9. Reverting now to the former attributions of the play to Dr. Bridges and Bishop Still, it is clear, to take the former first, that Dr. Bridges was not "Mr. S." Further, he did not belong to Christ's College, but to Pembroke. These two facts make it difficult to understand why the author of the Martin Marprelate tracts should have thrice claimed for him the authorship of this play, once in the Epistle (1588) and twice in the Epitome. In the first the attribution is somewhat ambiguous; but in the others the writer evidently believed what he stated. Dr. Bradley suggests in explanation that as Dr. Bridges was resident at Cambridge in 1560 he may have assisted William Stevenson in the composition or revision of the play. [In a recent letter to the Editor, Dr. Bradley observes, on reading this article, that "if the arguments offered for an Edwardian date are valid, of course Bridges cannot have been the author, though he may well have revised the play for its performance in 1559-60. I suspect he was rather the sort of man to boast of the authorship, even if his real connection with it was slight.">[ "Bridges might have written comedy in his youth." His writings "abound in sprightly quips, often far from dignified in tone; and his controversial opponents complained, with some justice, of his buffoonery."
[Reduced Facsimile of Title-page of "The Disobedient Child," from a Copy in the British Museum.]
So far Dr. Bradley. The arguments against Still's authorship of Gammer Gurton, and in favour of that of Bridges, are stated at length in an article by Mr. C. H. Ross in the nineteenth volume of Anglia (1896). The main contention is that "Mr. S." is a "blind" of some sort, standing, it may be, for the last letter, or the last syllable of the name "Bridges." "This is," remarks Prof. Hales in The Age of Transition, ii. 37, "possible, if not very likely." "Professor Boas," adds the same authority, "is disposed to support the Stevenson theory, but with qualifications. He points out (in a private letter) that it does not follow, because the play was acted at Christ's, that the writer was necessarily a member of that college, and he grants weight to the confident assertion of the Marprelate writer that Bridges was the author, although Bridges was at Pembroke College.... Professor Boas's general conclusion is as follows: 'I think Mr. Bradley's ascription of the play to Stevenson, though plausible and probable, is by no means certain, and that more may be said for Bridges' authorship than he allows.' In our opinion [that is, Prof. Hales's] the evidence, such as it is, is all in favour of Stevenson as the original author, but it may be hoped that the discovery of some contemporary allusion may yet settle the question once for all."
As regards Still, if Stevenson's authorship be accepted, Reed's conclusion of course falls to the ground; and the extraordinary seriousness of character of Bishop Still renders it incredible that he can ever have distinguished himself as a comic writer. Archbishop Parker, in 1573, speaks of him as "a young man," but "better mortified than some other forty or fifty years of age"; and another eulogist commends "his staidness and gravity." If seriousness had been qualified by wit, there would surely have been some indication of the fact in the vivaciously written account of him given by Harrington, who attests his excellent character, and says that he was a man "to whom I never came but I grew more religious, and from whom I never went but I parted more instructed." But neither there nor elsewhere is there any evidence that he ever made a joke, that he ever wrote a line of verse, or that he had any interests other than those connected with his sacred calling. John Payne Collier, in his History of Dramatic Poetry, noting the fact that Gammer Gurton's Needle was the first existing English play acted at either university, commented on the singular coincidence that the author of the comedy [Dr. Still] so represented should be the very person who, many years afterwards, when he had become Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge, was called upon to remonstrate with the Ministers of Queen Elizabeth against having an English play performed before her at that university, as unbefitting its learning, dignity, and character [—another indirect piece of evidence, surely, against Still's authorship].
The play is a comedy-farce in five acts, the central idea being the loss by an old dame of her needle, a half-crazy mischief-making wag setting it about that this (at that time of day) precious possession has been stolen by another old woman, the whole village being ultimately set by the ears about the matter. Finally it is found sticking in the breech of Gammer Gurton's man Hodge. The text followed is that of Colwell's edition of 1575, modernised in spelling and punctuation. Copies of the original are to be found in the British Museum, Bodleian, and Huth libraries. It has been several times reprinted, but never before in modern days in a separate form: (1) in quarto in 1661; (2) in Hawkins' Origin of the English Drama, 1773; (3) in all the editions of Dodsley's Old Plays (1744, 1780, 1825, and 1876); (4) in The Ancient British Drama, ed. by Sir W. Scott, 1810; (5) in Old English Drama, 1830; (6) in Prof. Manly's Specimens of the Pre-Shakspearean Drama, 1897; and (7) in Gayley's Representative English Comedies, 1903.
A facsimile title-page will be found preceding the text, and the device of Thomas Colwell, the printer of the play, on page 64.
The song on page 12 is one of the oldest drinking-songs extant. An older version, modernised in spelling, is given below. Dr. Bradley does not regard it as likely to be "much older than the middle of the sixteenth century (the O.E.D. gives it as c. 1550), and it may possibly be later." As Skelton died 1529, the inference is obvious.
Back and side go bare, go bare;
Both hand and foot go cold;
But, belly, God send thee good ale enough,
Whether it be new or old.
But if that I may have, truly,
Good ale my belly full,
I shall look like one (by sweet Saint John)
Were shorn against the wool.
Though I go bare, take ye no care,
I am nothing cold.
I stuff my skin so full within
Of jolly good ale and old.
I cannot eat but little meat;
My stomach is not good;
But sure I think that I could drink
With him that weareth a hood.
Drink is my life; although my wife
Some time do chide and scold,
Yet spare I not to ply the pot
Of jolly good ale and old.
Back and side, &c.
I love no roast but a brown toast,
Or a crab in the fire;
A little bread shall do me stead,
Much bread I never desire.
Nor frost, nor snow, nor wind, I trow,
Can hurt me if it would;
I am so wrapped within, and lapped
With jolly good ale and old.
Back and side, &c.
I care right nought, I take no thought
For clothes to keep me warm;
Have I good drink, I surely think
Nothing can do me harm.
For truly then I fear no man,
Be he never so bold,
When I am armed, and thoroughly warmed
With jolly good ale and old.
Back and side, &c.
But now and then I curse and ban;
They make their ale so small!
God give them care, and evil to fare!
They strye the malt and all.
Such peevish pew, I tell you true,
Not for a crown of gold
There cometh one sip within my lip,
Whether it be new or old.
Back and side, &c.
Good ale and strong maketh me among
Full jocund and full light,
That oft I sleep, and take no keep
From morning until night.
Then start I up, and flee to the cup;
The right way on I hold.
My thirst to stanch I fill my paunch
With jolly good ale and old.
Back and side, &c.
And Kytte, my wife, that as her life
Loveth well good ale to seek,
Full oft drinketh she that ye may see
The tears run down her cheek.
Then doth she troll to me the bowl
As a good malt-worm should,
And say, "Sweetheart, I have taken my part
Of jolly good ale and old."
Back and side, &c.
They that do drink till they nod and wink,
Even as good fellows should do,
They shall not miss to have the bliss
That good ale hath brought them to.
And all poor souls that scour black bowls,
And them hath lustily trolled,
God save the lives of them and their wives,
Whether they be young or old!
Back and side, &c.