PARISH AMUSEMENTS
Notwithstanding that the parish was instituted primarily for
ecclesiastical objects, the people quickly came to understand the
utility of the organization for common and social purposes. Although
it was not till well into the sixteenth century that any successful
attempt was made to impose by law upon the parishioners, as such, any
purely secular duty, such as the care of local roads and bridges,
or the repair of ditches, dykes, and sluices, the people’s wardens
had long before this assumed the superintendence of all the common
parochial amusements, and in some instances of works, such as brewing
and baking, etc., undertaken for the common benefit or profit. These
probably mostly sprang out of their necessary management of parochial
property, which had a natural tendency to grow in extent, and in
particular of the “Church House,” which in one form or other most
parishes possessed.
The _Church House_.--Mr. J. M. Cowper, in his preface to the _Accounts
of the Churchwardens of St. Dunstan’s, Canterbury_, gives a useful
description of the purposes for which the _Church_, or, as it was
sometimes called, the _Parish_, _House_ existed. In the fifteenth
century, and indeed before that, the church was the real centre of
all parochial life, social as well as religious. “From the font to the
grave the greater number of people lived within the sound of its bells.
It provided them with all the consolations of religion, and linked
itself with such amusements as it did not directly supply.”
[Illustration: CHURCH HOUSE, LINCOLN]
Parish meetings not unfrequently settled local disputes. Thus at
Canterbury in 1485, at St. Dunstan’s, there was some dispute between
the parish and a man named Baker, and the churchwardens spent 2½_d._
on arbitration. Later on, two families fell out, and the vicar and four
parishioners met in council, heard the parties, and put an end to the
difficulty.
A parish, with all the great interests involved in its proper
management, required some place where parish meetings could be held.
They were sometimes, no doubt, held in the aisle of the parish church,
but this arrangement was for obvious reasons inconvenient, and a
Church house became a necessity. Its existence was apparently almost
universal. At Hackney, for instance, the parish built a house in
which to hold meetings. At Yatton, in Somerset, in 1445, the people
subscribed to the building of their house; at Tintinhull, in the same
county, one was completed in 1497; but in 1531, another was erected to
take the place of the older one, and Thomas, Prior of Montacute, helped
the parish with a donation of twenty shillings.
The Church house was sometimes let out to tenants and for various
purposes, with a reservation of its use when necessary for parochial
meetings. Thus, at Wigtoft, the rent of the house brought in a
regular sum of money to the churchwardens. At Straton, in the county
of Cornwall, it was let on occasion; as, for instance, in 1513, the
accounts show a receipt of 8_d._ “of Richard Rowell for occupying of
the Church house;” and of 12_d._ “of the paynters for working in the
Church house.” At the annual fair time the Church house was let to
wandering merchants to display their goods. At St. Mary’s, Dover, in
1537, an item of parochial receipt was, “one whole year’s farme of the
churche house in Broad St., 5 shillings.”
Sometimes there was land belonging to the parish, which was let
together with the house; as, for example, at Cratfield, where, in 1534,
an acre of land was let with the “Church house.” Very probably this was
the land on which subsequently the parish shooting-butts were erected.
If there were receipts to the parish, there were, of course, also
expenses for repairs to the common house, which in some accounts appear
to be very frequent, and which shows probably that it was much used. In
one or two instances there seems to have been two floors to the house,
and in one of these instances these were let out separately, one of the
two tenants being a woman.
In many cases it is clear that cooking was done on the premises for the
parish meetings. In some Wiltshire accounts there is evidence of this,
and of utensils of various kinds being kept in the house for parochial
feasting and for ministering to the poor. The householders made merry
and collected money for church purposes, and the younger people had
dancing and bowls in many places, “while the ancients sat gravely by.”
At St. Dunstan’s, in Canterbury, there were two dozen trenchers and
spoons, and one annual dinner is mentioned.
* * * * *
Dr. Jessopp thus speaks of these Church houses--
“Frequently, indeed, one may say usually, there was a church house,
a kind of parish club, in which the gilds held their meetings and
transacted their business. Sometimes this Church-house was called
the Gild hall; for you must not make the mistake of thinking that
the Church houses were places of residence for the clergy. Nothing
of the kind. The Church house or Gild hall grew up as an institution
which had become necessary when the social life of the parish had
outgrown the accommodation which the church could afford, and when,
indeed, there was just a trifle too much boisterous merriment and too
little seriousness and sobriety to allow of the assemblies being held
in the church at all. The Church-house in many places became one of
the most important buildings in a parish, and in the little town of
Dereham, in Norfolk, the Church-house or Gild hall is still, I think,
the largest house in the town. When the great fire took place at
Dereham, in 1581, which destroyed almost the whole town, the Gild hall
or Church house, from being well built of stone, was almost the only
building in the place which escaped the terrible conflagration.”
