The artistic merit of the piece has often been unduly depreciated, from causes which it is not difficult to understand. The very rudimentary kind of humour which turns on physically disgusting suggestions is no longer amusing to educated people, and there is so much of this poor stuff in the play that the real wit of some scenes, and the clever portraiture of character throughout, have not received their fair share of acknowledgment. Most people who have lived long in an English village will recognise Gammer Gurton and Dame Chat as capital studies from life, though their modern representatives are not quite so foul-mouthed in their wrath as the gossips of the sixteenth century; and Hodge, whose name has become the conventional designation of the English farm labourer, is an equally lifelike figure. The brightly drawn character of Diccon represents a type which the working of the poor laws, and many social changes, have banished from our villages. But old people who were living down to the middle of this century had many stories to tell of the crazy wanderer, who was recognised as too feather-brained to be set to any useful work, but who was a welcome guest in cottage homes, and whose pranks were looked on with kindly toleration by well-disposed people, even when they led to inconvenient consequences.[651] The game of cross-purposes brought about by Diccon's machinations, which forms the plot, is humorously imagined, and worked out with some skill. It does not, of course, rise above the level of farce; but there is real comedy, not quite of the lowest order, in the scene where the fussy self-importance of Dr. Rat, bursting with impotent rage at his well-merited discomfiture, is confronted with the calm impartiality of "Master Baily"—the steward of the lord of the manor, apparently, and the representative of temporal authority in the village. The common verdict that Gammer Gurtons Nedle is a work of lower rank than Ralph Roister Doister is perhaps on the whole not unjust; but the later play has some merits of its own, and, as the first known attempt to present a picture of contemporary rustic life in the form of a regular comedy, it may be admitted to represent a distinct advance in the development of English dramatic art.
Dialect.—The treatment of dialect in the play demands a word of notice. All the characters, except the curate and the baily, who belong to the educated class, and Diccon, who may be presumed to have come down from a better social station than that of the village people, use a kind of speech which is clearly intended to represent the dialect of the southwestern counties. It is not always very correct; the writer, for instance, seems to have thought that cham stood for "am" as well as "I am," so that he makes Hodge say "cham I not." Stevenson, as we have seen, was of northern birth; and, as a line or two in the same dialect is found in Ralph Roister Doister, there is some reason for believing that the dialect of the stage rustic was already a matter of established convention.[652] The word pes, a hassock, which occurs in the play, is peculiar, so far as is known, to the East Anglian dialect, and may have been picked up by the author in his walks about Cambridge. Whether derived from Gammer Gurton or from plays of earlier date, the conventional dialect of the stage rustic kept its place throughout the Elizabethan period. Shakspere's rustics, as is well known, mostly use the southwestern forms, not those current in the poet's native Warwickshire.
The Present Text.—The text of the present edition is taken from the copy of Colwell's edition (1575) in the Bodleian Library. The original spelling has been preserved, except that j and v are substituted for i and u when used as consonants, and u for v when used as a vowel. Obvious misprints have been corrected, but are mentioned in the footnotes (except in the case of mere errors of word-division, which it seemed unnecessary to notice). The punctuation, and the use of initial capitals, have been conformed to modern practice. Another copy of Colwell's edition is in the British Museum. The play was reprinted in 1661, and, with modernised spelling, in Dodsley's Old Plays, and in the new edition of Dodsley by W. C. Hazlitt. An excellent edition, with the original spelling, was published in 1897 by Professor J. M. Manly, in vol. ii. of his Specimens of the Pre-Shaksperean Drama. Several of the readings which are given in Professor Manly's text or footnotes as those of Colwell's edition do not agree with those either of the London or the Oxford copy. In the footnotes to the present edition reference to Colwell's, Hazlitt's, and Manly's editions are indicated by Ed. 1575, H. and M., respectively.
Henry Bradley.
FOOTNOTES:
[644] The alternative possibility is that Gammer Gurton was a sequel to Dyccon. In that case the two plays would most probably be by the same author, so that the value of the argument in the next paragraph would hardly be affected.
[645] Partly because the title-page of 1575 contains no indication that the play had been printed before, and partly because (as will be shown) there is some evidence that the publication was delayed after the title had been changed. It would be interesting to know whether a second licence was obtained for printing the play under its later name; but there happens to be a gap in the detailed accounts of the Stationers Company extending from 1571 to 1576.
[646] If the Stevenson of 1559-61 was not identical with his namesake, some record of his graduations and matriculation ought to exist. But Dr. Peile, who has taken the trouble to search through the university registers for several years prior to 1559, informs me that no such record can be found.
[647] The reference to the king, moreover, in Act V. ii, 236 would strengthen the probability that the play of 1575 (and 1559-60) was originally composed during Stevenson's first fellowship; at any rate before the death of Edward VI. It might therefore be identical with the play acted in 1553-4.—Gen. Ed.
[648] Too much importance must not, however, be attached to this, as the same thing is found in the title-page of The Disobedient Child, above referred to. The date of 1575 for our comedy is given in the colophon at the end of the book. See also p. [206] n.