Masaryk University Faculty of Arts
Department of English and American Studies
English Language and Literature
Klára Škrobánková
Kirkman's The Wits or Sport Upon Sport as a Testimony of the Theatre Life during the Civil Wars and the Interregnum
Masters Diploma Thesis
Supervisor: Mgr. Filip Krajník, Ph. D.
2017 / declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.
Author's signature Acknowledgement I would like to thank Mgr. Filip Krajník, Ph.D. and prof. Pavel Drábek, Ph.D. for their kind help and for providing me with useful literature, which crucially influenced this thesis. TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 5 1. THE SHIFTING PERSPECTIVE OF 1642 CLOSURE 7 2. THE THREE PREFACES TO THE WITS 14 3. THE HEART OF THE WITS - ADAPTING BEAUMONT AND FLETCHER 23 4. ENTER THE CLOWNS 31 5. BUMPKINS, SIMPKINS, SIMPLETONS -DROLLS AND POPULAR CULTURE 45 CONCLUSION 64 WORKS CITED AND CONSULTED 67 LIST OF PRIMARY SOURCES 67 LIST OF SECONDARY SOURCES 69 SUMMARY 72 RESUME 74 APPENDIX 76 INTRODUCTION
In 1662, two years after the reopening of public theatres in England, Henry
Marsh, a London-based bookseller, published a collection of drolls called The Wits, or
Sport for Sport that contained twenty-seven drolls and farces. Ten years later, Marsh's co-worker Francis Kirkman reissued this volume of drolls, which was in a year's time
(1773) followed by the second volume of the Wits. The collection contains many adaptations of plays by famous and popular authors of the pre-War period - mainly
William Shakespeare, Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher. The Wits are often mentioned by scholars in books and chapters discussing the state of theatres during the
Civil War and Interregnum, noting that there indeed was some kind, some restricted scope of theatrical life despite the proclaimed closure of 1642.
Kirkman's and Marsh's collection was however never thoroughly analysed and the form of droll, a short comic piece of writing, was never described with the aim to derive its key features and qualities. This master thesis's goal is to examine the droll as it is presented in the Wits. It is often depicted as a problematic genre, which cannot be described as it crosses artistic forms and categories. One of the key objectives of this work should be an attempt to find and potentially name the methods and tendencies that the authors responsible for the adaptations employed.
Among the number of research questions that this thesis would like to answer is a question of general taste of the audience - even though the public productions were forbidden, it was impossible to abolish everything theatrical. The spectators must shift their attention from the number of public theatres (both outdoors and indoor) to very free productions held on various fairs, in many inns and pubs and even to the illegal spaces. If one was to undergo such dangerous methods before seeing a play, it is understandable that the dramatic work performed had to be something extraordinary -
5 something that was simply "worth it". When looking at the list of the drolls and plays it worked with, one can suspect the audience from favouring the comedies over tragedies, which seems understandable - if the country is at a civil war, people simply do not want to see a revenge tragedy on stage. This is connected to an issue of potential favourite characters, situations and plots, which the audience might have preferred. Another question is "what method of adaptation did the creators use". It is crucial to see whether the texts performed were simply shortened versions of original renaissance plays, if the authors chose specific scene, or if the anonymous "playwrights" changed the context or even added some ideas or speeches of their own. To rephrase it - whether one can take the droll as an original creation or if it is only a retelling of something already well- known.
These research topics should be elaborated in three main chapters, each of them dealing with a group of drolls, which share the same author of the parent-play. In the first of these chapters I should focus on the adaptations of Beaumont and Fletcher's plays, in the second on the drolls inspired by work of William Shakespeare and in the third on the drolls working with popular and folk themes. In addition to these chapters, there will be introductory sections discussing the socio-political and cultural background of the analysed period and the circumstances of the creation of the Wits.
6 1. THE SHIFTING PERSPECTIVE OF 1642 CLOSURE
"Affrighted with the shadows of their Rage,
They broke the Mirror of the times, the Stage..."
Prologue to His Majesty at the First Play ...November 19 (1660)
The year 1642 became generally known as the year when the English public theatres were closed, leading to the period of eighteen years of theatrical hiatus. When scanning the history of English-speaking drama, one usually encounters long chapters about Renaissance theatre, followed by studies about Restoration playwrights. As if the eighteen years of English Civil War and subsequent Interregnum did not produce anything of theatrical value. During the politically unstable era, theatre changed drastically. It had to accustom to the new conditions, but it never disappeared completely. On the contrary, many new genres and artistic forms emerged during that time, some of them influencing the scope of English literature significantly.
The aim of this Master's thesis is to analyse one of the theatrical forms which gained in popularity during the Interregnum - the droll (or drollery). Among many, sometimes semi-legal, forms of the entertainment stands the droll, a short comical sketch, which was using many themes, motifs and characters from the plays of
Shakespeare and his contemporaries or successors. In 1662 Henry Marsh published a collection of drolls entitled The Wits, or Sport for Sport that contained twenty-seven drolls and farces. Eleven years later, Francis Kirkman not only reissued the book, but also published a second volume of the Wits, adding ten new drolls. The anthology includes scenes from plays such as Hamlet, Cupid's Revenge ox A Midsummer Night's
Dream and draws upon characters like Falstaff, Simpkin and others. These scenes and sketches are said to have been illegally performed on the stage of Red Bull Theatre.
Under the cover of rope dances, short and comical drolls were performed, employing
7 the form that was known to be popular even in the Elizabethan and Jacobean period - the jig. But the obvious inspiration by jigs does not mean that the drolls were simply new variations of the old genre. What was previously only a short afterplay, became the main focus of the audience.
By analysing these dramatic pieces, I would like to draw one's attention to the phenomenon of drollery that is almost unknown to the history of English speaking drama. Although some of the then theatrical forms were researched, the drolls, in the context of their source material, have hardly ever been investigated. As the source plays of the adaptations are mostly written by authors who are nowadays seen as the classics of English playwriting (Shakespeare, Beaumont, Fletcher), a comparison with the Wits, which aimed to present the "best of edition published for the 1650s audience, offers an interesting reflection of the seventeenth century dramatic taste. It is, however, not possible to compare and contrast every droll, so in the present study, I suggest the division of the drolls into three major groups according to their original author
(Shakespeare, Beaumont and Fletcher, anonymous folk drolls). By applying this partition, one can observe the tendencies of the "adapters" and see which parts of the
Elizabethan and Jacobean dramas they found interesting and worth reworking.
On September 2, 1642, the London Parliament issued an order which closed the playhouses - the public was encouraged to repent and seek reconciliation instead of visiting theatres.1 The civil war was just beginning, riots in Ireland were already in full
The unabridged version of the order follows: "Whereas the distressed Estate of Ireland, steeped in her own Blood, and the distracted Estate of England, threatened with a Cloud of Blood by a Civil War, call for all possible Means to appease and avert the Wrath of God, appearing in these Judgements; among which, Fasting and Prayer, having been often tried to be very effectual, having been lately and are still enjoined; and whereas Public Sports do not well agree with Public Calamities, nor Public Stage-plays with the Seasons of Humiliation, this being an Exercise of sad and pious Solemnity, and the other being Spectacles of Pleasure, too commonly expressing lascivious Mirth and Levity: It is therefore thought fit, and Ordained, by the Lords and Commons in this Parliament assembled, That, while these sad causes and set Times of Humiliation do continue, Public Stage Plays shall cease, and be forborn, instead of which are recommended to the People of this Land the profitable and seasonable considerations of Repentance,
8 swing; on August 22, Charles I raised his standard at Nottingham, and London was in the hands of parliamentarians (Randall 41). The country was in both political and social crisis. But this closure of theatres did not practically mean that the theatres closed overnight and reopened only in 1660:
Antitheatrical measures imposed during the 1640s and continued during the
1650s were not as absolute as they may have appeared. Plays were performed
surreptitiously as part of an oppositional culture in a variety of venues.
Moreover, dramatic works produced between the two "monoliths" of
Renaissance and Restoration represent far more that the survival of drama in
attenuated form. (Clare 1)
Drama continued to be written, published, translated, bought and read - and even performed. Even though many actors and companies decided rather to leave for the Continent and perform in Paris or the Hague, there still were troupes in London willing to entertain the people during the uneasy times (Clare 4-5). Janet Clare identifies three distinct groups of plays that never ceased to be produced: pamphlet plays, closet drama, and interludes, drolls and farces. The increasing popularity of closet dramas arose from the inability to perform the texts. The newly written plays were often translations or adaptations of classical Greek and Roman plays, as if they were detached from the real events happening in England (Clare 19-20). Pamphlet plays, satirical pamphlets in dramatic form, on the other hand, were not detaching itself from the reality at all - the authors of these dramas tried to spread the current news while using the tools of drama (Elson 21). "Drama and journalism overlapped in an unprecedented manner, producing a novel form of intertextuality" (Clare 8). The name of one of such plays The
Second Part of Crafty Cromwell or Oliver in his Glory as King, published in 1648,
Reconciliation, and Peace with God, which probably may produce outward Peace and Prosperity, and bring again Times of Joy and Gladness to these Nations" (Firth and Rait 26-27).
9 reflects the topicality and political engagement of the piece. The play features citizens rehearsing doctrines of passive obedience, expressions of loyalty to the King, the ghost of John Pym, Jesuits plotting against King and even Cromwell's mock crowning (Clare
11-12). "Subject to erratic controls by parliamentary licensers, printed drama nevertheless became an effective medium for news, deploying the same sensational rumours, personal attacks, innuendo and exaggeration as the popular press" (Clare 8).
The possibility to print something that would openly mock Oliver Cromwell emphasizes the disparity between the intention of banning theatre and doing it.
Interestingly enough, Francis Kirkman, the editor and publisher of the Wits, might have written the pamphlet play The Presbyterian Lash (Elson 21). Yet, this somehow liberal atmosphere lasted only for several years - in 1647 another order was made public, this time more severe:
It was the October 1647 ordinance for theatre closure, confirmed by the
ordinance passed in February 1648, that shows an altered perception of drama
and not the earlier ordinance for theatre closure that was passed in 1642. This
is emphasized by the proliferation of political play pamphlets printed from
1648. Unlike the 1642 ordinance for theatre closure, the 1647 ordinance
politicises the very idea of drama. (Willie 4)
If since 1642 the theatres were performing only sporadically, the 1648 ordinance forced them to close completely, in many cases the buildings had to be demolished.
Clare comments on the situation: "All playhouse galleries, seats and boxes are to be demolished; players who defy the ordinance are to be whipped and spectators fined five shillings" (Clare 4). From five venues where theatre used to be performed, two houses were dismantled (the Fortune, the Cockpit in Drury Lane), one demolished (Blackfriars) and the interior of Salisbury Court theatre was destroyed - leaving only the Red Bull
10 theatre (Clare 6). This, however, was only the case in London -strolling troupes still performed theatre in the country. Despite such drastic regulations, this moment might be seen as one of the most significant milestones for the drama in this period.2 The severity of the new laws forced and challenged the limits of the then dramatic works, requiring the theatre-makers to pursue new ways of expressing their artistic, social and political views: "Crucial to the survival of theatre was the availability or the adaptation of theatrical space, since the ordinances of the Commonwealth sought to suppress theatre simply by the destruction of its buildings" (Clare 5). Live theatre, which still longed to be performed before the crowds, had to find a new way of advertising, writing and performing. Here enter the drolls, as they seem to be an ideal form for the limited stage - drolls were short, entertaining, and did not need many props, costumes or actors:
The drama which proved most resilient to State opposition was that which had
roots in popular pastime and non-commercial theatre: the interlude, jig or farce,
or an entertainment which has been classified rather imprecisely as the droll, an
abbreviation of "drollery". Droll, a post-Restoration term, as genre is
somewhat misleading, since it has been used to incorporate such diverse
dramatic forms as interludes, jigs, masques and plays in adapted and abridged
form. (Clare 21)
2 In the ordinance one can read: "Whereas the Acts of Stage-Playes, Interludes, and common Playes, condemned by ancient Heathens, and much less to be tolerated amongst Professors of the Christian Religion is the occasion of many and sundry great vices and disorders, tending to the high provocation of Gods wrath and displeasure, which lies heavy upon this Kingdom, and to the disturbance of the peace thereof; in regard whereof the same hath been prohibited by Ordinance of this present Parliament, and yet is presumed to be practised by divers in contempt thereof. Therefore for the better suppression of the said Stage-playes, Interludes, and common Players, It is ordered and ordained by the Lords and Commons in this present Parliament Assembled, and by Authority of the same, That all Stage-players and Players of Interludes and common Playes, are hereby declared to be, and are, and shall be taken to be Rogues, and punishable, within the Statutes of the thirty ninth year of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, and the seventh year of the Reign of King James, and liable unto the pains and penalties therein contained, and proceeded against according to the said Statutes, whether they be wanderers or no, and notwithstanding any License whatsoever from the King or any person or persons to that purpose" (Firth and Rait 1070-72).
11 Clare argues that "droll" is a post-Restoration term, but this might be an exaggeration - both Kirkman and Marsh use variations of the term in their prefaces and on covers of the Wits or Sport upon Sport, but she correctly states that drollery or drolls are not a genre - it is more of a form, which was created out of necessity and need to preserve and continue in the dramatic tradition of late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. Similarly, Elson states that "we cannot recognize the droll as a single dramatic type like the morality, the masque, or the jig" (Elson 18).
