Chapter VI: Preface (6)

The family of Holme is a distinctly Cheshire one, Robert de Holme acquiring by marriage at the end of the fourteenth century a moiety of the manor of Tranmere or Tranmole. The property remained in the family till the reign of James I., when William Holme of Chester, on whom it had devolved, sold it. His uncle Thomas was the first to settle in Chester, and his fourth son was the first Randle Holme. He was born about 1571, dying in 1655, in the eighty-fourth year of his age. By his marriage in 1598 with the widow of Thomas Chaloner of Chester, a distinguished antiquary and herald, he succeeded to her late husband’s papers, and was thus probably led to take up the study of genealogy and family history. Chaloner had held an official position as deputy to the Heralds’ College, and in March 1600-1 he was succeeded by Randle Holme, who was appointed by William Segar, Norroy King-of-Arms, as his deputy, to keep a “regester booke of Funerals in the counties of Chester, Lancaster, and North Wales.” In this capacity he had to truly enter the arms and crests, &c., “of all such persons of Coate Armor and worship as it shall please God to call out of this transitory life”; and to demand and collect the “due fees.” In 1604 he is mentioned as an Alderman of his company, as also is his brother William, “a stationer,” he himself being “a painter.” In 1615 he was one of the two sheriffs of the city, and in 1622 rebuilt his house in Bridge Street, now the “Old King’s Head.” In 1631 he was one of those selected for “obligatory knighthood,” but he compounded by payment of £10. In 1633 he was elected Mayor of the city, and at the same time his son Randle became one of the sheriffs. He was in Chester throughout the whole of the troublous time of the Civil War, and also during the violent outbreak of the plague in 1647. In January 1646 he was charged by the Parliamentarians as having taken the King’s part, and was fined as a delinquent £160. This apparently he did not pay, for after his death his son protested against the payment of this large sum, and some interesting documents are in existence in which it was urged that he was looked upon as the Parliament’s friend. He died in January 1654-55, and was buried at St. Mary’s-on-the-Hill, the interesting memorial tablet on wood, bearing his arms, being unfortunately lost. He was succeeded by his son Randle, born in 1601, who in 1625 had married the eldest daughter of Matthew Ellis of Overleigh, whose widow became ten years later his father’s second wife. In 1629 he was one of the churchwardens of St. Mary’s, holding office for two years; and in 1643 he became Mayor, and as such was the recipient of numerous official letters from the chief commanders of the Royalist side. These and other similar documents were bound up by his son and successor the third Randle Holme, and are preserved in the Harleian MSS. in the British Museum. They bear autograph signatures of King Charles I., Prince Rupert, Sir John Byron, Sir Francis Gamul, and many others, and form a most interesting collection. The same description applies to another volume, giving a full account of the siege of Chester, and which was written at the time and derived from papers of the Randle Holmes, the writer in one passage stating that he had “for the most part gathered this history from the study of Randle Holme”--that is, the second Randle Holme. This is a sufficient indication of the historical instinct and practice of the family, and of what we owe to it for the preservation of accurate records of events that happened. Randle Holme the Second did not long survive his father--only a little over four years. A handsome monument to his memory in the Church of St. Mary-on-the-Hill in Chester gives a pedigree of the family, tracing it back to “Peter de Lymme, son of Gilbert, Lord of Lymme, who lived in the time of Edward I.” It also contains three coats of arms, besides crests, and is a good specimen of heraldic knowledge and genealogical research. This Randle Holme, though buried at St. Mary’s, lived after his second marriage, in 1643, in the parish of Holy Trinity, where his name appears in the list as Mayor in 1644. During the siege of Chester the Stationers’ Company could not hold their meetings in the “Golden Phœnix” (the Phœnix Tower), and so they met at “Alderman Holmes junior’s house in Watergate Street.” In the entry of a meeting “at the Alderman’s howse” on October 18, 1645, we are told that “the Golden Phœnix was employed for service for the defence of the garrison of Chester, the enimie in close seidge about the Cittye.” Whether Randle Holme the Second was able to secure the remission of the fine demanded of his father we cannot say. In the Harl. MSS. is a document in which he has left a record of his family, with the dates of their births and baptisms, and the names of their god-parents, designated in some of the entries as “witnesses” and in some as “gossips.” We learn from this that his first-born and eldest son, the third Randle Holme, was born on December 24, 1627, and baptized on the 30th of the same month, and that one of his godfathers was Francis Gamul, the other being his grandfather, the first Randle Holme.

Randle Holme the Third is the most distinguished of the four who successively bore that name. He was the author of a most extraordinary book, entitled _The Academy of Armoury_; and he was also a prominent Freemason. He took up the business of his father and grandfather, and in due course was admitted a member of the same company, of which, on the death of his father, he was duly elected an alderman. He served the office of churchwarden of St. Mary’s for two years from Easter 1657, and was instrumental in the erection of a new tower or steeple and the provision of a new peal of four bells, the initials of the churchwardens (George Chamberlain and Randle Holme), as well as those of the bell founder, John Scott of Wigan, appearing on them. The peal has now been enlarged into one of eight. In 1664 he was appointed to the office of “sewer of the chamber in extraordinary to his Majesty King Charles II.” A “sewer” was an officer whose function it was to place the dishes on the table and to remove them afterwards, and some think that it was also his duty to taste them. It almost looks as if the title had arisen from the mis-spelling of the word, and as if the “se_w_er” really was the “se_rv_er.” However, the word is to be found in Shakespeare, Milton, Dryden, and others. In the Harl. MSS. we have the certificate of Randle Holme’s appointment, which shows that under it he was exempt from “bearing any publick office whatsoever.” This will account for the fact that, unlike his father and grandfather, he never held any office in the corporation of his native city. We do not know by what Court influence he obtained this appointment, which, though it contained certain privileges, must have been purely honorary, and we do not read of his being called upon on any occasion to fulfil its duties.

