A history of English literature

by Edward Albert

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE

The work on the English Bible began as early as the eighth century, when Bede translated a portion of the Gospel of St. John into Old English prose. The work was ardently continued during the Old English period—for example, in the Lindisfarne Gospels (about 700) and the prose of Ælfric (about 1000). During the Anglo-Norman period, owing to the influence of French and Latin, English translation did not flourish; but efforts were made, especially in the Psalms and the Pauline epistles. Translation was systematically undertaken by Wyclif (1320–84), under whose direction two complete versions were carried through about 1384 and 1388. How much actual translation Wyclif accomplished will never be known, but his was the leading spirit, and to him falls the glory of being the leader in the great work. To the second of the Wycliffian versions is sometimes given the name of John Purvey, the Lollard leader who succeeded Wyclif. The two versions are simple and unpretentious renderings, the second being much more finished than the first.

After Wyclif translation flagged till the Reformation bent men’s minds anew to the task. The greatest of all the translators was William Tyndale (1485–1536), who did much to give the Bible its modern shape. Tyndale suffered a good deal of persecution owing to his hardihood, and was driven abroad, where much of his translation was accomplished, and where it was first printed. It was at Cologne that the first English Bible appeared in print. A feature of Tyndale’s translation was its direct reliance upon the Hebrew and Greek originals, and not upon the Latin renderings of them. Of these Latin texts the stock version was the Vulgate, upon which Wyclif to a large extent relied.

Miles Coverdale (1488–1568) carried on the work of Tyndale. Though he lacked the latter’s scholarship, he had an exquisite taste for phrase and rhythm, and many of the most beautiful Biblical expressions are of his workmanship.

Translations now came apace. None of them, however, was much improvement upon Tyndale’s. In 1537 appeared the finely printed version of “Thomas Matthew,” who was said to be John Rogers, a friend of Coverdale. The Great Bible, the first of the authorized versions, was executed by a commission of translators, working under the command of Henry VIII. It was based on Matthew’s Bible. Another notable translation was the Calvinistic Geneva Bible (1560). This book received the popular name of “Breeches Bible,” owing to its rendering of Genesis iii, 7: “They sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves breeches.” In the reign of Elizabeth was issued the Bishops’ Bible (1568), a magnificent folio, which was translated by a committee of bishops and learned men. It was intended to be a counterblast to the growing popularity of the Breeches Bible.

With these we are close upon the great Authorized Version (1611), which we shall mention in the next chapter, where also we shall briefly discuss the influence and the literary qualities of this translation. A few representative passages from the early translations will be found in the exercises attached to this chapter.

3. The Drama. As we have arrived on the threshold of the great Elizabethan drama, it is here convenient to sketch the growth of the dramatic form of literature.

(a) The Origins. (1) Classical. By the fourth or fifth century the Latin drama had become degraded almost past recognition. It left the merest traces in the mimes, who were professional strolling players common to all Europe during the Dark Ages. Their performances seem to have been poor and ribald enough, and they left little trace upon English drama.

(2) Popular Elements. At the great festivities, such as those at Easter and Yule, there were popular shows that included a large amount of acting and speaking. These plays, rude and childish probably, were survivals of ancient pagan beliefs and contained many scraps of folk-lore. There were nature-myths, such as that representing the expulsion of winter, in which a figure representing summer was slain and then revived. In England these mummings, as they were called, developed into elaborate sword-play, into morris-dancing (partly of foreign origin), and into dramatic versions of the feats of Robin Hood and St. George. These plays, which were commonly acted at the feast of Corpus Christi, were the occasion of fun and license, particularly at the election of the “Abbot of Unreason,” with his attendants, the hobby-horse and the clown.

(3) Ecclesiastical Elements. In early times the Church was the chief supporter of the popular drama. The Church service, including the Mass itself, contains dramatic elements. In the course of time, in order to make the Church services more intelligible and attractive, there grew up a habit of exhibiting “living pictures” illustrating Gospel stories, especially those connected with Easter. As early as the fifth century we have mention of such primitive dramatic entertainments, which were accompanied by the singing of hymns. Such was the origin of the mystery.

(b) The Mystery-play. The mystery was the dramatic representation of some important Biblical theme, such as the Nativity or the Resurrection. There were stock characters, set speeches (usually in doggerel verse), and a rudimentary plot supplied by the Biblical narrative. The mystery was in existence as early as the tenth century. Priests took part in the plays, though it is not certain that they wrote them; and the performances took place in the vicinity of some church. This feature proved so attractive that the mystery developed quite elaborate forms. The mystery-play proper centered around the Crucifixion and the Resurrection, but other themes that grew into favor were those of the Fall, Noah, Daniel, and Lazarus.

