Part 12

In "_The playe called the foure PP._: a newe and a very mery enterlude of a palmer, a pardoner, a potycary, a pedler," the advance in dramatic form as compared with _The Play of Love_ is very slight, though the play is much more vivid and amusing. The Palmer begins it with an account of his wanderings, and then the other three characters come on the stage, each catching up the words of the last speaker, and vaunting his own profession. The argument between Palmer, Pardoner, and Pothecary waxes hot, and at last the Pedler suggests that as lying is the one matter in which they are all skilled, their order of merit can best be determined by a contest in this art, and offers himself as the judge. At first the competitors lie vaguely. Then it is resolved that the lie must take the form of a tale, and the Pothecary tells a long story of the effect of one of his medicines; then the Pardoner a much longer one of a visit to Hell and the rescue thence of a shrew of whom Lucifer was very glad to be rid; finally the Palmer in a few words expresses his surprise that there should be such shrews in Hell, as in all his travels he never yet knew one woman out of patience--a remark which straightway wins him the preëminence, though there is more tedious wrangling, before a serious little speech from the Pedler brings the play to a close. The _Four PP._ is, to our thinking, insufferably spun out; but, except in the epilogue, as we may call it, it is plain that its intention was solely to amuse--

To passe the tyme in thys without offence Was the cause why the maker dyd make it, And so we humbly beseche you take it,

says the Pedler:--and in substituting stories and a lighter form of argument for the more formal disputation of the _Dyaloge of Wit and Folly_ and the _Play of Love_ it comes a little nearer to the modern conception of comedy, and may be thought to have deserved the success which it is said to have achieved.

The possession by the _Play of the Wether_ of an obvious moral--the mess which men would make of rain, wind, and sunshine if they had the ruling of them--is undoubtedly a link with the interludes of a didactic character, and so may seem at first sight to place it in a lower grade of dramatic development. There can be little doubt that it was acted by Heywood's company of "children," whom we hear of as performing under his direction before the Princess Mary, and a children's play would perhaps naturally be cast in this form. But the form is here less important than the intention, and it does not need Mery-report's comment ("now shall ye have the wether--even as yt was") to tell us that Heywood's didactics were purely humorous. The point to be noted is that this is really a play--a play, moreover, which if it could be shortened and the unforgivable passages omitted, might be acted by children of the present day with some enjoyment. The part of "the Boy, the least that can play" is charming. There is stage furniture in Jupiter's "trone," and in the coming and going of the characters at least a semblance of action. We must note, however, the set disputation between the two millers, as still linking it with Heywood's other argumentative plays, though with all its faults it is the brightest and most pleasing of its class.

We come now to the two plays, _The Pardoner and the Frere_ and _Johan Johan_, which modern writers have uniformly assigned to Heywood, although William Rastell printed them[90] without any author's name, and no one has yet adduced contemporary evidence for assigning them to Heywood. In neither of these plays is there any trace of the disputation which in those we have been looking at is so conspicuous. They are both true comedies, comedies in miniature if you like, but true comedies, with a definite scene and dramatic action. _The Pardoner and the Frere_ is little more than an expansion of hints given by Chaucer, from whom the author does not hesitate to borrow two whole passages, but the development of the little plot is well managed and the climax when the Parson and Neighbour Prat are badly worsted and the two rogues go off in triumph is thoroughly artistic. It has been said that this play must have been written during the life of Leo X., who died in 1521, because the Pardoner's speech contains the passage (omitting the Friar's interruptions):--

Worshypfull maysters ye shall understand That Pope Leo the X hath graunted with his hand, And by his bulls confyrmed under lede, To all maner people, bothe quycke and dede, Ten thousand yeres & as many lentes of pardon, etc.