A dispute arose about this time between Randle Holme and the Heralds’ College, whose powers he was charged with usurping, by preparing coats of arms and hatchments, and receiving fees for so doing. The controversy was sharp and took a very practical shape, for we learn from the diary of William Dugdale, Norroy King-of-Arms, that he pulled down or defaced some “Achievements which Holmes, the Paynter, of Chester had hung up.” This he did at Budworth, Nether Peover, and Eastham, and other places in Cheshire. The dispute had nothing to do with his heraldic knowledge and skill, which cannot have been disputed, but probably arose from the fact that he had not then (as he subsequently was) been officially appointed deputy to the Norroy King-of-Arms. It would have been a dangerous precedent to allow any unauthorised person, however competent, to undertake such functions, and might have led to much confusion and to many mistakes, so that the action of the Norroy King-of-Arms is easily accounted for. The difficulty, which lasted some five years or thereabouts, was apparently solved by the appointment of Randle Holme as deputy to the Norroy King-of-Arms (as his father had been before him), though there is no record of the date of his appointment. He had probably acted for his father, and continued the same practice after his father’s death without waiting for the requisite authority.

It was in 1688 that he issued his extraordinary book--_The Academy of Armory, or a Storehouse of Armory and Blazon_. From the title it might be supposed that the work was entirely on heraldic matters, whereas it treats of almost every subject under the sun, and is a kind of encyclopædia, arranged, it must be confessed, in a most awkward form. He began collecting materials for it at a very early age, when he was only twenty-two; and it was forty years later before the book was printed. Whilst there can be no doubt that much of what it contains might well have been omitted, it stands out as a monumental evidence of the industry of the author as a collector of out-of-the-way information which he was anxious to preserve, and of his desire to make the work as complete as possible. The information thus gathered together is sometimes very valuable, and often very quaint; whilst specimens of Cheshire dialect, now obsolete, are to be found in words and phrases which were evidently in common use when the book was written. The title-page, which is very long, prepares us for the variety which the book contains, as the following sentence from it will show: “Very useful for all gentlemen, scholars, Divines, and all such as desire any knowledge in arts and sciences.”

The chapters are dedicated to various personages or classes of persons, and some of these lengthy dedications are interesting compositions. The Fourth Book was never set up in type, and of the latter portion of the Third Book the only printed example is in the Royal Library at Windsor Castle. Other copies end with the first part of Book III., concluding with a valedictory address, explaining how the vast expense entailed and the inadequate return made him “resolve to go no further.” The book was printed at Chester, and is the earliest work printed there, and as such has, of course, a special interest for the city and county. It is rather remarkable that on the site of his house in Bridge Street (engraved by Cuitt as _Lamb Row_, the house having subsequently been converted into a hostelry, “The Lamb”) now stand the printing works of Mr. Griffiths. In his will his son Randle referred to a “Room in his dwelling in the Bridge Street formerly made use of as a Printing House or place.” Dr. Ormerod describes the book as “the strangest jumble on natural history, mineralogy, and surgery, occasionally diversified by palmistry, hunters’ terms, the cockpit laws, an essay on Time, and on Men punished in Hell.” The description is not inaccurate, yet there can be no doubt that in its eleven hundred folio pages are to be found many valuable pieces of information, and that in this respect they form “a storehouse” not only of “Armory and Blazon,” but also of many other subjects, so that the student who has the patience to explore them is sure to learn something. They show, too, what an inquiring mind the author must have had, and how he noted down and kept ready for use the knowledge he obtained.

Randal Holme the Third was also a distinguished Freemason, and probably one of the earliest connected with Chester. He alludes to the fact that he was a “Member of the Society called Free-Masons” in his _Academy of Armory_, and one of his manuscript volumes is entitled _Constitutions of Masonry_, giving certain particulars as to the names of persons made Freemasons, and to the initiation fees paid by them. Evidently there was a lodge of Freemasons at Chester in the seventeenth century, of which Randle Holme (III.) was a member. It has been supposed by some that his father also may have been a Mason, as there are some masonic emblems on the monument put up to his memory in St. Mary’s Church. The Freemasons of the county showed their respect for his memory, and commemorated his connection with the church by rebuilding the north porch in 1892, whilst Mr. Henry Taylor, F.S.A., placed stained-glass windows of a heraldic nature in the same, with a full account of him. The laying of the foundation-stone of this porch by the then Provincial Grand Master, Earl Egerton of Tatton, with full masonic rites, was an interesting ceremony, and was attended by some two hundred Masons in their regalia.

It has been already noted that Randle Holme III. lived in Bridge Street. This house he apparently built about 1670, and did this without consulting the Corporation, and he was ordered to pull it down, and fined for persisting in building it. The house, however, was not demolished until early in the nineteenth century, when the Grosvenor Bridge was built over the Dee, and it was subsequently converted into a tavern called “The Lamb.”

