Part 4 (1/2)
This is interesting, as proving that pageants were sometimes acted in a number of places, somewhat in the style of strolling players. It is known for a fact that the Grey Friars of Coventry had a cycle of Corpus Christi plays; and it has been conjectured that they were forced by the compet.i.tion of the Trade Gilds to exhibit them outside the town.
Whatever may have been the case with the players, it is certain that such plays were not confined to the centres of which we have spoken. We read of a lost Beverly cycle, and of another at Newcastle, of which one play--”The Building of the Ark”--has fortunately been preserved. Like performances took place at Witney and Preston, at Lancaster, Kendall, and Dublin. The relative perfection of Chester and Coventry, and probably of York, were bound to influence those and other towns, which looked to them as the capitals of the dramatic art. Evidence of the popularity of miracle plays in places near and remote is forthcoming in the shape of literary remains or parochial records. Cornwall is famous for its religious drama, to which are due the best monuments of its dead tongue; but other counties were not backward in zealous attachment to the Miracle Play. A few excerpts from Church-wardens' and other accounts may be given by way of showing the extent of the custom:
ASHBURTON, DEVON
1528-9. ”ix^s ix^d for painting cloth for the players and making their tunics, and for 'chequery' for making tunics for the aforesaid players, and for making staves for them, and crests upon their heads for the festival of Corpus Christi.”
1533-4. ”ij^d rewardyd and alowyd to the pleers of Cryssmas game, that pleyd in the said churche.”
1537-8. ”j^d for a pair of silk garments (_seroticarum_) for King Herod on Corpus Christi day.”
1542-3. ”ij^s i^d ij devils' heads (_capit. diabol._) and necessary things in the clothes for the players.”
1547-8. ”ij^s to the players on Corpus Christi day.” (During the reign of Edward VI. the plays were discontinued, to be revived in that of his successor.)
1555-6. ”ij^d payd for a payr of glouys for hym that played G.o.d Almighty at Corpus X^pi daye.” ”vj^d payd for wyne for hym that played Saynt Resinent.”
1558-9. ”ij^d for a payr of glouys to him that played Christ on Corpus X^pi daye.”
ST. MARTIN'S, LEICESTER
1546-7. ”Item p^d for makynge of a sworde & payntynge of the same for Harroode viij^d.”
In the Corporation MSS. of Rye, Suss.e.x, are the following entries:
1474. ”Payed to the players of Romeney, the which pleyed in the churche 16^d”
1476. ”Payed to the pleyers of Winchilse, the whiche pleyed in the churche yerde, vppone the day of the Purification of our Laday 16^d”
The performance of the York miracle plays went on until 1579. The Newcastle celebration outlasted them by about ten years. The Chester plays were acted till the end of the sixteenth century, and those of Beverley till 1604. What killed the Miracle Play? This is a deeply interesting speculation, but one with regard to which it is difficult to form a conclusion owing to the co-existence of rival influences, the relative strength of which cannot well be estimated. We have seen that Puritan opinion suspended the miracle play at Ashburton during the reign of Edward VI., and it would be natural to look for the same result from the accession of Elizabeth, whereas, at Beverley it was maintained all through the period of her rule. It is quite possible, however, that all this time efforts were being made by extreme Reformers to bring about its abolition, and that ultimately they were successful. Meanwhile the growth of the secular drama, which was hardly more to the liking of the Puritans, must have proved a powerful counter-attraction, and possibly it is to this rather than religious opposition that the extinction of the Miracle Play was actually due. At any rate, we need feel no surprise that with two such antagonistic forces at work the ancient and pious custom vanished from the land.
ACADEMIC
CHAPTER VII
ALMS AND LOANS
We wound up our first part with a draft on parochial records; and we enter on our second part with a further taxation of the same fruitful and unimpeachable source. Those familiar with the life of our ancient universities only in its more modern and luxurious aspects may prepare for revelations of the most startling character, for Oxford and Cambridge were nurtured not only in poverty, but in authorized mendicancy and--a learned phrase may be excused--regulated hypothecation. That clerks in those early days were not ashamed to beg is susceptible of various sorts of proof, one of which consists in the help so frequently afforded them by generous churchwardens. Let us glance at some sixteenth-century books of accounts:
ASHBURTON, DEVON
1568. ”In gyft to too scolers of Oxenford iiij^s iiij^d”
1575. ”To a skoler of Oxeford vj^d”