NARCISSUS, A TWELFE NIGHT MERRIMENT.

*** Five hundred copies of this Edition are printed.

A TWELFE NIGHT MERRIMENT.

Anno 1602.

NARCISSUS A TWELFE NIGHT MERRIMENT PLAYED BY YOUTHS OF THE PARISH AT THE COLLEGE OF S. JOHN THE BAPTIST IN OXFORD, A.D. 1602 WITH APPENDIX

NOW FIRST EDITED FROM A BODLEIAN MS. BY MARGARET L. LEE OF S. HUGH'S HALL, OXFORD

LONDON PUBLISHED BY David Nutt IN THE STRAND MDCCCXCIII

CHISWICK PRESS:—C. WHITTINGHAM AND CO., TOOKS COURT, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON.

PREFACE.

N editing the hitherto unpublished play of Narcissus, together with the three speeches and the letter composed for Francis Clarke, porter of S. John's, I have retained throughout the very irregular spelling of the MS. The punctuation and use of capital letters have, however, been modernized, the contractions employed for the, which, with, what, and certain prefixes, expanded, and a few obviously scribal errors corrected in the text, the notes supplying in every such case the original MS. reading.

In bringing to its conclusion a work which now seems even less satisfactorily performed than I once hoped it might be, there is at least a pleasure in recording thanks to all those who have interested themselves on my behalf, and aided me with suggestions and criticisms, or—as in the case of the editors of the N. E. D.—with valuable references. Indeed, were it not for the direct and indirect help of friends—and amongst those who have given me the former I must make special and grateful mention of Professor Ker, Professor Napier, and Mr. Madan—Narcissus would have been left to find a worthier editor.

26, Warrington Crescent, Maida Hill.

INTRODUCTION.

Section I. Narcissus.

HIS play, which for want of a ready-made title I have called Narcissus, dates from a period of peculiar interest in the history of that class of dramatic composition to which it belongs.

So vast a phenomenon as the rise and fall of the complete English drama could not but be attended by widely-spread symptoms of the popular love for stage representation; a tendency which, though it would never have produced a Shaksperian tragedy, yet alone rendered possible the work of a Shakspere. These lesser manifestations of the feeling that pervaded Elizabethan England may be compared to the small fissures on the side of a volcano, through which the same lava as fills the molten crater emanates in slender and perhaps hardly perceptible channels. It may chance that the activity of these side-streams presages the final eruption at the summit; yet afterwards they are scarcely noticed, and their effects are too puny to attract attention. So it is with the abortive forms of drama, heralding, accompanying, and in some cases outliving, the culmination of English dramatic art under Shakspere. They are not, as a rule, the product of those great intellects which helped in the rearing of the main structure; but rather of such lesser writers

as were either possessed by the dramatic spirit while ignorant of the formative and restraining rules of art, or else imbued with a desire to follow those rules, as they had been drawn up by Aristotle and Horace and exemplified in French and Italian literature, whilst themselves wanting in originality, and oblivious of the superiority of a native growth over the best of importations. The latter class of would-be English dramatists, in especial, found a natural field for action amongst the scholarly societies which constituted a mediæval university. Though as early as 1584 and 1593 statutes are found enacting that no players shall perform within five miles of Oxford, it must be remembered that these refer to professional, not to academical actors, and that the regulations controlling the former were of much greater stringency than those which concerned the latter.

Nor were plays imitated from Greek and Latin writers the only ones to be performed by undergraduates and others before select audiences in the college halls. Youthful players would probably demand the introduction of something more or less witty; and the fact that theatrical representations generally took place on the occasion of a royal visit, or at times of special rejoicing, accounts in some degree for the casting aside of the strictly classical models, and the employment of masques, or of such looser forms of comedy as were the outcome of Heywood's Interludes, into either of which contemporary allusions and jests could be readily introduced. Nevertheless, the majority of such pieces continued to deal with subjects taken from Roman and Greek mythology, the various anachronisms and absurdities which arose from this method of treatment only contributing to heighten the amusement of the spectators.

I have already implied that Narcissus belongs to the class of University plays, inasmuch as it was acted at S. John's College, Oxford, on Twelfth Night, 1602. It does not, however, approximate in any way to the classical form of comedy; it is rather to be regarded as a Christmas piece, an imitation of the Yule-tide mummeries acted by disguised villagers or townsfolk at the houses of such wealthier persons as would afford them hospitality.

