Volume Vi Part 1 (1/2)
A Select Collection of Old English Plays.
Vol. VI.
by Robert Dodsley.
FIVE PLAYS.
[These five dramas were originally edited for the Roxburghe Club in 1851 by Mr J. Payne Collier, and are now incorporated with the present Collection precisely as they stand in the Roxburghe Club volume, with Mr Collier's kind permission, his general introduction included. The only difference is that the notes, instead of occurring at the end of each Play, are placed at the foot of the page.]
[MR COLLIER'S GENERAL INTRODUCTION.]
Four of the five ensuing Plays belong to a peculiar cla.s.s of our early dramatic performances never yet especially noticed, nor sufficiently ill.u.s.trated.
Many specimens have of late years been printed, and reprinted, of Miracle-plays, of Moral-plays, and of productions written in the most matured period of our dramatic literature; but little or nothing has been done to afford information respecting a species of stage-representation which const.i.tutes a link between Moral-plays on the one hand, and Tragedy and Comedy on the other, as Tragedy and Comedy existed at the period when Shakespeare and his contemporaries were writers for various theatres in the metropolis. This deficiency it has been our main object to supply.
The four pieces to which we refer are neither plays which enforce a moral lesson by means of abstract impersonations only, nor are they dramas which profess to consist merely of scenes drawn from life, represented by real characters: they may be said to form a cla.s.s by themselves, where characters both abstract and individual are employed in the same performance. The most remarkable drama of this intermediate kind, and the only one to which particular attention has been directed in modern times, is called ”The Tragical Comedy of Appius and Virginia,”
which originally came out in 1575, and is reprinted in the [former and present] edition of ”Dodsley's Old Plays” from the sole existing copy.[1] In it an important historical event is commemorated, and the hero, heroine, and some other princ.i.p.al agents are known characters; but they are mixed up with allegorical abstractions, and the representatives of moral qualities, while the Vice of the older stage is introduced, for the sake of diversifying the representation, and amusing popular audiences. The plot of this production has no religious application, and it was not written with any avowed moral purpose. In this respect, as well as in some other peculiarities, it is unlike the drama which stands first in the following sheets. Still, the general character is the same in both: in both we have a mixture of fact and fable, of reality and allegory, of individuality and abstraction, with the addition, in the latter case, of the enforcement of a lesson, for the instruction of those to whom it was addressed.
”The Conflict of Conscience,” by Nathaniel Woodes, ”Minister in Norwich,” was originally printed in 1581, 4to, and it is reprinted in our volume from a copy in the possession of the Editor, which has the advantage of a Prologue. This introductory address is wanting in the exemplar in the British Museum; but it unquestionably belonged to the piece, because it also precedes a third copy, in the library of the Duke of Devons.h.i.+re. We know not that this drama was ever republished, but the Registers of the Company of Stationers contain an entry by John Charlwood, dated 15th June 1587, of ”a ballad of Mr Fraunces, an Italian, a doctor of law, who denied the Lord Jesus,”[2] which, as will be seen presently, probably refers to the same story, and, though called ”a ballad,” may possibly have been a reprint of ”The Conflict of Conscience.” The names borne by the different characters are all stated upon the t.i.tle-page, with such a distribution of the parts as would enable six actors to represent the piece; and looking merely at this list, which we have exactly copied, it does not appear in what way the performance bears even a remote resemblance to tragedy or comedy. The names read like an enumeration of such personages as were ordinarily introduced into the Moral-plays of an earlier period--indeed, one of them seems to be derived from the still more ancient form of Miracle-plays, frequently represented with the a.s.sistance of the clergy.
We allude to Satan, who opens the body of the drama by a long speech (so long that we can hardly understand how a popular audience endured it) but does not afterwards take part in the action, excepting through the agency of such characters as Hypocrisy, Tyranny, and Avarice, who may be supposed to be his instruments, and under his influence and direction.