But as Heywood was probably born in 1497, it is extremely unlikely that his undoubted plays were written before 1520, and if the evidence of this passage is to be pressed, I should regard it as absolutely fatal to his authorship, it being inconceivable that any one who had written the _Pardoner and the Frere_ could subsequently write the _Dyaloge of Wyt and Folly_ or the _Play of Love_. But there would be an obvious convenience in making a dead pope rather than a living one answerable for the Pardoner's ribaldries, and the weight of this argument is not lessened when we remember that the Pardoner proceeds to quote also the authority of the King.[91] Although no alteration of date would bring the play out of the reign of Henry VIII., we may well believe that that peremptory monarch might forgive such reflections on his management of church affairs at an earlier date much more readily than satire of a system he was then supporting.

We shall have to speak again of the _Pardoner and the Frere_ and its probable date, but we must pass on now to Heywood's masterpiece, if we may call it his, the _mery play betwene Johan Johan, the husbande, Tyb his wyfe and Syr Jhan, the preest_. In approaching this play, as in approaching Chaucer's tales of the Miller and Reeve and some of their fellows, we must, of course, leave our morality behind and accept the playwright's and tale-teller's convention that cuckoldry and cuckoldmaking are natural subjects for humour. This granted, it will be difficult to find a flaw in the play. Like the _Pardoner and the Frere_ it is short, only about one half the length of the plays of _Love_, the _Wether_, and the _Four PP._, and it gains greatly from being less weighted with superfluities. Johan Johan himself, with his boasting and cowardice, his eagerness to be deceived, and futile attempts to put a good face on the matter, his burning desire to partake of the pie, his one moment of self-assertion, to which disappointed hunger spurs him, and then his fresh collapse to ludicrous uneasiness,--who can deny that he is a triumph of dramatic art, just human enough and natural enough to seem very human and natural on the stage, but with the ludicrous side of him so sedulously presented to the spectator that there is never any risk of compassion for him becoming uncomfortably acute? The handling of Tyb and Syr Jhan is equally clever. Each in turn is prepared to act on the defensive, to be evasive and explanatory, but before Johan Johan's acquiesciveness such devices seem superfluous, and little by little the pair reach a height of effrontery not easily surpassed. One of the incidents of the play, the melting of the wax by the fire, occurs also in a contemporary French _Farce nouuelle tresbonne et fort ioyeuse de Pernet qui va au vin_, and it is certainly in the French farces that we find the nearest approach in tone and treatment, as well as in form, to this anonymous Johan Johan.

=Dates. The Authorship of "Thersites."=--It may have been noticed that in passing these six plays in review the order followed has been purely that of their dramatic development. We know that four of them were printed in 1533, when Heywood was thirty-six or thereabouts, but with the exception of the reference to Leo X. in the _Pardoner and the Frere_, the significance of which I have given reasons for considering doubtful, no one has yet detected any time-reference which enables us to fix their approximate dates.[92] In his little treatise _John Heywood als Dramatiker_ (1888) Dr. Swoboda maintains that the _Pardoner_ must be placed earlier than the _Four PP._, and that the _Four PP._ can be shown to be earlier than the anonymous play of _Thersites_, which we know from its epilogue was acted at Court between October 12 and 24, 1537, the dates respectively of the birth of Edward VI. and the death of his mother, Jane Seymour.[93] In support of his first point he cites the fact that some of the relics ("the grete toe of the Trinite" and "of all Hallows the blessed jawbone") vaunted by the Pardoner in his sermon in the church appear again in the longer list of relics in the _Four PP._ In support of the second he quotes from _Thersites_ the lines[94] in which that hero proposes to visit Purgatory and Hell, and traces in them an allusion to the Pardoner's story in the _Four PP._ I cannot accept either of these arguments as decisive chronologically, it being quite as reasonable for a dramatist to abridge a list of relics as to expand it, while the boast of Thersites might be represented as the hint out of which the rescue of Mistress Margery Coorson was developed no less plausibly than as a reference to that notorious lie. The _Pardoner and the Frere_ seems to me dramatically more advanced than the _Four PP._, and I am therefore slow to accept any argument which would place it earlier; but even when we allow for the fact that Chaucer had fixed for all time the humorous treatment of Pardoners, the fact that the Pardoners in these two plays are so closely alike is an argument of some weight for their common authorship.[95] But if this be so, the reference to sweeping Hell clean in _Thersites_ may set us wondering whether it was not the author of the _Four PP._ who was most likely to have written it; and we may note also the repetition in _Thersites_ of the absurd boasting with which Johan Johan preludes his disclosure of his cowardice, while the incident of Telemachus belongs to that "humour of filth" which I have already noted as characteristic of Heywood. For the probability of the latter's authorship of _Thersites_ we may claim also a little external support. We have already noticed that in March, 1538, Heywood received forty shillings for the performance by his "children" of an interlude before the Princess Mary. Now _Thersites_ is obviously intended for performance by children; it was acted a few months previously to the payment of March, 1538,[96] in honour of Jane Seymour, to whom Mary, in return for her abundant kindness, was greatly attached; and again Mary's fondness for the classics would explain the selection of a classical burlesque if, as is probable, she was present when it was acted. Given the facts that Heywood had already in the _Play of the Wether_ brought Jupiter on the stage, that _Thersites_ bears at least some slight resemblances to other plays attributed to him, that he was in the service of the Princess Mary, and was manager, whether permanently or temporarily, about this time, of a company of children, and I think we have a fairly strong case for attributing _Thersites_ to his pen. If this theory be accepted, the probability of his authorship of both the _Pardoner and the Frere_ and _Johan Johan_ is considerably increased; for if _Thersites_ is by Heywood, it is good enough to form an important link between these plays and his argumentative interludes, while if _Thersites_ be not by Heywood, there was then some other playwright of the day for whom a strong claim might be put forward to the authorship of these other anonymous plays.