Randle Holme III. died on March 12, 1699-1700, in the seventy-third year of his age. He was thrice married, and had issue eight sons and six daughters. Of the former only three survived him--Randle, by his first wife, born in 1659, and George and John by his second. Randle was taken into partnership by his father when he was thirty-one years of age--that is, in 1690. In 1691 he became a member of the Stationers’ Company, of which he was elected an alderman in 1705, the same year in which he was one of the two sheriffs of the city. Like his great-grandfather, grandfather, and father, he also served the office of churchwarden of St. Mary’s, and like them, too, he was deputy to Norroy King-of-Arms. He continued the work of his ancestors, and the churchwardens’ accounts of St. Mary’s contain various entries of payments to him for work done. He died August 30, 1707, aged 48, all his five children having predeceased him. In his will, referred to above, he bequeaths all his books and collections of heraldry to his half-brothers George and John, to be equally divided between them. These books and collections no doubt represented the work and labours of all four Randle Holmes, as well as what the first of that name obtained by his marriage with the widow of Thomas Chaloner. They represented the researches of over a hundred years, and contained abstracts of many documents which no longer exist, and accounts of visits paid to many churches, with accurate descriptions of the monumental inscriptions, and the old heraldic stained glass in the windows. Early in the eighteenth century they were purchased by Robert Harley, Earl of Oxford, having been, it is said, first offered to the Corporation of Chester, who declined to buy them. They now form a portion of that magnificent collection of manuscripts in the British Museum known as “the Harleian MSS.,” and run to about 270 volumes. Naturally their contents are extremely diversified, and they vary considerably in value; but there can be no doubt that to any one inquiring into the history of Chester, Cheshire, Lancashire, and North Wales they contain a mine of information, and are simply invaluable. Unfortunately there is no complete and sufficient index of their contents, so that laborious perusal of them is necessary, for the acquisition of the information which they can convey. Allowance, too, will have to be made for the fact that none of the four were good mediæval Latin scholars, for none of them had the advantage of a university education. Consequently in their transcription of old Latin records many mistakes will be found, and though these may be irritating to the modern student, they can easily be corrected. The opinion passed on the first Randle Holme by the late Mr. W. H. Black, F.S.A., Assistant Keeper of the Public Records, may virtually be applied to them all: “In short, he was an industrious and faithful copyist or collector of historical antiquities, but his philological learning was too scanty for him to use extreme accuracy on the one hand, or to invent any of the documents which he professed to transcribe, extract, or abridge on the other. Therefore his copies may be always relied on as faithfully transcribed in substance.” Though the man of learned leisure has not yet appeared who can wade through these volumes and make us acquainted with the treasures they contain, yet it is true to say that no historian of Chester or of Cheshire can fulfil his purpose who does not either first-hand or second-hand (the former course being the better) derive a great deal of information from these industrious antiquarians of the seventeenth century. They have set an example which has been stimulating and fruitful, and it is only right that in a volume of this character generous and adequate expression should be given to the debt which we owe to them for the preservation of details and information which otherwise would have been irrevocably lost. They have left also in many of the churches in Chester and its neighbourhood many examples of their heraldic knowledge and skill in the memorials of deceased persons. Painted as these were on wood, many have disappeared; those that are still left are full of interest. May we not class these four Randle Holmes as amongst Chester’s most notable worthies?

THE CHESTER MYSTERY PLAYS

By Joseph C. Bridge,
M.A., Mus. Doc. Oxon. et Dunelm., F.S.A.

_Introduction._

There is no more interesting study in our early literature than the Mystery Plays which were once so popular throughout the length and breadth of England. It may be well to premise that their proper title is “Miracle” Plays, and no early writer ever alludes to them under any other name; nor was there in this country any difference between “Miracle” and “Mystery,” as stated by some authorities. But custom has now definitely coupled the latter title with those early dramatic efforts of our forefathers, and it will be used in these pages.

Excluding odd ones, four great series of plays have come down to us, viz. those of York, Wakefield, Chester, and Coventry, and each place probably served as a centre of dramatic influence. While York acted as a stimulus to Wakefield itself and Newcastle, so Chester supported the dramatic efforts from Kendal in the north to Shrewsbury in the south and Dublin in the west.

Each series of plays possesses distinct characteristics, and, happily, Chester can claim that her plays have in them “less to offend and a more reverential tone” than many others, for it is useless to disguise the fact that many readers object to these plays as seeming to treat religious subjects with levity. But with a little reflection we shall see that these plays do not deserve such condemnation if judged from the right standpoint, and that standpoint is assuredly _not_ the twentieth century. We must throw ourselves back five centuries at least if we are to obtain a right focus. From the time of St. Paul, God’s Word has been preached in divers ways and by divers methods, and we must not be surprised if the mediæval preacher was shrewd enough to use the dramatic instincts of the people as distributing media of religious knowledge.[6]

[6] Milton thought of writing _Paradise Lost_ as a Mystery Play, but changed his mind.

Let us remember that the Bible and religious books could not be read or consulted by the people; and as late as the seventeenth century we find an aged rustic who knew nothing of our Saviour except what he had learnt by seeing a _Corpus Christi_ play at Kendal, where “there was,” said he, “a man on a tree, and the blood ran down.”

There is a good deal of strong argument put into the mouths of mediæval players by the old Wycliffe preacher, who makes them say that “by such playing of miracles men be converted to good living--and, since it is lawful to have the miracles of God painted, why is it not as lawful to have the miracles of God played, since men may better read the will of God and His marvellous works in the playing of them rather than in the painting of them ... for this is a dead book, the other a quick?”

The introduction of humour into these sacred plays is no novelty. There is a broad touch of it as early as the time of Hilarius in his play of _St. Nicholas_, and we cannot deny that the writers of our Miracle Plays showed some skill in thus early lighting upon one of the greatest of dramatic rules, viz. the law of contrast.

