THE CHESTER MYSTERY PLAYS
By Joseph C. Bridge, M.A., Mus. Doc. Oxon. et Dunelm., F.S.A.
Introduction.
THERE is no more interesting study in our early literature than the Mystery Plays which were once so popular throughout the length and breadth of England. It may be well to premise that their proper title is “Miracle” Plays, and no early writer ever alludes to them under any other name; nor was there in this country any difference between “Miracle” and “Mystery,” as stated by some authorities. But custom has now definitely coupled the latter title with those early dramatic efforts of our forefathers, and it will be used in these pages.
Excluding odd ones, four great series of plays have come down to us, viz. those of York, Wakefield, Chester, and Coventry, and each place probably served as a centre of dramatic influence. While York acted as a stimulus to Wakefield itself and Newcastle, so Chester supported the dramatic efforts from Kendal in the north to Shrewsbury in the south and Dublin in the west.
Each series of plays possesses distinct characteristics, and, happily, Chester can claim that her plays have in them “less to offend and a more reverential tone” than many others, for it is useless to disguise the fact that many readers object to these plays as seeming to treat religious subjects with levity. But with a little reflection we shall see that these plays do not deserve such condemnation if judged from the right standpoint, and that standpoint is assuredly not the twentieth century. We must throw ourselves back five centuries at least if we are to obtain a right focus. From the time of St. Paul, God’s Word has been preached in divers ways and by divers methods, and we must not be surprised if the mediæval preacher was shrewd enough to use the dramatic instincts of the people as distributing media of religious knowledge.[6]
[6] Milton thought of writing Paradise Lost as a Mystery Play, but changed his mind.
Let us remember that the Bible and religious books could not be read or consulted by the people; and as late as the seventeenth century we find an aged rustic who knew nothing of our Saviour except what he had learnt by seeing a Corpus Christi play at Kendal, where “there was,” said he, “a man on a tree, and the blood ran down.”
There is a good deal of strong argument put into the mouths of mediæval players by the old Wycliffe preacher, who makes them say that “by such playing of miracles men be converted to good living—and, since it is lawful to have the miracles of God painted, why is it not as lawful to have the miracles of God played, since men may better read the will of God and His marvellous works in the playing of them rather than in the painting of them ... for this is a dead book, the other a quick?”
The introduction of humour into these sacred plays is no novelty. There is a broad touch of it as early as the time of Hilarius in his play of St. Nicholas, and we cannot deny that the writers of our Miracle Plays showed some skill in thus early lighting upon one of the greatest of dramatic rules, viz. the law of contrast.
Then, again, one other point, which is generally overlooked, must be taken into consideration. The Persons of God and our Saviour are treated with the utmost reverence. It is only when the common people come on the stage that we find a certain coarseness and humour. And this is no more than we should expect to find.
These city actors would have thought it absurd to render shepherds as quiet, well-educated men. Did they not know plenty of shepherds round Chester who had hard times and hard fare, and whose only knowledge was of the diseases of animals? Were they not plagued with mischievous shepherd-boys who were ever ready for fun and play? And if Noah’s wife was a shrew, were they not well acquainted with many such, and was not the scold’s bridle and the ducking-stool kept at the Cross for such offending citizens? And can we blame them for looking upon many of the characters mentioned in the Bible as being ordinary everyday personages? I think not. However, opinions on this point will always be divided, and the following quotations from the writings of two well-educated women, who lived 100 years apart, are interesting:—
“Next he (Mr. Bryant) spoke upon the Mysteries, or origin of our theatrical entertainments, and repeated the plan and conduct of several of these strange compositions, in particular one he remembered, which was called Noah’s Ark, and in which that patriarch and his sons, just previous to the Deluge, made it all their delight to speed themselves into the ark without Mrs. Noah, whom they wished to escape; but she surprised them just as they had embarked, and made so prodigious a racket against the door that, after a long and violent contention, she forced them to open it, and gained admission, having first contented them by being kept out till she was thoroughly wet to the skin.
“These most eccentric and unaccountable dramas filled up chief of our conversation; and whether to consider them most with laughter, as ludicrous, or with horror, as blasphemous, remains a doubt I cannot well solve.”