We add a brief passage from an ancient Cornish mystery. The reader should observe the set speeches of uniform length, the simple style, and the rhymeless stanzas.

Mary Magdalene. Oh! let us hasten at once,

For the stone is raised

From the tomb.

Lord, how will it be this night,

If I know not where goes

The head of royalty?

Mary, Mother of James. And too long we have stayed,

My Lord has gone his way

Out of the tomb, surely.

Alas! my heart is sick;

I know not indeed if I shall see him,

Who is very God.

Mary Salome. I know truly, and I believe it,

That he is risen up

In this day.

How long will it be to us now,

That we find not our Lord?

Alas! woe! woe!

[They sing.

The Dirge

Alas! mourning I sing, mourning I call,

Our Lord is dead that bought us all.

The Three Maries

(c) The Miracle-play. From the well-developed mystery-play it was but a step to the miracle-play. In such plays the theme passed from the Scriptural story to that of the lives of the saints. The plots were much more varied, the characters nearer to human experience, and the style rather more urbane.

(d) The Morality-play registered a further advance. In such plays virtues and vices were presented on the stage as allegorical creations, often of much liveliness. Abstractions such as Justice, Mercy, Gluttony, and Vice were among the commonest characters. An important feature of this class of play is the development of characterization. It is almost crude; but it is often strongly marked and strongly contrasted, with broad farcical elements. The favorite comic character was Vice, whose chief duty was to tease the Devil.

Everyman (about 1490), perhaps the best of the morality-plays, is represented by the brief extract here given. The characters are simply but effectively drawn, and the play does not lack a noble pathos.

Everyman. O all thing faileth, save God alone;

Beauty, Strength, and Discretion;

For when Death bloweth his blast,

They all run from me full fast.

Five-Wits. Everyman, my leave now of thee I take;

I will follow the other, for here I thee forsake.

Everyman. Alas! then may I wail and weep,

For I took you for my best friend.

Five-Wits. I will no longer thee keep;

Now farewell, and there an end.

Everyman. O Jesu, help, all hath forsaken me!

Good-Deeds. Nay, Everyman, I will bide with thee,

I will not forsake thee indeed;

Thou shalt find me a good friend at need.

Everyman. Gramercy, Good-Deeds; now may I true friends see;

They have forsaken me every one;

I loved them better than my Good-Deeds alone.

Knowledge, will ye forsake me also?

Knowledge. Yea, Everyman, when ye to death do go:

But not for no manner of danger.

Everyman. Gramercy, Knowledge, with all my heart.

(e) The Play-cycles. As the plays developed, so did the demands upon the stagecraft of the performers. At first the priests were equal to it. Quite elaborate erections were used. In the very early productions a popular setting was an erection in three stories. The top represented heaven, with the heavenly inhabitants, the “middel erde” was in the center, and lowest of all were the flames of hell, tenanted by cheerfully disposed devils. In the course of time the acting passed from the priests into the hands of the craftsmen, the students, and the schoolboys. The merchants’ guilds, in particular, were the most consistent supporters of the drama.

A curious feature was the fashion in which the plays ran in cycles or groups, each of which became associated with some town. The earliest is the Chester play-cycle (1268–76), comprising twenty-four plays; others are the York, with forty-nine; the Townley, with thirty-two, acted at the fairs at Widkirk; and the Coventry, of which only one play survives. Each member of the play-series was connected in theme with the others, and the complete cycle illustrated Bible history in all its stages.

Each company of the guild, say the Barbers or the Wax-chandlers, took a unit of the series. Each unit was short, corresponding to an act of the modern drama. They were composed in a great variety of meters, from doggerel to complicated lyrical stanzas.

Each company having selected and rehearsed its play, the entire apparatus was enclosed in a huge vehicle called the pageant. The body of the vehicle was enclosed, and served as the dressing-and property-room; the top was an open-air stage. On the day of the festival, which at York and Coventry was Corpus Christi, the whole contrivance was pulled about the town, and performances were given at certain fixed points, of which the abbey was the chief. In A Midsummer Night’s Dream Shakespeare has caricatured many features of these artisans’ dramatic performances.

