This series provides a high-quality selection of early printings of literary works, textual editions, anthologies and literary criticism which are of lasting scholarly interest. Ranging from Old English to Shakespeare to early twentieth-century work from around the world, these books offer a valuable resource for scholars in reception history, textual editing, and literary studies.
College Plays
George Charles Moore Smith (1858–1940) was a renowned literary scholar who graduated from St John’s College, Cambridge, with a first-class degree in the classics in 1881. In 1896 he was made professor of English language and literature at Firth College, Sheffield, and he played a key role in building up the social and academic position of the institution after it became the University of Sheffield in 1905. College Plays Performed in the University of Cambridge (1923) includes a chronological table of the Latin plays performed by scholars at the university in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The study also contains Moore Smith’s 48-page introduction along with an appendix of actor lists. The introduction provides useful context to sixteenthand seventeenth-century literary and theatrical culture at the University of Cambridge, discussing both the ‘outlines of [the plays] histories’ and the ‘manner of [their] production’.
Cambridge University Press has long been a pioneer in the reissuing of out-of-print titles from its own backlist, producing digital reprints of books that are still sought after by scholars and students but could not be reprinted economically using traditional technology. The Cambridge Library Collection extends this activity to a wider range of books which are still of importance to researchers and professionals, either for the source material they contain, or as landmarks in the history of their academic discipline.
Drawing from the world-renowned collections in the Cambridge University Library, and guided by the advice of experts in each subject area, Cambridge University Press is using state-of-the-art scanning machines in its own Printing House to capture the content of each book selected for inclusion. The files are processed to give a consistently clear, crisp image, and the books finished to the high quality standard for which the Press is recognised around the world. The latest print-on-demand technology ensures that the books will remain available indefinitely, and that orders for single or multiple copies can quickly be supplied.
The Cambridge Library Collection will bring back to life books of enduring scholarly value (including out-of-copyright works originally issued by other publishers) across a wide range of disciplines in the humanities and social sciences and in science and technology.
College Plays
Performed in the University of Cambridge
George Charles Moore Smith
Ca M b RIDGE U n I v ER SI ty P RE SS
Cambridge, new york, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape town, Singapore, São Paolo, Delhi, Dubai, tokyo
Published in the United States of america by Cambridge University Press, new york
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781108008891
This book reproduces the text of the original edition. The content and language reflect the beliefs, practices and terminology of their time, and have not been updated.
Cambridge University Press wishes to make clear that the book, unless originally published by Cambridge, is not being republished by, in association or collaboration with, or with the endorsement or approval of, the original publisher or its successors in title.
COLLEG E PLAYS
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
C F CLAY, MANAGER
LONDON : FETTER LANE, E.C.4
NEW YORK : THE MACMILLAN CO. BOMBAY I
CALCUTTA j- MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD MADRAS J
TORONTO : THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, LTD
TOKYO : MARUZEN-KABUSHIKI-KAISHA
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
COLLEGE PLAYS
PERFORMED IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
By G. C. MOORE SMITH
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS 1923
CAMBRIDGE
PRIKTED IN GREAT BRITAIN
PREFACE
THE following pages contain the results of work done for the most part a good many years ago. They illustrate the references to plays in the bursarial accounts of the Cambridge colleges, which were transcribed at the same time and which are to be published shortly by the Malone Society.
They are also supplementary to Dr F. S.Boas' standard work University Drama in the Tudor Age (1914) and to the same author's chapter on University Plays in the Cambridge History of English Literature with its appended Bibliography. It has been my endeavour not to repeat what has been so well said by Dr Boas. But perhaps in what has been left to me to say here, there is still something which may be of service to future historians of the University Drama Much of it I know is tentative and open to correction. But the subject is one on which much has yet to be done.
In the Malone volume I have expressed my gratitude to the many officers of colleges whose ungrudging assistance made myworksopleasant and without which it could not have been done at all.
G. C. M. S.
February 1923
CAMBRIDGE PLAYS
OUTLINES OF THEIR HISTORY
UR chief source of knowledge in regard to the acting of plays in the different colleges of the University of Cambridge apart from that derived from the plays themselves printed or in MS. is the Bursarial Accounts. Unfortunately however this source often fails us. At StJohn's there are no college accounts extant of earlier date than 1555 and so we have no record of the performance of the plays seen in the college hall by Ascham. At Caius there are no accounts before 1609, though we know of the performance of a play at Caius just thirty years earlier. Even where the accounts exist, their mention of performances known to us from other sources is only haphazard, especially after the earliest period. And where they do mention a performance, more often than not they omit the name of the play
Long before plays were acted by members of the University in their several colleges, players,musicians and jesters of the town orstrollers attached to some great household frequently made their appearance and received an acknowledgement from the colleges of the performances they gave. Entries of such payments are found in the accounts of King's Hall (preserved in Trinity College) as early as Michaelmas 1448-1449 (27 Henry VI).
