy,’ played by the King’s
players before Henry VIII at Richmond on Jan. 6, 1514. The ‘foolys part’
was the best, but the play was too long to please the King (cf. p. 201).
See also s.v. _Lucrece_ (p. 458).
_Nature._
_Editions._
[1530-4.] William Rastell. ‘A goodly interlude of Nature compyled by
mayster Henry Medwall,’ &c.
1898. Brandl, 73.
There are two ‘partes’ of the ‘processe’ (i. 1434). The first (1439
ll.) has Mundus, Worldly Affection, Man, Nature, Innocency, Reason,
Sensuality, Privy Council, Pride, a Boy, Shamefastness. In the second
(1421 ll.), on a different day, some of these recur, with Bodily Lust,
Wrath, Envy, Sloth, Gluttony, Humility, Charity, Abstinence, Liberality,
Chastity, Good Occupation, and Patience. The personages come in and out
at ‘dorys’ (i. 728) and sit down on ‘stole’ or ‘chayr.’ There was also a
fire (ii. 518 sqq.). Probably the scene was in a room. At the end ‘they
syng some goodly ballet.’
JOHN HEYWOOD.
John Heywood was born either in London or at North Mimms in
Hertfordshire, about 1497. He is claimed as a member of Broadgates
Hall, afterwards Pembroke College, Oxford. From about 1515 he was
employed at Court; in 1519 he is called a ‘singer,’ later a ‘player at
virginals,’ and finally he was master of a company of children, possibly
the singing-school of St. Paul’s. His advancement with Henry VIII and the
Princess Mary is ascribed to Sir Thomas More, whose kinsman he became.
More’s sister Elizabeth married John Rastell, lawyer and printer. John
Heywood’s wife was their granddaughter, Elizabeth. It may be added
that their daughter, another Elizabeth, was the mother of John Donne.
Heywood took More’s line in Church matters, but conformed to the Act of
Supremacy. He was in high favour under Mary, and at her death retired to
Malines. He was alive in 1577, but dead in 1587.
Heywood’s extant interludes are all early work; although Bale, writing
in 1557 (_Scriptores_, ed. 2, ii. 110), only ascribes to him _De Aura,
comoediam_; _De Amore, tragoediam_; _De quadruplici P._ The _Pardoner and
Friar_, which mentions Leo X as alive, must be before 1521. _Love_ and
the _Four Ps_ may be about as early: the rest may belong to the following
decade (Brandl, li). In 1538 Heywood showed a play of children before
Mary (Madden, 62). In 1539, Wolsey paid him for a masque of Arthur’s
Knights, or Divine Providence, at court (Brewer, xiv. (2) 782). In 1553
he set out a play of children at court (_Loseley MSS._ 89). At Mary’s
coronation he sat in a pageant under a vine against the school in St.
Paul’s Churchyard and made speeches (Holinshed (1808), iv. 6).
See W. Swododa, _J. Heywood als Dramatiker_ (1888).
_Plays._
i. _The Pardoner and the Friar._
_Editions._
1533. Wyllyam Rastell. ‘A mery Play betwene the pardoner and the frere,
the curate and neybour Pratte.’
There are modern editions in F. J. Child, _Four Old Plays_ (1848);
Hazlitt-Dodsley, vol. i; Pollard, 114 (extract).
The scene of the action is supposed to be a church. About 1,000 lines.
The date of composition was under Leo X (1513-1521).
ii. _Love._
_Editions._
1533. William Rastell. ‘A play of loue, A newe and mery enterlude
concerning pleasure and payne in loue, made by Ihon̄ Heywood.’
[Unique copy in Magd. Coll., Camb. See Greg, _Plays_, 143.]
[1546-1586.] John Waley.
[Unique copy, without title-page, in Bodl., bound with _Weather_ and
_Four Ps._ (Bodl. 4ᵒ, P. 33, Jur.). Copies of these three plays, with one
now lost, of ‘Old Custom,’ are mentioned in an inventory of the effects
of John, Earl of Warwick, 1545-1550 (_Hist. MSS._ ii. 102).]
1898. Brandl, 159.
Little more than a series of disputations between Lover Loved, Lover not
Loved, Loved not Loving, and No Lover nor Loved. There are 1,573 lines.
Towards the end, ‘Here the vyse cometh in ronnynge sodenly aboute the
place among the audiens with a hye copyn tank on his bed full of squybs
fyred.’
iii. _Four Ps._
_Editions._
[1541-1547.] William Myddleton. ‘The playe called the foure P. P. A newe
and very mery enterlude of A palmer. A pardoner. A poticary. A pedler.
Made by Iohn Heewood.’
[1549-1569.] William Copland.
1569. John Allde.
There are modern editions in W. Scott, _Ancient British Drama_, vol. i
(1810): Hazlitt-Dodsley, vol. i; Manly, i. 483.
[Copyright, with that of _Love_ and _Weather_ transferred, Jan. 15, 1582,
from late Sampson Awdeley to John Charlwood (Arber, ii. 405). The _Four
Pees_ is mentioned with other early plays in _Sir Thomas More_ (Shakes.
Soc. 1844).]
There are no indications of _mise en scène_. There are 1,236 lines.
iv. _Weather._
_Editions._
1533. William Rastell. ‘The Play of the wether. A new and very mery
enterlude of all maner wethers made by Iohn̄ Heywood.’
[1564-1576.] Anthony Kytson.
1898. Brandl, 211.
1903. Gayley, 19.
The characters are Jupiter, Merry Report, ‘the vyce,’ Gentleman,
Merchant, Ranger, Water Miller, Wind Miller, Gentlewoman, Launder, A Boy
(‘the lest that can play’). All in turn petition different weather from
Jupiter. The piece is 1,255 lines long. Jupiter has his ‘thron’ (l. 179).
v. _John, Tib and Sir John._
_Editions._
1533/4. William Rastell. ‘A mery play between Iohan Iohan the husbande,
Tyb his wyfe and Syr Ihān the preest.’
1819. Chiswick Press.
1898. Brandl, 259.
1903. Gayley, 61.
The action proceeds in the ‘place’ (l. 667), which represents Johan’s
house with a fire (ll. 399, 460). The door of the priest’s chamber is
also visible (ll. 316, 673). There are 680 lines.
vi. _Witty and Witless._
_Manuscript._
_Harl. MS._ 367.
_Edition._
1846. F. W. Fairholt (Percy Soc.). ‘A dialogue concerning witty and
witless.’
Thomas Hacket entered the ‘pleye of wytles’ on S. R. in 1560-1 (Arber, i.
154). This piece is a mere dialogued _débat_ or _estrif_.
vii. _Gentleness and Nobility._
[1516-1533.] John Rastell. ‘Of Gentylnes and Nobylyte. A dyaloge ...
compilid in maner of an enterlude with diuers toys and gestis addyt
therto to make mery pastyme and disport.’
1829. J. H. Burn.
This resembles _Witty and Witless_ in character. It is only conjecturally
assigned to Heywood. The copy in the British Museum of Rastell’s edition
(C. 40, i. 16) has a mounted woodcut portrait with the initials I. H.,
but I do not know whether that really belongs to it.
JOHN BALE.
[_Authorities._—Collier, i. 123; ii. 159; Ward, i. 173; Lives
of Bale in _D. N. B._ (article by Mandell Creighton) and
Cooper, _Athenae Cantabrigienses_; his own works, especially
_Illustrium Maioris Britanniae Scriptorum Catalogus_ (1548,
ed. 2, 1557-9, i. 704) and _Vocacyon to Ossory_ (_Harl.
Miscellany_, ed. 1808, i. 328); editions of plays named below,
especially that of Schröer.]
John Bale was born in 1495 at Cove, near Dunwich, in Suffolk. He was
placed as a boy in the Carmelite convent of Norwich, thence went to
that of Holn, or Holm, in Northumberland, and finally to Jesus College,
Cambridge. He took orders, but was converted to Protestantism by Lord
Wentworth, and married a ‘faithful Dorothy.’ He became vicar of Thorndon,
in Suffolk, and earned the protection of Thomas Cromwell _ob editas
comoedias_. Cromwell’s accounts (Brewer, xiv. 2. 337) show payments to
him for plays on Sept. 8, 1538, at St. Stephen’s, Canterbury, and on
Jan. 31, 1539. At his patron’s fall in 1540 he fled to Germany, and
joined vigorously in polemic. In his _Epistel Exhortatorye of an Inglyshe
Christian_ (1544), written under the pseudonym of Henry Stalbridge, he
says: ‘None leave ye unvexed and untrobled—no, not so much as the poore
minstrels, and players of enterludes, but ye are doing with them. So
long as they played lyes, and sange baudy songes, blasphemed God, and
corrupted men’s consciences, ye never blamed them, but were verye well
contented. But sens they persuaded the people to worship theyr Lorde God
aryght, accordyng to hys holie lawes and not yours, and to acknoledge
Jesus Chryst for their onely redeemer and saviour, without your lowsie
legerdemains, ye never were pleased with them.’ He returned in 1547,
and in 1548 printed in his _Scriptores_ the following list of his ‘in
idiomate materno, comedias sub vario metrorum genere.’
1. ‘Lib. 14. Vitam D. Ioannis Baptistae.
2. Com. 1. de Christo duodenni.
3. Com. 2. de baptismo & tentatione.
4. Com. 1. de Lazaro resuscitato.
5. Com. 1. de consilio pontificum.
6. Com. 1. de Simone leproso.
7. Com. 1. de coena Domini & pedum lotione.
8. Com. 2. de passione Christi.
9. Com. 2. de sepultura & resurrectione.
10. Lib. 2. super utroque regis coniugio.
11. Lib. 2. de sectis Papisticis.
12. Lib. 2. erga Momos et Zoilos.
13. Lib. 2. Proditiones Papistarum.
14. Lib. 1. contra adulterantes Dei verbum.
15. Lib. 2. _de Ioanne Anglorum rege._
16. Lib. 1. de imposturis Thomae Becketi.
17. Lib. 1. _de magnis Dei promissionibus._
18. Lib. 1. _de predicatione Ioannis._
19. Lib. 1. _de Christi tentatione._
20. Lib. 1. _Corruptiones legum divinarum._
21. Lib. 1. Amoris imaginem.
22. Lib. 4. Pammachii tragoedias transtuli.’
As Bale gives a Latin translation of the opening words of each piece,
his five extant plays can be identified with those I have italicized. It
is to be noted that Nos. 18 and 19 have the same subject as No. 3, which
seems to form part of a complete Passion cycle (Nos. 2-9).
In 1547 Bale was made rector of Bishopstoke, Hants, in 1551 of Swaffham,
Norfolk, and in 1553 Bishop of Ossory, in Ireland. On the day of the
proclamation of Queen Mary he had some of his plays performed at the
market-cross of Kilkenny (cf. p. 374). But he had to take refuge at
Basle, and on the accession of Elizabeth found himself too old to resume
his see, and retired on a prebend in Canterbury Cathedral, where he died
in 1563.
_Plays._
i. _God’s Promises._
_Editions._
(i) 1577. ‘A Tragedye or enterlude manyfestyng the chefe promyses of
God vnto man by all ages in the olde lawe, from the fall of Adam to the
incarnacyon of the lorde Jesus Christ. Compyled by John Bale, An. Do.
1538, and now fyrst imprynted 1577. [List of characters.] _Iohn Charlwood
for Stephen Peele_, 1577.’
(ii) n.d. [Another edition]. ‘Compyled by Johan Bale, Anno Domini
M.D.XVXXVIII.’ _B. L._
(iii) 1874. Hazlitt-Dodsley, i. 277 (and in all earlier editions of
Dodsley, from 1744).
A prologue by _Baleus prolocutor_ is followed by seven ‘Actes,’ in
which _Adam_, _Noah_, _Abraham_, _Moses_, _David_, _Esaias_, _Iohannes
Baptista_ discourse in turn with _Pater Coelestis_. Each Act ends with
one of the pre-Christmas antiphons known as the seven Oes (cf. vol. i. p.
344), to be sung by a ‘Chorus cum organis’ in Latin or English. _Baleus
Prolocutor_ epilogizes, ending ‘More of thys matter conclude hereafter we
shall.’ This play is practically a _Prophetae_.
ii. _John Baptist._
_Editions._
(i) n.d. ‘A Brefe Comedy or Enterlude of Johan Baptystes preachynge in
the Wyldernesse; openynge the craftye assaultes of the hypocrytes, with
the gloryouse Baptyme of the Lorde Jesus Christ. Compyled by Johan Bale,
Anno M.D.XXXVIII.’
(ii) 1744. _Harleian Miscellany_, i. 97.
_Praefatio_ by _Baleus Prolocutor_. Then _Incipit Comoedia_. Bale has
a final speech. The _Interlocutores_ are _Pater Coelestis_, _Ioannes
Baptista_, _Publicanus_, _Pharisaeus_, _Iesus Christus_, _Turba
vulgaris_, _Miles armatus_, _Sadducaeus_.
iii. _Temptation._
_Editions._
(i) n.d. ‘A brefe Comedy or enterlude concernynge the temptacyon of our
Lorde and sauer Iesus Christ, by Sathan in the desart. Compyled by Iohan
Bale, Anno M.D.XXXVIII.’
(ii) 1870. A. B. Grosart, _Miscellanies of Fuller Worthies Library_, vol.
i.
_Praefatio_ by _Baleus Prolocutor_. Then _Incipit Comoedia_. Bale has a
final speech. The other _Interlocutores_ are _Iesus Christus_, _Satan
tentator_, _Angelus primus_, _Angelus alter_. The play calls itself an
‘Acte.’
[These three plays closely resemble each other. They were all
written at Thorndon in 1538, and are markedly Protestant in
tone. They were also all performed at Kilkenny, on Aug. 20,
1553.]
iv. _Three Laws._
_Editions._
(i) n.d. A Comedy concernynge thre lawes, of nature, Moses, and Christ,
corrupted by the Sodomytes Pharysees and Papystes. Compyled by Johan
Bale. Anno M.D.XXXVIII.
_Colophon_: Thus endeth thys Comedy [&c.]. Compyled by Johan Bale. Anno
M.D. XXXVIII, and lately inprented per Nicolaum Bamburgensem.
(ii) 1562. Edition by Thomas Colwell.
(iii) A. Schröer, in _Anglia_, v. 137.
The play may have been written in 1538, but the allusions (ll. 2073,
2080) to King Edward and the Lord Protector show that it was revised
after 1547. It is not, like (i), (ii), and (iii), a miracle-play, but
a morality, and its Protestantism is far more advanced and polemical
than theirs. It is 2,081 lines long, and has five _Actus_, with the
usual _Praefatio_ by _Baleus Prolocutor_. The other _Interlocutores_ are
_Deus pater_, _Natura lex_, _Moseh lex_, _Christi lex vel Euangelium_,
_Infidelitas_, _Idololatria_, _Sodomismus_, _Ambitio_, _Auaricia_,
_Pseudodoctrina_, _Hypocrisis_, _Vindicta Dei_, _Fides Christiana_. At
the end is a note how ‘Into fyue personages maye the partes of thys
Comedy be deuyded,’ and another for ‘The aparellynge of the six vyces or
frutes of Infydelyte.’
v. _King John._
_Manuscript._
In possession of the Duke of Devonshire, found amongst papers probably
belonging to the Corporation of Ipswich. Written in two hands, of which
one is believed to be Bale’s.
_Editions._
(i) 1838. Ed. J. P. Collier for Camden Soc.
(ii) 1890. Extract in Pollard, 146.
(iii) 1897. Manly, i. 525, from (i).
‘Kynge Johan’ contains 2,656 lines, but is divided into ‘ij playes,’
i.e. Acts. At l. 1119 is a reference to ‘the seconde acte’ and a
‘Finit Actus Primus.’ There are nineteen personages—_Kynge Johan_,
_Ynglond_, _Clargy_, _Sedycyon_, _Cyvyle Order_, _Stevyn Langton_,
_Commynalte_, _Nobylyte_, _Cardynall Pandulphus_, _Pryvat Welth_,
_Dissimulacyon_, _Raymundus_, _Symon of Swynsett_, _Usurpyd Power_, _The
Pope_, _Interpretour_ (a presenter), _Treasor_, _Veryte_, _Imperyall
Majestye_—but these are marked with brackets to show that they can be
taken by nine actors. The play is strongly Protestant. It was doubtless
written before 1548, as ‘Lib. 2. de Ioanne Anglorum Rege’ are included
in Bale’s _Scriptores_ list of that year. Collier, i. 123, quotes a
deposition as to ‘an enterlude concernyng King John’ performed ‘in
Christmas tyme [1538-9] at my Lorde of Canterbury’s’ which was certainly
anti-Papal, and was probably Bale’s. But the extant text has undergone
a later revision, for the prayer at the end is for Elizabeth. Fleay,
_Hist. of Stage_, 62, conjectures that it was performed upon her visit to
Ipswich in August, 1561. There was probably a single stage or pageant.
The characters enter and go out. At l. 1377 Sedycyon speaks ‘extra
locum’; at l. 785 is the phrase ‘Ye may perseyve yt in pagent here this
hower.’
NICHOLAS GRIMALD.
Grimald was the son of a Genoese clerk in the service of Henry VII. He
migrated from Christ’s College, Cambridge, to Oxford, where, after a
short stay at Brasenose, he became Fellow and Lecturer first of Merton
in 1540, then of Christ Church in 1547. To this period belong his
Latin plays, and the bulk of his lyrics and other poems in _Tottel’s
Miscellany_. He was widely read in theology and scholarship, and was
chosen chaplain to Bishop Ridley, for whom he did much controversial
work. Under Mary in 1555 he was imprisoned, but escaped by a recantation.
He was dead before 1562. Bale, _Scriptores_ (1557), i. 701, ascribes to
him amongst other writings:—
_Archiprophetae tragoediam._
_Famae comoediam._
_Christum nascentem._
_Christum redivivum._
_Protomartyrem._
_Athanasium, seu infamiam._
_Troilum ex Chaucero, comoediam._
Of these the first and fourth survive; of the others some can only be
conjecturally put down as plays.
†1540. _Christus Redivivus._
_Editions._
1543. Gymnicus, Cologne. Christus redivivus. Comoedia tragica, sacra et
nova. Authore Nicolao Grimaoldo.
1899. J. M. Hart, in _Publications of the Modern Language Association of
America_, xiv. No. 3.
The dedication is dated, ‘Oxoniae, e Collegio Martonensi. Anno 1543’; but
according to the account of the play given therein by the author, it was
performed by the _pubes_ of B. N. C. before he joined Merton.
1547. _Archipropheta._
_Manuscript._
_Brit. Mus. Royal MS._ 12 A. 46.
_Edition._
1548. Gymnicus, Cologne. Archipropheta, Tragoedia iam recens in lucem
edita. Autore Nicolao Grimoaldo.
The dedication is dated 1547. The play is divided into Acts and Scenes,
and has choruses. It deals with the story of John the Baptist. Herford,
116, suggests a possible influence from the _Iohannes Decollatus_ (1546)
of Jakob Schöpper of Dortmund (Bahlmann, _Lat. Dr._ 93).
NICHOLAS UDALL.
[_Authorities._—Bale, _Scriptores_ (1557), i. 717; Ward, i.
254; Pearson, ii. 413; Kempe, 63, 90; S. L. Lee, s.v. Udall in
_D. N. B._; T. Fowler, _Hist. of C. C. C._ 370; Maxwell-Lyte,
_Hist. of Eton_ (3rd ed. 1899), 117; J. W. Hales, _The Date
of the First English Comedy_, in _Englische Studien_, xviii
(1893), 408; E. Flügel, _Nicholas Udall’s Dialogues and
Interludes_, in _Furnivall Miscellany_ (1901), 81.]
_Life._
Nicholas Udall, Uvedale, Owdall, Woodall, or Yevedall, was born in
Hampshire in 1505, and educated at Winchester and Corpus Christi
College, Oxford, where he held an informal lectureship in 1526-8. He
was an early Oxford exponent of Lutheran views. In 1532 he assisted
Leland in preparing verses for the London pageants at the coronation
of Anne Boleyn. From 1533-7 he was vicar of Braintree, Essex, and not
improbably wrote the play of _Placidas_, alias _Sir Eustace_, recorded
in 1534 in the churchwardens’ accounts. But from 1534 he was also head
master of Eton. Thomas Cromwell’s accounts for 1538 include ‘Woodall,
the schoolmaster of Eton, for playing before my Lord, £5’ (Brewer, xiv.
2. 334). In 1541 he left Eton, under an accusation of theft and other
misbehaviour. But he found favour with Katharine Parr, Somerset, and
Edward VI through literary and theological work, was made tutor to Edward
Courtenay and obtained in 1551 a prebend at Windsor, and in 1553 the
living of Calborne, Isle of Wight. He had not, however, so far committed
himself on the Protestant side as to make it impossible to conform under
Mary. He was tutor to Bishop Gardiner’s household, and either in 1553 or
1554 became head master of Westminster. Here he remained to his death in
1556. A letter of Mary in 1554 states that he had ‘at soondrie seasons’
shown ‘dialogues and enterludes’ before her, and requires the Revels
office to provide him with ‘apparell’ for his ‘devises’ at the coming
Christmas. The Revels accounts for the year mention ‘certen plaies’ made
by him, but the items referring to them cannot be disentangled from those
for masks given at the same Christmas. Bale does not mention Udall in the
1548 edition of his _Scriptores_, but in that of 1557 he gives a list
of works ‘Latine et Anglice,’ including ‘Comoedias plures, Lib. 1,’ and
adds that he ‘transtulit’ for Katherine Parr, ‘tragoediam de papatu.’
When Elizabeth was at Cambridge on Aug. 8, 1564, ‘an English play called
Ezekias made by Mr. Udal’ was given before her by King’s College men
(Nichols, _Progr. of Eliz._ i. 186).
_Roister Doister._
_Editions._
[1566-7. In this year the play was entered on the Stationers’ Registers
to Thomas Hacket, and to this edition the unique copy, without title-page
or colophon, presented in 1818 to the Eton College library, probably
belongs.]
1818. Briggs.
1821. F. Marshall.
1830. Thomas White, in _Old English Drama_, vol. i.
1847. W. D. Cooper, for Shakespeare Society.
1869. E. Arber, in _English Reprints_.
1874. Hazlitt-Dodsley, iii. 53.
1897. J. M. Manly, ii. 3 (based on Arber).
1903. E. Flügel, in C. M. Gayley, _Representative English Comedies_, 105.
The play is divided into _Actus_ and _Scenae_, and is called in a
prologue, which refers to Plautus and Terence, a ‘comedie, or enterlude.’
The prayer at the end is for a ‘queene’ who protects the ‘Gospell.’
Probably Elizabeth is meant. This, however, must be later in date than
that of the play itself, which has been fixed by Prof. Hales to 1553-4,
on the ground that a passage in it is quoted in the third edition
(1553 or 1554) of T. Wilson’s _Rule of Reason_, but not in the earlier
editions of 1550-1 and 1552. Prof. Hales thinks that Udall was master
of Westminster as early as 1553, and wrote it for the boys there. If
Wilson’s date is 1554, the play may have been one of those given at court
in the Christmas of 1553.
IV. LIST OF EARLY TUDOR INTERLUDES.
Pre-Controversial Moralities.
The _dramatis personae_ are all abstractions, with an occasional moral
type, such as Hickscorner, or a social type, such as a Taverner.
1. †1486-1501. _Henry Medwall._ _Nature._
See s.v. Medwall.
2. †1513. _Hickscorner._
[1501-35.] W. de Worde. Hyckescorner.
[1546-86.] J. Waley.
Fragments of unidentified editions are described by Greg, _Plays_, 139.
On Jan. 15, 1582, the copyright was transferred from the late Sampson
Awdeley to John Charlwood (Arber, ii. 405). Modern reprints are in
Hawkins, vol. i; Hazlitt-Dodsley, vol. i; Manly, vol. i. There are 1,026
lines. Ten Brink, iii. 125, dates the play at about the beginning of the
sixteenth century. Collier, ii. 227, and Ward, i. 119, place it in the
reign of Henry VII, whose ship, the Regent, is named. Brandl, xxviii,
notes that this is spoken of (l. 356) as sunk, which occurred in 1513.
This is one of the ‘auncient Plays’ in _Captain Cox_, cxviii.
3. †1513-29. _Youth._
[1546-86.] J. Waley. Thēterlude of Youth.
[1549-69.] W. Copland.
Greg, _Plays_, 141, mentions a fragment of a third edition. The play
is printed in Hazlitt-Dodsley, vol. ii. There are about 1,200 lines.
Collier, ii. 230; Ward, i. 126; Pollard, liv, put the date in Mary’s
reign; Brandl, xxviii, early in that of Henry VIII. Passages are borrowed
from _Hickscorner_. This is named in _Captain Cox_, cxviii.
4. †1517. _John Rastell._ _The Nature of the Four Elements._
[1516-33.] John Rastell. A new interlude and a mery of the nature of the
.iiii. elements declarynge many proper poynts of phylosophy naturall
and of dyuers strange landys and of dyuers strannge effect and causis,
which interlude, if the whole matter be played, will contain the space of
an hour and a half; but if you list you may leave out much of the said
matter, as ... and then it will not be past three quarters of an hour of
length.
There are modern editions by Halliwell (Percy Soc. lxxiv), and in
Hazlitt-Dodsley, vol. i, and extracts in Pollard, 97. There are about 900
lines. A note says ‘also, yf ye lyst, ye may brynge in a Dysguysinge,’
and a direction for the ‘dance’ or disguising shows that the stage was a
‘hall.’ The date is fixed by Collier, ii. 238; Ward, i. 126; Pollard,
205, on the ground that the discovery of America is said to be ‘within
this twenty years’ and by ‘Americus’ (i.e. Amerigo Vespucci, 1497). The
authorship has been doubted, apparently in ignorance of the ascription
of it to Rastell by Bale, _Scriptores_ (1557), i. 660 ‘Insignis his
Cosmographus, de trium mundi partium, Asiae, Africae, et Europae
descriptione, ingeniosissimam ac longissimam comoediam primum edidit,
cum instrumentis & figuris, quam uocabat _Naturam naturatam. Lib. 1.
Exuberans diuinae potentiae gratia._’ The opening words quoted by Bale
translate those of the play ‘Thaboundant grace of the power devyne.’
Probably Rastell was also the printer, although the unique and imperfect
copy (_B.M._ 643, b. 45) has only a manuscript imprint.
5. †1541-8. _John Redford._ _Wit and Science._
Printed by Halliwell (Shakespeare Soc., 1848) and Manly, vol. i, from
_Brit. Mus. Addl. MS._ 15,233, which is imperfect at the beginning, but
has the colophon ‘Thus endyth the Play of Wyt and Science, made by Master
Jhon Redford.’
There are 1,059 lines. The final prayer is for the ‘Kyng and Quene.’
Brandl, lxxii, dates the play between 1541, when the ‘gaillard,’ which
is mentioned, was first danced in England, and the death of Katharine
Parr in 1548. It was adapted in more than one Elizabethan interlude;
cf. Brandl, loc. cit.; J. Seifert, _Wit- und Science-Moralitäten_
(1892); and p. 200, n. 2. Redford was at one time Master of the St.
Paul’s song-school. The MS. also contains songs and fragments of other
moralities by him.
Pseudo-Interludes: Disputations.
6. †1521. _John Heywood._ _Love._
7. †1521-31. _John Heywood._ _Witty and Witless._
8. †1521-31. _John Heywood_ (?). _Gentleness and Nobility._
See s.v. Heywood.
Pseudo-Interlude: Banns.
9. †1503. _W. Dunbar._ _The Droichis Part of the Play._ Printed in
Dunbar’s _Works_ (ed. J. Small, for Scottish Text Soc.), ii. 314.
One MS. is headed ‘Ane Littill Interlud of the Droichis Part of the
[Play]’; another, and the fuller, ‘Heir followis the maner of the crying
of ane playe.’ Both have at the end ‘Finis off the Droichis Pairt of the
Play.’
There are 176 lines. The Droich (dwarf) enters to an ‘amyable audiens’ in
Edinburgh, ‘to cry a cry.’ He calls himself ‘Welth,’ and bids
‘Ȝe noble merchandis ever ilkane
Address ȝow furth with bow and flane
In lusty grene lufraye,
And follow furth on Robyn Hude.’
The piece is clearly a ‘banns’ for a May-game; cf. vol. i. p. 174. The S.
T. S. editors (i. ccxxxiii), think it was written for the reception of
Princess Margaret in 1503.
Pseudo-Interlude: Translation.
10. _Necromantia._
[1516-33.] John Rastell. Necromantia. A dialog of the poet Lucyan, for
his fantesye faynyd for a mery pastyme. And furst by hym compylyd in the
Greke tonge. And after translated owt of the Greke into Latyn, and now
lately translated out of Laten into Englissh for the erudicion of them,
which be disposyd to lerne the tongis. Inter locutores, Menippus and
Philonides.
R. G. C. Proctor, in _Hand Lists of English Printers_, Pt. ii,
distinguishes two editions, one certainly, the other probably, printed
by Rastell. Hazlitt, _Manual_, 164, describes the translation as
‘after the manner of an interlude.’ The Latin and English are in
parallel columns, and Collier, ii. 280, who saw a fragment in the Douce
collection, thought that it was ‘a modern Latin play, possibly by
Rightwise.’ Bale, _Scriptores_ (1557), i. 656, says that More translated
Lucian’s ‘_Menippum, seu Necromantiam, Dial. 1. Salue atrium, domusque
uesti[bulum]_’; but the reference is probably to the Latin version of
this and other dialogues published in 1506.
Farces of Mediaeval Type.
11. †1521. _John Heywood._ _The Pardoner and the Friar._
12. †1521. _John Heywood._ _The Four Ps._
13. †1521-31. _John Heywood._ _The Weather._
14. †1521-31. _John Heywood._ _John, Tib and Sir John._
See s.v. Heywood.
Translation from Spanish.
15. _Calisto and Melibaea._
[1516-33.] John Rastell. A new cōmodye in englysh in maner Of an
enterlude ryght elygant & full of craft of rethoryk wherein is shewd &
dyscrybyd as well the bewte & good propertes of women as theyr vycys &
euyll cōdiciōs with a morall cōclusion & exhortacyon to vertew.
A modern reprint is in Hazlitt-Dodsley, vol. i. The _dramatis personae_
are Calisto, Melibaea, Sempronio, Celestina, Parmeno. The play is a
partial English version through the Italian of the Spanish _Celestina_
(1492) of Fernando Rojas de Montalvan and Rodrigo Costa. A later
translation is J. Mabbe, _Celestina_ (1630), ed. J. Fitzmaurice Kelly in
_Tudor Translations_; cf. J. G. Underhill, _Spanish Literature in the
England of the Tudors_, 65, 375.
Translation from Classical Latin.
16. _Terence._ _Andria._
[1516-33.] John Rastell (?). Terens in englyssh. The translacyon out of
Latin into englysh of the furst comedy of tyrens callyd Andria.
Translations from Neo-Latin.
17. 1537. _Thersites._
[1558-63.] John Tysdale. A new Enterlude called Thersytes. This Enterlude
Folowynge Dothe Declare howe that the greatest boesters are not the
greatest doers.
There are modern editions in J. Haslewood, _Two Interludes_ (Roxburghe
Club, 1820); F. J. Child, _Four Old Plays_ (1848); Hazlitt-Dodsley, vol.
i; also a facsimile by H. S. Ashbee (1876) and extracts in Pollard, 126.
There are 915 lines. The _dramatis personae_ are Thersites, Mulciber,
Miles, Mater, Telemachus. Mulciber has ‘a sharp sword made in the place,’
and Mater ‘the place which is prepared for her.’ The date is fixed by a
prayer for Prince Edward, born Oct. 12, 1537, and Queen Jane Seymour, who
died Oct. 24, 1537. Bolte, in _Vahlen-Festschrift_, 594, says that the
piece is translated from the _Thersites_ of J. Ravisius Textor, printed
in his _Dialogi_ (1651), 239. The first edition of the _Dialogi_ was in
1530 (Bahlmann, _Lat. Dr._ 31).
18. †1560. _Thomas Ingelend._ _The Disobedient Child._
[Probably an Elizabethan play, but included here on account of its
relation to _Thersites_.]
[1561-75.] Thomas Colwell. A pretie and Mery new Enterlude: called the
Disobedient Child. Compiled by Thomas Ingelend late Student in Cambridge.
There are modern editions by Halliwell (Percy Soc. xxiii) and in
Hazlitt-Dodsley, vol. ii. The closing prayer is for Elizabeth. Bolte,
loc. cit., considers this a translation of the _Iuvenis, Pater, Uxor_
of Ravisius Textor (_Dialogi_, 71). Brandl, lxxiii, finds in it the
influence of the _Studentes_ (1549) of Christopherus Stymmelius
(Bahlmann, _Lat. Dr._ 98).
Farces on Classical Models.
19. †1550-3. _W. Stevenson_ (?). _Gammer Gurton’s Needle._
1575. Thomas Colwell. A Ryght Pithy, Pleasaunt and merie Comedie:
Intytuled Gammer gurton’s Nedle: Played on Stage, not longe ago in
Christes Colledge in Cambridge. Made by Mʳ S. Mʳ of Art.
1661. Thomas Johnson.
There are modern editions in Hawkins, vol. i; W. Scott, _Ancient
British Drama_ (1810), vol. i; _Old English Drama_ (1830), vol. i;
Hazlitt-Dodsley, vol. iii; Manly, vol. ii. The latest is by H. Bradley in
C. M. Gayley, _Representative English Comedies_ (1903).
The play is divided into Acts and Scenes, has a prologue and a
_plaudite_; but the subject is not taken from Latin comedy. It is
probably identical with the _Dyccon of Bedlam_ entered by Colwell on
the Stationers’ Register in 1562-3, since ‘Diccon, the bedlem’ is a
character. The 1575 edition may, therefore, not have been the first.
Jusserand, _Théâtre_, 181, thinks that the satire is even pre-Reformation
in tone. The authorship is much in dispute. I. Reed, _Biographia
Dramatica_ (1782), suggested John Still, afterwards bishop of Bath
and Wells, who was a M.A. of Christ’s in 1565. C. H. Ross, in _Modern
Language Notes_, vii (1892), no. 6, and _Anglia_, xix. 297, accepts John
Bridges, afterwards bishop of Oxford, who is spoken of, but with doubtful
seriousness, as the author, in _Martin Marprelate’s Epistle_ (1588). But
Bridges’ initial is not S, nor was he a Christ’s man. H. Bradley, in
_Athenæum_ for August 6, 1898, and J. Peile, _Christ’s College_ (1900),
54, 73, point out that one William Stevenson, a Bachelor Fellow of
Christ’s, is shown by college accounts to have been in charge of plays
there between 1550 and 1553. His seems to me by far the strongest claim
yet made.
20. †1553-4. _Nicholas Udall._ _Roister Doister._
See s.v. Udall.
21. †1553-8. _Jack Juggler._
[1562-9.] W. Copland, A new Enterlude for Chyldren to playe, named Jacke
Jugeler, both wytte, and very playsent Newly Imprentid.
According to Grosart, two leaves of another edition are bound with the
Duke of Devonshire’s copy.
The play was entered by Copland on the Stationers’ Register in 1562-3.
There are modern reprints in J. Haslewood, _Two Interludes_ (Roxburghe
Club, 1820); F. J. Child, _Four Old Plays_ (1848); A. B. Grosart, _Fuller
Worthies Library Miscellanies_ (1873), vol. iv; Hazlitt-Dodsley, vol.
ii, and a facsimile by E. W. Ashbee (1876). The piece is an imitation of
the _Amphitruo_ of Plautus. Brandl, lxxi, assigns it to the reign of Mary
on the strength of a Catholic sentiment.
Tragedy on Classical Model (?).
22. †1516-33. _Lucrece._
A fragment of a ‘Play concerning Lucretia’ is attributed by R. G.
C. Proctor, in _Hand Lists of English Printers_ (1896), Part ii, to
the press of John Rastell (1516-33). It is in the Bagford collection
of fragments, _Harl. MS._ 5919, f. 20 (no. 98), and consists of two
pages, containing a scene in which Publius Cornelius instructs a
confidential friend with the initial B to sound the feeling of ‘Lucres’
towards him, and the beginning of a scene between B. and ‘Lucres.’
Halliwell-Phillipps, ii. 340, says that the play was written by
Medwall, †1490, and gives the title as ‘A godely interlude of Fulgeus,
Cenatoure of Rome, Lucres his daughter, Gayus Flaminius and Publius
Cornelius, of the Disputacyon of Noblenes.’ The ‘Fulgius and Lucrelle’ of
seventeenth-century play-lists (Hazlitt, _Manual_, s.v.; Greg, _Masques_,
lxx) may be related to this. The heroine is not Shakespeare’s Lucrece.
Latin Neo-Mysteries.
23. †1535-45. _Thomas Watson_ (?). _Absolon._
Ascham, _Scholemaster_ (ed. Mayor, 1869), highly praises, together with
Buchanan’s _Jephthes_, the _Absolon_ of Thomas Watson ‘in Sᵗ John’s
College Cambridge’ which he never would publish because an anapaest
sometimes stood where he thought, incorrectly, that there should have
been an iambus. Watson became bishop of Lincoln. Fleay, _Biog. Chron._
ii. 267, and others ascribe the play in error to John Watson, bishop of
Winchester, and speak of a manuscript at Penshurst, which, however, is
not mentioned in the account of the Penshurst MSS. in _Hist. MSS._ iii.
app. 227. Probably the play is identical with the _Absolon_ preserved in
_Brit. Mus. Stowe MS._ 957, described by G. B. Churchill and W. Keller,
_Die lat. Universitäts-Dramen Englands in der Zeit der Königin Elisabeth_
(_Shakespeare-Jahrbuch_, xxxiv (1898), 229). An eighteenth-century
ascription on the first leaf to John Bale is of no authority. The play is
of a Senecan type, with acts and scenes and a chorus. The first line was
originally ‘Adhuc animus vexatur excusso metu,’ but in the MS., which has
many corrections, ‘Animus adhuc’ has been substituted.
24. †1540. _Nicholas Grimald._ _Christus Redivivus._
25. †1547. _Nicholas Grimald._ _Archipropheta._
See s.v. Grimald.
26. †1550. _John Foxe._ _Christus Triumphans._
1551. Christus triumphans, Comoedia apocalyptica. Autore Ioanne Foxo
Anglo. London 1551. 8ᵒ.
1556. Oporinus, Basle.
1590. Nuremberg, Gerlach.
In 1672 and 1677 the Latin text was edited by Thomas Comber for school
use. A French translation by Jacques Bienvenu appeared in 1562. There is
also
1579. John and Richard Day. Christ Jesus Triumphant, A fruitefull
Treatise, wherein is described the most glorious Triumph, and Conquest
of Christ Iesus our Saviour.... Made to be read for spiritual comfort by
Iohn Foxe, and from Latin translated intoo English by the Printer....
There are later editions of 1581 and 1607. This is generally regarded as
a translation of the _Christus Triumphans_, but Greg, _Masques_, cxxiii,
doubts this, and notes that ‘a modern reprint [1828] in the B. M. is
not dramatic.’ The reprint is in fact a translation of the _De Christo
Triumphante, Eiusdem Autoris Panegyricon_ appended to the Basle edition
of the play. But possibly it does not represent the whole of Day’s work.
The 1551 edition is given by Bahlmann, _Lat. Dr._ 107. According to S.
L. Lee, in _D. N. B._, it only rests on the authority of Tanner. In 1551
Foxe was tutor to the children of Lord Surrey, who had been executed
some years before. In 1555 he entered the printing office of Oporinus
at Basle, and in 1564 that of John Day in London. The MS. of the play
is _Lansd. MS._ 1073. It is an ‘Antichrist’ play, written under the
influence of the _Pammachius_ (1538) of Thomas Kirchmaier or Naogeorgus
(Bahlmann, _op. cit._ 71). A full analysis is given by Herford, 138.
Translation from Latin Neo-Moral.
27. †1530-40. _J. Palsgrave._ _Acolastus._
1540. Thomas Berthelet. Ioannis Palsgravi Londoniensis, ecphrasis Anglica
in comoediam Acolasti. ¶ The Comedye of Acolastus translated into oure
englysshe tongue, ... Interpreted by John Palsgraue.
This is a translation of the _Acolastus_ (1530) of Wilhelm de Volder,
known in learning as Gnaphaeus or Fullonius, of the Hague (Bahlmann,
_Lat. Dr._ 39). It is arranged for school use, with marginal notes on
grammar, &c. The original play is the most important of the group dealing
with the Prodigal Son motive: cf. Herford, 152.
Drama of Catholic Controversy.
28. 1553. _Respublica._
Printed by Collier, _Illustrations of Old English Literature_ (1866),
vol. i, and Brandl, 281, from sixteenth-century MS. of Mr. Hudson Gurney
of Keswick Hall, Norfolk, with the heading ‘A merye enterlude entitled
Respublica, made in the yeare of our Lorde, 1553.’
The play is divided into Acts and Scenes, and is a ‘Christmas devise’
(prol. 6) by ‘boyes’ (prol. 39). The place-names are of London. The
controversial tone is Catholic, and political, rather than theological.
Brandl, lviii, finds the model in Lyndsay’s _Satyre_. Except for the
Prologue (the Poet) all the characters are abstractions. Avarice, _alias_
Policy, is ‘the vice of the plaie.’
Dramas of Protestant Controversy.
29. 1538. _John Bale._ _God’s Promises._
30. 1538. _John Bale._ _John Baptist._
31. 1538. _John Bale._ _The Temptation._
32. 1538. _John Bale._ _The Three Laws._
33. ?1539, 1561. _John Bale._ _King John._
See s.v. Bale.
34. †1547-53. _R. Wever._ _Lusty Juventus._
[1549-69.] W. Copland. An Enterlude called lusty Iuuentus. Lyuely
describing the frailtie of youth: of natur prone to vyce: by grace and
good counsayll, traynable to vertue.—At end of play, ‘Finis, quod R.
Wever.’
[1548-86.] A. Vele.
Copyright was entered on the Stationers’ Register by John King in 1560-1.
There are modern reprints in Hawkins, vol. i, and Hazlitt-Dodsley, vol.
ii. The characters are abstractions with the Devil, a Messenger, and
Little Bess a ‘Curtisane.’ The prayer is for a king and his council who
rule, which points to the reign of Edward VI.
35. †1547-53. _T. R._ _Nice Wanton._
1560. John King. A Preaty Interlude called, Nice wanton.—At end of play,
‘Finis T. R.’
There are reprints in Hazlitt-Dodsley, vol. i, and Manly, vol. i. The
characters are curiously heterogeneous: Messenger, Barnabas, Ismael,
Dalila, Eulalia, Iniquitie, Baily Errand, Xantippe, Worldly Shame,
Daniel. Brandl, lxxii, considers the play an adaptation of the _Rebelles_
(1535) of George Van Langeveldt or Macropedius, of Utrecht (Bahlmann,
_Lat. Dr._ 55). The rhyme ‘queenes’—‘things’ in the final prayer shows an
original date of composition under Edward VI.
36. †1547-53. _Somebody, Avarice and Minister._
Fragment of unidentified edition amongst papers of the reign of Edward
VI in Lambeth Library, reprinted by S. R. Maitland, _List of Early
Printed Books at Lambeth_ (1843), 280. Brandl, lix, considers this a
politico-religious interlude of the school of Lyndsay.
Protestant Controversy: Translation.
37. †1561. _Henry Cheke._ _Freewill._
[1558-63.] John Tisdale. A certayne Tragedie wrytten fyrst in Italian,
by F. N. B. entituled, Freewyl, and translated into Englishe, by Henry
Cheeke.
The copyright of a book ‘of frewil’ was entered on the Stationers’
Register on May 11, 1561 (Arber, i. 156). The original is the _Tragedia
del Libero Arbitrio_ (1546) of Francesco Nigri de Bassano. The translator
cannot be, as stated in the _D. N. B._, Henry, the son of Sir John Cheke,
if the date of his birth is as there given (†1548).
Protestant Controversy: Pseudo-Interludes.
38. †1547-53. _Robin Conscience._
Often described as an ‘interlude,’ but really a series of dialogues
between Robin Conscience, his father Covetousness, his mother New-guise,
and his sister Proud-beauty. Collier, ii. 315, describes it from a
printed fragment in the Devonshire library, and inclines to ascribe it to
the reign of Edward VI; cf. Herford, 55. Hazlitt, iii. 225, prints the
full text from a later edition.
39. 1549. _Ponet._ _Bishop of Rome._
A tragoedie or Dialoge of the uniuste usurped primacie of the Bishop of
Rome. A translation by John Ponet, Bishop of Winchester, from the Italian
of Bernardino Ochino (1549); cf. Bale, i. 694; Herford, 33. Among the
speakers are Edward VI and Somerset.
Lost Interludes.
See s.v. Skelton for the alleged _Nigramansir_ (1504).
S. Jones, _Biographia Dramatica_ (1812), ii. 328, describes ‘A newe
Interlude of Impacyente Poverte, newlye Imprinted. M. V. L. X.’ The
copyright of this play, which is in the Sir Thomas More list (cf. p. 200)
and that in _Captain Cox_, cxviii, was transferred on the Stationers’
Register from the late Sampson Awdeley to John Charlwood on Jan. 15, 1582.
Halliwell-Phillipps, _Dictionary of Old English Plays_ (1860), quoting
‘Coxeter’s Notes,’ is the authority for ‘An Interlude of Welth and Helth,
full of Sport and mery Pastyme,’ n.d.
FOOTNOTES
[1] On these tendencies generally, see Davidson, 130; Ward, i. 32;
R. Rosières, _Société française au Moyen Âge_, ii. 228; E. King,
_Dramatic Art and Church Liturgy_ (_Dublin Review_, cxxv. 43). Mediaeval
liturgiologists such as Belethus, Durandus, and Honorius of Autun
(P.L. clxxii), lay great stress on the symbolical aspect of ritual and
ceremonial. J. M. Robertson, _The Gospel Mystery-Play_ (_The Reformer_,
N.S. iii (1901), 657), makes an ingenious attempt to show that the
earlier gospel narratives of the Passion, those of Saints Matthew and
Mark, are based upon a dramatic version. This, he thinks, to have been
on classical lines, and to have been performed liturgically until about
the second century, when it was dropped in deference to the ascetic views
of the stage then prevalent (cf. vol. i. p. 11). But the narrative, with
its short speeches, its crowd of characters and its sufferings ‘coram
populo’ cannot, on the face of it, be derived from a _classical_ drama.
