"Both. Yea, sir, we hope.

"Kem. Write downe, that they hope they serve God: and write God first, for God defend but God shoulde goe before such villaines."

Referring to these lines, Blackstone writes:

"The omission of this passage since the Edition of 1600 may be accounted for from the Stat. 3 James I., c. 21, the sacred name being jestingly used four times in one line." *

The statute referred to by the great jurist is important, not only for its immediate effect on the drama; but also, as indicating the nature of the struggle then being waged for the suppression of the theatre. It is as follows:

CHAP. XXI.

"AN ACT to restrain the abuses of players."

"The penalty of players on the stage, etc., prophanely abusing the Name of God.

"For the preventing and Avoiding of the great Abuse of the Holy Name of God in Stage-plays, Enterludes, May games, Shews, and such like; Be it enacted by our Sovereign Lord the King's Majesty, and by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the Authority of the Same, That if at any Time or Times, after the End of this present Session of Parliament, any Person or Persons do or shall in any Stage-play, Enterlude, Shew, May-game, or Pageant, jestingly or profanely speak or use the Holy Name of God, or of Christ Jesus, or of the Holy Ghost, or of the Trinity, which are not to be spoken but with Fear and Reverence, shall forfeit for every such offence by him or them committed Ten Pounds the One Moiety thereof to the King's Majesty, his Heirs and Successors, the other Moiety thereof to him or them that will Sue for the same in any Court of Record at Westminster, wherein no Essoin, Protection, or Wager of Law shall be allowed." t

Malone quotes the opinion of Blackstone approvingly.

From

Blackstone was fond of annotating Shakespeare. Vide "Corrections of Shakespeare's Text by Sir Wm. Blackstone, etc."-Shakespeare Society Papers, 1844, Art. xxii., p. 96, seq.

"The Statutes at Large, Vol. III., 1604-1698, 1 James I., to 10 William III." Official Copy in Astor Library. (Cited as 3 Jac. I. cap. 21.) Edition 1821, Vol. VII., p. 123.

it no one, I think, will dissent. While it is undoubtedly correct, there is one fact which, so far as I know, has not heretofore been noted. The name of God, Lord, as referring to the Deity, occurs in the Quarto sixty-six times. The Folio follows the Quarto exactly in sixty-two places. It omits the sacred name in but FOUR instances, and these all occur in the passage under consideration. The statute of James would apply equally to the use of the name in any of the sixtytwo places where it appears in the Folio. In them, as much as in this passage, is the name of God" jestingly or profanely spoken. Why, then, should it be omitted in these four cases, in order to avoid a violation of this statute, and printed in sixtytwo places where the statute would be equally transgressed?

This statute was passed at the instigation of the Puritans. Their opposition to the theatre was, at this time, relentless and powerful. James, although he favored the theatre and hated the Puritans, thought it advisable to yield somewhat to them. Hence this law. But it was not strictly enforced. The Master of the Revels, probably by his direction, certainly with his approval, did not insist on a rigid compliance with it.†

Shakespeare's company at this time had a license from the king empowering them to act in any part of the kingdom. In this they were denominated "our servants." They thus became, and were afterwards known as, "The King's Players. His Majesty, therefore, would be likely to guard them against adverse legislation.

* The name occurs three times when not referring to the Deity :

"They (players) were relieved from some of the vexatious control they had experienced, and subjected only to the gentle sway of the Master of the Revels. It was his duty to revise all dramatic works before they were represented, to exclude profane and unbecoming language, and specially to take care that there should be no interference with matters of state. The former of these functions must have been rather laxly exercised; but there are instances in which a license was refused on account of very recent history beingtouched on in a play."--Haliam, Literature of Europe, Vol. III., p. 557. John Murray.

In addition, Shakespeare was on intimate terms with some of the most powerful men at court. The authorities, in whose hands lay the power to execute this law, were probably friends of the Globe Theatre Company. While, therefore, the Master of the Revels did not enforce this law strictly and expurgate the name of God every time it appeared in the play, he could not, out of regard to the Puritan opposition, entirely ignore it.* Hence, he omitted the name of God but four times out of sixtysix. Thus, like the "juggling fiends" in Macbeth, he "paltered" with the Puritans, keeping the letter of the law, although to a very limited extent, but violating its spirit.

This suggests the important subject of the Puritan opposition to the theatre, to a critical study of which the remainder of this introduction will be devoted.