Payments to thetown-waits ('mimis,' 'tibicinibus')
MS I
CAMBRIDGE PLAYS
of Cambridge occur in various college accounts annually throughout the whole period * The y probably received further payment when called upon , as they frequently were, to provide music at college plays 2 Th e earliest evidence of th e production of plays by th e members of a college themselves is found in the accounts of King's College Thus : 1482-83: 'Item sol Goldyng pro vestimentis per eundem emptis pro lusoribus erga primum diem Januarij xx d Item sol. Goldyng & Suthey pro expensis circa ludos in festo Natalis dni vijs ij d >
1 Th e Waits held their office by election by the town There were three of them Cooper, Annals, 11, 62, quotes a minute from the Corporation Day Book showing that on Hock Day (May) 1552 the Commoners of Cambridge agreed that John Richemond and John Clerke should continue waits and the Town minstrels during good behaviour and that Benet Pryme should be the third if he would This was apparently an unsuccessful attempt to patch up a quarrel, as Mere on 2nd Feb 1556/7 (see J . Lamb, Letters, Statutes, etc., 1838) while mentioning that Benet Pryme and his men were present at King's College when Mere dined there, distinguishes them clearly from the waits of the town Th e same distinction is made in the accounts of the Steward of Trinit y College for 1557-8: 'gyuen in rewarde vnto wydowe prymes men both for shewes & playes & ye whayttes rewarde—XXs.'
As late as 1820 the waits of Westminster held office under the High Constable and Court of Burgesses and allowed of no interlopers (Chambers' Book of Days, n , 743)-
1484—85: '(Libe r Communarum . Term . Nativ . 5t h week.) Ite m pr o communi s ij pictoru m pe r tota m septimania m pr o le disgysyn s erg a festum purificationi s xvj d
ibid . 6t h week. Ite m pr o communi s duoru m pictoru m per v dies pro-le disgysyn g xx d >
1496-97 : 'Ite m sol. m . Stalis pr o expensis suis circa ludo s tempor e natalis dn i ann o xii ° XXs'
1508-09 : 'Ite m xiij 0 die Januar y m Stephin s pr o lus u tempor e Natali s dn i xx?'
1510-11 : 'Ite m m West pr o lusu i n tempor e Natalis dn i XXs'
1535-36 : 'Ite m in Regardi s datis Mr o Viceproposit o pr o supervisione ludoru m i n tempor e Natali s dn i xx s >
1536-37 : 'Ite m i n Regardi s dati s Mr o Rivete pr o supervisione Ludoru m in tempor e Natali s dn i XXs'
1541—42: 'Ite m pr o supervisione ludoru m ho c ann o xx s >
1544-45 : 'Ite m pr o supervisione lud i natalis xx s >
1545-46 : 'Ite m m . Parky n pr o expensis suis circa ludo s natalicios xx s >
1548-49 : 'Ite m pr o supervisione ludoru m tempor e natalis lvij s vij d >
At King's College dow n t o this date w e have n o information of the character of th e plays performed. Such indications we get first in tw o items of th e accounts of King's Hall
1510-11: 'Item solutum est pro comedia Terentij in Ludo vis viijd'
1516-17: 'Item in regardis m r o thrope pro ludo puerorum suorum therencij iijs iiijd'
M r Throp e was 'locu m tenens ' or vice-master of King's Hal l at this time, th e master being apparently non-resident Th e second item makes it clear that his
CAMBRIDGE PLAYS
pupils presented a play of Terenc e in th e winter of 1516-17 , an d > a s Terenc e was not likely to be acted by strolling players, w e may conclude that th e performance in 1510-1 1 was also given by undergraduates of King's Hall .
