intreat and appoint the saied Thomas Russell, esquier, and Frauncis Collins, gent., to be overseers hereof, and doe revoke all former wills, and publishe this to be my last will and testament. In witness whereof I have hereunto put my hand, the daie and yeare first above written. By me WILLIAM SHAKSPEARE. Witnes to the publishing hereof, Fra. Collyns, Probatum coram Magistro Willielmo Byrde, Legum Doctore Comiss, &c. xxii.do die mensis Junii, Anno Domini 1616, juramento Johannis Hall, unius executorum, &c., cui de bene &c. juret. reservat. potestate &c. Susanna Hall, alteri executorum &c. cum venerit, &c. petitur (Inv. ex.) AN HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE ENGLISH DRAMA BEFORE SHAKESPEARF CHAPTER I. MIRACLE-PLAYS. THE ENGLISH DRAMA, as we have it in Shakespeare, was the slow growth of several centuries. Nor is it clearly traceable to any foreign source: it appears to have been an original and independent growth, the native and free product of the soil; not a mere revival, or reproduction, or continuation of what had existed somewhere else. This position will be found very material when we approach the subject of structure and form; for it evidently infers that the Drama in question is not amenable to any ancient or foreign jurisdiction; that it stands on independent ground, has a ife and spirit of its own, is to be viewed as a thing by itself, and judged according to the peculiar laws under which it grew and took its shape. That is, it had just as good a right to differ from any other Drama, as any other had, from it. The ancient Drama, that which grew to perfection, and, so far as is known, had its origin, in Greece, is universally styled the Classic Drama. By what term to distinguish the modern Drama of Europe, writers are not fully agreed Within a comparatively recent period, it has received from high authorities the title of the Romantic Draina. A much more appropriate title, as it seems to us, suggested by its Gothic original, and used by earlier and perhaps equally good authorities, is that of the Gothic Drama. Such, accordingly, is the term by which we shall distinguish it in these pages. The fitness of the name, it is thought, will be seen at once from the fact that the thing was an indigenous and self-determined outgrowth from the Gothic mind under Christian culture. Of course, the term naturally carries the idea, that the Drama in question stands on much the same ground relatively to the Classic Drama, as is commonly recognised in the case of Gothic and Classic architecture. We can thus the better realize that each Drama forms a distinct species by itself, so that any argument or criticism urged from the rules of the ancient against the modern is wholly impertinent. The Gothic Drama, as it fashioned itself in different na tions of modern Europe, especially in England and Spain, where it grew up and reached perfection simultaneously and independently, has certain not inconsiderable varieties. Upon the reason and nature of the variations we cannot enlarge: suffice it to say, that they do not reach beyond mere points of detail; so that their effect is to approve all the more forcibly the strength of the common principles which underlie and support them. These principles cover the whole ground of difference from the Classic Drama. The several varieties, therefore, of the Gothic Drama may be justly regarded as bearing concurrent testimony to a common right of freedom from the jurisdiction of ancient rules. Of the origin and progress of the Drama in England our limits will permit only a brief sketch, not more than enough, perhaps not enough, to give a general idea on the subject. Ample materials for the work are furnished to our hand in Warton's History of English Poetry and Collier's Annals of the Stage, so that the only merit or demerit we can claim is in so selecting and condensing the matter as may best agree with our judgment and our space. In England, as in the other Christian nations where it can b: regarded as at all original, the Drama was of ecclesiastical origin, and for a long time was used only as a means of diffusing among the people a knowledge of the leading facts and doctrines of Christianity as then understood and received. Of course, therefore, it was in substance and character religious, or meant to be so, and had the Clergy for its authors and founders. Nevertheless, we cannot admit the justice of Coleridge's remark on the subject: "The Drama," says he, "recommenced in England, as it first began in Greece, in religion. The people were unable to read, — the Priesthood were unwilling that they should read; and yet their own interest compelled them not to leave the people wholly ignorant of the great events of sacred history. They did that, therefore, by scenic representations, which in after ages it has been attempted to do in Roman Catholic countries by pictures." Surely, it is of consequence to bear in mind that at that time "the people" had never been able to read: printing had not been heard of in Europe; books were with great difficulty multiplied, and could not be had but at great expense; so that it was impossible "the people" should be able to read; and while there was a simple impossibility in the way, it is not necessary to impute an unwillingness. Nor does there seem to be any good reason for supposing that the Priesthood, in their simplicity of faith, were then at all apprehensive or aware of any danger in the people being able to read. Probably they worked, as honest men, with the best means they could devise: they endeavoured to clothe the most needful of all instruction in such forms, to mould it up with such arts of recreation and pleasure, as might render it interesting and attractive to the popular mind. In all which they seem to have merited any thing but an impeachment of their motives. However, what seems best worth the noting here is, the large share which those early Iramatic representations had in shaping the culture of old England, and in giving to the national mind its character and form. And perhaps later ages, and ourselves as the children of a later age, are more indebted to those rude labours of the Clergy in the cause of religion, than we are aware, or might be willing to acknowledge. In its course through several ages, the Drama took different forms from time to time, as culture advanced. The earliest form was in what are commonly called Mysteries, though the older and better term is, Plays of Miracles, or Miracle-plays. These were founded, for the most part, on the events of Scripture, though the apocryphal gospels and legends of saints and martyrs were sometimes drawn upon for subjects or for embellishments. In these performances no regard was paid to the rules of natural probability; for, as the operation of the Divine power was assumed, this was treated as a sufficient ground or principle of credibility in itself. Hence, indeed, the name Marvels, Miracles, or Miracle-plays, by which they were commonly known. The earliest instance that we can refer to of a Miracleplay in England, was near the beginning of the twelfth century. Matthew Paris, in his Lives of the Abbots, written as early as 1240, informs us that Geoffrey, Abbot of St. Albans, while he was yet a secular person brought out the Miracle-play of St. Katharine at Dunstaple; and that for the needed decorations he sought and obtained certain articles "from the Sacristy of St. Albans." Geoffrey, who was from the University of Paris, was then teaching a school at Dunstaple, and the play was performed by his scholars. On the following night, his house was burnt, together with the borrowed articles; which he regarded as a judgment of Heaven, and thereupon assumed a religious habit. Warton thinks the performance to have been about 1110: but we learn from Bulæus that Geoffrey became Abbot of St. Albans in 1119; and all that can with certainty be affirmed is, that the play was performed before he took on him a religious character: it may have been somewhat earlier or |