So wrote that somewhat priggish but clever and witty young authoress, Miss Fanny Burney, in the eighteenth century.[7]
[7] It may be interesting to note that her father, Dr. Burney, was educated in Chester.
The following twentieth-century opinion is from a paper by the late Mrs. Henry Sandford, a woman of sound judgment and of great educational experience:—
“In the first place, we cannot but observe that, with all their faults, they did keep vividly before the mind of the English nation the leading outlines of Christian teaching, and that, in the historical form suggested by the Apostles’ Creed. Much that was legendary, coarse, incongruous, was there also, no doubt, but that was there above all.
“The old religious drama created in the popular mind a high ideal of the true use and purpose of dramatic art, namely, to present to the imagination a living picture of the realities of life and feeling.”
But I will not pursue the arguments any further. Suffice it to say that the sense of humour and the representation of everyday life occur in all the arts of the Middle Ages. Those who would eliminate all this human part of the plays, or would forbid their use, must, to be consistent, rip the Misereres out of the choir of Chester Cathedral and burn them for firewood.
It is sometimes said that not only was there irreverence, but even indecency, especially in the play of the Creation and Fall, where Adam and Eve are commanded to “stand nackede.” I believe this stage direction to be merely figurative,[8] and the Cornish play of the Creation of the World[9] gives a clue to the whole matter, as it contains specific instructions that Adam and Eve are to be “apparelled in white leather.”[10] At Norwich also we know that Adam wore “a wig, gloves, and a cote of hosen steyned,” and Eve “a wig, gloves, and two cotes of hosen steyned.”
[8] Thomas Wright, the able editor of the Chester plays, comes, I am glad to say, to the same conclusion.
[9] The Creation of the World. A Cornish Mystery, edited by Whitley Stokes.
[10] The Person of God was also occasionally represented in white leather with the face gilded.
Further, there can be no doubt whatever that women were not allowed to take part in plays or to appear on the stage in public until some years after Mystery Plays had completely died out.[11]
[11] Miss Hamilton Moore, in English Miracle Plays and Moralities, seems to think that I assert in my Introduction to the Chester Plays (published for the revival in 1906) that women acted the play of The Assumption. Not so: I merely stated that the ale-wives of the city provided and furnished the play, but I am quite sure they did not perform it.
Evidence of this may also be found in the music of the plays. In the Coventry Mysteries the “Lullaby,” supposed to be sung by the women in the Slaughter of the Innocents, actually has Tenor and Bass parts.[12]
[12] This trio would be sung by two men and a boy. Similarly the trio in Chester Noah’s Play would be sung by the “Three clerkes from the Minster,” who, as we shall see, were duly engaged as professionals.
Origin of Plays.
These plays sprang from the Church, and “all evidence points to Easter as the festival with which the earliest religious dramas were most intimately connected, and it is probable that the first form which the Easter play assumed was that of a ceremony in which the Crucifix was solemnly buried on Good Friday and again disinterred on Easter Day amid a pompous ritual.”[13]
[13] Professor Pollard.
So long as the Church controlled the plays, the clergy were favourable to their performance; but when their popularity and their growth rendered it necessary to perform them out of doors, when the stage was pitched on the green or in the street before the Abbey gate, it became another matter.
The following rimes, written in 1303 by Robert Manning (Le Brunne), show this distinctly:—
“Hyt ys forebode in the decree
Miracles for to make or se
For miracles yf you begynne
Hyt ys a gaderynt, a syghte of synne
He may in the churche, thurgh thys resun
Play the resurrecyon.
Yf thou do it in weyis or grenys
A syghte of synne truly hyt semys.”
As late as 1385 we find William of Wykeham objecting to the plays taking place in the churchyard, and threatening those who should lend vestments from the church to the actors.[14]
[14] We must not forget that the Welsh played interludes in their churchyards on Sunday afternoons down to a very late period.