Although th e accounts of King's Hal l are preserved down to th e year 1543 when it was about t o be dissolved, they contain no other mention of plays acted by members of th e Hall . I t is therefore extremely fortunate that they show that Terenc e was acted in Cambridge as early as 1510 and that th e Renaissance influence was by that date already at work N o doubt it was some time before this influence became predominant. Th e plays which Bale assigns to Thoma s Artour, fellow of St John' s 1520-1532 , to judg e by their titles (Microcosmus and Mundus Plumbeus) partook of th e character of Moralities But at Christmas 1536 Aristophanes' PZulus was acted at St John' s in Gree k with the Erasmian pronunciation and about 1540 Thoma s Watson's Latin tragedy Absalon, an imitation of the tragedies of Seneca, was acted at th e same college
Aristophanes' Pax was given at Trinit y in Greek , probably at Christmas 1546, th e first Christmas in the life of the college. I t must have been either that Christmas or after 1553 that Christopherson's Jephthes was played, if it was ever played at all, i.e. at Trinity . Th e Greek version is extant in tw o manuscripts, to be dated c. 1544 1 : th e Latin version, if it « Cp . Boas, University Drama, p . 45 .
ever existed, is lost. After this we hear no more of plays in Greek, but th e original Latin comedies of Plautus and Terenc e and the original Latin tragedies of Seneca continued t o be given on college stages at least down to 1583
D r Boas' book gives such an admirable account of the development of the Academic drama till 1603 that it will not be necessary to d o more than remind his readers of the main features, and add a few supplementary touches
Seneca's tragedies and Plautus and Terence's comedies were gradually replaced on college stages by modern imitations of them—borrowed or original —and by other forms of drama, generally in Latin, occasionally in English. Tragi c and serious subjects were provided by the Bible, and Cambridge saw Ziegler's (?) He/i (1548) , Christopherson's Jephthes (154 6 or 1555-6?) ' Birck's (?) Sapientia Solomonis (1559-60) , Buchanan's (?) Baptistes and Foxe's Christus Triumphant (1562-3) , Udall's Ezeckias (in English) (1564) , Legge's (perhaps Buchanan's) Jephthes (1566) . Protestantism found a controversial weapon in Naogeorgus' Pammachius (1545 ) and in the show of The Imprisoned Bishops (1564) Th e 'Prodigal Son ' plays of the continent seemed to provide edification for young students and they too were staged on our boards: Hypocrisis in 1548/9 , Acolastus in 1560-1 , Asotus in 1565-6 English history furnished its lessons of Senecan morality when D r Legge's Richardus Tertius in
CAMBRIDGE PLAYS
three actions was presented at St John' s in the spring of 1578/9 ' •
Cambridge, however, as D r Boas has pointed out, was especially given to Romantic Comedy I n this genre it composed its own plays, thoug h generally on the basis of some Italian play or story On e is inclined t o date the beginnings of Italian influence in the last quarter of th e 16th century : certainly Gammer Gurton's Needle (c. 1552?) knows nothing of it, bu t is a farcical comedy of English invention owing a little of its form to Plautus. Yet there is evidence hard to get over, evidence whic h was not known to D r Boas, that before Gammer Gurton was written, th e Italian influence had already operated. Th e play Lalia, based on a Frenc h translation of Gli Ingannati, has been assigned to th e year 1594/5 whe n it was acted at Queens' College before th e Earl of Essex and other noblemen Yet among th e archives of Queens ' there is a paper ofthe date 1546/ 7 which is headed 'Ne w made garmentes at th e comcedie of Laelia Modenas. ' On e cannot say that th e play as we know it had not been rewritten later But th e fact that it was produced at Queens' College in 1594/5 suggests tha t those responsible for it then had th e old Queens ' play before them . And one may ask, if they had not had it, would the y have been likely t o hit on a foreign play for imitation written and printed so many years earlier ?