A nearer parallel would be the Graeco-Jewish Ἐξαγωγή of Ezechiel (first
century B.C., cf. Ward, i. 3). The Gospel narrative is, no doubt, mainly
‘a presentation of dramatic action and dialogue’; but this may be because
it was built up around _Logia_. Of external evidence for Mr. Robertson’s
view there is none. The ritual of the first two centuries was probably a
very simple one; cf. F. E. Warren, _Liturgy of the Ante-Nicene Church_,
54. The earliest liturgical dramas, even in the Greek churches, and
those only guessed at, are of the fourth (cf. p. 206). Mr. Robertson
claims support from _Galatians_, iii. 1 οἷς κατ’ ὀφθαλμοὺς Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς
προεγράφη ἐσταυρωμένος. Lightfoot, however, declares that the meaning of
προγράφειν is ‘write up in public,’ ‘placard,’ ‘proclaim.’ If it cannot,
as he says, mean ‘paint,’ still less can it mean ‘represent dramatically.’
[2] Duchesne, 47: A. V. G. Allen, _Christian Institutions_, 515.
[3] Duchesne, 393, 469, with the _Ordo dedicationis Ecclesiae_ from a
ninth-century Metz _Sacramentary_ there printed; Maskell, _Monum. Rit.
Eccl. Angl._ (1882) I. cccxxvi, 196, with text from _Sarum Pontifical_.
The ceremonies are symbolically explained by Hugo of St. Victor, _de
Sacramentis_, ii. 5. 3 (_P. L._ clxxvi, 441), who says, ‘Interrogatio
inclusi, ignorantia populi.’
[4] Duchesne, 236; Martene, iii. 71; Gasté, 69; Feasey, 53; _Use of
Sarum_, i. 59; _Sarum Missal_, 258; _Sarum Processional_, 47; _York
Missal_, i. 84; _York Processional_, 148. The custom is described in the
_Peregrinatio Silviae_ (Duchesne, 486) as already in use at Jerusalem in
the fourth century. ‘Etiam cum coeperit esse hora undecima, legitur ille
locus de evangelio, ubi infantes cum ramis vel palmis occurrerunt Domino,
dicentes: _Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini_. Et statim levat se
episcopus et omnis populus porro: inde de summo monte Oliveti totum
pedibus itur. Nam totus populus ante ipsum cum ymnis vel antiphonis,
respondentes semper: _Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini_. Et quotquot
sunt infantes in hisdem locis, usque etiam qui pedibus ambulare non
possunt, quia teneri sunt, in collo illos parentes sui tenent, omnes
ramos tenentes, alii palmarum, alii olivarum; et sic deducitur episcopus
in eo typo quo tunc Dominus deductus est. Et de summo monte usque ad
civitatem, et inde ad Anastase per totam civitatem, totum pedibus omnes,
sed et si quae matronae sunt aut si qui domini, sic deducunt episcopum
respondentes, et sic lente et lente, ne lassetur populus; porro iam sera
pervenitur ad Anastase.’
[5] Cf. ch. xiv.
[6] Collier, i. 82; Feasey, 68, 75, quoting payments ‘for the prophets.’
their ‘raiment,’ ‘stages’ for them, &c., from sixteenth-century Revels
and churchwardens’ accounts. The _Sarum Processional_, 50 (from eds.
1508, 1517), has ‘finito evangelio, unus puer ad modum prophetae indutus,
stans in aliquo eminenti loco, cantat lectionem propheticam modo quo
sequitur.’ Then come alternating passages between the ‘propheta’ and
‘tres clerici.’ Perhaps the latter were also sometimes disguised, but the
_Sarum Processional_, as well as the thirteenth-century _Consuetudinary_
and the _York Missal_ (_MS. D_), all specify that the clergy, other
than the prophet, shall be ‘habitu non mutato.’ Several of the London
records given by Mr. Feasey mention an ‘angel,’ and one of them a ‘chylde
that playde a messenger.’ A Coutances Order of 1573 (Gasté, 74) forbids
‘spectacula ... cum habitibus inhonestis’ at the Gospel during Mass on
Palm Sunday.
[7] Martene, iii. 72; Gasté, 72; R. Twigge, _Mediaeval Service Bks. of
Aquitaine_ (_Dublin Review_, cxv. 294; cxvii. 67); Pearson, ii. 296.
[8] _Sarum Missal_, 264. The _York Missal_, i. 102, says, for Good
Friday, ‘Diaconus legat Passionem,’ but _MS. D._ adds ‘vel legatur a
tribus Presbyteris, si sic ordinatum erit.’ Payments for the singers
of the Passion are quoted from churchwardens’ accounts (1447-1562) by
Feasey, 81. The singing was sometimes done from the rood loft.
[9] Feasey, 17; _Use of Sarum_, i. 140 ‘quarta autem feria ante pascha
dum passio domini legitur ad prolacionem ipsius clausulae _Velum templi
scissum est_: praedictum velum in area presbiterii decidat.’ The same
rubric is in the Wells _Ordinale_ (H. E. Reynolds, _Wells Cathedral_, 42).
[10] J. W. Legg, _Westminster Missal_ (H.B.S.), 1469; G. F. Aungier,
_Hist. and Antiq. of Syon Monastery_, 350; Lanfranc, _Decreta pro Ord.
S. Bened._ (_P.L._ cl. 465) ‘Ubi dicitur _Partiti sunt vestimenta mea
sibi_, sint duo de indutis iuxta altare, hinc et inde trahentes ad se
duos pannos qui ante officium super altare missi fuerant, linteo tamen
remanente subtus missale’; _Leofric’s Missal_ (Exeter, eleventh century),
261 ‘hac expleta statim duo diaconi nudant altare sindone quae prius
fuerit sub evangelio posita in modum furantis. Aliqui vero, antequam
legatur passio domini, praeparant sindones duas sibi coherentes et in eo
versu ubi legitur: _Partiti sunt vestimenta_, scindunt hinc inde ipsas
sindones desuper altare in modum furantis, et secum auferunt’; _York
Missal_, i. 102 ‘hic distrahantur linteamina super altare connexa’;
_Sarum Missal_, 323 ‘hic accedant duo ministri in superpelliceis, unus
ad dextrum et alius ad sinistrum cornu altaris; et inde duo linteamina
amoveant quae ad hoc super altare fuerunt apposita.’ I find the custom in
Aquitaine (_Dublin Review_ (1897), 366), and in Hungary (Dankó, _Vetus
Hymnarium Eccles. Hungariae_, 534).
[11] Martene, iii. 99; Feasey, 107; Wordsworth, 184.
[12] Feasey, 84; Wordsworth, 290.
[13] Strictly speaking the _Antiphon_ is begun by one half of the choir
and finished by the other; the _Responsorium_ is a solo with a short
refrain sung by the choir, like the secular _carole_; cf. ch. viii, and
_Use of Sarum_, i. 307; Dankó, _Vetus Hymnarium Eccl. Hung._ 11.
[14] Duchesne, 108; Davidson, 134; F. E. Warren, _Liturgy of the
Ante-Nicene Church_, 74.
[15] Frere, vi. The Gregorian _Liber Antiphonarius_ is in _P.L._ lxxviii.
641.
[16] Radulphus Glaber, _Hist. sui Temporis_ (†1044), iii. 4 (Bouquet,
_Rerum Gallic. et Francic. Script._ x. 29) ‘Igitur infra supradictum
millesimum tertio iam fere imminente anno, contigit in universo pene
terrarum orbe, praecipue tamen in Italia et in Galliis, innovari
Ecclesiarum Basilicas, licet pleraeque decenter locatae minime
indiguissent. Aemulabatur tamen quaeque gens Christicolarum adversus
alteram decentiore frui. Erat enim instar ac si mundus ipse excutiendo
semet, reiecta vetustate, passim candidam ecclesiarum vestem induerit.’
[17] Ekkehardus, _Vita B. Notkeri Balbuli_, c. xvi (Goldast, _Rerum
Alaman. Script._ i. 235) ‘Iubilus, id est neuma ... si autem tristitiae
fuerit oratio, ululatus dicitur, si vero gaudii, iubilus.’
[18] Gautier, _Les Tropes_, passim; _Winchester Troper_, vi; Dankó,
_Vetus Hymnarium Eccles. Hungariae_, 15; Julleville, _Myst._ i. 21;
Creizenach, i. 47. Gautier, i, defines a trope, ‘Qu’est-ce qu’un Trope?
C’est l’interpolation d’un texte liturgique,’ and M. Gerbert, _de cantu
et musica sacra_ (1774), i. 340 ‘Tropus, in re liturgica, est versiculus
quidam aut etiam plures ante inter vel post alios ecclesiasticos cantus
appositi.’ Of earlier writers, cf. Durandus, iv. 5 ‘Est autem proprie
tropus quidam versiculus qui in praecipuis festivitatibus cantatur
immediate ante introitum quasi quoddam praeambulum et continuatio ipsius
introitus.’ Gautier, 111, describes a large number of Tropers; Frere,
_Winchester Troper_, xxvii, xxx, those of English uses from Winchester,
Canterbury, Worcester, St. Albans, Dublin; Pamelius, _Liturgicon_ (1609),
ii. 611 an English Troper in the library of St. Bavon’s, Ghent. Amongst
tropes in the wider sense are included the _farsurae_ (vol. i. p. 277).
Many of the later tropes are trivial, indecent, or profane. They are
doubtless the work of _goliardi_ (vol. i. p. 60).
[19] _St. Gall MS._ 484, f. 13 (ninth century); cf. Gautier, 34, 62, 139,
218; _Winchester Troper_, xvi; Meyer, 34. It is also in the Winchester
Tropers (tenth-eleventh century), and the Canterbury Troper (fourth
century), and is printed therefrom in _Winchester Troper_, 4, 102. Here
it is divided between two groups of _Cantores_, and has the heading
‘Versus ante officium canendi in die Natalis Domini.’
[20] The _Introit_ is: ‘Puer natus est nobis, et filius datus est nobis:
cuius imperium super humerum eius, et vocabitur nomen eius magni consilii
angelus. _Ps._ Cantate domino canticum novum.’
[21] Gautier, 219, prints a dialogued trope for a feast of St. Peter from
an eleventh-century troper of St. Martial of Limoges; the _Winchester
Troper_, 6, 103, has one for St. Stephen’s day (Winchester) and one for
St. John the Evangelist’s (Canterbury). Meyer, 35, calls attention to the
dialogued Christmas _versus sacerdotales_ in Hartker’s tenth-century St.
Gall _Antiphonarium_ (J. M. Thomasius, _Opera_, iv. 187).
[22] _St. Gall MS._ 484, f. 11; printed and facsimiled by Gautier, 216,
220.
[23] _S. Matthew_ xxviii. 1-7; _S. Mark_ xvi. 1-7.
[24] The _Introit_ is: ‘Resurrexi et adhuc tecum sum, alleluia: posuisti
super me manum tuam, alleluia; mirabilis facta est scientia tua,
alleluia, alleluia. _Ps._ Domine, probasti me.’
[25] Lange, 22, from _Bibl. Nat. Lat. MS._ 1240, f. 30ᵇ. As to date
(923-34) and _provenance_ of the MS., I follow H. M. Bannister in
_Journal of Theological Studies_ (April, 1901). Lange, 4, considers it an
eleventh-century _Antiphonar_ from Beaune.
[26] Printed by Frere, 176; cf. Gautier, 219. The version in Lange, 20,
is incomplete. The Limoges Tropers (_Bibl. Nat._ 887, 909, 1084, 1118,
1119, 1120, 1121), all of the eleventh century, are described by Gautier,
111; cf. p. 29.
[27] _Bibl. Nat._ 1118, f. 40ᵛ; cf. Gautier, 226; Frere, 176.
[28] _Bodl. Douce MS._ 222, f. 6 (eleventh century; cf. Gautier, 136),
printed and facsimiled by Gautier, 215, 219. Du Méril, _Or. Lat._ 149,
gives it from a Limoges Troper (_B.N._ 909, f. 9): it is also in _B.N._
1118, f. 8ᵛᵒ, and probably the other Limoges MSS. Frere, 145, gives it
from the twelfth-century St. Magloire Troper (_B.N._ 13,252), and R.
Twigge, in _Dublin Review_ (1897), 362, from a fifteenth-century breviary
of Clermont-Ferrand (_Cl. F. MS._ 67). Here it is sung by two boys, and
near the altar after the Te Deum at Matins. According to Gautier, 123, it
is also in the late eleventh-century Nevers Troper (_B.N._ 9449).
[29] Frere, 110, from _Cott. MS. Calig._ A. xiv (eleventh century).
It comes between an illumination of the Ascension and the heading ‘In
Die Ascensionis Domini.’ It is also in the St. Magloire Troper (_B.N._
13,252, f. 10ᵛ) under the heading ‘In Ascensione Tropi ad Processionem,’
and in the St. Martial of Limoges Tropers (Gautier, 219; Lange, 20).
Martene, iii. 193, describes it as sung in the procession before Mass at
Vienne.
[30] Martene, iv. 147 ‘“Post processionem,” _addunt Dionysianae consuet._
[thirteenth century], “ascendant iuxta Sancta Sanctorum quidam bene
cantantes, alii in dextro latere, alii in sinistro latere assistentes,
bene et honorifice tropas scilicet: _Quem quaeritis_; coniubilantes, et
sibi invicem respondentes; et cum intonuerint, _Quia surrexi_, dicens,
_Patri_, mox Archicantor et duo socii eius assistentes in choro regias
virgas in manibus tenentes, incipiant officium.” Hunc ritum accepisse
videntur a Cassinensibus, quorum Ordinarium [before 1105] haec habet:
“Processione finita, vadat Sacerdos post altare, et versus ad chorum
dicat alta voce, _Quem quaeritis?_ et duo alii Clerici stantes in medio
chori respondeant: _Iesum Nazarenum_; et Sacerdos: _Non est hic_; illi
vero conversi ad chorum dicant: _Alleluia_. Post haec alii quatuor
cantent tropos, et agatur missa ordine suo.”’ As usual in _Ordinaria_
(cf. e.g. p. 309) only the opening words of the chants are given. A
similar direction is contained in _MS. Casinense_, 199, a twelfth-century
breviary (_Bibliotheca Casinensis_, iv. 124): cf. also Lange, 21, 23.
[31] Martene, iii. 173; Lange, 24 (Tours i).
[32] Lange, 26. Cf. the account of the Vienne _Quem quaeritis_ (p. 26).
[33] Martene, iv. 148.
[34] Mr. Frere does not print any _Introit_ tropes from the Worcester,
St. Albans, and Dublin tropers: a leaf is unfortunately missing from the
Canterbury troper (Frere, 107) where the _Quem quaeritis_ might have
come. It is not amongst the few tropes taken by Pamelius, _Liturgicon_
(1609), ii. 611, from the English troper at St. Bavon’s, Ghent (Frere,
142). As the _Concordia Regularis_ was partly based on Ghent customs (cf.
p. 307), I should gladly know more of this.
[35] _Bodl. MS._ 775; described by Frere, xxvii, as _MS. E_ ‘Its date
lies between 979 and 1016, since Ethelred is mentioned as reigning
sovereign in the Litany on f. 18ᵛ, and in consequence it has sometimes
been called “The Ethelred Troper.” Also, as it has the Dedication
Festival on the 24th of November, it is probably anterior to the
re-dedication of the Cathedral on Oct. 20, 980, since this day became
subsequently the Dedication Festival.’ A facsimile from the MS. was
published by the _Palaeographical Society_ (Series ii. pl. iii), and it
was suggested that it is in an early eleventh-century hand, but possibly
copied an earlier text. But surely it would have been brought up to date
on such a matter as the Dedication Festival.
[36] _C.C.C. Cambridge MS._ 473, of the middle of the eleventh century,
described by Frere, xxvii, as _MS. CC._ The text of the _Quem quaeritis_
differs slightly from that of the _Bodl. MS._ and does not appear to be
quite complete. It is facsimiled by Frere (pl. 26ᵃ). The printed text in
Frere, 17, represents both versions; that in Manly, i. xxi, follows the
_Bodl. MS._ Both Frere and Manly have ‘Angelice uocis consolatio’ where
the _Bodl. MS._, as I read it, has ‘Angelice uoces consolatus’ (clearly
in error).
[37] A full account of the _Concordia Regularis_ and extracts from the
Latin text are in Appendix O.
[38] I cannot understand why Mr. Frere, xvi, thinks that the _Quem
quaeritis_ was ‘a dramatic dialogue which came to be used as a trope
to the _Introit_ of Easter: but at Winchester it kept its independent
place.’ It is used as a trope a century before the date of the _Concordia
Regularis_.
[39] Why is the _Quem quaeritis_ in the _Bodl. MS._ apparently on Good
Friday? Perhaps this was an irregular use reformed by Bp. Ethelwold. If
so the _C. R._ must be about 980 or later. This is not impossible (cf.
App. O). In the later _C. C. C. C. MS._ the _Q. q._ might, I think, from
its position be intended for Easter Matins. The version described in the
_C. R._ differs slightly from that of the tropers.
[40] Martene, iv. 299 ‘Saeculo, ut aiunt, x scriptae’: cf. Douhet, 849.
Martene, iii. 173, cites another Matins version from a vetustissimum
rituale’ of Poitiers. If this is identical with the ‘pontificale
vetustissimum: annorum circiter 800’ mentioned in his list of authorities
(i. xxii) it may be earlier than the tenth century. It is certainly not
the ‘liber sacramentorum annorum 900 circiter’ with which Douhet, 848,
would identify it. The Pontificale was used by Martene in his edition of
1738; about the first edition of 1700-6, I cannot say. This version is
not in Lange, and, as the omission of the usual first line is curious, I
print it below (p. 29).
[41] Lange, 29; cf. Creizenach, i. 49.
[42] The Verdun _Consuetudines_ do not. The burial and resurrection of
the cross clearly formed no part of the Good Friday and Easter rites.
The dialogue takes place ‘in subterraneis specubus,’ i.e. the crypt,
and the representatives of the Maries return to the choir ‘cruce vacua
nuntiantes: _Surrexit Dominus_’ (Martene, iv. 299).
[43] Appendix O.
[44] Bare feet continued to be the rule for the _Adoratio Crucis_. An
exception is at Exeter, where, according to Pearson, ii. 296, they were
forbidden, cf. Feasey, 115.
[45] St. Ethelwold’s Latin is atrocious, but I think that the sepulchre
was made on the altar, not in the hollow of it, and covered from sight
until wanted by a veil let down all round it from a circular support
above. Cf. the Latin text in Appendix O: perhaps it is corrupt.
[46] _Peregrinatio Silviae_ in Duchesne, 490. The object of adoration was
a fragment of the true Cross, ‘sanctum lignum crucis.’ The Invention of
the Cross by St. Helena is put by tradition †326. Doubtless many other
churches obtained a fragment, and used it for the same purpose: cf.
Feasey, 116. Thus the cross used at Rome was ‘lignum pretiosae crucis’
(Duchesne, 465: cf. his ed. of the _Liber Pontificalis_, i. 374).
[47] Duchesne, 238. For the mediaeval ceremony, cf. Feasey, 114; Pearson,
ii. 293; Milchsack, 121; Rock, iii. 2. 241; Martene, iii. 129; iv. 137;
_Sarum Missal_, 328; _York Missal_, i. 105; _York Manual_, 156, and the
Durham extract in Appendix P: for that of modern Rome, Malleson and
Tuker, ii. 271.
[48] The _sepulchrum_ is not in the _Sacramentarium Gelasianum_ (†seventh
century, ed. H. A. Wilson, 77); nor the _Sacramentum Gregorianum_
(†eighth century, _P. L._ lxxviii. 86), ‘qua salutata et reposita in
loco suo’; nor in the Roman _Ordines_ collected by Mabillon (_P. L._
lxxviii) nor in those added by Duchesne, 451, 464. The _Ordines_ of 954
and 963 repeat the Gregorian formula, which is expanded by those of
1215 and 1319 into ‘in suo loco super altare.’ There is no mention of
the _sepulchrum_ in the Gallican liturgical books collected by Mabillon
(_P. L._ lxxii). Of English books Leofric’s _Exeter Missal_ (tenth
century, ed. F. E. Warren) has no _Sepulchrum_; nor the _Missal_ of St.
Augustine’s Canterbury (†1100, ed. M. Rule), ‘reposita in loco solito’;
nor the _Missal_ of Robert of Jumièges (ninth and tenth century, ed. H.
A. Wilson for _H. B. Soc._). Pearson, ii. 316, suggests that the cross
used for adoration was the great rood usually placed in the rood-loft,
but sometimes ‘super altare.’
[49] Ethelwold’s _Concordia Regularis_ was largely founded on that of
Benedict of Aniane (†817; cf. Miss Bateson in _E. H. Review_, ix. 700),
but there is no Easter week _ordo_ in this (_P. L._ ciii. 701) nor in
the same writer’s _Memoriale_ or _Ordo Monasticus_ (_P. L._ lxvi. 937:
cf. his _Vita_, c. viii, in _Acta SS._ Feb. ii. 618). Ethelwold also
borrowed customs from Fleury and Ghent (Appendix O). The _sepulchrum_ is
not mentioned in the _Consuetudines Floriacenses_ (tenth century, ed.
De Bosco, _Floriac. Vet. Bibl._ (1605), 390); cf. Creizenach, i. 49:
nor in the description of a thirteenth-century _coutumier_ in Rocher,
_Hist. de l’Abbaye de St.-Benoît-sur-Loire_, 323. The only Fleury _Quem
quaeritis_ is of a late type in a thirteenth-century MS.; cf. p. 32.
At Ghent, however, an inventory of treasures remaining at St. Bavon’s
after a Norman invasion (1019-24) includes ‘tabulas de sepulchro 23,’
which appear to be distinct from _reliquiae_ ‘de sepulchro Domini’ and
‘de operculo ligneo quod super corpus ipsius positum fuit in sepulchro’
(_Neues Archiv_, viii. 374). Did the possession of these ‘reliquiae’
suggest to the monks of St. Bavon’s the construction of an Easter
sepulchre?
[50] It is merely a guess to say St. Gall. Schübiger, _Sängerschule St.
Gallens_, 69, mentions the sepulchre there, but gives no very early
notice. The sepulchre was known in the Eastern, as well as the Western
Church, and for all I know may have come from Jerusalem (Feasey, 177). As
to date, Weber, 32, suggests that pictorial representations of the Maries
at the tomb show the influence of the dramatic _Visitatio Sepulchri_ as
far back as the ninth century. His chief point is that the Maries carry
_turribula_ (cf. p. 25, n. 5).
[51] _E. H. Review_, ix. 706.
[52] _P. L._ cl. 465 ‘adorata ab omnibus cruce, portitores eius elevantes
eam incipiant antiphonam _Super omnia ligna cedrorum_, et sic vadant ad
locum ubi eam collocare debent.’ This does not exclude a sepulchre, but
probably the _locus_ was an altar which might serve as a _statio_ for the
processions ‘ad crucifixum’ ordered on Easter Saturday after vespers and
thrice a day through Easter week. Such processions continued in later
ritual to visit the cross after its _Elevatio_ on Easter morning: cf.
_York Manual_, 177.
[53] See the description of the ceremony by a sixteenth-century
eye-witness in Appendix P. The _sepulchrum_ was also used by the
Bridgettines of Sion monastery, an order of reformed Benedictine nuns (G.
F. Aungier, _Hist. of Syon Monastery_, 350).
[54] J. D. Chambers citing J. B. Thiers, _De Expositione S. Sacramenti_,
iii. 19.
[55] See the extracts from Sarum service-books in Appendix Q.
[56] _York Missal_, i. 106; _York Manual_, 163, 170.
[57] Wordsworth, 278.
[58] _Hereford Missal_ (ed. Henderson), 96.
[59] H. E. Reynolds, _Wells Cathedral_, 32.
[60] The fullest accounts of the Easter sepulchre in England are those by
H. J. Feasey, _Ancient English Holy Week Ceremonial_, 129, and A. Heales,
_Easter Sepulchres: their Object, Nature, and History_ in _Archaeologia_,
xlii. 263; cf. also _Monumenta Vetusta_ (Soc. of Antiquaries), iii. pll.
xxxi, xxxii; Parker, _Glossary of Architecture_, s.v. Sepulchre; M. E. C.
Walcott, _Sacred Archaeology_, s.v. Easter Sepulchre; T. F. Dyer, _Church
Lore Gleanings_, 219; W. Andrews, _Old Church Lore_, iii; J. D. Chambers,
_App._ xxiv; Micklethwaite, 52; Rock, iii. 2. 92, 240, 251. Continental
_ordines_ and notices may be found in Martene, iii. 131, 172, 178;
iv. 141, 145; Milchsack, 41, 121; Pearson, ii. 295; Wetzer and Welte,
_Kirchen-Lexicon_, s.v. Grab; J. Dankó, _Vetus Hymn. Eccl. Hungariae_,
535, 579. I have not seen this writer’s _Die Feier des Osterfestes_
(Wien, 1872). On representations of the sepulchre in mediaeval art, cf.
P. Weber, 32, and the miniature from Robert of Jumièges’ _Missal_ (ed. F.
E. Warren for _H. B. Soc._ pl. viii).
[61] At Exeter on the other hand Vespers on both Good Friday and Easter
Eve were sung before the Sepulchre; and so with the Hours at Tours
(Feasey, 130).
[62] Martene, iii. 179; Milchsack, 122; Lange, 135. The latter gives
a Passau fifteenth-century version which ends ‘quibus finitis stantes
ante altare, mutua caritate se invicem deosculentur, dicentes: _Surrexit
dominus vere. Et apparuit symoni._ Dicatur una oratio de resurrectione.
Statim fiat pulsatio.’ The Easter greeting and kiss of peace were in use,
either before or after Matins at many churches (Martene, iii. 171, 180)
and do not depend upon the sepulchre.
[63] Milchsack, 128, 135; cf. Meyer, 64. The _Ordo Augustensis_ of 1487
directs that a procession shall go from the sepulchre ‘per ambitum
vel cimeterium ... usque ad ultimam ianuam, quae claudatur.’ Here
the _Tollite portas_ dialogue is held with the ‘levita iunior, vel
alius in figura diaboli grossa voce.’ On the other hand, in the _Ordo
Wirceburgensis_ of 1564 the procession knocks at the door from inside,
and the respondent ‘loco Sathanae’ is without.
[64] ‘Sacerdos ... antequam congregetur chorus, cum processione sibi
paucorum adiunctorum ... foribus ecclesiae clausis, secretius tollat
sacramentum de sepulchro’; cf. the fifteenth-century Passau _Breviary_
(Lange, 135) ‘clam surgitur’ and the _Ordo Sepulturae_ in the _Missalis
Posoniensis_ of 1341 (Dankó, 579) ‘laicis exclusis.’ I have not noticed
any such limitation in English rubrics later than the _Concordia
Regularis_.
[65] Milchsack, 119 ‘quum a nostris antecessoribus ad nos pervenerit,
ut in sacra nocte dominicae resurrectionis ad sustollendam crucifixi
imaginem de sepulchro, ubi in parasceve locata fuerat, nimia virorum et
mulierum numerositas, certatim sese comprimendo, ecclesiam simul cum
canonicis et vicariis introire nitantur, opinantes erronee, quod si
viderent crucifixi imaginem sustolli, evaderent hoc anno inevitabilem
mortis horam. His itaque obviantes statuimus, ut resurrectionis mysterium
ante ingressum plebis in ecclesiam peragatur’: cf. Pearson, ii. 298.
[66] A Finchale inventory of 1481 (J. T. Fowler, _Trans. of Durham
and North. Arch. Soc._ iv. 134) includes ‘Item 1 pixis argentea cum
coopertorio et ymagine crucifixi in summitate coopertorii pro corpore
xⁱ deferendo in passione xⁱ.’ A pyx was also used in the Sarum rite
(Appendix Q).
[67] Feasey, 165; Dankó, _Vet. Hymn. Eccl. Hung._ 535.
[68] _York Manual_, 174 ‘cuppa in qua est sacramentum.’
[69] At Durham (Appendix P) and at Lincoln (Wordsworth, 278); cf. Feasey,
164; Heales, 307. The image ‘cum corona spinea’ used at York (_York
Manual_, 170) was of course the crucifix. A Reformation record of 1566 at
Belton, Lincolnshire, speaks of ‘a sepulker with little Jack broken in
pieces’ (Feasey, 165). Either a mere image or a mechanical puppet (cf. p.
158) may be meant. The _labarum_ is the sign of the risen Christ in the
later versions of the _Quem quaeritis_; cf. p. 35. It figures in nearly
all paintings of the Resurrection.
[70] Narbonne _Ordinarium_ (†1400) ‘levent cum filo pannum, qui est super
libros argenti super altare in figura sepulcri’ (Martene, iii. 172;
Lange, 65); Le Mans, _Ordinarium_ ‘Tunc tres clerici accedentes ad altare
cum reverentia sublevent palium cum quo sepulchrum fuerit coopertum’
(Lange, 66); cf. Pearson, ii. 293.
[71] Feasey, 131. In versions of the _Quem quaeritis_ given by Lange,
24, 25, 26, the action is at the altar. A Senlis _Breviary_ (fourteenth
century) has ‘elevantes palium altaris’ (Lange, 27), and a Sens
thirteenth-century MS. ‘Sublevans tapetum altaris, tamquam respiciens
in sepulchrum’ (Lange, 64). But I am not sure that there was a genuine
sepulchre in all these cases: cf. p. 26.
[72] Würzburg _Breviary_ (fourteenth century) ‘descendunt in criptam ad
visitandum sepulcrum’ (Lange, 53): cf. the Verdun _Consuetudines_ (p.
16), where there may or may not have been a regular sepulchre.
[73] I have seen a beautiful one at Tarrant Hinton, Dorset, which is not
amongst those mentioned by Heales or Feasey.
[74] The performers are sometimes directed to enter the sepulchre; cf.
e.g. Lange, 28.
[75] Feasey, 149. There is such a chapel beneath the choir of the
_Jérusalem_ church at Bruges. The Winchester sepulchre is a chapel, but
not of the Jerusalem type. At St. Gall the sepulchre was (†1583) in the
‘sacellum S. Sebastiani’ (Lange, 69).
[76] J. Britton, _Redcliffe Church_, 47, prints a contemporary
description of a sepulchre given in 1470 by ‘Maister Canynge’ to St.
Mary Redcliffe, Bristol, with, amongst other adornments, ‘Heaven made
of timber and stain’d clothes’ and ‘Hell, made of timber and iron-work
thereto, with Divels to the number of 13.’ This is apparently not
a Chatterton forgery. Feasey, 166, gives a somewhat similar London
specification, and also (p. 145) describes a fourteenth-century wooden
sepulchre from Kilsby, Northants, believed to be the only one in
existence. I have a suspicion that the wooden so-called ‘watcher’s
chamber’ to the shrine of St. Frideswide in Christ Church, Oxford, is
really a sepulchre. It is in the right place, off the north choir aisle,
and why should a watcher of the shrine want to be perched up in a wooden
cage on the top of a tomb?
[77] Dankó, 536, 580. Two instances are given. In one the sepulchre was
sealed, in the other the pyx, ‘sigillo vel clavi ecclesiae.’ At Hereford
‘episcopus ... cereo claudat sepulchrum’ (Feasey, 159, from _Harl. MS._
2983).
[78] Cf. vol. i. p. 126.
[79] Wordsworth, 279; Feasey, 161; Heales, 272, 299.
[80] Milchsack, 127.
[81] G. Gilpin, _The Bee-Hive of the Romish Church_ (1579) (translated
from Isaac Rabbotenu of Louvain, 1569) ‘They make the graue in a hie
place in the church, where men must goe up manie steppes, which are
decked with blacke cloth from aboue to beneath, and upon everie steppe
standeth a siluer candlesticke with a waxe candle burning in it, and
there doe walke souldiours in harnesse, as bright as Saint George, which
keep the graue, till the Priests come and take him up; and then commeth
sodenlie a flash of fire, wherwith they are all afraid and fall downe;
and then up startes the man, and they begin to sing Alleluia, on all
handes, and the clocke striketh eleuen.’ Feasey, 168, quotes De Moleon
for a statement that the watchers at Orleans were dressed as soldiers.
[82] Appendix Q.
[83] Hooper, _Early Writings_ (Parker Soc.), 45 ‘The ploughman, be he
never so unlearned, shall better be instructed of Christ’s death and
passion by the corn that he soweth in the field, and likewise of Christ’s
resurrection, than by all the dead posts that hang in the church, or are
pulled out of the sepulchre with _Christus resurgens_. What resemblance
hath the taking of the cross out of the sepulchre and going a procession
with it, with the resurrection of Christ? None at all: the dead post is
as dead when they sing _Iam non moritur_, as it was when they buried it
with _In pace factus est locus eius_’: cf. Ridley, _Works_ (Parker Soc.),
67.
[84] _Articles devised by the King’s Majesty_, 1536 (Burnet, i. 1. 435;
i. 2. 472; cf. Froude, ii. 486); Strype, _Eccles. Memorials_, i. 1. 546;
i. 2. 432.
[85] Dixon, ii. 82, 432, 513, 516; iii. 37; Hardy and Gee, _Doc.
illustrative of English Church History_, 278; Cardwell, _Documentary
Annals of the Reformation_, i. 7; Froude, iv. 281. There certainly were
sepulchres in 1548 (Feasey, 175).
[86] Dixon, iii. 37; Wilkins, iv. 32. The _Act of 2 and 3 Edward VI_,
c. 10 (Froude, iv. 495), against images and paintings, was probably
also held to require the demolition of many sepulchres: cf. Ridley’s
_Visitation Articles_ of 1550, quoted by Heales, 304.
[87] Dixon, iv. 129.
[88] Dixon, iv. 157; S. R. Maitland, _Essays on the Reformation_ (ed.
1899), 186.
[89] Hardy and Gee, _op. cit._ 428. Art. xxiii forbids ‘monuments of
... idolatry and superstition.’ The Elizabethan _Visitation Articles_
collected in the _Second Report_ of the _Ritual Commission_ make no
mention of sepulchres. They generally follow pretty closely the wording
of the _Injunctions_. But the _Articles_ of Bentham, Bishop of Lichfield
and Coventry (1565), specify ‘monuments of idolatry and superstition’
as including ‘Sepulchres which were used on Good Friday’ (Heales, 307).
Notices of the destruction of sepulchres become numerous, being found,
for instance, in the case of 50 out of 153 Lincolnshire churches (Feasey,
142), and pious legacies begin to direct tombs ‘whereas the sepulchre was
wonte to stande.’
[90] Davidson, 140; Malleson and Tuker, ii. 263, 267, 272. The latest
examples of the _Quem quaeritis_ are of the eighteenth century from
Cologne and Angers (Lange, 36, 39) and Venice (_Z. f. d. A._ xli. 77).
[91] This respond begins _Dum transisset Sabbatum_.
[92] Cf. p. 18, n. 2. The Sarum _Custumary_ provides for censing on
feasts (_a_) at the anthem ‘super Magnificat’ at Vespers, (_b_) during
or after the _Te Deum_ at Matins (_Use of Sarum_, i. 113, 121). The
sepulchre is included only at Vespers (cf. Appendix Q), but the variation
I suggest would not be great.
[93] Cf. p. 22, n. 1. The Bamberg _Agenda_ of †1597 (Lange, 93) has
an _Ordo visitandi sepulchrum_ which opens with directions for the
construction of a sepulchre, which would obviously not be the case if the
_Depositio_ and _Elevatio_ had preceded. Lange rarely prints more than
the _Visitatio_, but of one group of texts he notes (p. 135) that the
MSS. generally have also the _Elevatio_.
[94] Lange’s collection from 224 MSS. supersedes those of Du Méril,
Coussemaker, Milchsack, &c. He supplemented it by versions from Meissen,
Worms, Venice, and Grau in Hungary in _Z. f. d. A._ (1896), xli. 77;
and has not got those from the (_a_) Winchester _Tropers_ (cf. p. 12);
(_b_) Autun and Nevers _Tropers_ of the eleventh century (Gautier,
126, 219); (_c_) St. Magloire, twelfth-century _Troper_ (cf. p. 11);
(_d_) Dublin _Processionals_ (Appendix R); (_e_) Laon twelfth-century
_Ordinary_ (Chevalier, _Ordinaires de Laon_, 118); (_f_) Clermont-Ferrand
fifteenth-century _Breviary_ (cf. p. 11); (_g_) Poitiers _Ritual_
(Martene, iii. 173); (_h_) Verdun tenth-century _Consuetudinary_
(Martene, iv. 299; cf. p. 15). The MSS. extend from the tenth to the
eighteenth century. The majority of them are Breviaries; some are
Ordinaries, Antiphoners, Processionals; a few are late Tropers, in which,
besides the Tropes proper, the Holy week _Ordo_ is included (cf. Gautier,
81); two (_B. N. Lat._ 1139 from Limoges, and _Orleans MS._ 178, from
Fleury) are special books of dramatic _repraesentationes_; cf. p. 1.
[95] Martene, iii. 180, from an undated _Caeremoniale_. Lange, 26, only
gives a portion of the text containing the _Quem quaeritis_ proper, which
was sung as a processional trope before the _Missa maior_. The procession
had immediately before gone to the sepulchre and sung other anthems. But
the sepulchre played a part at two other services. Before Matins the
clergy had in turn entered the sepulchre, found it empty, came out and
given each other the kiss of peace and Easter greeting. No _Elevatio_ is
described; perhaps it was still earlier ‘clam.’ After Lauds, the _Missa
matutinalis_ was sung ‘ad sepulchrum’ and the _prosa_ or Alleluia trope
was thus performed: ‘Prosa _Victimae Paschali_. Finito v _Dicat nobis
Maria_, clericulus stans in sepulcro cum amictu parato et stola, dicat ℣.
_Angelicos testes_. Chorus respondeat _Dic nobis Maria_. Clericulus dicat
_Angelicos testes_. Clericus dicat _Surrexit Christus_. Chorus _Credendum
est magis_ usque ad finem.’ On this prose and its relation to the _Quem
quaeritis_ cf. p. 29. At St. Mark’s, Venice (_Z. f. d. A._ xli. 77), the
position of the _Quem quaeritis_ is also abnormal, coming just before
Prime, but this version dates from 1736.
[96] Cf. p. 12.
[97] Lange, 28 (Parma), 30 (Laon), 47 (Constance), 68 (Rheinau), 69 (St.
Gall). At Rheinau, the _Elevatio_ takes place in the course of the _Quem
quaeritis_: at Parma, and probably in the other cases, the ‘sacrista
pervigil’ has already removed the ‘Corpus Christi.’
[98] Durandus, lib. vi. c. 87. He describes the normal _Visitatio_, in
terms much resembling those of Belethus (cf. p. 31), and adds ‘quidam
vero hanc presentationem faciunt, antequam matutinum inchoent, sed hic
est proprior locus, eo quod _Te deum laudamus_ exprimit horam, qua
resurrexit. Quidam etiam eam faciunt ad missam, cum dicuntur sequentia
illa _Victimae paschali_, cum dicitur versus _Dic nobis_ et sequentes.’
Ioannes Abrincensis, _de Offic. eccles._ (_P. L._ cxlvii. 54), briefly
notes the ‘officium sepulchri’ as ‘post tertium responsorium,’ and says
no more.
[99] Strassburg _Agenda_ of 1513 (Lange, 50) ‘Haec prescripta visitatio
sepulcri observetur secundum consuetudinem cuiuslibet ecclesiae.’ Meyer,
33, quotes a passage even more to the point from the Bamberg _Agenda_ of
1587 ‘Haec dominicae resurrectionis commemoratio celebrioribus servit
ecclesiis, unde aliarum ecclesiarum utpote minorum et ruralium rectores
et parochi ex ordine hic descripto aliquid saltem desumere possunt,
quod pro loci et personarum illic convenientium qualitate commodum fore
iudicaverint.’
[100] Laon _Ordinarium_ of twelfth century (U. Chevalier, _Ordinaires
de Laon_, 118). The change consisted mainly in the introduction of the
_Victimae paschali_: cf. p. 29.
[101] Cf. the full discussion, mainly from the textual point of view,
throughout Lange’s book, with that of Meyer, and Creizenach, i. 47;
Froning, 3; Wirth, 1.
[102] The Bohemian fourteenth-century version (Lange, 130) is nearly all
narrative sung by the Ebdomarius: the only dialogue is from the _Victimae
paschali_. Martene, iii. 173, gives, from a ‘vetustissimum Rituale,’
this Poitiers version, not in Lange, ‘Finitis matutinis, accedunt ad
sepulchrum, portantes luminaria. Tunc incipit Maria: _Ubi est Christus
meus?_ Respondet angelus _Non est hic_. Tunc Maria aperit os sepulchri,
et dicit publica voce: _Surrexit Christus_. Et omnes respondent _Deo
gratias_.’ Possibly Maria here is the Virgin, who is not usually included
in the _Visitatio_. But the same anthem opens a twelfth-century Limoges
version, headed ‘Oc est de mulieribus’ in _B. N. Lat. MS._ 1139, a
collection of ritual plays. The full text is ‘Ubi est Christus meus
dominus et filius excelsus?’ which is not really appropriate to any other
speaker: cf. Milchsack, 38. A frequent variant on ‘Quem quaeritis in
sepulchro, o Christicolae?’ is ‘Quem quaeritis, o tremulae mulieres, in
hoc tumulo plorantes?’; nor can the two forms be localized (Lange, 84).
[103] Lange, 32. These MSS. are of the eleventh and twelfth centuries.
I find no such section in the normal text of the Gregorian _Liber
responsalis_, which is the antiphonary for the office (_P. L._ lxxviii.
769). The ‘antiphonae de resurrectione domini ubicumque volueris’ of
the _B. N. Lat. MS._ 17,436 include the ‘Cito euntes dicite, &c.,’
‘Currebant duo simul, &c.,’ ‘Ardens est cor meum, &c.,’ and others which
are regularly introduced into the play. Another commonly used is the
_Christus resurgens_ with its verse, ‘Dicant nunc Iudaei, &c.,’ which the
Sarum books assign to the _Elevatio_ (Appendix Q): cf. Lange, 77.
[104] Text in Daniel, _Thesaurus Hymnologicus_, ii. 95; Kehrein,
_Lateinische Sequenzen des Mittelalters_, 81, and with facsimile and
setting in A. Schübiger, _Die Sängerschule St. Gallens_, 90, &c.;
cf. Lange, 59; Meyer, 49, 76; Milchsack, 34; Chevalier, _Repertorium
Hymnologicum_, s.vv.; A. Schübiger, _La Séquence de Pâques Victimae
Paschali et son auteur_ (1858).
[105] Malleson-Tuker, ii. 27. It is used throughout Easter week.
[106] Lange, 60. It was interpolated during the thirteenth century in a
twelfth-century Laon version (Chevalier, _Ordinaires de Laon_, 118).
[107] Narbonne, †1400 (Lange, 65) ‘duo canonici, tanquam apostoli’; cf.
Lange, 75.
[108] Augsburg _liber liturgicus_ of eleventh or twelfth century (Lange,
82).
[109] Belethus, c. cxiii (_P. L._ ccii. 119) ‘fit enim in plerisque
Ecclesiis ut cantato ultimo responso, cum candelis cereis et solemni
processione eant ex choro ad locum quemdam, ubi imaginarium sepulcrum
compositum est, in quod introducuntur aliquot in personis mulierum et
discipulorum Ioannis et Petri, quorum alter altero citius revertitur,
sicut Ioannes velocius cucurrit Petro, atque item alii quidam in personis
angelorum qui Christum resurrexisse dixerunt a mortuis. Quo quidem
facto personae eae redeunt ad chorum, referuntque ea quae viderint et
audierint. Tunc chorus, audita Christi resurrectione, prorumpit in altam
vocem, inquiens, _Te Deum laudamus_.’ It is to be observed that Belethus
knows no _Depositio_ and _Elevatio_. After the _Adoratio_, he has, like
the older Roman liturgies, ‘crucifixus in suum locum reponi debet’
(c. xcviii). Durandus, vi. 87, has an account very similar to that of
Belethus, but says ‘Si qui autem habent versus de hac representatione
compositos, licet non authenticos non improbamus’; cf. also p. 27.
[110] Engelberg (1372), Cividale (fourteenth century), Nuremberg
(thirteenth century), Einsiedeln (thirteenth century), Prague (six,
twelfth to fourteenth centuries), Rouen (two, thirteenth and fifteenth
centuries), Mont St.-Michel (fourteenth century), Coutances (fifteenth
century), Fleury (_Orleans MS._ 178, thirteenth century); all printed
by Lange, 136 sqq. Gasté, 58, 63, also gives the Rouen and Coutances
versions, the latter more fully than Lange. Meyer, 80, discusses the
interrelations of the texts.
[111] Lange, 138. In this text the Maries have a _locus suus_. The MS.
is a _Processional_, and it may be that the play was given not in the
church, but in the open square, as was the Annunciation play in the
same MS. (Coussemaker, 284; cf. p. 67). It is none the less liturgical.
Rouen had probably an ‘ortus Christi’ out of which came the apparition
‘in sinistro cornu altaris,’ for at Easter, 1570, divine service was
performed in a ‘paradis dressé avec la plus grande solennité dans la
chapelle Notre-Dame, derrière le chœur’ (Gasté, 58).
[112] These are of course the ‘versus’ spoken of with tolerance in the
passage just quoted from Durandus.
[113] Appendix R. The _Heu! pius pastor occiditur_ does not seem to have
been found outside the Fleury and Dublin plays (Chevalier, _Repert.
Hymn._ nᵒ. 7741).
[114] Lange, 136, 141; Milchsack, 35, 66.
[115] Lange, 64, 74.
[116] Ibid. 162.
[117] Ibid. 151. The fourteenth-century text runs:
_Tres Mariae_:
‘aromata preciosa querimus,
Christi corpus ungere volumus,
holocausta sunt odorifera
sepulturae Christi memori.’
_Ungentarius_:
‘dabo vobis ungenta optima,
salvatoris ungere vulnera,
sepulturae eius ad memoriam
et nomen eius ad gloriam.’
The earlier texts have ‘aromata ... memori,’ preceded by ‘Mariae
cantantes “aromata” procedant ad unguentarium pro accipiendis ungentis’
and followed by ‘quibus acceptis accedant ad sepulchrum.’ Meyer, 58,
91, 106, calls this scene, in which he finds the first introduction of
non-liturgical verse, the _Zehnsilberspiel_, and studies it at great
length.
[118] Lange, 24, 51, 64 ‘coopertis capitibus’ (Tours, fifteenth century),
‘capita humeralibus velata’ (Rheinau), ‘amictibus in capitibus eorum’
(Narbonne, †1400).
[119] Lange, 36 (fourteenth century).