The opposition of the clergy might have been fatal to the continuance of Miracle Plays but for the Feast of Corpus Christi, which was instituted in 1264, and firmly established in 1311. On this day the people and the trade gilds took part in processions with the clergy, carrying pictures and images of saints, and sometimes accompanied by the members of the gilds dressed as angels, the twelve apostles, &c.[15] From this parade it was an easy step to dramatic representation; and this day was rigidly adhered to by the gilds as their great and common festival.
[15] This is frequently to be seen in Italy at the present day.
Chester has always had the credit of being an exception to the rule by holding the performances of the plays at Whitsuntide, but this view is incorrect, and Chester was, at first, in line with other places, for we find from the Bakers’ Charter, 2 Edward IV. (which is the earliest authoritative allusion to the plays), that “there hath been tyme out of mind a company of bakers,” and they are “to be redy to pay the costes and expenses and play and light of Corpus Christi as oft tymes as it shall be assessed.”[16] Chester’s gilds were numerous and powerful, and many of them exist in some form or other at the present day.
[16] The alteration must have occurred very soon after this, for the “Banes,” quoted later, which gives Whitsuntide as the time of the plays, cannot, I think, be much later than 1470.
The authorship of the plays is generally attributed to Ralf Higden, the author of Polychronicon, and a monk of Chester, where he is said to have died at a great age in 1353. But there is no evidence to justify such a definite statement as this. All we know of the origin of the plays is found in the following:—
1. A “Banes,” XV. Cent., giving Sir John Arneway as the “deviser.” He was Mayor 1268–1276;
2. A Proclamation, c. 1520, giving Arneway as the “deviser,” and Francis, a monk, as the writer.
3. A “Banes,” c. 1570, giving Arneway as “deviser,” and a “Dom Randall” as the writer.
4. An account of the plays, by Archdeacon Rogers, c. 1575; one version gives “Randall Higden” as the writer, and places the time in the mayoralty of Arneway, 1328; the other version gives “one Randoll a monke,” Arneway as Mayor, and the date 1339.
5. An endorsement or a Proclamation in the Harleian MSS., supposed to be written by one of the Holmes, c. 1628, stating “Hignet” was the writer.
6. A similar endorsement on a copy of the plays of about the same date.
If the religious tendency of the Chester Plays was owing to a guiding hand from the monastery, that hand was, according to our earliest tradition, one Henry Francis, whose name occurs in deeds dated 1377–82. Higden was never mentioned until late in the sixteenth century.
It is quite possible that Henry Francis and Ralph Higden may have translated and revised some of the plays, and rendered literary help in reducing the cycle to unity, and that is all we can say with safety.[17] And this theory is supported by the fact that the closer the plays are studied, the more certain appears the fact that they are not by one hand.
[17] It seems to me sheer waste of time to try and synchronize Arneway and Higden as many writers do. I see no reason why we should not believe in the earliest tradition that Arneway devised the plays. The writing of them would be a gradual process, covering many years and involving, probably, several authors.
Wright and Collier have pointed out many passages which are identical with the French plays published in the Mystère du Vieux Testament. Certain plays may therefore have been translated from the French. The Sacrifice of Isaac is probably derived from a play found at Broom Hall, Suffolk, or perhaps both are from some other original. Miss Toulmin Smith says:—
“Lines 163–314 have a strong resemblance to corresponding 134 lines in Chester version. This resemblance, sometimes of phrase, sometimes only of meaning, is interrupted by occasional passages in the Brome MS., which have no equivalents in Chester. Apparently, both editors worked upon a common original, but the Chester poet compressed the more freely, and, in so doing, greatly heightened the effect and dialogue. But he showed poor tact in omitting the charming scene between the father and the son after their agony is over.... It is possible, however, that the Chester play has come down to us mutilated. It was plainly at one time a separate play, and when amalgamated with that of Abraham and Lot may well have been cut down for greater convenience of performance.”
The germ of the fine speech from the Resurrection, quoted later, may be found in the Wakefield play, where it begins as follows:—
“Earthly man that I have wroght,
Wightly wake and slepe thou noght!
With bitter bayll I have thee boght
To make thee free;
Into this dongeon depe I soght,
And all for luf of thee.”
The Three Kings seems founded on a Latin play, and the exceptional plays of the series (Nos. 23 and 24) can be traced in that fine old poem the Cursor Mundi.