The following list of Oxford plays—compiled, with additions, from W. L. Courtney's article in Notes and Queries for December 11th, 1886, and W. Carew Hazlitt's Manual of English Plays—may be of interest, as showing the frequency of dramatic entertainments at the various colleges between 1547 and the Restoration. The dates appended are in most cases those of presentation; but when these are either unknown, or impossible to distinguish from dates of entry at Stationers' Hall, I have substituted the latter.

This catalogue does not, of course, pretend to be exhaustive. An examination of the various college archives would doubtless afford further material. There exists, for instance, the record of performances at Merton; cf. G. C. Brodrick's Memorials of Merton College (Oxford Hist. Soc., 1885), p. 67: "In January and February, 1566-7, two dramatic performances were given in the Warden's lodgings by members of the foundation ... the one being an English comedy, and the other Terence's Eunuchus.... Again, in 1568, a play of Plautus was acted in the hall."

It will be seen that of the above-mentioned plays six, besides Narcissus, were performed at the College of S. John the Baptist, the first recorded being the Christmas Prince in 1607, the succeeding ones taking place after an interval of twenty-six years; and to these we should very probably add Pharamus, the writer of which, Thomas Snelling, "became Scholar of S. John's in 1633, aged 19, and afterwards fellow ... and was esteemed an excellent Latin poet." (Wood, Ath. Ox., vol. iii., p. 275.)

A passage from Wake's Rex Platonicus (ed. 1, p. 18) is also worthy of note in this connection: "Quorum primos jam ordines dum principes contemplantur, primisque congratulantium acclamationibus delectantur, Collegium Diui Iohannis, nobile literarum domicilium (quod Dominus Thomas Whitus Prætor olim Londinensis, opimis reditibus locupletârat) faciles eorum oculos speciosæ structuræ adblanditione invitat; moxque et oculos & aures detinet ingeniosâ nec injucundâ lusiunculâ quâ clarissimus præses cum quinquaginta, quos alit Collegium studiosis, magnaque studentium conuiventium cateruâ prodeuns, principes in transitu salutandos censuit.

"Fabulæ ansam dedit antiqua de Regia prosapia historiola apud Scoto-Britannos celebrata, quæ narrat tres olim Sibyllas occurrisse duobus Scotiæ proceribus Macbetho & Banchoni, & illum prædixisse Regem futurum, sed Regem nullum geniturum, hunc Regem non futurum, sed Reges geniturum multos. Vaticinii veritatem rerum eventus comprobavit: Banchonis enim è stirpe Potentissimus Iacobus oriundus. Tres adolescentes concinno Sibyllarum habitu induti, è Collegio prodeuntes, & carmina lepida alternatim canentes, Regi se tres esse illas Sibyllas profitentur, quæ Banchoni olim Sobolis imperia prædixerant, jamque iterum comparere, vt eâdem vaticinij veritate prædicerent Iacobo, se iam, & diu regem futurum Britanniæ felicissimum & multorum Regum parentem, vt ex Banchonis stirpe nunquam sit hæres Britannico diademati defuturus. Deinde tribus Principibus suaves felicitatum triplicitates triplicatis carminum vicibus succinentes veniamque precantes, quòd alumni ædium Divi Iohannis (qui præcursor Christi) alumnos Ædis Christi (quo tum Rex tendebat) præcursoriâ hâc

salutatione antevertissent, Principes ingeniosâ fictiunculâ delectatos dimittunt; quos inde vniversa astantium multitudo, felici prædictionum successui suffragans, votis precibusque ad portam vsque civitatis Borealem prosequitur."

The Christmas Prince is, properly speaking, not a single play, but a collection of performances consequent on the revival of the old custom, left in abeyance since 1577, of choosing a prince, or master of the revels, who should exercise undisputed authority during the festive season, and in whose honour the company at large should indulge freely in various sorts of pastimes. The account given of this revival, in 1607, seems to imply that there had been of late years no Christmas festivities at S. John's. In 1602 the college porter, pleading for the admission of players on Twelfth Night, could say:

Without laying too much stress upon a single allusion, it is safe to assert that the discovery of the comedy of Narcissus, played five years earlier than the performances of which an account is given in the Christmas Prince, must be of considerable interest in the history of S. John's, and indeed in that of Oxford play-acting generally.