=Sources.=--The fact that an opportunity for writing about Heywood is not likely to recur very often must be offered as an excuse for interpolating questions of detail into this preface. For the broader view of the subject which we ought here to take it is obvious that the authorship of this or that play is not very important. What concerns us here is that we can see even in the less developed group of plays English comedy emancipating itself from the miracle-play and morality, and in the _Pardoner and the Frere_ and _Johan Johan_ becoming identical in form with the French fifteenth-century farce. Whether we ought to go beyond this and assert absolute borrowing from French originals is rather a difficult question. The _Farce nouuelle d'un Pardonneur, d'un triacleur et d'une tauerniere_ may certainly have supplied the idea both of the preaching-match between Pardoner and Friar and also of the comparison of the wares of Pardoner and Pothecary. The _Farce nouuelle tresbonne et fort ioyeuse de Pernet qui va au vin_ contains two passages[97] which must have some direct connection with _Johan Johan_. The only extant edition of Pernet qui va au vin was "nouvellement imprimé" in 1548, and the date of its prototype is unknown. The _Farce d'un Pardonneur_, in the edition which has come down to us, is certainly later than 1540, but this also was probably a reprint. Thus despite the fact that the handling of the incidents in the English plays is far more skilful than in the French, it would seem too daring to suggest that the French farces can be borrowed from the English, and in any case we may imagine that the English dramatist did not make his new departure unaided, but was consciously working on the lines which had long been popular in France. By doing so he did not lay the foundation of English comedy, for it was not on these lines that our comedy subsequently developed. But it was at least a hopeful omen for the future that an English playwright so easily attained a real mastery in the only school of comedy with which he could have been acquainted. It was something also that the right of comedy to exist as a source of amusement apart from instruction had been successfully vindicated. These were two real achievements, and they must always be connected with the name of John Heywood.

