The annals of the Theatre, as they illustrate the manners of the times, and gratify the curiosity, which is natural to mankind, will, in every age, incite enquiry, and enchain attention. The history of our stage has exercised the pens of Dr. Percy^{2 note}, of Mr. Thomas Warton^{3 note}, of Mr. Malone^{4 note}, and of other writers of diligence and learning. In addition to their curious researches, I too presumed to publish many documents^{5 note}, which a hasty search discovered among the state papers; and which, as they ascertain new facts, and throw some light upon the dark passages of our drama, during the age of Shakspeare, will enable the writer, to whom shall be assigned the difficult task of writing a complete history of the stage, to instruct, by more ample notices, and to amuse, by more striking views of an attractive object.

After many revolutions in our publick sports, both

in representation, and sentiment, from justs to mysteries; from mysteries to moralities; and from moralities to interludes; the English stage remained extremely rude, at the accession of Elizabeth, and still unformed, at the appearance of Shakspeare. She inherited, indeed, the dramatick establishments of her predecessors; however imperfect they were in theory, and inconvenient in exhibition. She had, evidently, as a necessary officer, a keeper of the vestures of her maskes, revelles, and disguisings: And, the earliest keeper of such appearell, from what I have been able to trace, was John Arnolde; who died, probably, in 1573. In the subsequent year, was appointed as his successor, her well beloved servant Walter Fyshe, in consideration of good service, theretofore done to a grateful mistress^{6 note}

of the vestures, which Walter Fyshe was thus appointed to keep, I have already exhibited to the curious beholder^{7 note}.

It was said by me, that our earliest actors were children: Children of St. Paules, children of Westminster, children of the chapel^{8 note}. And it became, early, a common practice to purvey boys, who had musical voices, for the Royal Chapel. Tusser, who wrote The Five Hundred Points of Good Husbandry, appears to have been thus taken, and appropriated, during the reign of Henry VIII^{9 note}:

The right, and the practice, of purveying such children, continued until the reign of James, although

I know not on what principle it was justified; except by the maxim, that the King had a right to the services of all his subjects. Sir Francis Bacon, speaking in the House of Commons, upon the grievance of purveyance, on the 7th of March, 1605–6, said, “that children for the chapel may be taken^{1 note}.” It was, probably, from this abundant source, that some of the earliest and best of our players originated, who derived a livelihood, and rose often to eminence, by amusing the publick.

It is more than probable, that James Burbadge, who appeared at the head of the first incorporated company of players in 1574, may have been purveyed, like Tusser, in early life, and may have forgotten his parentage. Certain it is, that during the heraldick visitation of London, in 1634, Cuthbert Burbadge, the eldest son of James, did not know his grandfather; for he could only give an account of his brother Richard, the “famous actor on the stage,” and of his father James, who married Ellen, the daughter of Mr. Brayne, of London^{2 note}. Whatever

may have been their originals, there can be no doubt, that the several Burbadges performed, respectably, on that “Stage, where every one must play a part;” and where, many individuals play “a sad one.”

A similar doubt has also existed, with regard to the origin of Edward Alleyn, though the biographers, indeed, assure us, “that he was born of reputable parents, who lived in good fashion and credit^{3 note}.” Yet, are we left, by biographical indolence, to enquire, who were the father, and mother, of that celebrated comedian, and beneficent man. The record of the fact is, however, to be found in the College of Heralds. His grandfather was Thomas Alleyn of Willen, in the County of Bucks, and of Mesham, in the County of Bedford: His father was Edward Alleyn, of Willen aforesaid: and his mother, Margaret, was the daughter of John Townley, of Townley, in the County of Lancashire, of a respectable family, which, to this day, “lives in good fashion and credit.” Edward Alleyn was born on the 1st of September, 1566, and was baptized, as I found by

searching the parish register of St. Botolph, without Bishopsgate, on the 2d of the same month: Nor, can it now be any longer, reasonably, doubted, whether London be entitled to the honour of his birth. Though a younger man than Shakspeare, Alleyn was sooner praised by wits, and distinguished by the world. In the Pierce Pennylesse of Nash, which was first printed, in 1592, may be seen “the due commendation of Ned Allen:”—“Not Roscius,” says Nash, “or Æsop, those admired tragedians, that have lived ever since before Christ was born, could ever perform more in action, than famous Ned Allen.” Nash went on to add, in the same strain of encomium, what arose from his enthusiastick admiration: “If ever I write any thing in Latin, (as I hope one day I shall,) not a man of any desert here among us, (the players particularly) but I will have up; Tarleton, Ned Allen, Knell, Bently, shall be known in France, Spain, and Italy; and not a part that they surmounted in more than other, but I will there note, and set down, with the manner of their habits and attire^{4 note}

which ought to be strongly marked, by the historian of our Stage, that such great actors should have existed, to whom Shakspeare, at length, supplied dramas, which were fully equal to their powers of performance: And it will be found, perhaps, that the dramatist derived an advantage from the player, and the player a benefit from the dramatist. Among the players, as Alleyn was the first, so he appears to have been the most distinguished; and is even supposed, though not upon the most satisfactory evidence, to have furnished Shakspeare, by his just representation of characters, with some intimations of the celebrated precepts, which were given to the actors by Hamlet^{6 note}. When such doubts arise, from the difficulty of ascertaining facts of so remote a period, with regard to the principal players, we ought not to be surprised, that still greater doubts should exist, with respect to the

inferior actors of Shakspeare's dramas, especially as we are without the same means of giving light to darkness.

