Chapter X: SHAKESPEARE AS A COMIC DRAMATIST. Edward Dowden (8)

_Tyb._ Go, I say, and chafe the wax by the fyre,
Whyle that we sup, Syr Jhan and I. 475

_Johan._ And how now, what wyll ye do with the py?
Shall I not ete therof a morsell?

_Tyb._ Go and chafe the wax whyle thou art well,
And let us have no more pratyng thus.

_Syr. J._ _Benedicite._

_Johan._ _Dominus._ 480

_Tyb._ Now go chafe the wax, with a myschyfe.

_Johan._ What! I come to blysse the bord,[280] swete wyfe!
It is my custome now and than.
Mych good do it you, Master Syr Jhan.

_Tyb._ Go chafe the wax, and here no lenger tary. 485

_Johan_ [_aside_]. And is not this a very purgatory
To se folkis ete, and may not ete a byt?
By kokkis soule, I am a very wodcok.
This payle here, now a vengaunce take it!
Now my wyfe gyveth me a proud mok! 490

_Tyb._ What dost?

_Johan._ Mary, I chafe the wax here,
And I ymagyn to make you good chere,
[_Aside._] That a vengaunce take you both as ye syt,
For I know well I shall not ete a byt.
But yet, in feyth, yf I myght ete one morsell, 495
I wold thynk the matter went very well.

_Syr J._ Gossyp, Jhan Jhan, now mych good do it you.
What chere make you, there by the fyre?

_Johan._ Master parson, I thank yow now;
I fare well enow after myne own desyre. 500

_Syr J._ What dost, Jhan Jhan, I the requyre?

_Johan._ I chafe the wax here by the fyre.

_Tyb._ Here is good drynk, and here is a good py.

_Syr J._ We fare very well, thankyd be our lady.

_Tyb._ Loke how the kokold chafyth the wax that is hard, 505
And for his lyfe, daryth not loke hetherward.

_Syr J._ What doth my gossyp?

_Johan._ I chafe the wax--
[_Aside._] And I chafe it so hard that my fyngers krakks;
And eke the smoke puttyth out my eyes two:
I burne my face, and ray my clothys also, B iii 510
And yet I dare not say one word,
And they syt laughyng yender at the bord.

_Tyb._ Now, by my trouth, it is a prety jape,
For a wyfe to make her husband her ape.
Loke of Jhan Jhan, which maketh hard shyft 515
To chafe the wax, to stop therwith the clyft.

_Johan_ [_aside_]. Ye, that a vengeance take ye both two,
Both hym and the, and the and hym also;
And that ye may choke with the same mete
At the furst mursell that ye do ete. 520

_Tyb._ Of what thyng now dost thou clatter,
Jhan Jhan? or whereof dost thou patter?

_Johan._ I chafe the wax, and make hard shyft
To stopt her-with of the payll the ryft.

_Syr J._ So must he do, Jhan Jhan, by my father kyn, 525
That is bound of wedlok in the yoke.

_Johan_ [_aside_]. Loke how the pyld preest crammyth in;
That wold to God he myght therwith choke.

_Tyb._ Now, Master Parson, pleasyth your goodnes
To tell us some tale of myrth or sadnes, 530
For our pastyme, in way of communycacyon.

_Syr J._ I am content to do it for our recreacyon,
And of iii myracles I shall to you say.

_Johan._ What, must I chafe the wax all day,
And stond here, rostyng by the fyre? 535

_Syr J._ Thou must do somwhat at thy wyves desyre!
I know a man whych weddyd had a wyfe,
As fayre a woman as ever bare lyfe,
And within a senyght after, ryght sone
He went beyond se, and left her alone, 540
And taryed there about a vii yere;
And as he cam homeward he had a hevy chere,
For it was told hym that she was in heven.
But, when that he comen home agayn was,
He found his wyfe, and with her chyldren seven, 545
Whiche she had had in the mene space;
Yet had she not had so many by thre
Yf she had not had the help of me.
Is not this a myracle, yf ever were any,
That this good wyfe shuld have chyldren so many 550
Here in this town, whyle her husband shuld be
Beyond the se, in a farre contre.

_Johan._ Now, in good soth, this is a wonderous myracle,
But for your labour, I wolde that your tacle B iii _b_
Were in a skaldyng water well sod. 555

_Tyb._ Peace, I say, thou lettest the worde of God.

_Sir J._ An other myracle eke I shall you say,
Of a woman, whiche that many a day
Had been wedded, and in all that season
She had no chylde, nother doughter nor son; 560
Wherfore to Saynt Modwin[281] she went on pilgrimage,
And offered there a lyve pyg, as is the usage
Of the wyves that in London dwell;
And through the vertue therof, truly to tell,
Within a moneth after, ryght shortly, 565
She was delyvered of a chylde as moche as I.
How say you, is not this myracle wonderous?

_Johan._ Yes, in good soth, syr, it is marvelous;
But surely, after myn opynyon,
That chylde was nother doughter nor son. 570
For certaynly, and I be not begylde,
She was delyvered of a knave chylde.

_Tyb._ Peas, I say, for Goddis passyon,
Thou lettest Syr Johan's communication.

_Sir J._ The thyrde myracle also is this: 575
I knewe another woman eke y-wys,
Whiche was wedded, & within v. monthis after
She was delyvered of a fayre doughter,
As well formed in every membre & joynt,
And as perfyte in every poynt 580
As though she had gone v monthis full to th' ende.
Lo! here is v monthis of advantage.

_Johan._ A wonderous myracle! so God me mende;
I wolde eche wyfe that is bounde in maryage,
And that is wedded here within this place, 585
Myght have as quicke spede in every suche case.

_Tyb._ Forsoth, Syr Johan, yet for all that
I have sene the day that pus, my cat,
Hath had in a yere kytlyns eyghtene.