The owners of the Church house, or “Court house,” as it was sometimes
called, were, of course, the churchwardens, as trustees of the
parishioners, and they made all the necessary arrangements to let or
lease it. At Berkhampstead “they always reserved to themselves the
right of using the great loft”, which apparently occupied the whole
upper story, as well at other times as when they kept the feast. It was
in this common hall, evidently, that some of the property of the parish
was kept ready for use. At Pilton, in Somerset, for example, there is
mentioned “a slegge to break stones at the quarey;” and the “eight
tabyle clothes” point to parish dinners.
One of the ways of eliciting good-will among the parishioners, and also
of making a profit for the common chest, was the “church ale.” This was
a parish meeting at which cakes and small beer were purchased from the
churchwardens, and consumed for the good of the parish. No doubt there
were amusements of various kinds during the _potatio_, and there was
generally a collection. At Cratfield, for instance, in 1490, the chief
source of income was from the “church ales.” There were about five of
these parish feasts held in each year, and one of them was instituted
by a parishioner, William Brews, who left nine shillings in his will
for that purpose. Very commonly a collection for the expenses of the
common amusements was made by the working men on the first Monday after
Twelfth night--the first Monday of work after the Christmas holidays.
They drew a plough round to the various houses, asking for donations,
and from this the day became known as “Plough Monday.”
Mr. Peacock, in the _Archæological Journal_ (vol. xl.), has given
some interesting particulars he has been able to gather about the
village “ales.” The drink itself was apparently a sweet beverage made
with hops or bitter herbs. It was not the same as the more modern
beer; but was less heavy, and hardly an intoxicant. The meeting was
by no means devoid of the religious aspect, and to some extent its
purpose and connection with the church secured this. Cups were used
which were frequently dedicated, especially the general or loving
cup, to saints. At Boston there was a tankard named after St. Thomas.
Archbishop Scrope, of York, attached an indulgence to one such cup:
“unto all them that drinks of this cope X days of pardon.” In these
days, no doubt, such a curious mingling of things sacred and profane
will appear incongruous; but in the Middle Ages Christian life was a
much simpler organization than it became after the days of Henry VIII.
Religion was before that period a part of the people’s daily life, and
its influence overflowed into all the social amusements of the people.
As already pointed out, the authority of the Church settled most of the
minor difficulties, disputes, and quarrels of the nation without the
assistance of the State. Its vitality was everywhere visible. Justices
of the peace and police magistrates were then wholly unknown. The manor
court and the parson in his Sunday pulpit settled everything. So, too,
the “ales” were under the protection of the Church, and took place
with its distinct encouragement.
Mr. Peacock thus sketches the probable appearance of one of these halls
for holding the “church ale”--
“We must picture to ourselves a long, low room with an ample
fireplace, or rather a big open chimney occupying one end with a vast
hearth. Here the cooking would be done, and the water boiled for
brewing the church ale. There would be, no doubt, a large oak table in
the middle, with benches around, and a lean-to building on one side to
act as a cellar.”
Just as all the churches were made beautiful by religious paintings, so
probably the Church house--the people’s hall--was made gay and bright
with decoration, permanent or temporary.
At these Church feasts there was an important factor--the collection.
Dr. Jessopp speaks about this feature of parochial life--
“Among the most profitable sources of revenue known to the wardens
were the great festive entertainments called the _Church ales_.
They have almost their exact counterparts in our modern _public
dinners_ for charitable (?) purposes, such as the annual dinner for
the literary fund, or for the Corporation of the Sons of the Clergy;
and the _public teas_ so common among the Nonconformist bodies.
They were held in the Church houses, which were well furnished with
all the necessary appliances for cooking, brewing, and for giving
accommodation for a large company. Often a generous parishioner would
provide a bullock or a sheep or two for the entertainment, and another
good-natured man would offer a quarter of malt to be brewed for the
occasion. The skins of the slaughtered sheep are often entered on the
credit side of the accounts, and occasionally smaller contributions of
spices and other condiments were offered. Of course, the inevitable
collection followed; and, according to the goodness of the feast, the
number of the guests, or their satisfaction with the arrangements
made, the amount of donations was large or small.”