[120] Ibid. 27, 36, 53, 64, &c.; Appendix R.
[121] Lange, 51, 160; cf. _Conc. Regularis_ (Appendix O).
[122] Lange, 64 ‘induti albis et amictibus cum stolis violatis et sindone
rubea in facie eorum et alis in humeris’ (Narbonne, †1400).
[123] Lange, 40, 155, 158, 162 ‘palmam manu tenens, in capite fanulum
largum habens’ (Toul, thirteenth century), ‘tenens spicam in manu’
(Rouen, fifteenth century), ‘tenens palmam in manu et habens coronam in
capite’ (Mont St.-Michel, fourteenth century), ‘vestitus alba deaurata,
mitra tectus caput etsi deinfulatus, palmam in sinistra, ramum candelarum
plenum tenens in manu dextra’ (Fleury, thirteenth century).
[124] Appendix R.
[125] Lange, 147.
[126] Ibid. 143 ‘quae sit vestita dalmatica casulamque complicatam super
humeros habeat; coronamque capiti superimpositam, nudis pedibus.’
[127] Lange, 156 ‘albatus cum stola, tenens crucem.’
[128] Ibid. 159, 164 ‘in habitu ortolani ... redeat, indutus capa
serica vel pallio serico, tenens crucem’ (Coutances); ‘praeparatus
in similitudinem hortolani ... is, qui ante fuit hortulanus, in
similitudinem domini veniat, dalmaticatus candida dalmatica, candida
infula infulatus, phylacteria pretiosa in capite, crucem cum labaro
in dextra, textum auro paratorium in sinistra habens’ (Fleury). The
_labarum_ is the banner of Constantine with the Chi-Ro monogram (cf.
Gibbon-Bury, ii. 567): but the banner usually attached to the cross in
mediaeval pictures of the Resurrection itself bears simply a large cross;
cf. Pearson, ii. 310.
[129] A study of the music might perhaps throw light on the relation
of the versions to each other. I am sorry that it is beyond my powers:
moreover Lange does not give the notation; Coussemaker gives it for half
a dozen versions.
[130] For such overtures cf. Lange, 36, 62, 64; Milchsack, 37, 38, 40. On
the doubtful use of the _Gloriosi et famosi_ at Einsiedeln, cf. p. 54.
[131] In the Prague versions (Lange, 151). The choir, or rather
‘conventus,’ introduces the scenes with the three following anthems:
(i) ‘Maria Magdalena et alia Maria ferebant diluculo aromata, dominum
querentes in monumento,’ (ii) ‘Maria stabat ad monumentum foris plorans;
dum ergo fleret, inclinavit se et prospexit in monumentum,’ (iii)
‘Currebant duo simul et ille alius discipulus praecucurrit citius petro
et venit prior ad monumentum.’
[132] Lange, 146 (Nuremberg); for later examples cf. Lange, 99 sqq. The
hymn generally comes just before the _Te Deum_. A fourteenth-century
Bohemian version from Prague (Lange, 131) has a similar Bohemian hymn
‘Buoh wssemohuczy.’ At Bamberg in 1597 ‘potest chorus populo iterum
praecinere cantilenas pascales Germanicas’ (Lange, 95). At Rheinau
in 1573 it is suggested that the _Quem quaeritis_ itself may as an
alternative be sung in German (Lange, 68) ‘hisce aut Germanicis versibus
cantatis.’ At Aquileja in 1495 ‘Populus cantet _Christus surrexit_,’
apparently in Latin (Lange, 106); and at Würzburg in 1477, ‘Populus
incipit Ymnum suum: _Te Deum_’ (Lange, 67).
[133] Lange, 39, 119, 122, 124; cf. Martene, iii. 171.
[134] Lange, 41.
[135] _Z. f. d. A._ xli. 77.
[136] Lange, 39.
[137] Creizenach, i. 56; Julleville, i. 67.
[138] _Lichfield Statutes of Hugh de Nonant_, 1188-98 (_Lincoln
Statutes_, ii. 15, 23) ‘Item in nocte Natalis representacio pastorum
fieri consuevit et in diluculo Pasche representacio Resurreccionis
dominicae et representacio peregrinorum die lune in septimana Pasche
sicut in libris super hijs ac alijs compositis continetur.... De officio
succentoris ... et providere debet quod representacio pastorum in nocte
Natalis domini et miraculorum in nocte Pasche et die lune in Pascha
congrue et honorifice fiant.’
[139] Cf. p. 90.
[140] Text in _Bibl. de l’École des Chartes_, xxxiv. 314, from _B. N.
Lat._ 16,309 (thirteenth-century Saintes _Breviary_), _begins_ ‘Quando
fiunt Peregrini, non dicitur prosa, sed peregrini deforis veniunt canendo
ista’; _ends_ with _Magnificat_ and _Oratio_, ‘Deus qui sollempnitate
paschali.’
[141] Text in Gasté, 65; Du Méril, 117, from Rouen _Ordinarium_
(fourteenth century), _begins_ ‘Officium Peregrinorum debet hic fieri
hoc modo’; _ends_ ‘Et processio, factis memoriis, redeat in choro et
ibi finiantur vesperae.’ Gasté, 68, quotes an order of 1452 ‘Domini
capitulantes concluserunt quod in istis festis Paschae fiat misterium
representans resurrectionem Christi et apparitionem eius suis discipulis,
eundo apud castrum de Emaux, amotis et cessantibus indecenciis.’
[142] Text in G. Desjardins, _Hist. de la Cath. de Beauvais_ (1865),
115, 269, _begins_ ‘Ordo ad suscipiendum peregrinum in secunda feria
Paschae ad vesperas’; _ends_ with _Oratio de Resurrectione_. Meyer, 133,
describes the MS. as of the first half of the twelfth century.
[143] Text in Du Méril, 120, from _Orleans MS._ 178 (thirteenth century),
_begins_ ‘Ad faciendam similitudinem dominicae apparitionis in specie
Peregrini, quae fit in tertia feria Paschae ad Vesperas’; _ends_ ‘Salve,
festa dies.’
[144] E. Hautcœur, _Documents liturgiques de Lille_, 55, from
_Ordinarium_ of thirteenth century, ‘Feria ii. ... in vesperis ... post
collectam fit representatio peregrinorum. Qua facta cantatur Christus
resurgens, et itur in chorum.’
[145] W. Meyer, _Fragmenta Burana_, 131, with text and facsimile. The
play begins ‘Incipit exemplum apparicionis domini discipulis suis
castellum Emaus, ubi illis apparuit in more peregrini,’ &c.
[146] _Use of Sarum_, i. 157; _Sarum Breviary_, i. dcccxxix.
[147] The _Peregrini_ start ‘a vestiario ... per dextram alam ecclesiae
usque ad portas occidentales, et subsistentes in capite processionis.’
Then the _Sacerdos_, ‘nudus pedes, ferens crucem super dextrum humerum’
comes ‘per dextram alam ecclesiae’ to meet them. They lead him ‘usque ad
tabernaculum, in medio navis ecclesiae, in similitudinem castelli Emaux
praeparatum.’
[148] Text in Milchsack, 97; Coussemaker, 21, from _Tours MS._ 927
(twelfth or thirteenth century); cf. Creizenach, i. 88; Julleville,
i. 62; Meyer, 95; and on the MS. which also contains the ‘Ordo
representacionis Adae,’ and is not native to Tours, cf. p. 71.
[149] Milchsack, 105; Creizenach, i. 90. The beginning and end of the
Klosterneuburg play were printed from a thirteenth-century MS., now
lost, by B. Pez, _Thesaurus novus Anecd._ ii. 1. liii. It began ‘Primo
producatur Pilatus cum responsorio: _Ingressus Pilatus_,’ and ended with
‘Christ, der ist erstanden’; cf. Meyer, 126.
[150] ‘Modo veniat angelus et iniciat eis fulgura; milites cadunt in
terram velut mortui.’
[151] Meyer, 97, 125, with text and facsimile, ‘Incipit ludus immo
exemplum Dominice resurrectionis.’ The episode of the Resurrection
with the dismay of the soldiers is found not only in the Tours and
Benedictbeuern MS., but also in the simpler Coutances _Quem quaeritis_.
Lange, 157, omits this passage, but Gasté, 63, gives it; ‘Si Mariae
debeant representari, finito responsorio quatuor clerici armati
accedentes ad sepulcrum Domini pannis sericis decenter ornatum et secum
dicant personagia sua. Quo facto, duo pueri induti roquetis veniant
ad monumentum ferentes duas virgas decorticatas in quibus sunt decem
candelae ardentes; et statim cum appropinquaverint ad sepulcrum praedicti
milites, procidant quasi mortui, nec surgant donec incipiatur _Te Deum_,
... &c.’ There is no actual appearance of the Rising Christ in any of
these three plays as originally written. But a later hand has inserted
in the Benedictbeuern MS. directions for the Christ to appear, discourse
with the angels, and put on the ‘vestem ortulani.’
[152] Creizenach thinks the play (like Adam) was outside the church,
because the Maries appear ‘ante ostium ecclesiae.’ But ‘ante’ may be
inside. Mary Magdalen at one point is ‘in sinistra parte ecclesiae
stans,’ and most of the action is round the _sepulchrum_.
[153] E. Wechssler, _Die romanischen Marienklagen_ (1893); A. Schönbach,
_Die Marienklagen_ (1873); cf. Creizenach, i. 241; Julleville, i. 58;
Sepet, 23; Milchsack, 92; Coussemaker, 285, 346; Meyer, 67; Pearson, ii.
384.
[154] A _planctus_ ascribed to Bonaventura (thirteenth century) has
the titles ‘Officium de compassione Mariae’ (Wechssler, 14), and
‘Officium sanctae crucis’ (_Bibl. de l’École des Chartes_, xxxiv. 315).
Another, the ‘Surgit Christus cum trophaeo,’ is headed in thirteenth-
and fourteenth-century MSS. ‘Sequentia devota antiquorum nostrorum
de resurrectionis argumentis. Sanctarum virginum Mariae ac Mariae
Magdalene de compassione mortis Christi per modum dyalogi sequentia.’
The chorus begins, and ‘tres bene vociferati scholares respondent’
(text in Milchsack, 92; cf. Wechssler, 14). A third, ‘O fratres et
sorores,’ is headed ‘Hic incipit planctus Mariae et aliorum in die
Parasceves’ (text from fourteenth-century Cividale MS. in Coussemaker,
285; Julleville, i. 58; cf. Wechssler, 17). Ducange, s.v. _Planctus_,
quotes a (thirteenth-century) Toulouse rubric, ‘planctum beatissimae
Virginis Mariae, qui dicitur a duobus puerulis post Matutinum et debent
esse monachi, si possunt reperiri ad hoc apti.’ This _planctus_ was sung
from the ‘cathedra praedicatorii.’ On the use of vernacular Italian
_planctus_ by the _laudesi_ in churches through Lent, cf. Wechssler,
30. The vernacular German ‘ludus passionis’ printed by O. Schönemann,
_Der Sündenfall und Marienklage_ (1855), 129, from a Wolfenbüttel
fifteenth-century MS., seems to have still been meant for liturgical use,
as it has the rubric ‘debet cantari post _crux fidelis_ et sic finiri
usque ad vesperam lamentabiliter cum caeteris sicut consuetum est fieri.’
It incorporates the _Depositio_.
[155] Meyer, _Fragmenta Burana_, 64, 122, with text and facsimile. The
piece ends ‘et ita inchoatur ludus de resurrectione. Pontifices: _O
domine recte meminimus_,’ which is the opening of the Easter play already
described.
[156] Printed by Du Méril, 147; Gasté, 25; Davidson, 173, from Rouen
_Ordinaria_ (_Rouen MSS._ Y. 108 of fifteenth century, Y. 110 of
fourteenth century); Coussemaker, 235, with notation, from Rouen
_Gradual_ (_Bibl. Nat. Lat._ 904); it is also in _B. N. Lat._ 1213
(fifteenth century) and _Bibl. Mazarin_, 216 (Du Méril, 148).
[157] The ‘obstetrices’ figure in the _Protevangelium Iacobi_, chh. 18
sqq. (Tischendorf, _Evangelia Apocrypha_, 33), and the _Pseudo-Matthaei
Evangelium_, ch. 13 (Tischendorf, 77). In the latter they are named
Salome and Zelomi.
[158] Gasté, 31 ‘Archiepiscopus, vel alius sacerdos versus ad Pastores
dicat: _Quem vidistis, pastores, dicite; annunciate nobis in terris quis
apparuit_. Pastores respondeant: _Natum vidimus et choros angelorum
collaudantes Dominum. Alleluia, alleluia_, et totam antiphonam finiant’:
cf. Meyer, 39; _Sarum Breviary_, clxxxviii; Martene, iii. 36; Durandus,
vi. 13, 16 ‘in laudibus matutinis quasi choream ducimus, unde in prima
antiphona dicimus; _Quem vidistis, pastores?_ &c. Et ipsi responderunt:
_Natum vidimus_.’
[159] Gasté, 33.
[160] Tille, _D. W._ 309; Pollard, xiii; Durandus-Barthélemy, iii. 411;
E. Martinengo-Cesaresco, _Puer Parvulus_ in _Contemporary Review_, lxxvii
(1900), 117; W. H. D. Rouse, in _F. L._ v. 6; J. Feller, _Le Bethléem
Verviétois_, 10. I find a modern English example described in a letter of
1878 written by Mr. Coventry Patmore’s son Henry from a Catholic school
at Ushaw (_Life of C. Patmore_, i. 308).
[161] Malleson-Tuker, ii. 212.
[162] P. Sabatier, _Life of St. Francis_ (Eng. transl.), 285, from Thomas
of Celano, _Vita Prima_, 84, and Bonaventura, _Vita_, 149; cf. D’Ancona,
i. 116.
[163] Usener, i. 280. It is called ‘oratorium sanctum quod praesepe
dicitur’ (†731-41) and ‘camera praesepii’ (†844-7).
[164] Origen, _adv. Celsum_, i. 51; cf. Usener, i. 283, 287.
[165] Usener, i. 281; Tille, _D. W._ 54; Malleson-Tuker, ii. 210.
[166] Usener, i. 280. Gregory IV (827-43) ‘sanctum fecit praesepe ad
similitudinem praesepii S. dei genetricis quae appellatur maior,’ in S.
Maria in Trastevere.
[167] Gasté, 33, citing _Montpellier MS._ H. 304. The play occurs, with
an _Officium Stellae_, in an anonymous treatise _De ratione divini
officii_. The Amiens _Ordinarium_ of 1291 (Grenier, 389) gives directions
for a _Pastores_ during the procession after the communion at the
midnight mass. In preparation lights were lit at the _praesepe_ during
first vespers ‘dum canitur versus _praesepe iam fulget tuum_.’ At the end
of the first nocturn the figure of a child was placed there. At the first
lesson of the second nocturn the cry of _noël_ was raised.
[168] Du Méril, 148.
[169] Ioannes Abrincensis, _De officiis ecclesiasticis_ (_P. L._ cxlvii.
41, 43). Neither Belethus nor Durandus mentions the _Pastores_.
[170] Cf. vol. i. p. 272. The _praesepe_ is of course in the _Stella_,
which is found at Strassburg, Bilsen, and Einsiedeln, but even this is
more characteristic of France than of Germany.
[171] Text ed. C. Magnin (_Journal des Savants_ (1846), 93), from _Bibl.
Nat. Lat._ 1139.
[172] Gasté, 50 ‘Corona ante crucem pendens in modum stellae accendatur’
(Rouen); Du Méril, 153 ‘stellam pendentem in filo, quae antecedit eos’
(Limoges). The churchwardens’ accounts of St. Nicholas, Yarmouth, from
1462-1512 (_Norfolk Archaeology_, xi. 334), contain payments for ‘making
a new star,’ ‘leading the star,’ ‘a new balk line to the star and ryving
the same star.’ Pearson, ii. 325, lays stress on the prominence of the
star in the German vernacular mysteries. J. T. Micklethwaite, _Ornaments
of the Rubric_, 44, says that the ‘star’ was called a ‘trendle’ or
‘rowell.’ Its use does not necessarily imply the presence of a drama.
[173] The account of the _Stella_ here given should be supplemented from
Creizenach, i. 60; Köppen, 10. The latter studies the verbal relation of
the texts much more fully than can be done here. Meyer, 38, argues for
their origin in an archetype from Germany. There are doubtless many other
texts yet unprinted. Ch. Magnin, _Journal de l’Instruction publique_,
Sept. 13, 1835, mentions such in Soleures, Fribourg, and Besançon
_Rituals_.
[174] Text in Du Méril, 151; Martene, iii. 44, from Limoges _Ordinarium_
of unspecified date. The version is partly metrical, and the action took
place ‘cantato offertorio, antequam eant ad offerendum.’
[175] Text in Gasté, 49; Du Méril, 153; Davidson, 176; from _Rouen MS._
Y. 110 (fourteenth-century _Ordinarium_); Coussemaker, 242, from _Bibl.
Nat. Lat. MS._ 904 (thirteenth-century _Gradual_, with notation); _P. L._
cxlvii. 135, from _B. N._ 904 and _B. N. Lat._ 1213 (fifteenth-century
_Ordinarium_); cf. Gasté, 3. The rubric begins ‘Officium regum trium
secundum usum Rothomagensem. Die epyphaniae, tercia cantata.’ John of
Avranches (†1070) describing the Epiphany service, probably of Rouen,
says, after mentioning the _Evangelium genealogiae_, which follows the
ninth _responsorium_ of Matins, ‘Deinde stellae officium incipiat’ (_P.
L._ cxlvii. 43). Gasté, 53, quotes some Rouen chapter orders. In 1379
Peter Chopillard, painter, was paid ‘pro pingendo baculos quos portant
Reges die Apparitionis.’ In 1507 the chapter after ‘matura deliberatio’
ordered the ‘representatio trium Regum’ to be held. In 1521 they
suppressed it.
[176] Texts ed. L. Delisle, in _Romania_, iv (1875), 1. The earlier
version is from _Bibl. Nat. Lat._ 9449 (†1060, a _Gradual_, or, according
to Gautier, _Les Tropes_, 123, a _Troper_). The text is headed ‘Versus ad
Stellam faciendam.’ The later is from _B. N. Lat._ 1235 (twelfth-century
_Gradual_). It is headed ‘Ad Comm[unionem].’ Of the first part, down to
the end of the interview with Herod, there are two alternative forms in
this MS. The one, a free revision of the normal text, is headed:
‘Sic speciem veteres stellae struxere parentes,
quatinus hos pueri versus psallant duo regi.’
[177] Text in K. A. M. Hartmann, _Über das altspanische Dreikönigsspiel_
(Leipzig Diss. 1879), 43, from eleventh-century _B. N. Lat. MS._ 16,819.
[178] This line is not actually in the Compiègne text. But it is in
most of the later versions of this scene, and is interesting, as being
a classical tag from Sallust, _Catilina_, c. 32; cf. Köppen, 21;
Creizenach, i. 63. Reminiscences of _Aeneid_, viii. 112; ix. 376, are
sometimes put into Herod’s mouth in the scene with the _Magi_ (Du Méril,
164, 166).
[179] The version is described, but unfortunately not printed by Gasté,
53. It is from the _De ratione divini officii_ in _Montpellier MS._ H.
304.
[180] Text, headed ‘Ordo Stellae’ in U. Chevalier, _Ordinaires de
l’église de Laon_, xxxvi, 389 from _Laon MS._ 263 (thirteenth-century
_Trophonarium_).
[181] Text printed by Lange in _Zeitsch. f. deutsch. Alterthum_, xxxii.
412, from _B. M. Add. MS._ 23,922 (_Antiphoner_ of †1200). The play was
‘In octava Epiphaniae’ after the _Magnificat_ at Vespers.
[182] Text in C. Cahier and A. Martin, _Mélanges d’Archéologie_, i.
(1847-9), 258; Clément, 113, from eleventh-century _Evangeliarium_, now
in a Bollandist monastery in Brussels (Meyer, 41). It is a revision of
the normal text. The author has been so industrious as even to put many
of the rubrics in hexameters. The opening is
‘_Ordo._ Post Benedicamus puerorum splendida coetus
ad regem pariter debent protendere gressu,
praeclara voce necnon istic resonare.’
The ‘rex’ who presided and possibly acted Herod (cf. p. 56) was, I
suppose, an Epiphany king or ‘rex fatuorum.’
[183] Translation only in P. Piolin, _Théâtre chrétien dans le Maine_
(1891), 21. The exact source is not given.
[184] The first text in Du Méril, 156; Davidson, 174, from _Munich
MS._ 6264ᵃ (eleventh century). Apparently it begins with a bit of dumb
show, ‘Rex sedens in solio quaerat consilium: exeat edictum ut pereant
continuo qui detrahunt eius imperio.’ Then comes ‘Angelus, in primis.’
Second text, headed ‘Ordo Rachaelis’ in Du Méril, 171; Froning, 871, from
_Munich MS._ 6264 (eleventh century). It is mainly metrical.
[185] Texts in Du Méril, 162, 175; Davidson, 175; Coussemaker, 143;
Wright, 32, from _Orleans MS._ 178. The first part begins with the
rubric ‘Parato Herode et ceteris personis ...’; the second with ‘Ad
interfectionem Puerorum....’
[186] Wordsworth, 147, suggests that the name ‘Le Galilee,’ given at
Lincoln to a room over the south porch and also found elsewhere, may be
‘derived from some incident in the half-dramatic Paschal ceremonies.’ For
another liturgical drama in which ‘Galilee’ is required as a scene, cf.
p. 60.
[187] _B. N. Lat._ 1152 (eleventh century) in _Bibl. de l’École des
Chartes_, xxxiv. 657. Einsiedeln fragment (eleventh-twelfth century)
printed by G. Morel in _Pilger_ (1849), 401; cf. Köppen, 13.
[188] Text in Du Méril, 151, from _Vienne MS._ 941 (fourteenth century).
It is entitled ‘Ad adorandum filium Dei per Stellam invitantur Eoy.’
The first three lines, headed ‘Stella,’ are an address to the ‘exotica
plebs’; each of the remaining ten lines is divided between three
speakers, ‘Aureolus,’ ‘Thureolus,’ ‘Myrrheolus.’
[189] On the use of tropes at these points in the Mass, cf. Frere, xix.
[190] _Use of Sarum_, i. 280.
[191] Martene, iii. 44; in England the royal offering is still made, by
proxy, at the Chapel Royal, St. James’s (Ashton, 237).
[192] I follow the epoch-making _étude_ of M. Sepet, _Les Prophètes du
Christ_, in _Bibl. de l’École des Chartes_, xxviii. (1867), 1, 210, xxix.
(1868), 205, 261, xxxviii. (1877), 397 (I am sorry not to be able to cite
the separate edition printed at Paris, 1878); cf. also Creizenach, i. 67;
Julleville, _Myst._ i. 35; and, especially, Weber, 41. But none of these
writers could make use of the Laon version discovered by M. Chevalier.
Meyer, 53, suggests that Sepet has exaggerated the importance of the
_Prophetae_ in the development of the O. T. dramatic cycle.
[193] Text in _P. L._ xlii. 1117; on the date cf. Weber, 41. The _lectio_
is printed by Sepet, xxviii. 3.
[194] At Arles it was the sixth _lectio_ at Matins on Christmas day
(Sepet, xxviii. 2); at Rome the fourth lesson at Matins on Christmas
eve (Martene, iii. 31); at Rouen it was read at Matins two days earlier
(Martene, iii. 34); in the _Sarum Breviary_, i. cxxxv, it makes the
fourth, fifth, and sixth _lectiones_ at Matins on the fourth Sunday in
Advent.
[195] _Bucol._ iv. 7.
[196] Eusebius, _Orat. Const. Magn. ad Sanctorum Coetum_, c. 18 (_P.G._
xx. 1288). On the _Iudicii Signum_ and the _Dit des quinze Signes_ (Text
in Grass, _Adamsspiel_, 57) derived from it, cf. Sepet, xxviii. 8; Du
Méril, 185. According to Martene, iii. 34, the _Versus Sibyllae_ were
often sung at Matins on Christmas day, apparently apart from the _sermo_.
Thus at Limoges they were sung after the sixth _responsorium_.
[197] Sepet, xxviii. 13; cf. p. 5.
[198] Text in Du Méril, 179; Coussemaker, 11; Wright, 60; from _Bibl.
Nat. Lat._ 1139 (eleventh or twelfth century). Weber, 51, gives an
interesting account of the _Prophetae_ in art, and points out that the
play seems to have influenced such representations in Italy early in the
eleventh century.
[199] Text in U. Chevalier, _Ordinaires de l’Église de Laon_, xxxvi, 385,
from _Laon MS._ 263 (thirteenth century _Trophonarium_). It is headed
‘Ordo Prophetarum.’
[200] Text in Gasté, 4, from _Rouen MS._ Y. 110 (fourteenth-century
_Ordinarium_). The opening is ‘Nota, Cantor; si _Festum Asinorum_
fiat, processio ordinetur post Terciam. Si non fiat Festum, tunc fiat
processio, ut nunc praenotatur. Ordo _Processionis Asinorum_ secundum
Rothomagensem usum. Tercia cantata, paratis Prophetis iuxta suum
ordinem, fornace in medio navis ecclesiae lintheo et stuppis constituta,
processio moveat de claustro, et duo clerici de secunda sede, in cappis,
processionem regant, hos versus canentes: _Gloriosi et famosi_....
Tunc processio in medio ecclesiae stet.’ At the end the ‘Prophetae et
ministri’ rule the choir. Unfortunately the MS., like other _Ordinaria_,
only gives the first words of many of the chants.
[201] The _Gloriosi et famosi_ hymn occurs in a twelfth-century
Einsiedeln MS. (Milchsack, 36) as an overture to the _Quem quaeritis_. It
is arranged for ‘chorus’ and ‘Prophetae,’ and was therefore borrowed from
Christmas. It is followed by another hymn, more strictly Paschal, the
_Hortum praedestinatio_, and this, which is also used with the Sens _Quem
quaeritis_ (Milchsack, 58), is sung at the end of the Rouen _Prophetae_
by ‘omnes prophetae et ministri [? = vocatores] in pulpito’—a curious
double borrowing between the two feasts. Meyer, 51, argues that the
Einsiedeln MS., which is in a fragmentary state, contained a _Prophetae_,
to which, and not to the _Quem quaeritis_, the _Gloriosi et famosi_
belonged.
[202] Sepet, xxviii. 25.
[203] So says Gasté, 4. But I think he must be wrong, for the _Introit_
with which the text concludes is _Puer natus est_, which belongs to the
_Magna missa_ of the feast-day, and not to the eve.
[204] Martene, iii. 41, from a fourteenth-century _Rituale_: ‘dicto
versiculo tertii nocturni, accenditur totum luminare, et veniunt
Prophetae in capitulo revestiti, et post cantant insimul _Lumen Patris_,
et clericus solus dicit _In gaudio_, et post legitur septima lectio.
Post nonam lectionem ducunt prophetas de capitulo ad portam Thesaurarii
cantilenas cantando, et post in chorum, ubi dicunt cantori prophetias,
et duo clericuli in pulpito cantando eos appellant. Post dicitur nonum
[responsorium?] in pulpito.... Post [primam] recitatur miraculum [Martene
conjectures _martyrologium_] in claustro ... [Ad vesperas] dictis psalmis
et antiphonis, ducunt ad portam Thesaurarii prophetas, sicut ad matutinum
et reducunt in chorum similiter, et habent clerici virgas plenas candelis
ardentibus, vocant eos clerici duo sicut ad vesperas [? matutinum].’
Presently follows the _Deposuit_: cf. vol. i. p. 309.
[205] Cf. vol. i. p. 313.
[206] Gasté, 20.
[207] Sepet, xxviii. 219, suggests that Balaam, when first introduced
into the _Prophetae_, merely prophesied, as he does in the _Adam_ (Grass,
46). Possibly, yet his introduction at the end of the Laon play (unknown
to Sepet) looks as if he were an appendix for the sake of his ass.
[208] Champollion-Figeac, _Hilarii Versus et Ludi_ (1838), from _B. N.
Lat. MS._ 11,331. The plays are also printed by Du Méril, _Or. Lat._ On
the life cf. _Hist. Litt. de la France_, xx. 627; _D.N.B._ s.v. Hilary;
Morley, _English Writers_, iii. 107.
[209] Du Méril, 272 ‘Ludus super iconia Sancti Nicolai.’ There is a
‘persona iconie.’ A _Barbarus_ speaks partly in French.
[210] Du Méril, 225 ‘Suscitatio Lazari: ad quam istae personae sunt
necessariae: Persona Lazari, duarum Sororum, quatuor Iudaeorum, Iesu
Christi, duodecim Apostolorum, vel sex ad minus ... (ends). Quo finito,
si factum fuerit ad Matutinas, Lazarus in piat: _Te Deum laudamus_: si
vero ad Vesperas: _Magnificat anima mea Dominum_.’
[211] Du Méril, 241 ‘Historia de Daniel repraesentanda,’ with a list
of the ‘personae necessariae’ and a final rubric as in the ‘Suscitatio
Lazari’: cf. Sepet, xxviii. 232, on this and similar plays and their
relation to the _Prophetae_. From the names ‘Hilarius,’ ‘Iordanus,’
‘Simon,’ attached to parts of the _Daniel_ in the MS., it would seem that
Hilarius had collaborators for this play (Sepet, xxviii. 248).
[212] E. Dümmler, in _Z. f. d. Alterthum_, xxxv. 401; xxxvi. 238, from
_B. M. Addl. MS._ 22,414 (‘Liber Sancti Godehardi in Hild[esheim]’). On
the group of Nicholas plays cf. Creizenach, i. 105.
[213] G. Morel, in _Anzeiger für Kunde der deutschen Vorzeit_, vi.
(1859), 207, from _Einsiedeln MS._ 34.
[214] _Golden Legend_, ii. 109; Wace, _Vie de Saint-Nicolas_ (ed. Delius,
1850).
[215] Du Méril, 262; Coussemaker, 100. The play ends with the _Te Deum_.
The same subject is treated in the Einsiedeln play, and one of those from
Hildesheim.
[216] Du Méril, 254; Coussemaker, 83. The play ends with the anthem ‘O
Christi pietas,’ used at second Vespers on St. Nicholas’ day (_Sarum
Breviary_, iii. 38). The same subject is treated in the other Hildesheim
play.
[217] Du Méril, 276; Coussemaker, 123; begins ‘Ad repraesentandum quomodo
Sanctus Nicolaus, &c. ...’: ends with anthem ‘Copiosae caritatis’ used at
Lauds on St. Nicholas’ day (_Sarum Breviary_, iii. 37).
[218] Du Méril, 266; Coussemaker, 109; begins ‘Aliud miraculum de Sancto
Nicolao, &c. ...’: ends with anthem ‘Statuit ei Dominus,’ not in _Sarum
Breviary_, but used at Rome as _Introit_ on feasts of Pontiffs. This is
the subject of Hilarius’ play.
[219] Text in Du Méril, 213; Coussemaker, 220. The play contains a
Paschal sequence and ends with a _Te Deum_. Part of the action is in
a _platea_; Simon has a _domus_, which afterwards ‘efficiatur quasi
Bethania.’ Other ‘loci’ represent ‘Ierusalem’ and ‘Galilaea’ (cf. p. 50),
and the ‘Suscitatio’ takes place at a ‘monumentum’ (probably the Easter
sepulchre).
[220] Text in Coussemaker, 49, and Danjou, _Revue de la Musique
religieuse_, iv. (1848), 65. Cf. Sepet, xxviii. 232, and on the MS.,
vol. i. p. 284. As in the Beauvais _Officium Circumcisionis_, there are
many processional chants or _conductus_, in one of which are the terms
‘celebremus Natalis solempnia’ and ‘in hoc Natalitio’ which attach the
play to Christmas, or at least the Christmas season. The text begins
‘Incipit Danielis ludus,’ and ends with the _Te Deum_. The following
quatrain serves as prologue:
‘Ad honorem tui, Christe,
Danielis ludus iste
in Belvaco est inventus
et invenit hunc iuventus.’
Meyer, 56, finds relations between the Beauvais _Daniel_ and that of
_Hilarius_.
[221] Text in _Anzeiger für Kunde d. deutschen Vorzeit_ (1877), 169, from
late twelfth-century MS.; cf. Creizenach, i. 74.
[222] Cf. p. 99.
[223] Creizenach, i. 6, 71. The unauthentic _Annales_ of Corvei mention
also a play on _Joseph_ under the year 1264 (Creizenach, i. 75).
[224] Text in Du Méril, 237; Coussemaker, 210; begins ‘Ad repraesentandam
conversionem beati Pauli apostoli, &c. ...’: ends with _Te Deum_. Four
‘sedes’ are required, and a ‘lectus’ for Ananias.
[225] Latest text, with long introduction, mainly philological, by W.
Cloetta, in _Romania_, xxii. (1893), 177; others by Du Méril, 233;
Coussemaker, 1; E. Boehmer, in _Romanische Studien_, iv. 99; K. Bartsch,
_Lang. et Litt. françaises_, 13; cf. also Julleville, _Les Myst._ i. 27;
E. Stengel, _Z. f. rom. Phil._ iii. 233; E. Schwan, _Z. f. rom. Phil._
xi. 469; H. Morf, _Z. f. rom. Phil._ xx. 385. The manuscript is _Bibl.
Nat. Lat._ 1139. MM. Cloetta (p. 221) and G. Paris (_Litt. fr. au moyen
âge²_, 237, 246) assign the _Sponsus_ to the earlier half or second third
of the twelfth century, and the former, with the delightful diffidence
of a philologist, thinks, on linguistic grounds, that it was written at
Saint Amant de Boixe (sixteen _kilomètres_ north of Angoulême). It only
remains for some archivist to find a clerk of St. Martial of Limoges
whose native place was this very village.
[226] Cf. p. 33.
[227] H. Morf, _loc. cit._, considers the _Sponsus_ an Easter play.
[228] Creizenach, i. 77. An Italian dramatic _Lauda_ on the same subject
is headed ‘In Dominica de Adventu’ (D’Ancona, i. 141).
[229] Text in Froning, 206, from edition of Zezschwitz, _Vom römischen
Kaisertum deutscher Nation_ (1877). The earliest edition is by Pez,
_Thesaurus Anecd. Noviss._ (1721-9), ii. 3, 187. This writer introduced
confusion by giving the play the title _Ludus paschalis de adventu et
interitu Antichristi_. It has nothing to do with Easter. The latest and
best edition is that by W. Meyer, in _Sitzungsberichte d. hist.-phil.
Classe d. königl. bayr. Akad. d. Wiss._ (Munich), 1882, 1. The unique
MS. is _Munich MS._ 19,411 (twelfth-thirteenth century), formerly in
Kloster Tegernsee. Both Zezschwitz and Meyer have long and valuable
introductions; cf. also Froning, 199; Creizenach, i. 78. T. Wright prints
the play from Pez, in _Chester Plays_, ii. 227.
[230] 2 _Thessalonians_, ii. 3-12. According to _York Missal_, i. 10,
part of this passage is read at Mass on Saturday in the _Quatuor Tempora_
of Advent.
[231] ‘Templum domini et vii sedes regales primum collocentur in hunc
modum:
Ad orientem templum domini; huic collocantur sedes regis
Hierosolimorum et sedes Sinagogae.
Ad occidentem sedes imperatoris Romani; huic collocantur sedes
regis Theotonicorum et sedes regis Francorum.
Ad austrum sedes regis Graecorum.
Ad meridiem sedes regis Babiloniae et Gentilitatis.’
Other than this direction the play has no heading, but in later
stage-directions it is incidentally called a ‘ludus.’
[232] Printed in _P. L._ ci. 1291.
[233] Pseudo-Augustine, _De altercatione Ecclesiae et Synagogae dialogus_
in _P. L._ xlii. 1131. On this theme and the _débats_ based thereon cf.
_Hist. Litt._ xxiii. 216; G. Paris, § 155; Pearson, ii. 376. P. Weber,
_Geistliches Schauspiel und kirchliche Kunst_ (1894), is mainly occupied
with this motive and its place in the religious drama and religious art.
It is a most valuable study, but I find no ground for the conjecture
(Weber, 31, 36) that the _Altercatio_, like the _Prophetae_, had already,
before the _Antichrist_, been semi-dramatically rendered in the liturgy.
[234] Cf. p. 98.
[235] _Representations_, s.v. Dunstable.
[236] At Rouen, e.g., a confraternity played a _misterium_ on the feast
of the Assumption in a waxen ‘hortus’ set up in their chapel; and this
between 1446 and 1521 required reformation from various ‘derisiones,’
especially a ‘ludus de marmousetis’ (Gasté, 76). But I know of no
evidence for a Latin Assumption play, although such may quite well have
existed. The Lincoln Assumption play was given in the cathedral, as a
wind-up to a cycle (_Representations_, s.v. Lincoln).
[237] Cf. p. 11.
[238] Ducange, s.v. _Festum Ascensionis_, ‘qui ... officio hac die
praeerat, cum modicum panis et vini degustasset, cantato responsorio _Non
vos relinquam_, ambonem ascendebat, ubi ex monte efficto coelum petere
videbatur; tunc pueri symphoniaci veste angelica induti decantabant _Viri
Galilaei_, etc.’
[239] Julleville, _Les Myst._ ii. 9; _Annales archéologiques_, xviii.
173 ‘pro pingendo cicatrices in manibus D. Iohannis Rosnel, facientis
mysterium in die Ascensionis’ (1416), ‘pro potandum cum discipulis,’
‘vicariis representantibus Crucifixum cum suis discipulis et ibidem simul
manducantibus et bibentibus vinum,’ ‘pro pingendo vulnera,’ ‘pro faciendo
novas nubes,’ ‘pro pictura dictarum nubium,’ ‘pro cantando non vos.’ In
Germany (Naogeorgos in Stubbes, i. 337) the crucifix was drawn up by
cords and an image of Satan thrown down. For England, see the end of
Lambarde’s account, below.
[240] Grenier, 388 (Amiens, 1291, and elsewhere in Picardy); Hautcœur,
_Documents liturgiques de Lille_, 65 (thirteenth century), and _Histoire
de l’Église de Lille_, i. 427; Gasté, 75 (Bayeux, thirteenth century,
Caen, Coutances); D’Ancona, i. 31 (Parma), i. 88 (Vicenza, 1379, a
more elaborate out-of-door performance); Naogeorgos in Stubbes, i. 337
(Germany); Ducange, s.v. _nebulae_. I have three English examples: Hone,
_E. D. Book_, i. 685 (_Computus_ of St. Patrick’s, Dublin, for 1509), ‘we
have ivˢ viiᵈ paid to those playing with the great and little angel and
the dragon; iiiˢ paid for little cords employed about the Holy Ghost;
ivˢ viᵈ for making the angel censing (_thurificantis_), and iiˢ iiᵈ for
cords of it—all on the feast of Pentecost’; _Lincoln Statutes_, i. 335;
ii. cxviii. 165 (1330) ‘in distributione autem Pentecostali percipiet
... clericus ducens columbam vj denarios’; W. Lambarde, _Alphabetical
Description of the Chief Places in England and Wales_ (1730, written in
sixteenth century), 459, s.v. Wytney, ‘The like Toye I myselfe (beinge
then a Chyld) once saw in _Poules_ Church at _London_, at a Feast of
_Whitsontyde_, wheare the comynge downe of the _Holy Gost_ was set forthe
by a white Pigion, that was let to fly out of a Hole, that yet is to be
sene in the mydst of the Roofe of the great Ile, and by a longe Censer,
which descendinge out of the same Place almost to the verie Grounde, was
swinged up and downe at suche a Lengthe, that it reached with thone Swepe
almost to the West Gate of the Churche, and with the other to the Quyre
Staires of the same, breathynge out over the whole Churche and Companie
a most pleasant Perfume of suche swete Thinges as burned thearin; with
the like doome Shewes also, they used every whear to furnishe sondrye
Partes of their Churche Service, as by their Spectacles of the Nativitie,
Passion, and Ascension of _Christe_.’ From further notices in W. S.
Simpson, _St. Paul’s and Old City Life_, 62, 83, it appears that the
censing was on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday in Whit-week, that the Lord
Mayor attended, and that the ceremony was replaced by sermons in 1548.
[241] Creizenach, i. 76; D’Ancona, i. 90, 92, 114 (Padua, Venice,
Trevigi), and i. 29 (Parma _Ordinarium_ of fifteenth century) ‘ad
inducendum populum ad contritionem, ... ad confirmandum ipsum in
devotione Virginis Mariae ... fit reverenter et decenter Repraesentatio
Virginis Mariae ... cum prophetis et aliis solemnitatibus opportunis’;
Coussemaker, 280 (Cividale _Processionalia_ of fourteenth and
fifteenth centuries). In the fourteenth century there was a procession
to the market-place, where ‘diaconus legat evangelium in tono, et
fit repraesentatio Angeli ad Mariam.’ In the fifteenth century ‘In
Annuntiatione B. M. Virginis Repraesentatio’ was a similar procession
and ‘cantatur evangelium cum ludo, quo finito, revertendo ad ecclesiam,
cantatur Te Deum.’ The text goes slightly beyond the words of the Gospel
(Luke i. 26-38) having a part for ‘Helisabeth.’ Gasté, 79, describes the
foundation of a _mystère_ of the Annunciation during vespers on the eve
of the feast at Saint-Lo, in 1521.
[242] I gather this from the _consuetudo_ of giving gloves to Mary,
the Angel, and the Prophets at Christmas (_Representations_, s.v.
Lincoln). Here, as at Parma, the _Prophetae_ appear in connexion with the
Annunciation ceremony.
[243] See the curious and detailed document in Appendix S as to the
Tournai ceremony founded by Peter Cotrel in the sixteenth century. A
precisely similar foundation was that of Robert Fabri at Saint Omer in
1543 (_Bull. arch. du Comité des travaux historiques_ (1886), 80; _Mém.
de la Soc. des Antiquaires de la Morinie_, xx. 207). The inventory of
the ‘ornementz et parementz’ in a ‘coffre de cuir boully’ includes ‘ung
colomb de bois revestu de damas blancq.’ Alike at Tournai, St. Omer,
and Besançon (Martene, iii. 30) the ceremony was on the Wednesday in
the _Quatuor Tempora_ of Advent. For the ‘golden Mass’ of this day the
Gospel is the same as that of the Annunciation; cf. _York Missal_, i. 6;
Pfannenschmidt, 438.
[244] Creizenach, i. 154, 317, 346. A slight addition to the _Stella_ is
made by two Provençal plays of †1300 (ed. P. Meyer in _Romania_, xiv.
496) and 1333 (_dramatis personae_ only in _Revue des Sociétés savantes_,
viii. 259) which introduce episodes from the life of the Virgin previous
to the Nativity.
[245] Creizenach, i. 70, quoting _Gesta Alberti Livoniensis episcopi_
(†1226) in Gruber, _Origines Livoniae_ (1740), 34 ‘Eadem hyeme factus
est ludus prophetarum ordinatissimus, quam Latini Comoediam vocant, in
media Riga, ut fidei Christianae rudimenta gentilitas fide etiam disceret
oculata. Cuius ludi et comoediae materia tam neophytis, quam paganis, qui
aderant, per interpretem diligentissime exponebatur. Ubi autem armati
Gedeonis cum Philistaeis pugnabant; pagani, timentes occidi, fugere
coeperunt, sed caute sunt revocati.... In eodem ludo erant bella, vtpote
Dauid, Gedeonis, Herodis. Erat et doctrina Veteris et Novi Testamenti.’
[246] Text edited by V. Luzarche (Tours, 1854); L. Palustre (Paris,
1877); K. Bartsch, _Chrestomathie_, (ed. 1880, 91); K. Grass (Halle,
1891); cf. the elaborate study by Sepet, xxix, 105, 261, and Julleville,
_Les Myst._ i. 81; ii. 217; Creizenach, i. 130; Clédat, 15. The
manuscript is _Tours MS._ 927, formerly belonging to the Benedictines of
Marmoutier. Grass, vi, summarizes the opinions as to its date. In any
case the text is probably of the twelfth century, and Grass, 171, after
an elaborate grammatical investigation, confirms the opinion of Luzarche,
doubted by Littré and others, that it is of Anglo-Norman rather than
Norman origin. But, even if the writer was an Anglo-Norman clerk, the
play must have been written for performance in France. I doubt if it was
ever actually played or finished. It is followed in the MS. by a Norman
(not Anglo-Norman) poem on the Fifteen Signs of Judgement (text in Grass,
57), which looks like material collected for an unwritten Sibyl prophecy.
The remaining contents of the first part of the MS., which may be of the
twelfth century, are some hymns and the Latin Tours _Quem quaeritis_ (p.
38).
[247] Sepet, xxix, 112, 128, points out that certain _lectiones_ and
_responsoria_ which accompany the _Adam_ and _Cain and Abel_ are taken
from the office for Septuagesima. Possibly an independent liturgical
drama of the Fall arose at Septuagesima and was absorbed by the
_Prophetae_. But mention of the ‘primus Adam’ is not uncommon in the
Nativity liturgy; cf. Sepet, xxix, 107, and the _Sponsus_ (p. 61).
[248] _Annales Ratisponenses_ (_M. G. H. Scriptores_, xvii. 590) ‘Anno
Domini 1194. Celebratus est in Ratispona ordo creacionis angelorum
et ruina[e] Luciferi et suorum, et creacionis hominis et casus et
prophetarum ... septima Idus Februarii.’
[249] Köppen, 35, discusses the textual relation between the St. Gall and
Benedictbeuern plays and their common source, the Freising _Stella_.
[250] Text in Mone, _Schauspiele des Mittelalters_, i. 143; cf.
Creizenach, i. 123.
[251] Text in Schmeller, _Carmina Burana_, 80; Du Méril, 187; Froning,
877, from a Munich MS. of thirteenth to fourteenth century formerly in
the abbey of Benedictbeuern in Bavaria; cf. Creizenach, i. 96; Sepet,
xxxviii, 398. The title ‘Ludus scenicus de nativitate Domini’ given by
Schmeller is not in the MS.
[252] Cf. p. 56. The Balaam in _Adam_ is ‘sedens super asinam,’ but no
further notice is taken of the animal.
[253] Text ed. Le Verdier (_Soc. des Bibliophiles normands_); cf.
Julleville, _Les Myst._ ii. 36, 430.
[254] Cf. p. 38.
[255] Tischendorf, _Evangelia Apocrypha_ (1876), 389.
[256] Cf. pp. 4, 5, 20. One of the anthems for Easter Saturday in the
_Sarum Breviary_ is _Elevamini, portae_.