When describing drolls, most of the authors (Randall, Rollins, Clare) concentrate on and mention Marsh's and Kirkman's collection of drolls, making the book the chief representative of the whole phenomenon. The early modern publishers' aim to continue in the heritage of Shakespeare or Fletcher is obvious - adaptations of their plays constitute the majority of both volumes. The originality and creativeness of the, mostly anonymous, authors of the drolls present a peculiar issue. Can we perceive them as individual works, or are they simply imitations of the famous pretexts? When discussing this, it is important to consider the period understanding of creative process:
"Playwrights of the early modern period were frequently known as 'play-patchers' because of the common perception that a play was pieced together out of a collection of odds and ends: it was not a single whole entity" (Stern 1). Copyright was unheard of in the seventeenth century and reworking a play, even if it meant copying whole passages from it, was not considered problematic at all. The Wits can, despite being a compilation of parts of previously famous plays, be perceived as a valuable work, presenting the preferences of the editors, but presumably also the Interregnum audience.
The borrowing of plots might be also connected with the change in the theatre space - as most of the theatres in London were demolished or closed, the actors often turned their attention to public areas such as marketplaces. Markets, being harder to
12 control by the local authorities, offered a bit more liberal environment. "Within the marketplace, themes and plots flowed freely between the stage and the page and playwrights borrowed from earlier playwrights and continental writers as they wrote new dramas" (Willie 15). All of this helped with the popularity of drolls. Yet, we should not perceive the form as predominantly political - majority of the drolls did not directly address any of the pressing issues of the day. On the other hand, the authors often tried to incorporate motifs within their works that would appeal to the government ideology:
"The novel and curious phenomenon of a royalist culture in opposition produced both a striking adaptability in the theatrical organism, able to contain current events, folk celebrations and pamphleteers, and the negotiation of innovatory theatrical aesthetics and techniques designed to appeal to the ethos of the Republic" (Clare 1). What is interesting is that this is only true for the authors and performers of dramas and not puppet plays -some scholars claim that the puppet shows continued "apparently without interruption, throughout the Puritan period" (Elson 21). Therefore, if the drolls from
Marsh's and Kirkman's collection were ever performed, they were most likely acted by actors and not puppets.
In spite of the obstacles during the eighteen years of the Interregnum, theatre and drama did not stop with its production and creation. They had to adapt greatly to the new circumstances of its existence, but they never ceased to exist. "The closure of the theatres in 1642 cannot be read as the takeover of a fanatical Puritan minority", and even though the 1648 order tried to eliminate them, it was never successful (Wiseman
6). The Wits or Sport upon Sport serve as one of the testimonies of the period, with its contents surveying the taste and preferences of the public. The following chapters will offer a closer look at the two volumes of the drollery.
13 2. THE THREE PREFACES TO THE WITS
The Wits or Sport upon Sport is a collection of short farces and drolls, which was published between the years 1662 and 1673. Overall, three editions of the collection exist - the first part was printed in octavo in 1662 by Henry Marsh, followed by the second edition of the same first part in 1672 by Francis Kirkman, a co-worker of Marsh.
A year later, in 1673, Kirkman printed the long proclaimed second part of The Wits, both in quarto and octavo (Elson 1).
There are almost no differences between the two editions of the first part - the only change is in the tone of the preface to the collection. The author of the 1662 preface is Marsh, posing as a mere "compiler", seeking profit and by no means fame
(1). The writing presents itself as very modest, reserved and apologetic - Marsh apologizes for any mistakes in the volume, and assures the reader that there were more people than him who have seen the publishing of these drolls as a respectable thing to do: "I was told by people that know better than myself, they would be in this model more beneficial in sundry respect, then as they lay dispersed before" (Marsh's Preface
A2v).
Marsh's introduction ends with the appeal to "remember the rump drolls", emphasizing the fragmental quality of the collection, suggesting that there used to be much more of such farcical scenes, which unfortunately do not survive in a written form. This serious and informative approach of Marsh's is especially interesting when compared with the prefaces which Francis Kirkman wrote. Kirkman's persona is more of a "jolly fellow" - he often describes humorous stories and makes it seem as if he had seen the majority of the drolls he is publishing. He, however, reprints Marsh's preface to the first part of The Wits word-by-word, making only two changes. He omits the
14 mention of the "rump drolls" and he also signs the preface with his own name, putting his predecessor completely out of the picture.
Little is known about Henry Marsh. He was a London-based bookseller, having his shop near Chancery Lane. He probably died "before the end of the year 1665", allegedly of plague, with Kirkman taking over his business later that year (Plomer 123).
There is considerably more information about Francis Kirkman, as he himself shared facts from his life in prefaces to various books he was printing. Born in 1632, a son of London blacksmith, he initially worked as a scrivener. In 1656, he established himself as a bookseller but had to return to his job as scrivener due to "having knaves to deal with" (Plomer 110). After the Restoration he returned to West End, working both as a scrivener and bookseller. Following some time working with Marsh, he inherited his shop - probably because of Marsh's debts to Kirkman (Plomer 111).
From his childhood, Francis Kirkman was known to be "a collector of plays", writing a dedicatory epistle to an edition of Marlowe's Lust's Dominion (Plomer 110-
11). His involvement with theatre led to the publication of the Catalogue of all the
English Stage-Playes that were printed since the beginning of the Elizabethan era, containing 690 items. The updated edition, published ten years later, contained 806 entries (Goodwin 219). The Dictionary of National Biography says that "in an interesting 'Advertisement' he [Kirkman] informs his readers that he had not only seen but had read all these plays, and possessed most of them, which he was ready either to sell or lend upon reasonable considerations" (219). Elson supposes that Kirkman might have been on the Continent during the Civil War, as he was able to speak and translate from both the French and Spanish, but such information cannot be verified (Elson 7).
He probably died sometime after the year 1680, when he stopped publishing (Elson 11).
15 Apart from the historically uncertain details about the relationship between
Kirkman and Marsh, the prefaces to both volumes of The Wits contain a lot of interesting information about the conventions of the genre. Let us consider this Marsh's observation, published in 1662 and reprinted verbatim by Kirkman ten years later: "He that knows a play, knows that humours have no such fixedness and indissoluble connexion to the design, but that without injury or forcible revolution, they may be removed to an advantage" (Marsh's Preface, not numbered). Such declaration proves to be a justification of what the mostly anonymous authors of the drolls were doing - simply taking the comical scenes and sketches out of the well-known Elizabethan,
Jacobean or Caroline plays and performing them (or in Kirkman's and Marsh's case, printing them).
Interestingly enough, neither Marsh nor Kirkman mentions the names of the original authors, even though they provide the reader of the first part with the list of drolls and the corresponding plays. The reasons for the omission of the names are uncertain. Kirkman, however, lists some of the names in the preface to the second volume of The Wits, where he says that "the most part of these pieces were written by such penmen as were known to be the ablest artists that ever this nation produced, by name, Shake-spear, Fletcher, Johnson, Shirley, and others" (Kirkman A2r). Yet this is at least peculiar - in the second part of The Wits, there is only a droll The Merry Conceited
Humours of Bottom the Weaver, an adaptation of Shakespeare's Midsummer's Night
Dream, and no droll inspired by either Fletcher, Johnson or Shirley. There are indeed drolls adapted from these authors in the first Wits, but the preface does not reference this volume at all.
This might be seen as a marketing trick of Kirkman - surely, any name of an important playwright would sound better than a collection of anonymous sketches.
16 Francis Kirkman surely does everything he can to promote his book. In the preface to the 1673 edition, he recommends the book to a wide variety of readers (and potential buyers of his volume), even to the "merry saylors in long voyage, to the East or West
Indies" (Kirkman A5v).
Beyond the tricks of the trade, Kirkman nevertheless shares a lot of valuable information about which drolls were performed during the twenty years of puritan interregnum and civil war and gives much useful detail about the productions. He claims that he will share "his experience", putting himself in the position of the eye witness of the period, which is a very different approach from Marsh's very distanced one (Kirkman A2r). Kirkman primarily explains the reasons for choosing the format of short sketches and excerpts: "When the publique theatres were shut up, and the actors forbidden to present us with any of their tragedies, because we had enough of that in earnest, and comedies, because the vices of the age were too lively and smartly represented. Then all that we could divert our selves with were these humours and pieces of plays" (A3v).
The drolls are here portrayed as an immediate response to the political situation in England after 1642 - they could not perform tragedies or comedies in the playhouses, so the artists invented a new form. Kirkman's commentary about the inappropriateness of tragedy in the time when war raged in England sheds some light on the absence of some best known and popular pieces from the preceding era - say tragedies of
Shakespeare, Webster or Ford. As for the comedies, it is understandable that comic relief would be the easiest and most popular form for any entertainment, but the collected drolls do not present a collection of silly slapstick pieces comprised for laughs only.
17 Even though some scholars claim that the drolls were absolutely apolitical, various references made by Kirkman in this preface and some selected pieces of drollery prove otherwise. Elson, for example, writes that "no contemporary political allusions occur in the drolls; no interpolations are made to satirize contemporary happenings, and very few excisions can be detected of passages which might be thought to touch on dangerous current issues" (22). It is true that The Wits are not a collection of satirical scenes about Cromwell, puritans or royalists, but it is certainly not a coincidence that a significant portion of the drolls employ the character of soldier as the main protagonist One would hardly look for a straightforward statements commenting the political situation, but very subtle criticism is discernible throughout both parts of the collection. The particular political implications of certain drolls will be explained in the chapters to follow.
Kirkman's slightly negative portrayal of the civil war and interregnum period is emphasized in the passage where he talks about the costumes used during the performances of drolls. He ridicules the British army and quotes a famous passage from
Fletcher's comedy The Woman's Prize, "Enter the Red Coat, exit hat and cloak", pointing out the common practice of the authorities to confiscate the costumes, thus preventing the company to perform (Kirkman, A4v). Kirkman also asserts that the actors were not only stripped of their clothes, but that they were "many times imprisoned, till they paid such ransom as the souldiers would impose upon them"
(A4v). This unfortunate position of the performers was bypassed by using ordinary clothes adjusted to look luxurious.
The provisional conditions of the performances apparently did not stop the actors from dressing up and putting on a playlet that would need good-looking garments: "It was hazardous to act any thing that required any good cloaths, instead of which painted
18 cloaths many times served the turn to represent rich habits" (A4v). This remark helps to imagine the actual scenic aspect of the sketches - there were some costumes or at least something that would clearly and visually separate them from everyday reality.
Kirkman mentions that the actor Robert Cox used buttered bread as a prop for the droll about the ever-so-famous Simpleton, which also proves the employment of certain, even though surely primitive, props. For example, in the droll "The Grave-makers
Argument", the audience should see a grave maker about to dig a grave; it would, indeed, be natural if the performer was holding a tool of some sort. The use of props and costumes on the "stage" will be further analysed in the chapters focusing on the certain drolls.
The above mentioned actor Robert Cox is the only known author of a number of drolls featured in Kirkman's and Marsh's collection. Kirkman names him in the 1673 preface: "the incomparable Robert Cox, who was not only the principal actor, but also the contriver and author of most of these farces" (Kirkman A3v). Cox is surely the author of the drolls "Oenone" and "Acteon and Diana" because these were printed individually before being published in the collection of The Wits. The little booklet of the drolls, published under the title Acteon and Diana, was printed a year after Cox's death (1656). The title page of the collection reads: "Acteon & Diana with a Pastoral
Storie of the Nimph Oenone. Followed by the several conceited humours of Bumpkin the Huntsman, Hobbinal the Shepherd, Singing Simpkin, and Iohn Swabber the
Seaman" (Cox, not numbered). The author is "Rob. Cox" and the contents of the book are claimed to be "acted at the Red Bull with great applause". This information coincides with that provided by Kirkman - Cox was a successful droll-performer, who acted in a number of scenes. The nature of the pieces in Acteon differs greatly, stretching from farcical drolls to short pastorals - yet, this confirms the eclecticism of
19 the period as The Wits share this variability of style.
Apart from the quoted details, not much is actually known about Robert Cox and his life. Both Randall and Elson suspect that he was a strolling player who probably did not belong to any London-based group of actors but had been touring the country, performing various repertoire (Randall 151). He was undoubtedly arrested in 1653 while performing the above-mentioned droll "John Swabber". The story was described in the weekly issue of Mercurius Democritus:
The Rope dancers having implyed one Mr. Cox an Actor, (a very honest
though impoverished man, who is not only as well as others, put by the
practice of his Calling, but charged with a poor Wife, and 5 helpless Infants) to
present a modest and ha[r]mless jigge, calle[d] Swobber, yet two of his own
quality, envying their poor brother should get a little bread for his Children,
basely and unworthily betrayed him to the Souldie[r]s, and so abused many of
the Gentry that formerly had been their Benefactors, who were forced to play
to the Souldiers 5 s. a piece for their coming out, as well as for their going in.
(Democritus 463)
The short report contains some very interesting remarks: firstly, there is the information about the rivalry between the actors, who were willing to report their colleague out of jealousy. Such a claim obviously cannot be confirmed but the competitiveness of actors, performers and troupes is such a wide spread phenomenon that the denunciation of Cox seems to be highly probable. Another, more important piece of information is the word "gentry" used in the account - this might tell us more about the people who were coming to see the shows. Even though performances of drolls were on the edge of legality, the audience comprised of possibly not only common people, but also the upper classes of the society. Interestingly, the same word
20 is used by Cox in the preface to his drolls as he is, very humbly as he says, addressing his readers. Lastly, the monetary value of one show can be observed in the testimony - five shillings per person may not have been enough for the actor to live comfortably
(given the need to provide a certain amount of the money to the owner of the place where the show had taken place), but it surely must have been a nice sum for the soldiers who were closing the place down. Rollins thinks that "the soldiers connived at acting only when to do so was to their own financial advantage" (Rollins 311).