_Johan._ Ye, Tyb, my wyfe, and that have I sene. 590
But howe say you, Syr Jhan, was it good, your pye?
The dyvell the morsell that therof eate I.
By the good lorde this is a pyteous warke--
But nowe I se well the olde proverbe is treu:
The parysshe preest forgetteth that ever he was clarke! 595
But, Syr Jhan, doth not remembre you
How I was your clerke, & holpe you masse to syng,
And hylde the basyn alway at the offryng? B iv
He never had halfe so good a clarke as I!
But, notwithstandyng all this, nowe our pye 600
Is eaten up, there is not lefte a byt,
And you two together there do syt,
Eatynge and drynkynge at your owne desyre,
And I am Johan Johan, whiche must stande by the fyre
Chafyng the wax, and dare none other wyse do. 605

_Syr J._ And shall we alway syt here styll, we two?
That were to mych.

_Tyb._ Then ryse we out of this place.

_Syr J._ And kys me than in the stede of grace;
And farewell leman and my love so dere.

_Johan._ Cokkis body, this waxe it waxte colde agayn here;-- 610
But what! shall I anone go to bed,
And eate nothyng, nother meate nor brede?
I have not be wont to have suche fare.

_Tyb._ Why! were ye not served there as ye are,
Chafyng the waxe, standying by the fyre? 615

_Johan._ Why, what mete gave ye me, I you requyre?

_Sir J._ Wast thou not served, I pray the hartely,
Both with the brede, the ale, and the pye?

_Johan._ No, syr, I had none of that fare.

_Tyb._ Why! were ye not served there as ye are, 620
Standyng by the fyre chafyng the waxe?

_Johan._ Lo, here be many tryfyls and knakks--
By kokkis soule, they wene I am other dronke or mad.

_Tyb._ And had ye no meate, Johan Johan? no had?

_Johan._ No, Tyb my wyfe, I had not a whyt. 625

_Tyb._ What, not a morsel?

_Johan._ No, not one byt;
For honger, I trowe, I shall fall in a sowne.

_Sir J._ O, that were pyte, I swere by my crowne.

_Tyb._ But is it trewe?

_Johan._ Ye, for a surete.

_Tyb._ Dost thou ly?

_Johan._ No, so mote I the![282] 630

_Tyb._ Hast thou had nothyng?

_Johan._ No, not a byt.

_Tyb._ Hast thou not dronke?

_Johan._ No, not a whyt.

_Tyb._ Where wast thou?

_Johan._ By the fyre I dyd stande.

_Tyb._ What dydyst?

_Johan._ I chafed this waxe in my hande,
Where-as I knewe of wedded men the payne 635
That they have, and yet dare not complayne;
For the smoke put out my eyes two,
I burned my face, and rayde my clothes also,
Mendyng the payle, whiche is so rotten and olde,
That it will not skant together holde; 640
And syth it is so, and syns that ye twayn
Wold gyve me no meate for my suffysance, B iv _b_
By ko[k]kis soule I wyll take no lenger payn,
Ye shall do all yourself, with a very vengaunce,
For me, and take thou there thy payle now, 645
And yf thou canst mend it, let me se how.

_Tyb._ A! horson's knave! hast thou brok my payll?
Thou shall repent, by kokkis lylly nayll.
Rech me my dystaf, or my clyppyng sherys:
I shall make the blood ronne about his erys. 650

_Johan._ Nay, stand styll, drab, I say, and come no nere,
For by kokkis blood, yf thou come here,
Or yf thou onys styr toward this place,
I shall throw this shovyll full of colys in thy face.

_Tyb._ Ye! horson dryvyll! get the out of my dore. 655

_Johan._ Nay! get thou out of my house, thou prestis hore.

_Sir J._ Thou lyest, horson kokold, evyn to thy face.

_Johan._ And thou lyest, pyld preest, with an evyll grace.

_Tyb._ And thou lyest.

_Johan._ And thou lyest, Syr.

_Syr J._ And thou lyest agayn.

_Johan._ By kokkis soule, horson preest, thou shalt be slayn; 660
Thou hast eate our pye, and gyve me nought,
By kokkes blod, it shal be full derely bought.

_Tyb._ At hym, Syr Johan, or els God gyve the sorow.

_Johan._ And have at your hore and thefe, Saynt George to borrow.[283]

_Here they fyght by the erys a whyle, and than the preest and the wyfe
go out of the place._

_Johan._ A! syrs! I have payd some of them even as I lyst, 665
They have borne many a blow wilh my fyst,
I thank God, I have walkyd them well,
And dryven them hens. But yet, can ye tell
Whether they be go? for by God, I fere me,
That they be gon together, he and she, 670
Unto his chamber, and perhappys she wyll,
Spyte of my hart, tary there styll,
And, peradventure, there, he and she
Wyll make me cokold, evyn to anger me;
And then had I a pyg in the woyrs[284] panyer, 675
Therfor, by God, I wyll hye me thyder
To se yf they do me any vylany:
And thus fare well this noble company.

FINIS

Imprinted by Wyllyam Rastell
the xii day of February
the yere of our Lord
MCCCC and XXXIII
_Cum privilegio_

FOOTNOTES:

[229] The _New Eng. Dict._ quotes from Fuller's _Worthies_: "St. Anthonie is notoriously known for the patron of hogs, having a pig for his page in all pictures."

[230] God's.

[231] There are three Croomes in the manor of Ripple, Worcestershire, and the church of Ripple is dedicated to the B. Virgin, but Nash's _History of Worcestershire_, says nothing of "Our Lady of Crome."

[232] drag.

[233] hair.

[234] assuredly; text 'hardly.'

[235] hundred.

[236] the devil a bit.

[237] shall I not? For this curious elliptical construction cf. l. 624, "And had ye no meate, Johan Johan? no had?" See also Udall's _R. D._, I. iv. 32.

[238] God's.

[239] immediately.

[240] dust her jacket, beat her. To walk = to full cloth.

[241] This question must be answered.

[242] scold.

[243] cease.

[244] characteristic.

[245] avail.

[246] cudgel.

[247] remedy.

[248] wager 6_s._ 8_d._ Cf. Udall, _R. D._, I. iii. 27.

[249] the relation of a child's sponsors at baptism to his parents.

[250] go a "love"-making.

[251] fish salted so hard that it had to be softened by beating before cooking.

[252] literally, cat-calling.