George Bryan, who, like greater men, will only be remembered from his connection with Shakspeare, appeared as early as 1589, in Tarleton's Platt of the Seven Deadly Sins: he represented Lucius, in Gorboduc; he played the Earl of Warwick, in Henry the Sixth, during 1592; he performed some of the characters in Shakspeare's earlist plays; but he did not live long enough to represent any part in Ben Jonson's Every Man in his Humour, during 1598: George Bryan was certainly dead at this epoch; though I have not been able to discover either the time, or place, of his burial; or any record of his will.

Samuel Crosse had the honour, certainly to embody some of Shakspeare's fictions: and is celebrated, by Heywood, together with Knell^{7 note}, Bently, Mills, Wilson^{8 note}, and Lanam, as players, who “by the report of many judicial auditors performed many parts so absolute, that it were a sin to drowne their worths in Lethe^{9 note}.” Crosse died, probably, before the year 1596; though I have not been able to find when or where; nor to discover his will; nor any administration to his estate; if indeed he left any behind him.

Thomas Pope played his part as early as 1589, in

Tarleton's Platt of the Seven Deadly Sins: he represented Arbactus, in Sardanapalus; he was, in 1597, and 1598, at the head of the Lord Chamberlayne's Servants, together with Hemings; who had the honour of being the first who represented Shakspeare's characters. Pope lived respectably in St. Saviour's parish, Southwark; and rose to such eminence, as a fellow of Shakspeare, as to have equally had a share in the Globe, and Curtain, theatres; and to have employed under him theatrical servants. He died in February, 1603–4; leaving considerable property to those whom he most regarded^{1 note}

Singer, Pope, Phillips, and Slye, it was remarked, by Heywood, in 1612, “that though they be dead, their deserts yet live in the remembrance of many.”

Robert Goughe, who had the honour of representing parts, in the Tragedyes, Comedyes, and Histories,

of Shakspeare, was, probably, bred by Thomas Pope. Goughe appeared, with his master, in Sardanapalus, in the character of Aspasia; he had a legacy from Pope, in 1603, of the testator's wearing apparel, and arms; he played in the Second Mayden's Tragedy, during the year 1611: But, he disappeared, soon afterwards, so as not to be traced, either in the play bills, or at Doctor's Commons. The Puritans, who regarded plays, and actors, with a very evil eye, considered “players, as an abomination, that put on women's raiment^{2 note}.” Whether Goughe, and his fellows, who, generally, represented women, were much affected by this reproach, it is not easy to discover, amid the disputes, about the lawfulness of the theatres. It seems to have been forgotten by the Puritans, in their zeal, that if recreation be necessary to mankind, rational amusement may be justified, as fit, from the necessity.

Samuel Gilburne, who also had the honour of representing some of the inconsiderable characters of our great dramatist, served his apprenticeship with Augustine Phillips, one of the fellows of Shakspeare. When Phillips made his will, in 1605, he bequeathed to Gilborne, “his late apprentice, the sum of fortye shillings, his mouse coloured velvet hose, and a white taffety dublet, a black taffety sute, his purple cloke,

sword, and dagger, and his base violl.” Other notices about Gilburne, who probably lived, and died, in obscurity, I have not been able to find, either in the play bills, or in the Prerogative Office.

William Ostler, from the obscurity of his origin, may be supposed to have been purveyed, like Tusser, in early life, as a singing boy. Certain it is, that as one of the children of Queen Elizabeth's Chapel, he represented one of Ben Jonson's Characters in The Poetaster, during the year 1601. When he ceased to be a child, Ostler played in Jonson's Alchymist, in 1610: in Catiline, during the year 1611; and in the Dutchess of Malfy, of Webster, in 1623. In Davis, the Epigrammatist's Scourge of Folly, Ostler is praised as the Roscius of the times: But, so many of the players were addressed by our Poets, by the name of the great player of the Roman state, that we may reasonably suppose, they did not very nicely discriminate, when their desire to praise was scattering with a lavish pen, their encomiums, which cease to be praise, if generally applied.

Nathaniel Field was also one of the children of the chapel, and one of the performers of Shakspeare's characters. In Ben Jonson's Comical Satyre, called Cynthia's Revells, which was acted by the Queen's Children of the Chapel, in 1600, Field played a principal part. In the subsequent year, he acted as one of the chief comedians, in Jonson's Poetaster. When he left the Chapel, he became, after the accession of King James, one of the company called the Children of Her Majesty's Revells. In 1607, he acted the part of Bussy D'Ambois, in Chapman's Drama, and he performed, in 1609, one of the first characters in Ben Jonson's Silent Woman. Whether Field were a writer, as well as an actor, of plays, has admitted of some doubt: Roberts, the players, who, smartly, animadverted on Pope's preface, spoke affirmatively, on the

point; the intelligent writer of the Biographia Dramatica speaks, negatively; giving the disputable Dramas, to Nathaniel Field, of New College, Oxford. But, a begging letter of Field, the player, which was preserved by Ned Alleyn, among Henslowe's papers, and published by Mr. Malone, has decided the contest, in the actor's favour: For the letter proves, that Field asked, and received, money from the liberality of honest Henslowe, for play writing^{3 note}. Field, the player, published, in 1612, a comedie, called, “A Woman is a Weathercock;” in 1618, another comedie, entitled, “Amends for Ladies;” and, in 1632, “The Fatal Dowry,” which he wrote in cooperation with Massinger^{4 note}, who, being equally poor, and equally engaged in writing, when confined in durance with Field, joined with him, in begging the help of Henslowe. The facts before stated decide, in opposition to the Commentators, that Field, the player, was the writer of the dramas. He died before the year 1641, though I have not been able to discover either his will, or the date of his burial. It is a remark of Anthony Wood, which applies pertinently to Field, the poet-player; “So it is, and always has been, that poets live poor, and die in obscurite.”