To take an example or two of these collections: at Walberswick, in the
county of Suffolk, in 1453, the “church ales” produced 13_s._ 4_d._; at
Bishop Stortford, in 1489, two parish gatherings brought in £4 6_s._
8_d._ to the common exchequer. At times, too, various neighbouring
parishes would unite their forces and have a joint church ale. At
Yatton, in Somerset, for example, the parishioners both entertained
and were entertained by a neighbouring parish; and in the “Book of the
accomptes of Bramley church” are entered “in expenses of the parish
of Silchester--5_s._”; “in expenses of the parish of Herteley--2_s._
4_d._” At Shire, in the county of Surrey, an ale was held at Pentecost
in 18 Henry VII. which produced 56_s._: of this sum Albury contributed
12_s._, Wotton 5_s._, Abinger 5_s._, and Ewhurst 6_s._ 8_d._ Out of
this sum, 17_s._ 5_d._ was expended over the provisions for the feast,
and the residue was the amount available for the common fund. In 1536,
in the same place, there is an example of a private entertainment
given for the benefit of the parish. Thus was “a drinking made by John
Redford at his own expense, from strangers attending at his instance,
£7 3_s._ 4_d._” In the parish at Bramley there were apparently a whole
series of dinners and suppers in the week of Whitsuntide. These are
worth giving in full, as they have not previously been printed.
_Receipts._
1531-2. Kyng ale on White Sunday, 10_s._ 9_d._--at soppar, 20_s._
7_d._
On Monday at dinner, 2_s._--at suppar, 10_s._ 7_d._
On Tuesday at dinner, 6_s._ 9_d._
On the said Tuesday of the parish of Pamber, 4_s._
On the said Tuesday of the parish of Strathfieldsay, 9_s._
On the said Tuesday at supper, 10_s._ 6_d._
On the Wednesday at dinner, 13_s._ 6_d._
_Received_ for calf and sheep skin, 21_d._
At supper on Trinity Sunday, 12_s._ 6_d._
For tapping money, 7_s._ 6_d._
The payments made by the wardens for the above series of entertainments
are--
Towards the Kyng ale to Alys Carter 6 bushells whete, 6_s._ 4_d._
To Mr. Vycar for 3 bushells whete, 3_s._
8 barrells of bere, 13_s._ 8_d._
To John Redyng for 2 calves, 6_s._ 8_d._
To Richard Tyrry for 1 calf, 2_s._ 8_d._
To William Littlework for 2 wethers, 5_s._ 5_d._
To Henry Whyte for a barren ewe and 3 lambs, 7_s._
For geese and pyg with hare, 17_d._
To Hugh Carter’s wife for chekyns, 6_d._
Anne Acre for butter and eggs, 6_d._
For woode, 21_d._
For mynstrell, 20_d._
For rushes and making clene the barn, 3_d._
For spices, 4_d._
To Symon Redyng and his wife (and his moder above), 12_d._
_Hock-days._--In many parishes there was a feast celebrated, according
to some, in memory of the massacre of the Danes in A.D. 1002. It was
called _Hock-day_ and _Hock-tyde_, and seems to have been specially
the women’s feast in the parish. The second Monday and Tuesday
after Easter were the Hock-tyde days, on which, with some sportive
traditional customs, money was collected for parish purposes. According
to an early custom, women seized and bound men and then demanded a
small payment for their release. This seems to have been prohibited,
and then recourse was had to stopping roadways and bridges with ropes,
and demanding a toll from all men who desired to pass. For example, at
Shire in Surrey in 1536, 8_s._ are entered in the accounts, as coming
“from the collection of pennies by the married women on Hokmonday.”
In the accounts of St. Mary the Great, Cambridge, in 1518, there
are two entries of receipt for Hockday money: “_Item_ Receyved of
Mistres Sabyn, Mistress Butt, Mistres Halbed and other wyfys of money
gathered by them on Hockmonday--20 shillings ... and _Memorandum_ that
there remayneth in the hands of Kateryn Hawes in halfpenys of the
gatheryng on Hockmonday--2_s._ 4_d._” So also in the accounts of St.