Nevertheless, these fragments of information are among the few that help with the reconstruction of who Robert Cox was. Otherwise, it is known that he died on
December 12, 1655, making the publication of the Acteon a posthumous release (Elson
13).
In the second part of The Wits, Kirkman shares a memory of Cox performing at the university (which one he does not say). Apparently he was "very well esteemed [...] by the Learned, but more particularly by the Butler of one of those Colledges"
(Kirkman A3r). This assertion might be supported by the testimony of Antony Wood, a resident of Oxford: "They [the Presbyterians] would not suffer any common players to come into the Universitie, nor scholars to act in privat but what they did by stelth; yet at
Act times they would permit dancing the rope, drolles, or monstrous sights to be seen"
(Clark 299). This might mean that Cox was allowed to perform at universities; no records proving that someone of such name would visit any, unfortunately, exists (they, however, mention other travelling entertainers). Some scholars even claim that Kirkman may refer to a university town and not to the institution itself, making Cox simply a strolling player that travelled across country (Elson 23).
The only places about which we can be certain that they hosted performances of drolls and sketches are the Red Bull theatre, the precincts of Aldgate during
21 Bartholomew fair and public spaces or taverns at Charing Cross and Lincolns-Inn-
Fields. The last two of these are only connected with these activities through Kirkman's mention of them on the front-piece of the 1673 edition.
The content of both volumes of The Wits will be the focus of the chapters to follow. However, it would be unnecessary and, indeed, rather superfluous, to discuss every droll of the collection. On the contrary, the drolls should be divided into groups according to the authors. The groups are:
a) Drolls with William Shakespeare's influence
b) Drolls taken from the Beaumont and Fletcher canon
c) Drolls based on a folk humour and tales
Only these three groups will be described, with certain drolls from each of them chosen to be the representative pieces to be analysed. The analysis will trace the most important changes in the text when compared with the original play. It will also try to discover the scenic possibilities of the certain droll - whether it was performed, how many actors were needed or if the text suggest the usage of any props.
22 3. THE HEART OF THE WITS - ADAPTING BEAUMONT
AND FLETCHER
The biggest portion of The Wits consists of drolls, which were adapted from the plays of Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher - there are fourteen playlets, ranging from comedies to tragedies. This is not surprising as the plays written by Beaumont and
Fletcher were very popular throughout the seventeenth century: "Fletcher's dominance, established by 1620, continued for the rest of the seventeenth century, and not only at court. In the three decades after 1632 [...] Fletcher's Comedies and Tragedies were published in folio, and eighteen individual plays appeared in thirty-eight different quartos" (Taylor 19). During the Interregnum, when actors tried to defy the restriction of theatre performances, they often chose to stage Beaumont and Fletcher's play - in
London, "five different attempts to reopen the theatres between 1647 and 1654 showcased Fletcher" (Taylor 19).
The popularity of Beaumont and Fletcher's plays might be the reason for the multitude of adaptations of such dramas in the collection of Wits. The fourteen drolls are all incorporated in the first volume of the Wits, dominating the whole collection.
The style of adaptation per se often differs. The focus of the particular pieces shifts from nobility to rural imagery, which suggests there were many authors of the droll - all texts are, unfortunately, anonymous. The titles of the drolls differ slightly from the rest in the canon, not including the usual Humours of... before the name. For better clarity, let us list the names of the pieces followed with the names of the parent-plays:
1. The False Heire - The Scornful Lady
2. The Lame Commonwealth - Beggar's Bush
3. The Sexton - The Spanish Curate
4. An Equal Match - Rule a Wife and Have a Wife
23 5. The Stallion - Custom of the Country
6. The Loyal Citizens - Cupid's Revenge
7. Three Merry Boyes - Rollo, the Duke of Normandy
8. The Club Men - Philaster
9. Fore'd Valour - The Humorous Lieutenant
10. The Encounter - The Knight of the Burning Pestle
11. The Landlady - The Chances
12. The Testy Lord - The Maid's Tragedy
13. The Surprise - The Maid in the Mill
14. The Doctors of Dull-Head College - Monsieur Thomas
The order of the drolls correspond with their order in the Wits, however, there are occasionally drolls in between these pieces (such as the collection of folk drolls and others). Due to the high number of drolls inspired by the same author, it is possible to describe some shared qualities, which the adaptations bear. There seem to be three basic ways of adapting the parent-play: an adaptation of one scene only, an adaptation of scenes with one key character, who is the focus of the piece, and lastly an adaptation of selected scenes without an evident connecting factor.
The first group of adaptations consisting of one scene from the parent-play is the easiest to understand and, potentially, to perform. Only one scene is selected from the original, often one which is only episodic and can work well without background information about the characters, time or place of the drama. From the Beaumont and
Fletcher's collection in the Wits such approach is employed in four drolls - The Club
Men, The Loyal Citizens, The Sexton and The Lame Commonwealth. The adaptation of
Beggar's Bush, The Lame Commonwealth, is a grand example of a well-functioning droll, which does not show any overlapping plot lines and connections to the original
24 play. The author of the reworking has chosen the first scene of the second act, where beggars meet to decide who is going to be their new king. The droll has an argument introducing the playlet, stating that "a sort of Beggars meet at their Randevouze, and contend about choosing them a King, but are silenced by a Passenger, whose casting voice ends the controverse" (Wits I 28). Yet, the plot of the droll works well even without the argument - at the beginning the beggars enter the stage, describing their intentions; they discuss the matter and only later are interrupted by the character of
Hubert, who tries to retrieve information from them. The argument is therefore a mere retelling of what is about to happen and does not provide any background knowledge as other arguments in the Wits do. We might suggest that this is because there is no need for the audience (or reader) to know about the broader plot of the parent-play - to know about the conflict between the Dutch merchants and nobility is certainly beneficial and may add some perspective, but it does not in any way change the outcome of the droll.
The simple style of the adaptation does not, on the other hand, leave the scene untouched by the adaptator. Clause, the future king of beggars, enters the stage only after the rest of the beggars, despite the Fletcher's intention to have all beggars enter at once. Moreover, a question "But where is Clause?" is added in the scene, directing the attention of the audience towards Clause. (Wits I 28). "This addition in the droll, immediately following Clause's delayed entrance, serves to focus attention on the chief character" (Elson 78). The special status of the character of Clause is affirmed by his presence in the frontispiece of the Wits, where he is portrayed with cane, dressed in rags, with a big hat and beard, both his left hand and leg injured (see fig. 1). Clause is the only character taken from the plays of Beaumont and Fletcher, who is pictured on this engraving.
25 The Lame Commonwealth otherwise contains many things, which would appeal to the audience and would be able to provide great comic relief. Namely it is the moment of interrogation, when the beggars, not wanting to talk to Hubert, begin to stutter and stammer. The droll also contains the song "Cast our Caps and cares away", even though it is not reprinted in the Wits -the stage directions only say, "a song", but it is highly probable that the author of the adaptation used the same song as in the
Beggar's Bush.
Majority of Beaumont and Fletcher inspired drolls belong to the second group of adaptations, concentrating on one character, which the rewriting traces throughout the parent-play. There are eight of these (An Equal Match, The Stallion, Three Merry
Boyes, Fore'd Valour, The Encounter, The Testy Lord, The Surprise and The Doctors of the Dull-Head College), working with characters of subplot of the original drama rather than dealing with the material of the main storyline. In the droll An Equal Match, an adaptation of Rule a Wife and Have a Wife, the characters of Perez and Estifania, originally only side figures, become the main heroes of the drama. The duo of maid and captain and their courting, when both lie to each other, trying to marry above their social status, appear in four scenes in the parent-play, from which three are adapted in the Wits. It is impossible to say why the author of the adaptation chooses only three scenes instead of four. The missing scene is unfortunately the one, which in the original introduces both characters, and its omission causes a slight confusion at the beginning of the droll. There is an argument introducing the piece with "a loose Officer, and a wanton waiting Woman, marry in Hope of eithers Riches, and cozen one another", but this seems insufficient for providing the same information as the missing first scene of the first act (Wits I 45). The problematic beginning is however equalized with a well- made ending, when the couple reconciles and decides to pursue a happy life together.
26 The drolls in the second category contain an important feature of many drolls - the focus on a character, who is either a clown, with who the audience laughs or who is a despicable figure to be laughed at and see them ridiculed. The foolery of Bustopha in
The Surprise, an adaptation of The Maid in the Mill, serves as a great example of this buffoonery. The miller's son is described as a fat villager, who is both stupid and cunning, making fun of people around him. His unfitting role of Paris in a short play within a play emphasizes the comicality of the character, which overshadows the remaining players to the extent of resigning on the logical advancement of the story. As
Bustopha is merely a side character, his plotline does not have any conclusion, forcing the author of the adaptation to conclude the droll hastily, without any satisfactory finale.
This kind of conclusion is unfortunately very common for the Beaumont and Fletcher inspired drolls, which adapt more than one scene in order to showcase a character. The same might be said about The Testy Lord with the character of Calianax, whose continuous swearing and threatening may have been amusing, the uninteresting plot of the droll itself is however very poorly presented, continuously adding new scenes without providing any background to the characters or their motivation.
The third kind of adaptation proves to be the most difficult and demanding - to adapt certain scenes from the parent-play without a character that would tie the piece together seems to be a challenging step. Two drolls employ this device, and both to a certain extent fail in mediating an interesting story, which would spread the heritage of
Beaumont and Fletcher. The False Heire, adapted from The Scornful Lady, tries not only to reproduce a story of the Younger Brother, who, after his Older Brother's departure, lives a debauched life in his residence, but also presents a subplot of Roger and Abigal. The narrative of the couple's courtship does not intertwine with the storyline of the Brothers, leaving the final droll unbalanced. Elson comments on this
27 piece: "The droll is unusually deficient in unity and clarity. [...] No attempt is made to explain or bridge over the abrupt transitions" (Elson 371). Similar problematic features can be found in The Landlady, an episode from The Chances, which on one hand focuses on the episodic character of Landlady, who colourfully scorns her tenants, yet, on the other hand, narrates the story of a lost baby. Elson, once again, notes that "the droll ends rather lamely and vaguely, the whole story proving too complicated to be briefly handled" (218).
The problem of the third group of adaptations lies in the fact, that they are working with dramas, that are far too complicated to be shortened and simplified.
Neither of the parent-plays contain principal comic situations or clown-like characters, suggesting that one of the key features of the successful droll might be a light-hearted, simple story. This, however, does not mean that only comedies can be adapted and transformed into a droll. The collection of Beaumont and Fletcher's adaptations contain a piece entitled Three Merry Boyes, which originates in a historical tragedy Rollo, the
Duke of Normandy. Even though the chosen scene from the parent-play deals with one of the key subplots of the narrative (an attempt to poison Otto, Rollo's brother), the droll mostly focuses on the group of common men, Cook, Butler, Pantler and Yeoman, as they are preparing the poisoned meal. The advancement of the story is not ideal, jumping from scene to scene just to follow the group of characters. The finale focuses on Cook and his company being led to their execution - a grim ending that certainly could not provide the desired comic relief. But, before the very end, the common men gather to deliver a song "Three merry boys [sic]". The title of the droll itself is therefore derived from this very song, suggesting that this musical finale was perceived as the key component of the whole droll. It is possible that the reason for adapting Rollo, the Duke of Normandy was indeed the song it contains, as it can easily entertain the audience.
28 There is no evidence as to whether these fourteen drolls were ever performed on stage, but it is highly possible. If we can presume that the engraving at the front page of the Wits really portrays characters from the plays, which were staged, then at least the droll adaptation of Beggar's Bush could have been seen onstage. The popularity of
Beaumont and Fletcher after the reopening of the theatres was still great, which suggests that even during the problematic period of the Interregnum these plays or their re-workings resonated within the society. Even though already before the 1642 ordinance many complained that Beaumont and Fletcher's plays make the audience
"distracted and inattentive", forcing the public to visit the Red-Bull and Cock-pit, which was seen as an "adulterate stage", the immense pleasure lasted until the end of the seventeenth century (Kroll 106). It is true that some drolls exploit the bawdy humour of
Beaumont and Fletcher very much - for example The Stallion, adapted from The
Custom of the Country, chooses to work with two episodic scenes from the parent-play, which include descriptions and allusions to sexual slavery and exploitation. The chief jokes of the droll truly do not exceed the intention to coarsely talk about physical pleasures.
Despite their occasionally problematic form, the drolls inspired by Beaumont and Fletcher's dramas represent an important feature of the Wits. Due to the multitude of these adaptations we can name various features that are shared by many of these. Yet, what is more important, these qualities are not typical for Beaumont-and-Fletcher- inspired drolls, but can be later found in either drolls that are influenced by folk and popular culture, or in Shakespearean drolls. The three styles of adapting (one scene adaptation, adaptation of scenes with particular character, adaptation of random scenes) prevail in the whole collection. The mentioned emphasis on clowns, songs and dances,
29 or bawdiness will be further discussed in following chapters as well, when meeting with the characters of Falstaff or Simpkin.