John Underwood appears to have held nearly the same course, through life, as Nathaniel Field. Underwood was also one of the children of the Chapel: He performed in Cynthia's Revels, during the year 1600; in the Poetaster, during 1601; with the King's Servants, he played in the Alchymist, in 1610, and in Catiline, in 1611: and he represented Delio, in The Dutchess of Malfy, in 1623. In this year, when Nicholas Tooley, made his will, he kindly forgave Underwood the several sums of money, which were due by him to the testator. Underwood

had the honour to be one of the performers of Shakspeare's characters, and enjoyed the benefit of being a fellow sharer in the Globe, Blackfriars, and Curtain, Theatres. He died, in January, 1624–5; leaving five children, who had before lost their mother; and now, had only their father's “kind fellows, his Majesties Servants” to protect their infant weakness.

William Ecclestone was also one of the King's Servants, and equally represented with them Shakspeare's characters at the Globe, and at their usual house, in the Blackfriars. He played in the Alchymist, during 1610, and, during the subsequent year, in Catiline. Nicholas Tooley, with his usual benevolence, forgave Ecclestone, in 1623, all the debts, which were due to him. He disappeared, before the 6th of May, 1629, at which time he was no longer one of the King's players: but, I have not been able to find his will in the registers, either of the Bishop of London, or of the Archbishop of Canterbury. He who acts an insignificant part on the stage of life, cannot hope to be long remembered, while so many men of greater eminence are daily disappearing from the publick eye.

Joseph Taylor is said by tradition, which is not supported by circunstances, to have played Hamlet, and Iago, when these characters were first represented; to have performed True-wit, in the Silent Woman, and Face in the Alchymist; though this assertion is not confirmed by Ben Jonson himself. The player-editors ranked Joseph Taylor, however, among those, who had the honour to represent Shakspeare's characters. He is said to have been at the head of the Lady Elizabeth's players, in 1614. Whatever parts he may have acted, before the year 1623, he was still poor, and low: When the kind-hearted Nicholas Tooley, in that year, made his will, he directed that, “Whereas I stand bound for Joseph

Taylor, as his surety, for payment of ten pounds, or thereabouts, my Will is, that my Executors, shall out of my estate pay that debt for him, and discharge him out of that bond.” It is remarkable, that Tooley does not call Taylor a fellow. Certain it is, however, that he was enumerated among the King's Players, on the 6th of May, 1629, next to Hemmings, and Lowin. In this year, he performed the part of Paris, the tragedian, in Massinger's Roman Actor, at the private Playhouse, in the Blackfriars, with the King's Servants. Among other wits, Taylor prefixed some encomiastick verses, “to his long known, and loved friend, Mr. Philip Massinger, upon his Roman Actor:

In 1629, Taylor played the Duke in Carlell's Deserving Favourite: In 1630, he represented Mathias, a Knight of Bohemia, in Massinger's Picture, “a true Hungarian History.” From this epoch, during many years, Joseph Taylor acted, a conspicuous part, as one of the chiefs of the King's Company, with Lowin, and Swanston. In September, 1639, he was appointed the Yeoman of the Revels, under Sir Henry Herbert, who found him an intelligent assistant. Taylor was one of the ten players, who, in dedicating Beaumont and Fletcher's Comedies and Tragedies to the Earl of Pembroke, in 1647, spoke with feeling recollection of “the flowing compositions of the then expired sweet swan of Avon, Shakspeare.” Taylor died, in 1654, at a very advanced age, indeed, if he represented Hamlet, in 1596.

Robert Benfield appears to have come late into the King's Company, and to have represented, originally, but few of Shakspeare's characters. He appeared, distinctly, among the King's Players on the

6th of May, 1629. He bustled through several parts of no great difficulty; but he seems to have never risen above the general level of the “Harlotry players.” He lived to be one of the ten comedians, who, in 1647, dedicated to Philip, the earl of Pembroke and Montgomery, Beaumont and Fletcher's Comedies and Tragedies; but I have not found any memorial of his last Will, or of his final End.

Richard Robinson came early enough into life, and into action, to represent Shakspeare's characters, in the same scenes, with Heminges and Burbadge. In 1611, he acted with them, and the King's other players, in Ben Jonson's Catiline. Even as late as 1616, he represented female characters, long after the Puritans had exhausted their malignity, in thundering out anathemas against such supposed profanations. In 1623, when Nicholas Tooley was disposing of his property by will, he gave, “to Sara Burbadge, the daughter of his late Master, Richard Burbadge, that some of twenty nine pounds, and thirteen shillings, which was owing to him by Richard Robinson.” He appeared in the fourth place among the King's players on the 6th of May, 1624. He joined with the nine other players, in the dedication of Beaumont and Fletcher's plays, in 1647. There is a story told by Mr. Malone, which is repeated by Mr. Steevens, that General Harrison killed Robinson during the civil wars; the general crying out with a fanatical tongue, when he gave the stroke of death; “cursed is he that doth the work of the Lord negligently^{5 note}.” But the fact is, which is more credible than the story, that Richard Robinson died, quietly, at London, in March, 1647, and was buried, without an Anathema, in the cemetery of St. Anne's, Blackfriars^{6 note}.

John Schanke was a comedian of an inferior cast though he is ranked among those players, who had the honour of representing Shakspeare's characters. He acted the Curate in Beaumont and Fletcher's Scornful Lady, during the year 1616. Schanke was a writer, as well as an actor; And produced a comedy, called Schanke's Ordinary, in March, 1623–4^{7 note}. He stood the fifth, in the list of the King's Players, in May, 1629. He was also one of Prince Henry's Company. But, he died, probably, before the year 1647; though I have not been able to discover the time or place of his death, or the will of this poetical player, who like other poets, had little to leave behind him, to his fellows or relations^{8 note}

John Rice has still less pretensions to fame, though he, too, performed some of Shakspeare's characters. He acted the part of Pescara, in The Dutchess of Malfy, during the year, 1623. He probably died before the year 1629; as he does not appear in the List of the King's Players, at that epoch; yet, have I not found the date of his decease, nor the record of his testament.