[253] Tyb's 'aside' perhaps only means "if he is not scolding nothing can please him," i.e. he likes scolding better than anything else. But Tyb is at present half-afraid, and it is at least possible that she means "if I haven't set him scolding this time, no occasion for being angry will content him."

[254] This saint is not mentioned by the Bollandists; the name may be a contraction for one of the four St. Theodorics.

[255] guess.

[256] God's little wounds; cf. l. 648.

[257] consult, question thee.

[258] excessively.

[259] the one.

[260] The stands on which the 'board' of the table was fixed when needed.

[261] This line is attributed in Rastell's edition to Johan, the next attribution being at l. 252, also to Johan. Lines 258, 259 are given to Tyb, ll. 260-262 to Johan, l. 263 _a_ to Johan, ll. 263 _b_-266 to Tyb.

[262] 'I pray you,' etc., said to one of the spectators, whom she next pretends to mistrust, turning at l. 254 to another one.

[263] dirtied.

[264] Fix the board on the trestles, and that at once.

[265] 263, etc. In the French _Farse of Pernet qui va au vin_ there are similar false starts and returnings, but in that case Pernet keeps coming back to watch his wife and her lover.

[266] bald, shaven, not "bold."

[267] shorn.

[268] thought.

[269] quarrel.

[270] crying out, scolding.

[271] Misprinted _stynk_.

[272] Misprinted _though_.

[273] Misprinted _me_.

[274] Apparently a misprint for _she_; it was clearly to be provided by Tyb; cf. l. 618.

[275] Cf. _Play of Wether_, l. 235. Udall's _R. D._, I. iv. 33, etc.

[276] No provision seems to have been made for Margery and Anne sharing in the pie.

[277] Cf. "nyfuls," _Play of the Wether_, l. 617.

[278] Cf. l. 211.

[279] salvation.

[280] Cf. Pernet's:

Vous irayje signer la table?
Je scay bien le benedicite.

[281] S. Modwena, an Irish virgin, who died A.D. 518. She is said to have been the patroness of Burton-upon-Trent, and Henry VIII.'s commissioners sent thence to London "the image of seint Moodwyn with her red kowe and hir staff, which wymen labouryng of child in those parties were very desirous to have with them to lean upon."

[282] may I thrive.

[283] for my backer. Cf. _R. D._ IV. vii. 75, IV. viii. 45.

[284] worse.

_Nicholas Udall_

ROISTER DOISTER

_Edited with Critical Essay and
Notes by Ewald Flügel, Ph.D.,
Professor in Stanford University_

CRITICAL ESSAY

=Life.=--Nicholas Udall was born in 1506, of a good family residing in Hampshire. As a lad of fourteen he entered Corpus Christi College, Oxford, and took his bachelor's degree there in May, 1524.[285] The years of his University life came at a period of great religious fermentation, and young Udall was, according to an old tradition,[286] one of the young enthusiasts in whom the humanistic tilling of Erasmus had prepared the soil for Lutheran doctrines from Wittenberg. We may, therefore, imagine young Udall to have been one of those of whose heretical perversities Warham complains to Wolsey.[287] Apparently Udall, as he grew older, grew if not calmer at least more cautious, and succeeded later in gaining the favour of Mary the Princess, and in retaining that of Mary the Queen. While at college, he formed a lasting friendship with John Leland, a friendship of which some poems of the latter give us a pleasing testimony.[288] Leland, of almost the same age as Udall, had taken his first degree at Cambridge in 1522, and according to an old custom, he continued his studies at Oxford, where Udall's generosity won his heart.[289] In May, 1533, a number of verses were composed by them in joint authorship, for a pageant at the coronation of Anne Boleyn.[290] In the same year Udall seems to have settled at London as a teacher. He may even have contemplated becoming a monk--like Thomas More thirty years earlier; he certainly dates his preface to the _Flowers from Terence_ from the Augustinian Monastery at London, on the last of February, 1534. In the following June he received the degree of Master of Arts from Oxford, and appears in the latter part of the same year as "Magister Informator" at Eton, succeeding Master Richard Coxe.[291] In this capacity he received payments between the last terms, 1534 and 1541.[292]

We can scarcely judge at this late day of the character of Udall's educational services, but the fact that he was generally on good terms with his pupils may reasonably be inferred from the preface to the edition of the _Flowers_, printed in 1545.

We may further infer with regard to his mastership at Eton, that he was himself influenced by the Eton custom of performing a play at Christmas. It appears even possible that the clause in a "consuetudinary" of Eton (about 1560), allowing the Latin school comedy to give place to an English one, if it were "witty and graceful,"[293] may have been a result of Udall's mastership. And it is probable that _Roister Doister_ was originally one of such plays unpretentiously offered by Udall to his boys,[294] modestly put aside after the performance and printed long afterwards. If all this be true, Udall's mastership deserves immortal fame in the annals of English literature. But the immortality is unfortunately of a different nature. Udall is stigmatized by one ungrateful pupil as a second _Orbilius plagosus_, the realization of Erasmus's executioner. Tusser's often quoted doggerel runs:

"From Paules I went to Eaton sent
To learn streight waies, the latin phraies,
When fiftie three stripes giuen to mee
At once I had:
For fault but small, or none at all,
It came to pas, thus beat I was,
See Udall see, the mercie of thee,
To me poore lad."[295]

We cannot now decide upon the merits of the case, but we are inclined to think that Tom Tusser the boy was as shiftless as Thomas Tusser the man later proved to be, and that, although he may have been a fine "querister," his "latin phraies" would frequently offend the ear of the conscientious humanist. Let us suppose that Thomas deserved his fifty-three stripes twice over, but did not realize that ὁ μὴ δαρεὶς ἄνθρωπος οὐκ παιδεύεται.[296]

In March, 1541,[297] some abuses were exposed that had lately disgraced the school. A robbery of plate and silver images was detected, to which two late Eton scholars and a servant of Udall's confessed; and Udall himself became "suspect to be counsel of the robbery." The judicial report states that Udall "having certain interrogatoryes ministred unto hym toching the sayd fact and other felonious trespasses whereof he was suspected, did confess that he did comitt a heinous offence with the sayd cheney [a "scoler" of Eton] sundry tymes hertofore and of late the vjᵗʰ day of this present monethe in this present yere at London: whereupon he was committed to the Marshalsey."

