instances we are to understand a dumb shew, or a dramatic interlude with speeches, I leave to the examination of those who are professedly making enquiries into the history of our stage from its rudest origin. But that plays on general subjects were no uncommon mode of entertainment in the royal palaces of England, at least at the commencement of the fifteenth century, may be collected from an old memoir of shews and ceremonies exhibited at Christmas, in the reign of Henry the Seventh, in the palace of Westminster. It is in the year 1489. "This cristmas I saw no disguysings, and but right few PLAYS. But ther was an abbot of Misrule, that made much sport, and did right well his office." And again, "At nyght the kynge, the qweene, and my ladye the kynges moder, cam into the Whitehall, and ther hard a PLAY!" As to the religious dramas, it was customary to perform this species of play on holy festivals in or about the churches. In the register of William of Wykeham, bishop of Winchester, under the year 1384, an episcopal injunction is recited, against the exhibition of SPECTACULA in the cemetery of his cathedral". Whether or no these were dramatic SPECTACLES, I do not pretend to decide. In several of our old scriptural plays, we see some of the scenes directed to be represented cum cantu et organis, a common rubric in the missal. That is, because they were performed in a church where the choir assisted. There is a curious passage in Lambarde's Topographical Dictionary written about the year 1570, much to our purpose, which I am therefore tempted to transcribe". "In the dayes of cere Synod. Eccles. Leod. A. D. 1287. apud monial religion, they used at Wytney (in Oxfordshire) to set fourthe yearly in maner of a shew, or interlude, the resurrection of our Lord, &c. For the which purposes, and the more lyvely heareby to exhibite to the eye the hole action of the resurrection, the priestes garnished out certain smalle puppettes, representing the persons of Christe, the watchmen, Marie, and others; amongest the which, one bare the parte of a wakinge watchman, who espiinge Christe to arise, made a continual noyce, like to the sound that is caused by the metynge of two styckes, and was thereof commonly called Jack Snacker of Wytney. The like toye I myself, beinge then a childe, once sawe in Poule's churche at London, at a feast of Whitsuntyde; wheare the comynge downe of the Holy Gost was set forthe by a white pigion, that was let to fly out of a hole that yet is to be sene in the mydst of the roofe of the greate ile, and by a longe censer which descendinge out of the same place almost to the verie grounde, was swinged up and downe at suche a lengthe, that it reached with thone swepe almost to the west-gate of the churche, and with the other to the quyre staires of the same; breathinge out over the whole churche and companie a most pleasant perfume of such swete thinges as burned therein. With the like doome shewes also, they used everie where to furnish sondrye parts of their church service, as by their spectacles of the nativitie, passion, and ascension," &c. This practice of acting plays in churches, was at last grown to such an enormity, and attended with such inconvenient consequences, that in the reign of Henry the Eighth, Bonner, bishop of London, issued a proclamation to the clergy of his diocese, dated 1542, prohibiting "all maner of common plays, games, or interludes to be played, set forth, or declared, within their churches, chapels," &c. This fashion seems to have remained even after the Reformation, and when perhaps profane stories had taken place of religious". Archbishop Grindal, in the year 1563, remonstrated against the danger of interludes: complaining that players "did especially on holy days, set up bills inviting to their play." From this ecclesiastical source of the modern drama, plays continued to be acted on sundays so late as the reign of Elizabeth, and even till that of Charles the First, by the choristers or singing-boys of Saint Paul's cathedral in London, and of the royal chapel. It is certain, that these MIRACLE-PLAYS were the first of our dramatic exhibitions. But as these pieces frequently required the introduction of allegorical characters, such as Charity, Sin, Death, Hope, Faith, or the like, and as the common poetry of the times, especially among the French, began to deal much in allegory, at length plays were formed entirely consisting of such personifications. These were called MORALITIES. The miracle-plays, or MYSTERIES, were totally destitute of invention or plan: they tamely represented stories according to the letter of scripture, or the respective legend. But the MORALITIES indicate dawnings of the dramatic art: they contain some rudiments of a plot, and even attempt to delineate characters, and to paint manners. From hence the gradual transition to real historical personages was natural and obvious. It may be also observed, that many licentious pleasantries were sometimes introduced in these religious representations. This might imperceptibly lead the way to subjects entirely profane, and to comedy, and perhaps earlier than is imagined. In a Mystery' of the MASSACRE OF THE HOLY INNOCENTS, part of the subject of a sacred drama given by the English fathers at the famous council of Constance, in the year 1417, a low buffoon of Herod's court is introduced, desiring of his lord to be dubbed a knight, that he might be properly qualified to go on the adventure of killing the mothers of the children of Bethlehem. PLAIES, &c. 1580. 12mo. p. 77. Where the author says, the players are "permitted to publish their mamettrie in everie temple of God, and that, throughout England," &c. This abuse of acting plays in churches is mentioned in the canon of James the First, which for bids also the profanation of churches by court-leets, &c. The canons were given in the year 1603. 