[257] Text in Pollard, 166; K. Böddeker, _Altenglische Dichtungen des
MS. Harl._ 2253 (1878), 264; E. Mall, _The Harrowing of Hell_ (1871);
cf. Ten Brink, ii. 242; Ward, i. 90; Creizenach, i. 158. There are three
MSS.: (_a_) _Bodl. Digby MS._ 86 (late thirteenth century); (_b_) _Harl.
MS._ 2253 (†1310); (_c_) _Edin. Advoc. Libr._ (_Auchinleck_) _MS._ W. 41
(early fourteenth century). The Digby version has a prologue beginning:
‘Hou ihesu crist herewede helle
Of hardegates ich wille telle.’
The Harleian has:
‘Alle herkneth to me nou,
A strif will I tellen ou.’
The Auchinleck prologue lacks the beginning, but the end agrees with the
Harleian. Böddeker, who accepts the dramatic character of the piece,
thinks that the prologues were prefixed later for recitation. In any case
this poem became a source for a play in the _Ludus Coventriae_ cycle
(Pollard, xxxviii).
[258] Text of Muri fragments in Froning, 228; cf. Creizenach, i. 114;
Wirth, 133, 281. A French fragment (†1300-50) also introducing this
theme is printed by J. Bédier, in _Romania_, xxiv. (1895), 86. Pez,
_Script. rerum austriacarum_, ii. 268, describes a vision of the
thirteenth-century recluse Wilbirgis: ‘Item quadam nocte Dominicae
Resurrectionis, cum in Monasterio ludus Paschalis tam a Clero quam a
populo ageretur, quia eidem non potuit corporaliter interesse, coepit
desiderare, ut ei Dominus aliquam specialis consolationis gratiam per
Resurrectionis suae gaudia largiretur. Et vidit quasi Dominum ad Inferos
descendentem et inde animas eruentem, quae quasi columbae candidissimae
circumvolantes ipsum comitabantur, et sequebantur ab inferis redeuntem.’
Meyer, 61, 98, deals fully with the development of the Resurrection and
Harrowing of Hell themes in the early vernacular plays.
[259] Text in Monmerqué et Michel, _Théâtre fr. au moyen âge_, 10, from
_Bibl. Nat. fr._ 902; cf. Creizenach, i. 135; Julleville, _Les Myst._
i. 91; ii. 220; Clédat, 59. The MS. is of the fourteenth century,
but the Norman-French, which some writers, as with the _Adam_, think
Anglo-Norman, is assigned to the end of the twelfth century.
[260] D’Ancona, i. 90. The original authority for the statement, taken
from a MS. treatise on the _Commedia italiana_ by Uberto Benvoglienti, is
not given.
[261] D’Ancona, i. 87, quoting several chronicles: ‘hoc anno in festo
Pascae facta fuit Reppraesentatio Passionis et Resurrectionis Christi
solemniter et ordinate in Prato Vallis.’
[262] Text in Schmeller, _Carmina Burana_, 95; Du Méril, 126; Froning,
284; cf. Creizenach, i. 92; Wirth, 131, 278. The only heading to the play
in the MS. is ‘Sancta Maria assit nostro principio! amen.’
[263] Scenes between the _Mercator_, his wife, and their lad Rubin play a
large part in the later German Passion plays; cf. Wirth, 168.
[264] Creizenach, i. 155. Two fourteenth-century texts exist, one in
Provençal, one in Catalan.
[265] Text in Mone, _Schauspiele des Mittelalters_, i. 72; cf.
Creizenach, i. 121; Wirth, 135, 282.
[266] Text in Froning, 340 (begins ‘Incipit ordo sive registrum de
passione domini’); cf. Creizenach, i. 219; Wirth, 137, 295.
[267] Text in Froning, 305 (begins ‘Ad materiae reductionem de passione
domini. Incipit ludus pascalis’); cf. Creizenach, i. 92, 120; Wirth, 134,
293.
[268] Giuliano da Cividale, _Cronaca Friulana_ (D’Ancona, i. 91;
Muratori, _Rer. Ital. Script._ xxiv. 1205, 1209): ‘Anno domini
MCCLXXXXVIII die vii exeunte Maio, videlicet in die Pentecostes et in
aliis duobus sequentibus diebus, facta fuit Repraesentatio Ludi Christi,
videlicet Passionis, Resurrectionis, Ascensionis, Adventus Spiritus
Sancti, Adventus Christi ad iudicium, in curia Domini Patriarchae
Austriae civitatis, honorifice et laudabiliter, per Clerum civitatensem
.... Anno MCCCIII facta fuit per Clerum, sive per Capitulum civitatense,
Repraesentatio: sive factae fuerunt Repraesentationes infra scriptae: In
primis, de Creatione primorum parentum; deinde de Annunciatione Beatae
Virginis, de Partu et aliis multis, et de Passione et Resurrectione,
Ascensione et Adventu Spiritus Sancti, et de Antichristo et aliis,
et demum de Adventu Christi ad iudicium. Et predicta facta fuerunt
solemniter in curia domini Patriarchae in festo Pentecostes cum
aliis duobus diebus sequentibus, praesente r. d. Ottobono patriarcha
aquileiensi, d. Iacobo q. d. Ottonelli de Civitate episcopo concordiensi,
et aliis multis nobilibus de civitatibus et castris Foro-iulii, die XV
exeunte Maio.’ Still earlier, some dramatic fragments not later than the
mid-thirteenth century from Kloster Himmelgarten near Nordhausen, include
scenes from both the early and late life of Christ (Text, ed. Sievers, in
_Zeitsch. f. d. Phil._ xxi. 393; cf. Creizenach, i. 124); but these might
conceivably belong to a set of plays for different dates, such as those
of the Sainte Geneviève MS. (Julleville, _Les Myst._ ii. 379). Besides
the English cosmic cycles, there are several fifteenth-century French
ones described by Julleville, _Les Myst._ ii. 394 sqq.: in Germany plays
of this scope are rare.
[269] Pearson, ii. 312; Köppen, 49; Ten Brink, i. 287.
[270] Cf. Sepet, xxxviii. 415; Creizenach, i. 260; G. Smith, 253;
Julleville, _Les Myst._ ii. 352. _Le Mistère du viel testament_, printed
†1510 (ed. Rothschild, 1878-91, for _Soc. des anciens textes français_),
is a fifteenth-century compilation of O. T. plays from various sources.
[271] French versions of the _Vengeance de Notre Seigneur_, of which the
chief episode is the Siege of Jerusalem, appear in the fifteenth century
(Julleville, _Les Myst._ ii. 12, 415, 451). A late Coventry play on the
same theme is unfortunately lost.
[272] Cf. p. 99.
[273] Cf. p. 79.
[274] Pearson, ii. 315; and cf. the angels aloft in the Rouen _Pastores_
(p. 41).
[275] Cf. p. 50.
[276] Plan in Mone, ii. 156; Froning, 277; Davidson, 199; Pearson, ii.
320; Könnecke, _Bilderatlas_, 55: on the play, cf. Creizenach, i. 224;
Wirth, 139, 327. Another sixteenth-century plan from Lucerne is given
by Leibing, _Die Inscenierung des 2-tägigen Osterspiels_, 1869; cf.
Creizenach, i. 168.
[277] See the mention of ‘en mi la place’ in the prologue; but ‘place’
might be only the French equivalent of ‘platea’ as used in the Fleury
_Suscitatio Lazari_.
[278] Pearson, ii. 322.
[279] Julleville, _Les Myst._ ii. 37.
[280] Reproduced in Clédat, 4; Bapst, 33, from _Horae_ of †1460; cf.
Jusserand, _Lit. Hist._ i. 470.
[281] D’Ancona, i. 191, however, describes the Italian _devozioni_ as
taking place on _talami_ or platforms in the naves of churches. In
France, minor religious plays at least took place on scaffolds, built up
sometimes against the wall of a church (Bapst, 23, 29). A raised stage,
with _sedes_ along the back of it, is shown by the miniatures in the MS.
of the Valenciennes _Passion_ (reproduced in Jusserand, _Shakespeare in
France_, 63; cf. Julleville, _Les Mystères_, ii. 153); but this is as
late as 1547.
[282] Julleville, _Les Myst._ i. 386; Bapst, 28.
[283] Cf. p. 137. Amongst the ‘establies’ required for the Rouen play
of 1474 was ‘Enfer faict en maniere d’une grande gueulle se cloant et
ouvrant quant besoing en est’ (Julleville, _Les Myst._ ii. 37). Just such
an ‘enfer’ is represented in the Fouquet and Valenciennes miniatures.
[284] Cf. p. 98.
[285] Cf. p. 77.
[286] Froning, 363 ‘Et notandum, quod optime congruit, ne populus nimiam
moram faciendo gravetur, et ut resurrectio domini gloriosius celebretur,
ut ulterior ordo ludi in diem alterum conservetur; quod si apud rectores
deliberatum fuerit, Augustinus coram populo proclamet dicens sine rigmo,
ut in die crastino revertatur.’
[287] Creizenach, i. 340.
[288] Cf. p. 130.
[289] Cf. p. 74. By the fifteenth century lay performers appear even in
the ritual _Quem quaeritis_. An Augsburg version of 1487 (Milchsack, 129)
concludes ‘Permittitur tamen aliis, qui forsan huiusmodi personas [i.e.
‘sacerdotes’ et ‘cantores’] non habent, ut cum aliis personis et etiam
moribus honestis tamen et discretis, huiusmodi visitationem sepulchri
exequantur.’ See also the jest of Tyll Ulenspiegel with the parson’s
concubine who played the angel, quoted by Pearson, ii. 308.
[290] Julleville, _Les Myst._ ii. 2. For plays by German guilds cf.
Pearson, ii. 364.
[291] Creizenach, i. 137; Julleville, _Les Myst._ i. 115; _Les Com._ 43.
Probably the ‘Jeu de Nicholas’ of Jean Bodel, and the fourteenth-century
‘Miracles de Notre Dame,’ belong to the _répertoires_ of _puys_.
[292] Julleville, _Les Myst._ i. 412; _Les Com._ 55.
[293] Du Méril, 410, 414, prints examples of such _épîtres farcies_ for
the feasts of St. Stephen and St. Thomas of Canterbury: cf. the numerous
references in D’Ancona, i. 66, and vol. i. p. 277.
[294] Text in Coussemaker, 256, from _Bibl. St. Quentin MS._ 75
(fourteenth century); cf. Julleville, _Les Myst._ i. 64. The _Quem
quaeritis_ includes the _Hortulanus_ scene and has, like the Prague
versions, the _Mercator_. It was probably written later than 1286, as the
_Ordinarius_ of that year (Coussemaker, 337) directs a shorter version in
Latin.
[295] Text in Froning, 49, from _Trier MS._ 75 (begins ‘incipit ludus de
nocte paschae, de tribus Mariis et Maria Magdalena’ ... ends ‘explicit
ludus’); cf. Creizenach, i. 112; Davidson, 149; Wirth, 120, 235.
[296] Cf. _Academy_ for Jan. 4 and 11, 1890, where Prof. Skeat prints the
text from _Shrewsbury MS. Mus._ iii. 42 f. 48 (a book of anthems). Manly,
i. xxviii, also gives it with some valuable notes of his own.
[297] Creizenach, i. 109.
[298] Ibid. i. 99, 202; Pearson, ii. 271, 302, 394; Wirth, 168, 201, 215;
D’Ancona, i. 62.
[299] Cf. vol. i. p. 83.
[300] Cf. vol. i. pp. 185, 207, 213.
[301] Cf. p. 56.
[302] Cf. p. 4.
[303] Cf. vol. i. pp. 258, 268, 327.
[304] Julleville, _Les Myst._ ii. 412; _Les Com._ 149, 237 (Chaumont),
239 (Chauny).
[305] Creizenach, i. 356; cf. p. 146.
[306] D’Ancona, i. 87 sqq.; F. Torraca, _Discussioni e ricerche_ (1888),
92; Creizenach, i. 299 sqq.; J. A. Symonds, _Renaissance in Italy_,
iv. 242 sqq.; G. Smith, 297; Wechssler, 30; Gaspary, i. 138, 357; I.
S. A. Herford, _The Confraternities of Penance, their Dramas and their
Lamentations_ in _E. H. Review_, vi. (1891), 646. A first instalment of
dramatic Lauds was published by Monaci, _Appunti per la storia del teatro
italiano in Rivista di Filologia Romana_, i. 235, ii. 29. For other
collections cf. D’Ancona, i. 153; Gaspary, i. 361. D’Ancona has published
_Sacre Rappresentazioni_ (1872). A selection of Lauds, Devozioni, and
Rappresentazioni is in F. Torraca, _Il teatro italiano dei Secoli xiii,
xiv, e xv_ (1885).
[307] D’Ancona, i. 94.
[308] Galvano Fiamma, _de rebus gestis a Vicecomitibus_ (D’Ancona, i.
97; Muratori, _Rer. Ital. Script._ xii. 1017). The ceremony was ‘in die
Epifanie in conventu fratrum Praedicatorum.... Fuerunt coronati tres
Reges in equis magnis, vallati domicellis, vestiti variis, cum somariis
multis et familia magna nimis. Et fuit stella aurea discurrens per aera,
quae praecedebat istos tres Reges, et pervenerunt ad columnas Sancti
Laurentii, ubi erat rex Herodes effigiatus, cum scribis et sapientibus.
Et visi sunt interrogare regem Herodem, ubi Christus nasceretur, et
revolutis multis libris responderunt, quod deberet nasci in civitate
Bethleem in distantia quinque milliariorum a Hierusalem. Quo audito, isti
tres Reges coronati aureis coronis, tenentes in manibus scyphos aureos
cum auro, thure et myrrha, praecedente stella per aera, cum somariis
et mirabili famulatu, clangentibus tubis, et bucinis praecedentibus,
simiis, babuynis, et diversis generibus animalium, cum mirabili populorum
tumultu, pervenerunt ad ecclesiam Sancti Eustorgii. Ubi in latere altaris
maioris erat praesepium cum bove et asino, et in praesepio erat Christus
parvulus in brachiis Virginis matris. Et isti Reges obtulerunt Christo
munera; deinde visi sunt dormire, et Angelus alatus ei dixit quod non
redirent per contratam Sancti Laurentii, sed per portam Romanam: quod et
factum fuit. Et fuit tantus concursus populi et militum et dominarum et
clericorum, quod nunquam similis fere visus fuit. Et fuit ordinatum, quod
omni anno istud festum fieret.’ This is precisely the liturgic _Stella_
translated into an out-of-door _spectacle_, which in its turn becomes the
model for many a Quattrocento painting; cf., e.g., Botticelli’s _Magi_ in
the Uffizi, or Gentile da Fabriano’s, with the baboons done to the life,
in the Accademia.
[309] D’Ancona, i. 94, 301, considers, however, that the late
fifteenth-century _Passio_ of Revello was not a native growth, but
modelled on contemporary cyclic plays from France.
[310] The Rouen play of 1474 (Julleville, _Les Myst._ ii. 36) was one,
and cf. pp. 119, 122.
[311] Creizenach, i. 242; cf. the lists in Julleville, _Les Myst._ ii.
183.
[312] Julleville, _Les Myst._ ii. 9 sqq.
[313] D’Ancona, i. 218; Guasti, _Le feste di San Giovanni Baptista in
Firenze_ (1884). _Rappresentazioni_ on St. John’s day were known to
the late fourteenth-century Florentine historian Goro di Stagio Dati.
An account of the feast in 1407 makes no mention of them, but they
appear in that of 1439, and are elaborately described in the _Storia_
of Matteo di Marco Palmieri about 1454 (D’Ancona, i. 228). Early in
the morning of June 22 started a procession of clergy, _compagnie_,
_edifizii_, and _cavalleria_. These stopped in the Piazza della
Signoria, and _rappresentazioni_, forming a complete cycle from the
Fall of Lucifer to the Last Judgement, and lasting sixteen hours, were
given upon the _edifizii_. D’Ancona suggests that the dumb show type of
_rappresentazioni_ preceded the dialogued one, ‘come più semplice.’ But
this seems equally inconsistent with his view that the _rappresentazioni_
grew out of _devozioni_, and mine that they were an adaptation of earlier
cyclical plays to the conditions of the Florentine feast.
[314] Cf. ch. xxi.
[315] D’Ancona, i. 243; Schack, ii. 103; Ticknor, _Hist. of Spanish Lit._
ii. 249. The _Autos Sacramentales_ are so named from their connexion with
this day.
[316] Creizenach, i. 170, 227. The earliest German mention is at the
council of Prague in 1366 (Höfler, _Concilia Pragensia_, 13, in _Abhandl.
d. königl. böhmischen Gesellsch. der Wiss._ series v. vol. 12) ‘omnibus
... clericis et laicis ... mandatur ut ludos theatrales vel etiam
fistulatores vel ioculatores in festo corporis Christi in processionibus
ire quovis modo permittant et admittant.’ Extant _Frohnleichnamsspiele_
are those of Innsbruck, †1391 (Text in Mone, _Altteutsche Schauspiele_,
145), and of Künzelsau, †1479 (ed. H. Werner, in _Germania_, iv. 338).
Cf. the description (†1553) of Naogeorgos (transl. Googe) in Stubbes, i.
337.
[317] Julleville, ii. 208.
[318] Ward, i. 44; Davidson, 215; Malleson-Tuker, ii. 227.
[319] See e.g. the ‘Processio huius ludi’ at the end of the text of the
Alsfeld Passion of 1501 (Froning, 858); cf. Pearson, ii. 365. As to the
general relations of processions and plays, cf. p. 160.
[320] Cf. p. 136.
[321] The closest merging of play and procession is suggested by an
order at Draguignan in 1558 (Julleville, _Les Myst._ ii. 209), where it
was ordered ‘Le dit jeu jora avec la procession comme auparadvant et le
plus d’istoeres et plus brieves que puront estre seront et se dira tout
en cheminant sans ce que personne du jeu s’areste pour eviter prolixité
et confusion tant de ladite, prosession que jeu, et que les estrangiers
le voient aisement.’ Perhaps the short speeches of the Innsbruck play
were similarly delivered while the procession was moving. The nearest
continental approach to the English type is the Künzelsau play, which
was divided into three parts and played at three different stations
(Creizenach, i. 227).
[322] Creizenach, i. 218.
[323] Creizenach, i. 128, 137 sqq., 156; Julleville, _Les Myst._ i. 95,
107, 115, 185; ii. 2, 4, 5, 221, 226, 345; _Les Com._ 49; Sepet, 202,
242; Clédat, 63, 73, 105.
[324] Creizenach, i. 130, 165, 176; Julleville, _Les Myst._ i. 347; _Les
Com._ 291; D’Ancona, i. 57; Pearson, ii. 303; Wirth, 144. A play could
be given outside the church without wholly losing its connexion with the
liturgy. It became a sort of procession: cf. pp. 32, 67. D’Ancona, i. 59,
quotes from _Bibl. de l’École des Chartes_, iii. 450, a licence given by
the Bishop of Langres in 1408 ‘Ut in quadem platea vel plateis congruis
et honestis, infra vel extra villam, prope et supra rippariam loci, coram
clero et populo, alta et intelligibili voce, lingua latina et materna,
cum magna reverentia et honore ac diversis personacium et habituum
generibus ad hoc congruis et necessariis, solemniter et publice vitam et
miracula egregii confessoris et pontificis Machuti, recitare et exponere,
missamque solemnem in pontificalibus, in platea seu plateis supradictis
super altare portatili consecrato per alterum vestrum canonicorum
vel alium ydoneum sacerdotem celebrare ... licentiam et auctoritatem
impertimus per praesentes.’ Cf. the examples of plays at the Feasts of
Fools and of the Boy Bishop (vol. i. pp. 295, 296, 299, 304, 306, 309,
313, 342, 348, 349, 380).
[325] Cf. p. 16.
[326] Cf. vol. i. p. 318. Pearson, ii. 285, translates: ‘The old Fathers
of the Church, in order to strengthen the belief of the faithful and
to attract the unbeliever by this manner of religious service, rightly
instituted at the Feast of Epiphany or the Octave religious performances
of such a kind as the star guiding the Magi to the new-born Christ, the
cruelty of Herod, the dispatch of the soldiers, the lying-in of the
Blessed Virgin, the angel warning the Magi not to return to Herod, and
other events of the birth of Christ. But what nowadays happens in many
churches? Not a customary ritual, not an act of reverence, but one of
irreligion and extravagance conducted with all the license of youth. The
priests having changed their clothes go forth as a troop of warriors;
there is no distinction between priest and warrior to be marked. At an
unfitting gathering of priests and laymen the church is desecrated by
feasting and drinking, buffoonery, unbecoming jokes, play, the clang of
weapons, the presence of shameless wenches, the vanities of the world,
and all sorts of disorder. Rarely does such a gathering break up without
quarrelling.’
[327] On Gerhoh (1093-1169) see the article in the 2nd ed. of Wetzer and
Welte’s _Kirchenlexicon_. He took a strong reforming and anti-imperial
line in the controversies of his day.
[328] Gerhohus, _Comm. in Ps. cxxxii_ (_P. L._ cxciv. 890) ‘Cohaerebat
ipsi Ecclesiae claustrum satis honestum, sed a claustrali religione
omnino vacuum, cum neque in dormitorio fratres dormirent, neque in
refectorio comederent, exceptis rarissimis festis, maxime in quibus
Herodem repraesentarent Christi persecutorem, parvulorum interfectorem,
seu ludis aliis aut spectaculis quasi theatralibus exhibendis
comportaretur symbolum ad faciendum convivium in refectorio aliis pene
omnibus temporibus vacuo.’
[329] Gerhohus, _de Inv. Ant._ lib. i. c. 5, _de spectaculis theatricis
in ecclesia Dei exhibitis_ (_Gerhohi Opera Inedita_, ed. Scheibelberger,
i. 25) ‘Et sacerdotes, qui dicuntur, iam non ecclesiae vel altaris
ministerio dediti sunt, sed exercitiis avaritiae, vanitatum et
spectaculorum, adeo ut ecclesias ipsas, videlicet orationum domus,
in theatra commutent ac mimicis ludorum spectaculis impleant. Inter
quae nimirum spectacula adstantibus ac spectantibus ipsorum feminis
interdum et antichristi, de quo nobis sermo est, non ut ipsi aestimant
imaginariam similitudinem exhibent sed in veritate, ut credi potest
iniquitatis ipsius mysterium pro parte sua implent. Quidni enim diabolus
abutatur in serium rebus sibi exhibitis in vanitatis ludicrum, sicut
Dominus quoque Iesus convertens in seria ludibria, quibus apud Iudaeos
vel Pilatum in passione sua affectus est?... Quid ergo mirum si et isti
nunc antichristum vel Herodem in suis ludis simulantes eosdem non, ut
eis intentioni est, ludicro mentiuntur sed in veritate exhibent, utpote
quorum vita ab antichristi laxa conversatione non longe abest?...
Contigit, ut comperimus, aliquando apud tales, ut eum quem inter ludicra
sua quasi mortuum ab Elisaeo propheta suscitantem exhiberent peracta
simulatione mortuum invenirent. Alius item antichristo suo quasi
suscitandus oblatus intra septem dies vere mortuus, ut comperimus, et
sepultus est. Et quis scire potest an et cetera simulata antichristi
scilicet effigiem, daemonum larvas, herodianam insaniem in veritate non
exhibeant?... Exhibent praeterea imaginaliter et salvatoris infantiae
cunabula, parvuli vagitum, puerperae virginis matronalem habitum, stellae
quasi sidus flammigerum, infantum necem, maternum Rachelis ploratum.
Sed divinitas insuper et matura facies ecclesiae abhorret spectacula
theatralia, non respicit in vanitates et insanias falsas, immo non falsas
sed iam veras insanias, in quibus viri totos se frangunt in feminas quasi
pudeat eos, quod viri sunt, clerici in milites, homines se in daemonum
larvas transfigurant....’
[330] Prynne, _Histriomastix_, 556, refers to ‘the visible apparition
of the Devill on the Stage at the Belsavage Play-house, in Queene
Elizabeth’s dayes (to the great amazement both of the Actors and
Spectators) whiles they were there prophanely playing the History of
Faustus (the truth of which I have heard from many now alive, who well
remember it), there being some distracted with that fearefull sight.’
[331] Pollard, xxiv. I do not know how Ward, i. 43, gets at the very
different theory that in 1210 (_sic_ for 1207) Innocent III ordered plays
‘to be represented outside the church as well as inside.’ Mr. Pollard, by
the way, assigns the prohibition to ‘Pope Gregory,’ a further mistake,
due, I suppose, to the fact that it was subsequently included in the
Gregorian _Decretals_.
[332] Cf. vol. i. p. 279.
[333] Quoted by Creizenach, i. 101, ‘Non tamen hic prohibetur
repraesentare praesepe Domini, Herodem, magos et qualiter Rachel ploravit
filios suos, etc., quae tangunt festivitates illas, de quibus hic fit
mentio, cum talia ad devotionem potius inducant homines quam ad lasciviam
vel voluptatem, sicut in pascha sepulcrum Domini et alia repraesentantur
ad devotionem excitandam’: cf. vol i. p. 342. J. Aquila, _Opusculum
Enchiridion appellatum ferme de omni ludorum genere_, f. 14 (Oppenheim,
1516), after referring to the canon, says, ‘Demonstrationes quae fiunt
ad honorem dei puta passionis Christi aut vitae alicuius sancti non
prohibentur in sacris locis ac temporibus fieri.’ Both canon and gloss
are cited in _Dives and Pauper_, a book of fifteenth-century English
morality (F. A. Gasquet, _Eve of Reformation_, 317): cf. also D’Ancona,
i. 54.
[334] Cf. vol. i. p. 91. An anchoress of Tarrant Keynston (_Ancren
Riwle_, †1150, C. S. 318) was bound to confess if she ‘eode oðe pleouwe
ine chircheie: biheold hit ⁊ oðe wrastlinge ⁊ oðer fol gomenes’: but
‘pleouwe,’ like _ludus_ (vol. i. p. 393), may have a very general meaning.
[335] Manning, 146:—
Un autre folie apert
Vnt les fols clercs cuntroue,
Qe ‘miracles’ sunt apele;
Lur faces vnt la deguise
Par visers, li forsene,—
Qe est defendu en decree;
Tant est plus grand lur peche.
Fere poent representement,—
Mes que ceo seit chastement
En office de seint eglise
Quant hom fet la deu servise,—
Cum iesu crist le fiz dee
En sepulcre esteit pose,
Et la resurrectiun,
Pur plus auer deuociun.
Mes, fere foles assemblez
En les rues des citez,
Ou en cymiters apres mangers,
Quant venent les fols volunters,—
Tut dient qe il le funt pur bien,—
Crere ne les deuez pur rien
Qe fet seit pur le honur de dee,
Einz del deable, pur verite,
Seint ysidre me ad testimone
Qe fut si bon clerc lettre;
Il dist qe cil qe funt sepectacles
Cume lem fet en miracles,
Or ius qe nus nomames einz—
Burdiz ou turneinens,—
Lur baptesme vnt refusez,
E deu de ciel reneiez,’ &c.
Robert Mannyng of Brunne (1303) translates:—
‘Hyt ys forbode hym, yn the decre,
Myracles for to make or se;
For myracles, ȝyf þou begynne,
Hyt ys a gaderyng, a syghte of synne,
He may yn þe cherche þurghe þys resun
Pley þe resurrecyun,
Þat ys to seye, how Gode ros,
God and man yn myȝt and los,
To make men be yn beleue gode
That he has ros wyþ flesshe and blode:
And he may pleye wyþoutyn plyghte
Howe god was bore yn ȝole nyght,
To make men to beleue stedfastly
Þat he lyghte yn þe vyrgyne Mary.
Ȝuf þou do hyt in weyys or greuys,
A syghte of synne truly hyt semys.
Seynt Ysodre, y take to wytnes,
For he hyt seyþ þat soþ hyt es;
Þus hyt seyþ yn hys boke,
Þey foresake þat þey toke—
God and here crystendom—
Þat make swyche pleyys to any man
As myracles and bourdys,
Or toumamentys of grete prys,’ &c.
The reference to ‘Seynt Ysodre’ is to Isidore of Seville, _Etymologiarum_
xviii. 59, _de horum [ludorum] exsecratione_ (_P. L._ lxxxii. 660). The
saint is speaking of course of the Roman _spectacula_.
[336] On the ‘pardon’ or ‘Ablass’ given to actors at Oberammergau, and
the meaning, or want of meaning, to be attached to it, see an amusing
controversy in the _Nineteenth Century_ for January and February, 1901.
[337] L’Enfant, _Hist. du Concile de Constance_ (1727), ii. 404; Hardt,
_Magnum Oecumenicum Constantiense Concilium_ (1700), iv. 1089; K.
Schmidt, _Die Digby-Spiele_, 12. The performance, which was possibly a
dumb show, took place at a banquet on Jan. 24, 1417/8, and was repeated
on the following Sunday before the emperor, who had arrived in the
interval. Hardt quotes the German of one Dacher, an eye-witness: ‘Am
24ᵗᵉⁿ tag des Monats Januarii, das war auff Timotheus tag, da luden die
Bischöff aus Engeland, der Bischoff Salisburgensis, der Bischoff von
Londen, und demnach funff Bischoff von Engeland, alle Räht zu Costniz
und sonst viel ehrbar Bürger daselbst, in Burchart Walters Haus, das man
vorzeiten nennt zu dem Burgthor, itzt zu dem gulden Schvvert, allernächst
bey S. Laurenz. Und gab ihnen fast ein köstlich mahl, ie 2. Gericht nach
einander, jedes Gericht besonder mit 8 Essen: Die trug man allvveg eins
mahl dar, deren allvveg waren 4 verguld oder versilbert. In dem mahl,
zvvischen dem Essen, so machten sie solch bild und geberd, als unser
Frau ihr Kind unsern Herrn und auch Gott gebahr, mit fast köstlichen
Tüchern und Gevvand. Und Joseph stellten sie zu ihr. Und die heiligen
3 Könige, als die unser Frauen die Opffer brachten. Und hatten gemacht
einen lauteren guldnen Stern, der ging vor ihnen, an einem kleinen eisern
Drat. Und machten König Herodem, vvie er den drey Königen nachsandt, und
vvie er die Kindlein ertodtet. Das machten sie alles mit gar köstlichem
Gevvand, und mit grossen guldenen und silbernen Gürteln, und machten das
mit grosser Gezierd, und mit grosser Demuht.’
[338] The provincial _C. of Sens_ (1460), c. 3 (Labbé, xiii. 1728),
while confirming the Basle decree, allowed ‘aliquid iuxta consuetudines
ecclesiae, in Nativitate Domini, vel Resurrectione ... fiat cum honestate
et pace, absque prolongatione, impedimento, vel diminutione servitii,
larvatione et sordidatione faciei’; cf. the Toledo decree of 1473 quoted
vol. i. p. 342. The _C. of Compostella_ (1565), c.c. 9-11 (Aguirra _Conc.
Hispan._ v. 450, 460), forbade ‘actus sive repraesentationes’ during
service in church; they might take place with leave of the bishop,
or in his absence the chapter, before or after service. Devotional
‘actus’ were allowed in Passion week on similar conditions. The
Corpus Christi procession ‘semel tantum subsistat, causa horum actuum
vel representationum in eo loco extra ecclesiam quem Praelatus aut
[capitulum] idoneum iudicabit.’ On the other hand the _C. of Seville_
(1512), c. 21 (Aguirra, v. 370), had forbidden priests or monks to
perform or give a ‘locus’ for such ‘actus’: ‘Sumus informati, quod in
quibusdam Ecclesiis nostri Archiepiscopatus et Provinciae permittitur
fieri nonnullas repraesentationes Passionis Domini nostri Iesu Christi,
et alios actus, et memoriam Resurrectionis, Nativitatis Salvatoris
nostri, vel alias repraesentationes. Et quia ex talibus actibus orta
sunt, et oriuntur plura absurda, et saepe saepius scandala in cordibus
illorum qui non sunt bene confirmati in nostra sancta fide Catholica,
videntes confusiones, et excessus, qui in hoc committuntur....’ Cf. also
the Langres licence of 1408 (p. 97).
[339] Text in _Reliquiae Antiquae_, ii. 42; Hazlitt, 73; from late
fourteenth-century volume of homilies formerly in library of St.
Martin’s-in-the-Fields. There is also in _Rel. Ant._ i. 322 a satirical
English poem from _Cott. MS. Cleop._ B. ii (fifteenth century), against
the miracle plays of the ‘frer mynours,’ apparently at Rome. But the
Minorite in _Pierce the Ploughman’s Crede_ (†1394, ed. Skeat), 107, says
of his order, ‘At marketts & myracles we medleþ vs nevere.’
[340] Creizenach, i. 157, 162: Julleville, _Les Myst._ i. 107, 187; G.
Smith, 251; Pollard, xix; Ward, i. 41.
[341] Cf. ch. xxv.
[342] Cf. p. 54 (Rouen, _Prophetae_, fourteenth century).
[343] Cf. pp. 37, 41, 45; Lange, 130, 155; ‘officium sepulchri,’
‘officium peregrinorum,’ ‘officium pastorum,’ ‘officium regum trium,’
‘stellae officium’ (Rouen, eleventh century-fifteenth century);
‘resurrectionis domini aguntur officia’ (Prague, fourteenth century).
At Melk in 1517, ‘acturus officium angeli’ (Lange, 110), ‘officium’ has
rather the sense of ‘part.’
[344] Cf. pp. 37, 48, 49, 53, 71, 77; Lange, 48, 93, 95, 146; ‘Ordo
visitationis sepulchri’ (Strassburg, 1513), ‘Ordo visitandi sepulchrum’
(Bamberg, 1597), ‘Ordo ad visitandum sepulchrum’ (Prague, twelfth
century, Haarlem, thirteenth century), ‘Ordo sepulchri’ (Würzburg,
thirteenth century), ‘Ordo ad suscipiendum peregrinum’ (Beauvais),
‘Ordo stellae’ (Laon, thirteenth century), ‘Ordo [stellae]’ (Bilsen,
eleventh century), ‘Ordo Rachaelis’ (Freising, eleventh century),
‘Ordo Prophetarum’ (Laon, thirteenth century), ‘Ordo creacionis, etc.’
(Regensburg, 1194), ‘Ordo, sive registrum de Passione domini’ (Frankfort,
fourteenth century).
[345] See last note.
[346] Cf. p. 58.
[347] Cf. pp. 36, 37, 47; Lange, 160 ‘ad faciendam similitudinem domini
sepulchri,’ ‘ad faciendam similitudinem domini apparitionis’ (Fleury,
thirteenth century), ‘versus ad stellam faciendam’ (Nevers, †1060),
‘fiunt peregrini’ (Saintes, thirteenth century).
[348] Cf. p. 103, n. 5 above.
[349] Cf. pp. 58, 60; Lange, 157; ‘ad repraesentandum quomodo
sanctus Nicolaus’ (Fleury, thirteenth century), ‘historia de Daniel
repraesentanda’ (Hilarius, twelfth century), ‘si Mariae debeant
repraesentari’ (Coutances, fifteenth century).
[350] Cf. pp. 37, 39.
[351] Cf. pp. 45, 107; Lange, 136; ‘in resurrectione domini
repraesentatio’ (Cividale, fourteenth century), ‘repraesentatio trium
Regum’ (Rouen, 1507, 1521), ‘repraesentacio pastorum ... resurreccionis
... peregrinorum’ (Lichfield, †1190).
[352] Cf. vol. i. p. 393.
[353] Cf. pp. 63, 73, ‘ludus super iconia Sancti Nicolai’ (Hilarius,
twelfth century); cf. the Antichrist and Benedictbeuern Nativity, and
note 11 below.
[354] Cf. pp. 140, 202.
[355] Cf. vol. i. p. 91; vol. ii. pp. 60, 380; ‘miraculum de Sancto
Nicolao’ (Fleury, thirteenth century), repraesentationes miraculorum’
(Fitz-Stephen, †1180), ‘miraculum in nocte Paschae’ (Lichfield, †1190;
cf. note 7 above), ‘ludum ... quem Miracula vulgariter appellamus’
(Matthew Paris, thirteenth century), ‘ludos quos vocant miracula’
(Grosseteste, 1244). The vernacular ‘miracles,’ ‘myraclis,’ is found in
the _Handlyng Synne_, and the _Tretise of miraclis pleyinge_.
[356] Pollard, xix; Ward, i. 41. The first English use of the term
‘mystery’ is in the preface to Dodsley’s _Select Collection of Old Plays_
(1744). The distinction between ‘mysteries’ which ‘deal with Gospel
events only’ and ‘miracles,’ which ‘are more especially concerned with
incidents derived from the legends of the Saints of the Church’ is a not
very happy invention of the literary historians.
[357] Julleville, _Les Myst._ i. 417 ‘Licence de faire et jouer quelque
Misterre que ce soit, soit de la dicte Passion, et Résurreccion, ou autre
quelconque tant de saincts comme des sainctes.’
[358] Julleville, _Les Myst._ i. 189.
[359] Except after its dramatic sense was already well established; cf.
pp. 42, 65, ‘mysterium in die Ascensionis’ (Lille, 1416), ‘misterium
Pastorum’ (Rouen, 1457).
[360] Cf. Appendix B.
[361] Walafridus Strabo, _de rebus eccles._, c. 22, in the ninth century,
gives the name ‘actio’ to the ‘canon’ or unchangeable portion of the Mass
(Maskell, _Ancient Liturgy of the Church of England_, 112).
[362] Cf. _Representations_, s.v. Shipton.
[363] Cf. supra, p. 102, note 1.
[364] Cf. p. 146.
[365] _Trans. of Shropshire Antiq. Soc._ viii. 273.
[366] _Analytical Index to Remembrancia of City of London_, 330 sqq.; 350
sqq.
[367] Cf. ch. xxv.
[368] For the general Puritan attitude to the stage, see S. Gosson,
_Schoole of Abuse_, 1579 (ed. Arber); W. Prynne, _Histriomastix_ (1633),
with the authorities there quoted; and the tracts in W. C. Hazlitt, _The
English Drama and Stage_.
[369] On such guilds cf. Cutts, _Parish Priests_, 476; Rock, ii. 395; F.
A. Gasquet, _The Eve of the Reformation_, 351.
[370] _C. Tales_, 3383 (_Miller’s Tale_).
[371] Cf. vol. i. p. 121.
[372] On the economics of a mediaeval parish and the functions of the
churchwardens cf. Hobhouse, _Churchwardens’ Accounts_, xi (Somerset
Record Soc.).
[373] Cf. Appendix T.
[374] Cf. pp. 58, 60.
[375] Cf. p. 73.
[376] Cf. p. 41.
[377] Cf. p. 75.
[378] I can only give the most general account of the legendary content
of the plays. For full treatment of this in relation to its sources cf.
the authorities quoted in the bibliographical note to chapter xxi, and
especially L. T. Smith, _York Plays_, xlvii; P. Kamann, in _Anglia_, x.
189; A. Hohlfeld, in _Anglia_, xi. 285. Much still remains to be done,
especially for the Chester plays and the _Ludus Coventriae_. The chief
earlier sources are probably the _Evangelium Pseudo-Matthaei_ and the
_Evangelium Nicodemi_ (including the _Gesta Pilati_ and the _Descensus
Christi ad Inferos_), both in Tischendorf, _Evangelia Apocrypha_, and the
_Transitus Mariae_ in Tischendorf, _Apocalypses Apocryphae_. The later
sources include the _Legenda Aurea_ of Jacobus de Voragine (†1275) and
the _Cursor Mundi_ (ed. R. Morris for E. E. T. S.), a Northumbrian poem
of the early fourteenth century.
[379] Cf. p. 63.
[380] Cf. the _Mors Pilati_ in Tischendorf, _Evang. Apocr._ 456.
[381] The ‘Holy Rood’ episodes are those numbered 6, 13, 14, 16-20, 61
in the table. The fullest accounts of the legend in its varied literary
forms are given by W. Meyer, _Die Geschichte des Kreuzholzes vor
Christus_ (_Abhandlungen der k. bayer. Akad. der Wiss._ I. Cl. xvi. 2.
103, Munich, 1881), and A. S. Napier, _History of the Holy Rood-tree_ (E.
E. T. S. 1894). Roughly, the story is as follows: Seth went to Paradise
to fetch the oil of mercy. An angel gave him three pips from the tree of
knowledge. These were laid beneath the tongue of Adam at his burial, and
three rods, signifying the Trinity, sprang up. Moses cut the rods, and
did miracles with them. At his death they were planted in Mount Tabor.
An angel in a dream sent David to fetch them. They grew into one tree,
in the shade of which David repented of his sin with Bathsheba. When the
Temple was building, a beam was fashioned from the tree, but it would
not fit and was placed in the Temple for veneration. The woman Maximilla
incautiously sat upon it and her clothes caught fire. She prophesied of
Christ, and the Jews made her the first martyr. The beam was cast into
the pool of Siloam, to which it gave miraculous properties, and was
finally made into a bridge. At the Passion, a portion of it was taken for
the Rood.
[382] The Norwich play of the Fall is extant in two sixteenth-century
versions.
[383] The Newcastle play of the Building of the Ark is extant.
[384] Two Coventry plays are extant, the Shearmen and Taylors’ play,
extending from the Annunciation to the Massacre of the Innocents, and the
Weavers’ play of the Purification and Christ in the Temple.
[385] Probably these smaller plays, chiefly Paschal, were in English. The
Nativity and Resurrection plays in Lord Northumberland’s chapel and the
Resurrection play in Magdalen College chapel may have been in Latin (cf.
p. 107).
[386] ‘Thobie’ is included in the French collection of mysteries known as
the _Viel Testament_ (Julleville, _Les Myst._ ii. 354, 370).
[387] On the way in which the later local miracle-play and the scriptural
interlude merge into each other, cf. p. 191.
[388] The Destruction of Jerusalem, together with the Visit of Veronica
to Tiberius and the Death of Pilate, which are scenes in the Cornish
cycle, forms the subject-matter of a French _Vengeance de Nostre
Seigneur_, printed in 1491. Another _Vengeance de Nostre Seigneur_ is
attached to the Passion of Eustache Mercadé (†1414). A representation of
a Vengeance, following close on one of a Passion, is recorded at Metz in
1437, and there are several later examples (Julleville, _Les Myst._ ii.
12, 175, 415, 451).
[389] Cf. p. 61.
[390] Cf. p. 97.
[391] Cf. vol. i. p. 221.
[392] Julleville, _Les Myst._ ii. 574.
[393] Archdeacon Rogers thus describes the Chester plays (_Digby Plays_,
xix) ‘They first beganne at yᵉ Abbaye gates; & when the firste pagiente
was played at yᵉ Abbaye gates, then it was wheeled from thence to the
pentice at yᵉ highe crosse before yᵉ Mayor; and before that was donne,
the seconde came, and yᵉ firste wente in-to the water-gate streete, and
from thence vnto yᵉ Bridge-streete, and soe all, one after an other, tell
all yᵉ pagiantes weare played.’
[394] Cf. pp. 95, 160.
[395] D’Ancona, i. 228.
[396] Cf. p. 83.
[397] Cf. p. 83.
[398] _C. T._ 3384 (_Miller’s Tale_). This ‘scaffold’ may have been
merely a throne or _sedes_ for Herod. But plays on platforms or scaffolds
are found at Chelmsford, Kingston, Reading, Dublin.
[399] Cf. M. Jusserand, in _Furnivall Miscellany_, 186, and the pit for
_La Mer_ on the 1547 Valenciennes Passion play stage figured in his
_Shakespeare in France_, 63.
[400] _Furnivall Miscellany_, 192, 194, from _Bodl. MS._ 264, ff. 54ᵇ,
76ᵃ.
[401] The directions to the Coventry Weavers’ play refer to the ‘for
pagand’ and the ‘upper part’; those of the Grocers’ play at Norwich to
the ‘nether parte of yᵉ pageant.’ For the purposes of the dramas these
are distinct localities.
[402] Cf. p. 86. The Digby St. Mary Magdalen play has the stage
direction, ‘a stage, and Helle ondyr-neth that stage.’ At Coventry the
Cappers had a ‘hell-mouth’ for the Harrowing of Hell and the Weavers
another for Doomsday.
[403] Every conceivable spelling of the word ‘pageant’ appears in
the records. The _Promptorium Parvulorum_, ii. 377 (†1440, ed. A.
Way for Camd. Soc.), has ‘Pagent, _Pagina_,’ and this is the usual
Latin spelling, although _pagenda_ and _pagentes_ (acc. pl.) occur at
Beverley. The derivation is from _pagina_ ‘a plank.’ The _Catholicon
Anglicum_ (1483, ed. S. J. H. Herrtage for E. E. T. S.) has ‘A Paiande;
_lusorium_,’ and there can be little doubt that ‘playing-place,’ ‘stage’
is the primary sense of the word, although as a matter of fact the
derivative sense of ‘scene’ or ‘episode’ is the first to appear. Wyclif
so uses it, speaking of Christmas in his _Ave Maria_ (_English Works_,
E. E. T. S. 206) ‘he that kan best pleie a pagyn of the deuyl, syngynge
songis of lecherie, of batailis and of lesyngis ... is holden most merie
mon.’ In _Of Prelates_ (_loc. cit._ 99) he says that false teachers
‘comen in viserid deuelis’ and ‘pleien the pagyn of scottis,’ masking
under St. George’s ‘skochen.’ The elaborate pageants used in masks and
receptions (cf. p. 176, and vol. i. p. 398) led to a further derivative
sense of ‘mechanical device.’ This, as well as the others, is illustrated
in the passages quoted by the editors of the _Prompt. Parv._ and the
_Cath. Angl._ from W. Horman, author of _Vulgaria_ (1519) ‘Alexander
played a payante more worthy to be wondred vpon for his rasshe aduenture
than for his manhede.... There were v coursis in the feest and as many
paiantis in the pley. I wyll haue made v stagȝ or bouthis in this playe
(_scenas_). I wolde haue a place in the middyl of the pley (_orchestra_)
that I myght se euery paiaunt. Of all the crafty and subtyle paiantis
and pecis of warke made by mannys wyt, to go or moue by them selfe, the
clocke is one of the beste.’ Synonyms for ‘pageant’ in the sense of
‘stage’ are ‘cariadge’ (Chester) and ‘karre’ (Beverley); in the sense of
‘scene,’ _iocus_ (Coventry), _visus_ (Lincoln), _processus_ or ‘processe’
(Towneley and Digby plays, Croxton _Sacrament_ and Medwall’s morality of
_Nature_).