Udall was discharged from his office, but did not remain long in prison (as would have been the case if he had been proved guilty of a "felonious" crime); and an influential personage unknown to us made efforts to bring about his "restitucion to the roume of Scholemaister in Eton." Udall thanked this patron in an interesting letter, which seems to corroborate the words of the indictment, but states that the "heinous offence" was committed in London (_not_ in Eton), and that it resulted in heavy debts. The most careful consideration of the letter leads me to believe that Udall had nothing to do with the _theft_, but had neglected his duties as teacher, and had not given the right example of "frugall livyng."[298] Most likely he had only followed the royal example; had enjoyed too much "Pastyme with good companye!"

In the same letter Udall petitions for a place where he could show his "amendment," and which would enable him also "by litle and litle ... to paye euery man his own."[299]

We do not know of the result of this letter, but it seems that Udall went "north" in the autumn of the same year. At any rate, in October, 1542, Robert Aldrich, Bishop of Carlisle, received letters "by the hande of Mr. Vdall";[300] and Leland in a charming little song addressed to his "snow-white friend," refers to Udall as residing among the "Brigantes, where Mars now has the rule."[301]

In the same autumn appeared Udall's translation of Erasmus's _Apophthegms_[302] and--after his return south--he was connected for the following three years with a great literary undertaking, which was not only favoured by the Court, but progressing under its auspices and with its collaboration,--Princess Mary taking the most active part. This was the English translation of Erasmus's _Paraphrase of the New Testament_.[303]

Under Edward VI., Udall devoted himself to theological works; he stood up for the royal prerogative in religious matters in his _Answer to the articles of the commoners of Devonshire and Cornwall_ (summer 1549[304]); he took his share in a memorial volume published in 1551, after Bucer's death, and he translated in the same year Peter Martyr's _Tractatus_ and _Disputatio De Eucharistia_. A royal patent[305] (of 1551) granted him the "privilege and lycense ... to preint the Bible in Englyshe as well in the large volume for the use of the churches wᵗʰin this our Realme ... as allso in any other convenient volume."

This privilege was not the only sign of royal favour: we find Udall in November, 1551, presented by the King to a prebend in Windsor,[306] and later (in March, 1553) to the Parsonage of Calborne, in the Isle of Wight.

After such favours received from Edward, and such services in the Protestant camp, we should expect to find Udall in disgrace under Queen Mary, and sharing with his fellow-Protestants at least the bitter fate of exile, but Mary had apparently preserved a grateful memory for her former fellow-worker in the Erasmian translation. If, indeed, she did not use him as a theologian, she remembered his dramatic talents, and so we find that a special warrant was issued, December 3, 1554, which shows us Udall in the rôle of playwright. The Office of the Queen's Revels was directed by the warrant referred to, to deliver to Udall such "apparel" at any time as he might require for the "setting foorth of Dialogues and Enterludes" before the Queen, for her "regell disporte and recreacion." In the beginning of the document[307] appears an allusion to Udall as having shown previously "at soondrie seasons" his "dilligence" in arranging "Dialogues and Enterludes"--important documentary evidence of his connection with the "Revels," a connection apparently begun with the pageant for which he furnished such poor verses at Anne Boleyn's coronation.

This evidence for the fact that Udall was known as a writer of "plays" before 1554 is singularly corroborated by the quotation of Roister's letter to Custance (Act III., Scene iv.) as an example of "ambiguity" in the 1553 edition of Wilson's _Rule of Reason_.[308]

As to the nature of Udall's "Dialogues," "Enterludes," and "devises," we are not entirely without information. The very date of the warrant would indicate the occasion for Udall's services (December 3, 1554), if we had not a more definite statement. He was commissioned to get up the Christmas shows before Mary and Philip.

Udall was in a dangerous position, since any reference to the Protestant sympathies of the nation might have cost his life, but he realized the situation, and with good tact presented "divers plaies," the "incydents" of which were very innocent:[309] "A mask of patrons of gallies like Venetian senators, with galley-slaves for their torche-bearers; a mask of 6 Venuses or amorous ladies with 6 Cupids and 6 torche-bearers to them," and some "Turkes archers,"[310] "Turkes magistrates," and "Turkie women," "6 lions' hedds of paste and cement," and a few other harmless paraphernalia.

How long Udall served the queen in this capacity we do not know. In 1555, towards the end of his career, we find him at his old calling as master of Westminster School.[311] When in November of the following year the old monastery was again opened, naturally Udall's services became superfluous, and he was doubtless discharged; and so indeed the darkness enshrouding the last months of his life may cover a period of great distress. He died in December, 1556, and found his last resting place in St. Margaret's, Westminster; where almost thirty years before Skelton had found first a sanctuary and then a grave.

It seems that the queen did not erect a monument over the ashes of her old friend, at least none is registered by the industrious Weever;[312] but Udall does not need a monument from Queen Mary, he has erected it himself--_ære perennius_--in the annals of English literature.

=Date of the Play.=--_Roister Doister_ was formerly assigned to the time of Udall's mastership at Eton (1534-41).[313] In more recent years, however, this date has been rejected, and Professor J. W. Hales has tried to show that "this play was in fact written in 1552, and more probably written for Westminster school."[314]

The arguments of Professor Hales, as far as I can see, might be summarized thus:

1. The fact that Wilson--an old Eton boy himself, who left the school in 1541, and ought to have known of the play if it had ever been performed there--does _not_ insert the "ambiguous letter" in his first and second editions of the _Rule of Reason_ (1551, 1552), whereas he inserts it in the edition of 1553, "_suggests_ that this _comedy was written between the appearances of the second and the third editions_."

In favour of this theory speak further--according to Professor Hales--

2. The fact that Bale does not mention any of Udall's comedies in the 1548 edition of his _Catalogus_;

3. The fact that "about 1552" Udall was in high esteem as a "comic dramatist";

4. The fact that Udall quotes a number of proverbial phrases which he got from Heywood's proverbs, published first in 1546;

5. The fact that the usury statute of 37 Henry VIII. was repealed in 1552, "of some moment" as far as the "reference [in the play] to excessive usury" is concerned.