John Lowin, who was probably born in 1576, seems first to have appeared upon the Stage in Ben Jonson's Sejamus, with Burbadge, and Shakspeare, in 1603, after the accession of King James. In the subsequent year, he came out with Burbadge, and Slye, in the Induction to Webster and Marston's Male-content. The traditions, which have been handed down by Wright, and Roberts, about Lowin's representations of Falstaff, Hamlet, and Henry VIII. cannot be true, if applied to any preceding period to the accession of Charles I. More experienced actors performed Shakspeare's characters, when they were first presented to the publick. He certainly played in the Fox of Jonson, in 1605, in the Alchymist, during 1610, and in Catiline, during 1611. He stood the second in the enumeration of the King's players in the list of 1629, after Hemings, and before Taylor. In the sarcastick verses which were addressed to Ben Jonson, in consequence of his insolent treatment of the publick, it is said:—

These two players certainly became the chiefs of the King's Company, after the secession of Condel,

and Hemmings, about the year 1627. In December, 1624, this whole company, with Lowin, and Taylor, at their head, were obliged to make a submission to Sir Henry Herbert, for acting the play, called The Spanishe Viceroy, without his licence, as Master of the Revels. At a subsequent period, Lowin and Swanston were obliged to ask Sir Henry's pardon, “for theirill manners.” In 1647, Lowin, and Taylor, stood at the head of the ten player-editors of Beaumont and Fletcher's dramatical folio. In 1652, these two concurred in publishing, as a trifling resource, during the miseries of the grand rebellion, The Wild Goose Chase of Fletcher. During a very advanced age, Lowin, for a livelihood, kept an inn, at Brentford, called The Three Pigeons. And, he finished his lengthened career of life, being buried in the cemetery of St. Martin's in the Fields, on the 18th of March, 1658–9, when administration to his goods was granted to Martha Lowin, who was probably either his widow, or his daughter^{9 note}.

Such were the players, who, in conjunction with those more celebrated persons, whom I formerly mentioned^{1 note}, were the actors, that represented Shakspeare's characters, either when his dramas first appeared, or when the original players had retired from the scene. It was little foreseen by any of them, that Shakspeare's name would emblazon theirs; that their fame would be carried along the oblivious stream of time, borne up by his strength, and eternized by the immortality of his renown.

It must be allowed, however, that both the actors, and the dramatists, owed great obligations to the Privy Council, and to Parliament, for their several regulations of the scene; though they were not always grateful to their best friends, who supported their

usefulness, if at the same time they corrected their abuses. The gentle Shakspeare sometimes touched his superiors with a fine edged lancet; Ben Jonson was prompted, by his natural ruggedness, to strike them with a butcher's cleaver. In this manner did he attempt to resist the Privy Council's order, in June, 1600, “for the restraint of the immoderate use of Playhouses.” In his Poetaster, which was acted, in the subsequent year, by the Children of the Chapel, he made Tucca say: “Thou shalt have a monopoly of playing confirmed to thee and thy Covey, under the Emperor's broad Seal for this Service^{1 note}.” Jonson's sarcasm incited the playhouse proprietors to persevere in opposing a salutary measure; and their perseverance, in obstinate error, induced the Privy Council to enforce, by severer injunctions, an useful regulation.

It is from those regulations, as they stand recorded, in the Council Registers, and the Statute Book, that we now know so many theatrical facts, which gave rise to the many conjectures of the historians of our stage. It was not known, or at least, had been little noticed, that, by a regulation of the fanatick Mary, which had been enforced by the wiser Elizabeth, plays had been looked into, and reviewed, even before Shakspeare came out into scenick life. This circumspection, in respect to the morals of youth, was carried to the two Universities, about the time, that Shakspeare began to write for the stage. From their attention to morality, the prudent councils of Elizabeth extended their care to the interests of religion: As early as 1578, stage playing was forbidden in Lent;

and in 1587, the acting of plays, at the theatres, was prohibited on Sundays. For all the purposes of honest recreation, the number of playhouses was restrained to two, in 1600, the year when the bright Sun of Elizabeth began to set in Clouds.

The dawn of a new reign brought with it uncommon changes in the scenick world. The contemporaries of Shakspeare, who, at that epoch, were placed under a better regimen, almost all disappeared, with the effluxion of time, before the demise of James, in 1625. It is a curious fact, that at this epoch, the established Companies of London strolled often into the country; owing, no doubt, to the multiplicity of associated players, and the paucity of attractive plays^{2 note}. A still more remarkable fortune attended the Playhouses than the actors. In 1589, there existed in, and about, London, only two; The Theatre and the Curtain^{3 note}: Before the year 1629, there were erected, notwithstanding every opposition, fifteen additional Stages, or Common Playhouses, though these did not all exist, during the same period. In 1613, the Globe Theatre was burnt, by the negligent discharging

of a peal of ordnance, during the acting of Henry VIII. but it was rebuilt, in the subsequent year, in a more commodious form, and with more splendid decorations. In 1617, the Fortune theatre, in Golden Lane, was also burnt, by negligence; but, was soon rebuilt, in a handsomer style. Five Inns, or Common Ostleries, were converted into playhouses; also a Cockpit, and St. Paul's singing School; a theatre was erected in the Blackfriars: and during the year 1629, another was established in the Whitefriars^{4 note}. While playhouses were thus destroyed, and built; while the managers of publick amusements did not yield prompt obedience to publick Authority; Sir William Davenant was empowered, on the 26th of March, 1639, to erect a new Theatre, near the The Three King's Ordinary, in Fleet Street: But, on some disagreement with the Earl of Arundel, the Landlord, D'Avenant was obliged to relinquish a project, which he was ere long enabled to prosecute, in a different place, and form^{5 note}