1 Reference to the College accounts will make it almost certain that this date and not 1579/80, as generally given, is the right one
THEIR HISTORY
Assuming however that a Latin version of th e Lselia story was produced in 1546/7 , ther e is a gap in time before th e next comedies known t o us—namely, Fraunce' s Victoria (c. 1579) , Hymenaus of about th e same date and the three plays off . 1597 (introduced by th e revived Leelia of 1594/5) , Silvanus, Hispanus, and Machiavellus. Allfivewere produced at St John's Meanwhile plays had been written in whic h th e interest was sought in topical satire The y were headed by Pedantius (15 81) , th e author of which is no w ascertained to have been Edwar d Forset, Fellow of Trinity 1 . Its butt was Gabrie l Harvey . Th e three Parnassus plays of St John' s College satirizing in English verse th e woeful prospects of th e poor student were acted between 1598 an d 1602 . I n 159 9 th e coarse but brilliant Club Law embodied th e contempt and hatred of young University men for th e civic authorities of Cambridge—thus taking u p again a them e which had been treated in 1582/ 3 by one Mudd e of Pembroke in a little play no w lost Meanwhile another Italian genre, Pastoral, had made its appearance with a Latin version of L . Groto' s Pentimento Amoroso, Parthenia, and another of Guarini' s Pastor Fido, Pastor Fidus (c. 1595-1600?) . Tw o writers within th e next twenty years were conspicuous pastoralists, Phineas Fletcher, wh o produced an English comedy at King's in 1606 , an d his English piscatory, Sice/ides, in 1614/5 , an d D r Samuel Brooke of Trinit y whose Scyros (a version
• See Times Literary Supplement, i o Oct 1918
CAMBRIDGE PLAYS
of Bonarelli's Filli di Sciro) was acted in 1612/3 before Prince Charles and the Elector Palatine, an d whose Melanthe entertained Kin g James in 1614/5 . I n th e first twenty years of the 17th century ther e was a curious revival of the morality-type of play, in which the characters were abstract conceptions. I t was perhaps suggested by the Oxford play Bellum Grammaticale, which had an Oxford successor in Zouch' s Fallacy (called i n its revised form The Sophister). Thre e Cambridge plays of this type, all in English, ar e possibly all th e work of Thoma s Tomki s of Trinit y (author of th e English comedy Aliumazar acted before King James in 1614/5) Thes e are Lingua, probably produced as early as 1602, th e imperfect Locus, Corpus, etc., c. 1604/5 , and Pathomachia (perhaps never acted), (c. 1617) W e may also more doubtfully assign to Tomki s th e tw o shows, Band, Cuffe and Ruffe (entitled i n its revised form Exchange Ware) and Workefor Cutlers. The y were both printed in 1615 , th e former being entered on th e Stat. Reg. as ' A Dialogue between Ruffe, Cuffe an d Band ' to Miles Patricke, 10 Feb . 1614/5 , th e second on 4 Jul y 1615 . Othe r plays of this type are in Latin, such as th e anonymous play, Microcosmus, etc. (Trinit y MS . R. 10. 4) , Stoicus Fapulans acted at St John' s in 1618 , an d Fucus (Queens ' 1622/3) . Meanwhil e romantic an d satirical comedy continued its course with Leander (1598/ 9 and 1602/3) and Labyrinthus (1602/3)— DOt n by Walter Hawkesworth of Trinity , Adelphe (1611/2 )
THEIR HISTORY
by S. Brooke of Trinity, Albumazar (1614/5) by T. TomkisofTrinity, Euribates (?1616) byAquila Cruso of Caius, Fortunia (or Susenbrotus)—acted byTrinity men before King James and Prince Charles in 1616, perhapsatRoyston—Fraus Honesta byEdmund Stub, Trinity (1618/9 and 1629), Pseudomagia by W. Mewe, Emmanuel (c. 1625), Cancer (of unknown date and college), Paria by T Vincent of Trinity acted before King Charles 1627/8—the two last adapted respectively from L Salviati's // Granchio and E Luchetti's he due Sorelle Rivali,—P. Hausted's Senile Odium (Queens', ? 1628/9)—possibly Senilis Amor (c. 1635/6)
Satire of Common Lawyers, especially of the Recorder of Cambridge, had found expression in Ignoramus, acted before King James twice in 1615, satire of Jesuits and Puritans in J Hacket's Loiola, acted at Trinity before King James in 1622/3, and in the semi-morality Fucus Histriomastix by R Ward of Queens', acted before the king at Newmarket a week or two later The anti-Puritan spiritappears also in Hausted's Rivali Friends, 1631/2, W Johnson's Valetudinarium (Queens', 1637/8) and A Cowley's Naufragium Joculare (Trinity, 1638/9) Between 1626 and 1631 we must put Randolph's witty productions, Aristippus, The Conceited Peddler, The Entertainment (Muses Looking-Glasse), Hey for Honesty, etc. Aristippus was presented at Trinity 'in a private shew,' The Conceited Peddler 'in a strange shew'; it does not appear if Hey for Honesty
io
CAMBRIDGE PLAYS
was ever acted Hausted's Rivall Friends, an d Randolph's Jealous Lovers, were acted before Kin g Charles an d Queen Mar y in 1631/2 , A. Cowley's The Guardian before Prince Charles in 1641/2 All three are of course in English. I t is hard t o decide if the anonymous Fraus Pia, supposing it t o b e a Cambridge play, dates from this time or from th e Restoration
Before th e outbreak of Civil War , most colleges had ceased to give plays After 1620 we hear n o more of plays at St John's , so famous for its plays in earlier times : n o more of th e more sporadic performances which used to take place at King's , Jesus, Christ's, Peterhouse, Caius. Trinit y an d Queens ' seem t o have been th e only colleges left in which plays were still performed with distinction. Queens ' was, as w e have seen, especially active in th e thirties when it had Peter Hausted to set against To m Randolph of Trinity . Before th e end of th e decade it had built itself a Comedy House :
Alas regardless of their doom Th e little victims play.