In The Shepherd’s Play we certainly find the work of a local playwright, as references are made to a “jannock of Lancastershire,” butter from Blacon (a suburb of Chester), and ale from Halton. Other examples might be given.
It seems probable that as the plays sprang from the Church, so the four great cycles now existing are derived from some greater and anterior cycle authorised by the Church.
We find numerous references in the Chester Companies’ accounts to the original book of the play, which is generally called the “reginall.”
This may in some cases refer merely to the special playbook belonging to the company, but it more often refers to the volume of the plays possessed by the City Corporation. If we still had this book we might settle many vexed questions. Unfortunately it is missing, for on April 30th, 1567, “Randall Trever gent was called before the Maior of the Citie of Chester and was demaunded for the originall booke of the Whydson Plaies of the said Citie who then and ther confessed that he have had the same booke which book he deposeth upon the holy evangelist of God that by commaundement he delivered againe but where the same is now or to whom he then delivered the same book, deposeth likewise he knoweth not.”
In the year 1883, Mr. Sutton (the chief librarian of the Manchester Free Library) found an old parchment book-cover, with some writing upon it, which he submitted to Dr. F. J. Furnivall, who pronounced it to be a portion of a late fifteenth century MS. of the Chester Plays. It is the commencement of the play of the Resurrection, and it is very probable—being on parchment—that it is a remnant of the original Chester Play Book.
We are therefore dependent upon certain transcriptions of the whole series of plays made at the end of the sixteenth century. When the plays were dying out, it is certain that some of the old citizens would desire to keep a “book of the words,” hence the number of MSS. of that period.
The Chester MSS. extant are:—
a. 1591, by “Edward Gregorie a Scholar of Bunbury”; now in possession of the Duke of Devonshire.
b. 1592 } by George Bellin, Brit. Mus.: Add. MS. 10305;
c. 1600 } Brit. Mus.; Harl. 2013.
d. 1604, by William Bedford, Bodleian.
e. 1607, by James Miller, Brit. Mus.; Harl. 2124.
f.“The Resurrection” Play, by George Bellin, in the books of the Ironmongers’ Company, Chester.[18]
[18] Found by me last year. It is no doubt the “riginall” which the Company used, as they were responsible for the play. I have collated it with the other MSS., but the differences are not very important.
George Bellin was parish clerk of Holy Trinity Church in Chester.[19] He wrote an excellent hand, was a member of the Ironmongers’ Company, and had doubtless often acted in the plays, and he is therefore, on the whole, a reliable guide, especially as to stage directions. He made some curious mistakes, and his French is very bad, but we must be grateful to him for his labours.
[19] “George Bellin ironmonger & Clarke of this p’rish bur: in the middle Ile 23 July 1624.”—Holy Trinity Registers.
As already stated, Chester was fortunate in possessing, like York, London, and other great centres, a powerful array of Trade Gilds.[20] These City Companies provided workable units, and their power of organisation, the discipline exerted over their members, the brotherly feeling engendered by the Companies were all potent factors in the representation of these plays. “It made the performance a local work of art, in which all the city had a personal share. They believed with just pride that search England throughout none had the like, nor like does sett out.”
[20] The City Gilds still hold an annual dinner in Chester, and in January 1908 representatives of some thirty Companies attended. Many of these Companies possess badges, flags, and documents of priceless interest; but in many cases they are insecurely kept.
The preparation of the plays occupied many months. There was keen competition between the various City Companies, and great pains were taken by the civic fathers to see that really competent players were chosen, and that no one should have an undue number of parts, and the Mayor frequently attended rehearsals.
Then the “Pageant carriages,”[21] which had been securely housed since the last performance, had to be newly cleaned and repaired, and there needed much mending and repainting of the canvas and boards which represented “Heaven and Hell,” “Morning and Night,” or, as in “Noah’s Play,” was embellished with representations of birds, beasts, and fishes.
[21] The carriages themselves were sometimes called “Pageants,” and were kept in special houses. Most of the Gilds had their own, but sometimes two Gilds shared the cost between them. They were drawn by men, as a rule, e.g.:—
| “To twelve porters of the cariage | iis. | ivd.” |
—Painters and Glaziers’ Accounts.
