“Jan. 2 (1503). To the Abbot of Misrule, in rewarde, 61. 13s. 4d.
“Feb. 12 (1503). To Lewis Adams, that made disguysings, 10l.”
The Lord or Abbot of Misrule at Court, says Hampson, (Med. Ævi Kalend. vol. i. p. 117) was usually a writer of interludes and plays, and the office was not unfrequently held by a poet of some reputation. Such, for example, was George Ferrers, “in whose pastimes Edward the Sixth,” we are told by Warton, “had great delight.” There can be no doubt, however, that scandalous abuses often resulted from the exuberant licence assumed by the lord of misrule and his satellites, and consequently we find their proceedings denounced in no measured terms by Prynne, and other zealous puritans.—See Book of Days, vol. ii. p. 742.
Stubbes, a morose puritan in the days of Elizabeth, denominates the lord of misrule “a grand captaine of mischiefe,” and has preserved a minute description of all his wild doings in the country, of which the following is a summary. He says that the lord of misrule on being selected, takes twenty to sixty others, “lyke hymself,” to act as his guard, who are decorated with ribbands and scarfs and bells on their legs. Thus, all things set in order, they have their hobby-horses, their dragons, and other antiques, together with the gaudie pipers and thunderyng drummers, and strike up the devill’s dance withal. So they march to the church, invading it, even though service be performing, with such a confused noyse that no man can hear his own voice. Then they adjourn to the churchyard, where booths are set up, and the rest of the day spent in dancing and drinking. The followers of “My Lord” go about to collect money for this, giving in return “badges and cognizances” to wear in the hat: and do not scruple to insult, or even duck, such as will not contribute. But, adds Stubbes, another sort of fantasticall fooles are well pleased to bring all sorts of food and drink to furnish out the feast.—See Disraeli, Curiosities of Literature, 1858, vol. ii. p. 262; and Strutt’s Sports and Pastimes of the People of England, p. 254.
Mummers.
—These were amusements derived from the Saturnalia, and so called from the Danish Mumme, or Dutch Momme, disguise in a mask. Christmas was the grand scene of mumming, and some mummers were disguised like bears, others like unicorns, bringing presents. Those who could not procure masks rubbed their faces with soot, or painted them. In the Christmas mummeries the chief aim was to surprise by the oddity of the masques and singularity and splendour of the dresses. Everything was out of nature and propriety. They were often attended with an exhibition of gorgeous machinery.—Fosbroke’s Encylopædia of Antiquities, 1840, p. 669; see Strutt’s Sports and Pastimes, 1801, pp. 124, 189, 190; also N. & Q. 2nd S. vol. x. pp. 464, 465, vol. xi. p. 271, vol. xii. p. 407; 3rd S. vol. i. p. 66, vol. iv. p. 486.
Pantomime.
—The Christmas pantomime or harlequinade is, in its present shape, essentially a British entertainment, and was first introduced into this country by a dancing master of Shrewsbury named Weaver in 1702. One of his pantomimes, entitled The Loves of Mars and Venus, met with great success. The arrival, in the year 1717, in London of a troupe of French pantomimists with performing dogs, gave an impetus to this kind of drama, which was further developed in 1758 by the arrival of the Grimaldi family, the head of which was a posture-master and dentist. Under the auspices of this family the art of producing pantomimes was greatly cultivated, and the entertainment much relished. Joseph Grimaldi, the son of the dentist, was clever at inventing tricks and devising machinery, and Mother Goose, and others of his harlequinades, had an extended run. At that time the wit of the clown was the great feature, but, by-and-by, as good clowns became scarce, other adjuncts were supplied, such as panoramas or dioramic views; and now the chief reliance of the manager is on scenic effects, large sums of money being lavished on the mise en scène. This is particularly the case as regards the transformation scene—i.e., the scene where the characters are changed into clown, harlequin, &c., as much as 1000l. being frequently spent on this one effort. In London alone a sum of 40,000l. is annually expended at Christmas time on pantomimes. The King of the Peacocks, a pantomime produced at the London Lyceum Theatre during the management of Madame Vestris, cost upwards of £3000. Even provincial theatres, such as those of Manchester or Edinburgh, consider it right to go to considerable expense in the production of their Christmas pantomime.—Chambers’ Encyclopædia, 1874, vol. vii. p. 237; see Disraeli’s Curiosities of Literature, 1858, pp. 116-130; N. & Q. 4th S. vol. v. pp. 193-95.
Plum-Porridge.
—This, says Misson, was a “sort of soup with plumbs, which is not at all inferior to the pye.” Dr. Rimbault says, was not this the same as plum-pudding? Pudding was formerly used in the sense of stuffing or force-meat, as we now say black-puddings. Porridge, on the other hand, was used in the sense of our pudding. Thus Shakspeare talks of “porridge after meat,” meaning pudding after meat.—N. & Q. 2nd S. vol. xii. p. 489.