[404] Cf. p. 90, and _Hamlet_, iii. 2. 9 ‘O, it offends me to the soul to
hear a robustious periwig-pated fellow tear a passion to tatters, to very
rags, to split the ears of the groundlings, who for the most part are
capable of nothing but inexplicable dumb-shows and noise: I would have
such a fellow whipped for o’erdoing Termagant; it out-herods Herod.’ The
Miller in _Cant. Tales_, 3124, cries out ‘in Pilates vois.’ The torturers
also seem to have been favourite performers; cf. the _Poem on the Evil
Times of Edward II_ (T. Wright, _Political Songs_, C. S. 336):
‘Hii ben degised as turmentours that comen from clerkes plei.’
[405] Cf. p. 48.
[406] In Jean Fouquet’s miniature representing the French mystery of St.
Apollonia (cf. p. 85) a priest, with a book in one hand and a wand in the
other, appears to be conducting the play.
[407] Cf. p. 203.
[408] _Hen. V_, ii. 3. 42 ‘Do you not remember, a’ saw a flea stick upon
Bardolph’s nose, and a’ said it was a black soul burning in hell-fire?’
[409] _Hamlet_, v. 1. 85 ‘Cain’s jawbone, that did the first murder.’
[410] Warton, ii. 223 ‘In these Mysteries I have sometimes seen gross
and open obscenities. In a play of _The Old and New Testament_, Adam and
Eve are both exhibited on the stage naked, and conversing about their
nakedness: this very pertinently introduces the next scene, in which they
have coverings of fig-leaves. This extraordinary spectacle was beheld
by a numerous assembly of both sexes with great composure: they had the
authority of scripture for such a representation, and they gave matters
just as they found them in the third chapter of Genesis. It would have
been absolute heresy to have departed from the sacred text in personating
the primitive appearance of our first parents, whom the spectators so
nearly resembled in simplicity.’
[411] Deimling, i. 30 ‘Statim nudi sunt ... Tunc Adam et Eva cooperiant
genitalia sua cum foliis.’
[412] Cf. vol. i. p. 5.
[413] Cf. p. 103. So the ‘ordinary’ or prompter (p. 140) is the man in
charge of the _ordinale_.
[414] ‘Oreginale de S. Maria Magdalena’ (_Digby MS_.); ‘originall booke,’
‘regenall,’ ‘rygynall,’ ‘orraginall’ (Chester); ‘orygynall,’ ‘rygenale’
(Coventry); ‘regenell’ (Louth); ‘ryginall’ (Sleaford).
[415] Cf. p. 90.
[416] As the price paid was only ‘iiijᵈ’ a _printed_ play was probably
bought, from which the ‘partes,’ at a cost of ‘ijˢ,’ were written; cf. p.
192.
[417] Ritson, _Bibl. Poet._ 79, included in his list of Lydgate’s works a
‘Procession of pageants from the creation’ which has not been identified.
On the ‘Procession of Corpus Christi,’ which follows in the list, cf. p.
161.
[418] Ten Brink, ii. 235 ‘An incessant process of separating and uniting,
of extending and curtailing, marks the history of the liturgical drama,
and indeed of the mediaeval drama generally.’
[419] _Towneley Plays_ (E. E. T. S.), xiv.
[420] _Anglia_, xi. 253.
[421] Davidson, 252.
[422] Cf. p. 69.
[423] Thus at York, the Corpus Christi procession which the plays were
originally designed to magnify, had become by 1426 a hindrance to them;
cf. p. 139.
[424] There is but little of direct merging of the plays with
folk-customs. At Aberdeen the ‘Haliblude’ play was under the local lord
of misrule. At Norwich the play was on Whit-Monday; the lord of misrule
held revel on Whit-Tuesday. At Reading there were plays on May-day. At
Chelmsford and Wymondham they were attached to the Midsummer ‘watch’ or
‘show.’ Typically ‘folk’ personages, the ‘wodmen’ (cf. vol. i. p. 185),
appear in the Aberdeen Candlemas procession, and at Hull the ‘hobby-ship’
(cf. vol. i. p. 121) becomes the centre of a play.
[425] Richard Carew lays stress on the delight taken by the spectators in
the devils of the Cornish plays. Collier, ii. 187, quotes a jest about
the devil in a Suffolk stage-play from _C. Mery Talys_ (†1533). In the
_Conversion of St. Paul_ of the Digby MS., a later hand has carefully
inserted a devil scene. On the whole subject of the representation of
devils in the plays, cf. Cushman, 16; Eckhardt, 53.
[426] _York Plays_, 524.
[427] Ed. Groeneveld (1888); cf. Creizenach, i. 362; Julleville, _Les
Myst._ i. 180, ii. 342.
[428] I do not think that these Dutch plays have been printed. The
MS., in the Royal Library at Brussels, is described by Hoffmann von
Fallersleben, _Horae Belgicae_, vi, xxix; cf. Creizenach, i. 366. Besides
the three chivalric plays, it contains a dramatized _estrif_ of Summer
and Winter (cf. vol. i. p. 187) included with them under the general
title of ‘abele Spelen,’ and also a long farce or ‘Boerd.’ To each of the
five plays, moreover, is attached a short farcical after-piece. A few
notices of other fifteenth-century Dutch chivalric plays are preserved.
The subjects are Arnoute, Ronchevale, Florys und Blancheflor, Gryselle
(Griseldis); cf. Creizenach, i. 372.
[429] Julleville, _Les Myst._ ii. 284, 310.
[430] Ed. F. Guessard et E. de Certain (1862) in _Collection des
documents historiques_; cf. Creizenach, i. 372; Julleville, _Les Myst._
ii. 576; H. Tivier, _Étude sur le Myst. du Siège d’O._ (1868). The play
may have been designed for performance at the festival held at Orleans
in memory of the siege on May 8. The passage quoted from Sir Richard
Morrison on p. 221, suggests that a similar commemoration was held in the
sixteenth century by the English at Calais of the battle of Agincourt in
1415.
[431] Ed. Stengel (1883); cf. Creizenach, i. 374; Julleville, _Les Myst._
ii. 569.
[432] Cf. _Representations_, s.v. Dublin.
[433] Collier, ii. 183, thinks the term ‘morality’ a ‘recent’ one, but it
was used in 1503: cf. p. 201.
[434] There is not much direct imitation of the _Roman de la Rose_ in the
moralities. Perhaps the French _Honneur des Dames_ of Andrieu de la Vigne
(Julleville, _Rép. com._ 73) comes nearest. But its leading episode, the
siege of the fortress of Danger, is reflected in the siege of the Castle
of Perseverance and that of the Castle of Maudleyn in the _Mary Magdalen_
of the Digby MS. On the general place of allegory in contemporary
literature cf. Courthope, i. 341.
[435] Cf. pp. 63, 77.
[436] Ward, i. 105; _Archaeologia_, xiii. 232. A _débat_ on precisely
this theme is introduced into the _Chasteau d’Amour_, a theological work
in the form of a romance, ascribed to Robert Grosseteste (1175-1253), on
which cf. F. S. Stevenson, _Life of Grosseteste_, 38; Jusserand, _Eng.
Lit._ i. 214. In the English version of the fourteenth century (R. F.
Weymouth, _The Castel of Love_, 273) the passage begins—
‘For now I chul tellen of þe stryf
Þat a-mong þe foure sustren liþ.’
[437] No stress is of course to be laid upon the late introduction of
Dolor and Myserye into the Grocers’ play at Norwich, when the text was
rewritten in 1565.
[438] _Ludus Cov._ 106 (play xi, _Virtutes_), 70, 79, 89, 105, 124, 129,
289 (plays viii-xiii, xxix, _Contemplacio_), 184 (play xix, _Mors_), 386
(play xli, _Sapientia_); cf. Hohlfeld, in _Anglia_, xi. 278.
[439] Jusserand, _Théâtre_, 123; Pearson, i. 2; Creizenach, i. 461;
_Captain Cox_, clxvi; W. Seelmann, _Die Totentänze des Mittelalters_
(_Jahrb. d. Vereins f. niederdeutsche Sprachforschung_, xvii. 1). A
bibliography of the Dance of Death is given by Goedeke, i. 322 (bk. iii.
§ 92).
[440] Prudentius, _Psychomachia_ (†400 _P. L._ lx. 11); cf. Creizenach,
i. 463.
[441] _Ephesians_, vi. 11.
[442] Creizenach, i. 470; Julleville, _La Com._ 44, 78. The earliest
French notice is that of the ‘Gieux des sept vertuz et des sept pechiez
mortelz’ at Tours in 1390. A ‘mystère de Bien-Avisé et Malavisé’ is said
to have been played in 1396 (Julleville, _Rép. com._ 324). The extant
play of that name, somewhat later in date, is a morality. Other early
French morals on a large scale are _L’Homme juste et l’Homme mondain_
(1508) and _L’Homme pécheur_ (†1494) (Julleville, _Rép. com._ 39, 67,
72). All these are on variants of the Contrast of Vice and Virtue theme.
[443] Creizenach, i. 465, quoting a thirteenth-century German sermon.
[444] Cf. p. 201 and _Texts_ (ii). It is not quite clear whether the
English play of _Everyman_ is the original or a translation of the Dutch
_Elckerlijk_, or whether the two plays have a common source.
[445] Cf. p. 131.
[446] Cf. p. 199.
[447] Cf. vol. i. p. 381.
[448] Cf. p. 218.
[449] See Pearson, ii. 260, and the interesting study of P. Weber,
_Geistliches Schauspiel und kirchliche Kunst_ (1894).
[450] Cf. p. 42.
[451] W. Lambarde, _Alphabetical Description of the Chief Places in
England and Wales_ (1730, written in the sixteenth century), 459, s.v.
Wytney.
[452] Gairdner, 253, quoting an unnamed chronicler, ‘a picture of the
Resurrection of Our Lord made with vices, which put out his legs of
sepulchre, and blessed with his hand and turned his head.’
[453] Magnin, _Marionnettes_; J. Feller, _Le Bethléem verviétois_ (_Bull.
de la Soc. verviétoise d’Arch. et d’Hist._ 1900).
[454] Cf. vol. i. p. 71.
[455] Morley, _passim_; Hone, 229; Strutt, 164; T. Frost, _Old Showmen
and Old London Fairs_ (1874); W. B. Boulton, _Amusements of Old London_,
ii. 49, 224.
[456] The term ‘motion’ is not, however, confined to puppet-plays. Bacon,
Essay xxxvii, uses it of the dumb-shows of masquers, and Jonson, _Tale of
a Tub_, v. 1, of shadow-plays.
[457] _P. C. Acts_, viii. 131.
[458] _Winter’s Tale_, iv. 3. 102.
[459] _Bartholomew Fair_, v. 3; cf. v. 1. 8 ‘O, the motions that I,
Lanthorn Leatherhead, have given light to in my time, since my master Pod
died! Jerusalem was a stately thing, and so was Nineveh, and the City
of Norwich, and Sodom and Gomorrah, with the rising of the prentices
and pulling down the bawdy-houses there upon Shrove-Tuesday; but the
Gunpowder Plot, there was a get-penny! I have presented that to an
eighteen or twenty pence audience, nine times in an afternoon’; also
_Every Man out of His Humour_, Induction:
‘Will show more several motions in his face
Than the new London, Rome, or Nineveh.’
[460] Lanthorn Leatherhead says of his puppets, ‘I am the mouth of them
all’; cf. _Hamlet_, iii. 2. 256 ‘I could interpret between you and your
love, if I could see the puppets dallying’; _Two Gentlemen of Verona_,
ii. 1. 100 ‘O excellent motion! O exceeding puppet! Now will he interpret
to her.’
[461] Morley, 179, 187, 190, 247, 261, 273, 304, 321, records ‘Patient
Grisel’ (1655, 1677), ‘Susanna’ (1655), ‘Sodom and Gomorrah’ (1656),
‘Judith and Holophernes’ (1664), ‘Jephtha’s Rash Vow’ (1697, 1698, 1701,
1704, 1733), ‘The Creation of the World’ (1701).
[462] Powell’s performances of the ‘Creation of the World’ at Bath and
‘Susanna’ at Covent Garden are referred to in the _Tatler_ for May 14,
1709, and the _Spectator_ for March 16, 1711.
[463] Hone, 230, describes a ‘gallantee show’ of the Prodigal Son and
of Noah’s Ark with a scene of ‘Pull Devil, Pull Baker,’ showing the
judgement upon a baker who gave short weight (cf. the cut in Morley,
356), seen by him in London in 1818. This was an exhibition of _ombres
chinoises_ rather than a puppet-play proper.
[464] A. Dieterich, _Pulcinella_, 234, considers Pulcinella a descendant
of Maccus, derives the name from _pullicenus_, _pulcinus_, _pullus_,
and connects the fowl-masks of Italian comedy with the cockscomb of the
English fool (cf. vol. i. p. 385).
[465] Collier, _Punch and Judy_ (1870), 11 sqq.; Frost, _The Old Showmen
and the Old London Fairs_, 29. The earliest English notice of Punch in
England is in the overseers’ books of St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields for 1666
and 1667, ‘Recᵈ of Punchinello, yᵉ Italian popet player, for his booth at
Charing Cross.’ In a Bartholomew Fair playbill of the early eighteenth
century, ‘the merry conceits of Squire Punch and Sir John Spendall’ were
attached to the puppet-show of the Creation of the World. Punch was
also amongst the _dramatis personae_ of Robert Powell. The nature of
these earlier Punch plays is unknown. That now traditional in England is
implied by the ballad of _Punch’s Pranks_ (†1790). Collier, who prints it
as given by one Piccini in Drury Lane, with cuts by Cruikshank, considers
it to be derived from _Don Juan_. But it seems to me to come still nearer
to the morality plays. French Punch plays have many other themes.
[466] Julleville, _Les Myst._ ii. 208; cf. p. 95.
[467] Printed by Halliwell, _Minor Poems of Lydgate_ (Percy Soc.),
95, from Shirley’s _Harl._ 2251, f. 293, as a _Processioune of Corpus
Cristi_, with a note at the end that ‘Shirley kowde fynde no more.’ It
is also, with the same note, in Shirley’s _Trin. Coll. Camb. MS._ R. 3.
20, f. 348, with the heading, ‘Ordenaunce of a p’cessyoun of the feste of
Corpus Cristi, made in London by Daun John Lydegate’ (E. P. Hammond, in
_Anglia_, xxii. 364), and is copied thence by John Stowe in _B. M. Add.
MS._ 29, 729, f. 166. The piece is nᵒ. 153 in the list of Lydgate’s works
given by Ritson, _Bibl. Poet._ 79. It may be doubted whether Ritson’s
nᵒ. 152 ‘A Procession of pageants from the creation’ is really distinct.
Lydgate describes to his hearers ‘figures shewed in your presence’ which
embody ‘gracious mysteries grounded in Scripture.’ Of course ‘mysteries’
has no technical dramatic sense here. Lydgate’s method of ‘interpreting’
may have been based on the incorrect mediaeval notion of the methods of
the classical stage, which he adopts in his _Troy Book_ (cf. p. 208). The
‘figures’ represented twenty-seven persons whose utterances revealed the
mystery of the Mass. There were eight patriarchs, the Ecclesiast, four
prophets, the Baptist, four evangelists, St. Paul, and seven Christian
doctors.
[468] Sharp, 172, quotes from a contemporary writer a passage showing
that the Dublin procession, like those of Coventry and Shrewsbury,
lasted to a recent date: ‘The Fringes was a procession of the trades and
corporations, performed in Ireland on Corpus Christi day, even within the
author’s recollection. King Solomon, Queen of Sheba, with Vulcan, Venus,
and Cupid, were leading persons upon this occasion.’
[469] Julleville, _Les Myst._ ii. 211; Davidson, 219.
[470] The following is from an account of a continental Corpus Christi
procession in Barnabe Googe’s translation of Naogeorgos’ _Popish Kingdom_
(1553), iv. 699 (Stubbes, i. 337):
‘Christes passion here derided is, with sundrie maskes and playes;
Faire Ursley with hir maydens all, doth passe amid the wayes:
And valiant George, with speare thou killest the dreadfull dragon here;
The deuil’s house is drawne about, wherein there doth appere
A wondrous sort of damned sprites, with foule and fearefull looke;
Great Christopher doth wade and passe with Christ amid the brooke:
Sebastian full of feathred shaftes, the dint of dart doth feele;
There walketh Kathren with hir sworde in hande, and cruell wheele:
The Challis and the singing Cake, with Barbara is led,
And sundrie other Pageants playde in worship of this bred, &c.’
[471] Sharp, 217, records a play of the _Golden Fleece_ provided by
Robert Crowe for the Cappers’ Candlemas Dinner in 1525; the London
drapers had a pageant with the same title in 1522 (cf. p. 165).
[472] Cf. the Paradise show at the London reception of Henry VI in 1432
(p. 170).
[473] Toulmin Smith, _English Guilds_, 149.
[474] Ibid. 148.
[475] Ibid. 30.
[476] Kelly, 7, 11.
[477] Cf. _Representations_, s.v. Canterbury.
[478] The ‘pagent’s paynted and lemenyd with gold’ of the Holy Trinity,
Saints Fabian, Sebastian, and Botulph, ‘and the last pagent of the
terement, & gen’all obyte, of the brether’n and suster’n, that be passed
to God,’ which the London guild of the Holy Trinity had on a ‘rolle
of velom, cou’ed with a golde-skyn’ in 1463 (Hone, 81), were probably
not, as Davidson, 224, thinks, ‘a description and representation of the
pageants which were carried in procession by the guild,’ but illuminated
pages (_paginae_). For a similar misunderstanding cf. p. 401, n. 1. Abp.
Thoresby (†1357) circulated a ‘tretys in Englisce ... in smale pagynes’
(Shirley, _Fasciculi Zizaniorum_, xiii).
[479] _Representations_, s.v. Preston.
[480] Dyer, 60.
[481] Cf. vol. i. p. 221.
[482] Cf. vol. i. pp. 118, 120.
[483] Cf. _Representations_, s.v. London.
[484] J. G. Nichols, _London Pageants_ (1837); F. W. Fairholt, _Lord
Mayor’s Pageants_ (1843-4, Percy Soc. nᵒˢ. 38, 43), and _The Civic
Garland_ (Percy Soc. 1845).
[485] Herbert, i. 457. The same writer quotes a payment from the drapers’
accounts of 1516 of £13 4_s._ 7_d._ for ‘Sir Laurens Aylmer’s Pageant.’
But this cannot have been intended for a lord mayor’s show, for Aylmer’s
only mayoralty was in 1507-8, and a grocer, not a draper, was mayor in
1515-6 and in 1516-7.
[486] Malcolm, _Londinium Redivivum_, ii. 42; W. C. Hazlitt, _Livery
Companies_ (1892), 310.
[487] Herbert, i. 199.
[488] W. Smith, _A breffe description of the Royall Citie of London_
(1575), quoted by Nichols, 95.
[489] The _Annales Londonienses_ record at the visit of the Emperor Otho
to King John in 1207 ‘tota civitas Londoniae induit solempnitatem pallis
et aliis ornamentis circumornata,’ and at the entry of Edward II after
his marriage in 1308 ‘tapeti aurei’ and the city dignitaries ‘coram rege
et regina karolantes’ (_Chronicles of the Reigns of Edw. I and Edw.
II_, R. S. i. 13, 152). At the coronation of Henry IV in 1399 was an
‘equitatio magnifica’ (_Annales Hen. IV_, R. S. 291), and the streets
were hung with ‘paremens,’ and there were ‘nœuf broucherons a manière de
fontaines en Cep a Londres, courans par plusieurs conduits, jettans vin
blanc et vermeil’ (Froissart, _Chroniques_, ed. Kervyn de Lettynhove,
xvi. 205).
[490] M. Paris, _Chronica Maiora_ (R. S.), iii. 336 ‘quibusdam
prodigiosis ingeniis et portentis.’
[491] Stowe, _Annals_, 207. The authority quoted in the margin is ‘Chro.
Dun.,’ which I cannot identify. It is not the Dunstable Annals in the
_Annales monastici_ (R. S.), vol. iii.
[492] _Annales Londonienses_ (_Chron. of Edw. I and Edw. II_, R. S.), i.
221 ‘quaedam navis, quodam mirabili ingenio operata, cum malo et velo
erectis, et depictis de supradictis armis [of England and France] et
varietate plurima’; cf. H. T. Riley, _Memorials of London_, 107, from
_Corporation Letter Book D._ f. 168.
[493] T. Walsingham, _Hist. Anglica_ (R. S.), i. 331.
[494] Fabyan, 538; H. Knighton, _Chronicon_ (R. S.), ii. 320; Richard
Maydiston, _De concordia inter regem Ricardum II et civitatem London_
(_Political Poems_, R. S. i. 282).
[495] Full contemporary accounts in _Gesta Henrici Quinti_ (Eng. Hist.
Soc.), 61, and a set of verses by John Lydgate printed in _London
Chronicle_, 214, and H. Nicolas, _Hist. of Agincourt_ (1833), 326; more
briefly in _London Chronicle_, 103; T. Walsingham, _Hist. Anglic._ (R.
S.), ii. 314; cf. C. L. Kingsford, _Henry V_, 156.
[496] T. Walsingham, _Hist. Anglica_ (R. S.), ii. 336 ‘ludicis et vario
apparatu.’
[497] Cf. p. 174.
[498] Printed from _Corp. Letter Book K._ f. 103ᵛ, by H. T. Riley, _Liber
Albus_ (R. S.), iii. 457; cf. descriptive verses by Lydgate, _Minor
Works_ (Percy Soc.), 2; _London Chronicle_, 119; Fabyan, 603; Gregory,
173.
[499] Carpenter uses the term _pagina_, which here occurs for the
first time in connexion with these London receptions. Mr. Riley quite
unnecessarily proposes to read _machina_.
[500] A pun was concealed here, for John de _Welles_, grocer, was mayor,
and the ‘oranges, almonds, and the pomegranade’ on the trees were the
grocers’ wares. Cf. the tree of the Norwich grocers in the Corpus Christi
procession (p. 163).
[501] Stowe, _Annals_, 385; cf. _London Chronicle_, 134 ‘goodly sights
ayenst her coming’; Fabyan, 617 ‘sumptuous and costly pagentes, and
resemblaunce of dyuerse olde hystoryes’; Gregory, 186 ‘many notabylle
devysys in the cytte.’ According to Stowe, Lydgate wrote verses for these
pageants.
[502] A memorandum of ceremonial _As ffor the ressaunge off a Quene and
her Crownacion_ of the reign of Henry VII (_Antiquarian Repertory_,
i. 302) has the following direction for the riding from the Tower to
Westminster, ‘at the condit in Cornylle ther must be ordined a sight
wᵗ angelles singinge and freche balettes yʳon in latene, engliche and
ffrenche, mad by the wyseste docturs of this realme; and the condyt of
Chepe in the same wyse; and the condit must ryn bothe red wyn and whit
wyne; and the crosse in Chepe muste be araid in yᵉ most rialle wyse that
might be thought; and the condit next Poules in the same wyse.’
[503] Contemporary account in Leland, _Collectanea_ (ed. Hearne), iv.
218, and J. Ives, _Select Papers_ (1773), 127.
[504] Minutely detailed contemporary account in _Antiquarian Repertory_,
ii. 248; cf. Stowe, _Annals_, 483; Hazlitt-Warton, iii. 160.
[505] Stowe, _Annals_, 517; Hall, 638; cf. _Representations_ (London).
[506] Minutely detailed contemporary account in _Antiquarian Repertory_,
ii. 232; Hall, 801; Collier, ii. 353. Leland’s and Udall’s verses for the
pageants are in _Ballads from MSS._, i. 378 (Ballad Soc.).
[507] Contemporary account in Leland, _Collectanea_ (ed. Hearne), iv. 313.
[508] Stowe, _Annals_, 616; cf. _Texts_, s.v. John Heywood.
[509] Holinshed, iii. 1121.
[510] Contemporary account in Nichols, _Progresses of Elizabeth_, i. 38.
[511] Cf. vol. i. p. 121.
[512] Warton, iii. 158, says that ‘Speakers seem to have been admitted
into our pageants about the reign of Henry VI.’ But there were songs, and
for all we know, speeches also in 1377 and 1415. Verses such as Lydgate
wrote for pageants were often fastened on them, and read or not read
aloud when the visitor approached, as might be convenient.
[513] Cf. p. 5.
[514] Wheatley-Cunningham, _London Past and Present_, i. 373, 458; iii.
409.
[515] Julleville, _Les Myst._ i. 196; ii. 186.
[516] Sharp, 145.
[517] Davies, 162, 171, 282.
[518] J. Raine, _English Miscellanies_ (Surtees Soc., vol. lxxxv), 53,
from _Corporation House Book_, vi. 15.
[519] Contemporary account in Leland, _Collectanea_ (ed. Hearne), iv.
185. A description of an earlier reception of Edward IV at Bristol with
‘Wylliam conquerour,’ ‘a greet Gyaunt delyueryng the Keyes,’ and St.
George is in Furnivall, _Political, Religious, and Love Poems_ (E. E. T.
S.), 5.
[520] Leland, _Collectanea_, iv. 263.
[521] Cf. _Representations_, s.v. Aberdeen.
[522] Cf. vol. i. p. 398.
[523] Symonds, _Renaissance in Italy_, iv. 338.
[524] Cf. vol. i. p. 86.
[525] Ward, i. 108. The limitation by Collier, ii. 299, of ‘what may
be properly, and strictly, called _Interludes_’ to farces of the
type affected by John Heywood has introduced a most inconvenient
semi-technical term into literary nomenclature. I do not so limit the
word.
[526] _Gawain and the G. K._ 472:
‘Wel bycommes such craft vpon, cristmasse,
Laykyng of enterludez, to laȝe & to syng.’
[527] Cf. vol. i. p. 93.
[528] Hazlitt, _E. D. S._ 80 ‘How thanne may a prist pleyn in
entirlodies?’ In Barbour, _Bruce_ (†1375), x. 145 ‘now may ȝe heir ...
Interludys and iuperdys, þat men assayit on mony vis Castellis and pelis
for till ta,’ the sense is metaphorical, as in ‘ioculando et talia verba
asserendo interludia fuisse vanitatis’ quoted by Ducange from _Vit.
Abb. S. Alb._, i.e. probably Thomas Walsingham (†1422), not Matthew
Paris (†1249). The reading is doubtful in Anastasius Bibliothecarius
(9th cent.), _Hist. Pontif._ (_P. L._ lxxx. 1352), ‘quem iussit sibi
praesentari in interludo noctu ante templum Palladis.’
[529] For probable 1385 cases, cf. _Representations_, s.v. King’s Lynn.
[530] A ‘vyce’ made pastime before and after a play at Bungay, but this
was not until 1566.
[531] Julleville, _Les Com._ 97. These performances were known as _les
pois pilés_ and began about the middle of the fourteenth century. The
Anglo-French _entrelude_, asterisked by the _N. E. D._, is found in 1427
(cf. p. 186). Collier’s theory receives some support from the Spanish
use of the term _entremes_ for a comic piece played in conjunction with
a serious _auto_. But the earlier sense of _entremes_ itself appears to
be for an independent farce played at banquets (Ticknor, _Hist. of Span.
Lit._ (ed. 1888), i. 231; ii. 449).
[532] Cf. the accounts in Leland, _Collectanea_, iv. 228, 236, of the
court of Henry VII. Douglas, _Palace of Honour_, ii. 410 ‘At eis they eit
with interludis betwene,’ dates from 1501. Horman, _Vulgaria_ (1519),
quoted on p. 137, speaks of the ‘paiantis’ of a play as corresponding in
number to the courses of a feast. Much earlier Raoul de Presles (†1374)
in his _Exposicion_ to Augustine, _de Civ. Dei_, ii. 8 (Abbeville, 1486),
says that comedies ‘sont proprement apellez interludia, pour ce quilz se
font entre les deux mengiers.’ But the use of _interludere_ by Ausonius,
_Idyll_, x. 76, ‘interludentes, examina lubrica, pisces,’ and Ambrose,
_Epist._ xlvii. 4, ‘interludamus epistolis,’ supports my view.
[533] For a curious distinction, probably neither original nor permanent,
drawn about 1530 between ‘stage playes’ (presumably out of doors) in
the summer and ‘interludes’ (presumably indoors) in the winter, cf.
the documents printed by H. R. Plomer, in _Trans. of Bibliographical
Society_, iv. (1898), 153, and A. W. Pollard in _Fifteenth Century Prose
and Verse_, 305, about a suit between John Rastell, lawyer, printer,
and playwright, and one Henry Walton. Rastell, going on a visit to
France about 1525, had left with Walton a number of players’ garments.
These are fully described. They were mostly of say or sarcenet, and the
tailor, who with the help of Rastell’s wife had made them, valued them
at 20_s._ apiece. Walton failed to restore them, and for some years
let them on hire, to his own profit. Evidence to this effect was given
by John Redman, stationer, and by George Mayler, merchant tailor, and
George Birche, coriar, two of the king’s players. These men had played
in the garments themselves and had seen them used in ‘stage pleyes’
when the king’s banquet was at Greenwich [in 1527; cf. vol. i. p. 400].
They had been used at least twenty times in stage plays every summer
and twenty times in interludes every winter, and Walton had taken, as
the ‘common custume’ was, at a stage play ‘sumtyme xlᵈ., sometyme ijˢ.,
as they couth agree, and at an interlude viijᵈ for every tyme.’ Rastell
had brought a previous suit in the mayor’s court, but could only receive
35_s._ 9_d._, at which the goods had been officially appraised. But they
were then ‘rotten and torne,’ whereas Rastell alleged that they were
nearly new when delivered to Walton and worth 20 marks. Walton relied on
the official appraisement, and had a counter-claim for 40_s._ balance
of a bill for 50_s._ costs ‘in making of stage for player in Restall’s
grounde beside Fyndesbury, in tymbre, bourde, nayle, lath, sprigge and
other thyngs.’ He held the clothes against payment of this amount, which
Rastell challenged.
[534] In 1503 a _Magi_ was given in Canterbury guildhall. Some of the
crafts of Coventry (1478-1568) and Newcastle (1536) had plays at their
guild feasts. The indoor performances of Chester plays in 1567 and 1576
are late and exceptional.
[535] Cf. Appendix E, ii (Maxstoke), iii (Thetford), vii (Howard), viii
(Tudor Court). ‘Moleyn’s wedding’ attended by Lord Howard, is the first
of many at which the players are recorded to have made the mirth. Some
of the entries may imply visits _to_ the plays, rather than _of_ the
plays, and this I suppose to be the case with Henry VII’s payment ‘to
the players _at_ Myles End.’ It is perhaps a little arbitrary to assume,
as I have done, that players locally named are never professional. Thus
the _lusores de Writhill_ paid by the duke of Buckingham on Jan. 6,
1508, are almost certainly identical with the _lusores Dñi de Wrisell_
(his brother-in-law, the earl of Northumberland) paid by him at Xmas,
1507 (_Archaeologia_, xxv. 318, 324), although it happens curiously
enough that the Chelmsford wardrobe was drawn upon by players of Writtle
in 1571-2. The local designation of members of the minstrel class is
exceptional; but cf. the York example in the next note. The locally
named _lusores_ may, however, sometimes have acted not a miracle, but a
May-game or sword-dance; e.g., at Winchester College in 1400 when they
came ‘cum tripudio suo’ (App. E, iv).
[536] I have taken _lusores_ in the _computi_ as always meaning
performers of a dramatic _ludus_. This is often demonstrably correct and
never demonstrably incorrect, except that when Colet in his _Oratio ad
Clerum_ of 1511 quotes the canon ‘ne sit publicus lusor’ he seems to use
the term in its canonical sense of ‘gambler.’ The English version (1661)
has ‘common gamer or player.’ A similar ambiguity is, I think, the only
one which attaches itself to ‘player’ where it is a technical term after
the middle of the fourteenth century. Lydgate in his _Interpretacyon of
the names of Goddys and Goddesses_ (quoted by Collier, i. 31) uses it
of an actor, although an older sense is preserved by the _Promptorium
Parvulorum_ (1440), ‘Bordyoure or pleyere, _ioculator_.’ The sense of
_ludentes_, I think, is wide. The _ludentes_ ‘_de Donyngton_’ and ‘_de
Wakefield_’ paid by the York corporation in 1446 (_York Plays_, xxxviii)
are more likely to have been minstrels whom the corporation did provide
for the plays than actors whom they did not. On the other hand about
_interludentes_ and _interlusores_, neither of them very common terms,
there can be no doubt. _Lusiatores_ occurs as a synonym for _lusores_
at Shrewsbury only. _Mimi_ and _histriones_ I have uniformly treated as
merely minstrels. At a late date they might, I suppose, be actors, but it
is impossible to differentiate.
[537] Plays were sometimes read, even in the fifteenth century. The
prologue of _The Burial and Resurrection_ has ‘Rede this treyte,’
although it was also converted into ‘a play to be playede’; and the
epilogue of the Digby _St. Mary Magdalen_ has ‘I desyer the redars to
be my frynd.’ Thomas Wylley in 1537 describes some of his plays to
Cromwell as ‘never to be seen, but of your Lordshyp’s eye.’ Prynne,
834, asserts that ‘Bernardinus Ochin his Tragedy of Freewil, Plessie
Morney his Tragedie of Jeptha his daughter, Edward the 6 his Comedie de
meretrice Babilonica, Iohn Bale his Comedies de Christo et de Lazaro,
Skelton’s Comedies, de Virtute, de Magnificentia, et de bono Ordine,
Nicholaus Grimoaldus, de Archiprophetae Tragedia ... were penned only to
be read, not acted’; but this is incorrect as regards Bale and Skelton
and probably as regards others. The earliest printed plays are perhaps
_Mundus et Infans_ (1522) and _Hickscorner_ (n.d.) both by Wynkyn de
Worde (1501-35), _Everyman_ (n.d.) by Richard Pynson (1509-27). If a
_Nigramansir_, by Skelton, was really, as Warton asserts, printed by
Wynkyn de Worde in 1504, it might take precedence.
[538] Cf. Appendix E.
[539] 3 _Edw. IV_, c. 5; cf. vol. i. p. 45. This was continued by 1 _Hen.
VIII_, c. 14, 6 _Hen. VIII_, c. 1, and 24 _Hen. VIII_, c. 13.
[540] Cf. Appendix E; _Hist. MSS._ v. 548.
[541] Percy, _N. H. B._ 22, 158, 339. An estimate for 1511-12 includes
‘for rewardes to Players for Playes playd in Christynmas by Stranegers
in my house after xxᵈ every play by estimacion. Somme xxxiijˢ iiijᵈ.’
Another of 1514-15 has ‘for Rewards to Players in Cristynmas lxxijˢ.’ By
1522-3 the customary fee had largely grown, for a list of ‘Al maner of
Rewardis’ of about that date has ‘Item. My Lorde usith and accustometh
to gif yerely when his Lordshipp is at home to every Erlis Players that
comes to his Lordshipe bitwixt Cristynmas ande Candelmas If he be his
ˢpeciall Lorde and Frende ande Kynsman, xxˢ ... to every Lordis Players,
xˢ.’
[542] Leland, _Collectanea_ (ed. Hearne), iv. 265. The _computi_ of
James IV (_L. H. T. Accts._ ii. 131, 387; iii. 361) contain entries for
plays before him by ‘gysaris’ including one at this wedding; but there
is no evidence of a regular royal company at the Scottish court. In 1488
occurs a payment to ‘Patrik Johnson and the playaris of Lythgow that
playt to the King,’ and in 1489 one to ‘Patrick Johnson and his fallowis
that playt a play to the kyng in Lythqow.’ This Johnson or Johnstone,
celebrated in Dunbar’s _Lament for the Makaris_, seems to have held some
post, possibly as a minstrel, at court (_L. H. T. Accts._ i. c, cxcviii,
ccxliv, 91, 118; ii. 131; Dunbar, _Poems_ (ed. S. T. S.), i. ccxxxvii).
[543] Collier, i. 44 and passim; Henry, _Hist. of Britain_, 454; cf.
Appendix E, viii. The _Transactions of the New Shakspere Soc._ (1877-9),
425, contain papers about a dispute in 1529 between one of the company
George Maller, glazier, and his apprentice, who left him and went
travelling on his own account. From these it appears that ‘the Kinge’s
plaierz’ wore ‘the Kinge’s bage.’ George Maller is the same player who
appeared as a witness in the Rastell suit (cf. p. 184). There he is
described as a merchant tailor; here as a glazier. That a king’s player
should have a handicraft, even if it were only nominal, at all, looks
as if the professional actors were not invariably of the minstrel type.
Perhaps the glamour of a royal ‘bage’ made even minstrelsy respectable.
Arthur, prince of Wales, had his own company in 1498 (_Black Book of
Lincoln’s Inn_, i. 119), and Henry, prince of Wales, his by 1506.
[544] Medwall’s _Nature_ is divided into two parts, for performance on
different days. But Medwall was a tedious person. Another interlude of
his played in 1514 was so long and dull that Henry VIII went out before
the end. _The Four Elements_ was intended to take an hour and a half ‘but
if you list you may leave out much of the said matter ... and then it
will not be past three quarters of an hour of length.’
[545] This method begins with the Croxton _Sacrament_, which has twelve
parts, but ‘ix may play it at ease.’ Bale’s _Three Laws_ claims to
require five players and _Lusty Juventus_ four. Several of the early
Elizabethan interludes have similar indications.
[546] A Winchester _computus_ of 1579 (Hazlitt-Warton, ii. 234) has
‘pro diversis expensis circa Scaffoldam erigendam et deponendam, et pro
domunculis de novo compositis cum carriagio et recarriagio ly joystes et
aliorum mutuatorum ad eandem Scaffoldam, cum vj linckes et jᵒ duodeno
candelarum, pro lumine expensis, tribus noctibus in ludis comediarum et
tragediarum xxvˢ viijᵈ.’
[547] Appendix E (i).
[548] Brewer, iv. 1390, 1393, 1394; Hall, 723; Collier, i. 98.
[549] Stowe, _Annals_, 511.
[550] The miracle-plays and popular morals have a more general prayer for
the spiritual welfare of the ‘sofereyns,’ ‘lordinges,’ and the rest of
their audience.
[551] Willis, _Mount Tabor_ (1639, quoted Collier, ii. 196), describing
the morality of _The Castle of Security_ seen by him as a child, says
‘In the city of Gloucester the manner is (as I think it is in other like
corporations) that when Players of Enterludes come to towne, they first
attend the Mayor, to enforme him what noble-mans servants they are and
so to get licence for their publike playing: and if the Mayor like the
Actors, or would show respect to their Lord and Master, he appoints them
to play their first play before himselfe and the Aldermen and Common
Counsell of the City; and that is called the Mayor’s play, where every
one that will comes in without money, the Mayor giving the players a
reward as hee thinks fit, to show respect unto them. At such a play,
my father tooke me with him, and made mee stand betweene his leggs, as
he sate upon one of the benches, where we saw and heard very well.’ In
_Histriomastix_, a play of 1590-1610 (Simpson, _School of Shakespeare_,
ii. 1), a crew of tippling mechanicals call themselves ‘Sir Oliver
Owlet’s men and proclaim at the Cross a play to be given in the townhouse
at 3 o’clock. They afterwards throw the town over to play in the hall
of Lord Mavortius.’ In _Sir Thomas More_ (†1590, ed. A. Dyce, for
Shakespeare Society, 1844) ‘my Lord Cardinall’s players,’ four men and a
boy, play in the Chancellor’s hall and receive ten angels. For similar
scenes cf. the _Induction_ to _The Taming of the Shrew_, and _Hamlet_,
ii. 2; iii. 2.
[552] The earliest record of plays at inns which I have noticed is in
1557, when some Protestants were arrested and their minister burnt for
holding a communion service in English on pretence of attending a play at
the Saracen’s Head, Islington (Foxe, _Acts and Monuments_, ed. Cattley,
viii. 444).
[553] Eustace Deschamps (†1415), _Miroir de Mariage_ (_Œuvres_, in _Anc.
Textes franç._ vol. ix), 3109 (cf. Julleville, _La Com._ 40):
Mais assez d’autres femmes voy,
Qui vont par tout sanz nul convoy
Aux festes, aux champs, au theatre,
Pour soulacier et pour esbatre:
...
Elles desirent les cités,
Les douls mos a euls recités,
Festes, marchiés, et le theatre,
Lieux de delis pour euls esbatre.
This theatre was probably one established towards the end of the
fourteenth century by the _confrérie de la Passion_. From about 1402 they
performed in the _Hôpital de la Trinité_; cf. Julleville, _Les Com._ 61,
_La Com._ 40.
[554] Cf. vol. i. p. 383.
[555] _Register of Bishop Grandisson_ (ed. Hingeston-Randolph), ii. 1120.
The letter, unfortunately too long-winded to quote in full, was written
on Aug. 9, 1352, to the archdeacon of Exeter or his official. Grandisson
says:—‘Sane, licet artes mechanicas, ut rerum experiencia continue nos
informat, mutuo, necessitate quadam, oporteat se iuvare; pridem, tamen,
intelleximus quod nonnulli nostrae Civitatis Exoniae inprudentes filii,
inordinate lasciviae dediti, fatue contempnentes quae ad ipsorum et
universalis populi indigenciam fuerunt utiliter adinventa, quendam
Ludum noxium qui culpa non caret, immo verius ludibrium, in contumeliam
et opprobrium allutariorum, necnon eorum artificii, hac instanti Die
Dominica, in Theatro nostrae Civitatis predictae publice peragere
proponunt, ut inter se statuerunt et intendunt; ex quo, ut didicimus,
inter praefatos artifices et dicti Ludi participes, auctores pariter et
fautores, graves discordiae, rancores, et rixae, cooperante satore tam
execrabilis irae et invidiae, vehementer pululant et insurgunt.’ The
_ludus_ is to be forbidden under pain of the greater excommunication.
At the same time the _allutarii_ are to be admonished, since they
themselves, ‘in mercibus suis distrahendis plus iusto precio, modernis
temporibus,’ have brought about the trouble, ‘ne exnunc, in vendendo
quae ad eos pertinent, precium per Excellentissimum Principem et Dominum
nostrum, Angliae et Franciae Regemillustrem, et Consilium suum, pro
utilitate publica limitatum, exigant quovis modo.’
[556] L. G. Bolingbroke, _Pre-Elizabethan Plays and Players in Norfolk_
(_Norfolk Archaeology_, xi. 336). The corporation gave a lease of the
‘game-house’ on condition that it should be available ‘at all such
times as any interludes or plays should be ministered or played.’ John
Rastell’s 50_s._ stage in Finsbury about 1520-5 (cf. p. 184), although
not improbably used for public representations, is not known to have been
permanent.
[557] At Rayleigh, Essex (1550), 20_s._ from the produce of church
goods was paid to stage-players on Trinity Sunday (_Archaeologia_,
xlii. 287). _An Answer to a Certain Libel_ (1572, quoted Collier, ii.
72) accuses the clergy of hurrying the service, because there is ‘an
enterlude to be played, and if no place else can be gotten, it must be
doone in the church’; cf. S. Gosson, _Third Blast of Retrait from Plaies
and Theaters_, 1580 (Hazlitt, _E. D. S._ 134) ‘Such like men, vnder
the title of their maisters or as reteiners, are priuiledged to roaue
abroad, and permitted to publish their mametree in euerie Temple of God,
and that through England, vnto the horrible contempt of praier. So that
now the Sanctuarie is become a plaiers stage, and a den of theeues and
adulterers.’ Possibly only the publication of the _banns_ of plays in
church is here complained of. Cf. also Fuller, _Church History_ (1655),
391.
[558] Bonner’s _Injunctions_, 17, of April, 1542 (Wilkins, iii. 864),
forbade ‘common plays games or interludes’ in churches or chapels.
Violent enforcers of them were to be reported to the bishop’s officers;
cf. the various injunctions of Elizabethan bishops in _Ritual
Commission_, 409, 411, 417, 424, 436, and the 88th _Canon_ of 1604.
[559] Kelly, 16 ‘Paid to Lord Morden’s players because they should not
play in the church, xijᵈ.’
[560] Jackson-Burne, 493, citing Sir Offley Wakeman in _Shropshire
Archaeological Transactions_, vii. 383. Such plays were performed on
wagons at Shropshire wakes within the last century. The ‘book’ seems
to have been adapted from the literary drama, if one may judge by the
subjects which included ‘St. George,’ ‘Prince Mucidorus,’ ‘Valentine and
Orson,’ and ‘Dr. Forster’ or ‘Faustus.’ But a part was always found for
a Fool in a hareskin cap, with balls at his knees. He is described as a
sort of presenter or chorus, playing ‘all manner of megrims’ and ‘going
on with his manœuvres all the time.’ I have not been able to see a paper
on _Shropshire Folk-plays_ by J. F. M. Dovaston. G. Borrow, _Wild Wales_,
chh. lix, lx (ed. 1901, p. 393), describes similar Welsh interludes
which lasted to the beginning of the nineteenth century. The titles
named suggest moralities. He analyses the _Riches and Poverty_ of Thomas
Edwards. This, like the Shropshire interludes, has its ‘fool.’
[561] Roper, _Life and Death of Sir Thomas More_ (†1577, J. R. Lumby,
_More’s Utopia_, vi) ‘would he at Christmas tyd sodenly sometymes stepp
in among the players, and never studinge for the matter, make a parte
of his owne there presently amonge them’; Erasmus, _Epist._ ccccxlvii
‘adolescens comoediolas et scripsit et egit.’ Bale, _Scriptores_ (1557),
i. 655, ascribes to him comoedias iuveniles. Lib. 1.’ In the play of _Sir
Thomas More_ (cf. p. 189) he is represented, even when Chancellor, as
supplying the place of a missing actor with an improvised speech. Bale,
ii. 103, says that Henry Parker, Lord Morley (1476-1556) ‘in Anglica
sermone edidit comoedias et tragoedias, libros plures.’
[562] The _Revels Account_ for 1511 (Brewer, ii. 1496) notes an interlude
in which ‘Mr. Subdean, now my Lord of Armykan’ took part. In his _Oratio
ad Clerum_ of the same year Colet criticizes the clerics who ‘se ludis
et iocis tradunt’ (Collier, i. 64). A _Sermo exhortatorius cancellarii
Eboracensis his qui ad sacros ordines petunt promoveri_ printed by Wynkyn
de Worde about 1525 also calls attention to the canonical requirement
that the clergy should abstain ‘a ludis theatralibus’ (Hazlitt, _Bibl.
Coll. and Notes_, 3rd series (1887), 274).
[563] Collier, i. 46 and _passim_; Bernard Andrew, _Annales Hen. VII_ in
Gairdner, _Memorials of Henry VII_ (R. S.), 103; Hall, 518, 583, 723;
Kempe, 62; _Revels Accounts_, &c., in Brewer, _passim_; cf. Appendix E
(viii). The Chapel formed part of the household of Henry I about 1135
(_Red Book of Exchequer_, R. S. iii. cclxxxvii, 807); for its history cf.