The stage manager’s properties had also to be bought or borrowed throughout the town, and included many dozens of articles, ranging from a costly cope[22] down to the whistles[23] for the shepherd-boys and the ox tongue[24] for the old shepherd to put in his haversack, and it is obvious that the success of these plays depended greatly on the felicitous subdivision of work amongst the numerous City Companies, for no one manager could have supervised the whole.
| [22] | “To the Clark for loan of a Cope an Altar Cloth and Tunick | xd.” |
—Smiths’ Accounts.
| [23] | “For two Wystylls for Trowe | iid. | |
| [24] | “For a beast’s tongue and four calfe’s feet | viiid.” |
—Painters and Glaziers’ Accounts.
The expenses were evenly divided among the members of the Company. Sometimes there was a “passive resister” who thought the plays nonsense, and that there should be “no more cakes and ale”; but he was speedily disillusioned, for the Mayor promptly clapped him into prison until he, or his friends, paid his proper[25] share.
[25] Andrew Tailer of the Dyers’ Company was thus treated in 1575.
It has been said that “no English play that has been preserved to us contains any mark of its representation by clerical actors,” but we find that as late as the sixteenth century the “clerks from the Minster,” the organist and choir boys, had no scruples about joining in the plays, and helping in those parts which required musical qualifications.
| 1561. | To Sir Jo: Jenson for songes[26] | — | xiid. |
| ” | To the five boys for singing | iis. | vid. |
| 1567. | To two of the clarkes of the Minster | — | viiid. |
| ” | To Mr. Whyte[27] | iiiis. | — |
[26] Senior Minor Canon.
[27] Organist and a very celebrated musician. It was probably due to his influence and co-operation that the Cathedral authorities joined in the preparation and plays, as appears from the Cathedral Treasurer’s accounts for 1567.
This appears to be the only time that they did so:—
| “Item paid for a brode clothe againste the Witson plais | vis. | viiid. | |
| Item for a barrell of bere to gene to the pleares to make them to drinke | vis. | — | |
| Item for packe thread at Witson daye to hange up the clothe | — | iid.” | |
| 1568. | To Mr. Rand’ Barnes[28] | iiis. | iiiid. |
| ” | To Mr. Whyte for singing | iiiis. | — |
| ” | Spent on the Chanter and Clark of the Minster | — | vd. |
| 1569. | For the Clergy for our songs | iiiis. | iid. |
[28] Organist.
But before the plays took place it was customary to send messengers on horseback and on stilts[29] to various places round the city[30] to read the “Banes” or “Banns,” announcing the performance, and Bellin has left us a copy of the “Banes,” which has been often printed, and is therefore here abbreviated. It is a curious document, for it is so extremely apologetic in tone, and notes even words in the plays which had become obsolete. The “Banes” is dated 1600, and it is possible that Bellin merely meant the date of his copying, but a careful study of it makes me suspect that there was in this year one last expiring effort made by the citizens to perform the plays, and that this “Banes” was specially written for the occasion. Although Archbishop Grindal had prohibited the plays in 1571, we know of performances up to 1576. In 1599, also, Henry Hardware, the Mayor, “was not liked by the commons,” because he tried to do away with the Midsummer show and all festivity, but we are expressly told that next year the Mayor, Robert Brerewode, “restored again all the ancient customs ... and put down Mr. Hardware,” and he may have tried to revive the plays as well as the Midsummer show. However, no trace of any performance in 1600 has yet come to light.
| [29] | “To our horses at the rydyng of the Banes | xvid. |
| “To Richard Dobie for going on the stilts at the Banes ryding” | — |
—Painters and Glaziers’ Accounts.
Some of the performers from the Mayor’s Midsummer show gradually got grafted on to the “Banes Riding,” and increased the importance of it.
[30] The Castle and the North Gate were two of the appointed places, and the “Banes” would be heard by the wretched prisoners there, to whom a donation was generally accorded:—
| “To the prisoners at the Castle | id. | |
| To the prisoners at the North Gate | id.” |
Painters and Glaziers’ Accounts.