Then, again, one other point, which is generally overlooked, must be taken into consideration. The Persons of God and our Saviour are treated with the _utmost_ reverence. It is only when the common people come on the stage that we find a certain coarseness and humour. And this is no more than we should expect to find.

These city actors would have thought it absurd to render shepherds as quiet, well-educated men. Did they not know plenty of shepherds round Chester who had hard times and hard fare, and whose only knowledge was of the diseases of animals? Were they not plagued with mischievous shepherd-boys who were ever ready for fun and play? And if Noah’s wife was a shrew, were they not well acquainted with many such, and was not the scold’s bridle and the ducking-stool kept at the Cross for such offending citizens? And can we blame them for looking upon many of the characters mentioned in the Bible as being ordinary everyday personages? I think not. However, opinions on this point will always be divided, and the following quotations from the writings of two well-educated women, who lived 100 years apart, are interesting:--

“Next he (Mr. Bryant) spoke upon the Mysteries, or origin of our theatrical entertainments, and repeated the plan and conduct of several of these strange compositions, in particular one he remembered, which was called _Noah’s Ark_, and in which that patriarch and his sons, just previous to the Deluge, made it all their delight to speed themselves into the ark without Mrs. Noah, whom they wished to escape; but she surprised them just as they had embarked, and made so prodigious a racket against the door that, after a long and violent contention, she forced them to open it, and gained admission, having first contented them by being kept out till she was thoroughly wet to the skin.

“These most eccentric and unaccountable dramas filled up chief of our conversation; and whether to consider them most with laughter, as ludicrous, or with horror, as blasphemous, remains a doubt I cannot well solve.”

So wrote that somewhat priggish but clever and witty young authoress, Miss Fanny Burney, in the eighteenth century.[7]

[7] It may be interesting to note that her father, Dr. Burney, was educated in Chester.

The following twentieth-century opinion is from a paper by the late Mrs. Henry Sandford, a woman of sound judgment and of great educational experience:--

“In the first place, we cannot but observe that, with all their faults, they did keep vividly before the mind of the English nation the leading outlines of Christian teaching, and that, in the historical form suggested by the Apostles’ Creed. Much that was legendary, coarse, incongruous, was there also, no doubt, but _that_ was there above all.

“The old religious drama created in the popular mind a high ideal of the true use and purpose of dramatic art, namely, to present to the imagination a living picture of the realities of life and feeling.”

But I will not pursue the arguments any further. Suffice it to say that the sense of humour and the representation of everyday life occur in all the arts of the Middle Ages. Those who would eliminate all this human part of the plays, or would forbid their use, must, to be consistent, rip the _Misereres_ out of the choir of Chester Cathedral and burn them for firewood.

It is sometimes said that not only was there irreverence, but even indecency, especially in the play of the _Creation and Fall_, where Adam and Eve are commanded to “stand nackede.” I believe this stage direction to be merely figurative,[8] and the Cornish play of the _Creation of the World_[9] gives a clue to the whole matter, as it contains specific instructions that Adam and Eve are to be “apparelled in white leather.”[10] At Norwich also we know that Adam wore “a wig, gloves, and a cote of hosen steyned,” and Eve “a wig, gloves, and two cotes of hosen steyned.”

[8] Thomas Wright, the able editor of the Chester plays, comes, I am glad to say, to the same conclusion.

[9] _The Creation of the World._ A Cornish Mystery, edited by Whitley Stokes.

[10] The Person of God was also occasionally represented in white leather with the face gilded.

Further, there can be no doubt whatever that women were not allowed to take part in plays or to appear on the stage in public until some years after Mystery Plays had completely died out.[11]

[11] Miss Hamilton Moore, in _English Miracle Plays and Moralities_, seems to think that I assert in my Introduction to the _Chester Plays_ (published for the revival in 1906) that women acted the play of _The Assumption_. Not so: I merely stated that the ale-wives of the city provided and furnished the play, but I am quite sure they did not perform it.

Evidence of this may also be found in the music of the plays. In the Coventry Mysteries the “Lullaby,” supposed to be sung by the women in the _Slaughter of the Innocents_, actually has _Tenor and Bass parts_.[12]

[12] This trio would be sung by two men and a boy. Similarly the trio in Chester _Noah’s Play_ would be sung by the “Three clerkes from the Minster,” who, as we shall see, were duly engaged as professionals.

_Origin of Plays._

These plays sprang from the Church, and “all evidence points to Easter as the festival with which the earliest religious dramas were most intimately connected, and it is probable that the first form which the Easter play assumed was that of a ceremony in which the Crucifix was solemnly buried on Good Friday and again disinterred on Easter Day amid a pompous ritual.”[13]

[13] Professor Pollard.

So long as the Church controlled the plays, the clergy were favourable to their performance; but when their popularity and their growth rendered it necessary to perform them out of doors, when the stage was pitched on the green or in the street before the Abbey gate, it became another matter.

The following rimes, written in 1303 by Robert Manning (Le Brunne), show this distinctly:--

“Hyt ys forebode in the decree
Miracles for to make or se
For miracles yf you begynne
Hyt ys a gaderynt, a syghte of synne
He may in the churche, thurgh thys resun
Play the resurrecyon.

Yf thou do it in weyis or grenys
A syghte of synne truly hyt semys.”

As late as 1385 we find William of Wykeham objecting to the plays taking place in the churchyard, and threatening those who should lend vestments from the church to the actors.[14]

[14] We must not forget that the Welsh played interludes in their churchyards on Sunday afternoons down to a very late period.