The MS. containing this comedy is one of the Rawlinson collection, now in the possession of the Bodleian Library. The volume, which is 5½ × 4 inches in size, with 156 leaves, appears to have been the commonplace book of an Oxford man. It contains a variety of English poems and prose pieces, written at the end of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth century; amongst them several pages of extracts from the essays of Bacon and of his less-known contemporary Robert Johnson. Sir H. Wotton's poem, "How happy is he borne or taught," also finds a place in the collection. But the majority of the contents are of small literary value, and, so far as I am aware, have never been published. Perhaps the most interesting pieces in the volume are certain "English Epigrammes much like Buckminster's Almanacke ... calculated by John Davis of Grayes Inne ... 1594" of the character of which the following lines, occurring early in the series, may give some idea.

Of a Gull.

That the play now under consideration is the work of some member or members of the college of S. John's there can be no doubt. It is, as the Prologue affirms, "Ovid's owne Narcissus," i.e., the story of Narcissus as told in the third book of the Metamorphoses, which forms the basis of the plot; and the resemblance to the Latin is in parts so close as necessarily to imply a knowledge of that language on the part of the writer. There is, indeed, one passage of literal and yet graceful translation (see ll. 494-505) which especially betokens a scholarly hand.

But it has been already hinted that the chief interest of the comedy lies in another direction. The arrangement and methods are those of the rough-and-ready English stage of the period; and as in the Pyramus and Thisbe interlude of the Midsummer Night's Dream, and the Nine Worthies of Love's Labour's Lost, the writer imitates and ridicules that naïve realism which appertained to native comedy in its rude embryonic forms. The absurdities with which the Narcissus abounds are obviously intentional; it is, in fact, a burlesque, not skilful nor humorous enough to take its place beside the immortal parodies of Shakspere, which in aim and scope it resembles, but a good average specimen of its class, doubtless provocative of intense delight in the minds of a contemporary audience. It is, of course, with a view to heightening the reality of the effect that the Porter is made to plead on behalf of certain "youths of the parish," who are waiting, armed with their wassail-bowl, for admittance into the hall, and who, besides a song, have "some other sporte too out of dowbt" for the

delectation of the assembled guests. Then follows, first the song, and afterwards an altercation in prose between the Porter and the Players, who assume an air of bashfulness when called upon to exercise their dramatic talent. Finally, the Prologue enters, and the play is begun; the general smoothness of the versification standing out in contrast to the intentional doggerel of the Porter's introductory speech and epilogue.

The mention of "youths of the parish" is probably not serious; but as an allusion to a real play of the kind here imitated, the following extract from the Christmas Prince (ed. 1816, p. 25) may be of interest: "S. Steevens day was past over in silence, and so had S. John's day also; butt that some of the princes honest neighbours of S. Giles presented him with a maske or morris, which though it were but rudely performed, yet itt being so freely & lovingly profered it could not but bee as lovingly received."

I shall now pass on to the consideration of the play itself, and, first, of the characters which make up the list of dramatis personæ. Five of these, namely, Tiresias, Cephisus, Narcissus, Echo, and Liriope, appear in the story of Narcissus as told by Ovid. Cephisus, son of Pontus and Thalassa, and divinity of the river whence he derives his name, is the father of the hero; the nymph Liriope is his mother. Tiresias, the blind prophet of Thebes, and Echo, the unhappy victim of the anger of Juno and the contempt of Narcissus, are well-known figures in classical mythology. Neither Dorastus and Clinias, who attend Narcissus as youthful friends, nor Florida and Clois, nymphs enamoured of his beauty, have any actual counterparts in the Metamorphoses.

Most curious and interesting is the inclusion of "The Well" in the list of characters. We have here no mere stage property, or piece of scenery, but an actual personification of an inanimate object, closely resembling that of Wall and Moonshine in Peter Quince's company. Just as Moonshine carries a lantern to represent more vividly the actual moon, so the personage called The Well aids the imagination of his audience by the visible sign of a water-bucket. The fact of his being enumerated amongst the dramatis personæ shows that the part was played by a separate artist, and not doubled with that of any other character. Of the Porter, Francis, more will be said in Section II.

The play of Narcissus, though it can boast of no artificial divisions, falls naturally into twelve different portions, which for want of a better term I will call scenes. Whilst using this word it is necessary to bear in mind that no change of scenery is implied, and probably none was intended.