The first argument is doubtless the strongest, but I venture to argue that the quotation of 1553 does _not_ prove that the play was _written_ in 1552, but only that Wilson was unable _to use a copy of the play_ before 1553; whether this copy was a manuscript copy, or _a printed_ (and now lost) edition of the play, we cannot decide; _most probably Wilson's quotation was made from an early edition of Roister, printed in 1552_.

The fact that Wilson left Eton in 1541 seems to make it probable that he remembered the "ambiguous" passage from his school days.

The second argument is very slight, for Bale does not give a _complete_ list of Udall's works either in edition 1548 or in edition 1557; nor does he mention Udall's connection with the coronation pageants of 1533; and a modest school comedy would naturally not at once become public property.

The _third_ argument is based on a serious anachronism. _We do not know anything_ of Udall's fame as a "comic dramatist _about 1552_." The warrant of December 3, 1554, is dated, and cannot be used for "about 1552." Besides, the nature of Udall's "dialogues and interludes" for the "regell disporte and recreacion," as explained on p. 93, above, excludes any possibility of connecting these "Dialogues" with the comedy.

The number of proverbial phrases which Udall uses in common with Heywood's _Proverbs_ (the early date of which, 1546, is rather a myth) proves no dependence of Udall on Heywood. Their use proves merely that Udall, as well as Heywood, talked the London English of his time, and that both were familiar with phrases common in the early sixteenth century. Any possible number of such phrases could not prove any "dependence."

With regard to the allusion in _Roister Doister_ to the Usury Statute, one may readily see that the reference is _not_ to a date later than the repeal, in 1552, of 37 Henry VIII., c. 9, but to a _period between 1545 and 1552_. In Act V., Scene vi., lines 21 to 30, Custance blames Roister humorously, _not_ for taking interest at all, but for taking _too much_ (fifteen to one!), and for taking it _right away_ instead of waiting until the year was up. The passage, therefore, does not refer to the law passed 5 and 6 Edward VI., c. 20 (1552), which repeals 37 Henry VIII., c. 9, and orders that "no person shall lend or forbear any sum of money for any maner of Usury or Increase to be received or hoped for above the Sum lent, upon pain to forfeit the Sum lent, and the Increase, [with] Imprisonment, and Fine at the king's pleasure." The passage refers to 37 Henry VIII., c. 20 (1545), to a law which allows ten per cent interest: "The sum of ten pound in the hundred, and so after that rate and _not above_," and which forbids the lender "to receive, accept or take in Lucre or Gain for the forbearing or giving Day of Payment _of one whole year_ of and for his or their money," for any other "Period" but the year, not "for a longer or shorter time." Cf. the technical term "gain" in line 30.

If, therefore, Custance's joke can be taken as an indication of the time when the play was written, it would be an indication of the period between 1545 and 1552, or, at any rate, _before_ 1552.[315]

I should, however, not be inclined on account of this reference to usury to date the play between 1545 and 1552. I would rather regard the allusion as a later insertion, which ought not to weaken the force of the internal evidence in favour of the old theory, according to which the play belongs to the Eton period of Udall's life, to the years between 1534 and 1541.

=Date of the Early Edition.=--The Stationers Company's _Registers_ show (ed. Arber, 1, 331) four pence as

"Recevyd of Thomas hackett for hys lycense for pryntinge of a play
intituled Rauf Ruyster Duster,"

and the unique copy of the play which has come down to us has been regarded as the solitary relic of this edition. Title-page and colophon are lacking.

Hackett, however, printed between October (November?), 1560, and July, 1589; and Arber dates the unique copy: "? 1566."

This copy is now in the possession of Eton College. On the first fly-leaf are written the words: "The Gift of the Revᵈ Thoˢ Briggs to Eton Coll. Library, Decʳ 1818." As shown above, the quotation of the "ambiguous" letter in the 1553 edition of Wilson's _Logique_ speaks, however, in favour of an edition earlier than that of the unique copy; and this earlier edition might be dated "1552?".[316]

=Place of Roister Doister in English Literature.=--_Roister Doister_ is the only specimen of Udall's dramatic art preserved by Fate, but it is sufficient to justify us in assigning to the author his place as father of English Comedy.

The causes that brought a "Latinist," a schoolmaster, a theological writer to such a position are interesting to consider. Primarily, of course, it is his genius, his "_Froh-natur_," his way of looking at the world, and his art of representing this picture of the world, to which we owe _Roister Doister_, but besides this we may be certain that Udall's classical training, the condition of the Latin School-comedy of his time, and, finally, his clear insight into the character of the national play helped him to the place that he holds.

If Udall had been merely a pedantic schoolmaster, one of whose duties it was to superintend an annual Christmas play, he would have been satisfied with an adaptation of--let us say--the _Miles Gloriosus_, or he would merely have translated the _Miles_ as the _Andria_ had been translated before; perhaps he would even have been satisfied with a performance of the play in the Latin. On the other hand, had he never been obliged to drill boys in Terence, his plays would have remained "interludes" of the old type, and at best, he would now receive honourable mention by the side of Heywood. It was his very position as teacher of the classics, his humanism (apart from the annual necessity of advising the "enterluders" at Christmas time) which must have pointed out to him the way in which the "enterlude" might be outgrown, the way that would lead to a new category of plays: the "comedy."

Udall (if the prologue to _Roister Doister_ is his own, as we have no reason to doubt)[317] seems to have been somewhat doubtful at first about the designation of his play; he calls it at the beginning "thys enterlude"; but he realized the new departure which he had taken, and calls it later "Our Comedie or Enterlude." By the use of this word,--the first time applied correctly to an _English_ comedy,--Udall indicates his aspirations, his sources and classical models: those plays which were the comedies _par excellence_, the comedies of Terence, and--especially since the discovery of the twelve "new" plays in 1429--those of Plautus. Udall shows himself a genuine disciple of the Renaissance; he "imitates" in that true way in which "imitation" has always ultimately proved "originality": he shows that he had absorbed the spirit of the Roman comedy, that he fully understood the easy movement, the sparkling and refined dialogue, the succinct but full delineation of character, and the clear development of a plot. But besides all this he possessed enough patriotic feeling not to overlook the merits of the modest national "interlude" of England. He did not too anxiously avoid carrying out here and there even a farcical motive; but with the higher ideal before him, he succeeded in fusing the classical and the national elements into a new category, becoming thus the father of English comedy.