The internal œconomy of the Stage, which our theatrical historians have laboured to display, though not in absolute clearness, may receive some illustration from the sarcasm of a satirist, during King James's reign, who has been little noticed, by our scenick

writers. In Follies Anatomy, by Henry Hutton, was said, sarcastically^{6 note}:

Whether Henry Hutton lived to write more of Follies Anatomy, at a later period, I am unable to tell: Another wit of an higher vein of humour found abundant materials, for his satyrick muse, during subsequent scenes of religious, and political, Contention, “when civil dudgeon first ran high.” The remnant of the commons of England, in setting forth parliamentarily, their own merits, to the general assembly of the Kirk of Scotland, boasted, “that they had suppressed all Stage Plays, and interludes, the nurseries of vice, and profaneness^{7 note}.”

CHESTER MYSTERIES.

The series of Mysteries performed at Chester, usually attributed to Randle or Ralph Higden^{2 note}, a Benedictine of St. Werburg's Abbey in that city, although not the most numerous, has been considered, by a competent judge, as the most ancient, as well as the most complete collection of the kind now in existence^{3 note}. The date usually assigned to their composition is the year 1327–8^{4 note}; the accuracy of which has been questioned solely by Mr. Roscoe, who not only conceives that these plays have been antedated by nearly two centuries, but that it is scarcely possible “to adduce a dramatic composition in the English language that can indisputably be placed before the year 1500, previous to which time they were common in Italy^{5 note}”

These positions naturally demand attention, though in considering them it may be convenient to invert the order in which they are stated.

In tracing the antiquity of the several theatres of

Europe, a difficulty must always attend the inquiry, from the doubts that exist, whether the earliest recorded performances of each country were accompanied with dialogue, or were mere pantomimical exhibitions. The language of M. Paris and Fitz-Stephens however, when speaking of the plays acted in the Abbey of Dunstaple, and in London, in the twelfth century, can scarcely be deemed equivocal, but as referring to written compositions^{6 note}. One argument, in favour of their having been united with dialogue is grounded on the circumstance that a specimen of the Corpus Christi Pageant, instituted at York early in the thirteenth century, is yet in existence amongst the archives of that city^{7 note}.

As to the comparative degree of antiquity that the English Stage possesses over those of other countries of Europe, it may be observed, that the first dramatic representation of a religious character in Italy is fixed by Tiraboschi in the year 1449^{8 note}, and Mr. Roscoe admits, “that it was not till the age of Lorenzo de Medici that these ill-judged representations began to assume a more respectable form, and to be united with dialogue^{9 note}.” The Istrioni of the 12th Century, Forsyth

observes, were mere ballad-singers, and never rose to histrionic imitation. No dialogue was attempted before the moralities of the next age, nor did these monkish pastimes bear any other mark of drama, until the history of Abraham appeared at Florence, in 1449^{1 note}. In the works of Boccacio, whilst he gives us a most accurate picture of the whole constitution of social life, we do not find the smallest trace of plays, and this, in the judgment of Schlegel, is satisfactory evidence that they were unknown to him^{2 note}.

M. Le Grand has traced the existence of the drama in France to a period far more remote than Riccoboni, (who claimed, for the stage of his own country, a decided priority over all others^{3 note},) and appears to have satisfactorily overthrown the statement of that author, in dating its origin at the end of the fourteenth century. “L'epoque du Théâtre François (Riccoboni observes) ne peut être fixée avant 1398, tems auquel le Mystère de la Passion fut represénté à St. Maur^{4 note}. The theatrical spectacles in Paris in 1313, when Philip the Fair gave a splendid fete, “à l'occasion de la Chevalerie conféré à ses enfans,” the same writer regards only as “représentations en figures denuées de tout dialogue^{5 note}:” but Le Grand does not rest his theory on the authority of a Chronicle; he has furnished not only Mysteries, or miracle plays, of the thirteenth century, but others of a totally opposite character, and of equal antiquity, and views them “comme des monumens précieux pour l'histoire du Théâtre et de la Poésie Française.—Ce sont eux qui ont ouvert en France la carriere dramatique^{6 note}.” Henault,

who traced the French stage no higher than 1398, considers the miracle play of St. Catherine, acted at Dunstaple, “bien antérieur a nos représentations des Mystères^{4 note};” and Vonder-Hardt expressly attributes to the English, though at a later period, the invention of Mysteries or miracle plays in Germany^{5 note}. The authorities before cited sufficiently prove that both in France and England^{6 note} dramatic performances indisputably prevailed at a period of very remote antiquity, and, added to other testimony, confirm the theory, which it is the object of these

pages to support, that the Chester Mysteries are of an earlier date than the year 1328, as stated by Mr. Malone, and therefore that the opinion of Mr. Roscoe, which would place them as late as the commencement of the sixteenth century, is widely erroneous. As Higden's claim to the composition of these plays appears to rest upon tradition only, a short statement of facts which may throw light upon the question will not be unimportant.

From the opening of the “Banes,” or Prologue, it appears that the Chester Mysteries were first performed during the mayoralty of John Arneway, who filled that office from 1268 to 1276, and not subsequently:—

This is also confirmed by the statement of Archdeacon Rogers, hereafter quoted, who nevertheless confounds the mayoralty of Arneway with the years 1328 and 1339^{8 note}, while the following entry of Randle Holme, in a list of the Mayors of Chester, fixes their origin during the mayoralty of the same individual,

and carries them back to the earlier period before stated.