Scene I. reveals Cephisus, Liriope, and Narcissus, awaiting the prophet Tiresias. It consists of 132 lines, amplified from Met. iii. 341, 346-348:

The introduction of Cephisus, the conversation between Narcissus and his parents, the telling of the youth's fate by the aid of chiromancy, and Liriope's scornful comment on the prophecy, are the materials used by the English writer to form an effective scene.

Scene II. is wholly an interpolation. Dorastus and Clinias also try their fate with Tiresias; he prophesies their early death, and they jest upon the subject.

Scene III., in which Dorastus and Clinias flatter Narcissus for his beauty, has no counterpart in Ovid. Probably, however, it was suggested by Met. iii. 353-355:

Scene IV. pursues a like theme; the nymphs Florida and Clois are in their turn repulsed by the scornful youth, and relate their woes to Dorastus and Clinias.

The hint for this is given in Met. iii. 402:

And likewise the suggestion of Florida's revengeful wish:

Scene V. Echo enters, and gives an account of herself, amplified—with a very free use of the English vernacular—from Met. iii. 356-368.

Scene VI., which has no counterpart in Ovid, consists of a spirited hunting-song in five stanzas, sung (presumably) while Narcissus, Dorastus, and Clinias chase a supposed hare over the stage.

Scene VII. introduces the "one with a bucket," i.e., The Well. The first twelve lines of his speech are a literal and smoothly-versified translation of Met. iii. 407-412. In Ovid, however, this description of the well comes after the conversation between Echo and Narcissus, and the account proceeds at once (l. 413) with:

It is doubtful why the English writer should have preferred to introduce the Well thus early. With Ovid's lines may be compared those in the translation of the Romaunt of the Rose attributed to Chaucer:

Scene VIII. consists of a dialogue between Dorastus and Echo.

Scene IX. continues the same theme, Clinias being substituted for Dorastus. Both these scenes are interpolations, introduced evidently for the amusement of the audience rather than for any bearing on the main plot.

Scene X. Here Narcissus delivers himself of a soliloquy, suggested by Met. iii. 479:

He is answered by Echo, who wishes to proffer him her affection. The conversation, gathered from Ovid, runs as follows:

This, with various amplifications, is followed in ll. 602-630 of the Narcissus.

Here, however, there is no reproduction of Ovid's account:

which leads on to and explains the next speech of Narcissus:

rendered in the English by:

This terminates the interview; Echo does not seem to make any appearance on the stage. The few lines which, in Ovid, describe the effect of her hopeless love, are partly followed in ll. 740-747 of the English play.

Scene XI. Dorastus and Clinias abuse, fight with, and finally kill each other.

Scene XII. Narcissus enters, fleeing from Echo (a connecting touch not found in Ovid). His speech, on discovering the well, is a mixture of the description of his transports in the Metamorphoses, and of the soliloquy there attributed to him. ll. 697-707 of the Narcissus correspond word for word to Met. iii. 442-450.

It is remarkable that the use of the name of the goddess of corn instead of bread itself ("Cereris," l. 437) should have suggested to the English writer a similar metaphorical use of the names of Morpheus and Bacchus. Another small point worthy of note is the introduction of a jest into the midst of this mournful scene; Ovid's:

being irreverently rendered by:

Ovid's Narcissus discovers his own identity with the vision (Met. iii. 463), which the English version ignores; while, on the other hand, the prophecy of ll. 730-731:

finds no counterpart in Ovid.

Many of the reflections and entreaties ascribed to Narcissus in the Latin version are omitted in the English; neither is there any mention of the beating of the breast (Met. iii. 480-485). The final conversation with Echo is given thus by Ovid:

The English writer somewhat amplifies this, Echo being always a favourite stage-character. The rising up of Narcissus after death is an English expedient; so is Echo's return to give a final account of herself, the matter of which is suggested, as has been said, by Met. iii. 393-401.

So much for the classical basis of the play; it remains to notice briefly the points in which it resembles an English comedy, or shows traces of the influence of other English writers. Most remarkable in the latter connection is the frequent coincidence of expressions between the Narcissus and Shakspere's Henry IV. (Part 1.). Amongst these are the following:

See also the notes on ll. 282, 396, and 683.

As Henry IV. was entered at Stationers' Hall February 25th, 1597, and the first quarto appeared in 1598, it is quite possible that these may be direct borrowings on the part of the writer of the Narcissus.