Udall's position appears clearly if one compares his work with _Gammer Gurtons Nedle_ on the one hand, and--regarding them as a type--with Heywood's farces on the other.

The good taste and higher art of _Roister Doister_ are at once evident: the play is free from the undeniable vulgarity of _Gammer Gurton_, and in delineation of character is distinctly superior. The plot, simple as it is, is never as meagre as in the clever dialogues of Heywood; and as much as Udall surpasses Heywood in construction of the plot, I think he surpasses him in delineation of character. For even if, as Ward says,[318] in Heywood's witty plays, the "personified abstractions" of the moralities have been entirely superseded by "personal types," these personal types have not yet matured into individual persons, into men of flesh and blood, as they have in Udall's play.

I take, of course, for granted Udall's absolute superiority over that category of interludes which--bastards of the "Moralities"--seem to have had no other purpose than to introduce dogmatical moralizations, seasoned perhaps with a tavern scene or with some other farcical coarseness, and at best ending with an "unmotived" conversion of the sinner or sinners.

=Plot and Characters.=--Udall's plot is so simple that its development becomes clear at a glance; it consists of the unsuccessful wooing of Ralph Roister Doister for the hand of Dame Christian Custance, evolved amid various entanglements, and ultimately unsuccessful, not so much because Custance is at the time of Roister's first advances already engaged to another man, as because Roister's folly is so enormous that no success can be possible.

Now the figure of an avowed fool in love would give excellent scenes for a farce, but would not yield the complications of character and situation necessary for a comedy; and in order to bring about this essential complexity, there is introduced a second motive for action in this fool's own character,--that of vainglory. There is also introduced a personage who shall season the play by his wit and produce the necessary entanglements. This is Mathew Merygreeke, who grows gradually under the poet's hands, until he occupies the most prominent place in the play, at least as far as our interest in the different characters is concerned. Despite all that has been said to the contrary, Merygreeke is Udall's own creation,--a figure in itself deserving of high praise. Undoubtedly this character was at first conceived as a mere modern parasite, of a much higher type, however, than the Sempronio, for instance (in _Calisto and Meliboea_), but as the play advanced the figure outgrew its original limits, and although in the first scenes Merygreeke is scarcely out of the eggshell of the parasite, he proves very soon to be a new character: a character belonging to the class of Pandarus, a "Friend" playing the part of kindly Fate, a Vice certainly mischievous and cruel enough, but directing everything to a good end; as full of humour and fun as of character, and, at the bottom of his heart, of good-nature.

Merygreeke comes indeed to Roister at first "for his stomach's sake" and wants a new coat, but he has on the whole only a few traits of the parasite,[319] and these might be left out without injuring the play in the least. As soon as he sees Roister in love, his humour gains the upper hand; he realizes at once what a capital source of fun this "love" on the part of a vain fool might become, and he determines to bring about such complications as will yield the greatest quantity of amusement. His purpose may, indeed, at first have been merely egotistical, to have the fun himself; but he is forgiven because all the other persons of the play--as well as the audience--are liberally invited to the feast. Merygreeke may appear at times as a false friend and thus as an immoral character, but his flattery is so exaggerated, his lies are so improbable, so enormous, so amusing to all sane people,--Roister so fully deserves (indeed provokes) the cruel treatment,--that any possible wrath of a moralizing censor is entirely disarmed. Supreme folly stands outside the common moral order of things. Even if Merygreeke had not disclosed his motives, we could see from the respect which is shown him by Custance and Trusty, that he is far from being a treacherous parasite. And after all he does not betray his friend. He rather helps him to what he really desires. And what Roister most desires in this world is, after all, not the possession of the fair widow, but the satisfaction of his vanity. How quickly does he forget his love in the delusion fostered by Merygreeke, that Goodluck and Custance desire to live in peace with him because they fear him. The lie is in harmony with poetic justice.

Merygreeke has been characterized[320] as "the Artotrogos of Plautus, the standing figure of the parasite of the Greek new comedy and its Latin reproductions." But, though Merygreeke was doubtless originally planned as the parasite of the play, and though here and there to the very end of the play we find allusions which corroborate this, I note, first, that the classical parasite[321] lacks the element of modern humour, of witty but, after all, good-natured enjoyment of the mischief which he stirs up; secondly, that Merygreeke is free from endless and--to us--tedious allusions to the "stomach"; and, thirdly, from the vulgar, and almost uninteresting, selfishness, revealed in such words as these of Gnatho:

Principio ego vos credere ambos hoc mi vehementer volo
_Me huius quicquid faciam id facere maxume causa mea_.

I may be mistaken, but I cannot find that the classical parasite has any _fine_ touch of the humour that is inseparable from "humanity," from good nature. The classical parasite is, on account of this deficiency, distinctly inferior to this modern creation.

As completely as in Merygreeke's case, Udall disarms the moralist in the case of Roister himself, whose lying[322] and bragging, whose cowardice, matched only by his vanity, cannot possibly be regarded as setting a bad example, because they have reached dimensions which are grotesque and plainly ridiculous. They result only in the propagation of his folly, and that is allowed to reap its--poor--external fruit: Roister is "invited" to the banquet (and Roister has constitutionally a good "stomach"), and he is made to believe that he is a much "dreaded lion." Fate has fortunately not pressed the mirror into his hands. He is saved the sight of the ass's ears visible to every one else.[323] And as kind as Fate is his "friend" Merygreeke, who never reveals to him his absolute wretchedness, and who has to the last the satisfaction of knowing Roister a "glad man." Here was a great danger for a less skilful writer than Udall--a danger of marring our enjoyment of Merygreeke's part by inserting traits of a finer or grosser brutality, a danger of spoiling the whole feast by some drop of malice. The element of conscious humiliation is absent; the pathetic is consequently avoided.