I n 1642 Puritanism, which th e prologue of Fucus (1622/3 ) had described as striving ut comoedias quotannis parturientem Academiam abortum facere cogeret, at last achieved its purpose Fo r eighteen years n o more plays were presented an d even th e Restoration brough t but a flickering revival
I t is time t o tur n back from a re'sume' of th e types
THEIR HISTORY
of play acted in Cambridge to a consideration of the aspect in which college plays were regarded at different periods and by different people. The earlier humanists, such as Ascham, saw in them a potent educational instrument, and had no scruples about their effect on morals. The redoubtable Puritan T Cartwright produced Trinummus at Trinity early in 1564. The German W. Soone was at Cambridge some years before 1575 At that time the humanistic side of the performances was still the prominent one. When he thought of the plays that beguiled the long evenings of January, February and March, he had in his mind tragedies ofSophocles, Euripides and Seneca, comedies of Aristophanes, Plautus and Terence. In his eyes they were acted with rare ability and set forth with magnificencex But already changes were in progress. Theclassical interest declined; the new interest in Italian romance grew stronger. Plays may have become more amusing, but they certainly became less edifying. Tragedy gradually ceased to beplayed The performances became more and more expensive. And the evergrowing body of Puritan opinion saw more evil than good in play-acting and worked for its abolition. As early as 27 Feb. 1564/5 we find the Vice-Chancellor informing the Archbishop of Canterbury that one in Christs and some in St Johns will be hardly brought to wear surplyses, and ii or iii in Trinitie
1 See his account of Cambridge in vol 11 of G Braunius' De pracipuis totius tmi'verst 'vrbibus, liber secundus. Dated from Cologne, 1575-
12
CAMBRIDGE PLJYS
college thynke it very unseeming yt Christians sholde playe or be present at any prophane comaedies or tragsedies'
Th e performances were denounced from th e pulpit, even the pulpit of St Mary's . O n Ash Wednesday 1585/6 , Joh n Smith, M.A. , in a sermon 'a d clerum ' declared that the plays at Saturday and Sunday at night were breaches of the Christian Sabbath On Sunday for they were at it before the sun^was set. On Saturday for disabling of their bodies for"the sabbath duties2.
Stephen Gosson in his Piayes confuted infiveactions ( ? 1590) represents a more extreme opinion still: So subtill is the devill, that under the colour of recreation in London and of exercise of learning in the Universities, by seeing of piayes, he maketh us to join with the Gentiles in their corruptions 3.
Th e sustained attack of John Rainolds in his controversy with Gager at Oxford in 1592- 5 an d in his book Th' Overthrow of Stage-Playes, 1599 , is fully treated by D r Boas 4
I n vain does Heywoo d in 1612 call on th e memories of his past Cambridge days an d reassert th e old humanist defence of academical plays 5 H e had th e older men of th e university on his side, but he has himself heard men of a newer school 'a s liberally tax th e exercises performed in their colleges as these
1 Cooper, Annals, 11, 213.
J Cooper, Annals, 11, 415.
3 Quoted in Retrospective Review, xn , 20
4 University Drama, passim.
3 See Boas, ibid. p . 350.
acted on our public stages.' And Prynne in 1633 is justified in saying that college plays were then, owing to the expenses of time and money and their falling under religious condemnation in common with plays in general, less frequent than they had been in former times: 'only practised in some private houses [i.e colleges] perchance once in three or four years, and that by the particular statutes of those houses made in times of Popery'1 .
1 Histriomastix (1633), p. 490: 'If any here Object: That our Vniversities approve of private Stage-playes acted by Schollers in private Colledges: therefore these Playes are not so intolerably evill in Their opinions I answer; that our Vniversities though they tolerate and connive at, yet they give no publike approbation to these private Enterludes, which are not generally received into all Colledges, but onely practised in some private houses (perchance once in three or foure yeeres;) and that by the particular Statutes of those houses made in times of Popery, which require some Latine Comedies, for learning-sake onely, to bee acted now and then: Which Playes as they are composed "for* the most part by idle brames, who affect not better studies; and acted (as I.G.) informes us, by Gentle-bloods, and lusty Swashbucklers,who preferre an ounce of vaine-glory, ostentation and strutting on the Stage, before a pound of learning; or by such who are sent to the University, not so much to obtaine knowledge, as to keepe them from the common ryot of Gentlemen in these dayes; their spectators for the most part being such as both Poets and Actors are; even such as reckon no more of their studies, then spend-all Gentlemen of their castsuites; So the graver, better and more studious sort,
• I.G his Refutation of the Apologie for Actors, page 17, whose words I here recite [I.G according to the British Museum Catalogue is John Greene.]