30 4. ENTER THE CLOWNS
Looking through the prism of contemporary culture, there has probably not been a greater playwright in the West than William Shakespeare - as Harold Bloom puts it,
Shakespeare, together with Dante, excels all Western writers in "cognitive acuity, linguistic energy, and power of invention" (Bloom 43). When, however, one counts the occurrences of Shakespeare's dramas in Kirkman's collection of drolls, it becomes quite apparent that Shakespeare is significantly outnumbered by other playwrights, mostly
Fletcher and Beaumont. The reasons for this are obvious upon looking at the number of the reprints of English dramatic plays published from 1580 to 1660: "Shakespeare wrote nothing as popular as Kyd's Spanish Tragedy, Marlowe's Doctor Faustus, or the anonymous Mucedorus. [...] Shakespeare's most popular plays, in descending order, were apparently Henry IV Part One, Richard III, Pericles, Hamlet, Richard II and
Romeo and Julief (Taylor 18). All these plays, except for Pericles, were written between 1593 and 1601 - the period when "Marlowe, Kyd and Greene were dead, but
Jonson, Middleton and Fletcher had not yet replaced them" (18). It is highly probable that only at this time Shakespeare was London's major playwright. Gary Taylor measures Shakespeare's success by the number of one's plays performed at the royal court during the Christmas season. Since the 1610s, the rivalry between Shakespeare and Fletcher was reaching its peak, with Fletcher's overall dominance after 1619. This dominance and wide popularity of Fletcher lasted for the whole seventeenth century:
Of course, no company would go to the expense of reviving a play unless it
had once been popular, and might be popular again. [...] In the 1640s and
1650s, actors trying to defy the parliamentary closure of the theatres reached
for Fletcher, not Shakespeare. In London, five different attempts to reopen the
31 theatres between 1647 and 1654 showcased Fletcher. No one was willing to
take such risks for a play by Shakespeare. (Taylor 18-19)
Kirkman's collection may function as a confirmation of such claim. The Wits contains only three openly declared adaptations of a Shakespeare dramatic work and one droll that might have been at least inspired by a Shakespeare poem. Given the small number of the texts, this chapter will briefly describe all of the four pieces in question, focusing mostly on the reasons for choosing these particular parent-plays and not others.
By 1642, when the public theatres were officially closed, a long time had passed since the golden age of the Elizabethan theatre and drama. Even though the ban was not as absolute as it might have seemed, the staging tradition had to change completely (for more background on how this presupposition of non-existent theatre has been challenged, see Willkie 3). The troupes were deprived of their theatres and had to return to the acting and staging typical of the pre-Elizabethan era. "The acting companies reverted to their vagabond heritage, performing what Francis Kirkman called 'pieces of plays', excerpts of the most popular scenes from old reliables" (Taylor 19). It is only logical, that it was no longer possible to perform Shakespeare's plays that included shipwrecks, battles or scenes that needed an intricate stage and scenery. Even the ever- famous orchard (or balcony) scene from Romeo and Juliet would be difficult to perform in the tavern or at the fairground as there would not be any other level of the stage except for the ground one. Therefore, amidst the number of Shakespearean characters, a very distinct group of figures emerged - one of clowns and jesters that were capable of overshadowing the (otherwise strong) appeals of Prince Hamlet, King Lear or
Coriolanus.
32 In his Wits, Kirkman lists adaptations of two Shakespearean comedies, one tragedy and one poem, namely those of Henry IV, Part One, A Midsummer Night's
Dream, Hamlet, and Venus and Adonis. In all of these drolls, the source-texts are greatly shortened and altered; yet the adaptation technique is slightly different in each of the cases.
Let us start with the very first droll of the 1672 edition of the Wits, entitled The
Bouncing Knight or, The Robbers Rob'd. The main focus of the piece is the character of
Falstaff, who is referred to as "Jack". The scenes contained in the droll come from the first part of the Henry TV duology, the then most popular play by William Shakespeare
(Taylor 18). There is no doubt that, even at the time of public and private theatres, the audiences' love for Henry TV was given rise by the figure of Falstaff. Even the title page of the 1598 edition of the play reads "The History of Henry the fourth, with the battell at Shewseburie, betweene the King, and Lord Henry Percy, surnamed Henry Hotspur of the North. With the humorous conceites of Sir John Falstaffe", underscoring the popularity of the comical numbers with Shakespeare's original audiences {Henry TV sig.
Air). The jolly companion of prince Hal was popular to the extent of being actually portrayed on the front piece of the Wits, where the reader sees him dancing among many protagonists of sixteenth and seventeenth century English drama: Simpleton,
Changeling and others. Falstaff is, furthermore, the only Shakespearean character to be incorporated into the engraving, which alone speaks volumes about his significance.
The droll is also the very first in the collection that otherwise does not seem to have any rules in terms of ordering the drolls - it is neither in alphabetical order nor arranged in groups according the authors of the original plays. The first place that was given to a scene from Henry TV emphasizes the popularity of not only the character of Falstaff, but
33 also Shakespeare, who was, indeed, still remembered despite the decline in the staging of his plays.
Of the plot of the first part of Henry IV, the anonymous author of The Bouncing
Knight chooses chooses only the bits containing the character of Falstaff. Interestingly enough, the second scene of the first act and the second scene of the second act of
Henry TV, where Falstaff plans to rob (and then eventually robs) the travellers with his companions, only to be later robbed by Prince Henry, are missing in the adaptation.
However, the droll is introduced by a short synopsis, an argument of what happens in the respective scenes:
A company of mad fellowes resolve to take a Purse, and to that purpose
separate themselves, 4 in one company, 2 in the other, the four Rob the true
men, the two Rob those four again. And then all meeting, the 4 exclame against
the absent two, and other Scenes of mirth follow. (Wits 11)
Such an introduction seems to be not only chaotic as it continuously refers to a number of characters without ever naming any of them, but it also opens the question of the actual staging of the droll versus spreading it merely in a printed form. If the
Bouncing Knight was to be performed, this introductory passage might function as a very simple prologue, presenting the piece to the audience and informing them about the excerpt they are going to see. Or did the actual shape of the evening resemble a revue rather than a play? If so, it would, therefore, be possible to think of a figure of a
"master of ceremonies" who introduced every sketch, dance number, song et cetera. The character of this public commercial genre might enable a very free form of entertainment. When looking into historical sources, one might find the information that
Robert Cox, the only performer and author of the drolls whom we know by name, employed a boy who was supposed to musically accompany the actor or actors, so,
34 perhaps, the form of the performance was indeed rather eclectic, combing all sorts of pastime activities (for example rope dancing, music, and some simple dramatic sketches) (Baker 31).
The list of dramatis personae names eight characters: Prince, Jack, Poines, Peto,
Roff, Hostess, Bardol and Drawer. Many of these are, however, called differently in the droll - for example the speeches of Henry IV are introduced by the name "Prince" but also, in some instance, "Hal". The spelling of Poines oscillates between "Poines" and
"Poynes"; "Roff seems to be a misspelled version of the abbreviated name Rossill.
Elson claims that Rossil might have been the name of the actor playing the character of
Gadshill (Elson 47). In Nungezer's Dictionary of Actors, one can read that in a 1597 production of Henry IV at the Theatre, Poins says in speech to Prince: "Falstaff,
Harvey, Rossill, and Gadshill shall rob those men that we have already waylaid"
(Nungezer 305). Nungezer comments that "in the scene of the robbery (I. ii) the characters here called Harvey and Rossill are discovered to be Bardolph and Peto, which led to Theobald's suggestion that Harvey and Rossill were the actors who took the parts of Bardolph and Peto" (305). On the other hand, he admits that Harvey and
Rossill might only be "ghost names". Nevertheless, the droll might have been inspired by this version of the production and therefore, incorporated this name in the text, even though the lines Roff is delivering belong to the character of Gadshill.
Some characters from Shakespeare's play are mentioned in the droll; it is even suggested that they might be on stage, yet they are not listed in the dramatis personae or are assigned any lines. This is a case of Harry Percy (Hotspur) - Prince Henry refers to him when talking to Falstaff, who is lying on the ground: "imbowel'd will I see thee by and by, till then, in blood by noble Percy lye" (Wits 7 11). The character of Thomas
35 Percy is also mentioned and the demonstrative "there is Percy" is used; nothing else, however, suggests that this character appeared on stage (12).
Besides the confusing introduction, the adaptation of Henry TV, Part One is a grand example of comic relief during the uneasy period. The author of the reworking chose specifically the passages with the rudest jokes, greatly ignoring the political aspect of the original play. The question, however, remains: Was it possible for the audience to ignore the historical context of the parent play? The original drama features stories of revolt against the king, which at the time of beheading Charles I must have been an explosive topic. As it was said earlier, it was Shakespeare's most popular play ever and one can suppose that the late seventeenth-century audience still remembered its plot or owned a copy of the play - so the droll, even though focusing on the comical parts of the parent play, might have had political connotations.
The Bouncing Knight contains excerpts from five scenes from Shakespeare's
Henry TV, Part One: I.iv; Ill.iii; TV.ii; V.i and V.iv. The droll opens with Prince Henry saying, "How now Jack, where hast thou been?", and even though the stage direction notes "Enter Several", this scene is entirely dominated by the characters of Prince and
Falstaff (Wits II). This applies to the whole droll - occasionally, other characters speak as well, but the duo of Falstaff and Prince Henry "steals the show", as it were. Some scenes seem to be alternated just because Falstaff can then stay longer onstage. The droll, for example, omits lines 273 to 315 from Il.iv, where the hostess comes and the situation asks for Falstaff s exit. Instead of this moment from the original, the droll continues with Prince and Falstaff s witty conversation:
Jack. O no more of that Hal if thou lovest me.
Prince. How long i'st ago Jack since thou saw'st thine own knee. (Wits 15)
36 Jack's line corresponds with Il.iv 272 from the parent play, Prince's utterance is however line 316 from the same Act. Such cuts and bridges occur regularly in the droll, closely resembling something that we would nowadays call directing and adjusting to the needs of the ensemble. A subtle "directing" can be also seen in the stage directions, which are considerably more detailed that the one's in Shakespeare's play. Sometimes the directions inform of costumes and props as in "Enter Jack as to the Wars" (Wits I
10). Such stage direction is nowhere to be found in the parent play and as it is evident from the subsequent speech that Falstaff is planning to go to war, the direction must refer to a change in costuming (very simple and minimalistic, given the circumstances
Kirkman is describing in the above quoted preface). Shakespeare's own stage direction is extended to "Jack in fight falls down as he were dead, the Prince espying him on the ground, speaks" (Wits 7 11). The direction is a joint description taken from the stage direction at the end of V.i and "one which follows 1. 76, and the remainder from another, which follows 1. 101" (Elson 58). The literal wording of what should happen onstage might suggest the desire of the author of the droll to really have this occurring during the performance, but it could also mean that this printed version was used by amateur actors, who were not so talented and needed certain level of guidance. Another possibility might be that the author of the droll wrote the text with a specific performance in mind, one he saw in the theatre, and accustomed the directions to this production.
The droll substitutes certain words, especially those relating to Jesus Christ or religion in general, with more neutral expressions. Consider this: in the droll one of
Henry's lines goes "Why ye fat paunch, and ye call me, Coward by this light, Tie stab thee" (Wits I 2). In Shakespeare's quartos however appear the word '"Zounds", the abbreviated form of "God's wounds", instead of "Why" used in the droll. Henry's
37 former "by the Lord" is equally substituted with "by this light" {Henry IV, Part One
Il.iv). Such changes can be found throughout the whole droll, usually altering words like '"Sblood", "Ifaith" or "Heaven". Interestingly enough, the folio edition of
Shakespeare's play from 1623 omits these lines completely, which might be the result of the 1606 "Act of Abuses", forbidding the actors to "abuse the Holy Name of God in stage plays" (Tomlins 678). The droll version of this speech suggests an intervention of the censor, but it was probably the self-censorship of the droll's author. The Bouncing
Knight occasionally still uses terms "pray God" or alike, which rather implies a careless censor from the midst of the droll-performers and authors. There is no evidence that this particular piece has been performed but, because it is a known fact that the much longer droll The Merry Conceited Humours of Bottom the Weaver (see below) was staged, one may presuppose that The Bouncing Knight had seen the light of the stage too (Elson
370).
Gary Taylor sees the existence of The Merry Conceited Humours of Bottom the
Weaver from the second volume of the Wits as a sad example of the decline of the
English theatrical culture in the seventeenth century. He very emotionally describes the connection between the original and the droll adaptation as follows: "In the mid-1590s, a hand-picked company of professional actors, performing A Midsummer Night's
Dream in their own large London theatre, had demonstrated their confident virtuosity by mocking the incompetence of amateur thespians. By the 1650s that dream was in pieces. [...] The mechanicals had taken over" (19-20).
For him the problem lies in the fact, that the author of the droll decided to pick only the scenes that featured the "rude mechanicals"; just a glance at the Merry
Conceited Humours, however, allows one see that this is not entirely true. Although the
38 droll indeed works with every scene which introduces Quince's company, it also features several scenes with the fairies, Titania, Oberon, and Puck.
The piece begins with the list of dramatis personae which reveals a lot about the theatrical conventions of the period. The mechanicals, who later transform into the characters of the play-within-the-play Pyramus and Thisbe, were supposed to perform as fairies too. In Kirkman's 1673 edition, the three fairies are supposed to be acted by the performers of Bottom, Flute and Snout. Such alternation is, however, not possible - in IV.i the fairies enter onstage to help Bottom with scratching his ass's head, forcing the actor of Bottom to perform in two roles at once. Such nonsensical casting is probably a mistake either on the part of Kirkman or of the typesetter and one can presuppose that the fairies were performed by Flute, Snout and Snug. The droll also uses the same actor for Titania and "the Dutchess" (meaning Hippolyta) and suggests one performer for the character of Oberon and Duke Theseus. The Merry Conceited
Humours would, therefore, only need nine actors to perform the part of Shakespeare's parent play. Only the quartet of lovers is missing completely, with no traces of their storyline.