Nevertheless, a real and, as he may be considered, an historical, personage is represented in various scenes of the play, and is, in truth, its hero, although the author, for reasons a.s.signed in the Prologue, objected to the insertion of his name in the text. These reasons, however, did not apply to the t.i.tle-page, where the apostacy of Francis Spira, or Spiera, is announced as the main subject, and of whom an account may be found in Sleidan's ”Vingt-neuf Livres d'Histoire”
(liv. xxi. edit. Geneva, 1563). Spiera was an Italian lawyer, who abandoned the Protestant for the Roman Catholic faith, and in remorse and despair committed suicide about thirty years anterior to the date when ”The Conflict of Conscience” came from the press. How long this event had occurred before Nathaniel Woodes wrote his drama upon the story, we have no means of knowing; but the object of the author unquestionably was to forward and fix the Reformation, and we may conclude, perhaps, that an incident of the kind would not be brought upon the stage until some years after Elizabeth had been seated on the throne, and until what was called ”the new faith” was firmly settled in the belief, and in the affections, of the great majority of the nation.
We apprehend, therefore, that ”The Conflict of Conscience” was not written until about 1570.
It is the introduction of this real person, under the covert name of Philologus, that const.i.tutes the chief distinction between the drama we have reprinted and Moral-plays, which, though still sometimes exhibited, were falling into desuetude. As most persons are aware, they consisted, in their first and simplest form, entirely of allegorical or representative characters, although, as audiences became accustomed to such abstractions, attempts were from time to time made to give, even to such imaginary impersonations, individual peculiarities and interests.
Besides the hero of ”The Conflict of Conscience,” his friends Eusebius and Theologus may also have been intended for real personages; and Gisbertus and Paphinitius were, possibly, the true names of the sons of Francis Spiera.
It will he seen that the drama is divided into six acts; but the last act consists of no more than a short speech by a Nuntius, who comes forward, as it should seem, to give a false representation of an historical fact--so early did a dramatist feel himself warranted in deviating from received statements, if it better answered his purpose not to adhere to them. In the instance before us, Nathaniel Woodes thought fit to alter the catastrophe, for the sake of the moral lesson he wished to enforce; and he, therefore, represented that Spiera had not committed suicide, and had, to the great joy of his friends, before death been re-converted to the religion he had so weakly abandoned. It will he observed, also, that the divisions of acts and scenes are very irregularly made towards the conclusion of the performance. From one pa.s.sage we learn that no less than thirty weeks are supposed to elapse between the exit of Philologus, and his death as announced on the next page.
Nearly the whole of the piece is written in the ordinary seven-line stanza, with here and there the insertion of a couplet, more, no doubt, for convenience than for variety. The author seems to have very little consulted the wishes and tastes of a popular a.s.sembly; for, independently of the wearisome introduction, the interlocutions are sometimes carried to the extreme of tediousness, and the comic scenes are few, and failures. Perhaps, if any exception can be made, it is in favour of the interview between Hypocrisy, Tyranny, and Avarice, where the first, in consistency with his character, succeeds somewhat humorously in imposing upon both his companions. The long address of Caconos and his subsequent dialogue with Hypocrisy, Tyranny, and Avarice, is recommended to notice as an ancient and accurate specimen of our northern dialect. The long pa.s.sage, where Caconos describes his knowledge of his portas by its illuminations, has been imitated by other authors, and, very likely, was not new in this drama.
What we have to state regarding the text of this play applies strictly to all the others. We have given, as far as modern typography would allow, faithful representations of the original copies, with the close observation of spelling and other peculiarities. If, for the sake of mere intelligibility, we have rarely added a word or even a letter, we have always inserted it between brackets; and for the settlement of difficulties, and the ill.u.s.tration of obscure customs and allusions, we refer to the notes which succeed each play. We might have subjoined them at the foot of the page, but we thought they would be considered by many a needless interruption; while, if we had reserved the whole for the end of our volume, their bulk, and the numerous paginal references might have produced confusion and delay. We judged it best, therefore, to follow each separate production by the separate notes applicable to it; and the reader will thus have, as far as our knowledge extends, the ready means of required explanation, which we have endeavoured to compress into the smallest compa.s.s. We ought to add, that the only liberty we have taken is with the old and ill-regulated punctuation[3]
which it was often necessary to alter, that the sense of the author might be understood and appreciated.