_Household Ordinances_, 10, 17, 35, 49; E. F. Rimbault, _The Old Cheque
Book of the Chapel Royal_ (C. S.); F. J. Furnivall, _Babees Book_ (E. E.
T. S.), lxxv.
[564] Percy, _N. H. B._ 44, 254, 345. In household lists for 1511 and
1520 comes the entry ‘The Almonar, and if he be a maker of Interludys
than he to have a Servaunt to the intent for Writynge of the Parts and
ells to have non.’ There were nine gentlemen and six children of the
chapel. The 1522-3 list of ‘Rewardes’ has ‘them of his Lordship Chappell
and other his Lordshipis Servaunts that doith play the Play befor his
Lordship uppon Shroftewsday at night, xˢ,’ and again, ‘Master of the
Revells ... yerly for the overseyinge and orderinge of his Lordschip’s
playes interludes and Dresinge [? disguisinges] that is plaid befor his
Lordship in his Hous in the xij days of Xmas, xxˢ.’ This latter officer
seems to have been, as at court, distinct from the ‘Abbot of Miserewll’
(vol. i. p. 418).
[565] _Black Books of Lincoln’s Inn_, i. 104, 119.
[566] Hall, 719; Collier, i. 103.
[567] R. J. Fletcher, _Pension Book of Gray’s Inn_, xxxix, 496.
[568] _Hist. MSS._ vii. 613. The play was to comprehend a ‘discourse of
the world,’ to be called _Love and Life_, and to last three hours. There
were to be sixty-two _dramatis personae_, each bearing a name beginning
with L.
[569] Cf. Appendix E (v).
[570] Brewer, iv. 6788.
[571] Boase, _Register of the University of Oxford_ (O. H. S.), i. 298.
[572] Mullinger, _Hist. of Cambridge_, ii. 73. Ascham, _Epist_.
(1581), f. 126ᵛ, writing †1550 (quoted Hazlitt-Warton, iii. 304) says
that Antwerp excels all other cities ‘quemadmodum aula Iohannis,
theatrali more ornata, seipsam post Natalem superat.’ Speaking in _The
Scholemaster_ (ed. Mayor, 1863), 168, of his contemporaries at St. John’s
(†1530-54), Ascham highly praises the _Absalon_ of Thomas Watson, which
he puts on a level with Buchanan’s _Jephthah_. Watson, however, ‘would
never suffer it to go abroad.’ This play apparently exists in manuscript;
cf. _Texts_ (iv). Ascham himself, according to his _Epistles_,
translated the _Philoktetes_ into Latin (Hazlitt, _Manual_, 179). In
_The Scholemaster_, he further says, ‘One man in Cambrige, well liked of
many, but best liked of him selfe, was many tymes bold and busie to bryng
matters upon stages which he called Tragedies.’ Ascham did not approve of
his Latin metre. Possibly he refers to John Christopherson, afterwards
bishop of Chichester, to whom Warton, iii. 303; Cooper, _Athenae Cantab._
i. 188; _D. N. B._ attribute a tragedy in Greek and Latin of _Jepthes_
(1546). I can find no trace of this. It is not mentioned by Bahlmann.
[573] Cf. p. 220.
[574] J. Peile, _Christ’s College_, 54; cf. p. 216.
[575] Mullinger, _Hist. of Cambridge_, ii. 627. _Statute_ 24 of 1560, _De
comoediis ludisque in Natali Christi exhibendis_, requires that ‘novem
domestici lectores ... bini ac bini singulas comoedias tragoediasve
exhibeant, excepto primario lectore quem per se solum unam comoediam aut
tragoediam exhibere volumus.’ A fine is imposed on defaulters, and the
performances are to be in the hall ‘privatim vel publice’ during or about
the twelve nights of Christmas. On an earlier draft of this statute cf.
vol. i. p. 413.
[576] _Statute_ 36 (_Documents relating to Cambridge_, iii. 54); cf.
Mullinger, _op. cit._ ii. 73.
[577] Dee, _Compendious Rehearsall_ (app. to Hearne, _Ioh. Glastoniensis
Chronicon_, 501), after mentioning his election, says ‘Hereupon I did
sett forth a Greek comedy of Aristophanes’ play named in Greek Εἰρήνη, in
Latin _Pax_.’
[578] J. Sargeaunt, _Annals of Westminster_, 49; _Athenæum_ (1903), i.
220.
[579] Maxwell-Lyte, _Hist. of Eton_ (3rd ed. 1899), 118 ‘pro expensis
circa ornamenta ad duos lusus in aula tempore natalis Domini, xˢ.’
[580] Printed in E. S. Creasy, _Memoirs of Eminent Etonians_, 91
‘circiter festum D. Andreae ludimagister eligere solet pro suo arbitrio
scaenicas fabulas optimas et quam accommodatissimas, quas pueri feriis
natalitiis subsequentibus, non sine ludorum elegantia, populo spectante,
publice aliquando peragant. Histrionum levis ars est, ad actionem tamen
oratorum et gestum motumque corporis decentem tantopere facit, ut nihil
magis. Interdum etiam exhibet Anglico sermone contextas fabulas, quae
habeant acumen et leporem.’
[581] Brewer, xiv. 2. 334 ‘Woodall, the schoolmaster of Eton, for playing
before my Lord, £5.’
[582] Brown, _Cat. of Venetian Papers_, iv. 3. 208, 225; Brewer, iv.
3563; Hall, 735; Cavendish, _Life of Wolsey_ (ed. Singer), 201; Collier,
i. 104.
[583] Lupton, _Life of Colet_, 154.
[584] _Texts_, s.v. Heywood.
[585] Warton speaks of a play by the ‘children’ or ‘choir-boys’ of
St. Paul’s at a visit to Elizabeth by Mary and of another play of
_Holophernes_ ‘perhaps’ by the same children later in the year. But the
dates given in his _Hist. of Poetry_ (ed. Hazlitt), ii. 234, iii. 312,
and his _Life of Sir Thomas Pope_ (ed. 1780), 46, do not agree together,
and the authority to which he refers (_Machyn’s Diary_, then in MS.) does
not bear him out. On his _bona fides_ cf. H. E. D. Blakiston, in _E. H.
Review_, for April, 1896. Ward, i. 153, rather complicates the matter by
adding to _Holophernes_ a second play called _The Hanging of Antioch_,
but even in Warton’s account this ‘hanging’ was only a curtain.
[586] Bale, _Scriptores_ (1557), i. 700 ‘Radulphus Radclif, patria
Cestriensis, Huchiniae in agro Hartfordiensi, & in coenobio, quod paulo
ante Carmelitarum erat, ludum literarium anno Domini 1538 aperuit,
docuitque Latinas literas. Mihi quidem aliquot dies in unis & eisdem
aedibus commoranti, multa arriserunt: eaque etiam laude dignissima.
Potissimum vero theatrum, quod in inferiori aedium parte longe
pulcherrimum extruxit. Ibi solitus est quotannis simul iucunda & honesta
plebi edere spectacula, cum ob iuventutis, suae fidei & institutioni
commissae, inutilem pudorem exuendum, tum ad formandum os tenerum &
balbutiens, quo clare, eleganter, & distincte verba eloqui & effari
consuesceret. Plurimas in eius museo vidi ac legi tragoedias & comoedias
... Scripsit de Nominis ac Verbi, potentissimorum regum in regno
Grammatico, calamitosa &
_Exitiali pugna, Lib. 2_ ...
_De patientia Grisilidis, Com. 1_ ...
_De Melibaeo Chauceriano, Com. 1_ ...
_De Titi & Gisippi amicitia, Com. 1_ ...
_De Sodomae incendio, Tra. 1_ ...
_De Io. Hussi damnatione, Tra. 1_ ...
_De Ionae defectione, Com. 1_ ...
_De Lazaro ac diuite, Com. 1_ ...
_De Iudith fortitudine, Com. 1_ ...
_De Iobi afflictionibus, Com. 1_ ...
_De Susannae liberatione, Tra. 1_ ...
Claruit Radclifus, anno a Christi servatoris ortu 1552 ... Nescioque an
sub Antichristi tyrannide adhuc vivat.’ Bale, _Index_, 333, has fuller
titles. Some of Radclif’s plays were almost certainly in Latin, for Bale
gives in Latin the opening words of each, and as Herford, 113, points
out, those of the _Lazarus_ and the _Griselda_ clearly form parts of
Latin verses. But he showed them ‘plebi.’ Professor Herford learnt ‘that
no old MSS. in any way connected with Radclif now remain at Hitchin,
where his family still occupies the site of his school.’
[587] Julleville, _Les Com._, _passim_. A collection of farces is in E.
L. N. Viollet-le-Duc, _Ancien Théâtre français_ (1854-7). For morals
and farces at the Feasts of Fools and of the Boy Bishop abroad, and for
the satirical tendency of such entertainments, cf. vol. i. p. 380. In
1427, after the feast of St. Laurent, Jean Bussières, chaplain of St.
Remi de Troyes, ‘emendavit quod fecerat certum perconnagium rimarum in
cimiterio dicte ecclesie Sancti Remigii; de quibus rimis fuerat dyabolus
et dixerat plura verba contra viros ecclesiasticos’ (_Inv. des Arch, de
l’Aube_, sér. G, i. 243). The fifteenth-century Dutch farces appear to
have been played at the meetings of the _Rederijkerkammern_, and the
German _Fastnachtsspiele_, which derive largely from folk _ludi_, by
associations of handicraftsmen (Creizenach, i. 404, 407).
[588] Julleville, _Les Com._ 325.
[589] Ibid. 342. There is nothing to show the character of the French
players who visited the English court in 1494 and 1495 (Appendix E, viii).
[590] Cf. p. 190 and vol. i. p. 383. The only known English _puy_ is that
of London (vol. i. p. 376).
[591] The titles of the printed plays do not help, as they were probably
added by the printers, and in any case ‘enterlude’ does not exclude a
popular play.
[592] _Hist. MSS._ vii. 613.
[593] Collier, ii. 196, quotes the description by Willis, _Mount Tabor_
(1639), and refers to other notices of the play. In _Sir Thomas More_
(†1590, ed. A. Dyce, from _Harl. MS._ 7368 for Shakes. Soc. 1844) ‘my
lord Cardinall’s players’ visit More’s house and offer the following
repertory:
‘The Cradle of Securitie,
Hit nayle o’ th’ head, Impacient Pouertie,
The play of Foure Pees, Diues and Lazarus,
Lustie Juuentus, and the Mariage of Witt and Wisedom.’
The ascription of these plays to Wolsey’s lifetime must not be pressed
too literally. Of _Hit Nayle o’ th’ Head_ nothing is known. Radclif (p.
197) wrote a _Dives and Lazarus_. For the rest cf. p. 189; _Texts_ (iv).
The piece actually performed in _Sir Thomas More_ is called _Wit and
Wisdom_, but is really an adaptation of part of _Lusty Juventus_. A play
of _Old Custome_, probably a morality, was amongst the effects of John,
earl of Warwick, in 1545-50 (_Hist. MSS._ ii. 102).
[594] Cf. Brandl, xl. The performances of _Everyman_ given in the
courtyard of the Charterhouse in 1901, and subsequently in more than one
London theatre, have proved quite unexpectedly impressive.
[595] John Rastell printed †1536 _Of gentylnes and nobylyte, A dyalogue
... compilit in maner of an enterlude with divers toys and gestis addyd
thereto to make mery pastyme and disport_; cf. _Bibliographica_, ii.
446. Heywood’s _Witty and Witless_ is a similar piece, and a later one,
_Robin Conscience_, is in W. C. Hazlitt, _Early Popular Poetry_, iii.
221. In 1527 Rastell seems to have provided for the court a pageant of
‘The Father of Hevin’ in which a dialogue, both in English and Latin,
of riches and love, written by John Redman, and also a ‘barriers’
were introduced (Brewer, iv. 1394; Collier, i. 98; Hall, 723; Brown,
_Venetian Papers_, iv. 105). A dialogue of Riches and Youth, issuing in
a ‘barriers,’ is described by Edward VI in 1552 (_Remains_, ii. 386).
On the vogue during the Renascence of this dialogue literature, which
derives from the mediaeval _débats_, cf. Herford, ch. 2.
[596] Collier, i. 69. This notice is said by Collier to be from a slip of
paper folded up in the _Revels Account_ for 1513-4. It is not mentioned
in Brewer’s _Calendar_.
[597] Leland, _Collectanea_ (ed. Hearne), iv. 265; _Computus_ for 1551-6
of Sir Thos. Chaloner (_Lansd. MS._ 824, f. 24) ‘Gevyn on Shrove monday
to the king’s players who playd the play of Self-love ... xx⁸.’
[598] Cf. ch. xvi.
[599] There was a ‘farsche’ at Edinburgh in 1554 (_Representations_,
s.v.). In 1558 the Scottish General Assembly forbade ‘farseis and clerke
playis’ (Christie, _Account of Parish Clerks_, 64). Julleville, _La Com._
51, explains the term. _Farsa_ is the L. L. past part. of _farcire_ ‘to
stuff.’ Besides its liturgical use (vol. i. p. 277) ‘on appela _farce_
au théâtre une petite pièce, une courte et vive satire formée d’éléments
variés et souvent mêlée de divers langages et de différents dialectes....
Plus tard, ce sens premier s’effaça; le mot de farce n’éveilla plus
d’autre idée que celle de comédie très réjouissante.’ _Farce_ is,
therefore, in its origin, precisely equivalent to the Latin _Satura_.
[600] Cf. vol. i. p. 83.
[601] _Texts_, s.v. Lyndsay. The only other fragment of the Scottish
drama under James IV is that ascribed to Dunbar (_Works_, ed. Scot. Text
Soc., ii. 314). In one MS. this is headed ‘_Ane Littill Interlud of the
Droichis Part of the_ [_Play_] but in another _Heir followis the maner
of the crying of ane playe_. Both have the colophon. _Finis off the
Droichis Pairt of the Play._ From internal evidence the piece is a _cry_
or _banes_. Ll. 138-41 show that it was for a May-game:
‘ȝe noble merchandis ever ilkane
Address ȝow furth with bow and flane
In lusty grene lufraye,
And follow furth on Robyn Hude.’
[602] Cushman, 63, 68.
[603] No play in the first two sections of the ‘vice-dramas’ tabulated
by Cushman, 55, has a vice. Of the eleven plays (excluding _King John_,
which has none) that remain, eight can be called morals. But to these
must be added Heywood’s _Love_ and _Weather_, Grimald’s _Archipropheta_,
_Jack Juggler_, _Hester_, _Tom Tiler and His Wife_, none of which are
morals, unless the first can be so called.
[604] Cushman, 68. It has been derived from _vis d’âne_, and from
_vis_, ‘a mask’; from the Latin _vice_, because the vice is the devil’s
representative; from _device_, ‘a puppet moved by machinery,’ and
finally, by the ingenious Theobald, from ‘O. E. _jeck_—Gk. εἰκαῖ, i.e.
ϝικαῖ = ϝείκ = formal character.’
[605] Cf. _Texts_, s.v. Medwall. In _Misogonos_ (†1560) Cacurgus, the
_Morio_, is a character, and is called ‘foole’ and ‘nodye’ but not ‘vice.’
[606] Collier, ii. 191; Cushman, 69; cf. ch. xvi.
[607] Cf. _Representations_, s.vv. Bungay, Chelmsford.
[608] The ‘pleyers with Marvells’ at court in 1498 are conjectured to
have played miracles. But they may have been merely _praestigiatores_.
[609] Cf. vol. i. p. 180.
[610] Cf. p. 197, n. 1.
[611] Cf. _Texts_, s.v. Grimald.
[612] W. B[aldwin], _Bell the Cat_ (1553).
[613] Krumbacher, 534, 644, 653, 717, 746, 751, 766, 775. The Χριστὸς
Πάσχων (ed. by J. G. Brambs, 1885; and in _P. G._ xxxviii. 131) was long
ascribed to the fourth-century Gregory Nazianzen. Later scholars have
suggested Joannes Tzetzes or Theodorus Prodromus, but Krumbacher thinks
the author unidentified. A third of the text is a cento from extant
plays, mainly of Euripides.
[614] Krumbacher, 645.
[615] Teuffel, ii. 372; Cloetta, i. 3, 70; Creizenach, i. 4, 20. The
_Querolus_ (ed. L. Havet, 1880) was ascribed by the Middle Ages to
Plautus himself. The _Geta_, if it existed, is lost.
[616] Sidonius, _Carm._ xxiii. 134.
[617] Cloetta, i. 14; ii. 1; Creizenach, i. 1, 486; Bahlmann, _Ern._
4; M. Manitius, in _Philologus_, suppl. vii. 758; Ward, i. 7, quoting
Hrotsvitha,
‘sunt etiam ...
qui, licet alia gentilium spernant,
Terentii tamen fragmenta frequentius lectitant.’
[618] Creizenach, i. 2; Ward, i. 8; _Göttinger gelehrte Anzeigen_ (1835),
911.
[619] Creizenach, i. 17; Cloetta, i. 127; Ward, i. 6; Pollard, xii; A.
Ebert, _Gesch. d. Litt. d. Mittelalters_ (1887), iii. 314; W. H. Hudson
in _E. H. R._ iii. 431. The plays of Hrotsvitha (ed. K. A. Barack,
1858; ed. P. L. Winterfeld, 1901) are the _Gallicanus_, _Dulcitius_,
_Callimachus_, _Abraham_, _Paphnutius_, _Sapientia_. They were discovered
by Conrad Celtes and edited in 1501. It is not probable that he forged
them.
[620] Printed in Appendix U.
[621] Creizenach, i. 5; Cloetta, i. 38. One of the exceptionally learned
men who really knew something about the classical drama was John of
Salisbury (†1159), _Polycraticus_, i. 8 ‘comicis et tragoedis abeuntibus,
cum omnia levitas occupaverit, clientes eorum, comoedi videlicet et
tragoedi, exterminati sunt’; iii. 8 ‘comoedia est vita hominis super
terram, ubi quisque sui oblitus personam exprimit alienam’ (_P. L._
cxcix. 405, 488). For the popular notion cf. Lydgate, _Troy Book_ (ed.
1555), ii. 11, perhaps translating Guido delle Colonne:
‘In the theatre there was a smale aulter,
Amyddes sette that was half Circuler,
Which into East of custome was directe,
Upon the whiche a Pulpet was erecte,
And therin stode an auncient poete,
For to reherse by rethorykes swete,
The noble dedes that were hystoryall,
Of kynges & prynces for memoryall ...
All this was tolde and red of the Poete,
And whyle that he in the pulpet stode,
With deadly face all deuoyde of blode,
Synging his ditees with muses all to rent,
Amyd the theatre shrowded in a tent,
There came out men gastfull of their cheres,
Disfygured their faces with viseres,
Playing by sygnes in the peoples syght,
That the Poet songe hath on heyght, ...
And this was done in Apryll and in May.’
[622] Creizenach, i. 6; Cloetta, i. 35. See the miniature reproduced from
a fifteenth-century MS. of Terence in P. Lacroix, _Sciences et Lettres au
Moyen Âge_ (1877), 534.
[623] Cloetta, i. 14, has accumulated a fund of learning on this subject;
cf. Creizenach, i. 9.
[624] Johannes Januensis, _Catholicon_ (1286), quoted by Cloetta, i.
28 ‘differunt tragoedia et comoedia, quia comedia privatorum hominum
continet facta, tragoedia regum et magnatum. Item comoedia humili stilo
describitur, tragoedia alto. Item comoedia a tristibus incipit sed cum
laetis desinit, tragoedia e contrario.’
[625] Vincent of Beauvais, _Speculum maius triplex_ (†1250), i. 109
‘Comoedia poesis exordium triste laeto fine commutans. Tragoedia
vero poesis a laeto principio in tristem finem desinens.’ The
Dante-commentator Francesco da Buti, quoted by Cloetta i. 48, illustrates
this notion with an extraordinary explanation of the derivation of
_tragedia_ from τράγος; ‘come il becco ha dinanzi aspetto di principe per
le corna e per la barba, e dietro è sozzo mostrando le natiche nude e non
avendo con che coprirle, così la tragedia incomincia dal principio con
felicità e poi termina in miseria.’ Krumbacher, 646, describes the very
similar history of the terms τραγῳδία and κωμῳδία in Byzantine Greek.
[626] Boethius, who of course understood the nature of comedy and
tragedy, says (_Cons. Philosoph._ ii. pr. 2. 36) ‘quid tragoediarum
clamor aliud deflet, nisi indiscreto ictu fortunam felicia regna
vertentem?’ This becomes in the paraphrase of his eleventh-century
commentator Notker Labeo (ed. Hattemar, 52ᵇ) ‘tragoediae sínt luctuosa
carmina. álso díu sínt. díu sophocles scréib apud grecos. de euersionibus
regnorum et urbium. únde sínt uuideruuártig tien comoediis. án dîen uuir
îo gehórên laetum únde iocundum exitum.’
[627] Cloetta, i. 4; Teuffel, ii. 506. Blossius Aemilius Dracontius was a
Carthaginian poet. The _Orestes_ is printed in L. Baehrens, _Poet. Lat.
Min._ (_Bibl. Teub._), v. 218. There seems a little doubt whether the
title _Orestis tragoedia_ in the Berne MS. is due to the author or to a
scribe. The Ambrosian MS. has _Horestis fabula_.
[628] Creizenach, i. 12.
[629] Ibid. i. 7; Cloetta, i. 49. The _ludus prophetarum_ played at Riga
in 1204 (p. 70) is called ‘ludus ... quam Latini comoediam vocant.’
Probably this is a bit of learning on the part of the chronicler; cf. the
Michael-House instance (p. 344). For scraps from non-dramatic classical
authors in liturgical plays, cf. p. 48. The ‘theatricales ludi’ of
Innocent III and others (vol. i. p. 40; vol. ii. p. 99) seem to be not
miracle-plays, but the Feast of Fools and similar mummings.
[630] Dante, _Dedicatio_ of _Paradiso_ to Can Grande (_Opere Latine_, ed.
Giuliani, ii. 44) ‘est comoedia genus quoddam poeticae narrationis....
Differt ergo a tragoedia in materia per hoc quod tragoedia in principio
est admirabilis et quieta, in fine sive exitu est foetida et horribilis
... comoedia vero inchoat asperitatem alicuius rei, sed eius materia
prospere terminatur.’ P. Toynbee (_Romania_, xxvi. 542) shows that Dante
substantially owed these definitions to the _Magnae Derivationes_ of the
late twelfth-century writer, Uguccione da Pisa.
[631] Boccaccio’s _Ameto_ bears the sub-title _Comedia delle Ninfe
fiorentine_.
[632] Chaucer, _Monk’s Prologue_, (_C. T._ 13,999):
‘Or elles first Tragedies wol I telle
Of whiche I have an hundred in my celle.
Tragedie is to seyn a certeyn storie,
As olde bokes maken us memorie,
Of him that stood in greet prosperitee
And is y-fallen out of heigh degree
Into miserie, and endeth wrecchedly.’
Cf. the gloss in his _Boethius_, ii. pr. 2, 78, to the passage already
quoted on p. 20; and the description of _Troilus_ in _T. C._ v. 1786.
[633] Lydgate, _Fall of Princes_, prol.:
‘My maister Chaucer with his fressh commedies,
Is deed, alas, chefe poete of Bretayne:
That sometyme made full pitous tragedies.’
[634] W. F. Trench, _A Mirror for Magistrates; its Origin and Influence_
(1898), 18, 76, 82, 120, 125.
[635] Cf. vol. i. p. 177.
[636] Bale, i. 370.
[637] Ibid. ii. 68.
[638] Cloetta, ii. 4, 11, 91, 147; Creizenach, i. 487, 529, 572;
Bahlmann, _Ern._ 9, 13, 15, 30, 40.
[639] Cloetta, ii. 69, 221; Creizenach, i. 490, 510, 580.
[640] The earliest printed text (†1473) of Claudian’s _De Raptu
Proserpinae_ is from a version arranged as two pseudo-dramas (Cloetta, i.
135).
[641] Cloetta, i, _passim_; Creizenach, i. 20; Peiper, _Die profane
Komödie des Mittelalters_, in _Archiv f. Litteraturgeschichte_, v. 497.
Some of the texts are in Müllenbach, _Comoediae Elegiacae_ (1885), and
T. Wright, _Early Mysteries and other Latin Poems_ (1844). Cloetta gives
references for the rest.
[642] Creizenach, i. 533, 548, 563, 581; Bahlmann, _Ern._ 13, 36, 38, 44,
48.
[643] Creizenach, i. 569; ii. 23, 43, 59; Bahlmann, _L. D._ 31;
Julleville, _Les Com._ 298; J. Bolte, in _Vahlen-Festschrift_ (1900), 589.
[644] Creizenach, ii. 1, 71, 88, 370, 374; Heiland, _Dramatische
Aufführungen_, in K. A. Schmid, _Enc. d. gesammten Erziehungs- und
Unterrichtswesens_ (2nd ed. 1876-87).
[645] Cf. p. 196.
[646] A. Wood, _Athenae_ (ed. Bliss), i. 35, s.v. _Lilly_, says that
Ritwise ‘made the Tragedy of Dido out of Virgil; and acted the same with
the scholars of his school before cardinal Wolsey with great applause.’
The date of this performance is given in the _D. N. B._, through a
confusion with the anti-Lutheran play at court (cf. p. 196), as 1527. It
is often identified with the _Dido_ played before Elizabeth at Cambridge
in 1564. But there is no reason to doubt the statement of Hatcher’s
sixteenth-century MS. account of King’s College (transcript in _Bodl._
11,614) that the author of this was Edward Halliwell, who, like Ritwise,
was a fellow of the college.
[647] Cf. p. 195.
[648] For the translation of the _Philoktetes_ of Sophocles by Roger
Ascham, cf. p. 195. Bale, _Scriptores_ (1557), i. 720, mentions a
translation from Greek into Latin of _tragoedias quasdam Euripidis_ by
Thomas Keye or Caius (†1550).
[649] Creizenach, ii. 74; Herford, 84; Ward, i. 120; Bahlmann, _L. D._
39, 53, 66, 82. Many plays of this school are in _Comoediae et Tragoediae
aliquot ex Novo et Vetere Testamento desumptae_ (Brylinger, Basle, 1540)
and _Dramata Sacra_ (Oporinus, Basle, 1547).
[650] Creizenach, ii. 76; Herford, 119; Bahlmann, _L. D._ 71. The play is
in Brylinger, 314. A recent edition is that by Bolte and Schmidt (1891).
[651] Cf. p. 195. Both Thomas Artour, of Cambridge (ob. 1532), who wrote
a _Microcosmum, tragoediam_, and a _Mundum plumbeum, tragoediam_ (Bale,
i. 709), and John Hooker (ob. †1543), of Magdalen College, Oxford, who
wrote a _comoediam, scilicet Piscatorem ... alio titulo Fraus illusa
vocatur_ (Bale, i. 712), seem to have been Protestants, but nothing is
known of the character of their plays, which may have been either English
or Latin.
[652] Cf. p. 197.
[653] Bale, _Scriptores_, i. 674. It was written in his eleventh year
(1547-8): cf. his _Remains_, i. xvi.
[654] Hall, 641.
[655] Hall, 719; Collier, i. 103.
[656] Hall, 735; Collier, i. 104; Brewer, iv. 1603; Brown, _Venetian
Papers_, iv. 208; Cavendish, _Life of Wolsey_, i. 136. The characters
further included ‘an oratur,’ a Poet, Religion, Ecclesia, Veritas,
Heresy, False Interpretation, ‘Corrupcio Scriptoris,’ St. Peter, St.
Paul, St. James, a Cardinal, two Serjeants, the Dauphin and his brother,
a Messenger, three ‘Almayns,’ ‘Lady Pees,’ ‘Lady Quyetnes,’ ‘Dame
Tranquylyte.’ Brandl, lvi suggests that the play might have been related
to the _Ludus ludentem Luderum ludens_ of Johannes Hasenberg (1530), and
the analysis of this piece given by Bahlmann, _L. D._ 48, shows that
the two had several characters in common. Another anti-Luther play, the
_Monachopornomachia_ (1538) of Simon Lemnius (Bahlmann, _L. D._ 70),
appears to be distinct.
[657] Brown, _Venetian Papers_, iv. 229.
[658] Herbert of Cherbury, _Life of Henry VIII_ (Kennet, _Hist. of
England_, ii. 173).
[659] Collier, i. 119, quoting Foxe, _Martyrologie_ (1576), 1339.
[660] Herford, 129; Mullinger, _Hist. of Cambridge_, ii. 74; Cooper,
_Annals of Cambridge_, i. 422; J. Peile, _Christ’s College_, 48. The
correspondence about the play between Gardiner and Parker is printed in
full in J. Lamb, _Collection of Documents from C. C. C. C._ (1838), 49.
[661] Brewer, xii. 1. 557, 585.
[662] Bale, _Scriptores_, i. 702. Cf. also S. R. Maitland, _Essays on the
Reformation_, 182.
[663] Brewer, xii. 1. 244; Collier, i. 128. ‘The Lorde make you the
instrument of my helpe, Lorde Cromwell, that I may have fre lyberty to
preche the trewthe.
I dedycat and offer to your Lordeshype A Reverent Receyving of the
Sacrament, as a Lenton matter, declaryd by vj chyldren, representyng
Chryst, the worde of God, Paule, Austyn, a Chylde, a Nonne callyd
Ignorancy; as a secret thyng that shall have hys ende ons rehersyd afore
your eye by the sayd chyldren.
The most part of the prystes of Suff. wyll not reseyve me ynto ther
chyrchys to preche, but have dysdaynyd me ever synns I made a play
agaynst the popys Conselerrs, Error, Colle Clogger of Conscyens, and
Incredulyte. That, and the Act of Parlyament had not folowyd after, I had
be countyd a gret lyar.
I have made a playe caulyd A Rude Commynawlte. I am a makyng of a nother
caulyd The Woman on the Rokke, yn the fyer of faythe a fynyng, and a
purgyng in the trewe purgatory; never to be seen but of your Lordshyp’s
eye.
Ayde me for Chrystys sake that I may preche chryst.
Thomas Wylley
of Yoxforthe Vykar
fatherlesse and forsaken.’
[664] Brewer, xiv. 1. 22; Collier, i. 124.
[665] Foxe, _Acts and Monuments_ (ed. Cattley), v. 443, 446.
[666] Brewer, xvii. 79; Wilkins, iii. 860. About the same date a
_Discourse_ (_Cotton MSS. Faustina_, C. ii. 5) addressed by Sir Richard
Morison to Henry VIII is described by Brewer xvii. 707 as proposing ‘a
yearly memorial of the destruction of the bishop of Rome out of the
realm, as the victory of Agincourt is annually celebrated at Calais, and
the destruction of the Danes at Hoptide (_sic_: cf. vol. i. p. 154). It
would be better that the plays of Robin Hood and Maid Marian should be
forbidden, and others devised to set forth and declare lively before
the people’s eyes the abomination and wickedness of the bishop of Rome,
the monks, friars, nuns and such like, and to declare the obedience due
to the King.’ In 1543 the Lord Mayor complained to the Privy Council of
the ‘licentious manner of players.’ Certain joiners, who were the Lord
Warden’s players, were imprisoned and reprimanded for playing on Sunday
(_P. C. Acts_, i. 103, 109, 110, 122).
[667] 34, 35 _Hen. VIII_, c. 1; Hazlitt, _E. D. S._ 3; Collier, i.
127. A proclamation of May 26, 1545 (Hazlitt, _E. D. S._ 6), states an
intention to employ in the fleet ‘all such ruffyns, Vagabonds, Masterles
men, Comon players and euill disposed persons’ as haunt ‘the Banke, and
such like naughtie places,’ and forbids the retaining of servants, other
than household servants or others allowed by law or royal licence. I have
already (p. 185) called attention to the ambiguity of the term ‘comon
player,’ and on the whole, in view of a reference in the proclamation to
‘theft and falsehood in play’ I think that gamblers are here in question.
In any case the protected players were not suppressed.
[668] 1 _Edw. VI_, c. 12.
[669] _S. P. Dom. Edw. VI_, i. 5; Collier, i. 135.
[670] Kempe, 64, 74, with a list of personages for precisely such a play.
W. Baldwin, on whom cf. pp. 194, 200, and _Modern Quarterly_, i. 259, was
probably a dramatist of this temper.
[671] Brown, _Venetian Papers_, v. 347; cf. the letters between Gardiner
and Somerset, quoted by Maitland, _Essays on the Reformation_, 228, from
Foxe, vi. 31, 57.
[672] Hazlitt, _E. D. S._ 8; Collier, i. 142; Fuller, _Ch. Hist._ (1655),
391.
[673] 2, 3 _Edw. VI_, c. 1.
[674] Hazlitt, _E. D. S._ 9; Collier, i. 144. In 1550 ‘il plaiers’
were sought for in Sussex (_Remains_ of Edward VI, ii. 280). In 1551
the council gave Lord Dorset a licence for his players to play in his
presence only (_P. C. Acts_, iii. 307). In 1552 Ogle sent to Cecil a
forged licence taken from some players (_S. P. Dom. Edw. VI_, xv. 33).
[675] Holinshed (1808), iv. 61.
[676] Hazlitt, _E. D. S._ 15; Collier, i. 155; _P. C. Acts_, iv. 426.
[677] _S. P. Dom. Mary_, viii. 50; _P. C. Acts_, v. 234, 237; vi. 102,
110, 118, 148, 168, 169. In Feb. 1556 the council sent Lord Rich to
inquire into a stage-play to be given at Shrovetide at Hatfield Bradock,
Essex, and directed him to stop such assemblies. An order against
strolling players who spread sedition and heresy came in May. In June,
1557, performers of ‘naughty’ and ‘lewd’ plays were arrested in London
and Canterbury. An order forbade plays throughout the country during
the summer. In August a ‘lewd’ play called a ‘Sackfull of News’ was
suppressed at the Boar’s Head, Aldgate; and in September plays were
forbidden in the city except, after licence by the ordinary, between All
Saints and Shrovetide.
[678] The proclamation of 16 May 1559 is printed in Hazlitt, _E. D. S._
19; Collier, i. 166; _N. S. S. Trans._ 1880-5, 17†. I do not think the
proclamation loosely referred to by Holinshed (1587), iii. 1184, as at
‘the same time’ as another proclamation of 7 April is distinct from this.
By 1 _Eliz._ c. 2 (the _Act of Uniformity_) the provision of 2, 3 _Edw.
VI_, c. 1, against ‘derogation, depraving or despising’ the _Book of
Common Prayer_ in interludes was re-enacted with a penalty of 100 marks.
[679] Cf. vol. i. p. 54.
[680] Guy, xxvii.
[681] B. Bernhard, _Rech. sur l’Hist. de la Corp. des Ménétriers ou
Joueurs d’Instruments de la Ville de Paris_ (_Bibl. de l’École des
Chartes_, iii. 377; iv. 525; v. 254, 339).
[682] Julleville, _Les Com._ 238.
[683] Morris, 12, 346; Rymer, xi. 642; Ribton-Turner, 109, 129, 133, 148,
182, 201; Ormerod, _Hist. of Cheshire_, i. 36; _Memorials of the Duttons_
(1901), 9, 209.
[684] _Carta le Roy de Ministralx_, in Dugdale, _Monasticon_ (1822), iii.
397, from _Tutbury Register_ in Coll. of Arms; Plot, _Hist. of Staffs._
(1686), ch. x. § 69.
[685] Rymer (1710), xi. 642, (1741) v. 2. 169.
[686] Percy, 372.
[687] _Analytical Index to Remembrancia of the City of London_, 92.
[688] Grove, _Dict. of Music_, s.v. Musicians; W. C. Hazlitt, _Livery
Companies of London_.
[689] Civis, No. xxi.
[690] Poulson, _Beverlac_, i. 302 (probably from _Lansd. MS._ 896, f.
180).
[691] Leach, _Beverley MSS._ 179.
[692] Crowest, 244.
[693] _York Plays_, xxxviii. 125; M. Sellers in _Eng. Hist. Review_, ix.
284.
[694] So placed in the old MS.
[695] _Boor_—so spelt to accord with the vulgar pronunciation of the word
_bower_.
[696] _Porte_—so spelt in the original. The word is known as indicating a
piece of music on the bagpipe, to which ancient instrument, which is of
Scandinavian origin, the sword-dance may have been originally composed.
[697] _Stour_—great.
[698] _Muckle tinte_—much loss or harm; so in MS.
[699] Something is evidently amiss, or omitted here. David probably
exhibited some feat of archery.
[700] _Lout_—to bend or bow down, pronounced _loot_, as _doubt_ is _doot_
in Scotland.
[701] _Figuir_—so spelt in MS.
[702] _Agast_—so spelt in MS.
[703] _var. lect. anulas, agniculam, anniculam._
[704] _var. lect._ ulerioticos. Ducange explains _jotticos_ as ‘_ludi_,
Gall. _jeux_.’
[705] _Ermuli._ Ducange, s.v., would read _hinnuli_. He says that
Archbishop Ussher thought that the passage referred to the Saxon god
Irminsul.
[706] _maida_ G. explains as _Backtrog_, i.e. ‘kneading-trough’ (Gk.
μάκτρα); cf. Diez, _Etym. Wörterbuch_, s.v. madia; Körting, _Lat.-Rom.
Wörterbuch_, No. 4980.
[707] MS. _fectum_.
[708] _Cod. Madrid_, Friga holdam; _var. lect._ unholdam.
[709] 709-709 _Omitted by Frere, probably because it was inconvenient to
facsimile part only of a page._
[710] _Christu_m.
[711] et.
[712] Si_mi_li.
[713] _Omitted._
[714] dicat hoc modo.
[715] contingit.
[716] _Omitted._
[717] Deinde.
[718] _Omitted._
[719] Ungentes.
[720] Dilecti.
[721] 721-721 _Omitted: but a later hand has written on a margin of the
manuscript_, Condimentis aromatum vnguentes corpus _sanc_t_issi_m_um_ quo
p_re_ciosa.
[722] 722-722 _Omitted._
[723] reuoluit.
[724] appariat.
[725] _Omitted._
[726] dicat sic.
[727] _Omitted._
[728] gaudendo.
[729] dica_n_t sim_u_l.
[730] eas dicens.
[731] dicentes simul.
[732] deferens.
[733] 733-733 _Omitted._ _Lines 3-5 of the sequence are preceded by_
S_e_c_un_da Maria, _and lines 6-9 by_ Tercia Maria di_cat_.
[734] _Manly suggests_ mortuus.
[735] respondeat quasi.
[736] Tercia.
[737] et interim.
[738] _Omitted._
[739] dicentes hoc modo.
[740] audito.
[741] dicant.
[742] 742-742 _Omitted._
[743] Only a stage-direction, _Hic ludit_ [? _cadit_] _Lucifer de celo_.
[744] Imperfect.
[745] Jordan closes with an invitation to a _Redemptio_ on the morrow.
[746] Narrated.
[747] Duplicates.
[748] Misplaced.
[749] Imperfect.
[750] Late addition.
[751] Imperfect?
[752] And later fragment.
[753] Imperfect.
[754] J. Stuart, _Extracts from the Council Register of the Burgh of
Aberdeen_, vol. i. 1398-1570 (Spalding Club, 1844).
[755] Dunbar, _Works_ (ed. J. Small, for Scottish Text Soc.), ii. 251.
[756] Hearne, _Liber Niger Scaccarii_ (ed. 2), ii. 598.
[757] B. H. Wortham, _Churchwardens’ Accounts of Bassingbourne_
(_Antiquary_, vii. 25); Lysons, _Magna Britannia, Cambridgeshire_, 89;
Dyer, 343, from _Antiquarian Repertory_ (1808), iii. 320.
[758] C. B. Pearson, _Accounts of St. Michael’s, Bath_ (_R. Hist. Soc.
Trans._ vii. 309).
[759] _Cant. Tales_, 6140 (_W. of B.’s Prol._ 558).
[760] L. T. Smith, _York Plays_, lxv.
[761] _Acta Sanctorum_, Maii, ii. 189; _Historians of the Church, of
York_, i. 328 (Rolls Series, lxxi); Rock, ii. 430; A. F. Leach in
_Furnivall Miscellany_, 206.
[762] A. F. Leach, _Beverley Town Documents_ (Selden Soc. xiv), l. lix.
33, 45, 75, 99, 109, 117; and in _Furnivall Miscellany_, 208; Poulson,
_Beverlac_, i. 268 sqq., 302; _Lansdowne MS._ 896, f. 133 (Warburton’s
eighteenth-century collections for a history of Yorkshire).
[763] A. F. Leach, in _Furnivall Miscellany_, 220.
[764] Corrie, _Boxford Parish Accounts_ (_Cambridge Antiq. Soc. Trans._
i. 266).
[765] Pearson, ii. 413; Morant, _History of Essex_ (1768), ii. 399.
[766] L. Toulmin Smith, _Ricart’s Kalendar_ (Camden Soc.), 80.
[767] L. G. Bolingbroke, in _Norfolk Archaeology_, xi. 336; _Eastern
Counties Collectanea_, 272.
[768] _Hist. MSS._ xiv. 8, 133; Arnold, _Memorials of St. Edmund’s Abbey_
(R. S.), iii. 361.
[769] Masters, _Hist. of C.C.C. Cambridge_ (ed. 1753), i. 5.
[770] Hazlitt-Warton, iii. 302. The only reference given is ‘MSS.
Rawlins. Bibl. Bodl. Oxon.’ Mr. F. Madan kindly informs me that the
document cannot now be identified amongst the Rawlinson MSS.
[771] _Arch. Cantiana_, xvii. 147.
[772] _Ibid._ xvii. 80.
[773] _Hist. MSS. Comm._ ix. 1, 147.
[774] Pearson, ii. 414; _Freemasons’ Magazine and Magic Mirror_, Sept.
1861.
[775] Morris, 575.
[776] Morris, 317. Canon Morris does not say where he found the document.
He dates it in ‘24 Hen. VIII, 1531.’ [The regnal year. 24 Hen. VIII,
by the way, is 1532-3.] But the monastery is called ‘dissolved,’ which
it was not until 1541. The list of Mayors (Morris, 582) gives William
Snead (1516-7), William Sneyde (1531-2), William Sneyde, jun. (1543-4).
Obviously two generations are concerned. The second mayoralty of the
younger man was 1543-4. And the appointment of Newhall as clerk of the
Pentice was in 1543 (Morris, 204). Oddly, Canon Morris’s error was
anticipated in a copy of the proclamation made on the fly-leaf of _Harl.
MS._ 2013 of the plays (Deimling, 1), which states that it was ‘made by
Wᵐ newall, Clarke of the pentice [in R]udio 24, H. 8 [1532-3].’
[777] I reproduce Canon Morris’s text _literatim_. But he does not
explain the square brackets, and I do not understand them.
[778] The ‘proclamation’ in the White Book is clearly a revision of
the 1544 version. On the other hand, the Corpus Christi procession was
suppressed in 1547. The ‘Banns,’ which include a pageant ‘of our lady
thassumpcon’ not in the list of plays, are perhaps rather earlier.
[779] _Harl. MS._ 2150, ff. 85ᵇ-88ᵇ.
[780] It is this entry which shows that _Harl. MS._ 2150 is not the
‘White Book,’ but a copy. The official catalogue of the Harleian
collection is in doubt on this point.
[781] So printed by Furnivall, possibly as an addition to the text of
_Harl._ 1944, from the shorter copy of the _Breauarye_ in _Harl._ 1948.
[782] _Hist. MSS._ i. 49.
[783] C. L. Kingsford in _D. N. B._ s.v. Higden. Mr. Kingsford does not
think that ‘Randle Heggenett,’ the author of the _Chester Plays_, can be
identified with Higden. But ‘Higden,’ which occurs in Rogers’s list of
Mayors, is an earlier form in the tradition than ‘Heggenett.’
[784] Ormerod, _Hist. of Cheshire_ (ed. Helsby), iii. 651; Morris, 315.
[785] Morris, 316. The Painters and Glaziers’ charter is quoted as
calling them ‘tyme out of minde one brotherhood for the ... plaie of the
Shepperds’ Wach,’ but no date is given.
[786] Ibid.
[787] _Harl. MS._ 2150, f. 85ᵇ.
[788] Morris, 318; Furnivall, xxv; _Hist. MSS._ viii. 1. 363, 366.
[789] Pennant, _Wales_, i. 145.
[790] Furnivall, xxii, xxviii.
[791] D. Rogers, _Breauarye_, in Furnivall, xviii; Morris, 303.
[792] Morris, 322, 353; Furnivall, xxvi.
[793] Morris, 322; Furnivall, xxvi; Collier, i. 112.
[794] Morris, 324; Furnivall, xxiii; Fenwick, _Hist. of Chester_, 370.
[795] Sharp, 8.
[796] C. L. Kingsford, _Henry V_, 346, says that he reached Coventry
alone on March 15, and joined Katharine at Leicester on March 19. Ramsay,
_Y. and L._ i. 290, quoting J. E. Tyler, _Henry of Monmouth_, ii. 28,
gives the same dates. The entry in the _Leet Book_ (Harris, 139) brings
him to Coventry on March 21 and with the queen. But this was Good Friday.
If the _Leet Book_ is right, he might have remained for Hox Tuesday,
April 1.
[797] Brewer, xiv (1), 77.
[798] _C. Mery Talys_, lvi (ed. Oesterley, 100).
[799] Heywood, _The Foure PP_, 831 (Manly, i. 510).
[800] Foxe, vi. 411; viii. 170; Maitland, _Essays on the Reformation_, 24.
[801] Sharp, 12, 39, 64, 75, 78; _Weavers’ Play_, 21.
[802] Sharp, 9; Hearne, _Fordun’s Scotichronicon_, v. 1450.
[803] Sharp, 157; Hearne, loc. cit.
[804] Sharp, 216.
[805] Sharp, 209; Halliwell-Phillipps, _Outlines_, ii. 296.
[806] Sharp, 159.
[807] J. T. Gilbert, _Calendar of Ancient Records of Dublin_, i. 239; ii.
54. Cf. Davidson, 222, and in _Modern Language Notes_, vii. 339.
[808] Harris, _Hist. of Dublin_, 147; J. C. Walker, _Hist. Essay on the
Irish Stage_ (_Trans. Roy. Irish Acad._ ii (1788), 2. 75), from MS. of
Robert Ware.