“1269. Sir John Arneway, Knight. In this year y^e Whitson plays were invented in Chester by one Rondoll Higden, a monk in the Abby of Chester, and afterwards set forth in action, at the cost and charges of the Cittizens, which was great charges; and note, y^t this monk was a pious man, and a great writer in y^t Abby, as his bookes yet shew; in great devotion and discretion he published y^e storie of y^e Bible, y^t the simple in their owne language might understand.” (Harl. MSS. 2125, fol. 272.) That the date of Arneway's mayoralty, assigned by Holme, is the accurate one, has been satisfactorily established by the following entry:—

“1278. Obiit Johannes Arneway, Civis Cestrensis, qui etiam dedit Deo, et S. Werburgæ, et Monachis ibidem servientibus ad sustentationem duorum capellanorum, quod patet per epitaphium super tumbam ipsius ante altare S. Leonardi, in australi parte ecclesiæ^{9 note}.”

If the Chester Mysteries were actually represented in 1269, or in any year during the mayoralty of Arneway, as we may assume to be the fact; it is scarcely possible to assign them to Higden for the following reasons. Leland, Bale, and Pits, although they bear ample testimony to the industry and talents of Higden, and to the value of his Chronicle, are wholly silent as to his being the composer of any religious plays. The date of Higden's birth does not appear to have been recorded. Bale and Pits both mention sixty-four years, as the period, during which he was a monk of the Abbey of St. Werburg, and that he died at an advanced age; but they differ materially as to the time of his death: the former gives the

date of 1363, and the latter 1377^{1 note}. In one of the Harl. MSS. (No. 2125) we find this event placed in 1357. That Higden was living in 1344 is proved, by his having continued the Polychronicon to that period; and the variations perceptible in the preceding statements sufficiently shew, that this date is almost the only one upon which any dependance can be placed. Mr. Burnett informs us, but without quoting his authority, that “Higden was born in the reign of Henry III. though in what year is unknown; but if (he continues) we assume even the last year of the reign of that prince, or 1272, for the time of his birth, his age (taking 1363 as the year of his death) will amount to no less than ninety-one years^{2 note}.”

Amidst this contradictory evidence it is scarcely possible to arrive at the truth; but it may be observed, that no one of these statements will allow us to regard Higden, at least whilst a monk of St. Werburg's, as the compiler of the Chester Mysteries between 1269 and 1276.

Ritson, though without stating his reasons, repels Higden's claim, and asserts that the Chester Whitsun Plays have been ascribed to him by Warton, “upon very idle and nonsensical evidence^{3 note}.” The Banes merely state them to be “the devise of one Done Rondall, moonke of Chester Abbey;” and who is described by Rogers in the same general terms. Now this being the name of Randle Blundeville, a celebrated

and popular Earl of Chester, who died in 1232, as well as of two of his predecessors, it was likely, as Mr. Ormerod conjectures, “to be one of very frequent occurrence within the walls of Chester Abbey^{4 note}.” The inference therefore seems to be, that an Ecclesiastic of this abbey, who bore the name of Randle was the author of these Mysteries; and that as Higden lived nearly contemporaneous with their first appearance, common fame, in after times, without duly attending to dates, ascribed them to him. As the compiler of the Polychronicon, and of other works, he must then have enjoyed a certain portion of celebrity; and it also appears from a note prefixed to one copy of the plays, (Harl. MSS. No. 2124) that he actually interested himself in their performance, and “was thrise at Rome, before he could obtaine leave of the Pope to have them in the English tongue.” From this latter fact Warton presumes “that all our Mysteries before 1328 were in Latin, and that these plays have the merit of being the first English interludes^{5 note}.”

In the proclamation 24th Henry VIII^{6 note}

Frances, also a monk of Chester, is named as the author, and is considered by Pennant^{7 note} to have been a joint labourer with Higden; but Messrs. Lysons conjecture that Frances only procured the pardons from the Pope and the Bishop of Chester, mentioned in that proclamation for persons resorting to them^{8 note}. It is however by no means improbable, that in the composition of these plays, two, or even a greater number of monks, might have been concerned, or at least that some additions might be subsequently made to the original series. It will be observed that the proclamation speaks of the performance of these plays in “ould tyme,” and to the indulgences obtained by Frances from Pope Clement and the Bishop of

Chester. It is therefore evident that these must have been granted by Clement VI. who filled the papal chair from 1342 to 1352, and not by Clement VII. who was then living. We also find the mayoralty of Arneway referred to, as the period when the Mysteries were “devised;” and though the dates do not correspond, it is very clear that even in the reign of Henry VIII. these plays were known to have existed beyond the recollection of persons then in being: and we are thus furnished with an additional proof, that the antiquity assigned to them does not rest upon a slight foundation^{9 note}.

From several passages in the Banes, they appear to have been written long after the Mysteries themselves; most probably about the date of the Proclamation, as well from an allusion that the Scriptures were then more generally read, as also from the apologies made to the audience for the “grosse wordes” which they might hear, owing to “the tyme of ignorance” when the plays were composed.

The following extract from Archdeacon Rogers' MSS. presents a curious statement of the manner in which these performances were represented. It is here given from a copy^{1 note}, which, being more minute in

its details, is probably more accurate than the transcript in Harl. MSS. 1948, fol. 48, or that referred to by Messrs. Lysons in their History of Cheshire, p. 590.

This description of the moveable theatre used on these occasions agrees with that given by Dugdale, who, in speaking of the plays acted in the city of Coventry on Corpus Christi day, informs us, “that these pageants being acted with mighty state and reverence by the Friers of this house [Gray-Friars], 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 contained the story of the New Testament, composed into old English rithme, as appeareth by an ancient MS. entituled, Ludus Corporis Christi, or Ludus Coventriæ. [In Bibl. Cotton, Vesp. D. VIII.] 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^{1 note}.”