Mary-at-Hill, London, for 1511-12, there is this item: “_Received_ of
the Gadryng of hok monday by the wemen 20_s._: _Rec._ of the Gadryng
on Tewysday 4_s._” In the parish of SS. Edmund and Thomas, Salisbury,
the women paid a composition to escape “binding” on the Tuesday of
Hocktide. In the year 1499-1500, for example, there is the following
entry in the accounts: “_Received_ of divers wives and maidens to save
them from binding in Hok Tuesday in all the year, 5 shillings.” In
another account we learn that the “maidens” kept a bridge over which
all had to pass on this Hock Monday, and that they gathered much in the
way of fees for passengers. It may be here remarked that in the way of
raising money for parish work, or, in particular, for the beautifying
of their churches, the women-folk were in no ways behind the men. There
are constant notices of gifts, etc., in the parish accounts; and such
entries as one at Walberswick in Suffolk, in 1496: “By a gaderyng of
the wyves in the towne for a glass wyndow, 9 shillings,” are common
features in the mediæval accounts.
The women-folk also had their feast at the Church house on certain
days when the parish came together for the purpose of dancing. In
1538, at Salisbury, there is a receipt from the “wyves daunce.” At St.
Ewen’s, Bristol, there was special “dancing money,” and at Croscombe in
Somerset an item of receipt of 6_s._ in 1483 is said to be collected
“of the wives’ dancing.” Another form of collection by women in some
places was called “Robin Hood penny.”
In some parishes the supplying of the ale, etc., for the parish
entertainments no doubt led to the churchwardens becoming purveyors of
ale, etc., at other times, the profits obtained by this trading going
to swell the parish receipts. Bishop Hobhouse remarks upon this in
the case of Tintinhull, a Somerset parish. The church house was the
focus of the social life in this neighbourhood. There was, at first,
a small place for making the sacred wafer and the “blessed bread.” It
grew by degrees into a bakery to supply all. Then brewing was added,
and the sale of ale to those who wanted it. Apparently the bakery and
the brewing utensils were let out to those who wanted to make their
own bread and beer; but in the reign of Henry VII. a proper house was
procured by the parish, and a woman, “Agnes Cook,” was placed in it to
manage the increasing business.
At Bishop Stortford and elsewhere, also, there is evidence in the
accounts of brewing being carried on for the benefit of the parish. In
some cases, the purchases of malt are considerable, and suggests that
the production of ale was for sale generally to any in the parish.
Probably no single book gives such a vivid picture of the social side
of mediæval parochial life as the _Durham Halmote Rolls_, published by
the “Surtees Society.”
“It is hardly a figure of speech,” writes Mr. Booth, in the preface
to this volume, “to say we have in (these rolls) village life
photographed. The dry record of tenures is peopled by men and women
who occupied them, whose acquaintance we make in these records under
the various phases of village life. We see them in their tofts
surrounded by their crofts, with their gardens of pot-herbs. We see
how they ordered the affairs of the village, when summoned by the
bailiff to the vill to consider matters which affected the common weal
of the community. We hear of their trespasses and wrongdoings, and how
they were remedied or punished; of their strifes and contentions, and
how they were repressed; of their attempts, not always ineffective,
to grasp the principle of co-operation as shown by their by-laws;
of their relations with the Prior, who represented the convent, and
alone stood in relation of lord. He appears always to have dealt with
his tenants, either in person or through his officers, with much
consideration; and in the imposition of fines we find them invariably
tempering justice with mercy.”
In fact, as the picture of mediæval village life among the tenants of
the Durham monastery is displayed in the pages of this interesting
volume, it would seem almost as if one was reading of some Utopia of
dreamland. Many of the things that in these days advanced politicians
would desire to see introduced into the village communities of modern
England, to relieve the deadly dulness of country life, were seen
in Durham and Cumberland in full working order in pre-Reformation
days. Local provisions for public health and general convenience
are evidenced by the watchful vigilance of the village officials
over the water supplies, the care taken to prevent the fouling of
useful streams, and stringent by-laws as to the common place for
clothes-washing, and the times for emptying and cleansing ponds and
mill-dams. Labour was lightened and the burdens of life eased by
co-operation on an extensive scale. A common mill ground the corn,
and the flour was baked into bread at a common oven. A common smith
worked at a common forge, and common shepherds and herdsmen watched the
sheep and cattle of various tenants, which were pastured on the fields
common to the whole village community. The pages of the volume contain
numerous instances of the kindly consideration for their tenants which
characterized the monastic proprietors, and the relation between
them was rather that of rentchargers than of men claiming absolute
ownership. In fact, as the editor of the volume says--
“Notwithstanding the rents, duties, and services, and the fine paid
on entering, the inferior tenants of the Prior had a beneficial
interest in their holdings, which gave rise to a recognized system of
tenant-right, which we may see growing into a customary right; the
only limitation of the tenant’s right being inability, from poverty or
other cause, to pay rent or perform the accustomed services.”