The author of the droll does not provide the reader/spectator with the background story of what happened in the original drama prior to the scene that is about to be read/seen. This contrasts with the other Shakespearean drolls that sum up, at least basically, the previous action. The person in charge of the adaptation simply added one line to the character of Bottom, who very briefly introduces the circumstances of the scene:
Bottom. Come, Neighbours, let me tell you, and in troth I have spoke like a
man in my daies, and hit right too, that if this business do but please his Grace
fancy, we are made men for ever.
39 Quince. I believe so too, Neighbour, but is all our company here? (Wits II 29-
30)
Bottom simply presents the conditions of the scene: the artisans are about to do something for the Duke that would make them respected and, presumably, rich. In the next few lines, one learns that the company of mechanicals is about to rehearse a play - it is clearly not necessary to provide the droll with a lengthy introduction when the explanation for the scenes with the workers is contained in the original work. Even if the audience member did not know Shakespeare's original, the storyline of the mechanical is so simple and so well embedded in the self-explaining lines, that it can function as an autonomous short play.
Apart from the aforementioned change, the scenes with the mechanicals are almost identical to the ones in A Midsummer Night's Dream - the droll uses scenes I.ii,
IILi, IV.i and IV.ii, as well as V.i, in which the final performance of Pyramus and
Thisbe takes place. Minor changes occur in the scenes with Oberon and Puck (who is, in this edition, referred to as "Pugg") and also Titania and her fairies (Il.i; Il.ii). These happen mostly because Shakespeare's Oberon often delivers very poetic and lengthy speeches that might have been boring and redundant for the mid-seventeenth century audiences, especially as the drolls were usually performed in some tavern or at a fair.
It is without a surprise that the part of The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of
Denmark employed between the years 1642 and 1660 was the ever so popular gravediggers' scene from V.i. called in the Wits The Grave-makers Argument. The short introductory note to the droll says: "While he is making the Grave, for a Lady that drown'd herself, Hamlet and his friend interrupt him with Several Questions" (Wits I
56). This, without doubts, works as a marker for the audience members who know who
Hamlet is and just need to orient themselves in the time and dramatic space of the
40 sketch. Indeed, the scene contains a number of moments when the spectators' knowledge of the characters of Ophelia and Claudius helps a great deal to understand what is going on. Interestingly enough, one can see that the chosen part and theme of this Shakespearean adaptation differs greatly from the previous two, the humour of the piece being very far from the jokes of Falstaff and Bottom.
The only visible divergence from Shakespeare's original might, yet again, be the entrances and exits of the characters on stage - the adaptation treats these much more carefully and they are strictly subordinated to the logic of the performance and the needs of the actors. For example, in the parent play, Hamlet and Horatio enter the stage to be seen during the gravedigger's speech and his song. Such entrance would, nonetheless, hardly be possible under provisional conditions in the Interregnum, where there were no officially accessible big theatre houses with spacious stages. The printed edition of the droll suggests that Hamlet and Horatio enter only after the first gravedigger stops singing: "Grave.: O methought there was nothing a meet. Enter two
Gentlemen" (Wits I 58). Yet, in the Folio edition of the Shakespeare play, one might find the entrance of the men before the Gravedigger says "Cadgel thy brains no more about it, for your dull ass Will not mend this pace [...]" (Hamlet Fl: 5.1). The actors performing the two characters, therefore, enter only when they are about to speak - they do not stand around and watch the gravedigger performing his song.
A droll titled Venus and Adonis, or, the Maid's Philosophy is the shortest of the four Shakespearean adaptations, comprising only 49 lines. Although the direct model for this non-comical short scene remains unknown, it is still based on the classical myth of Venus and Adonis. However, as Scanlon observes, "important changes were made to the traditional story, such as the slaying of the young lover by the huntsmen, rather than a wild boar. There is some evidence to suggest that it dates back to the previous century,
41 perhaps as part of a lost full-length play or some longer work" (Scanlon 371). He later discusses the origin of the title of the droll:
The curious subtitle appears in Act III, scene IV of The Dumb Knight (1608)
by Gervase Markham and Lewis Machin. One of the characters in the play,
after quoting stanza 39 of Shakespeare's Venus and Adonis, is asked about the
book he is reading. It is called, he replies, "Maid's Philosophy, or Venus and
Adonis'". (371; original italics)
This mention clearly suggests that the author of The Dumb Knight knew Venus and Adonis, or, the Maid's Philosophy and, if it was so, it is highly possible that he was closely acquainted with Shakespeare's poem. Furthermore, as John Elson suggests, the way in which Adonis refers to Venus as "fair nymph" or "dear saint" indeed resembles the traditional Elizabethan romantic conventions of perceiving Venus and Adonis as characters engaged in a romantic relationship (Elson 394). It is also important to mention that in 1640, not long before the Civil War, an octavo edition of Shakespeare's poems was published (Duncan-Jones 9). Therefore, the author of this short droll might worked with this very edition of Shakespeare's narrative poem.
The status of Venus and Adonis in the post-Shakespearean society of the seventeenth century was that of a notoriously popular piece - this might be seen as a continuation of the popularity, which started already during Shakespeare's life
(Duncan-Jones xvi). Erne states that "[it] went through ten editions before the end of
Shakespeare's life and six more by 1636 (including one, dated 1627, published in
Edinburgh, the first Shakespeare edition to appear outside London), making it
Shakespeare's most successful publication in the early modern period" (Erne 60). As
Kolin puts it "Venus had become mandatory reading for lustful men trying to conquer a young, vulnerable woman" (Kolin 12). Not only do Markham and Machin mention the
42 poem in their play; in the same year (1608), Thomas Middleton's character Harebrain from a play A Mad World, My Masters prevents his wife to read Venus and Adonis in order not to be cheated on. "Venus' reputation as a seduction manual continued into the middle of the seventeenth century" (Kolin 12). It is, therefore, highly possible that the author of the droll adapted Shakespeare's version - because of the popularity, but also because of its lewd connotations.
When looking on these four drolls, it is hard to reach any summarizing conclusion that would enlighten the techniques used when adapting the works of
William Shakespeare. The four examples differ fundamentally, crossing genres, using different humour and having variable needs when it comes to staging the playlets.
Therefore, it is not possible to state any concluding points that would describe the position of Shakespeare within Kirkman's collection. Something is, however, apparent: even though the position of Shakespearean adaptations within Kirkman's Wits is not most favourable, being outnumbered by those of Beaumont and Fletcher, those drolls that survived show us that Shakespeare was still considered as one of the major playwright of the previous early-modern period. Given the privileged position of the droll Bouncing Knight and the careful treatment of the parent plays by the authors of the adaptations, it is obvious that the Interregnum audience still wanted to see Shakespeare performed and not only read. Gary Taylor says that, during the years of the Civil War and the official closure of the theatres, "the mechanical had taken over". That, however, does not seem to be the case (Taylor 20). The theatrical means and possibilities simply changed - but the fact that even in these unhappy times of the politically unstable era, the public still wanted to entertain themselves with Shakespearean heritage, proves the quality of the playwright. The three Shakespeare's clowns, Falstaff, Bottom and the
Gravedigger, entered the improvised stage of the Interregnum to be a comic relief for
43 the people living in uneasy times, not to degrade the work of William Shakespeare.
44 5. BUMPKINS. SIMPKINS. SIMPLETONS - DROLLS
AND POPULAR CULTURE
Among the multitude of drolls that adapt plays of previous periods, there are only a few of those that do not seem to be adaptations but rather original creations. Six drolls in both volumes of the Wits continue the tradition of jigs and stage farces, which were particularly popular in early modern England, with their authors often unknown or at least uncertain. Clegg and Skeaping list two of those, The Black Man and Singing
Simpkin, as immediate successors of sung theatrical jigs of the late sixteenth century.
The droll Simpleton the Smith worked with a well-known character of a country fool, a figure so notorious that it found its way to the front piece of the Wits. Unfortunately, the folk nature of the piece makes it nearly impossible to identify the author of the sketches.
The remaining drolls had already been published in the 1656 edition of Robert Cox's plays - here Kirkman and Marsh merely reprinted Cox's work and briefly commented upon them. However, neither of them credits Cox as the author of these farces, suggesting a questionable authorship of the playlets.
The jig seems to be an ideal dramatic form for the semi-illegal stages during the
Puritan Interregnum. It was short, therefore safe to perform - "simply because there was less time for in flagrante discovery by the authorities" (Clegg 53). To act out a jig in front of the audience was considerably less risky than to stage a whole play. The fact that the pieces were often sung or danced might have played its role, too - to sing a song was a mundane thing and was in no way seen as problematic as theatre. Clegg maintains that "[l]ike many Elizabethan and Jacobean jigs, these are [...] cuckoldry farces, broadly bawdy and thoroughly good-humoured, and it may be that such short
45 pieces, [...] published during the Interregnum, were treated with relative leniency by those charged with enforcing parliamentary ordinances to suppress plays" (Clegg 53).
The six drolls from the Wits have many features in common. Primarily it is the usage of props and decorations, but one can also encounter nearly identical characters, plots or stage actions. In every droll with these popular themes can be found at least one fool or simpleton - be it a wise fool, who can trick other characters, or a silly man, who is featured mostly for the laughs. Adultery and premarital sexual encounters are the favourite topics of the scenes; masking and changing of the clothes are common features here, as well as dances and songs. The number of both direct and indirect stage directions is indeed very high and the drolls demand many objects on stage, which constitute an integral part of the shows. As there are often direct stage directions, which are later supported by indirect ones, we can suppose that the actors really used the desired objects, costumes and decorations - in many cases the droll would not make any sense if something were missing. For example, in Singing Simpkin, the main character must hide in a chest, from which he occasionally peeps out and comments the stage business. Of course, the chest can be replaced with any other object capable of containing a grown-up man, but the necessity of at least something on the stage remains.
The droll entitled The Humours of John Swabber might be the work of Robert
Cox, the only known author and performer of drolls of the period. Kirkman mentions
Cox as Swabber in his Preface to the second volume of the Wits and Cox himself is named as the author of John Swabber in the 1656 collection Acteon and Diana. In this collection, Cox had published five plays, some of which he probably wrote (or at least adapted) as well - among them the droll of John Swabber, Singing Simpkin and
Simpleton the Smith. The droll might be seen as a sort of sample piece for the works
46 with popular roots within the Wits. Cox's Swabber seems to be a perfect combination of popular themes, characters and plotlines - cuckoldry, masking, boasting soldiers and fighters. The story is longer than the other drolls, occupying thirteen pages in the first part of the Wits. John Swabber is a seaman, a typical dunce, who is easily fooled and subsequently ridiculed.
The piece opens with him wanting to kill Cutbeard, a barber who is having an affair with Swabber's wife. Despite the boisterous speech and many weapons which
Swabber carries, he is discovered to be a coward who is even afraid of his neighbour's dog. In an attempt to reconcile with Cutbeard, he lets the barber wash and powder his face - initially to be attractive for the ladies. Cutbeard, however, tricks him and powders Swabber's face with soot, forbidding the simpleton to look in the mirror as he might end as badly as Narcissus (Wits 1127). With his face blackened, Swabber returns home to his wife Parnel, who mocks her husband for being so silly. This episode ends with Swabber once again swearing his revenge to Cutbeard, leaving the stage to go and find him. Cutbeard then appears in the wife's room, courting her. As Swabber returns home, the two lovers decide to hide Cutbeard in a cradle, pretending that the barber is
Swabbers new-born son. Believing that Cutbeard, despite his beard, is his son, provokes fatherly feelings in Swabber - he proceeds to feed the baby with pancake batter (which he mistakes for milk). When there is no more food, Swabber runs to find more milk and
Cutbeard can finally leave. The wife manages to bring her own baby, blaming the fairies for exchanging the child. Swabber is now only mad at the sprites, making his peace with Cutbeard. The play concludes with a dance.
The situations in the piece are rather stereotypical and one could suppose that they were very well known to the audience. In the English environment, the plot of false baby in a cradle, was already popular and therefore could be easily recognized from the
47 Second Shepherds' Play, a middle-English mystery play, where a sheep is passed off as a baby. The droll requires many props and other objects to appear on stage, the first being the weapons carried by Swabber. The stage direction says, "Enter John Swabber, armed with several ridiculous weapons" (Wits 1121). Only one of these, a pair of tongs, is mentioned in the speaking portion of the show: "I will draw his teeth one by one, with an instrument called a pair of Tongs" (Wits 1122). According to Cox's 1656 version of the story, the other weapons should be "a sword, a gun, a spit, a pair of tongs, and other"; therefore, we can assume that if the actor performing Swabber in the
Interregnum period carried more than one weapon, it would be one from the list above
(Cox 28). Although only the tongs are mentioned by Swabber, the presence of many arms onstage might have helped with the comical effect of the main character. On the other hand, due to the provisional state of the theatre during this period, it is also possible that the troupe worked with any object resembling a weapon, ignoring the description provided in the stage directions.
Other props may include a razor, which should be in Cutbeard's hands, but which is never used - the stage direction states "enter Cutbeard with a Razor", but no shaving or threatening with the blade is said to happen onstage (Wits I 124). The character of the barber had to work with two containers with powder (one filled with normal powder, the other with soot) as the exchange of those two is one of the most comical moments in the story and has its own stage direction: "Changes the Powder, and blacks his face all over" (Wits 1127). With the same level of certainty, it can be assumed that there had to be a mirror or a piece of glass onstage, as Swabber needs to see his reflection with blackened face, and also a jug or a bowl with the batter which he later feeds to the
"baby". The nature of the bowl and the whole process of feeding the disguised Cutbeard
48 is somewhat problematic. The stage direction asks for "bowl of Batter, and a Ladle", with the wife specifically mentioning the stupidity of Swabber, who mistakes the batter for milk:
Parn. What will you do? You must endure with patience; I mingled batter but
just now for pancakes, and that he'll bring, as certain as I live.