An inhibition was sent from the Archbishop of

York in 1571, forbidding the performance of the Chester Plays^{2 note}, but which was not strictly obeyed, as it appears from the city annals that they were represented a few years afterwards. According to Smith, in his Annals of the City of Chester, Sir John Savage, in 1575, “caused the popish plays of Chester to be played the Sunday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday after Midsummer-day, in contempt of an inhibition and the Primate's letters from York, and from the Earl of Huntingdon. For which cause he was served by a pursuivant from York the same day that the new mayor was elected, as they came out of the common-hall; notwithstanding, the said Sir John Savage took his journey towards London, but how his matter sped is not known. Also Mr. Hankey was served by the same pursuivant for the like contempt when he was mayor. Divers others of the citizens and players were troubled for the same matter.” Webb states that “the Whitsun plays were played at Midsummer, and then but some of them, leaving others unplayd, which were thought might not be justified, for the superstition that was in them, although the mayor was not enjoined to proceed therein.” It would seem that Warton, Tyrwhitt, Malone and Pennant^{3 note}, when stating that they were exhibited as late as 1600, were led into that error from one of the transcripts in the Brit. Mus. (Harl. MSS. No. 2013) made by George Bellin, bearing that date; but there does not appear to be the slightest

ground for supposing them to have been ever revived after 1574^{4 note}

It happens unfortunately, owing to the liberties taken by the several copyists in departing from the author's text, or in having themselves made use of later transcripts, that we are disabled from forming

an accurate judgment of the original diction and orthography of these compositions, and are thus deprived of the most certain means of fixing their genuine date. Yet, notwithstanding these alterations, many words and phrases of frequent occurrence in Chaucer and earlier poets have kept their place. In the present work the Harleian transcript, No. 2013, is taken for the text, and the variations in the two others of any importance are preserved in the margin.

Various proofs occur that the composers of religious plays did not adhere very rigidly to the text of Scripture, but introduced both characters and incidents calculated to relieve the solemnity of the plot, and to amuse the fancies of a mixed, and, for the most part, an unlettered audience. In the Deluge, the quarrel between Noah and his wife forms a prominent feature. It occurs also in the Coventry^{6 note} and Townley^{7 note}

found in every English play, where this narrative is dramatized. In the Milleres Tale of Chaucer, when Nicholas is conferring with John the Carpenter, he asks him,

It is perhaps impossible to trace the origin of this absurd dispute, except to the stage. Warton was not aware that it occurred in any supposititious book of Genesis; and as we find the second Mystery, “De

occisione Innocentium,” referred to in the same tale^{9 note}

, Mr. Tyrwhitt's conjecture acquires additional strength, that Nicholas quoted it from the Mysteries, with which the Carpenter was doubtless better acquainted than with his Bible.

When discussing this mixture of historical fact with fable, and of tragedy with farce, Warton's reasoning appears somewhat inconclusive. “Neither the writers nor the spectators (he observes) saw the impropriety, nor paid a separate attention to the comic and the serious part of these motley scenes; at least they were persuaded that the solemnity of the subject covered or excused all incongruities. They had no just idea of decorum, consequently but little sense of the ridiculous: what appears to us to be the highest burlesque, on them would have made no sort of impression^{1 note}.” Now it may be asked, if the composers of the Mysteries had not had some object in view, in the introduction of burlesque incidents and characters, why did they depart from the plain narrative of Scripture? A passage in the Banes^{2 note}



tends to remove all doubt upon the subject, as it proves that the gratification of the populace was one of the chief motives for acting these plays, and that this end would not have been obtained had not the sombre character of the plots been relieved by a species of buffoonery adapted to their taste. It should also be remembered that the Moralities had their Vice, and that the Fools and Clowns of Shakspeare still keep possession of the stage.

The traces of resemblance apparent in the English

and Foreign Mysteries, as well in the choice of subjects, as in the manner of treating them, are so numerous and striking, that we cannot but attribute these productions to one common source. How far the Chester Mysteries may claim the priority of invention ascribed to them by Mr. Malone, can now, as far as internal evidence is concerned, be matter of conjecture only, from the comparatively modern orthography of the existing copies, and the changes which their diction appears to have undergone, in order to render them intelligible to the audience at successive periods. But from the many proofs that have been adduced of their remote antiquity, we may surely regard them as having been, in their original state, amongst the very earliest dramatic performances of Europe.

In the second Mystery of “The Murder of the Innocents,” the Child of Herod is stated to be destroyed in the general massacre; and this, like the domestic quarrel of Noah and his Wife, is another instance of circumstances being admitted into religious Plays “not warranted by any writt” of Scripture. The same incident is introduced by Jean Michel into a French Mystery, entitled, “Le Mystere de la Conception, Nativité, Mariage et Annonciation de la Benoîte Vierge Marie” (Paris 1486); and from this writer it is probable that Margaret de Valois, Queen of Navarre, borrowed the hint for one of her religious dramas, founded upon this subject, called “Comedie des Innocens,” 1547^{3 note}. Her Majesty has nevertheless heightened the cruelty of Herod's character, by causing him to receive the intelligence of his son's death with little regret, from the certainty of having accomplished the object of his massacre. In answer to

the entreaties of the nurse to avenge the loss of his child, “tant aymable,” the father replies with great coolness,