The other figures of the play are kept in the background; even Custance, and Gawin Goodluck, who comes in at the end of the play to give the _coup de grace_ to Roister's foolish hopes. As a lover Goodluck is hardly a success. He is so fish-blooded that, in a scene which savours of a judicial procedure, the evidence of Trusty becomes necessary before he can be satisfied of the fidelity of his betrothed. Goodluck is obviously no Romeo. In the widow ready to marry again Udall presents a good study of character. Custance is a well-to-do London city-wife of the days of Henry VIII. and Edward VI., ruling like a queen over servants who themselves are happily introduced and capitally delineated. We imagine her neither lean, nor pale, but rather like the wife of Bath--like her, resolute and substantial, but more faithful. She is, to a certain extent, even shrewd; she enjoys fun,--after she has been made to see it,--and she is not without a touch of sentimentality.

Indeed, to Custance Udall has assigned the only serious scene in the play, Act V., Scene iii. This monologue appears pathetic, and sounds like a prayer of innocence, extremely well justified in a woman who finds herself surrounded by difficulties and involved in a complication which seems to question her honour. The last words of the complaint indicate, however, that Goodluck would better not doubt _too_ much, because Custance's patience might reach a limit, and her natural independence might sharply bring him to his senses.[324] She appears in that very scene as the match of Goodluck, who will be very happy with her if he gets her.

Udall shows his complete superiority over his predecessors in these delineations of character even more than in the creation of the plot. Though in the development of the latter everything fits together and is arranged in good order and proportion, it is, after all, the _dramatis personæ_ that interest us most. Udall's persons are men and women of flesh and blood, interesting and amusing living beings, not the wax figures of "Sapience" or "Folly," "Virtuous Living" or "Counterfet Countenance." Udall's persons are vastly superior to these wooden "dialoguers," whom one feels to be acting merely for a school-bred morality, and they leave the coarse-grained but witty figures even of Heywood's farces far behind.

If anything, his _persons_ show that Udall had studied his Plautus and Terence as a clear and sharp observer,[325] and that he had learned from them where the originals for a comedy were to be found--in life, in the actual world surrounding the poet.

=The Present Text= is based upon Arber's reprint of July 1, 1869, which has been carefully collated by Professor Gayley with the unique copy in the library of Eton College. The courtesy of the librarian, F. Warre Cornish, M.A., and the other authorities of Eton College, is hereby heartily acknowledged. In the present text all variations from the original are inclosed in brackets. But, in uniformity with the regulation adopted for this series, _j_ and _v_ have been substituted for _i_ and _u_ when used as consonants, and _u_ has been printed for _v_ when used as a vowel. References in the footnotes to previous editions are thus indicated: A., Arber's reprint; C., W. D. Cooper's edition for the Shakespeare Society, 1847; H., Hazlitt's Dodsley (edition in Vol. III.), Lond. 1874; M., Professor J. M. Manly's edition in "Specimens of the Pre-Shaksperean Drama," Vol. II., Boston, 1897. References to the Eton copy are indicated by E.

EWALD FLÜGEL.

FOOTNOTES:

[285] Wood's _Fasti_, quoted by Arber. Arber assigns 1504 as the year of Udall's birth, but makes him "æt. 18" in 1524. Cf. Cooper's Extracts from C. C. C. Register.

[286] Cf. Bale, _Catal._ ed. 1557, Cent. 9, 45 (fol. 717; general statement concerning Udall's Protestantism). _Lutheranis disciplinis dum in academia studuit addictus fuit_, Tanner after Wood, cf. Cooper, XII. It is remarkable, however, that we do not find Udall in correspondence with the reformers "in exile."

[287] In March, 1521, cf. Ellis, _Original Letters_, I. i, 239 _sqq._

[288] Reprinted from Leland's _Collectanea_, V. by Cooper, XII. XIV. XXVI.

[289] Cf. the epigram "_de liberalitate Nic. Odoualli_," quoted by Cooper, XII.

[290] Original among the _Royal Mss._, 18 A. L. XIV. Cf. _Calendars_, etc., VI., No. 564; _Ib._ 565, referring to Latin verses on this coronation by Richard Coxe, Udall's predecessor at Eton (from _Harl. Ms._ 6148, f. 117). Udall's verses are reprinted by Arber, _English Garner_, 2, 52; parts of them published by Collier and Fairholt. Cf. Cooper (XIII.), who dates the pageant 1532 (as does Ward, _Hist. Dram. Poetry_, I. 141). This pageant shows Udall's earliest connection with the revels, and may have given him a name at the side of Heywood.

[291] U. speaks later of the Eton mastership as "that roume which I was neuer desirous to obtain."

[292] Cf. Arber, p. 3.

[293] Cf. Warton, _Hist. of English Poetry_, 3, 308; _Interdum etiam exbibet_ [sc. _ludi magister_] _Anglico sermone contextas fabulas, si quæ babeant acumen et leporem_. Eton was the only place where _we know_ of _English_ plays; but Radulphus Radclif at Hitchin _may_ have performed some of his school comedies in English, as the "plebs" mentioned by Bale would not much have appreciated Latin performances, _Catalogus_, 8, 98, fol. 700; Herford, _Literary Relations_, p. 110, citing the occasional admission of English school plays at Eton, says that to "this concession we owe the _Ralph Roister Doister_." More likely we owe the concession to _Roister Doister_. Cf. Herford on Udall's _De Papatu_.

[294] It seems improbable that the _R. D._ was ever performed at Court; Udall's "interludes and devices" were pageants, as the _Loseley Mss._ prove; see below.

[295] Tusser's _500 Pointes_, ed. Payne & Heritage, p. 205.

[296] Cooper attributes to Udall's severity the running away from school of "divers" Eton boys alluded to by Roger Ascham (_Schoolmaster_). But this passage refers to 10 Dec. 1563, twenty-two years after Udall had ceased to swing the rod over the Eton boys!