CAMBRIDGE PL4YS
Nor were the plays that were now acted of a kind calculated to propitiate the Puritan. Some verses written after the performances of Ignoramus in 1615 point out the change: Where Tragedies of Sovereigntie & State Were staged acting Kinges &princes fate, Where witty Comedies abhorring gall Were exercised in each Colledge hall, There there (o shame) nought now in steade of these But Pasquilles grosse & carrion jestes doe please Whose lofty Cothurnes Sophocles did passe She nowe turnes Tarleton with her Cumane asse: Dulman & Ignoramaj be her theames in steade of Phoebus &his tragicke threnes1
The young Milton, as he tells us, when witnessing some performance during his Cambridge days, c. 1624-30, felt only disgust at seeing men intended for Holy Orders: writhing and unboning their clergy limbs to all the antick and dishonestgesturesof Trincaloes,buffoons, and bawds; prostituting the shame of that ministry, which they had, or were near having, to the eyes of courtiers and court ladies, their grooms and mademoiselles
The Puritan ascendancy stopped play-acting in colleges for eighteen years, and when the Restoration came, the old impetus at Queens' College had died especially Divines...condemne them, censure them, come not at them." Neither are these Playes so frequent now as they have beene in former times, by reason of those mischiefes, "those expences of time and mony which they occasion, and that affinity they have with common Stage-playes which all ages,.and these our Vniversities have solemnely condemned."1
1 Add. MS. 23,723
THEIR HISTORY
away Only one college was faithful to the old tradition
Trinity College alone seems to have set itself to rival or eclipsethetheatricaltriumphsofthepast, butweare not aware that even Trinity found a new dramatist.
In 1662 Jonson's Silent Woman seems to have been given, probably in English1 , and on the following night Brooke's Adelphe was revived. The prologue suggests even that new plays were prohibited: Novam ideo iam quia nee libet nee licet, Vetustam ecce vobis exhibemus fabulam.
In 1663 a performance was given before the Duke of Monmouth, butwe know not of what play: another unknown comedy was presented in 1664, and two comedies in 1665 In 1669 Adelfhe seems to have been revived once more, and to have had two performances, that on May 1st being in honour of Cosmo de Medicis, Prince of Tuscany Of this we have an account byamember ofthe Prince's suite:
The evening coming on, his highness was introduced into the theatre, a room rather small than spacious, where was represented by the scholars a Latin comedy, which pleased more by the elegance of the dresses, the ease and gracefulness of the actors, than by their elocution, which was very difficult to understand, without being accustomed to the accent The story of the comedy was as follows: A merchant of Nola &c...The comedy concludes in the midst of rejoicings with a ball, which was managed with great elegance*
1 Epilogue to Adelphe. Pepys saw The Silent Woman in London on Jan 7 and May 25, 1661
» Account by Count Lorenzo Magalotti, quoted in Cooper, Annals, in, 533.
CAMBRIDGE PLAYS
Similarly in 1670 an unknown comedy was performed twice, once before the University, once before the Duke of Ormond Finally in 1670 a comedy was prepared for the Prince ofOrange (afterwards William III) but he did not come, and itwas given to the University only
Trinity's energies now seemto havebeen exhausted. Academic drama, beginning its course with Seneca, Plautus and Terence, as an instrument of education had become at last the mere amusement ofan evening, and even so had died. Joshua Barnes of Emmanuel wrote some plays about 1675, one of which The Academie or The Cambridge Dunns was performed on June 28th, 1675, andJune 26th, 1676, but this was a sporadic effort like that of Christopher Smart of Pembroke with his Grateful Fair of 1745-7 About 1837 we are told that 'an English play was acted in one of the halls with the sanction of the Master of the College and the Chancellor of the University'1 , but of this performance weknow no more The records of the A.D.C., the Footlights and the Thespids, and the Marlowe Society, and the great series of Greek plays which began in 1882, have little in common with those of the college performances of three and four centuries ago.
1 Cambridge Portfolio, I, 111, ita (1840)
TMANNER OF PRODUCTION OF COLLEGE PLAYS
THE PRODUCERS
'HE first question that arises is this: What was the connexion, if any, between the college plays produced in the 16th and 17th centuries and the institution known as the 'Christmas Lord'?