(f) The Interlude. The last predecessor of the drama proper was the interlude, which flourished about the middle of the sixteenth century. It had several distinguishing points: it was a short play that introduced real characters, usually of humble rank, such as citizens and friars; there was an absence of allegorical figures; there was much broad farcical humor, often coarse; and there were set scenes, a new feature in the English drama. It will be observed that the interlude was a great advance upon the morality-play. John Heywood, who lived in the latter half of the sixteenth century, was the most gifted writer of the interlude. The four P’s is one of his best. It is composed in doggerel verse, and describes a lying-match between a Pedlar, a Palmer, a Pardoner, and a Potycary. His Johan Johan has much sharp wit and many clever sayings.

(g) The Earliest Dramas. Our earliest dramas began to appear about 1550. Their immediate cause was the renewed study of the classical drama, especially the plays of Seneca (3 B.C.-A.D. 65), whose mannerisms were easily imitated by dramatic apprentices. The classical drama gave English drama its five acts, its set scenes, and many other features.

(1) Tragedies. The first tragedies had the Senecan stiffness of style, the conventional characters and plot, though in some cases they adopted the “dumb show,” an English feature. Gorboduc (1562), afterward called Ferrex and Porrex, written by Norton and Lord Buckhurst, was probably the earliest, and was acted at the Christmas revels of the Inner Temple. The meter was a wooden type of regular blank verse. Other plays of a similar character were Appius and Virginia (1563), of anonymous authorship; the Historie of Horestes (1567), also anonymous; Jocasta (1566); and Preston’s Cambises, King of Percia (1570). Hughes’s Misfortunes of King Arthur (1587) broke away from the classical theme, but, like the others, it was a servile imitation of classical models. Many of the plays, however, preserved a peculiarly English feature in the retention of the comic Vice.

(2) Histories. Along with the alien classical tragedy arose a healthier native breed of historical plays. These plays, the predecessors of the historical plays of Shakespeare, were dramatized forms of the early chronicles, and combined both tragic and comic elements. This union of tragedy and comedy was alien to the classical drama, and was the chief glory of the Elizabethan stage. Early historical plays were The Famous Victories of Henry the Fifth (before 1588), a mixture of rude verse and prose; The Troublesome Raigne of King John (before 1591); and The Chronicle History of King Leir (1594).

(3) Comedies. Though the comedies drew much upon Latin comedians, such as Plautus, and upon Italian models also, they were to a great extent the growth of the English mumming element. They were composed usually in mixed verse and prose, the humor was of a primitive character, but the best of them had verve and high good-humor, and they were distinguished by some worthy songs and ditties. Ralph Roister Doister (1551), by Nicholas Udall, is the earliest extant comedy. Its author was the headmaster of Eton, and the play seems to have been composed as a variant upon the Latin dramas that were the stock-in-trade of the schoolboy actors then common. Another comedy was Gammer Gurton’s Needle (1575), the authorship of which is in dispute. The plot is slight, but the humor, though the reverse of delicate, is abundant, and the play gives interesting glimpses of contemporary English life.

We add a small scene from an early comedy. It shows the doggerel verse and the uninspired style—the homely natural speech of the time.

Christian Custance   Margerie Mumblecrust

C. Custance. Who took thee this letter, Margerie Mumblecrust?

M. Mumble. A lusty gay bachelor took it me of trust,

And if ye seek to him he will love your doing.

C. Custance. Yea, but where learned he that manner of wooing?

M. Mumble. If to sue to him, you will any pains take,

He will have you to his wife (he saith) for my sake.

C. Custance. Some wise gentleman, belike. I am bespoken:

And I thought verily this had been some token

From my dear spouse Gawin Goodluck, whom when him please,

God luckily send home to both our hearts’ ease.

M. Mumble. A joyly man it is, I wot well by report,

And would have you to him for marriage resort;

Best open the writing, and see what it does speak.

C. Custance. At this time, nurse, I will neither read ne break.

M. Mumble. He promised to give you a whole peck of gold.

C. Custance. Perchance, lack of a pint when it shall be all told.

M. Mumble. I would take a gay rich husband, and I were you.

C. Custance. In good sooth, Madge, e’en so would I, if I were thou.

But no more of this fond talk now, let us go in,

And see thou no more move me folly to begin.

Nor bring me no more letters for no man’s pleasure,

But thou know from whom.

M. Mumble. I warrant ye shall be sure.

Ralph Roister Doister

Summary. We can thus see the material that lay to the hand of Shakespeare and his fellows. It was almost of uniform development and of ancient and diverse origin; it was frequently coarse and childish, but its material was abundant and vital. The time was at hand, and so was the genius of the master to give this vast body a shape and impulse. Almost in a day, after centuries of slow ripening, the harvest came, with a wealth and excellence of fruition that is one of the marvels of our literature.