Cut. I shall be cram'd to death; mercy upon me. (Wits 7131)
As Swabber later returns with milk, the direction says "enter Swabber with more
Milk" - but the audience did not see any milk-jug or other milk container before (Wits I
132). There is no possible way of reconstructing what was really on stage at that moment, whether the batter and this newly brought milk had been in identically looking receptacles or whether the performer of Swabber in fact brought the milk - it is not needed for the plot development anymore. Here the directions prove to be meant only for the inspiration of the artist, who could or could not follow it. The same applies to the child, who is exchanged with Cutbeard shortly before the end of the droll - we should by no means presuppose that there was an actual baby onstage, despite the stage direction's "Parnel fetches a little Childe, and lays it in the cradle" (Wits I 132). Even though the theatrical conventions of the period were very different than those of the twenty-first century, it is highly probable that the acting troupe used the same device as theatres do today - they would simply carry a bundle of rags or a toy onstage, pretending that they are manipulating with a baby.
The biggest object on the stage in The Humour of John Swabber is, without doubt, the cradle, which should be "set forth" when Parnel tries to quickly hide her lover from the approaching husband (Wits I 130). Even though the stage directions mention the cradle immediately after the couple first discusses this piece of furniture, it could have been on the stage for the whole duration of the droll. Yet, this leads to the
49 question of the dramatic space: because the droll might be seen as two playlets joined together (Swabber is tricked by Cutbeard when his face is blackened being the first,
Cutbeard pretending to be his baby in order to conceal the adultery the second), we encounter two spaces - street with a barber shop and the house of Swabber. A cradle would without a doubt be an atypical equipment of any barber shop - so it might either have been brought onstage for the second part of the droll only, or it could have been present on the stage the whole time under the condition of looking like a wooden crate or cabinet. Should we believe the stage direction "a Cradle set forth", a necessity of some backstage space would arise - the requirement of a place where the cradle would be hidden during the story of Swabber having his face blackened by Cutbeard (Wits I
130). Another solution could be to hide the cradle behind an improvised curtain. If we should believe the frontispiece of the Wits, there could be a curtain in the centre of the stage, which would provide enough space for the furniture to be hidden (White 113). At the time of the Interregnum, when performing stage plays was still punishable by law, such demanding conditions might have been limiting the droll from being performed, for example, in a tavern or a similar improvised place.
The same requirement is applicable to the stage directions asking the performer to react to the action on stage while being not seen. Such a situation is repeated in several drolls with popular themes and characters - in Swabber, Cutbeard should be talking "from within"; similarly, in Singing Simpkin, a couple of lovers hear a character approaching and shouting from within (Wits I 114, 122). Even though this does not mean that there should be backstage space in the modern meaning, there at least should be a door leading on the stage or a curtain, behind which could the performer hide.
The same stage directions also inform us about a dance that should follow immediately after John Swabber reconciles with the barber and directs his anger
50 towards the imagined fairies. The nature of the dance is unknown, but it is suggested by the characters that it might be fairly slow - Swabber says that "I can dance nothing but a melancholly Dance: for I am in a grievous dump for Simon [his new-born son] still"
(Wits I 133). Yet, the very presence of the dance is highly interesting. Dances occur regularly in these drolleries, but almost exclusively in the ones with jig-heritage and songs. To have a dance as an outcome of a story with a theme of adultery is uncommon
- in the whole collection of Wits, such stories usually end with the lover being beaten up by the husband (as should be seen in the following description of other folk drolls).
The ending of John Swabber could be described as almost absurd, as the audience knows about the infidelity of the wife and the naivety of Swabber - and still, the dance proves to be reconciliatory. It is possible that the droll is a part of a lost full-length play, which both Kirkman and Cox abbreviated and reprinted. The opening argument of this droll states: "Argument is needless. It being an ancient Farce, and generally known"
(Wits I 121). This might point to a play featuring the droll - however, another reason might be the popularity of this particular droll. It is, after all, The Humour of John
Swabber that is remembered by Kirkman in his preface to the second volume of The
Wits, and the droll is also mentioned in the Mercurius Dramaticus when describing the incident of Cox's arrest by the soldiers (see Chapter 2).
Another factor determining the popularity of these folk drolls might have been the language which they used. It differs greatly from the droll-adaptations of stage plays from the preceding periods, which often keep the blank verse and erudite style.
Swabber's language, on the other hand, uses common phrases, humour, alliterations and innumerable vulgarities. Elson comments, that "this [Swabber] is one of the liveliest and most comical of the drolls, highly amusing in both dialogue and situations. The language has a gusto found in no other Coxian droll, unless possible the Simpkin"
51 (Elson 386). Some examples of such "gusto" might be the playful alliteration in
Swabber's threats to Cutbeard: "Who has offended me, why thou base, beastly, boisterous Babylonian, bawdy-fac'd Barber, thou hast" (Wits 1122). As Swabber is the only one to use such tropes, the interpretation might be that the author of the play perceived these alliterations as a marker of comicality of the character. Swabber's utterances use more of these linguistics elements; a similar one may be perceived when
Swabber shouts at Parnel, "why you proud, peevish, petty, paltry Parnel, why did you make me stay so long?" (Wits 1130). To this particular occurrence, when comparing the edition of Marsh with the edition of Kirkman (that is, "B."), Elson adds: "This extraordinary group of variations in B. occurs entirely on one page, 130. It suggests that the page was partially pied and corrected by guesswork. The formula of abuse, you proud [...], which from its oddity would be likely to stick in memory, has been preserved intact" (Elson 200). These easily memorable passages might have certainly been one of the key aspect for the droll's popularity.
When talking about the qualities of Swabber, Elson compares the droll with The
Humours of Simpkin, another folk-like playlet. It is often called Singing Simpkin, as the version of Robert Cox, published together with his Acteon and Diana and other farces in 1656, bears the same name and does not differ much from the edition printed in the
Wits. The subject matter of the narrative is much older, originating in Boccaccio's
Decameron, which provides the basic plot of the story (Clegg 100). "Madam Isabella, being in company with Leonetto her lover, is visited by one Messer Lambertuccio, of whom she is beloved; her husband returning, [unexpected,] she sendeth Lambertuccio forth of the house, whinger in hand, and the husband after escorteth Leonetto home"
(Boccaccio 341). This is a short synopsis of the sixth story of the seventh day in
Decameron - the story itself indeed provides the basic outline of Singing Simpkin, with
52 all important characters and plot twists. The original tale was later adapted many times, especially in the sixteenth century, with "two English versions of the story set[ting] it lower down the social scale. Those in Tales and Qui eke Answers [...] and Mery Tales,
Wittie Questions, and Quicke Answeres [...] are both entitled 'Of the inholder's wyfe and her two lovers'" (Clegg 100). The foolishness of the old husband in these adaptations is further developed when the couple of lovers receives a gallon of wine from him - a scene that does not occur in Decameron. Yet, it is "echoed in Singing
Simpkin and suggests that this version of the story may have served as a basis for its writing" (Clegg 101). A jig of similar subject was entered in the Stationers Register on
21 October 1595 as "a ballad called KEMPS newe Jygge betwixt, a souldiour and a
Miser and SYM the clown" (Clegg 101). William Kempe (or Will Kemp), was a major figure in the history of jigs. After travelling on the continent, he returned to England around 1590, becoming one of the best-known clowns of his era. He is an author of many jigs, as it was often the company clown, who wrote jigs. Only four of Kempe's jigs were entered in the Stationer's Register, Kemps newe Jygge being among them
(Nungezer 218). This particular jig did not survive, but due to Cox's version published in his collection, this ever-so famous piece survived in its English folk version.
Otherwise there is many versions of this piece in different languages all-over Europe, confirming the immense popularity of the story (Wiggins 294-6).
Singing Simpkin covers the tale of cuckoldry as well: Simpkin is visiting his lover, a wife whose old husband is absent. Someone knocks on the door and Simpkin, panicking, hides in a chest in the very same room. Enter Bluster, a boisterous soldier, who would like to seduce the wife. As Bluster tries to succeed in charming the wife,
Simpkin regularly peeps out from the chest, humorously commenting the action on stage. A second knock on the doors introduces the husband of the lady - and even
53 though Bluster, as a soldier, should be courageous, he proves to be a coward, who is abruptly trying to find a place to hide. The wife then fabricates a story which should disprove her husband's potential suspicion: Bluster "is to pretend he is there because he chased a thief, who had robbed him, into the house" (Clegg 99). The roaring soldier quickly convinces the husband and leaves the stage. The wife then reveals Simpkin hiding in the chest and the trio celebrates Bluster's depart. The husband suggests he will buy some wine, for which Simpkin gives him money - as he wants to spend some time alone with the wife. The old husband leaves, but becomes suspicious and listens behind the doors only to find his wife indeed cheating on him. He returns on the stage with a servant and together they beat Simpkin.
The influence of both Boccaccio and the bawdy sixteenth century English adaptations is unquestionable. However, Clegg suggests that the last verses which deal with Simpkin's punishment for his bad deeds, were added by Cox himself as an innovation, and were, therefore, not written by William Kempe: "Kemp is unlikely to have paid this kind of lip service to conventional morality, preferring to embrace the carnival spirit of misrule. This justified attack on the lover accords better with the ethos of the Commonwealth than with that of Elizabethan clowning" (Clegg 102). This suggestion might be confirmed by the tendency of other drolls, which make use such popular motifs to end with a character's beating (as for example in Simpleton, which will be discussed further on in this chapter).
Another traceable inspiration for the contents of Singing Simpkin may be found in commedia dell'arte. In contrast with the low features of the droll (probably a heritage of the English folk tradition), the characters resemble several famous commedia figures.
The boasting soldier Bluster shares his two-facedness with his Italian model II
Capitano. II Capitano always seems to be ready for a battle, but one rarely sees him
54 engaging in one. He often talks about his military and other successes, yet when it comes to real action, he frequently retreats. And, what is the most important part, his name often emphasizes his pretended boldness and world-wisdom (Chaffee 82-90). The same applies to Bluster, whose name directly refers to his loudmouth qualities, with the rest of his characteristics corresponding with those of II Capitano. Likewise, the Old
Man in the droll mirrors Pantalone, the old social climber, who is greedy and often marries a young girl just to get her dowry. Simpkin himself is the image of zanni, a servant type, who often outwits his master, sarcastically and humorously commenting the situations on stage (Chaffee 15-16).
Bluster is furthermore connected to the English tradition of vagrant soldiers, with Falstaff being a grand example of this practice. Not only do these characters share their qualities with each other (both are cowards, they boast about their abilities and victories and so on), but a plot similar to the one in Singing Simpkin might be found in
Shakespeare's Merry Wives of Windsor - Falstaff, trying to flee from the approaching husband, is tricked into hiding into a laundry basket full of dirty clothes, and is subsequently thrown into a river (Merry Wives 3.3). Falstaff s humorous incident includes motifs, which might be found in Singing Simpkin, suggesting the popularity of stories featuring both soldiers and clowns. However, Simpkin is, unlike Falstaff, the one who outwits the husband.
Simpkin truly is the main and the most interesting character in the droll. Not only does he note and talk comically about the rest of the characters; he also talks to the audience, behaving like their friend and peer. As the old husband leaves for the wine and Simpkin with the wife are alone on stage, he turns to the audience and invites them to a christening, suggesting that he and the wife will continue in their affair:
"Gentlemen, some forty weeks hence you may come to a Christning" (Wits 1117). Yet,
55 this utterance poses a slight problem with the logic of the droll. Earlier in the act when dealing with the second suitor, Bluster, the Old Man says that "She's [his wife] big with
Child, therefore take heed/ you do not fright my Wife" (Wits 7 115). If the wife is really pregnant, why would Simpkin invite the spectators to the christening some 40 weeks later? A possible explanation might be that the Old Man himself is afraid of the roaring soldier and uses his wife feigned pregnancy as an excuse. This would deepen the notion of Old Man as a ridiculous character, who somehow deserves to be cheated on.
Even though Singing Simpkin deals with the issue of adultery somewhat differently than John Swabber (in the first one, the cheater is a favourable figure; in the second one, the adultery is presented to the spectator from the cheated husband's point of view), in terms of scenic execution, the drolls are almost identical. The only distinction between the two pieces is the dramatic space - in Simpkin, there is no need to change anything on the stage as everything happens in one place (in contrast with
Swabber's two different dramatic places). The droll requires many props and decorations too - Bluster should come with a dagger or swords of some sort, a purse or pouch with money must be exchanged on stage, and, most importantly, a chest with some sort of detachable or easy-to-handle lid, so that the actor performing Simpkin could be commenting the stage action during the scenes when he is supposed to be hidden inside.
The stage directions provide only little information. The most notable is the one mentioning the change of the tune - The Humours of Simpkin preserves the sung quality of a jig as well. This is suggested even during the first scene, when both Simpkin and the Wife intersperse their lines with "fa la, la, la la" (The Wits 112). "The printed original is not separated into stanzas but lines are written in verse, with obvious rhyme schemes. No tune names are given; however, the instruction 'The tune alters' at the
56 change of scene, followed by a new pattern of rhyme and metre, implies that two tunes are required" (Clegg 115). Whether the actors had to be accompanied by musicians or not is unknown, but Clegg argues that the tunes themselves were easy enough to be sung a cappella (114). As a tradition of jigs required, there were also dances on the stage, so it is highly possible that "Simpkin and the Wife may enter dancing, the Wife circling the stage, closely followed by Simpkin" (Clegg 306). Such droll must have been highly entertaining, continuing in the Elizabethan tradition of bawdy jigs and comical afterplays - a genre ideal for the Interregnum stage.