[809] Walker, loc. cit.; Sir James Ware, _Annales Rerum Hibern._ (1664),
161; _Variorum_, iii. 30, from MS. in Trin. Coll. Dublin. W. F. Dawson,
_Christmas: its Origin and Associations_, 52, says that Henry II kept
Christmas at Hogges in 1171 with ‘miracle plays.’ But I cannot find the
authority for this.
[810] Gilbert, op. cit. i. 242.
[811] Matthew Paris, _Gesta Abbat. S. Albani_, ap. H. T. Riley, _Gesta
Abbatum S. Albani_ (R. S.), i. 73; Bulaeus, _Historia Universitatis
Parisiensis_, ii. 226; Collier, i. 13.
[812] J. D. Marwick, _Records of Edinburgh_ (Scottish Burghs Record
Soc.), ii. 193 sqq.
[813] Kelly, 19.
[814] Pearson, ii. 413.
[815] L. G. Bolingbroke, _Pre-Eliz. Plays and Players in Norfolk_
(_Norfolk Archaeology_, xi. 338).
[816] _N. and Q._ xii. 210; Kelly, 68.
[817] _Hist. MSS._ xiii. 4. 300.
[818] _Hist. MSS._ xiii. 4. 288.
[819] R. Johnson, _Ancient Customs of Hereford_ (ed. 2. 1882), 119.
[820] _Hist. MSS._ xiii. 4. 352.
[821] Nichols, _Extracts from Churchwardens’ Accounts_, 175.
[822] W. Sandys, _Christmas Carols_, xc.
[823] G. Hadley, _Hist. of Kingston upon Hull_ (1788), 823.
[824] W. Andrews, _Historic Yorkshire_, 43; _Curiosities of the Church_,
19.
[825] J. Wodderspoon, _Memorials of the Ancient Town of Ipswich_ (1850),
161; _Hist. MSS._ ix. 1. 245.
[826] Nathaniel Bacon, _The Annalls of Ipswich_, 1654 (ed. W. H.
Richardson, 1884), 102 and _passim_. Some additional notices are in
_Hist. MSS._ ix. 1. 241 sqq.
[827] R. S. Ferguson, _A Boke of Record ... of Kirkbie Kendall_ (Cumb.
and Westm. Arch. and Ant. Soc.), 91, 136.
[828] See s.v. Manningtree.
[829] Weever, _Funeral Monuments_, 405.
[830] I. Disraeli, _Curiosities of Literature_, Second Series, iii. 343.
[831] Bale, _Vocacyon to Ossory_ (1553), in _Harleian Miscellany_ (ed.
1745), vi. 402; (ed. 1808), i. 345.
[832] _Hist. MSS._ xi. 3. 165, 223, 224. The original documents appear to
be in Latin.
[833] Harrod, _King’s Lynn Records_, 87.
[834] Cf. Appendix E (viii).
[835] Lysons, _Environs of London_, i. 229.
[836] See s.v. Kendal.
[837] Percy, _N. H. B._ 343, 345.
[838] Kelly, 27, 187. M. Bateson, _Records of Leicester_, ii. 297; J.
Nichols, _History of Leicestershire_, iv. i. App. 378, 9.
[839] Kelly, 188.
[840] Kelly, 7.
[841] Kelly, 14, 16.
[842] Kelly, 15, 18, 19, 20; T. North, _Accounts of Churchwardens of St.
Martin’s_, 2, 21, 74, 86, 87.
[843] Kelly, 193.
[844] _Lincoln Statutes_, ii. 15, 23.
[845] Cf. vol. i. p. 91.
[846] Wordsworth, 126, and in _Lincoln Statutes_, ii. lv. The entry given
for 1452 in the latter omits ‘et Prophetis.’
[847] Wordsworth, 126.
[848] A. F. Leach, in _Furnivall Miscellany_, 223; Rock, ii. 430.
[849] Leach, loc. cit. 224.
[850] Wordsworth, 139.
[851] Leach, loc. cit. 224; _Lincoln Statutes_, ii. ccliv; _Hist. MSS._
xiv. 8. 25.
[852] Wordsworth, 141; Leach, loc. cit. 223, from _Chapter Act Book_, A.
31, f. 18; _Shaks. Soc. Papers_, iii. 40, from copy of same document in
_Harl. MS._ 6954, p. 152. The latter has ‘Serenomium’ (for Ceremonium).
Mr. Leach reads ‘Sermonium’ and translates ‘speech.’
[853] Leach, loc. cit. 227; _Gentleman’s Magazine_, liv. 103.
[854] J. C. Robertson, _Materials for the Hist. of Becket_ (R.S.), iii. 9.
[855] Dodsley, _Collection of Old Plays_ (1744), i. xii. I cannot trace
the original authority.
[856] Malvern, _Continuator_ to _Higden’s Polychronicon_ (ed. J. R. Lumby
in R.S.), ix. 47.
[857] Malvern, loc. cit. ix. 259. Probably this is the play for which
the Issue Roll of the Exchequer for Easter—Michaelmas, 1391 (F. Devon,
_Issues of the Exchequer, Hen. III-Hen. VI_, 244), records on July 11,
1391, a payment ‘to the Clerkes of the Parish Churches and to divers
other clerkes of the City of London, in money paid to them in discharge
of £10 which the Lord and King commanded to be paid them of his gift on
account of the play of the Passion of our Lord and the Creation of the
World by them performed at Skynner Well, after the Feast of Bartholomew
last past.’ But the dates do not quite agree, and there may have been a
play at Bartholomew-tide 1390 as well as that of July, 1391.
[858] _London Chronicle_, 80.
[859] _London Chronicle_, 91. The _Cott. MS._ reads ‘Clerkenwelle’ for
the ‘Skynners Welle’ of the _Harl. MS._ _Gregory’s Chronicle_ (_Hist.
Coll. of a Citizen of London_, Camden Soc.), 105, also mentions ‘the
grette playe at Skynners Welle’ in 1409.
[860] J. H. Wylie, _Hist. of Henry IV_, iv. 213.
[861] J. G. Nichols, _Grey Friars Chronicle_ (Camden Soc.) 12; R.
Howlett, _Monumenta Franciscana_ (R.S.), ii. 164.
[862] J. Christie, _Some Account of Parish Clerks_, 24, 71.
[863] H. Morley, _Memoirs of Bartholomew Fair_, 15.
[864] Stowe, _Survey_, 7.
[865] Andrew, _Annales Henr. VII_ (R.S.), 121.
[866] Collier, in _Shakesp. Soc. Papers_, iii. 40. The ‘pagents’ on a
roll of vellum belonging to the Holy Trinity Guild in St. Botolph’s,
Bishopsgate (†1463), were probably only paintings with descriptive verses
(Hone, 81).
[867] Kempe, 71. The date given, Shrovetide, 38 Hen. VIII, must be wrong,
as the king died before Shrovetide (Feb. 20-2) in the thirty-eighth year
of his reign.
[868] Herbert, _Hist. of Livery Companies_, i. 80.
[869] E. B. Jupp, _Hist. of Carpenters’ Company_, 198.
[870] Collier, i. 51.
[871] Machyn, 138.
[872] Machyn, 145.
[873] Prynne, 117.
[874] Stowe, _Annales_, 489; _Survey_, 38; Herbert, i. 197, 454;
Brand-Ellis, i. 166.
[875] R. W. Goulding, _Louth Records_.
[876] _Hist. MSS._ v. 517.
[877] _Manningham’s Diary_ (Camden Soc.), 130.
[878] Heywood, _Apology for Actors_ (Shakespeare Soc.), 61.
[879] Quoted in _Variorum_, xvi. 295.
[880] Dekker’s _Plays_ (ed. Pearson).
[881] Hazlitt-Warton, iii. 312.
[882] Harrod, _King’s Lynn Records_, 88.
[883] W. Hobhouse, _Churchwardens’ Accounts_ (Somerset Record Soc.), 209.
[884] F. Holthausen, _Das Noahspiel von N. upon T._ (1897), 11; H.
Bourne, _Hist. of N._ (1736), 139; J. Brand, _Hist. of N._ (1789), ii.
369; E. Mackenzie, _Hist. of N._ (1827), ii. 664, 707; F. W. Dendy,
_Newcastle Gilds_ (Surtees Soc.), i. 4; ii. 161, 164, 171.
[885] W. A. Scott-Robertson, _The Passion Play and Interludes at New
Romney_ (_Archaeologia Cantiana_, xiii. 216); _Hist. MSS._ v. 533; _Arch.
Cantiana_, xvii. 28.
[886] C. A. Markham and J. C. Cox, _Northampton Borough Records_, ii. 184.
[887] _Paston Letters_, iii. 227.
[888] H. Harrod, _Particulars concerning Early Norwich Pageants_
(_Norfolk Archaeology_, iii. 3).
[889] R. Fitch, _Norwich Pageants: The Grocers’ Play_, in _Norfolk
Archaeology_, v. 8, and separately.
[890] Fitch, op. cit.; Blomfield, _Hist. of Norfolk_, iii. 176.
[891] Blomfield, iv. 426.
[892] Cf. vol. i. p. 222.
[893] Cf. Appendix E (v).
[894] W. Hobhouse, _Churchwardens’ Accounts_ (Somerset Record Soc.), 232.
[895] Norris, ii. 452; E. H. Pedler in Norris, ii. 507; Carew, _Survey
of Cornwall_; D. Gilbert, _History of Cornwall_; Borlase, _Antiquities
of Cornwall_ (ed. 2), 207; _Nat. Hist. of Cornwall_, 295; T. F. Ordish,
_Early London Theatres_, 15.
[896] See s.v. Kendal.
[897] W. A. Abram, _Memorials of the Preston Guilds_, 18, 21, 61, 99.
[898] C. Kerry, _History of St. Lawrence, Reading_, 233. Extracts only
from the accounts are given; a full transcript would probably yield more
information.
[899] W. H. R. Jones, _Vetus Registrum Sarisburiense_ (R.S.), ii. 129.
[900] _Cal. State Papers, Dom. Addl._ (1580-1625), 101.
[901] Jones and Macray, _Salisbury Charters_ (R.S.), xi, 102.
[902] Cf. Appendix E (vi).
[903] Phillips, _Hist. of Shrewsbury_, 201.
[904] Phillips, 201.
[905] Owen and Blakeway, _Hist. of Shrewsbury_, i. 328.
[906] _Shropshire Arch. Soc. Trans._ viii. 273.
[907] F. A. Hibbert, _Influence and Development of English Craft Guilds_
(1891). 113.
[908] _Add. MS._ 28,533, ff. iᵛ, 2. _Computi_ from 1477 to 1545 are in
this MS.; but most of them are very summary.
[909] _York Plays_, lxv.
[910] G. Oliver, _Hist. of Holy Trinity Guild at Sleaford_ (1837), 50,
68, 73, 82.
[911] Cf. Appendix E (vii).
[912] Collier, ii. 67.
[913] Hobhouse, 184.
[914] Hazlitt-Warton, iii. 163, from _Register_ of St. Swithin’s. This is
amongst the _Wulvesey MSS._, now in the possession of the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners (_York Plays_, lxv). The date is given as 1487 by
Hazlitt-Warton, but the visit is said to be that ‘on occasion of the
birth of Prince Arthur,’ which took place in the autumn of 1486.
[915] _London Chronicle_, 159.
[916] Cf. e.g. _Durham Accounts_, i. 95, 101, 105 ‘Soteltez ... Sutiltez
... Suttelties erga Natale.’
[917] E. Picot, in _Romania_, vii. 245.
[918] _Hist. MSS._ xiv. 8, 187.
[919] Halliwell-Phillipps, i. 342; Toulmin Smith, _Ordinances of
Worcester_ in _English Guilds_, 385, 407 (E. E. T. S.).
[920] _Norfolk Archaeology_, ix. 145; xi. 346.
[921] A. Nevyllus, _De furoribus Norfolciensium Ketto Duce_ (1575), i.
18; Holinshed (1587), iii. 1028.
[922] L. G. Bolingbroke, in _Norfolk Archaeology_, xi. 334.
[923] _Lincoln Statutes_, ii. 98; cf. _Use of Sarum_, i. xxii*.
[924] Cf. p. 409.
[925] _York Plays_, xxxv, xli; _Arch. Review_, i. 221.
[926] Drake, _Eboracum_, App. xxix; Davies, 243; _York Plays_, xxxiv.
Melton is called ‘sacrae paginae professor,’ which Drake and many
light-hearted scholars after him, down to A. W. Ward (ed. 2, 1899), i.
53, translate ‘professor of holy pageantry.’ The ‘sacred page,’ however,
is the Bible, and the title = S.T.P., or D.D.
[927] Davies, 245.
[928] _Antiquary_, xxiii. 29.
[929] _York Plays_, xxi, 125; _E. H. R._ ix. 285.
[930] Wyclif, _English Works_, ed. Mathew (E. E. T. S.), 429.
[931] _York Plays_, xxix; Toulmin, _English Gilds_ (E. E. T. S.), 137.
[932] _Antiquary_, xxii. 265.
[933] Halliwell, _Letters of the Kings of England_, i. 354, from a Latin
original in the _Bodl. Rawlinson MSS._
[934] Davies, 263.
[935] Davies, 273; _Arch. Review_, i. 221.
[936] Printed in _York Plays_, xix.
[937] Printed in Davies, 233.
[938] W. Andrews, _Yorkshire in Olden Times_, 105, 146.
[939] _D. N B._ s.v. Hegge. _Poems of Richard James_ (ed. Grosart, xxii);
T. Fowler, _Hist. of C. C. C._ 175, 183, 394.
[940] Dugdale, _Hist. of W._ (1656), 116. A not materially different
version, from Dugdale’s MSS., is given by Sharp, _Dissertation_, 218. Nor
does Sharp, in the account of the Grey Friars in his _Hist. and Antiq. of
Coventry_ (1817), add any information as to their plays.
[941] Hearne, _Fordun’s Scotichronicon_, v. 1493 (from MS. of _Annals_,
penes Thomas Jesson of Ch. Ch.) ‘This yeare the King came to se the
playes acted by the Gray Friers and much commended them.’ The mayoral
list in this text of the _Annals_ goes to 1675. It is probably another
that Sharp, _Diss._ 5, quotes as making the same statement and describes
as ‘not older than the _beginning_ of Charles I’s reign.’ He does not
give the full entry. Is it the basis of Mr. Fretton’s addition to the
1871 ed. of Sharp’s _Hist. and Antiq. of Cov._ 202 ‘1492. Henry 7th and
his Queen saw the Plays at Whitsuntide’? Can ‘by the Gray Friers’ mean
‘at a station by the convent’? In the Carpenters’ accounts for 1453 is
an item ‘for the mynstrell at the frerˢ.’ This, says Sharp, _Diss._ 213,
relates to the craft’s annual dinner held at the White Friars. There is
no other possible allusion to friars’ plays in Mr. Sharp’s extracts.
[942] Ten Brink, iii. 276; Sharp, 45.
[943] Hohlfeld, in _Anglia_, xi. 228.
[944] The term ‘pageant’ is once used in the stage-directions (Halliwell,
132) ‘Hic intrabit pagentum de purgatione Mariae et Joseph.’
[945] Ten Brink, ii. 283; Pollard, xxxvii. Hohlfeld (_Anglia_, xi. 228)
combines two theories by suggesting that the Coventry Grey Friars were
driven by the popularity of the rival craft-plays to travel.
[946] Holthausen, 16.
[947] F. W. Denby, _Newcastle Gilds_ (Surtees Soc.), ii. 165, 168.
[948] _Norfolk Archaeology_, iii. 3.
[949] _Collectanea_ (Oxf. Hist. Soc.), i. 130.
SUBJECT INDEX
[This index is almost wholly confined to the text, and only
includes the principal passages dealing with each subject. I
am sorry not to have been able to prepare a local or a nominal
index. The want of the former may be in part met, so far as
the miracle-plays are concerned, by the topographical list of
representations in Appendix W.]
_A l’entrada dal tens clar_, i. 170.
_Abbayes joyeuses_, i. 375, 383.
Abbesses, mock, i. 361.
Abbot, of Bon-Accord, i. 173, ii. 333;
of Marham, i. 173, ii. 250;
of Misrule, i. 403;
of Unreason, i. 181, ii. 335.
_Abraham and Isaac_, plays of, ii. 130, 426.
_Abrenuntiatio_, i. 19, 97.
_Absalon_ of Thomas Watson, ii. 195, 458.
Account-books, extracts from, on minstrelsy and plays, ii. 234, 240.
_Acolastus_, of Gnaphaeus, ii. 217;
of John Palsgrave, 459.
_Actio_, term for miracle-play, ii. 105.
Actors, a perplexity to Roman government, i. 3, 7;
punished for satire, 5;
private performances of, 7;
_infamia_ of, 8, 12, 14, 16;
hostility of, to Christianity, 10;
become minstrels, 24;
in miracle-plays, regulations for, ii. 114;
payment of, 139;
professional, under Tudors, 186, 225;
the King’s, 187, 201;
economic _status_ of, under Elizabeth, 225.
_Actus_, term for miracle-play, ii. 105.
_Adam_, ii. 70;
analysis of, 80;
vernacular mingled with Latin in, 89.
Adam le Boscu, minstrel in 1306, i. 47.
Adan de la Hale, plays of, i. 171, 381.
Adoptionist controversies, and Christmas, i. 240.
_Adoratio Crucis_, ii. 16.
Advent, i. 247;
liturgical drama in, ii. 62, 67.
Agricultural festivals. _See_ Feasts, Village festivals.
Agriculture, begun by women, i. 106;
religion of, 106, 109.
_Aguilaneuf_, i. 254.
Alcuin, his dislike of minstrelsy, i. 32, 35.
Ales, i. 179.
Allegory in mediaeval drama, ii. 151.
Alleluia, funeral of, i. 186.
All Saints’ day, i. 247, 265.
All Souls’ day, i. 247, 265.
_Altercatio Ecclesiae et Synagogae_, ii. 64, 152.
_Amour_, _Prince d’_, at Middle Temple, i. 416.
Ancestors, cult of, at New Year, i. 264.
Andrew, St., his day, i. 232.
_Andria_ of Terence, ii. 215, 456.
_Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, songs in, i. 31.
Anglo-Saxons, non-professional singers of, i. 64.
Animals, cult of, i. 131.
Animism, i. 103.
Anne, St., miracle-plays on her day, ii. 118, 127, 130.
Annunciation, dramatic ceremonies at, ii. 66.
Annunciation style, i. 246.
_Antichristus_, liturgical play of, ii. 62, 151.
_Antiphonarium_ of Gregory the Great, ii. 7.
Antiphons, nature of, ii. 6.
_Apfeln-Bischof_, i. 369.
Apostles, feast of, at Beauvais, i. 287;
at Sens, 288.
Aquinas, on minstrels, i. 58.
_Archipropheta_ of Grimald, ii. 451.
Armenians, on birthday of Christ, i. 239.
_Armiger_, title of minstrel, i. 50, ii. 139.
Aryan and pre-Aryan in folk-lore, i. 101.
Ascension, feast of, i. 114;
dialogued trope for, ii. 11;
dramatic ceremony at, 65;
miracle-play at, 129.
_Asotus_ of Macropedius, ii. 217.
Ass, ears of, worn by ‘fools,’ i. 385;
liturgical drama, ii. 57.
_See_ _Palmesel_.
Asses, feast of, i. 275, 282, 304, 305, 320, 330, 374, 377.
_See_ Prose of Ass.
Atellanes, i. 2, 4.
_Aubes_, i. 78, 171.
_Aucassin et Nicolete_, i. 42, 45, 74.
_Auctor_ of plays, i. 83.
Augustine, St., and theatre, i. 12, 17;
a character in miracle-plays, ii. 72, 77.
Ausonius, his _Ludus Septem Sapientum_, ii. 212.
Authorship of miracle-plays, ii. 144.
_Autos Sacramentales_, ii. 95, 105.
_Baculus_, feast of, i. 276, 279, 283, 289, 309, 319, 325, 345.
Balaam, episode of, in _Prophetae_, ii. 55, 72.
Baldwin, William, his plays, ii. 194, 200.
Bale, John, ii. 131, 144, 220, 222, 224, 446.
Ball, tossed at festivals, i. 128;
at Feast of Fools, 327;
struggle for, in games, meaning of, 149.
Ballad, in Elizabethan age, i. 69.
_Ballationes_, i. 161.
‘Banns’ of miracle-plays, ii. 114, 122, 140, 144.
Barbarian indifference to theatre, i. 19, 21.
Bards, classes of, i. 76.
‘Barring-out,’ i. 263.
_Barritus_ of Germans, i. 26.
Bartholomew Fair, puppet-shows at, ii. 158.
_Basoches_, i. 375.
_Bastaxi_, i. 71.
Baston, Robert, his _tragoediae_, ii. 211.
Bathing at folk-festivals, i. 122.
Battle, mock, in folk-drama, i. 187, 210.
_See also_ _Débats_.
Bauble of fool, i. 385.
Bean, king of, i. 260, 408.
‘Bearing the book,’ ii. 140.
Bearwards, i. 68, 72.
Beast-dances, i. 166.
Beast-mimicry, by minstrels, i. 71.
‘Beating the bounds,’ i. 120, 143.
_Beauty and Good Properties of Women_, ii. 455.
Beelzebub, in Plough Monday play, i. 209;
in St. George play, 214.
Befana, i. 268.
Bel, cult of, in Bohemia, i. 253.
Bells, in morris-dance, i. 200;
in sword-dance, 201.
_Beltane_, i. 111, 133, 138, 143.
Belus, cult of, in Europe, i. 112, 234.
Benedictbeuern manuscript, liturgical plays in, ii. 37, 39, 40, 72,
76.
_Benedictio fontium_, i. 124.
_Beowulf_ i. 29;
sword-dance in, 191.
‘Bessy’ in sword-dance, i. 192, 194, 198, 206, 210.
‘Bezant’ procession, i. 119.
Bilingual religious plays, ii. 89, 108.
‘Bishops’ of Fools, i. 295, 326, 368.
_See_ Feast of Fools, _passim_.
Black faces at folk-festivals, i. 125, 154, 199, 214.
Blood, importance of, in sacrifice, i. 132, 138.
_Blôt-monath_, i. 256.
Boar, sacrificial animal at New Year, i. 257.
Bon Accord, abbot of, i. 173, ii. 333.
_Bordeors Ribauz, Des Deus_, i. 67, 79, 85.
_Bouffons_, _danse des_, i. 191.
‘Box-holder’ in St. George play, i. 217.
Boy Bishop, sermons of, i. 356;
in schools and universities, 362;
disliked by Reformation, 366;
customs of, resemble Feast of Fools, 368;
in religious drama, ii. 72.
Boy Bishop, at Sens, i. 344;
at Rouen, 345;
at Bayeux, 345;
at Coutances, 346;
at Tours, 347;
at Toul, 347;
in France generally, 349;
at Noyon, 350;
in Spain, 350;
in Germany, 350;
at Salisbury, 352, ii. 282;
at Exeter, i. 354;
at St. Paul’s, 354;
at York, 356, ii. 287;
at Beverley, i. 357;
at Lincoln, 358;
vogue of, in England, 358;
at Westminster, 360;
at Durham, 360;
at Winchester, 361.
Boys, feast of. _See_ Boy Bishop.
_Braies_, _fête de_, at Laon, i. 302;
_roi de_, 373.
Breri, a _fabulator_, i. 77.
Broom, in St. George play, i. 215.
Brothelyngham, order of, at Exeter, i. 383.
_Brumalia_, i. 234.
_Buffons_, _les_, name for morris-dance, i. 200.
Buffoons. _See_ Fools, Minstrels.
_Bufos_, i. 63.
Bull-baiting, origin of, i. 141, 257.
_Burial and Resurrection_, ii. 129, 431.
‘Burial of Carnival,’ i. 186.
Burlesque of worship at Feast of Fools, i. 280, 286, 294, 296, 325,
381.
Cabham, Thomas de, his classification of minstrels, i. 59, ii. 262.
Cakes at festivals, i. 133, 142, 260.
Calendar, origins of, i. 110, 229, 232.
_Calisto and Meliboea_, ii. 455.
Candlemas, i. 114, 126, 163, 251.
_Cantica_, i. 161, 169.
_Canticum triumphale_, ii. 74.
_Cantilenae_, of folk and _scôp_, i. 26;
on heroes, 163, 167;
of sword-dance, 192.
Carnival, i. 114, 121;
‘burial’ of, 186.
_Caroles_, i. 164, 272.
‘Carping,’ of minstrels, i. 72.
_Cartuaitheail_, i. 129.
_Castle of Perseverance_, ii. 155, 437.
Catherine, St., her day, i. 247;
plays on legend of, ii. 64, 107, 133.
‘Catherning,’ i. 253.
Cawarden, Sir Thomas, i. 405.
Censorship of stage, ii. 225.
Cereal sacrifices, i. 133;
survival of in folk-festivals, 142, 260.
_Ceri_, procession of, at Gubbio, i. 119.
_Cernunnos_, i. 259.
_Cervulus_, i. 258, 330.
_Chansons_, of minstrels, i. 73;
_de gestes_, 74;
dramatic elements in, 77;
_de carole_, 164;
_à danser_, 171;
_de mal-mariées_, 171.
Chanteloup, Walter de, attacks folk-_ludi_, i. 91.
Chapel Royal, plays by, ii. 193, 202.
_Charivari_, i. 153, 379.
Charlemagne, and heroic song, i. 26;
a patron of minstrels, 36.
_Charlot et le Barbier_, of Rutebeuf, i. 79.
Charms, i. 121.
Chaucer, a typical _trouvère_, i. 64;
interludes based on, ii. 205.
Cheke, Henry, his _Freewill_, ii. 461.
‘Chekkar,’ minstrels of, at Scottish court, i. 50.
_Chester Plays_, ii. 407.
_Chevauchées_, i. 153, 379.
Children, inheritors of folk-customs, i. 152;
place of, in winter feasts, 263.
Chimney-sweeps, their connexion with May-day, i. 125.
Choir-boys, miracle-plays acted by, ii. 121.
_Chori_, in folk-dance and song, i. 27, 163.
Christianity, elements of, in folk-custom, i. 249.
Christmas, St. George play at, i. 226;
origin of, 238;
in Saxon England, 244;
New Year customs at, 246;
in mediaeval England, 390;
masques at, 391;
at universities, 407;
at inns of court, 413;
dialogued tropes for, ii. 8, 11, 41;
_praesepe_ at, 42;
liturgical plays at, 41;
miracle-plays at, 70, 129.
Christmas-boxes, i. 271.
Christmas-flowering trees, i. 252.
Christmas lord. _See_ Misrule, lord of.
‘Christmas,’ Old Father, in St. George play, i. 216.
Christmas Prince, at St. John’s College, Oxford, i. 408.
Christmas trees, i. 251.
Christopherson, John, his _Jephthes_, ii. 218.
Χριστὸς Πάσχων, ii. 206.
_Christus Redivivus_ of Grimald, ii. 450.
_Christus Triumphans_ of John Foxe, ii. 458.
Chrysostom, St., and theatre, i. 15;
and _pantomimi_ at banquets, 24;
and Kalends, 244.
Churches, dances in, i. 163;
‘clipping’ of, 166;
miracle-plays in, ii. 79, 134;
interludes in, 191.
Churchyards, miracle-plays in, ii. 134.
Circular movement as sun-charm, i. 129.
Circumcision, feast of, i. 245, 330.
_See_ New Year, Kalends, Feast of Fools.
_Cithara_, i. 73.
Classical plays, Renascence performances of, ii. 214.
‘Clemencing,’ i. 253.
Clement, St., his day, i. 247.
Clergy, their share in miracle-plays, ii. 117, 120.
_Clerico et Puella, Interludium de_, i. 86, ii. 181;
text of, ii. 324.
Clerks’ plays, ii. 104, 140, 202.
‘Clipping the church,’ i. 166.
Cockneys, king of, at Lincoln’s Inn, i. 414.
Cocks-comb, worn by fools, i. 385.
_Columpnarium_, ii. 213.
Comedy, on Roman stage, i. 2;
extinction of classical, ii. 207;
mediaeval sense of term, 209;
humanist revival of, 212;
in Tudor interlude, 215.
_Compagnies des fous_, i. 373.
_See_ _Sociétés joyeuses_.
_Complaint of Deor_, i. 29.
_Computi_, extracts from, on minstrelsy and plays, ii. 234, 240.
_Concordia Regularis_, ii. 14, 306.
_Conductus_, i. 282.
Conduits, filled with wine, ii. 166;
pageants on, 173.
_Conflict of Vice and Virtue_, ii. 153.
_Confrérie de la Passion_, ii. 88.
_Confréries_, for Feast of Fools, i. 373.
Constance, council of, performance of _Stella_ at, ii. 101.
_Contes_, i. 74.
_Contrafazedor_, i. 82.
Controversy, religious, in drama, ii. 217.
Conversion of England, i. 95.
_Coquille_, _seigneur de la_, i. 374.
Corbeil, Pierre de, and the Feast of Fools, i. 281, 287.
_Cornards_, i. 374, 384.
Coronations. _See_ Entries.
Cornish plays, ii. 127, 433.
Corporations, their control of miracle-plays, ii. 114;
their expenses, 115;
plays sometimes produced by them, 118.
Corpus Christi, miracle-plays at, ii. 77, 94, 108, 112, 138, 160;
procession at, 138, 160, 329;
guilds of, 118.
Corraro, his _Progne_, ii. 212.
‘Cosmic’ dramas. _See_ Cycles.
Costume, of minstrels, i. 44;
at folk-festivals, 185;
in St. George play, 219;
of fools, 384;
in miracle-plays, ii. 122, 141.
Court, the English, minstrels at, i. 47, ii. 234;
fools at, i. 386;
Christmas at, 390;
revels and disguisings at, 391;
lord of misrule at, 403;
master of revels at, 404;
miracle-plays at, 397, ii. 130, 184;
interludes at, 186, 192.
_Courtois d’Arras_, i. 79.
Courts of minstrelsy, i. 54.
Coventry, plays at, ii. 422.
_See_ _Ludus Coventriae_.
_Cradle of Security_, ii. 189, 200.
Craft-guilds, miracle-plays maintained by, ii. 111, 113, 115;
levies on members of, 116;
appropriateness of plays to occupations of, 118, 131;
and Corpus Christi procession, 162.
_Creation of the World_ of W. Jordan, ii. 435.
_Creed Play_, ii. 120, 130.
‘Creeping to the cross,’ ii. 17.
‘Crib’ at Christmas, i. 272, 333, ii. 42, 157.
Cromwell, and Protestant interludes, ii. 220.
Croxton _Sacrament_ play, ii. 427.
Cucking-stool, i. 122.
Cuckoo, the herald of summer, i. 188.
Cues, ii. 144.
Cult, its permanence, i. 99.
Cycles of miracle-plays, formed by expansion and merging, ii. 72;
become ‘cosmic’ drama, 77;
spread over successive days or years, 86, 130;
popularity of in England, 113;
their subject-matter, 125, 321.
_Cynewulf_, a _scôp_, i. 31.
Dance, a form of play, i. 160;
attacked by Church, 161;
in churches, 162;
at folk-festivals, 163, 272;
in Middle Ages, 164;
processional and circular, 164;
dramatic tendency of, 188;
at Feast of Fools, 326;
in miracle-plays, ii. 141.
_See_ Morris-dance, Sword-dance.
_Dance of Death_, ii. 153.
Dancers, in Rome, i. 6, 9;
as minstrels, 71.
Dancing sun, at Easter, i. 129.
Daniel, liturgical plays on, ii. 58, 60.
_Danse des bouffons_, i. 191.
Dati, his _Hiempsal_, ii. 212.
_Daurel et Beton_, i. 67.
Deacons, feast of, on St. Stephen’s day, i. 336.
Dead, feast of, i. 228, 247, 264.
_Deasil_, i. 123, 129, 165.
_Death_, _Dance of_, ii. 153.
Death, expulsion of, i. 183.
Death, mock, in sword-dance, i. 206;
in folk-plays, 210, 213, 219.
_Débats_, i. 79, 187;
and moralities, ii. 153;
acted as interludes, 201.
‘Decoration’ at New Year, i. 251.
Dedication of churches, wake on day of, i. 96, 114;
dramatic ceremony of, ii. 4.
Dee, John, play translated by, ii. 195.
_Degollada_, _la_, figure in sword-dance, i. 204.
_Depositio Crucis_, ii. 17.
_Deposuit_, feast of, i. 277, 306, 309, 325, 339, 345, 376.
_Descensus Christi ad inferos_, dramatic treatment of, ii. 73.
_Destruction of Jerusalem_, play on, ii. 132.
_De Symbolo_, pseudo-Augustinian sermon, ii. 52.
Devils, in miracle-plays, ii. 91, 148.
_Devozioni_, ii. 92.
Dialogues, in Anglo-Saxon literature, i. 80;
in minstrelsy, 77;
in liturgical tropes, ii. 8;
recited in schools, 212.
Dice, a temptation to minstrels, i. 48, 60;
played at mummings, 394.
_Digby Plays_, ii. 428.
Disguisings, i. 393, 400.
_See_ Mummings, Masques, Drama, Interludes.
_Disobedient Child, The_, of Ingelend, ii. 214, 223, 456.
_Disours_, i. 75, 387.
_Dit des Taboureurs_, i. 63.
_Dits_, i. 74.
Doctor, in folk-drama, i. 185;
in sword-dances, 207;
in Plough Monday play, 210;
in St. George play, 213, 218, 226.
_Doctors de trobar_, i. 63.
Domestic feast at New Year, i. 262.
_Domus_ of religious plays, ii. 79, 83, 136.
Donaueschingen, stage of Passion-play at, ii. 84.
_Dout_, i. 217.
‘Ducking’ at folk-festivals, i. 122;
at Feast of Fools, 298, 307, 313, 327.
Dumb-show, in folk-drama, i. 211.
Dracontius, his _Orestes_, ii. 209.
Dragon, in morris-dance, i. 196;
in St. George play, 212, 217, 226.
Drama, decay of, at Rome, i. 3;
elements of, in minstrelsy, 77;
developed from _pastourelles_, 171;
at English May-games, 177;
folk-element in, 182;
relation of, to dance, 188;
magical efficacy of, 192;
influence of schoolmaster on, 202;
at Feasts of Fools and Boy Bishop, 380;
element of, in liturgy, ii. 3;
process of secularization in, from thirteenth century, 69;
expansion of, 69;
brought outside the church, 79;
acted by lay guilds, 87;
vernacular introduced into, 88;
vogue of devils in, 91;
at feast of Corpus Christi, 95;
processional type of, 95;
liturgical survivals in, 96;
passes into interlude, 180;
mediaeval confusion as to nature of, 208;
controversial use of, at Reformation, 216.
_See_ Actors, Comedy, Folk-drama, Interludes, Liturgical plays,
Miracle-plays, Moralities, Tragedy, &c. &c.
_Draw a Pail of Water_, i. 124.
_Droichis Part of the Play_, assigned to Dunbar, ii. 454.
Druids, i. 251.
Dunbar, his banns for a May-game, ii. 454.
Durham Priory, extracts from accounts of, ii. 240.
Dwarf effigies, i. 353.
Earth-goddess, i. 105;
cult of, in India, 149, ii. 266;
swine sacrificed to, i. 257;
as ruler of dead, 264.
Easter, i. 114;
folk-customs at, 124, 126, 128, 150, 156, 157, 163, 165, &c.;
St. George play at, 226;
dialogued tropes for, ii. 9;
religious drama at, 15, 27, 73, 129.
_See_ _Quem quaeritis_, _Peregrini_.
Easter sepulchre. _See_ Sepulchre.
_Ecerinis_ of Mussato, ii. 211.
Edward I, his Pentecost feast, minstrels at, i. 47, ii. 234.
Edward VI, his _De Meretrice Babylonica_, ii. 218, 222.
Eggs, at Easter, i. 128;
in _Quem quaeritis_, ii. 36.
‘Elegiac’ comedies and tragedies, ii. 212.
_Elevatio Crucis_, at Easter, ii. 17, 20.
_Elisaeus_, liturgical play of, ii. 60.
Eltham, mummings at, i. 395, 397.
_Enfants-sans-Souci_, i. 374, 382.
English, John, a player, ii. 187.
_Enseignamens por Joglars_, i. 67.
Entries, royal, pageants at, ii. 166, 174, 336;
elements from miracle-plays and moralities in, 172.
Eostre, i. 108.
‘Epic’ comedies and tragedies, ii. 212.
Epicharmus, his mimes, i. 2.
_Epinette_, _roi de l’_, i. 373.
Epiphany, early significance of, i. 239;
subordinated to Christmas, 244;
New Year customs at, 247, 260;
Feast of Fools at, 323;
religious drama at, ii. 44, 129.
_See_ _Stella_.
_Episcopus puerorum_, or _Nicholatensis_, i. 369. _See_ Boy Bishop.
Erasmus, his sermon for Boy Bishop, i. 356.
_Erberie_, _Dit de l’_, of Rutebeuf, i. 33, 85.
Erce, i. 108.
_Ermulus_, i. 258.
_Esclaffardi_, i. 290, 315, 323.
Esem Esquesem, in Plough Monday play, i. 210.
_Estrifs_, i. 81.
_See_ _Débats_.
Ethelwold, St., author of _Concordia Regularis_, ii. 14, 307.
Ethnology, of Europe, i. 101;
in folk-custom, 270.
_Étourdis_, _prévot des_, i. 373.
_Étrennes._ _See_ _Strenae_.
Evergreens, as representing fertilization spirit, i. 251.
_Everyman_, _Summoning of_, ii. 155, 217, 439.
_Exemplum_, term for religious play, ii. 104.
Exeter, order of Brothelyngham at, i. 383;
fourteenth-century theatre at, 383, ii. 190.
Expulsion of Death, i. 183.
_Fabliaux_, i. 43, 74.
‘Faddy’ dance at Helston, i. 119, 165.
Fall, the, introduced into religious drama, ii. 71, 77.
Family, feast of, at New Year, i. 262.
Farce, vogue of, at Rome, i. 2, 4;
played by minstrels, 83;
in fifteenth-century France, ii. 197;
in interludes, 202.
_Farsura_, i. 277.
_Fasching_ in sword-dance, i. 192.
_Fastnachtspiele_, i. 382.
_Fatui._ _See_ Fools.
‘Feasten’ cakes, i. 133, 142, 236, 260.
Feasts, of primitive Europe, i. 110;
village, customs of, 116;
play at, 146;
at beginning of winter, 228;
in mid-winter, 234;
between harvest and New Year, 247.
_See_ Asses, Feast of; Fools, Feast of.
Ferrers, George, i. 405.
Fertilization spirit, in winter customs, i. 250.
_Feuillée_, _Jeu de la_, of Adan de la Hale, i. 381.
Fire, not taken from house at New Year, i. 217, 238, 269.
Fires at folk-festivals, i. 125, 255;
in pestilence, 127;
at Feast of Fools, 327.
‘First foot,’ i. 270.
Flagellants, and mediaeval drama in Italy, ii. 92.
Fleury, liturgical plays at, ii. 32, 37, 50, 59, 60, 61.
Flight into Egypt, representations of, i. 287, 333.
_Floralia_, a festival at Rome, i. 5.
Flower-dances, i. 166.
Flytings, i. 80.
Folk-drama, i. 182;
relation of, to sword-dance, 207, 218.
Folk-elements, in Feast of Fools, i. 298, 326;
in miracle-plays, ii. 91, 120, 147;
in royal entries, 172.
Folk-medicine, i. 117, 123.
Folk-song, of Teutons, i. 25;
adapted by minstrels, 78;
as source of _débats_, 80.
_See_ _Chansons_, Song.
Food, an object of cult, i. 104;
left on table at New Year, 266.
‘Fool,’ meaning of term, i. 334;
in folk-custom, 142, 150, 192, 196, 208, 214;
costume of, 384, 387;
in household, 386;
at miracle-plays, ii. 141;
in interludes, 141.
_See_ Buffoon, ‘Vice.’
Fool-literature, i. 382.
Fools, Feast of, i. 275;
condemned by Innocent III (1207), 279;
by council of Paris (1212), 279;
by Odo of Tusculum (1245);
described in thirteenth century, 290;
condemned by Gerson, 292;
by council of Basle (1435), 293;
by Pragmatic Sanction (1438), 293;
by Paris theologians (1445), 293;
later attacks on, 300;
customs of, 323;
possible eastern origin of, 327;
loose use of term, 337;
inherited by _sociétés joyeuses_, 373;
relation of, to liturgical drama, ii. 56;
at Paris, i. 276, 300;
at Sens, 279, 291, 297;
at Beauvais, 284, 300;
at St. Omer, 289, 305;
at Bayeux, 289;
at Autun, 289, 312;
at Nevers, 290;
at Romans, 290;
at Laon, 290, 303;
at Amiens, 290, 300;
at Troyes, 295;
at Noyon, 302;
at Soissons, 302;
at Senlis, 303;
at Rheims, 304;
at Châlons-sur-Marne, 305;
at Béthune, 305;
at Lille, 306;
at Tournai, 307;
at Chartres, 308;
at Tours, 309;
at Bourges, 309;
at Avallon, 309;
at Auxerre, 309;
at Besançon, 311;
at Dijon, 313;
at Châlons-sur-Saône, 314;
at Valence, 314;
at Vienne, 314;
at Viviers, 315;
at Arles, 317;
at Fréjus, 317;
at Aix, 317;
at Antibes, 317;
in Spain, 318;
at Mosburg, 319;
at Cologne, 320;
in Bohemia, 320;
at Lincoln, 321;
at Beverley, 322;
at St. Paul’s, 323;
at Salisbury, 323.
Fools, order of, i. 375, 382.
Football, at folk-festivals, i. 149.
Footing, payment of, i. 157.
‘Forced fire,’ i. 127.
_Four Elements, Nature of_, of John Rastell, ii. 200, 453.
_Four Ps_ of Heywood, ii. 445.
_Fous_, _prince des_, i. 373.
Foxe, John, his _Christus Triumphans_, ii. 458.
Francis, St., his divine minstrelsy, i. 46;
and the _praesepe_, ii. 42.
Frazer, J. G., his theory of human sacrifice, i. 134.
_Freewill_ of Henry Cheke, ii. 461.
French influence on English miracle-plays, ii. 108, 146.
Freyja, i. 96, 108.
Freyr, i. 98, 108, 118, 257.
Frîja, i. 108.
_Funambuli_, i. 70.
Functions of heathen gods transferred to saints, i. 98, 109.
‘Funeral of Alleluia,’ i. 186.
Future, curiosity of peasant as to, i. 271.
‘Gaderyng.’ _See_ _Quête_.
_Gaigizons_, folk-custom of, at Autun, i. 313.
Galgacus, hero of folk-play, i. 211.
Games, festival origin of, i. 148.
_Gammer Gurton’s Needle_, ii. 195, 216, 457.
‘Gang-week,’ i. 120.
_Garçon et l’Aveugle, Le_, i. 86.
‘Geese-dancers,’ or disguisers, i. 402.
_Gemeinwoche_, i. 247.
Genesius, St., a converted mime, i. 10;
the patron of minstrels, 42.
_Gentleness and Nobility_, assigned to Heywood, ii. 446.
Geoffrey of St. Albans, his play on St. Catherine, ii. 64, 107.
_Geola_, i. 230.
‘George’ in churches, i. 224.
George, St., his day, i. 114;
in morris-dance, 197;
legend of, 138, 225;
ridings of, 118, 221;
miracle-plays on, 224, ii. 132.
George, St., or Mummers’ play, range of, i. 211, 220;
analysis of, 211;
characters of, 212;
relation to sword-dance, 207, 218;
symbolism of spring in, 218;
relation to Seven Champions, 220;
to St. George ridings, 221;
transferred from spring to mid-winter, 226;
text of, ii. 276.
Gerhoh von Reichersberg, ii. 64, 86, 98.
Germano-Kelts, their feasts, i. 228;
ignorance of solstices, 228;
influence of Rome upon, 232.
_Gesta Grayorum_, i. 417.
_Gestator regis_, i. 68.
_Geta_, ii. 207.
‘Giants’ in folk-festivals, i. 120, 139;
at royal entries, ii. 173.
Gladiators, suppressed, i. 20;
survival of, in minstrelsy, 72.
Glastonbury thorn, i. 252.
Gleeman (_gleómon_), name for _scôp_, i. 28, 30, 34;
survival of, after Conquest, 43, 75.
Gleewood, or harp, i. 29.
_Gloriosi et famosi_, ii. 54.
God, the concept of, i. 104.
Godiva procession at Coventry, i. 119, ii. 163.
_God’s Promises_ of Bale, ii. 448.
‘Golden Mass,’ at Tournai, ii. 67, 318.
_Goliardi_, i. 60, 280, 327, ii. 8, 27, 37, 57, 72.
‘Gooding,’ i. 253.
Γοτθικόν, τό, at Byzantium, i. 273.
_Grange_, _Prince de la_, at Lincoln’s Inn, i. 415.
Green Knight, of Arthurian romance, i. 186.
Gregory the Great, his missionary policy, i. 95.
Grimald, Nicholas, his plays, ii. 194, 218, 450.
Grosseteste, Robert, his harper, i. 56;
against minstrels, 39;
against folk-ludi, 91;
against Feast of Fools, 321;
his name given to Christmas king, 411;
against miracle-plays, ii. 100.
Grotesques, as survivals of sacrifice, i. 142;
in sword-dance, 192;
in morris-dance, 196;
in St. George play, 214.
Gubbio, _Ceri_ procession at, i. 119.
Guenever, her Maying, i. 179.
Guilds, of minstrels, i. 55, ii. 258;
for Feast of Fools, i. 373;
religious and miracle-plays, ii. 87, 118;
and secular plays, 198.
_See_ Corpus Christi Guilds, Craft-guilds, _Puys_, _Sociétés
joyeuses_.
Guiraut de Riquier, his _Supplicatio_, i. 63.
Guisers, i. 227, 402.
Gunpowder day, i. 115.
Guy Fawkes, his day, i. 248, 253, 255.
_Gwyl_, i. 231.
Gyst-ale, i. 179.
Hale, Adan de la, his _jeux_, i. 171, 381.
Halls, interludes in, ii. 188.
Hare, a divine animal, i. 131.
_Harlots_, the, a theatre at Constantinople, i. 16.
Harp, used by minstrels, i. 73.
_Harrowing of Hell_, an _estrif_, i. 80, 83, ii. 74.
Harrowing of Hell, in Easter drama, ii. 73.
Harvest festival, i. 111, 114.
Harvest field, sacrificial customs of, i. 158.
Harvest-lords, i. 143.
Harvest-May, i. 117, 250.
_Hastiludia_, i. 392.
‘Haxey hood,’ on Epiphany, i. 150.