The opposition of the clergy might have been fatal to the continuance of Miracle Plays but for the Feast of Corpus Christi, which was instituted in 1264, and firmly established in 1311. On this day the people and the trade gilds took part in processions with the clergy, carrying pictures and images of saints, and sometimes accompanied by the members of the gilds dressed as angels, the twelve apostles, &c.[15] From this parade it was an easy step to dramatic representation; and this day was rigidly adhered to by the gilds as their great and common festival.

[15] This is frequently to be seen in Italy at the present day.

Chester has always had the credit of being an exception to the rule by holding the performances of the plays at Whitsuntide, but this view is incorrect, and Chester was, at first, in line with other places, for we find from the Bakers’ Charter, 2 Edward IV. (which is the earliest authoritative allusion to the plays), that “there hath been tyme out of mind a company of bakers,” and they are “to be redy to pay the costes and expenses and play and light of _Corpus Christi_ as oft tymes as it shall be assessed.”[16] Chester’s gilds were numerous and powerful, and many of them exist in some form or other at the present day.

[16] The alteration must have occurred very soon after this, for the “Banes,” quoted later, which gives Whitsuntide as the time of the plays, cannot, I think, be much later than 1470.

The authorship of the plays is generally attributed to Ralf Higden, the author of _Polychronicon_, and a monk of Chester, where he is said to have died at a great age in 1353. But there is no evidence to justify such a definite statement as this. All we know of the origin of the plays is found in the following:--

1. A “Banes,” XV. Cent., giving Sir John Arneway as the “deviser.”
He was Mayor 1268-1276;

2. A Proclamation, _c._ 1520, giving Arneway as the “deviser,” and
Francis, a monk, as the writer.

3. A “Banes,” _c._ 1570, giving Arneway as “deviser,” and a “Dom
Randall” as the writer.

4. An account of the plays, by Archdeacon Rogers, _c._ 1575; one
version gives “Randall Higden” as the writer, and places the
time in the mayoralty of Arneway, 1328; the other version gives
“one Randoll a monke,” Arneway as Mayor, and the date 1339.

5. An endorsement or a Proclamation in the Harleian MSS., supposed
to be written by one of the Holmes, _c._ 1628, stating “Hignet”
was the writer.

6. A similar endorsement on a copy of the plays of about the same
date.

If the religious tendency of the Chester Plays was owing to a guiding hand from the monastery, that hand was, according to our earliest tradition, one Henry Francis, whose name occurs in deeds dated 1377-82. Higden was never mentioned until late in the sixteenth century.

It is quite possible that Henry Francis and Ralph Higden may have translated and revised some of the plays, and rendered literary help in reducing the cycle to unity, and that is all we can say with safety.[17] And this theory is supported by the fact that the closer the plays are studied, the more certain appears the fact that they are not by one hand.

[17] It seems to me sheer waste of time to try and synchronize Arneway and Higden as many writers do. I see no reason why we should not believe in the _earliest_ tradition that Arneway _devised the plays_. The writing of them would be a gradual process, covering many years and involving, probably, several authors.

Wright and Collier have pointed out many passages which are identical with the French plays published in the _Mystère du Vieux Testament_. Certain plays may therefore have been translated from the French. The _Sacrifice of Isaac_ is probably derived from a play found at Broom Hall, Suffolk, or perhaps _both_ are from some other original. Miss Toulmin Smith says:--

“Lines 163-314 have a strong resemblance to corresponding 134 lines in Chester version. This resemblance, sometimes of phrase, sometimes only of meaning, is interrupted by occasional passages in the Brome MS., which have no equivalents in Chester. Apparently, both editors worked upon a common original, but the Chester poet compressed the more freely, and, in so doing, greatly heightened the effect and dialogue. But he showed poor tact in omitting the charming scene between the father and the son after their agony is over.... It is possible, however, that the Chester play has come down to us mutilated. It was plainly at one time a separate play, and when amalgamated with that of _Abraham and Lot_ may well have been cut down for greater convenience of performance.”

The germ of the fine speech from the _Resurrection_, quoted later, may be found in the Wakefield play, where it begins as follows:--

“Earthly man that I have wroght,
Wightly wake and slepe thou noght!
With bitter bayll I have thee boght
To make thee free;
Into this dongeon depe I soght,
And all for luf of thee.”

The _Three Kings_ seems founded on a Latin play, and the exceptional plays of the series (Nos. 23 and 24) can be traced in that fine old poem the _Cursor Mundi_.

In _The Shepherd’s Play_ we certainly find the work of a local playwright, as references are made to a “jannock of Lancastershire,” butter from Blacon (a suburb of Chester), and ale from Halton. Other examples might be given.

It seems probable that as the plays sprang from the Church, so the four great cycles now existing are derived from some greater and anterior cycle authorised by the Church.

We find numerous references in the Chester Companies’ accounts to the original book of the play, which is generally called the “reginall.”

This may in some cases refer merely to the special playbook belonging to the company, but it more often refers to the volume of the plays possessed by the City Corporation. If we still had this book we might settle many vexed questions. Unfortunately it is missing, for on April 30th, 1567, “Randall Trever gent was called before the Maior of the Citie of Chester and was demaunded for the originall booke of the Whydson Plaies of the said Citie who then and ther confessed that he have had the same booke which book he deposeth upon the holy evangelist of God that by commaundement he delivered againe but where the same is now or to whom he then delivered the same book, deposeth likewise he knoweth not.”

In the year 1883, Mr. Sutton (the chief librarian of the Manchester Free Library) found an old parchment book-cover, with some writing upon it, which he submitted to Dr. F. J. Furnivall, who pronounced it to be a portion of a late fifteenth century MS. of the Chester Plays. It is the commencement of the play of the _Resurrection_, and it is very probable--being on parchment--that it is a remnant of the original Chester Play Book.