Dr Boas tells us that at Merton College, Oxford, a Christmas Lord, 'Rex Fabarum' as he was there called, was appointed as early as 1485 'per antiquam consuetudinem'1 According to Wood, whom Dr Boas quotes, he was the senior fellow that had not borne the office, and had from Christmas to Candlemas a mock-authority over his juniors Wood does not assign tothe' Rex Fabarum' the duty of providing plays or shows: but from a decree of the Dean and Chapter of Christ Church of Dec 12th, 1554, it seems that the annual comedies and tragedies were produced by 'the Lord.' (Dr Boas tells me however that it was the two Censors who were usually responsible for them and paid the accounts.) At St John's College, Oxford—at least when the office of Christmas Lord was filled again after 30 years intermission in 1607—it also fell to this officer to produce tragedies and comedies. Dr Boas suggests what is probably the true account of the matter, that the production of tragedies and comedies, an outcome of the Renaissance, had been attached to the office
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The strike at Too Dry
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
Title: The strike at Too Dry
Author: Willis Brindley
Release date: July 27, 2024 [eBook #74140]
Language: English
Original publication: United States: The Consolidated Magazines Corporation, 1924
Credits: Roger Frank and Sue Clark
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE STRIKE AT TOO DRY ***
The Strike at Too Dry
By Willis Brindley
Young Percival came out of the East to a Montana ranch, and a pleasant time was not had by all—though the reader will be much diverted.
The postmaster at Too Dry poked his head out of the door of the shack which served as combination of post office, real-estate office and residence, spat generously into the dusty road and yelled to the big man who had drawn up at what might in a city have been called the curb.
“Letter for you, Dog.”
“Who? Me?”
“I guess it’s for you. Came yesterday. It’s in a thick envelope and the address is Percival John Bigelow, Too Dry, Montana.”
“That’s me,” agreed Dog, and added mournfully: “Well, if that don’t beat the scratch. That’s two letters I got so far this year. If this keeps up, I’ll have to hire me a secretary. Bring it out to the car, Steve. What did she say?”
But the postmaster had returned, with the popping suddenness of a prairie-dog, to his hole of an office, and Dog saw that he must follow or do without his letter.
“You tote your own in this town,” he grumbled to the little man beside him. “You stay here, Ducky, till I come back, and don’t go wandering off anywhere. We gotta be traveling. It’ll be dark as the ace of spades, time we get home, as it is.”
“Don’t we meet the stage or nothin’?” whined Ducky.
“No, we don’t meet the stage or nothin’,” answered Dog, pushing back his wide hat and swinging a booted foot over the edge of the
coverless Ford. A stranger would have known at once why he who had been named Percival John was known to his fellows as “Dog.” He looked like a dog—very much like a bench bull, with his button nose, his underslung chin, his sharp little eyes and forehead that was almost no forehead at all. As for his partner, he came quite readily by his nickname—not through any facial resemblance to a duck, but because, with his short bowlegs, he walked like one. A preacher in a day long past had baptized him Elbert Spence.
Minutes passed, during which Ducky dozed, slumped low in the front seat, and when Dog finally came and climbed over into his place slowly, the face which Ducky opened his eyes on, was drawn and sober.
“You remember that I had a sister,” Dog said at last. “I don’t often speak of her.”
“Uh-huh!”
“Married an artist guy.”
“They’re never no good.”
“Not generally, but this one wasn’t so bad, take him altogether. Used to draw waterfalls and such, but he gave it up. Now he makes pretty pictures for toothpowder ads.”
“Uh-huh! What about it?”
“Well, they had a son, named after me—Percival Bigelow James. I got a letter from my sister. Seems he’s turned out bad.”
“That so?” Ducky roused himself into a sitting position. This was better. “Rob a bank or something?”
Dog shook his head.
“Nope. Turned poet.”
“Good gosh!” Ducky slumped again. Dog went on with it.
“He must be about twenty-five or -six years old now. You remember when we were in Klondike we got a letter from my sister about her having a kid, and I made him a nugget watchchain.”
“Oh, yes. You bummed most of those nuggets off me. But what about it? Ten minutes ago you were in a tooting hurry to get home,
and now you sit here drooling like a new calf.”
“I’m breaking it to you gently,” said Dog. “Fact is, Ducky, this letter says the boy’s health aint been any too good. Threatened with T.B., I reckon, though she don’t come right out with it. My sister wants this Percival to come out and pay us a visit.”
“Huh?”
“Yea-ah. I’ll read you the finish of it.” He pulled the letter from the pocket of his shirt, shucked the many closely written leaves from the envelope and read the concluding sentences. “‘And so, because I know that you would refuse, yet dare not give you an opportunity to refuse, I have arranged for Percy to start West on the day after mailing this letter, and of course you will arrange to meet him; and while your life must be rude and living-quarters of the roughest, we are sure that the change will be just what he needs. We have bought his ticket and berth and shall furnish him with funds to pay for meals and incidentals, but he must work and earn and stay with you until he has earned enough to bring him home again. This is part of our plan—a return to health, and the necessary discipline to make a man of him.’”
