192 THE CHESTER MYSTERIES. 
ably vivid and béautiful series of pictures, full of poetic touches, 
and of moving incidents ; full also of much that is grotesque, 
and sometimes coarse even to grossness. 
Yet, in the first instance, there can be no doubt that they were 
devised (to use Archdeacon Rogers’s expression) “in a good 
desire to do good.” There can be no doubt, either, that they 
did spread abroad among an ignorant people a general know- 
ledge of the leading outlines of the Christian faith. They were 
at first acted in churches, by monks, and by the younger clergy, 
and partook of the character of a divine service. But, before 
very long, through the church door out they slipped into the 
streets and commons, followed, as ever, by crowds of eager 
spectators ; and then human nature asserted itself, and insisted 
on being allowed to laugh. And upon this followed incon- 
gruities which soon caused the stricter sort of people to lift up 
their hands in condemnation. There is a well-known quotation 
from a popular religious book in the 13th century—Wm. de 
Wadington’s Manuel des Péchés—which sternly rebukes “the 
open folly called miracles, contrived by foolish clerics,” and 
complains that, though this is against the law, they even make 
their sin greater by disguising themselves with masks. Such 
representations (he says) ought never to be given, except to 
set forth “chastely,” within the walls of holy church, and in 
service time, the mysteries of the New Testament—How the 
Son of God was laid in the Sepulchre—How He rose from the 
dead—to move people to devotion. But to hold wild gather- 
ings in the open streets! Readily, indeed, do the fools run 
together, and each pretends a pious intention, and says he does 
it for the honour of God. 
‘‘ Croire ne le dever pur rien.” 
“ Do not believe it for anything,” he exhorts, in his rude Norman 
French. 
Yet, in spite of these severe remarks, it must not for a 
moment be supposed that anyone desired, or would even have 
endured, the slightest approach to ridicule of holy things. But 
to make fun of the Devil seemed not only not wrong, but even 
a kind of virtue ; and the same freedom was judged to be quite 
allowable in the case of a wicked man like King Herod, who 
was always expected to strut and swagger about the stage in the 
most outrageous manner. Chaucer tells us that Jolly Absolom, 
the Parish Clerk, used to take this character, 
“‘ Sometimes to show his lightness and maistery 
He playéd Herod on a scaffold high.” 
And I have seen a picture of a French mystery in which Herod 
is amusing the audience by balancing his sceptre on his hand. 
And then there were some of the minor personages, mentioned, 
but not named, in Holy Writ, who became, as it were, the 
stock comic characters. Of these, the most popular was Noah’s 
wife, who was expected to show the utmost reluctance to enter 