We are therefore dependent upon certain transcriptions of the whole series of plays made at the end of the sixteenth century. When the plays were dying out, it is certain that some of the old citizens would desire to keep a “book of the words,” hence the number of MSS. of that period.

The Chester MSS. extant are:--

_a._ 1591, by “Edward Gregorie a Scholar of Bunbury”;
now in possession of the Duke of Devonshire.
_b._ 1592 } by George Bellin, Brit. Mus.: Add. MS. 10305;
_c._ 1600 } Brit. Mus.; Harl. 2013.
_d._ 1604, by William Bedford, Bodleian.
_e._ 1607, by James Miller, Brit. Mus.; Harl. 2124.
_f._ “The Resurrection” Play, by George Bellin,
in the books of the Ironmongers’ Company,
Chester.[18]

[18] Found by me last year. It is no doubt the “riginall” which the Company used, as they were responsible for the play. I have collated it with the other MSS., but the differences are not very important.

George Bellin was parish clerk of Holy Trinity Church in Chester.[19] He wrote an excellent hand, was a member of the Ironmongers’ Company, and had doubtless often acted in the plays, and he is therefore, on the whole, a reliable guide, especially as to stage directions. He made some curious mistakes, and his French is very bad, but we must be grateful to him for his labours.

[19] “George Bellin ironmonger & Clarke of this p’rish bur: in the middle Ile 23 July 1624.”--_Holy Trinity Registers._

As already stated, Chester was fortunate in possessing, like York, London, and other great centres, a powerful array of Trade Gilds.[20] These City Companies provided workable units, and their power of organisation, the discipline exerted over their members, the brotherly feeling engendered by the Companies were all potent factors in the representation of these plays. “It made the performance a local work of art, in which all the city had a personal share. They believed with just pride that search England throughout none had the like, nor like does sett out.”

[20] The City Gilds still hold an annual dinner in Chester, and in January 1908 representatives of some thirty Companies attended. Many of these Companies possess badges, flags, and documents of priceless interest; but in many cases they are insecurely kept.

The preparation of the plays occupied many months. There was keen competition between the various City Companies, and great pains were taken by the civic fathers to see that really competent players were chosen, and that no one should have an undue number of parts, and the Mayor frequently attended rehearsals.

Then the “Pageant carriages,”[21] which had been securely housed since the last performance, had to be newly cleaned and repaired, and there needed much mending and repainting of the canvas and boards which represented “Heaven and Hell,” “Morning and Night,” or, as in “Noah’s Play,” was embellished with representations of birds, beasts, and fishes.

[21] The carriages themselves were sometimes called “Pageants,” and were kept in special houses. Most of the Gilds had their own, but sometimes two Gilds shared the cost between them. They were drawn by men, as a rule, _e.g._:--

“To twelve porters of the cariage ii_s._ iv_d._”
--_Painters and Glaziers’ Accounts._

The stage manager’s properties had also to be bought or borrowed throughout the town, and included many dozens of articles, ranging from a costly cope[22] down to the whistles[23] for the shepherd-boys and the ox tongue[24] for the old shepherd to put in his haversack, and it is obvious that the success of these plays depended greatly on the felicitous subdivision of work amongst the numerous City Companies, for no one manager could have supervised the whole.

[22]
“To the Clark for loan of a Cope an Altar Cloth and Tunick x_d._”
--_Smiths’ Accounts._

[23]
“For two Wystylls for Trowe ii_d._

[24]
“For a beast’s tongue and four calfe’s feet viii_d._”
--_Painters and Glaziers’ Accounts._

The expenses were evenly divided among the members of the Company. Sometimes there was a “passive resister” who thought the plays nonsense, and that there should be “no more cakes and ale”; but he was speedily disillusioned, for the Mayor promptly clapped him into prison until he, or his friends, paid his proper[25] share.

[25] Andrew Tailer of the Dyers’ Company was thus treated in 1575.

It has been said that “no English play that has been preserved to us contains any mark of its representation by clerical actors,” but we find that as late as the sixteenth century the “clerks from the Minster,” the organist and choir boys, had no scruples about joining in the plays, and helping in those parts which required musical qualifications.

1561. To Sir Jo: Jenson for songes[26] -- xii_d._
” To the five boys for singing ii_s._ vi_d._
1567. To two of the clarkes of the Minster -- viii_d._
” To Mr. Whyte[27] iiii_s._ --

[26] Senior Minor Canon.

[27] Organist and a very celebrated musician. It was probably due to his influence and co-operation that the Cathedral authorities joined in the preparation and plays, as appears from the Cathedral Treasurer’s accounts for 1567.

This appears to be the only time that they did so:--

“Item paid for a brode clothe againste
the Witson plais vi_s._ viii_d._
Item for a barrell of bere to gene to the pleares
to make them to drinke vi_s._ --
Item for packe thread at Witson daye
to hange up the clothe -- ii_d._”

1568. To Mr. Rand’ Barnes[28] iii_s._ iiii_d._
” To Mr. Whyte for singing iiii_s._ --
” Spent on the Chanter and Clark of the Minster -- v_d._
1569. For the Clergy for our songs iiii_s._ ii_d._

[28] Organist.