8 Strype's Grindall, p. 82. This tragical business is treated with the most ridiculous levity. The good women of Bethlehem attack our knight-errant with their spinning-wheels, break his head with their distaffs, abuse him as a coward and a disgrace to chivalry, and send him home to Herod as a recreant champion with much ignominy. It is in an enlightened age only that subjects of scripture history would be supported with proper dignity. But then an enlightened age would not have chosen such subjects for theatrical exhibition. It is certain that our ancestors intended no sort of impiety by these monstrous and unnatural mixtures. Neither the writers nor the spectators saw the impropriety, nor paid a separate attention to the comic and the serious part of these motley scenes; at least they were persuaded that the solemnity of the subject covered or excused all incongruities. They had no just idea of decorum, consequently but little sense of the ridiculous: what appears to us to be the highest burlesque, on them would have made no sort of impression. We must not wonder at this, in an age when courage, devotion, and ignorance, composed the character of European manners; when the knight going to a tournament, first invoked his God, then his mistress, and afterwards proceeded with a safe conscience and great resolution to engage his antagonist. In these Mysteries I have sometimes seen gross and open obscenities. In a play of the Old and New Testament', t MSS. Harl. 2013, &c. Exhibited at Chester in the year 1327, at the expence of the different trading companies of that city. The Fall of Lucifer by the Tanners. The Creation by the Drapers. The Deluge by the Dyers. Abraham, Melchisedech, and Lot by the Barbers. Moses, Balak, and Balaam by the Cappers. The Salutation and Nativity by the Wrightes. The Shepherds feeding their flocks by night by the Painters and Glaziers. The three Kings by the Vintners. The Oblation of the three Kings by the Mercers. The Killing of the Innocents by the Goldsmiths. The Purification by the Blacksmiths. The Temptation by the Butchers. The last Supper by the Bakers. The Blindmen and Lazarus by the Glovers. Jesus and the Lepers by the Corvesarys. Christ's Passion by the Bowyers, Fletchers, and Ironmongers. Descent into Hell by the Cooks and Innkeepers. The Resurrection by the Skinners. The Ascension by the Taylors. The election of S. Mathias, Sending of the holy ghost, &c. by the Fishmongers. Antechrist by the Clothiers. Day of Judgment by the Websters. The reader will perhaps smile at some of these COMBINATIONS. This is the substance and order of the former part of the play:→ God enters creating the world: he breathes life into Adam, leads him into Paradise, and opens his side while sleeping. Adam and Eve appear naked and not ashamed, and the old serpent enters lamenting his Adam and Eve are both exhibited on the stage naked, and conversing about their nakedness: this very pertinently introduces the next scene, in which they have coverings of fig-leaves. This extraordinary spectacle was beheld by a numerous assembly of both sexes with great composure: they had the authority of scripture for such a representation, and they gave matters just as they found them in the third chapter of Genesis. It would have been absolute heresy to have departed from the fall. He converses with Eve. She eats of the forbidden fruit and gives part to Adam. They propose, according to the stage-direction, to make themselves subligacula a foliis quibus tegamus Pudenda. Cover their nakedness with leaves, and converse with God. God's curse. The serpent exit hissing. They are driven from Paradise by four angels and the cherubim with a flaming sword. Adam appears digging the ground, and Eve spinning. Their children Cain and Abel enter: The former kills his brother. Adam's lamentation. Cain is banished, &c. [A few brief extracts from this collection will be found in the second volume of Mr. Strutt's "Manners and Customs of the People of England," and in Mr. Lysons' Magna Britannia (co. Cheshire). See also Mr. Ormerod's Hist. of Cheshire, vol. i. p. 296.-The contradictions in the Chester registers, which record the exhibition of these plays, have caused a diversity of opinion as to the period of their appearance, and the name of their author. If Sir John Arnwaie were mayor of Chester in the year 1269, "in [which] yere," it is said, "the Whitson plays were invented in Chester by one Rondoll Higden, a monk in the Abby of Chester," (Harl. MS. 2125. f. 272 verso) it is very evident that they could not have been written by the same Randall Higden who continued the Polychronicon to 1344, and whose death is placed by Bale in 1363. There are, however, some suspicious circumstances attending the document which contains this statement, that render its accuracy extremely questionable. It professes to be a catalogue of Mayors from the 24th of Henry III. which however it dates in the year 1257-a trifling error of seventeen years, -it acknowledges a difference of chronology from all preceding registers, which it justifies by the stale device of having consulted "true and ancient deeds; and it attempts to invalidate the accounts generally received, by saying they were all compiled so late as the reign of Edward III. The document itself is of the seventeenth century; and as the Chester antiquaries have been unable to adduce any collateral testimonial favouring its authenticity, it may not be too much to affirm that the whole account bears strong internal marks of being a blundering attempt to fill a vacancy in the Chester annals between the reigns of Henry and Edward. The existence of one John Arnwaie at this period (noticed by Mr. Ormerod), who be it observed is styled neither knight nor mayor of Chester, can hardly be considered as corroborative evidence. If we reject the authority of this catalogue, the chronological discrepancies become trifling. Sir John Arnwaie and Randall Higden are then made contemporaries; and the later traditions-for such they seem to bemay easily be reconciled with historical facts. In Geo. Bellen's Catalogue of the Mayors and Sheriffs of Chester, from 1317 to 1622, (Harl. MS. 2125. f. 197.) we find it stated under the year 1327, when Sir John Arnwaie was mayor: The Whitson playes first made by one Dan Randall [Higgenett] a moonke of Chester Abbey [who was thrise at Rome before he could obtayn leave of the Pope to have them in the English tonge]. The passages within brackets appear to be the additions of a later hand. In the Harl. MS. 1948. f. 48, it is also said, under the year 1339,-that one Randoll Higden, a monk in the Abbaye of Ches ter, did translate the same (Whitson |