472 M Y S T 
firft pageant, or aft, the Deity is reprefented feated on 
his throne by himfelf; after a fpeech of fome length, 
the angels enter finging, from the church-fervice, “ To 
Tliee all angels cry aloud, the heavens and all the powers 
therein ; To Thee Cherubini and Seraphim continually do 
cry, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Sabbaoth.” Lucifer 
then makes his appearance, and defires to know if the 
hymn they fang was in honour of God or in honour of 
him ? The good angels readily reply, In honour of God. 
The evil angels incline to worfhip Lucifer, and he pre¬ 
fumes to feat himfelf in the throne of the Deity; who 
commands him to depart from heaven to hell, which 
dreadful fentence he is compelled to obey, and with his 
wicked afl'ociates defcends to the lower regions. 
Notwithftanding the ferioufnefs of the fubjedds that 
conftituted thefe myfteries, it feems clear that. they. were 
not exhibited without a portion of pantomimical fun to 
make them palatable to the vulgar tafte ; and indeed the 
length and the dulnefs of the fpeeches required fome 
fuch afliftance to enliven them, and keep the fpe< 5 tators 
in good humour; and this may be the reafon why the 
myfteries are in general much fhorter than the modern 
plays. Beelzebub feems to have been the principal 
comic a£tor, affifted by his merry troop of under-devils, 
who, with variety of noifes, ftrange geflures, and con¬ 
tortions of the body, excited the laughter of the po¬ 
pulace. 
When the myfteries ceafed to be played, the fubjefts 
for the drama were not taken from hiltorical fadts, but 
confided of moral reafonings in praife of virtue and con¬ 
demnation of vice, on which account they were called 
Moralities; and thefe performances, requiring fome 
degree of invention, laid the foundation for our modern 
comedies and tragedies. The dialogues were carried on 
by allegorical characters, fuch as Good Dodlrine, Charity, 
Faith, Prudence, Difcretion, Death, and the like; and 
their difcourfes were of a ferious caft ; but the province 
of making the fpedtators merry defcended from the Devil 
in the myftery, to Vice or Iniquity of the morality, who 
ufually perfonified fome bad quality incident to human 
nature, as Pride, or Lull, or any other evil propenfity; 
and, even when regular tragedies and comedies were in¬ 
troduced upon the ftage, we may trace the defcendants 
of this facetious Iniquity in the Clowns and the Fools 
which fo frequently difgraced them. The great mafter 
of human nature, in compliance with the falle tafte of 
the age in which he lived, has admitted this.motley cha¬ 
racter into the moil ferious parts of one of his belt trage¬ 
dies. The propenfity to laugh at the expenfe of good fenfe 
and propriety, is well ridiculed in the “ Intermeane” at 
the end of the firft aCt of the Staple of Newes, by Jonfon, 
and again in the Preludium to the Carelefs Shepherdefs, 
where feveral characters are introduced .upon the ftage as 
fpeCtators, waiting for the commencement of the per¬ 
formance. One of them fays. 
Why, I would have a fool in every aCt, 
Be’t comedy or tragedy : I’ve laugh’d 
Until I cry’d again, to fee what faces 
The rogue will make. Oh ! it does me good 
To fee him hold out’s chin, hang down his hands. 
And twirle his bawble. There is nere a part 
About him but breaks jells. I heard a fellow 
Once on the ftage, cry doodle doodle dooe 
Beyond compare; I’de give the other fhilling 
To fee him aCt the Changling once again. 
To this another character replies, 
And fo would I; his part has all the wit, 
For none fpeakes, carps, and quibbles, befides him; 
I’d rather fee him leap, or laugh, or cry, 
Than hear the graven fpeech in all the play; 
I never faw Rheade peeping through the curtain. 
But ravifhing joy entered into my heart. 
A boy then comes upon the ftage, and the firft fpeaker 
E R Y. 
inquires for the fool; but, being told he is not toper- 
form that night, he fays. 