="Play of the Wether": Early Editions and the Present Text.=--At the time I write, the _Play of the Wether_ has not been reprinted since the sixteenth century. Its bibliography has been rather confused by the existence of two texts of it, one at St. John's College, Oxford, the other at the University Library, Cambridge, each wanting the last leaf, containing in the one case twenty, and in the other sixteen, lines of the text and the colophon with the printer's name. The only perfect copy hitherto generally known is that preserved at the Bodleian Library, which belongs to an edition "Imprinted at London in Paules Churchyearde, at the Sygne of the Sunne, by Anthonie Kytson" whose career as a publisher seems to have been comprised within the years 1549 and 1579. Of this as the only complete edition I then knew I made my first transcript, though subsequent collation showed that the imperfect edition at St. John's College contained many better readings and an earlier spelling, while the copy at the University Library, Cambridge (sometimes, though I think erroneously, attributed to the press of Robert Wyer), belonged to an intermediate edition. The registration by the Bibliographical Society in its _Hand-lists of English Printers_, 1501-1556, of the copy of an edition of 1533, printed by William Rastell, in the Pepys Collection at Magdalene College, Cambridge, sent me to Cambridge for a new transcript. On examination, the Magdalene edition proved to be identical with that at St. John's College, Oxford, which had previously been conjecturally assigned to Rastell, perhaps by some one who had seen it before the last leaf disappeared. In reproducing Rastell's text I have not thought it necessary to print my collation of the later editions, as it is clear that the unidentified edition at the University Library, Cambridge (U. L. C.), was printed from Rastell's, and Kitson's from this. The printer of the U. L. C. edition introduced some errors into his text, most of which Kitson copied: e.g. _hote_ for _hore_ in l. 38, omission of second _so_ in l. 68, and of second _as_ in l. 72, _name_ for _maner_ in l. 115, _or_ for _of_ in l. 357, _we_ for _I_ in l. 427, _plumyng_ for _plumpyng_ in l. 657, _thynges_ for _thynge_ in l. 660, _showryng_ for _skowryng_ in l. 661, _ye_ for _yt_ in l. 699, _and_ for _all_ in l. 705, _belyke_ for _be leak[e]y_ in l. 800; though he corrected a few: e.g. _pale_ for _dale_ in l. 277. On the other hand, Kitson introduced some sixty or seventy errors of his own, such as _creatour_ for _creature_ in l. 5, _well_ for _we_ in l. 21, _myngled_ for _mynglynge_ in l. 144, _mery_ for _mary_ in l. 366, _beseched_ for _besecheth_ in l. 347, _pycked_ for _prycked_ in l. 467, _bodily_ for _boldely_ in l. 470, _solyter_ for _solycyter_ in l. 496, etc. As these variations are obviously misprints and nothing more, it would have been pedantic to record them in full, and these samples will doubtless suffice. The following title-page is a representation, not a reproduction, of the original. There is no running head-line in Rastell's text.

ALFRED W. POLLARD.

FOOTNOTES:

[89] The full title of this play is rather instructive:--"Of Gentylnes & Nobylyte: a dyaloge betwen the marchaunt, the knyght & the plowman dysputyng who is a verey gentylman & who is a noble man and how men shuld come to auctoryte, compiled in maner of an enterlude with divers toys & gestis addyd therto to make mery pastyme and disport."

[90] _The Pardoner and the Frere_ is dated 5 April, 1533; _Johan Johan_, 12 February, 153¾.

[91]

And eke, yf thou dysturbe me anythynge, Thou art also a traytour to the Kynge, For here hath he graunted me vnder his brode seale That no man, yf he love hys hele, Sholde me dysturbe or let in any wyse

[92] If the reference in l. 636 of the _Play of the Wether_ (see note) is to be pressed, this would be an exception, giving us between 1523 and 1533 as the date of composition.

[93] Dr. Swoboda erroneously places Edward VI.'s birth in August, a slip of some importance as to some extent spoiling his argument that _Thersites_ must have been written for a performance at an earlier date. But perhaps even in October it would not be quite correct to say "All herbs are dead," while the reference to a New Year's gift, though not quite decisive, makes it probable that the play was written for a Christmas entertainment. In any case it is intrinsically probable that a play acted at an improvised festivity on the birth of an heir to the throne would be an old one, rather than specially written for the occasion.

[94]

If no man will with me battle take, A voyage to hell quickly I will make, And there I will beat the devil and his dame, And bring the souls away: I fully intend the same. After that in Hell I have ruffled so, Straight to old Purgatory will I go, I will clean that so purge round about That we shall need no pardons to help them out.