Heads of sacrificed animals worn by worshippers, i. 132;
in folk-custom, 141, 258, 268, 327, 385, 391, &c.
Hearse, i. 277.
Heat-charms. _See_ Sun-charms.
Heathenism, its survival in folk-custom, i. 94, ii. 290, &c.
Heaven-god, i. 105.
‘Heaving,’ at Easter, i. 157.
Hell, Harrowing of, in Easter drama, ii. 73.
Hell, representation of, in miracle-plays, ii. 86, 137, 142.
Heralds of summer, i. 110.
Hereward, Saxon lays of, i. 43, 76.
Herman, Guillaume, unedited play by, ii. 152.
_Herod_, drama of. _See_ _Stella_.
Herod, how acted in miracle-plays, ii. 48, 57, 90, 139.
Herodas, his mimes, i. 2.
Herodias, i. 109.
_Herodis Convivium_, liturgical play of, ii. 61.
Heroic lays sung by minstrels, i. 62.
Herrad von Landsberg, on Feast of Fools, i. 318;
on miracle-plays, ii. 98.
Heywood, John, his interludes, ii. 196, 203, 443.
_Hickscorner_, ii. 200, 453.
Higden, Randulph, probable author of _Chester Plays_, ii. 145, 352.
Higgs, Griffin, his _Christmas Prince_, i. 408.
Hilarius, his liturgical plays, ii. 57, 107.
Hills, cults on, i. 107, 129.
_Histrio_, classical sense of, i. 6. _See_ Minstrels.
_Hiver et de l’Été, Débat de l’_, i. 80, 187.
Hobby-horse, i. 142, 196, 214, 258.
Hockey, at folk-festivals, i. 149, 157.
Hocking, i. 155.
‘Hockney day’ at Hungerford, i. 156.
Hock-tide, i. 154, 187, ii. 264.
_Hodie cantandus_, a Christmas trope, ii. 8.
Hogmanay, i. 254.
Holly, as fertilization spirit, i. 251.
_Holophernes_, alleged play of, ii. 196.
Holophernes, his part in folk-drama, i. 202, 219, 221.
Holy Rood legend in miracle-plays, ii. 127.
Holy water, i. 124.
Holy wells, i. 122.
‘Honour,’ minstrels of, i. 54.
Hood of fools, i. 308, 384.
Hood, Robin, in May-game, i. 174;
origin of, 175;
plays on, 177;
in morris-dance, 195;
in St. George play, 216;
as lord of misrule, ii. 334.
‘Hooding,’ i. 253.
‘Horn-dance’ at Abbot’s Bromley, i. 166.
Horses, sacrificed by Teutons, i. 131;
let blood on St. Stephen’s day, 257.
_Hortulanus_ scene in _Quem quaeritis_, ii. 31.
Household, minstrels in, i. 48;
fool in, 386;
players in, ii. 186.
House-spirits fed at New Year, i. 266.
_How many Miles to Babylon_, i. 152.
Howards, extracts from accounts of, ii. 255.
Hrotsvitha, plays of, ii. 207.
Humanist influence on drama, ii. 181, 206, 214.
Humanity, represented in moralities, ii. 155.
Human sacrifice, its meaning, i. 133;
abolition of, 136;
traces of, in folk-festivals, 143, 260, &c.
Hunt, Christmas, at Inner Temple, i. 415.
Hunters, religion of, i. 106.
‘Husbands’ of miracle-play, ii. 119.
_Iiuleis_, i. 230.
Images, origin of, i. 259.
_Impatient Poverty_, ii. 461.
_Imperator_, lord of misrule, i. 413.
Indian earth-goddess, her festival, i. 149, ii. 266.
_Inductio Autumni_, i. 91.
_Inductio Maii_, i. 91, 172.
_Infanterie Dijonnaise_, i. 373, 384.
Ingelend, Thomas, his _Disobedient Child_, ii. 214, 223, 457.
Innocent III, against Feast of Fools, i. 279, 337, ii. 99.
Innocents’ day, i. 247, 260, 344.
_See_ Boy Bishop.
Inns, interludes in, ii. 189.
Inns of Court, revels at, i. 413;
interludes at, ii. 194.
Interlude, a form of disguising, i. 400;
origin and meaning of name, ii. 181;
chiefly applied to domestic plays, 183;
characteristics of, 188;
public performances of, 189;
by villagers, 192;
by inns of court, 194;
in universities, 194;
in schools, 195;
subject-matter of, 199;
controversial use of, 216;
state regulation of, 220, 225;
inheritance of Elizabethan stage from, 224.
_Interludentes_, ii. 186, 233.
Interludes, players of, ii. 179.
_See_ Actors.
_Interludium de Clerico et Puella_, i. 86, ii. 181, 202;
text of, 324.
_Interlusores_, ii. 186, 233.
_Introit_, tropes to, ii. 8.
_Ioculator Regis_, i. 68.
_Ioculatores_, ii. 230.
_See_ Minstrels.
Iron, not taken from house at New Year, i. 238, 269.
Isaac and Rebecca, liturgical play on, ii. 60.
Italy, special developments of mediaeval drama in, ii. 91.
_Iubilus_, ii. 7.
Ivy, as fertilization spirit, i. 251.
‘Jack i’ the green,’ i. 117.
_Jack Juggler_, ii. 457.
‘Jack o’ Lent,’ i. 186.
‘Jack Straw,’ at Lincoln’s Inn Christmas, i. 414.
Jape, i. 84.
Jerome, St., and theatre, i. 17, 25.
Jesters, i. 68, 386.
_Jeu de la Feuillée_, i. 381.
_Jeu de Robin et Marion_, i. 171.
_Jeu du Pèlerin_, i. 171.
_Jeunesse_, _prince de la_, i. 373.
Jevons, F. B., on human sacrifice, i. 135.
_Jocs-partitz_ (_jeux-partis_), i. 78.
_Joglars_, i. 63.
_John Baptist_ of Bale, ii. 448.
John Baptist, St., his day, i. 126, 241;
_sacre rappresentazioni_ on, at Florence, ii. 94.
John Evangelist, St., his day, i. 247;
feast of priests on, 336.
‘John Jack,’ in St. George play, i. 215.
_John, Tib, and Sir John_ of Heywood, ii. 445.
Jordan, W., his _Creation of the World_, ii. 435.
_Jougleurs._ _See_ Minstrels.
Jugglers, i. 68, 71, ii. 231.
Julian Hospitator, St., patron of minstrels, i. 42.
_Julian the Apostate_, play of, ii. 132.
Julian, the Emperor, his dislike of the theatre, i. 10;
his cult of the Sun, 235.
Justinian, code of, theatrical legislation in, i. 14, 16.
Kalends, of January, the New Year feast of the Roman Empire, i. 237;
hostility of Church to, 244, ii. 290;
relation of, to Christmas, i. 246;
customs of, 250, 262, 266;
_cervulus_ at, 258;
survival of, in Feast of Fools, 329.
Keltic minstrels, i. 76.
Kelts and Teutons, their common civilization, i. 100.
‘Kern-baby,’ i. 117.
King, why slain at festivals, i. 134.
‘King-ale,’ i. 179.
‘King-game,’ varying sense of, i. 173.
_King John_, of Bale, ii. 221, 449.
King of Egypt, in St. George play, i. 217.
Kings, mock, in folk-custom, i. 143, 260;
in singing games, 152, 165;
at May-games, 173;
at _Saturnalia_, 236;
at Feast of Fools, 326;
as Boy Bishops, 368;
of _Sociétés joyeuses_, 373;
as lords of misrule, 403.
_See_ Rex.
Kirchmayer, his plays, ii. 217.
Kite, Bishop, as actor, ii. 193.
Kölbigk, dancers of, i. 162, 272.
Laberius, a mimograph, i. 4, 9.
_Lâc_, i. 160.
‘Lady’ at folk-festivals, i. 173.
_Lais_, i. 74.
‘Lamb-ale,’ i. 179.
Lammas-tide, i. 114.
Laneham, Robert, his account of Hock Tuesday, i. 154, ii. 264.
Langland, William, against minstrels, i. 41.
Langton, Stephen, unedited play by, ii. 152.
‘Largess,’ i. 158.
_Larvae._ _See_ Masks.
Lath, sword of, worn by fool, i. 387.
Latin, known to minstrels, i. 60.
_Laudesi_, ii. 92.
Lazarus, liturgical plays on, ii. 58, 60.
Legends in miracle-plays, ii. 126.
Liberius, not founder of Christmas, i. 239.
_Libertas Decembrica_, i. 236.
Limoges, liturgical dramas at, ii. 44, 45, 53, 61.
‘Little Devil Dout,’ in St. George play, i. 215.
Liturgical drama, origin of, in tropes, ii. 7;
at Easter, 27;
at Christmas, 41;
later developments of, 57;
passes into miracle-play, 69;
in England, 107.
_See_ _Peregrini_, _Prophetae_, _Quem quaeritis_, _Stella_.
Liturgy, dramatic element in, ii. 3.
_Loca_ of religious plays, ii. 79, 83, 136.
Lord mayor’s show, ii. 165.
Lord of misrule. _See_ Misrule, lord of.
Lord’s Prayer, plays of. _See_ _Paternoster_ plays.
Loschi, his _Achilleis_, ii. 212.
Love, as _motif_ of folk-song, i. 169.
_Love_, of Heywood, ii. 444.
Lucas de Barre, blinded for minstrelsy, i. 46;
a _trouvère_, 64.
_Lucrece_, an interlude, ii. 458.
_Ludi_ of folk, attacked by thirteenth-century bishops, i. 90;
their loose morals, 93;
their heathen origin, 94.
_Ludi regis_, i. 393.
_Ludi theatrales_, in churches, condemned, i. 342, ii. 100.
_Ludus_, meaning of term, i. 393, ii. 104.
_Ludus Coventriae_, ii. 124, 126, 145, 146, 152, 416.
_Ludus de Rege et Regina_, i. 91, 172.
_Ludus Septem Sapientum_ of Ausonius, ii. 212.
_Lugnassad_, i. 111, 231.
Luke, St., his day, i. 247.
_Lusor_, meaning of term, ii. 185, 233.
_Lusty Juventus_ of R. Wever, ii. 223, 460.
_Lusus Troiae_, i. 203.
Luther in interludes, ii. 219.
Lutheran drama, ii. 216.
Lydgate, his devices for mummings, i. 396;
claimed as author of miracle-plays, ii. 145;
his verses for Corpus Christi, 161.
Lyndsay, Sir David, his play, ii. 157, 441.
Macro manuscript of plays, ii. 155, 436.
Magdalen, St. Mary, in religious drama, ii. 32, 60, 75, 90, 131, 155.
Magdalen College, Oxford, extracts from accounts of, ii. 248.
_Magi_, drama of. _See_ _Stella_.
Magic and religion, i. 102;
‘sympathetic’ and ‘mimetic,’ 121.
_Magnificence_ of John Skelton, ii. 157, 441.
Magnus, plays of, ii. 207.
Maid Marian, relation of, to Robin Hood legend, i. 175;
in morris-dance, 195.
_Maierolles_, i. 168.
_Maistre_, title for minstrels, i. 47.
‘Making Christ’s bed,’ i. 187.
_Mankind_, ii. 155, 438.
Mannyng, Robert, of Brunne, against minstrels, i. 40;
against folk-_ludi_, 93;
against interludes, ii. 182.
_Marescallus_, title for minstrels, i. 50, ii. 239.
Margaret, St., in St. George ridings, i. 223.
Marham, ‘abbot’ of, at Shrewsbury, i. 173, 383, ii. 252.
_Marienklagen_, ii. 40.
Marion, and Robin, in _pastourelles_, i. 171.
_Marionnettes_, i. 71, ii. 158.
Mark, St., his day, i. 114.
Market place, miracle-plays in, ii. 135.
_Marotte_ of fool, i. 385.
‘Marriage’ of fruit-trees, i. 250.
Marriage of heaven and earth, i. 105, 144, 187.
Marseilles, forbids mimes, i. 7.
Martin, St., his day, i. 230, 247, 256;
as gift-giver, 268.
Masks, in folk-processions, i. 258;
in Feast of Fools, 327;
sacrificial origin of, 391;
sale of, forbidden, 396.
Masques, at Christmas, i. 391;
development of mummings, 401;
origin of name, 402.
Mass, dramatic character of, ii. 3.
_Matres_, i. 231, 264.
_Mattacino_, i. 191.
Maundy Thursday, dramatic ceremony on, ii. 6.
Maxstoke Priory, extracts from accounts of, ii. 244.
May-brides, i. 144.
May-day, origin of, i. 114;
its customs, 116, 126, 140, 173, &c.;
songs of, 168.
May-game, early notices of, i. 173;
nature of, 176;
plays in, 177;
dances at, 178;
decay of, 179;
morris-dance in, 196.
May-garland, i. 117.
May-kings, i. 143.
May-poles, i. 117;
destroyed at Reformation, 180.
May-queens, i. 144.
Mayors, mock, i. 261.
Mead, i. 133.
Medwall, Henry, his plays, ii. 200, 443.
_Mehlweib_, in sword-dance, i. 192.
_Mercator_ in _Quem quaeritis_, ii. 33, 75, 91.
_Meriasek_, _St._, play of, ii. 132, 435.
_Messe à liesse_, i. 304.
Methodius, dialogues of, ii. 206.
Michael III, his riots at Constantinople, i. 327.
Michaelmas, i. 114, 247.
Midsummer day, i. 114, 126;
‘watches’ on, 118, ii. 165.
_Mimae_ play naked at _Floralia_, i. 5.
Mime, a type of farce, in Magna Graecia, i. 2;
in Roman world, 4.
_Mimi_, players in mimes, i. 6;
type of, preserved in minstrelsy, 24, 65, ii. 232;
their modes of entertainment, i. 70;
farces possibly played by, in Middle Ages, 83.
_Mind, Will, and Understanding_, ii. 155, 438.
_Minni_, i. 98, 133, 229, 267.
Minorites, taken for minstrels, i. 57.
Minot, Laurence, i. 76.
Minstrels, origin in Latin _mimus_ and Teutonic _scôp_, i. 25, 33, 58;
disrepute with Saxon churchmen, 31;
with Frankish churchmen, 35;
with mediaeval church, 38;
their sense of their own _infamia_, 42;
their life in mediaeval England, 44;
its seamy side, 48;
in households, 48;
origin of name, 48;
their testimonials, 53;
legal restrictions on their movements, 54;
partial toleration of them by the church, 55;
classification of, by Thomas de Cabham, 59;
professional distinctions amongst, 62;
distinction between composer and executant appears amongst, 63;
many-sidedness of, 66;
decay of, at invention of printing, 68;
various modes of entertainment by, 70;
dramatic tendencies amongst, 77;
at miracle-plays, ii. 140;
become interlude-players, 186;
various names for, 230;
hierarchy of, 238;
guilds of, 258;
courts of, 259.
Miracle-plays, development of, from liturgical plays, ii. 79;
attitude of Church to, 97;
names for, 103;
early notices of, in England, 108;
wide range of, 109, 121;
disliked by Lollards and Reformers, 111;
revived under Mary, 112;
extinction of, 112;
organization of, 113;
processional type of, 133;
where played, 134;
pageants of, 136;
time of playing, 138;
dates for, 138;
style of acting in, 139;
properties of, 141;
books of, 143;
authorship of, 144;
interrelations of, 146;
folk-elements in, 147;
liturgical survivals in, 148;
later developments from, 149;
allegory in, 151;
given in halls, 184;
by travelling companies, 184;
relation of interludes to, 191, 205.
_See_ Corpus Christi, Craft-guilds, Cycles, Guilds, Municipalities,
Parish plays, &c.
_Miracula._ _See_ Miracle-plays.
Misrule, lord of, at folk-festivals, i. 173, 260;
at English and Scottish courts, 403;
George Ferrers as, 405;
at universities, 407;
at inns of court, 413;
in private households, 418.
_See also_ Abbot, Christmas Prince, Kings.
_Missa Praesanctificatorum_, ii. 17.
_Missel des Fous_ at Sens, i. 279.
Mistletoe, as fertilization spirit, i. 251.
Mithraism, i. 235, 242.
Mock bishops. _See_ Bishops of Fools, Boy Bishops.
Mock fights in folk-custom, i. 187.
Mock kings, mayors. _See_ Kings, Mayors.
_Modranicht_, i. 231, 265.
Moors, in morris-dance, i. 199.
Moral licence of folk-festivals, i. 145.
Moralities, origins of, ii. 151;
themes of, 153;
mode of representing, 156;
in interlude form, 199;
list of extant, 436.
More, Sir Thomas, his love of plays, ii. 193.
Morris-dance, in England, i. 195;
relation to May-game, 179, 196;
in Europe, 198;
origin of name, 199;
identity of, with sword-dance, 200;
in St. George play, 219.
Mother-goddess, i. 105.
‘Motions,’ ii. 158.
Mummers, at modern Christmas, i. 227, 402.
Mummers’ play. _See_ St. George play.
Mummings, nature and origin of, i. 393;
devices for, by Lydgate, 396;
pageants in, 397, 399;
development into masques, 401.
_Mundus et Infans_, ii. 155, 439.
Municipal minstrels, or waits, i. 51.
Municipal plays, origin of, in fourteenth century, ii. 109;
under control of corporation, 114;
maintenance of, 115. _See_ Craft-guilds.
Music in minstrelsy, i. 73.
Mussato, his _Ecerinis_, ii. 211.
_Mystères mimés_, ii. 173.
Mystery-play, meaning of term, ii. 105.
Myth in folk-songs, i. 169.
Nakedness, of _mimae_ at _Floralia_, i. 5;
at Feast of Fools, 327;
how represented in miracle-plays, ii. 142.
_Narr_, in sword-dance, i. 192.
Narrative literature of minstrels, i. 74.
Nativity. _See_ Christmas.
_Nature_ of Medwall, ii. 200, 443.
Nebuchadnezzar, episode of, in _Prophetae_, ii. 55.
‘Neck,’ at harvest, i. 117.
_Necromantia_, ii. 455.
‘Need-fire,’ i. 127.
Nehellenia, i. 109.
Neo-Latin drama, ii. 216.
Nero appears in theatre, i. 9.
Nerthus, i. 108, 118, 122.
_Neumae_, ii. 7.
‘New’ fire, i. 229.
‘New’ water, at New Year, i. 255.
New Year, at beginning of winter, i. 228;
on January Kalends, 237;
at Christmas, Annunciation, Easter, 246;
customs of, at Christmas, 246;
at other winter feasts, 247;
festival customs of, 249;
fertilization spirit at, 250;
water and fire rites at, 255;
sacrifice at, 256;
mock kings at, 260;
domestic feast at, 262;
dead commemorated at, 263;
omens at, 269;
play at, 272;
ecclesiastical revels at, 275.
_See_ Kalends.
Newcastle, plays at, ii. 424.
_Nice Wanton_, ii. 223, 460.
Nicholas, St., in sword-dance, i. 195;
his day, 232, 247;
patron of children and schools, 263, 369;
as gift-giver, 268;
relation of Boy Bishop to, 363, 369;
religious plays on, ii. 59, 132.
_Nigramansir_, alleged play of, by Skelton, ii. 440.
_Nigremance_, i. 71.
Njordr, i. 108.
_Noëls_, i. 272.
‘Noise,’ Sneak’s, in Eastcheap, i. 69.
Norwich, plays at, ii. 425.
Notker Labeo translates Terence, ii. 207.
_Nuts in May_, i. 189.
_Oats and Beans and Barley_, i. 189.
_Obstetrices_ in liturgical drama, ii. 41, 46, 126.
Odin, i. 108, 264.
‘_Oes_,’ i. 344.
_Officium_, term for religious play, ii. 103.
_Officium Circumcisionis_, i. 280, 289, 297, ii. 279.
‘Old Father Christmas,’ in St. George play, i. 216.
Omens for New Year, i. 238, 250, 266, 269.
‘Open the Door,’ in St. George play, i. 216.
_Oranges and Lemons_, i. 151.
_Ordinale_, book of miracle-play, ii. 143.
‘Ordinary,’ prompter, ii. 140.
_Ordo_, term for religious play, ii. 103.
‘Originals,’ books of miracle-plays, ii. 114, 143.
Orosius, his attack on the theatre, i. 18.
Owls, sacrifice of, i. 257.
‘Pace-eggers,’ and St. George play, i. 226.
_Paedonomus_, lord of misrule, i. 413.
‘Pageant-masters,’ ii. 116.
Pageants, for miracle-plays, ii. 95, 115, 133;
structure of, 136;
in processions, 161;
in royal entries, 166;
in masques, i. 398, ii. 176.
‘Pagent pencys,’ ii. 116.
‘Pajaunt silver,’ ii. 116.
Palm Sunday, i. 114;
dramatic ceremonies on, ii. 4.
_Palmesel_, i. 333, ii. 5.
Palsgrave, John, his _Acolastus_, ii. 459.
_Pammachius_ of Kirchmayer, ii. 195, 217, 220, 224.
_Pantomimi_, i. 6, 23.
_Parade_ of minstrels, i. 72, 85.
_Parcae_, table laid for, at New Year, i. 266.
_Pardoner and the Friar, The_, of Heywood, ii. 444.
Parish clerks, their plays in London, ii. 119.
Parish plays, frequency of, ii. 109, 121;
organization of, 121;
decay of, 191.
Passion, dramatic recitation of, ii. 5.
Passion play, begins in Good Friday _planctus_, ii. 40;
development of, 75;
in England, 129.
_Pastores_, a Christmas liturgical play, abuses of, i. 343;
origin and absorption of, ii. 41.
_Pastourelles_, i. 78, 171.
_Paternoster_ plays, ii. 120, 154.
Patriarch of Fools, i. 303, 326, 329. _See_ Feast of Fools.
_Pauli Conversio_, liturgical play of, ii. 61.
_Pèlerin_, _Jeu du_, i. 85.
Perchta, i. 109, 264, 266.
Percy, bishop, his view of minstrelsy, i. 66.
_Peregrini_, an Easter liturgical drama, ii. 36, 107.
_Personnages_, _joueurs de_, ii. 198.
Pestilence, charms for, i. 127, 140.
Petrarch, his _Philologia_, ii. 212.
_Pfingstl_, in folk-drama, i. 185.
Philistion, his mimes, i. 4.
Pickle Herring, i. 208.
Pilate, in religious drama, ii. 38, 139.
_Planctus_, in religious drama, ii. 33, 40, 44, 75, 129.
_Platea_, in religious plays, ii. 80, 135.
‘Play,’ in sense of ‘jest,’ i. 84.
Play, instinct of, i. 147;
at village festivals, 147;
at New Year, 272.
Play-books, ii. 143.
‘Player,’ meaning of term, ii. 185, 233.
Player-chambers, ii. 188.
Players. _See_ Actors.
Plays. _See_ Comedy, Drama, Interludes, Liturgical Drama,
Miracle-plays, Moralities, Passion plays, St. George play, Tragedy,
&c.
Plough Monday, i. 114, 121, 150, 209;
folk-plays on, 207.
_See_ Ship processions.
Ploughing charm of Anglo-Saxons, i. 108, 167.
Ploughing festival, i. 111, 114.
Politics, in minstrelsy, i. 45, 76;
in interludes, ii. 219.
Polytheism, origin of, i. 107.
Pope of Fools, i. 302, 326.
_See_ Feast of Fools.
_Praesepe._ _See_ Crib.
_Praestigiatores_, i. 7, 71.
Prayer in folk-song, i. 167;
at end of interludes, ii. 189.
Pre-Aryan elements in folk-lore, i. 101.
_Pride of Life_, ii. 155, 436.
Priests, feast of, on St. John’s day, i. 336.
Printing, the ruin of minstrelsy, i. 68.
_Prisio_, a sacrificial forfeit, i. 156, 298.
Privy council, plays regulated by, ii. 223, 225.
_Procession noire_, at Evreux, i. 378.
Processional dances, i. 164.
Processional miracle-plays, ii. 95, 133, 160.
Processions, at folk-festivals, i. 118, ii. 165;
at Kalends, 237;
at Feast of Fools, 327;
at religious feasts, i. 222, ii. 160;
in cities, 165;
called ‘pageants,’ 176.
_See_ Corpus Christi procession, Ridings.
‘Prodigal Son’ motive in drama, ii. 217.
Prompters, ii. 140, 144.
‘Properties’ of miracle-plays, ii. 141.
Prophet, on Palm Sunday, ii. 5.
_Prophetae_, liturgical drama of, and Feast of Fools, i. 109, ii. 56;
origin and development of, ii. 52, 70;
in England, 67, 107.
_Prosae_, i. 277, ii. 8.
‘Prose of the Ass,’ i. 282, 284, 287, 309, 312, 329, 331;
text of, ii. 279.
Publilius Syrus, a mimograph, i. 4.
_Pulcinella_, ii. 159.
_Pulpita_, ii. 135.
_Punch and Judy_, ii. 159.
Punishments, survivals of folk-custom in, i. 152.
Puppet-shows, i. 71, ii. 157.
Puritans, dislike minstrelsy, i. 41;
dislike May-day, 168, 180;
dislike _sepulchrum_, ii. 24;
dislike miracle-plays, 103, 111;
dislike interludes, 99, 111, 216.
Purpoole, Prince of, at Gray’s Inn, i. 416.
_Puy_, a bourgeois institution, i. 65;
minstrels in, i. 376, ii. 258;
relation of, to Feast of Fools, i. 376;
in London, i. 376, ii. 198;
secular plays acted by, i. 172, 376, ii. 197;
miracle-plays acted by, ii. 87.
_Pyrrhicha_, i. 7, 203.
Quack. _See_ Doctor.
‘Queen’ at folk-festivals, i. 170, 173, 261.
_Quem quaeritis_, an Easter trope, ii. 9;
at Winchester, 12;
becomes a drama, 15, 306;
relation of, to Easter sepulchre, 16, 25;
a _Visitatio sepulchri_, 25;
precedes _Te Deum_ at Matins, 26;
varieties of custom, 26;
texts of, 26;
doubtful origin of, 27;
diffusion of, 27;
development of, 28;
_Victimae paschali_ in, 29;
the Maries scenes, 30;
the Apostles scene, 30;
the risen Christ or _Hortulanus_ scene, 31;
_planctus_ in, 32;
_unguentarius_ in, 33;
staging of, 34;
remains part of liturgy, 35;
folk and religious Easter motives in, 36;
in England, 107;
text of Dublin version, 315.
_Querolus_, ii. 207.
_Quêtes_, at folk-festivals, i. 119, 156, 176, 209, 217, 253, 257,
263, &c.;
songs for, 168;
by Boy Bishop, 356, ii. 287;
for miracle-plays, ii. 117.
_Rabardiaux_, procession of, at Laon, i. 303.
Races, at folk-festivals, i. 148.
_Rachel_, liturgical drama of, ii. 44.
Radclif, Ralph, plays by, ii. 196, 205, 218.
Raherus, a minstrel, founds St. Bartholomew’s, i. 48.
Rain-charms, i. 103, 121, 255, 327.
‘Ram-raisings,’ at folk-festivals, i. 91, 148.
Rastell, John, his stage at Finsbury, ii. 183;
his _Nature of the Four Elements_, 200, 453.
Ravisius Textor, his dialogues, ii. 214.
Reading, the habit of, a rival to minstrelsy, i. 65, 68;
plays used for, ii. 186.
_Reconciliation of the Heavenly Virtues_, a theme of moralities, ii.
152.
Redford, John, his _Wit and Science_, ii. 200, 454.
Refectory, religious plays in, ii. 86.
Reformation, controversial use of drama at, ii. 216. _See_ Puritans.
_Refrain_ in folk-songs, i. 171.
_Registrum_, ii. 143.
Religion, of Kelto-Teutons, its origin, i. 99;
and magic, 102;
higher elements of, 146.
Religious controversy in interludes, ii. 216.
_Remember us poor Mayers all_, i. 169.
_Repraesentatio_, term for religious play, ii. 104, 210.
Representations of miracle-plays, list of, ii. 329.
_Responsorium_, nature of, ii. 6.
_Respublica_, ii. 460.
Resurrection, treatment of, in Easter drama, ii. 38, 73;
plays on, in England, 129.
_See_ _Quem quaeritis_, _Peregrini_.
Resurrection motive, in folk-drama, i. 185;
in sword-dance, 207;
in St. George play, 213, 218.
Revels, at court, i. 393;
master of, 399, 404.
Revesby, Plow Boys’ play at, i. 207.
_Rex_, of minstrels, i. 50, ii. 232, 238, 259;
_aestivalis_, 173;
_Saturnalitius_, 236.
_See_ Kings.
‘Riding the stang,’ i. 152.
‘Ridings,’ on festivals, i. 221, ii. 160.
‘Risin’ and buryin’ Peter,’ i. 187.
Ritson, Joseph, his view of minstrelsy, i. 66.
Ritwise, John, ii. 196, 215, 219.
‘_Robene hude_,’ a dance, i. 178.
Robert of Sicily, plays on, ii. 151, 205.
Robin and Marion, in _pastourelles_, i. 171, 175.
_Robin Conscience_, ii. 461.
Robin Hood, in May-game, i. 174;
legend of, 175;
plays on, 177, ii. 205.
Robin Hood’s ale, i. 179.
Rogations, i. 114, 119.
_Roi._ _See_ _Rex_.
_Roi d’Angleterre, et le Jougleur d’Ely, Le_, i. 85.
_Roister Doister_ of Udall, ii. 215, 452.
Romance, in interludes, ii. 205.
_Romans d’aventure_, i. 74.
_Rondes_, i. 165.
Roo, Thomas, play by, ii. 194, 219.
‘Room,’ in St. George play, i. 216.
_Round the Mulberry Bush_, i. 189.
Rounds, for miracle-plays, ii. 85, 123, 135.
Royal household. _See_ Household.
Royal Oak day, i. 115.
Rushbearing, i. 114, 168.
Rutebeuf, a typical minstrel, i. 48, 65;
his _Chariot et le Barbier_, 79;
his _Dit de l’Erberie_, 83, 85.
Sabra, in St. George play, i. 217.
_Sacci_, in Twelve nights, i. 215, 268.
_Sacrament_, Croxton play of, ii. 133, 427.
_Sacre rappresentazioni_, ii. 92.
Sacrifice, attitude of Christianity to, i. 98;
types of, 130;
ceremonies at, 132, ii. 266;
survivals of, in folk-custom, i. 139, 256;
at beginning of winter, 229;
in athletics, 148;
in singing games, 151;
in forfeits, 157;
in sword-dance, 203;
in St. George play, 218;
heads and skins of victims, worn by worshippers at, 166, 258, 385,
391.
_See_ Masks.
Saint Gall, song-school of, i. 338.
Saint Magnus’ church, Kölbigk, legend of dancers at, i. 162.
Saint Paul’s, two schools at, and their plays, ii. 196, 203, 219.
Saints, legends of, sung by minstrels, i. 62;
religious plays on, ii. 97, 123, 132.
_Salii_, dance of, i. 203.
_Saltatores_, i. 71.
_Samhain_, i. 111, 230, 234.
_Satura_, early type of Italian farce, i. 2.
_Saturnalia_, i. 235, 330.
_Satyre of the Thrie Estaitis_ of Sir David Lyndsay, ii. 157, 441.
‘Sawing the Old Woman,’ i. 183.
Scaffolds for miracle-plays, ii. 136.
Scapegoat, i. 184.
Scenic arrangements of religious plays, ii, 79, 83.
School-drama of humanists, ii. 214.
Schoolmaster, his influence on folk-drama. _See_ Holophernes.
Schools, Boy Bishop in, i. 362, 413;
interludes in, ii. 195;
recitations in, during Middle Ages, 212.
_Schul-Bischof_, i. 369.
Scilling, a _scôp_, i. 29.
Scogan, John, his _comoediae_, ii. 211.
_Scolae ministrallorum_, i. 53.
_Scolares vagantes._ _See_ _Goliardi_.
_Scôp_, of Teutons, i. 25, 34;
relation of, to _comitatus_, 27;
in England, 28.
_Scotales_, i. 91.
_Scurra_, ii. 233.
Secular plays, on lines of miracle-plays, ii. 150.
Secularization of religious drama, ii. 69.
_Sedes_ of religious plays, ii. 79, 83, 136.
Seneca, his tragedies, i. 3;
at Renascence, ii. 211, 216.
Sepulchre at Easter, in _Concordia Regularis_, ii. 16;
doubtful origin of, 18;
vogue of, in England, 19;
varying ceremonies of, 19;
host laid in, 21;
structure of, 21;
light and watch before, 23;
at Reformation, 24;
at Durham, 310;
at Salisbury, 312.
_Sequentiae_, ii. 8.
_Sermons joyeuses_, i. 381, ii. 157, 203.
Seven Champions of Christendom, in sword-dance, i. 194;
in St. George play, 220.
Sex-costume, change of, at festivals, i. 144, 214, 216, 218, 238,
262, 327, &c.
Sexagesimal calendar. _See_ Three-score-day-tide calendar.
Sex-cults, i. 105, 144, 159.
Shakespeare, folk-lore of, in _Hamlet_, i. 267;
his fools, 388.
Shaven heads of minstrels, i. 45.
‘Ship,’ for play of _Noah_, ii. 136.
Ship processions, i. 121;
play on Noah attached to, ii. 119, 131.
Shoes, capture of, i. 157.
‘Shows’ of craft-guilds, ii. 162.
Shrewsbury, fragments of religious plays found at, ii. 90;
extracts from corporation accounts of, 250.
Shrovetide, i. 114, 150, 157, 163, 382, &c.
_See_ Carnival.
Sibyl, in _Prophetae_, ii. 53.
Sidney, Philip, moved by minstrelsy, i. 69.
_Sigillaria_, i. 236.
_Signs of Judgement_, ii. 53.
Singing games, survival of sacrifice in, i. 151;
dance in, 165;
drama in, 189.
_Sir Roger de Coverley_, a dance, i. 165.
Skalds, of Scandinavia, i. 43.
Skelton, John, his plays, ii. 157, 440.
‘Skimmington riding,’ i. 153.
Skins, ceremonial wearing of. _See_ Sacrifice.
‘Slasher,’ in St. George play, i. 212.
Sleeping Beauty, i. 187.
Smith, John, his _Destruction of Jerusalem_, ii. 132, 145.
Smith, W. Robertson, on sacrifice, i. 130, 135.
_Sociétés joyeuses_, i. 373;
at summer feasts, 377;
and _charivari_, 153, 379;
play farces, _sotties_, _sermons joyeuses_, 379;
traces of, in England, 383.
_Sol Invictus_, i. 234;
feast of, chosen for Christmas, 238, 241.
Solstices, unknown to Germano-Kelts, i. 113, 228;
feast on, at Rome, 234;
relation to Christian feasts, 241.
_Somebody, Avarice, and Minister_, ii. 223, 461.
Song, relation of, to dance, i. 161;
at folk-festivals, 163;
_motifs_ of, 166;
at Christmas, 273.
_See_ _Caroles_, _Chansons_.
Songs in miracle-plays, ii. 140, 144.
Sophron, his mimes, i. 2.
_Sotelties_, i. 224, ii. 397.
_Sots._ _See_ Fools.
_Sotties_, i. 381, ii. 203.
‘Souling,’ i. 253.
Sources of miracle-plays, ii. 126.
_Spectacula_, a preoccupation of Roman Empire, i. 3, 13, 16, 19, 21.
_See_ Actors, Drama, Theatre.
_Speculum Stultorum_ of Wireker, i. 382.
Spirits, cult of, in primitive religion, i. 103;
evil, expulsion of, 184;
wanderings of, in Twelve nights, 267.
_Sponsus_, liturgical play of, ii. 61.
Spring, distinguished from summer, i. 111;
savour of, in folk-song, 167;
symbolized in folk-drama, 183, 219.
Sprinkling at folk-festivals, i. 122.
‘Squire,’ name for ‘fool,’ i. 142, 198.
Squire minstrel, ii. 239, 263.
‘Squire’s son,’ i. 194.
Squirrels, sacrifice of, i. 257.
Stage of miracle-plays, ii. 85, 136.
‘Standing’ play, ii. 134.
‘Stang,’ i. 152.
‘Star,’ at Epiphany, ii. 44.
Stationary miracle-plays, ii. 122, 134.
‘Stations’ for miracle-plays, ii. 115, 138.
_Statutes of Labourers_, effect of, on minstrelsy, i. 54.
_Stella_, liturgical drama of, at Epiphany, ii. 44;
absorbs _Rachel_ and _Pastores_, 48;
textual development of, 51;
a dramatized _offertorium_, 52;
later forms of, 69, 129;
merged with _Prophetae_, 72.
Stephen, St., his day, i. 247;
feast of deacons on, 336.
Stercatherus, in sword-dance, i. 195.
Stevenson, William, probable author of _Gammer Gurton’s Needle_, ii.
195, 216, 457.
_Strenae_, i. 238, 250, 253, 263, 268, 271.
_Stulti._ _See_ Fools.
_Stultorum feriae_, i. 335.
Sub-deacons, feast of, i. 323, 335.
_See_ Fools, Feast of.
_Sumer is icumen in_, i. 168.
Summer, beginning of, i. 110;
festivals of, 114, 126, 173;
in folk-drama, 183;
_sociétés joyeuses_ in, 377.
Summer-kings, i. 143, 173.
_See_ Kings.
_Summoning of Everyman._ _See_ _Everyman_.
Sun, dance of, at Easter, i. 129;
cults of, at Rome, 234.
Sun-charms, i. 121, 124, 255.
_Suscitatio Lazari_, liturgical plays of, ii. 58, 60.
Sword-dance, historic notices of, i. 190, ii. 270;
range of, in British isles, i. 192;
rhymes and personages of, 192, ii. 272;
identity of, with morris-dance, i. 195;
sacrificial rather than military, 201;
figures of, 203;
mock death in, 206;
continuity of, with folk-dramas, 207;
relation of, to _Fastnachtspiele_, 382.
_Tabour_, i. 73.
_Taboureurs_, _Dit des_, i. 63.
_Tabula_, i. 282.
Taillefer, his minstrelsy at Senlac, i. 43.
Tanfana, i. 108.
_Tcharnican_, i. 133.
Temporary kings, i. 137, 143. _See_ Kings.
_Temptation_ of Bale, ii. 448.
_Tenebrae_, a dramatic ceremony, ii. 6.
_Tensons_ (_tençons_), i. 78.
_Tenti_ of religious plays, ii. 135.
Terence, vogue of, in Middle Ages, ii. 207.
_Terens in Englysh._ _See_ _Andria_.
_Terentius et Delusor_, i. 85, ii. 208;
text of, 326.
Tertullian, against stage, i. 1, 11;
against Kalends, 238.
Testimonials to travelling minstrels, i. 53.
Teutons and Kelts, their common folk-lore, i. 100.
Texts of miracle-plays, ii. 124;
authorship of, 144;
interrelations of, 146.
_Thaleia_ of Arius, i. 13.
_Theatrales ludi_, condemned by Innocent III, i. 279, ii. 100;
by Paris theologians, i. 295.
Theatre, in Greek and Roman world, i. 1;
censured by pagan moralists, 9;
and by Christian Fathers, 10;
sympathy of Arius for, 13;
at Constantinople (fourth to seventh centuries), 15;
fall of, in East, 17;
at Trèves, Carthage, Ravenna, Rome, Narbonne (fifth century), 18;
under Theodoric the Ostrogoth at Rome (sixth century), 19;
fall of, in West, 21;
literary mention of, in twelfth century, 81;
mediaeval, at Paris and Exeter, 383, ii. 190.
Theodora, mime and Empress, i. 16.
Theodosius, _Code_ of, theatrical legislation in, i. 12.
_Thersites_, ii. 214, 456.
Thetford Priory, extracts from accounts of, ii. 245.
Thévenin de St. Leger, his tomb, i. 386.
Thomas the Apostle, St., his day, i. 247.
Thomas the Martyr, St., pageant of, ii. 164.
‘Thomasing,’ i. 253.
Thor, i. 107.
Thorns, flowering at Christmas, i. 252.
_Thread the Needle_, i. 165.
Three-score-day-tide calendar, i. 152, 229.
Threshing-floor, sacrificial customs of, i. 158.
_Thrie Estaitis._ _See_ _Satyre of the Thrie Estaitis_.
_Three Laws_ of Bale, ii. 449.
_Through the Needle Eye_, i. 152.
Tillage, effect of, on calendar, i. 232.
Tiwaz, i. 105.
_Tobit_, play of, ii. 131.
_Tollite portas_, ii. 4, 5, 20, 36, 74.
_Tombeor de Notre Dame_, i. 42.
_Tombeors_, i. 70.
‘Tommy’ in sword-dance, i. 192.
Topographical list of miracle-plays, ii. 329.
Tops, whipped on festivals, i. 128.
_Tower of London_, i. 152.
_Towneley Plays_, ii. 124, 412.
Tragedy, extinction of classical, i. 2, ii. 206;
mediaeval conception of, 209;
humanist revival of, 211;
in Tudor interlude, 216.
Transformation of intention in folk-customs, i. 122, 124, 130, 138,
147.
_Transformations_, i. 170.
Travelling of miracle-plays, ii. 122.
_Tregetours_, i. 71.
_Tres Reges_, drama of. _See_ _Stella_.
_Tretise of miraclis pleyinge_, i. 84, ii. 102.
Triads of divinities, i. 107, 231.
_Tribunus voluptatum_, i. 15, 21, ii. 229.
_Triduum_, relation of, to Feast of Fools, i. 323;
feasts of, 336;
early notices of, 338;
at St. Gall, 338;
at Winchester, 339;
during Middle Ages, 339;
abuses of, 340;
at Wells, 342;
at Exeter, 342.
Trimalchio, his Atellane, i. 5.
_Trimousette_, i. 170.
Trinity Sunday, i. 114.
_Tripudia_, in churches, i. 275, 326, 336.
Triumphs, i. 393, ii. 176.
_Trobaires_, i. 63.
_Troparia_, ii. 8.
Tropes, origin and nature of, ii. 7;
dialogue in, 8.
_Trouvères_, their relation to minstrels, i. 64.
‘Tug-of-war,’ at folk-festivals, i. 149.
Tumblers, i. 70.
Turkish Knight, in St. George play, i. 212.
‘Tutti men,’ at Hungerford, i. 156.
Twelfth Night. _See_ Epiphany.
Twelve nights, origin of, i. 244;
spirits abroad in, 267;
influence of, on months of year, 269.
Udall, Nicholas, his plays, ii. 144, 192, 196, 215, 218, 451.
_Ululatus_, ii. 7.
_Unguentarius_ in _Quem quaeritis_, ii. 33, 38.
Unidentified miracle-plays, ii. 432.
Universities, lord of misrule at, i. 407;
interludes at, ii. 194.
Unreason, ‘abbot’ of, i. 403.
_Vagantes_, _scolares_. _See_ _Goliardi_.
Vernacular in religious plays, ii. 58, 61, 89.
Vestments used in miracle-plays, ii. 117.
_Vexillatores_, ii. 141, 156.
Vicars choral, and Feast of Fools, i. 324.
‘Vice,’ name for ‘fool,’ i. 387, ii. 203;
at miracle-plays, 141, 205;
in interludes, 203;
costume of, 205.
_Vice and Virtue, Conflict of_, a theme of moralities, ii. 153.
_Victimae paschali_, ii. 29;
in _Quem quaeritis_, 30.
_Vielle_, i. 73.
Village festivals, presence of the fertilization spirit at, i. 116,
250;
processions at, 118, 253;
images at, 120;
rain-charms at, 121, 255;
sun-charms at, 124, 255;
sacrifice at, 132, 276, ii. 266;
play at, i. 146;
dance at, 160, 272;
mock king at, 172, 260;
folk-drama at, 183.
Virgil, in _Prophetae_, ii. 53.
_Visitatio sepulchri._ _See_ _Quem quaeritis_.
Visors. _See_ Masks.
_Vota_, i. 237.
Waits, i. 51.
Wakes, i. 114, 247.
Wantonness at folk-festivals, i. 93, 145, 169.
War, in early cult, i. 26.
Wassail, i. 254, 260.
Watches at midsummer, i. 118, ii. 165.
Water-charms. _See_ Rain-charms.
Watson, Edward, comedy by, ii. 194.
Watson, Thomas, his _Absalon_, ii. 195, 458.
_Wealth and Health_, ii. 461.
_Weather_ of Heywood, ii. 445.
Well-dressing, i. 120, 124.
Wells, cult of fertilization spirit at, i. 122.
Werwolf, i. 267.
‘Wesley-bob,’ i. 253.
Wever, R., his _Lusty Juventus_, ii. 223, 460.
Wheel, as sun-charm, i. 128.
Whipping, at Easter, i. 157;
at Christmas, 260;
at Feast of Fools, 327.
‘Whipping Toms,’ at Leicester, i. 157.
White smocks worn in folk-dances, i. 200.
‘Whitepot’ queen, i. 174.
Whitsuntide, i. 114, 141, 173, 179;
dramatic ceremonies at, ii. 66;
miracle-plays at, 94, 138.
_Widsith_, i. 28.
‘Wild hunt,’ i. 264, 267.
‘Wild man,’ i. 185.
Winchester College, extracts from accounts of, ii. 246.
_Winileodi_, i. 170.
Winter, beginning of, i. 110, 228, 249;
represented in folk-drama, 183, 220;
Roman feasts during, 234.
_Wit and Science_ of John Redford, ii. 200, 454.
Witch-trials, heathenism in, i. 98.
_Withershins_, i. 129, 165.
_Witty and Witless_ of Heywood, ii. 446.
Wodan, i. 108.
‘Wod-woz,’ i. 185, 392.
Woman, sawing the old, i. 183.
Women, primitive agricultural cult by, i. 106;
position of, in village festivals, 144.
_See_ Sex-costume.
Work, begun on feast day, i. 269.
_World and the Child, The._ _See_ _Mundus et Infans_.
Worship, dramatic element in, ii. 3.
Worthies, the six, in sword-dance, i. 195.
_Would you know how doth the farmer?_, i. 189.
Wren, sacrifice of, i. 132, 257.
Wrestling at folk-festivals, i. 148.
Wyclifites, against minstrelsy, i. 40;
against miracle-plays, ii. 102.
Wylley, Thomas, his plays, ii. 220.
Year. _See_ Calendar, New Year’s day, Spring, Summer, Winter.
_York Plays_, ii. 409.
‘Youling,’ i. 120, 142, 260.
_Youth_, ii. 200, 453.
Yule, derivation of name, i. 230.
Yule-log, i. 262, 267.
Yule-straw, i. 250.
THE END
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE MEDIAEVAL STAGE, VOLUME 2 (OF 2) ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