When the monastery of Durham was suppressed and its place of the
Cathedral Prior and Monks taken by a Dean and Chapter, it was found,
by the middle of Elizabeth’s reign, that the change was gravely
detrimental to the interests of the tenants, and the new body soon
made it plain that they had no intention of respecting prescriptive
rights. This appears clearly in a document printed in the same volume,
about which the editor says--
“A review of the Halmote Rolls leaves no room for doubt that the
tenants, other than those of the demesne lands, during the period
covered by the text, had a recognized tenant-right in their holdings,
which was ripening into a customary freehold estate; and we might
have expected to find, in the vills or townships in which the Dean
and Chapter possessed manorial rights, the natural outcome of this
tenant-right in the existence of copyhold or customary freehold
estates at the present time, as we find in the manors of the see of
Durham. It is a well-known fact, however, that there are none. The
reason is, that soon after the foundation of the Cathedral body, the
Dean and Chapter refused to recognize a customary estate in their
tenants.”
The presence of “minstrels” at parish dinners and feasts has already
been noticed. It is probable that these musicians were more frequently
employed to enliven “the deadly dulness of village life” than might
now be supposed. At Tatton, from which many of these illustrations
have been taken, the payments for “minstrels” in the sixteenth century
come very regularly into the parish accounts; and it seems hardly very
far-fetched to suggest that these musicians probably went from one
parish feast-day to another, as at the present day the brass band goes
from one village club-day celebration to another.
* * * * *
A word may be usefully said about the effect of religion on the family
life generally. Regularity of attendance at all religious celebrations
in the church was universal, or practically so. This was the case, not
on account of any ecclesiastical compulsion--although, in case of need,
it could be, and no doubt was exerted--but, as far as it is possible
to judge, the church services were attended and religious duties
fulfilled, as part of the Christian life which all desired to follow,
and in deference to a healthy public opinion which, in these matters,
did not admit of backsliding.
The father’s and the mother’s duty of bringing up their children to
know God’s law and to keep it, was fully understood.
“Every man and woman,” says the author of _Dives and Pauper_, “after
his degree, is bound to do his business to know God’s law that he is
bound to keep. And fathers, mothers, godfathers and godmothers be
bound to teach their children God’s law or else do them to be taught.
“St. Austin saith that each man in his own household should do the
office of bishop in teaching and correcting of common things, and
therefore saith the law that the office of teaching and chastising
belongeth not only to the bishop but to every governor after his
manner and his degree: to the poor man governing his poor household;
to the rich man governing his folk; to the husband governing his wife;
to the father and mother governing their children.”
Filial affection was strongly inculcated in the common teachings. In
a will of one John Sothil of Dewsbury, in 1500, is expressed the last
wish of one who had evidently been brought up to reverence his own
parents. “Also I pray, Thomas my son, in my name and for the love of
God, that he never strive with his moder, as he will have my blessing,
for he shall find her curtous to del with.”
Grace with meals--before and after--was not only the law, but the
practice. To ask God’s blessing over what His bounty had provided,
and to thank Him afterwards, was an elementary duty of all living the
Christian life. Children were taught the importance of associating God
and His providence with their meals, and, as in so many other matters,
instruction was conveyed in some simple rhymes like--
“He that without grace sitteth down to eate
Forgetting to give God thanks for his meate
And riseth againe letting Grace overpasse
Sittes down like an oxe and riseth like an asse.”
Children were taught to rise early, as the _Babe of Nurture_ says--
“Ryse you early in the morning
For it hath propertyes three
Holynesse, health and happy welth,
As my father taught mee.
At syxe of the clocke, without delay
Use commonly to ryse
And give God thanks for thy good rest
When thou openest thy eyes.”
The young were taught also to pay respect to their elders, and in
particular to their parents. They were to be reverential in their
manner and to avoid giving them displeasure. The parent, on his part,
was to refrain from setting a bad example, but was to see that, the
first thing in the morning,--
“Or he do eny worldli deede,”
his son was to lift up his heart to God, and pray that God may lead him
through the day without sin. At the close of the day, after prayers,
the child was to be taught to fall asleep thinking of heavenly things:
with some such thought as--
“Upon my ryght syde y me laye
Blesid lady to the y prey
For the teres that ye lete
Upon your swete sonnys feete
Send me grace for to slepe
And good dremys for to mete
Slepyng wakyng til morowe daye bee
Our Lorde is the frute, Our Ladye the tree
Blessid be the blossom that sprange lady of thee.