But before the plays took place it was customary to send messengers on horseback and on stilts[29] to various places round the city[30] to read the “Banes” or “Banns,” announcing the performance, and Bellin has left us a copy of the “Banes,” which has been often printed, and is therefore here abbreviated. It is a curious document, for it is so extremely apologetic in tone, and notes even words in the plays which had become obsolete. The “Banes” is dated 1600, and it is possible that Bellin merely meant the date of his copying, but a careful study of it makes me suspect that there was in this year one last expiring effort made by the citizens to perform the plays, and that _this_ “Banes” was specially written for the occasion. Although Archbishop Grindal had prohibited the plays in 1571, we know of performances up to 1576. In 1599, also, Henry Hardware, the Mayor, “was not liked by the commons,” because he tried to do away with the Midsummer show and all festivity, but we are expressly told that next year the Mayor, Robert Brerewode, “restored again all the ancient customs ... and put down Mr. Hardware,” and he may have tried to revive the plays as well as the Midsummer show. However, no trace of any performance in 1600 has yet come to light.

[29]
“To our horses at the rydyng of the Banes xvi_d._
“To Richard Dobie for going on the stilts at the Banes ryding” --
--_Painters and Glaziers’ Accounts._

Some of the performers from the Mayor’s Midsummer show gradually got grafted on to the “Banes Riding,” and increased the importance of it.

[30] The Castle and the North Gate were two of the appointed places, and the “Banes” would be heard by the wretched prisoners there, to whom a donation was generally accorded:--

“To the prisoners at the Castle i_d._
To the prisoners at the North Gate i_d._”
_Painters and Glaziers’ Accounts._

THE BANES

which are reade beefore the beginninge of the Playes of Chester, 4 June 1900.

Reverende lordes & ladyes all,
That at this tyme here assembled bee,
By this message understand you shall
That some tymes there was Mayor of this Citie
Sir John Arnway, Knighte, who most worthilye
Contented hymselfe to sett out in playe
The devise of one Done Rondall, moonke of Chester Abbey.

This moonke, moonke-like, in Scriptures well seene,
In storyes travilled with the beste sorte,
In pagentes set fourth apparently to all eyne
The olde & new testament, with livelye comforth,
Interminglinge therewith, only to make sporte,
Some thinges not warranted by any writt,
Which to gladd the hearers he woulde men to tyke yt.

This matter he abrevited into playes twenty-foure,
And every playe of the matter gave but a taste,
Leavinge for better learninge the scircumstance to accomplishe;
For all his proceedinges maye appeare to be in haste,
Yet all together unprofitable his labour he did not waste;
For at this daye & ever he deserveth the fame
Which all monkes deserves, professinge that name.

These storyes of the Testamente at this tyme, you knowe,
In a common Englishe tongue never read nor harde;
Yet thereof in these pagentes to make open shewe,
This moonke & moonke was nothing afreayde,
With feare of hanginge, breninge, or cutting off heade,
To sett out, that all maye disserne & see
And parte good be lefte, beleeve you mee.

As all that shall see them shall moste welcome be,
Soe all that here them wee moste humble praye
Not to compare this matter or storie
With the age or tyme wherein we presentlye staye,
But in the tyme of ignorance, wherein we did straye;
Then doe I compare that this lande throughout
Non had the like, nor the like dose sett out.

. . . . .

This worthy Knighte, Arnway, then mayor of this Citie,
This order took, as declare to you I shall,
That by twenty-fower occupations, artes, crafts, or misterie,
These pagentes shoulde be played, after breeffe rehearsall;
For everye pagente a cariage to be provyded withall;
In which sorte we porpose, this Whitsontyde,
Our pageantes into three partes to devyde.

. . . . .

But a much older and more valuable “Banes” has been found by Canon Morris amongst the Harleian MSS.[31] (not numbered or catalogued), and has been printed in his _Chester during the Plantagenet and Tudor Periods_.[32]

[31] Collected by the Randle Holme family of Chester.

[32] By his kind permission printed here.

THE BANES OR PROCLAMATION OF THE PLAYES.

The comen bannes to be proclaymed and Ryddon with the Stewardys of every occupacon:--

Lordings Royall and Reverentt
Lovelie ladies that here be lentt
Sovereigne Citizens hether am I sent
A message for to say.

I pray you all that be present
That you will here with good intent
And all your eares to be lent
Hertfull I you pray.

Our worshipfull mair of this Citie
With all his royall cominaltie
Solem pagens ordent hath he
At the fest of Whitsonday tyde.

How every craft in his decree
Bryng forth their playes solemplie
I shall declare you brefely
Yf ye will a while abyde.

The worshipfull tanners of this towne
Bryng forth the heavenly manshon
Th’ orders of angells and theire creation
According done to the best.

And when the angells be made so clere
Then folowyth the falling of Lucifere
To bring forth this play with good chere
The tanners be full prest.

You worshipfull men of the draperye
Loke that paradyse be all redye
Prepare also the mappa mundi
Adam and eke Eve.

The waterleders and drawers of Dee
Loke that Noyes shipp be sett on hie
That you lett not the storye
And then shall you well chrue.

The barburs and wax channdlers also that day
Of the Patriarche you shall play
Abram, that put was to assay
To sley Isack his sonne.

The cappers and pynners forth shall bring
Balack that fears [fierce] and mightie Kyng
And Balam on an asse sytting:
Loke that this be done.

Youe wrights and slaters will be fayne
Bring forth your cariage of Marie myld quene,
And of Octavian so cruell and kene
And also of Sybell the sage.

For findyng of that Royal thing
I grant you all the blessing
Of the high imperiall King
Both the maister and his page.

Paynters glasiars and broderers in fer
Have taken on theym with full good chere
That the Sheppards play then shall appere
And that with right good wyll.