[95] Dr. Swoboda, who speaks of the plays from the press of William Rastell as printed by his father (John), was apparently unaware that neither _The Pardoner and the Frere_ nor _Johan Johan_ bears Heywood's name, and takes his authorship of them for granted.

[96] It is not contended that the payment was for the performance of _Thersites_, only that it shows that Heywood was a likely man to be called on to produce a play about this period.

[97] See notes to ll. 263 and 482. I quote here the end of the French farce in order to give the "wax" episode in full.

_Le Cousin._ Or ca cousin iay pense Dung subtil affaire, Dont vous serez riche a iamas.

_Pernet._ Riche, cousin?

_Le Cousin._ Certes, sire, vous fault chauffer Et faire ung subtil ouuraige, Qui vous gardera de dommaige, Cousin, beau sire.

_Pernet._ Me fault il donc chauffer la cire, Tandis que vous banqueterez? Corbieu, ien suis marry, Je croy que ce paste est bon.

_Le Cousin._ Chauffez & mettez du charbon Lymaige sera proffittable.

_Pernet._ Vous irayge signer la table? Je scay bien le benedicite.

_Le Cousin._ Faictes ce que iay recite. Dea! cousin! ne perdez point de temps.

_Pernet._ Cest vng trespouure passetemps De chauffer la cire quant on digne! Regardez elle est plus molle que laine, En la chauffant rien naqueste.

_Le Cousin._ Conclus & conqueste! Auec la femme ie banqueste, Combien que ie ne soye le sire Et son mary chauffe la cire.

The play of the wether

[Decoration]

A new and a very mery enterlude of all maner wethers made by John Heywood,

[Decoration]

The players names.

Jupiter a god. Mery reporte the vyce. The gentylman. The marchaunt. The ranger. The water myller. The wynde myller. The gentylwoman. The launder. A boy the lest that can play.

[Decoration]

The Play of the Wether

_Jupyter_ A ii

RYght farre to longe, as now, were to recyte The auncyent estate wherein our selfe hath reyned, What honour, what laude, gyven us of very ryght, What glory we have had, dewly unfayned, Of eche creature, which dewty hath constrayned; 5 For above all goddes, syns our father's fale, We, Jupiter, were ever pryncypale.

If we so have beene, as treuth yt is in dede, Beyond the compas of all comparyson, Who coulde presume to shew, for any mede, 10 So that yt myght appere to humayne reason, The hye renowne we stande in at this season? For, syns that heven and earth were fyrste create, Stode we never in suche tryumphaunt estate

As we now do, whereof we woll reporte 15 Suche parte as we se mete for tyme present, Chyefely concernynge your[98] perpetuall comforte, As the thynge selfe shall prove in experyment, Whyche hyely shall bynde you, on knees lowly bent, Sooly to honour oure hyenes, day by day. 20 And now to the mater gyve eare, and we shall say.

Before our presens, in our hye parlyament, Both goddes and goddeses of all degrees Hath[99] late assembled, by comen assent, For the redres of certayne enormytees, 25 Bred amonge them, thorow extremytees Abusyd in eche to other of them all, Namely, to purpose, in these moste specyall:

Our forsayde father Saturne, and Phebus, Eolus and Phebe, these foure[100] by name, 30 Whose natures, not onely, so farre contraryous, But also of malyce eche other to defame, Have longe tyme abused, ryght farre out of frame, The dew course of all theyr constellacyons, To the great damage of all yerthly nacyons: 35

Whyche was debated in place sayde before; A ii _b_ And fyrste, as became, our father moste auncyent, With berde whyte as snow, his lockes both colde & hore, Hath entred[101] such mater as served his entent, Laudynge his frosty mansyon in the fyrmament, 40 To ayre & yerth as thynge moste precyous, Pourgynge all humours that are contagyous.

How be yt, he alledgeth that, of longe tyme past, Lyttell hath prevayled his great dylygens, Full oft uppon yerth his fayre frost he hath cast, 45 All thynges hurtfull to banysh out of presens. But Phebus, entendynge to kepe him in sylens, When he hath labored all nyght in his powres,[102] His glarynge beamys maryth all in two howres.