The production which stands second in this volume may also be looked upon, in another sense, as intermediate with reference to stage-performances. It has for t.i.tle ”The rare Triumphs of Love and Fortune,” and was probably designed by its unknown author for a court-show. The earliest information we possess regarding it establishes that it was represented before Queen Elizabeth between Christmas 1581 and February 1582. The following is the entry regarding it in the Accounts of the office of the Revels of that date:--
”A Historic of Love and Fortune, shewed before her Majestie at Wyndesor, on the sondaie at night next before new yeares daie. Enacted by the Earle of Derbies servauntes. For which newe provision was made of one Citty and one Battlement of Canvas, iij Ells of sarcenet, a [bolt] of canvas, and viij paire of gloves, with sondrey other furniture in this office.”[4]
There exists in the same records a memorandum respecting ”The play of Fortune” ten years earlier,[5] but the terms employed are so general, that we do not feel warranted in considering it ”The rare Triumphs of Love and Fortune” which we have reprinted: the ”History of Love and Fortune,” mentioned in the preceding quotation from the Revels'
Accounts, was no doubt the drama under consideration; and we see that, besides sarcenet and gloves, the new properties (as they were then, and still are, called) necessary for the performance were a city and a battlement to be composed of, or represented on, canvas. We may perhaps conclude that the piece was not written long before it was acted at Windsor; but it did not come from the press until 1589, and the sole copy of it is preserved in the library of the Earl of Ellesmere, who, in his known spirit of liberal encouragement, long since permitted the Editor to make a transcript of it. We have met with no entry of its publication in the Registers of the Stationers' Company.
It will be observed that the foundation of the piece depends upon a contest for superiority between Venus and Fortune, and that the first act (for the drama is regularly divided into acts, though the scenes are not distinguished) is a species of induction to the rest. It is the more remarkable, because it contains some early specimens of dramatic blank-verse, although it may be questioned whether the piece was ever exhibited at a public theatre.
We discover no trace of it in ”Henslowe's Diary,”[6] nor in any other authority, printed or ma.n.u.script, relating to plays exhibited before public audiences in the reign of Elizabeth; but it is nevertheless clear that it was ”played before the Queen's most excellent Majesty” (as the t.i.tle-page states) by the retainers of the Earl of Derby, a company of actors at that date engaged in public performances; and it was then, and afterwards, usual for the Master of the Revels to select dramas for performance at court, that were favourites with persons who were in the habit of frequenting the houses generally employed, or purposely erected, for dramatic representations. If ”The rare Triumphs of Love and Fortune” were ever acted at a public theatre, the several shows in the first act, of Troilus and Cressida, of Alexander, of Dido, of Pompey and Caesar, and of Hero and Leander, would of course have been attractive.
It is not necessary to enter at all into the plot, which was composed to evince alternately the power of Venus and of Fortune in influencing the lives of a pair of faithful lovers: the man, with some singularity, being called Hermione, and the woman Fidelia. They are successively placed by the two G.o.ddesses in situations of distress and difficulty, from which they are ultimately released; and in the end Venus and Fortune are reconciled, and join in promoting the happiness of the couple they had exposed to such trials. The serious business is relieved by some attempts at comedy by a clownish servant, called Lentulo, and in the third act a song is introduced for greater variety, which, as was not unusual at a later period of our stage history, seems to have been left to the choice of the performer. The prayer for the Queen, at the conclusion of the drama, put into the mouth of Fortune, was a relic of a more ancient practice, and perhaps affords further proof, if it were wanted, that it was represented before Elizabeth.[7] It appears not unlikely that, if ”The rare Triumphs of Love and Fortune” had been chosen by the Master of the Revels for representation at court on account of its popularity, the fact of its having been acted by a particular company at a known theatre would have been stated upon the t.i.tle-page, as a testimony to its merits, and as an incentive to its purchasers.