Another jig, adapted for the period after 1642, is The Black Man from the second volume of the Wits. It, without surprise, centres on the topic of sexual encounter of an unwedded couple of Thumpkin and Susan, a barmaid. Before the duo can fulfil their intentions, they are interrupted by Two Gentlemen, who aim to seduce the girl themselves. Thumpkin is forced to leave the stage - but he returns disguised as an old man and is successful in leaving with Susan as the two men fight over the girl. The couple of lovers think they have escaped the vicious duo and continue in their courting; the Gentlemen, however, return, capture Susan and punish Thumpkin by placing him on a stool, wrapping him in a white sheet and forcing him to repeat the word "mum". As
Thumpkin stands on the stool, a pedlar with black goods enters, helping his old friend.
Together they plot a revenge against the two men - they are to change their places,
Thumpkin proceeding to sell pedlar's wares. When the Gentlemen return, they are frightened by the sight of the pedlar and then scared even more by Thumpkin returning onstage with blackened face, shouting "ho, ho, ho". They drop their weapons and flee.
One can trace a lot of similarities between Singing Simpkin and The Black Man: they both probably begun with a dance and were mostly sung (Clegg 311). As the preceding drolls, The Black Man, too, needed a lot of props and decorations: from
57 weapons and black powders to stools and a white sheet. The significance of those props and their employment in the story is crucial for understanding the meaning and purpose of the droll. There is an interesting background to the plot that would challenge the notion of pure entertaining function of such playlets. The character of Thumpkin positioned on a chair would recreate a specific portrait in the mind of the beholder. "A person standing on a stool draped in a white sheet would have been a common sight in the town market place and thus a familiar image to the spectator. Susan and Thumpkin, if caught fornicating or if exposed later on by an untimely pregnancy, would have undergone penance and/or excommunication" (Clegg 142). Therefore, the entertainment of common people was mixed with a didactic function of the theatre - the crowd was educated about the potential punishment for the sins presented on stage. This is further developed when Thumpkin is forbidden to speak and utter one word exclusively: "In theory, anyone who had dealings with the excommunicate thereby came under the sentence themselves, which is why Thumpkin is commanded not to speak with anyone, but to cry only 'mum'" (Clegg 143). Although this interpretation seems plausible, the employment of such concrete facts from the everyday life of the Interregnum England could have been caused by the authors' and performers' need to justify their actions. It might have been safer, when performing a play in semi-legality, to perform a piece that was at least educating the audience about morality.
The morality and religion is also discussed in the scene where the Black Man changes places with Thumpkin, standing on the stool and crying "ho, ho, ho". It is
"probable that the fear which Thumpkin and the Black Man inspire in the Gentlemen is due to a black face as well as to the devil's cry of 'Ho, ho, ho'" (Clegg 142). In opposition to that, the main purpose of this scene is to entertain the audience, which laughs at the superstition and cowardice of the two Gentlemen. An interesting social
58 issue opens when looking at the class of the characters of the The Black Man. There are no factors that would enlighten the details of the two Gentlemen's occupation, they are simply the members of a higher class. Susan, Thumpkin and the Black Man are, on the other hand, clearly members of the lower ranks. "It seems that it was common for the plots of jigs to involve the pitting of social types or degrees against one another - sometimes divided into those from the country and those from the town - with those with the lowest degree often ending the jig triumphant" (Clegg 258). This is exactly the case of Thumpkin and the Black Man - they, even though just common people, outsmart two gentlemen from the town.
Even though there should be multiple items on the stage, all of them are basic, easily obtainable objects. The only likely inconvenience might arise when trying to get the stool onstage, as the plot of the droll happens outside and it would not be justifiable to have a piece of furniture on the stage. On the other hand, there could surely be a place for the stool to be hidden during the opening scenes of the piece, or we might even think about possible audience engagement, when the Gentlemen ask for the chair the spectators - the communication of the stage and auditorium was still quite common.
Stories about the spectator-actor interaction revolve around the droll The
Humour of Simpleton. In Kirkman's preface to the second volume of the Wits, he states following things about Robert Cox, the actor:
In which [in the role of Simpleton] he being to appear with a large piece of
Bread and Butter, I have frequently known several of the Female Spectators
and Auditors to long for some of it: And once that well known Natural Jack
Adams of Clarkenwel3, seeing him with Bread and Butter on the Stage, and
Jack Adams of Clarkenwel (or Clerkenwell) was a native of London. "Jack Adams, a Clerkenwell simpleton, who lived on the Green, became a notorious street character in the reign of Charles II. This half fool, half knave (like many of Shakespeare's jesters) is constantly mentioned in pamphlets of Charles II.'s reign. In an old work, called "The Wits; or, Sport upon Sport" (published in 1682), the writer
59 knowing him, cryed out, Cuz, Cuz, give me some; to the great pleasure of the
Audience: And so naturally did he act the Smiths part, that being at a Fair in a
Countrey Town, and that Farce being presented, the only Master Smith of the
Town came to him, saying, well, although your Father speaks so ill of you, yet
when the Fair is done, if you will come and work with me, I will give you
twelve pence a week more then I give any other Journey-Man. (Wits II A3v)
One could suppose that not everything Kirkman claims in his text would be true
- he is, after all, a business man trying to sell his product. Yet, Davies in his Dramatic
Miscellanies even quotes Cox's response to the smith's offer (Davies 185).4 However, the popularity of the character of Simpleton the Smith is obvious. Kirkman is careful to always mention the attribute of the figure, his bread and butter, with which he is engraved on the front piece of the whole collection - wearing simple clothes, with hammer under his belt, biting into a large loaf of bread (see fig. 1). Simpleton is the only character from the jig-like drolls that is pictured on this engraving, which does emphasize his prominent position among the rest of Simpkins, Bumpkins and others.
Kirkman states in the argument on the beginning of the play that "Argument needless. It being a Thorow Farce, and very well known" (Wits 198).
The story of the droll is in no way different from the playlets which have already been described in this chapter. Old Simpleton wants to marry his son off. Young
Simpleton, unfortunately, seems to be a good-for-nothing, who only enjoys eating and laziness. The father eventually forces Young Simpleton to take his fiddle and try to court beautiful and wealthy Doll, a local girl. Under her window Simpleton performs a
describes the excellent comedians at the Red Bull Theatre, in Red Bull Yard, now Woodbridge Street. On one occasion, when Robert Cox, a celebrated low comedian, played "Simpleton the Smith," he used to come in munching a huge slice of bread-and-butter; Jack Adams, seeing it, cried out, "Cuz, cuz, give me some! give me some!" to the great amusement of all the spectators" (Thornbury 332). 4 Cox supposedly said: "I would accept your proffer with all my heart, but you see I have a good shop of my own" (Davies 185).
60 song, where he swears that "I love you better and dearer, then a Bear does honey, and I hope you will affect me as much as Sow does a bunch of Carrots" (Cox 6). Doll, in return, threatens to throw her chamber pot at Simpleton. Even though Simpleton is competing with two Gentlemen, he surprisingly succeeds in marrying the girl and he, together with his father, beats the two Gentlemen.
The plot is simple, dealing with quintessential topics of such farces - challenges of the social order (Simpleton beats members of a higher class), courting and romantic encounters, and adventures of a simple-minded peasant. "A straightforward, fast- moving work, Simpleton is reminiscent of jestbooks from both the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and carries forward a strain of broad humour" (Randall 152). The count of vulgar, faecal and sexual jokes is indeed very high in Simpleton the Smith. The most interesting and distinct feature of the droll is the requirement of two-levelled stage, as Doll should appear in a window above Simpleton (Wits 1102). This would demand a stage closely resembling an Elizabethan one, with a balcony or gallery over the stage, which could be problematic when touring the country. How did the performers solve this issue is impossible to answer.
The remaining two drolls with dunces as the main characters are The Humour of
Bumpkin and The Humour of Hobbinal. They both are very short (four and three pages, respectively), originate in Cox's collection of drolls, and both do not compare with the other popular and folk drolls. Their episodes are fairly amusing, but when comparing, for example, Hobbinal and Simpkin, it is fairly obvious which of the drolls was probably more popular.
Hobbinal tells an episodic story of a shepherd, who thinks that the nymph
Oenone is in love with him - he even composes a clumsy poem for her, about which he boasts when among his, very sceptical and speering, shepherd friends. To everyone's
61 surprise, the nymph meets with Hobbinal, receives his poem, but refuses to dance with him. The stubborn and offended Hobbinal then dances alone and is later joined by the rest of his friends, with whom he dances a Morris dance.
The story is taken from Cox's Oenone, a pastoral later published in the second volume of the Wits. Despite its brevity, there are many changes and differences when compared to the text in Kirkman's 1672 collection - lines are cut or altered, the plot is adjusted to its brief running time so that any complicated background information about the mythical aspect of the pastoral. The most notable change is the addition of the final
Morris dance. Originally there indeed should be a dance, whose kind is not specified - but we might suppose that it was not a folk dance and rather some stately looking number. The presence of Morris dance could be interpreted as a nod to the common spectator, who was very well acquainted with such revels. Above all, some variants of
Morris dancing were working with a solo dancer, who was accompanied by the troupe of up to six men - mirroring Hobbinal and his fellow shepherds:
Apparently individuals or small groups from the morris troupe commonly
performed special dances which were recognized as belonging to the morris
[...] With the decay of the May game, in which the ritual morris was
commonly performed, its leaders and at least some of their attendants attached
themselves to the morris [...] even when the dance was independently
performed. (Baskervill 354)
To perform this dance within a stage play is surely an interesting technique of incorporating folk traditions, which were often frowned upon during the Interregnum, into everyday life. Besides, a common figure of Morris dances was the fool, who was lightening the atmosphere and entertaining the crowds - which is in line with the tendency of drolls to incorporate a character of a jester, a dunce or a simpleton into the
62 show. The same might be said about the last droll from the group of folk-inspired and popular pieces. The Humour of Bumpkin resembles the one of Hobbinal on many levels: it features a dance, a country bumpkin (literary!) who wishes to be in love, and a simple plot, which cannot match the qualities of the longer drolls. Elson comments that "the droll lacks the powerful comic appeal and much of the coarseness of the other pieces attributed to Cox" (Elson 382). Although most of the droll adaptations of the original plays deal with the subject of the actual reworking very carefully so it is impossible to tell that the story is part of a longer narrative, the integrity of the piece in Bumpkin is missing completely. In the finale, when Bumpkin decides that love is too much of a drill for him, a Huntsman enters and informs about a hunt which is to take place. With this line, that has no meaning for the droll itself, the playlet abruptly ends.
Even though both Hobbinal and Bumpkin do not rank among the best of the genre, they still function as valuable documents for imagining the Interregnum stage practice - as was stated in the beginning of this chapter, it was not desirable to use too many props and decorations because they could endanger the troupe and the spectators, whom could be punished by the law. The two short drolls do not require any specific prop or costume. It could have been performed anywhere, anytime, and by anyone who would remember their lines.
The musical and dance parts of these six drolls certainly helped to maintain the illusion of rope dancing and other harmless entertainments, which served as an excuse to the authorities. The popular aspect and the presumptive lowness of the characters of
Simpleton, Simpkins and others, might have strengthened the impression that this is not theatre - even though drolls such as The Black Man or Singing Simpkin might embody the theatre even more than an Elizabethan or Jacobean play. Despite being often very bawdy and vulgar, drolls helped with the dramatic transition between the rich pre-war
63 period and the modernized Restoration plays. These drolls very clearly express the need of people in the period to entertain themselves and to remind them of popular songs and dances that belonged to a slowly disappearing culture.
CONCLUSION
Many things were said about drolls and their characteristics in the preceding chapters to show what a droll is. It was said that droll is not a genre, that it is rather a form, with tendencies to shift its focus according to its needs and audience's taste.
Kirkman's and Marsh's two volumes of the Wits, or Sport upon Sport present the droll in such shifting perspective - there are adaptations of more than one playwright, their length and subject matter differs significantly. Despite these varying qualities of individual drolls, it is still possible to identify features, which are shared by many drolls within the collection.
Kirkman himself talks in his preface to the second volume of the Wits about the period preference of comedies over tragedies as the era itself was tragic enough. This tendency is well observable when looking at the contents of the collection - there are only three tragedies, whose adaptations were used during the Interregnum:
Shakespeare's Hamlet, Cupid's Revenge and Rollo, Duke of Normandy by Beaumont and Fletcher. However, even from these pieces the authors choose to adapt the scene, which can provide comic relief and amusement - in case of Hamlet the Gravediggers' scene is chosen, the main interest of the droll inspired by Rollo is the darkly comic song contained in the parent-play. The comicality can be therefore seen as a fundamental element of the droll - the audience simply had to laugh. The characters of clowns, jesters and fools can be found in all drolls with Shakespearean parent-plays, where the
64 clowns dominate the stage and the plot of the droll itself is subordinated to them.
Analogically in many drolls working with the pretexts of Beaumont and Fletcher
(Beggar's Bush, The Maid in the Mill), the fools and simpletons provide the amusement of the audience. The folk drolls springing from the popular culture of the period even use these Simpkins, Bumpkins and others as the fundament of their show.
When discussing the characteristics of the folk drolls, an issue of singing and dancing as a part of the performance arose. Music and stylized dance movements can be found in majority of these drolls and they are also present in several drolls modelled after Shakespeare or Beaumont and Fletcher. They were an integral part of the pieces - sometimes being even so important, that the authors of the adaptations chose the parent- play because of the song it contained (as was probably the case of Three Merry Boyes, the adaptation of Rollo, Duke of Normandy). The songs and (often folk) dances prove to be a way of preserving culture, that was frequently censored and forbidden by the officials. By incorporating folk dance or famous tunes into the performance, the droll could function as a demonstration of the resistance to the politics of the Interregnum.