“Good gosh!” Ducky sat bolt upright now. “This letter came yesterday. That means he’ll be here on today’s stage?”
“That’s it,” said Dog. There was nothing more to be said. When things happen to people, things happen to them, and that’s all there is to it.
They summoned courage, finally, to discuss details. He could sleep in the loft—up there with Spud Dugan, the man-of-all-work about the place. Spud wouldn’t like it, and the boy wouldn’t care for Spud’s snoring, but they would have to put up with one another. He probably smoked tailor-made cigarettes. Ducky went to get a carton. He probably would be one of those fellows that’s always got to be washing himself. Dog went to buy some white soap, and then, remembering something, bought a dozen cakes of laundry soap as well. Time for the stage any time now, and presently it came, in an
enveloping swirl of gray dust—a big truck, with an extra seat crosswise behind the driver, and the back end filled with freight.
“Here he is,” bawled Duke Envers, the driver, and added to the slim youngster at his side: “There’s your uncle over there, him with the face like a bench bull.”
The young man climbed down, stiffly. He wore a flappy hat that had been pearl-colored, tweed knickerbockers, and boots of that golden yellow shade peculiar to New York outfitting shops.
“He’s got a couple of bags that was made from a cow apiece,” added Duke, “and they’s a crate of mail-order stuff for you, Dog.”
Percival stepped forward, blinking in the strong light. Dog, swallowing hard, strode toward him and shook hands with a heartiness at which the visitor cried out.
“My partner, Ducky Spence,” said Dog. Percy nodded, his right hand safely behind his back. Ducky went for the bags, and presently returned, staggering.
“Don’t forget that mail-order stuff,” Duke Envers bawled to Dog, climbing back over the freight. “It’s here in the hind end. I’ll hand it down. Looks like a washing-machine to me.”
He handed it down, and Dog carried it to the Ford, lifted it over the side and snugged it in, between the back and front seats, on top of sundry supplies. The stranger and Ducky followed, Ducky swaying under the grips, his legs moving with that strange waddle which had given him his moniker. Dog lifted the grips, plunking them down on the back seat, which they completely filled.
“Maybe we better eat first,” he suggested. “It’s a good forty mile, and the road’s a bit rough in spots. What do you say?” This last to nephew Percival.
“What does it matter? What does anything matter?” squeaked Percival.
Dog looked at him, looked at Ducky. Ducky looked at Percival, looked at Dog. It was worse than they had feared.
“Well, if you don’t want to eat, what do you want to do?” Dog asked.
“I want to go back.”
Dog grabbed him by the arm. “That’s the one place you don’t go. We eat.”
He lead the Easterner across the street to the Ideal Cafe, Ducky following, sundry acquaintances staring. They mounted stools at the counter.
“Ducky and I are having ham and eggs. How about you?”
Percival shivered,—perhaps shuddered,—gazing straight into the fly-specked mirror of the back bar.
“I think I shall just have some thin toast, without butter, some bar-le-duc jelly and a pot of oolong tea, very weak.”
Red Leonard, cook and waiter, treated himself to half a snigger. The second half died at the look Dog gave him.
“That makes three ham and eggs, Red,” Dog said, “with some fried potatoes and a slab of pie and plenty of coffee. If you’ve got any comparatively modern eggs, we’d like to be favored with ’em. And snap out of it. This is my nephew. Going up to our place for a while with Ducky and me, to pay a visit to Spud Dugan.”
He grinned, and Red grinned back.
“Spud Dugan is our cook,” Dog told Percival, by way of conversation. “Used to wash dishes for Red, here, but we got him to come up to the ranch and work for us. Ducky likes to cook, but he can’t, and I’m a good cook, but I wont, so we figured we’d better get in a neutral party.”
They ate, then, with that whole-souled attention to food which makes conversation impossible, Percival nibbling at first, but getting in some pretty fair work himself toward the finish, for he had not broken fast since morning. Observing this, Dog felt encouraged, very slightly, but his courage fell when he attempted to draw Percival into conversation on the long ride home, while the lad sat beside him, with Ducky perched precariously on the luggage in the rear.
“This is a fine country,” he hazarded. “Gets a bit dry at times, of course.”
“I don’t like it,” said Percival.
“You will, all right. Probably the name sort of prejudiced you—Too Dry.”