III.

THE PURITAN OPPOSITION TO THE THEATRE.

The first Act of Parliament for the control and regulation of the stage was passed in 1543. It was 34 and 35 Henry VIII., C. 1. It orders that no person shall "play in interludes, sing, or rhyme any matter" contrary to the doctrines of the Church of Rome. A proviso was added in favor of "songs, plays, and interludes," which have for their object "the rebuking and reproaching of vices, and the setting forth of virtue, and meddle not with the interpretations of Scripture."

This was not against theatrical performances in general. It simply aimed to protect the national religion, at that time the Roman Catholic, from assault. This was so evident that it awakened alarm among the Puritans. Their feelings were voiced by Edward Stalbridge, who printed a letter (not pub

66

* Prynne, referring to the Statute of James, writes: which is seldome or never put in execution, because few else but such who delight in blasphemy, and therefore are unlikely to prove informers against it, resort to stage-playes."-"Histrio-Mastix," Part I., p. 109. + Confer Collier's "Annals of, the Stage," Vol. I., p. 128 seq. Fitzgerald's "History of the English Stage," Vol. I., p. 34 seq.

lished in England, as that would have been dangerous), dated Basle, entitled, "The Epistle Exhortatory of an English Christian to his dearly beloved Country."

Referring to this statute, he writes, "So long as they played lyes, and sange baudy songes, blasphemed God, and corrupted men's consciences, ye never blamed them. But sens they persuaded the people to worship theyr Lorde God aryght, according to hys holie lawes, and not yours seq," you have enacted this law.

The Corporation of London about the same time began their efforts to suppress the theatre. They objected to it, however, on different grounds. They believed it caused disturbances, corrupted manners, and was inimical to the good of the people. Previous to April, 1543, they adopted regulations for its total suppression within the City of London. Certain players belonging to the Lord Warden ignored this, and as a consequence were imprisoned, as the following record will show :

66

"ST. JAMES, 10th April, 1543. Certayn Players belonging to the Lord Warden, for playing contrarye to an order taken by the Mayor on that behalf, were committed to the Counter."

From this time till the theatres were closed in 1647, there was, almost without cessation, a conflict on this subject between the Government on the one hand, and the Lord Mayor and Corporation of London on the other. The latter made persistent efforts to keep plays and players out of the city. The former protected and encouraged them by every means in their power.

The Statute of Henry was repealed by 1 Edward VI., C. 12., and a proclamation was issued in the 3d year of Edward VI., (1549) forbidding

"any kynde of Interlude, Plaie, Dialogue, or other matter set furthe in forme of Plaie in any place publique or private within this realme seq."

The reason given in the proclamation for its issuance is that these Interludes, Plaies, etc., "contain matter tendyng to sedi

The legislation up to this time had applied only to those players who were not attached to the households of special noblemen. Many of the nobility had their own players, to whom they gave their personal patronage and protection. In June, 1551, the Privy Council issued an order prohibiting all such to act without a special permit. These restrictions were shortly after very much relaxed. As a consequeuce, the natural reaction came, and greater license, both on the part of players, and printers of plays, followed. This caused a proclamation to be issued in April, 1552, "for the reformation of vagabondes, tellers of newes, sowers of sedicious rumours, players, and printers without license," forbidding any one to play, or to print a play, without special permit from the Privy Council, under heavy punishment. The cause of this action was not religious, but purely political.

Mary ascended the throne in July, 1553, and the following month issued "A Proclamation for reformation of busy medlers in matters of Religion, and for redresse of Prechars, Pryntars, and players." This stopped all public exhibition of plays, for two years. Up to this time and during these two years servants in households, and players attached to great noblemen, acted privately. The Star Chamber, Easter Term, 1556, issued strict orders to justices in every shire to repress even these plays.

The Privy Council, this same year, commanded Lord Rich to put "a stop to a certain stage play about to be played in Essex." It also ordered the servants of Sir Thomas Leek to be arrested and prevented from playing.‡

(To be continued.)

WM. H. FLEMING.

* Vide "Collection of suche proclamacions as have been sette furthe by the Kynge's Majestie." Printed by Richard Grafton, 1550.

"We find an order from the Privy Council for the release of a poet, 'which is in the Tower for making plays.""-Fitzgerald's "History, etc.," Vol. I., p. 35.

Confer Fitzgerald's "History, etc.," Vol. I., p. 36.