This does not, however, mean that droll was a political form. The Wits do not show direct evidence of any critique of the regime and they do not try to satirize the plots of the drolls. On the other hand, among the characters of clowns and fools one can find a lot of soldiers, who are presented as simpletons and are often ridiculed by the protagonists of the droll - take for example Falstaff, Perez taken from Rule a Wife and
Have a Wife or Bluster in Singing Simpkin. Despite being primarily a heritage of the beloved stock-characters influenced by early modern English drama as well as by commedia dell'arte, one could suppose that having a character of silly and hypocritical soldier on stage during an unlawful performance, which could be anytime interrupted by real soldiers, might have been seen as a certain political statement.
65 The drolls in The Wits, or Sport upon Sport give a testimony about the period in the history of English drama, which has often been ignored by scholars. The notion of the non-existent dramatic production aimed at the stage and not page during the years
1642 and 1660 proves to be false as Kirkman's and Marsh's collection shows evidence of being performed, even though illegally. The drolls, the comic sketches adapted during the eighteen years of the Interregnum show an interesting view at the culture of ordinary people, that chose to write, perform and visit stage plays despite the threat posed by the Interregnum government.
66 WORKS CITED AND CONSULTED
LIST OF PRIMARY SOURCES
Bowers, Fredson. The Philaster. The Dramatic Works in the Beaumont and Fletcher
Canon. Volume I. Cambridge: CUP, 2008. 367-540. Print.
Bowers, Fredson. Cupid's Revenge. The Dramatic Works in the Beaumont and Fletcher
Canon. Volume II. Cambridge: CUP, 2008. 315-448. Print.
—. A King and No King. The Dramatic Works in the Beaumont and Fletcher Canon.
Volume II. Cambridge: CUP, 2008. 167-314. Print.
—. The Maid's Tragedy. The Dramatic Works in the Beaumont and Fletcher Canon.
Volume II. Cambridge: CUP, 2008. 1-166. Print.
—. The Scornful Lady. The Dramatic Works in the Beaumont and Fletcher Canon.
Volume II. Cambridge: CUP, 2008. 449-566. Print.
Bowers, Fredson. Beggar's Bush. The Dramatic Works in the Beaumont and Fletcher
Canon. Volume III. Cambridge: CUP, 2008. 225-362. Print.
Bowers, Fredson. The Chances. The Dramatic Works in the Beaumont and Fletcher
Canon. Volume IV. Cambridge: CUP, 2008. 541-656. Print.
—. Monsieur Thomas. The Dramatic Works in the Beaumont and Fletcher Canon.
Volume IV. Cambridge: CUP, 2008. 415-540. Print.
Bowers, Fredson. The Humorous Lieutenant. The Dramatic Works in the Beaumont and
Fletcher Canon. Volume V. Cambridge: CUP, 2008. 289-440. Print.
Bowers, Fredson. Rule a Wife and Have a Wife. The Dramatic Works in the Beaumont
and Fletcher Canon. Volume VI. Cambridge: CUP, 2008. 483-616. Print.
Bowers, Fredson. The Custom of the Country. The Dramatic Works in the Beaumont
and Fletcher Canon. Volume VIII. Cambridge: CUP, 2008. 633-758. Print.
67 Bowers, Fredson. The Maid in the Mill. The Dramatic Works in the Beaumont and
Fletcher Canon. Volume IX. Cambridge: CUP, 2008. 569-669. Print.
Bowers, Fredson. The Spanish Curate. The Dramatic Works in the Beaumont and
Fletcher Canon. Volume X. Cambridge: CUP, 2008. 293-424. Print.
—. Rollo, Duke of Normandy. The Dramatic Works in the Beaumont and Fletcher
Canon. Volume X. Cambridge: CUP, 2008. 145-292. Print.
Cox, Robert. Acteon and Diana. London: Edward Archer, 1656. Print.
Kirkman, Francis. The Wits, or, Sport upon Sport in Select Pieces of Drollery. London:
Henry Marsh, 1662. Print.
Kirkman, Francis. The Wits, or, Sport upon Sport Being a Curious Collection of
Several Drols and Farces (...). London: Fran[cis] Kirkman, 1673. Print.
Shakespeare, William. A Midsummer Night's Dream. London: Routledge, 1996. Print.
—. Shakespeare's Poems: Venus and Adonis, The Rape of Lucrece, and the Shorter
Poems. London: Arden Shakespeare, 2007. Print.
Shakespeare, William, and A. R. Humpreys. King Henry IV. Pt. 1. London: Routledge,
1996. Print.
Shakespeare, William, and Harold Jenkins. Hamlet. London: Routledge, 1982. Print.
68 LIST OF SECONDARY SOURCES
Baker, Henry Barton. English Actors from Shakespeare to Macready. New York: Holt,
1879. Print.
Baskervill, Charles R. The Elizabethan Jig and Related Song Drama. New York:
Dover, 1965. Print.
Bloom, Harold. The Western Canon. New York: Riverhead, 1995. Print.
Boccaccio, Giovanni. The Decameron of Giovanni Boccaccio. New York: Walter J.
Black, undated. Print.
Cawley, A. C. The Wakefield pageants in the Towneley cycle. Manchester: Manchester
UP, 1958. Print.
Chaffee, Judith. The Routledge Companion to Commedia dell' Arte. New York:
Routledge, 2015. Print.
Clare, Janet. Drama of the English Republic, 1649-60. Manchester: Manchester UP,
2005. Print.
Clark, Andrew. The Life and Times of Anthony Wood, Antiquary of Oxford, 1632-1695,
Described by Himself. I. Oxford: Clarendon, 1891. Print.
Clegg, Roger, and Lucie Skeaping. Singing Simpkin and Other Bawdy Jigs. Exeter: U
of Exeter P, 2014. Print.
Crouch, John. Mercurius Democritus; or, A True and Perfect Nocturnal. London:
Jones, 1653. Print.
Davies, Thomas. Dramatic Miscellanies. Vol. 1. Dublin: Price, 1784. Print.
Denham, John. The Prologue to His Majesty at the First Play. London: Bedell and
Collins, 1660. Early English Books Online: Text Creation Partnership. U of
Michigan Lib. Web. 20 April 2017.
69 Duncan-Jones, Katherine. "Introduction." Shakespeare's Poems: Venus and Adonis,
The Rape of Lucrece, and the Shorter Poems. London: Arden Shakespeare,
2007. pp. 1-124. Print.
Elson, John James. The Wits, or, Sport upon sport. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell UP, 1932.
Print.
Erne, Lukas. Shakespeare and the Book Trade. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2013. Print.
Firth, Charles H., and Robert Rait. Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, 1642-1660.
London: His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1911. Print.
Goodwin, Gordon. "Francis Kirkman". Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900,
Volume 31. London: Smith, 1892. pp. 219-20. Print.
Kolin, Phillip C. Venus and Adonis. Critical Essays. New York: Garland, 1997. Print.
Kroll, Richard. Restoration Drama and "the Circle of Commerce". Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, 2010. Print.
Nungezer, Edwin. A Dictionary of Actors and Other Persons Associated with the Public
Representation of Plays in England before 1642. New Haven: Yale UP, 1929.
Print.
Plomer, Henry Robert. A Dictionary of the Booksellers and Printers, 1641-1667.
London: Bibliographical Society, 1907. Print.
Randall, Dale B.J. Winter Fruit: English Drama 1642-1660. Lexington: The UP of
Kentucky, 1995. Print.
Rollins, Hyder E. "A Contribution to the History of the English Commonwealth
Drama". Studies in Philology. 18, 3. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 1921.
pp. 267-333. JSTOR. Feb 20 2017. Web.
Scanlon, Paul A. The Common Touch: Popular Literature from the Elizabethans to the
Restoration. Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars, 2014. Print.
70 Shakespeare, William, and H. J. Oliver. The Merry Wives of Windsor. London:
Routledge, 1996. Print.
Stern, Tiffany. Documents of Performance in Early Modern England. Cambridge:
Cambridge UP, 2009. Print.
Taylor, Gary. "Shakespeare Plays on Renaissance Stages". In The Cambridge
Companion to Shakespeare on Stage. Stanley Wells and Sarah Stanton.
Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002. pp. 1-20. Print.
Thornbury, Walter. "Clerkenwell" Old and New London: Volume 2. London: Cassell,
1878. pp. 328-338. Print.
Tomlins, Thomas Edlyne, and John Raithby. The Statutes at Large, of England and of
Great Britain: from Magna Carta to the Union of the Kingdoms of Great Britain
and Ireland. London: Eyre and Strahan, 1811. Print.
White, Martin. Renaissance Drama in Action. New York: Routledge, 1998. Print.
Wiggins, Martin, and Catherine Richardson. British Drama 1533 - 1642: A Catalogue.
Volume III. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2013. Print.
Willkie, Rachel. Staging the Revolution. Drama, Reinvention and History, 1647-72.
Manchester: Manchester UP, 2015. Print.
Wiseman, Susan. Drama and Politics in the English Civil War. Cambridge: Cambridge
UP, 1998. Print.
71 SUMMARY
This master's diploma thesis focuses on the dramatic form of droll, a short comical sketch produced during the eighteen years of Civil War and Interregnum, as presented in the 1662, 1672 and 1673 collections The Wits, or Sport upon Sport. Even though it was officially forbidden to perform in English public theatres between 1642 and 1660, the theatrical life did not disappear completely. One of the manifestations of this need to preserve theatre are drolls, plots of which were often shortened versions of popular renaissance plays. After the reopening of theatres in 1660, a collection of these drolls was published by London based booksellers Henry Marsh and Francis Kirkman.
The first chapter describes the cultural environment of the Civil War and
Interregnum, especially focusing on the issue of 1642 closure of theatres and its real impact on the life of actors and theatre managers. The second chapter introduces Henry
Marsh, Francis Kirkman and the prefaces they wrote to the Wits, which provides a lot of useful information as to the where, when and who performed the droll. A short biography of Robert Cox, the only known performer of drolls, is provided.
The next three chapters are divided according to the authors of the original plays or provenance - the first chapter focuses on adaptations of Beaumont and Fletcher, the second on droll rewritings of William Shakespeare's plays, and the third on the drolls with roots in popular and folk culture. In these chapters selected drolls are analysed with attention to the style of the adaptation itself, the characters it employs and the similarities the drolls share with each other. The possibilities of staging and usage of the props and costumes are also considered, as well as the potential political involvement of the pieces.
72 The thesis concludes with a list of major qualities the drolls in the Wits share: the stress on comicality of the playlet, the engagement of characters of various clowns, jesters and fools, and songs and dances as an integral part of majority of the drolls.
73 RESUMÉ
Tato magisterská diplomová práce se zabývá dramatickou formou jménem
„droll", krátkým komickým výstupem, který byl uváděn během osmnácti let anglické občanské války a puritánskeho mezivládí, tak, jak je prezentován ve sbírce The Wits, or
Sport upon Sport vydané vletech 1662, 1672 a 1673. Přestože byl provoz veřejných divadel oficiálně zakázán, divadelní život zcela nezmizel. Jednou z manifestací potřeby divadlo uchovat jsou právě drolly, jejichž zápletky jsou často tvořeny zkrácením divadelních her období renesance. Po znovuotevření divadel v roce 1660 byla kolekce takovýchto drollů vydána londýnskými knihkupci Henrym Marshem a Francisem
Kirkmanem.
První kapitola této práce popisuje kulturní prostředí během občanské války a mezivládí, se zvláštním důrazem na otázku zavření divadel v roce 1642 a reálným dopadem tohoto kroku na život herců a divadelních manažerů. Druhá kapitola představuje Henryho Marshe, Francise Kirkmana a předmluvy, které pro sbírku The
Wits napsali. Tyto předmluvy poskytují množství užitečných informací o tom, kde, kdy, a kdo drolly uváděl a inscenoval. Součástí kapitoly je také krátká biografie Roberta
Coxe, jediného známého herce drollů.
Následující tři kapitoly jsou rozděleny podle autorů předloh nebo původu originálních her. Jedna kapitola se soustředí na adaptace her F. Beaumonta a J.
Fletchera, druhá na přepisy her Williama Shakespeara, a třetí na drolly s kořeny v populární a lidové kultuře. Analýze je zde podroben adaptační styl jednotlivých kusů, způsob výběru a práce s postavami, a podobnosti mezi jednotlivými drolly. Také jsou zvažovány možnosti inscenování drollů, využití rekvizit a kostýmů, a v neposlední řadě i případné politické konotace divadelních kusů.
74 Práce je zakončena výčtem hlavních vlastností drollů ze sbírky The Wits. Tyto nedílné součásti většiny drollů jsou: důraz na komickou formu, práce s postavami klaunů a bláznů, a v neposlední řadě také písně a tance.
75 APPENDIX
THE WITS,
OR, SPORT upon SPORT.
I N Seledt Pieces of DROLLER^ Digefted into SCENES by way of DIALOGUE.
i]Together with Variety of Humors of feveral Nations, fitted for the plea- fure and content of all Perfons, either in Court, City, Countrey, or Camp. The like never before Publifhed.
PART L
L 0 N ft 0 Ni ?r'mced for Henry tMtrjbf at the Sign of the trUats f/irms in Ch*netrj'L*nti i66i«
Fig. 1. The frontispiece of 1662 edition of the Wits.
By attrib. Francis Kirkman (The Wits, or Sport upon Sport frontispiece) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
76