[297] Cf. quotation from Nicolas's _Proceedings and Ordinances of the Privy Council_, 7, 152-53, in Cooper; the date is 14 March 32 Henry VIII. (1541-42) and _not_ 1543, as Arber gives it. Arber dates Udall's letter also wrongly 1543; it is referred to 1541-42 in Ellis's _Original Letters of Eminent Literary Men_, Camden Soc., 1843, P. 1.

[298] "Accepte this myn honest chaunge from vice to virtue, from prodigalitee to frugall livyng, from negligence of teachyng to assiduitee, from playe to studie, from lightness to gravitee." He speaks about his "offenses," does not wish to excuse himself, but says "humana quidem esse, et emendari posse." He begs for a chance to show his "emendyng and reformac̄on," and quotes instances from ancient history of great men who had indulged in a "veray riottous and dissolute sorte of livyng" in their youth, had been "drowned in voluptuousness" and had lived in "slaundre and infamie," but had reformed. Not a word is said about thefts, "robberies," and such "felonious trespasses." Cf. the whole letter from a new collation in Flügel's _Lesebuch_, I, 351.

[299] U. does not beg in this letter for his "restitution," as Arber seems to accept.

[300] Cf. Cooper, XXIII.

[301] Mars had "the rule" there October, 1542-July, 1543 (Froude, 3, 525-570), then again August, 1547 (Somerset in Berwick, Froude, 4, 288); the naval expedition of Hertford in May, 1544, being here out of the question (_Ib._ 4, 32).

[302] This translation (published in September) might also indicate some connection between Udall and Aldrich during the summer of 1542. Aldrich was a great "Erasmian"; he had been the _juvenis blandæ eloquentiæ_ whom Erasmus used as interpreter on that immortal pilgrimage to Walsingham, and he kept up a correspondence with Erasmus.

[303] Udall took as his share _St. Luk_ and the "disposition" of the rest with exception of _St. John_ and _St. Mark_; perhaps he assisted also in the translation of _Matthew_ and _Acts_. The Prefaces are dated 1545, 1548. The whole must have been quite a lucrative business-undertaking, because every parish in England had, by law, to buy a copy of this work and "every parson had to have and diligently study the same conferring the one [_the New Testament both in Latin and English_] with the other [_the paraphrase_]." Cf. Cranmer's _Remains_, 155, 156 (1548); the Injunctions of Edward, 1547 (_Ib._ 499, 501), etc.; cf. also Grindal's _Works_, 134, 157; Hooper's _Works_, 2, 139, 143 (_Parker Soc._).

[304] Cranmer too wrote "_Answers to the Fifteen Articles of the Rebels_, Devon, Anno 1549," reprinted in his _Remains_, 163; and a number of references to the Rebellion may be found in the writings of the Reformers, f. i. _Letter of Hooper to Bullinger_, 25 June, 1549, _of John ab Ulmis to Bullinger_, May 28, 1550, of _Burcher to Bullinger_, 25 August, 1549. But none of these correspondents ever mention Udall.

[305] Cf. Cooper, XXX.

[306] An interesting letter of Udall's, dated August, 1552, referring to his place at Windsor, was printed in _Archæologia_, 1869, Vol. XLII. 91, but has not hitherto been utilized for Udall's Biography. The preface to a translation of T. Geminie's _Anatomy_ by Udall is dated 20 July, 1552; cf. Cooper, XXXI.; Udall's _Epistolæ et Carmina ad Gul. Hormannum et ad Jo. Lelandum_, are quoted by Bale, etc., and given under this year by Cooper (who reads: Hermannum). Hormann died 1535, as vice-provost of Eton.

[307] This warrant was communicated to the Archæological Society, December 9, 1824, by Mr. Bray (_Archæologia_, 21, 551), but not printed until 1836 in the _Loseley Mss._, now first edited by A. J. Kempe; No. 31, p. 63.

[308] See below, under Date of the Early Edition of _R. D._ Another early allusion to Udall as a playwright is that from Nichols's _Progresses of Queen Elizabeth_, 3, 177, according to which "an English play called _Ezekias_, made by Mr. Udall and handled by King's College men only," was performed before Elizabeth August 8, 1564, at Cambridge; see Cooper's Preface, xxxiii. Bale, who does not mention Udall as a playwright in the edition 1548 of his _Catalogus_ (he mentions only [Ochino's?] _Tragoedia de papatu_), says in the edition September, 1557, that Udall wrote "comœdias plures." There is nothing on Udall in his _Supplement_ of 1559.

[309] It is remarkable that these documents should never have been utilized for Udall's biography. Cf. the "Miscellaneous Extracts from Various Accounts relating to the Office of the Revels," printed among the _Loseley Mss._, p. 90. The Muniment Room of James More Molyneux at Loseley House, Surrey, would furnish these and perhaps other documents most valuable for Udall's History and that of the Early Drama.

The "scheme for an interlude, in which the persons of the drama were to be _a King_, _a Knight_, _a Judge_, _a Preacher_, _a Scholar_, _a Serving-man_," which Hazlitt (_Handbook_, 622) carelessly attributes to Udall, is not connected with his name; cf. _Loseley Mss._, p. 64.

[310] These _may_ refer to another pageant, _l.c._

[311] No exact date given by Cooper, XXXIV. Hales gives good reasons for the probability that Udall's mastership commenced in 1553; cf. _Englische Studien_, 18, 421; cf. _ib._, a very interesting note on the Terentian Plays, annually performed at the Westminster School. It seems almost as if here, as well as at Eton, Udall's headmastership had some significance for the history of the English school comedy.

[312] _Funerall Monuments_, ed. 1631, fol. 497.

[313] See above, p. 90, and notes.

[314] The Date of the First English Comedy, in _Englische Studien_, 18, 408-421.

[315] Professor Hales, in his essay on the date of _Roister_ (_Englische Studien_, 18, 419) quotes for these usury laws the incomplete account of them in Craik's _History of British Commerce_, 1, 22, 231.

The law of 1545 (_so_ dated by Ruffhead; and not 1546) is far more important on account of its clause about the "yearly interest" than of that about the ten per cent.