Well, fince there will be nere a fool i’th’ play, 
I’ll have my money again; the comedy 
Will be as tedious to me as a fermon. 
The miracles, myfteries, and moralities, differed greatly 
from the fecula)' plays and interludes which were aCted by 
ftrolling companies, compofed of minftrels, jugglers, 
tumblers, dancers, bourdours or jefters, and other per¬ 
formers properly qualified for the different parts of the 
entertainment, which admitted of a variety of exhibi¬ 
tions. Thefe paftimes, Mr. Strutt agrees with Warton, 
are of higher antiquity than the ecclefiaftical plays ; and 
they were much relifhed, not only by the vulgar part of 
the people, but alfo by the nobility. The courts of the 
kings of England, and the caftles of the great earls and 
barons, were crowded with the performers of the fecular 
plays, where they were well received and handfomely 
rewarded ; vaft fums of money were lavifhly bellowed 
upon thefe fecular itinerants, which induced the monks 
and other ecclefiaftics to turn aCtors themfelves, in order 
to obtain a fliare of the public bounty. But, to give 
the better colouring to their undertaking, they took the 
fubjeCts of their dialogues from the holy writ, and per¬ 
formed them in the churches. The fecular fhowmen, 
however, retained their popularity notwithftanding the 
exertions of their clerical rivals, who diligently endea¬ 
voured to bring them into difgrace, by bitterly in¬ 
veighing againft the filthinefs and immorality of their 
exhibitions. On the other hand, the itinerant players 
fometimes invaded the province of the church-men, 
and performed their myfteries or others fimilar to them, 
as we find from a petition prefented to Richard III. by 
the fcholars of St. Paul’s fchool, (1378.) wherein com¬ 
plaint is made againft the fecular adtors, becaufe they 
took upon themfelves to aft plays compofed from the 
fcripture-hiftory, to the great prejudice of the clergy, 
wdio had been at much expenfe to prepare fuch perform¬ 
ances for public exhibition at the feftival of Chriftmas. 
But, generally fpeaking, the fecular plays had nothing to 
do with religion, and, if an early writer of our own coun¬ 
try (John of Salilbury) may be fully credited, but little 
with morality ; they confided of comic tales, dialogues, 
and ftories, to which were added coarfe and indecent jells, 
intermixed with inftrumental mufic, finging, dancing, 
tumbling, gefticulation, and mimicry, to excite laughter, 
without the lead regard to decency; and for this reafon, 
the clergy were prohibited from going to fee them. Car¬ 
dinal Wolfey, in his regulations for the monaftery of the 
canons regular of St. Aultin, forbade the brethren to be 
players or mimics ; but the prohibition meant, that they 
ftiould not go abroad to exercile thofe talents in a fecular 
and mercenary capacity. 
The performances exhibited by the fecular players, 
were certainly of a jocular nature, calculated to promote 
mirth ; and therefore they are cenfured as “ vain paf¬ 
times” by Matthew Paris. Something of this kind was 
the reprefentation made before Henry VIII. at Green¬ 
wich, thus related by Hall: “ Two perfons plaied a dia¬ 
logue , the effedt whereof was, whether riches were better 
than love ; and, when they could not agree upon a con- 
clufion, each called in thre knightes all armed ; thre of 
them woulde have entered the gate of the arche in the 
middle of the chambre, and the other thre refilled; and 
fodenly betweene the fix knightes, out of the arche fell 
downe a bar all gilte, at the which bar the fix knightes 
fought a fair battail, and then they departed, and fo went 
out of the place; then came in an olde man with a filver 
berd, and he concluded, that love and riches bothe be 
neceftarie for princes; that is to fay, by love to be obeyed 
and ferved, and with riches to rewarde his lovers and 
frendes; and with this conclufion the dialogue ended.” 
We hereby find, that thefe dialogues were not only a part 
of the entertainment, but alfo ingenioufly made the ve¬ 
hicles. 