In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.”
The inventories of parish churches and the churchwardens’ accounts show
how very common a feature the religious plays--“miracle or mystery
plays,” as they were generally called--were in the village life of the
fifteenth century. It requires very little examination of the “books”
of those plays that have come down to us to see that these sacred
dramas must have been most powerful aids to the religious teaching
of the Church among the simple and unlettered villagers of England,
and even among the crowds which thronged great cities like Coventry,
Chester, and York to witness the traditional acting of the more
elaborate performances.
As to their popularity there can be no question. Dramatic
representations of the chief events in the life of our Lord, etc.,
were intimately associated with the religious purposes for which they
were originally produced. They were played on Sundays and feast-days,
sometimes in the aisles of the churches, in church porches and
churchyards. The author of _Dives and Pauper_ says--
“Spectacles, plays, and dances that are used on great feasts, as
they are done principally for devotion and honest mirth, and to
teach men to love God the more, are lawful if the people be not
thereby hindered from God’s service, nor from hearing God’s word,
and provided that in such spectacles and plays there is mingled no
error against the faith of Holy Church and good living. All other
plays are prohibited, both on holidays and work-days (according to
the law), upon which the gloss saith that the representation in
plays at Christmas of Herod and the Three Kings, and other pieces of
the Gospel, both then and at Easter and other times, is lawful and
commendable.”
There can be no reasonable doubt that such simple dramatic
representations of the chief mysteries of religion and the principal
events in our Lord’s life, or of some incidents in the lives of the
saints, served to impress these truths and fix these events upon the
imaginations of the audiences that witnessed them, and to make them
in the true sense of the words “vivid realities.” The religious drama
was the handmaiden of the Church, and it helped to instruct the people
at large and, quite as much as the painted wall or pictured window,
formed a “book” ever open and easily understood, graphically setting
forth and illustrating truths which formed the groundwork of the formal
instruction in the Sunday sermon.
Whatever we may in these days be inclined to think of these simple
stories as literary works, or however we may be inclined now to smile
at some of the “stage situations” and odd characters, there can be no
doubt what the people for whom they were written and acted thought. “In
great devotion and discretion,” says the chronicler, “Higden published
the story of the Bible, that the simple people might understand in
their own language.”
The subjects treated of in these plays were very varied, although
those that were acted on the great festivals of Christmas, Easter,
the Ascension, etc., generally had some relation to the mystery
then celebrated. In such a collection of plays as that known as the
_Towneley Mysteries_, we have examples of the subjects treated of in
the religious plays of the period. The collection makes no pretence
of being complete, and yet it contains some three and thirty plays,
including the Creation, the death of Abel, the story of Noah, the
sacrifice of Isaac, and other Old Testament histories; a great number
of scenes from the New Testament, such as the Annunciation, the
Visitation, Cæsar Augustus, scenes from the Nativity, the Shepherds,
the Magi, etc., as well as various scenes from the Passion and
Crucifixion, the Parable of the Talents, etc.
Any one who will take the trouble to read--not skim--the plays as
printed in this volume cannot fail to be impressed not only with the
vivid picture of the special scenes, but by the extensive knowledge of
the Bible which the production of these plays must have imparted to
those who listened to them, and by the way that, incidentally, the most
important religious truths are conveyed in the crude and rugged verse.
Again and again, for instance, the entire dependence of all created
things upon the providence of God Almighty is asserted and illustrated.
Thus, the confession of God’s Omnipotence, put into the mouth of
Noah at the beginning of the play of “Noah and his Sons,” contains a
profession of belief in the Holy Trinity, and a declaration concerning
the work of the Three Persons in the world. It describes the creation
of the world; the fall of Lucifer; the sin of our first parents, and
their expulsion from Paradise. In the story of Abraham, too, the prayer
of the patriarch, with which it begins--
“Adonai, thou God very,
Thou hear us when to Thee we call,
As Thou are He that bset may,
Thou art most succour and help of all,”
gives a complete _résumé_ of the Bible history before the days of
Abraham, with the purpose of showing that all things are in God’s
hands, and that the complete obedience of all creatures whom He has
made is due to Him.
Whatever we may think of these religious dramas now, there can be no
doubt that the people in the pre-Reformation days delighted in them,
and that they formed one of the most popular features in mediæval
parochial life.