The vynteners then as doth befall
Bringe forth the 3 Kings Royall
Of Colyn or pagent memoryall
And worthy to appere.

Then shall you see how that Kynges all
Came bouldly into the hall
Before Herode proude in paulle
Of Crysts byrth to heare.

The mercers worshipfull of degre
The presentation that have yee
Hit falleth best for your see
By right reason and style
Of caryage I have no doubt
Both within and without
It shall be deckyd y^t all the Rowte
Full gladly on it shall be to loke
With sundry cullors it shall glime
Of velvit satten and damaske fine
Taffyta sers-nette of poppyngee grene.

The gouldsmyths then full soone will hye
And masons theyre craft to magnifye
Theis two crafts will theim applye
Theyre worshipp for to wynne
How Herode King of Galalye
For that intent Cryste to distrye
Slew the Innocents most cruely
Of tow yeres and within.

Semely smythis also in hyght
A lovely caryage the will dyght
Candilmas day for soth it hyght
The find it with good will.

The buchers pagene shall not be myst
How Satan tempted our Savyour Cryst
It is an history of the best
As witnesseth the gospell.

Nedys must I rehers the glover
The give me gloves and gay gere
The find the toumbs of Lazarey
That pagene cometh next.

Also the corvesers with all their myght
The fynde full fayre syght
Jerusalem their caryage hyght
For so sayth the text.

And the bakers also be dene
The find the Maunday as I wene
It is a carriage full well besene
As then it shall appeare.

Flechers bowyers with great honours
The Cowpers find the Tormentors
That bobbyde God with gret honors
As he sat in his chere [chair].

The Iron mongers find a caryage good
How Jesus dyed on y^e rode
And shed for us his precyus blud
The find it in fere.

Cryst after his passion
Brake Hell for our redempcion
That find the cookes and hostelers of this towne
And that with full good chere.

Also the skynners they be boune
With great worshipp and renowne
They find the Resurection
Fayre maye them befall.

Sadlers and Foysters [“Fusterers”] have the good grace
They find the Castell of Emawse
Where Crist appered to Cleophas
A faire pagend you shall see.

Also the Taylers with trew Intent
Have taken on them verament
The Assencyon by one assent
To bringe it forth full right.

Fysshe mongers men of faith
As that day will doe their stayth
To bringe there caryage furth in trayth
Wyt Sonday it hight.

The worshipfull wyves of this towne
Ffyne of our lady thassumpcon
It to bryng forth they be bowne
And meyntene with all theyre might.[33]

The Shermen will not [be] behynd
Butt bryng theire cariage with good mynde
The pagent of prophettys they do fynd
That prophecied ffull truly
Off the coming of Anticrist
That goodys ffaith would resist
That cariage I warrand shall not myst
Butt sett forth full dewly.

The hewsters that be men full sage
They bryng forth a wurthy cariage
That is a thing of grett costage
Antycryst hit hight.
They weyvers in very dede
Ffynd the day of Dame, well may they spede
I graunt them holly to theire neede
The blysse of heven bright.

Sovereigne syrs to you I say
And to all this ffayre cuntre
That played shalbe this godely play
In the whitson weke
That is brefely for to sey
Uppon Monday Tuysday and Wennysday
Whoo lust to see theym he may
And non of theym to sek.

{ Also maister maire of this Citie
{ Withall his bretheryn accordingly
“_Erased_ { A solempne procession ordent hath he
{ To be done to the best
{ Appon the day of Corpus Christi
_in_ { The blessed sacrament caried shalbe
{ And a play sett forth by the clergye
{ In honor of the fest
_the_ { Many torches there may you see
{ Marchaunts and craftys of this citie
{ By order passing in their degree
_Booke.”_ { A goadly sight that day
{ They come from Saynt Maries on the Hill
{ The Church of Saynt Johns untill
{ And there the sacrament leve they will
{ The sauth [sooth] as I you say.

Whoo so comyth these plays to see
With good devocon merelye
Hertely welcome shall he be
And have right good chere.
Sir John Arnway was maire of this citie
When these playes were begon truly
God graunt us merely
And see theym many a yere.

Now have I done that lyeth in me
To procure this solempnitie
That these playes contynued may be
And well sett fourth alway.
Jhu [Jesu] Crist that syttys on hee
_And his blessed mother Marie_ [_erased_]
Save all this goodely company
And kepe you nyght and day.

[33] Played in 1488.

With regard to the Banes we must notice first that it is in the same metre and rhyming stanza as the Plays themselves, and may have been written with them. Secondly, it sheds light on some very important points. Here is one:--

“The worshipfull wyves of this towne
Ffyne of our lady thassumpcon
It to bryng forth they be bowne
And meyntene with all theyre might.”[34]

[34] It is worth noting, that in 1483, at York, four men came before the Mayor, “& by the assent of all the Innholders of this said Citie tuke upon them to bring furth yerely during the term of VIII. yere, then next folluying the pagent of the Coronacion of our Lady perteyning to the said Innholders, etc.” It seems likely, then, that the “worshipful wyves” were the ale-wives of Chester, and it is by no means improbable that Chester again followed the lead of York. As Mrs. Green says, “Cooks and brewers and hostellers were naturally deeply interested in the preservation of the good old customs, and it was, in some cases, certainly this class (the most powerful in a mediæval borough), who raised the protest against the indifference and neglect of the townspeople for public processions and merry-making, because ‘thereby the victuallers lose their money’; and who insisted on the revival of these festivals for the encouragement of trade.”--_Town Life XV. Century_, i. p. 153.