She has also put into the nurse's mouth the well-known saying, that it were “better to be Herod's hog than his son.”
Son porc, non son filz, vault mieux estré
Le Juif ne tue nul pourceau^{4 note}

authenticity of this date^{5 note}. Warton seems to regard it as the identical play performed at Constance. If this notion be well founded, Parfre must have been merely the translator or transcriber, or he might have compiled a new play from older materials, as the representation at Constance took place nearly a century prior to the date given by Hawkins. It bears a close resemblance both in language and incident to the Chester Mystery; but as the comparison can be so readily instituted, it is unnecessary to supply extracts. The comic character of Watkin the “Messanger,” a boaster and a coward, and who may be regarded as the Sir Kay^{6 note} of Herod's court, appears to have been substituted for Sir Lancelot and Sir Grimbald, who figure in the latter. The introduction of these knights of romance at the court of Judæa, and the defiance which they breathe against a King of Scotland, are amusing instances of that total disregard of all chronological accuracy apparent in these homely compositions. We find that Herod upon many occasions appeals to Mahound or Mahomet as the object of his adoration. This was an effectual mode of increasing the indignation of the audience against his atrocious massacre, “from the generous contempt in which our ancestors held infidels of every description^{7 note}.” In the Townley Mystery, intituled Magnus Herodes, there is a boast of Herod's near relationship to the Prophet, being styled “Cousyn to Mahowne;” and in the play of Candlemas-day, the King, at the

point of death, thus commends himself to the impostor:

When the legendary stories of the Saracens were fashionable (says Warton) Mahound or Mahomet was a formidable character on our stage: thus Skelton:

The Sowdan, or Soldan, an eastern tyrant, was a personage of the same description, equally grim and terrific, and obnoxious to the feelings of the audience.

If we regard the state of literature, religion, and manners, during the period when these performances prevailed, we cannot wonder that they should be promoted by the Church, or that their popularity amongst the laity should have been so extensive and lasting^{9 note}. Ecclesiastics perceiving with jealousy the avidity with which the lays of the Minstrels were received, determined by similar arts to engage the exclusive attention of the people, even in their amusements. The following lines seem to confirm this supposition, as they prove that on the festival of Corpus Christi, celebrated by the performance of Plays at Coventry, York, and other places, the fictions of the Minstrels were at one period resorted to for recreation.

“Ones y me ordayned, as y have ofte doon,
“With frendes, and felawes, frendemen, and other;
“And caught me in a company on Corpus Christi even,
“Six, other seven myle, oute of Southampton,
“To take melodye, and mirthes, among my makes;
“With redyng of Romaunces, and revelyng among,
“The dym of the derknesse drowe into the west,
“And began for to spryng in the grey day^{1 note}.”

The popular fictions of romance certainly offered much richer materials, but the Clergy could only with propriety be engaged in dramatic representations of a religious character; and thus the Bible, and the legendary histories of Saints and Martyrs, were resorted to, from absolute necessity. Excluded from society and from secular concerns, the Monks would not unwillingly promote a species of amusement, which relieved the tedium of monastic life, and afforded them occasional opportunities of mixing with the world. It has been often urged, that Mysteries and Moralities taught little except licentiousness and impiety. The coarse language, the irreverent use of sacred names, and the familiar exhibition of the most awful events, must now be acknowledged extremely offensive; but we must be cautious not to judge of the simplicity of those times by the sensitive delicacy of our own. They at least conveyed some scriptural knowledge, and diverted the mind from an exclusive devotion to war and warlike sports. In those days, when “darkness covered the earth, and gross darkness the people,” the Bible was to the multitude a sealed book, and religion was impressed upon their minds by the gorgeous ceremonies of the Church, or by its terrific anathemas, rather than by the pure and simple precepts of its divine Founder. But the insight even thus afforded into the most striking narratives

of Holy Writ, by sensible representations of awful facts, where the punishment of vice, and the reward of virtue, were unfolded, could have taught nothing hurtful; and in this view these religious dramas rest upon much less questionable principles of morality than many of the popular productions of more civilized ages. Might not these plays also excite the desire of examining the source whence they were derived, and thus conduce, in a partial degree, to a general knowledge of the Scriptures, an investigation of the errors of the existing creed, and eventually to the overthrow of the papal power? In a later age the stage was successfully resorted to, as an auxiliary to the pulpit. Both the Roman Catholics and Protestants rendered religious plays the vehicles of opinion^{2 note}, where truths were frequently elicited, though too often sullied by expressions of the bitterest censure and intolerance^{3 note}. Amongst the Reformers, Bale stood foremost in seizing this weapon, and, whilst dramatizing in his “Comedies” various parts of the Scriptures, he powerfully exposed the abuses of the Romish Church^{4 note}

the principles he had espoused. Edward VI. was induced to employ his pen in the same cause, and doubtless thought himself better employed than in “scribbling controversial ribaldry,” as Walpole styles it^{5 note}, when he furnished, what one of his eulogists terms, “a most elegant comedy, the Whore of Babylon^{6 note}.”

“It is of all things (says Burke) the most instructive, to see not only the reflection of manners and characters at several periods, but the modes of making their reflection, and the manner of adapting it at those periods to the taste and disposition of mankind. The stage indeed may be considered as the republic of active Literature, and its history as the history of that state.” Under these impressions the Editor has committed two of these singular productions to the press; in the hope also, that although they may appear offensive to the taste of the present age, no apologies are requisite for giving a limited circulation to compositions so curious, and, in many respects, so interesting. He offers them as relics of the literature and amusements of our ancestors; and when we regard the spirit in which they were written, and the reverence with which they were viewed, suspicion of intentional profaneness or indelicacy cannot attach to the pen from which they proceeded.—“Such spectacles,” says an

elegant and lamented writer^{7 note}, “indicate the simplicity, rather than the libertinism, of the age in which they were exhibited.—The distinction between modesty of thought and decency, which resides in the expression, is a modern refinement; a compromise between chastity and seduction, which stipulates not the exclusion, but only the disguise of licentiousness; and may, perhaps, be a proof of a purer taste, but is no evidence of a very severe and rigid morality.”