the night before christmas eve i heard a burst of musical voices so close that they might as well have been inside the house instead of just outside; so i asked them inside, hoping that they might then seem farther away. then i realised that they were the christmas mummers, who come every year in country parts to enact the rather rigid fragments of the old christmas play of st. george, the turkish knight, and the very venal doctor. i will not describe it; it is indescribable; but i will describe my parallel sentiments as it passed.

one could see something of that half-failure that haunts our artistic revivals of mediæval dances, carols, or bethlehem plays. there are elements in all that has come to us from the more morally simple society of the middle ages: elements which moderns, even when they are mediævalists, find it hard to understand and harder to imitate. the first is the primary idea of mummery itself. if you will observe a child just able to walk, you will see that his first idea is not to dress up as anybody—but to dress up. afterwards, of course, the idea of being the king or uncle william will leap to his lips. but it is generally suggested by the hat he has already let fall over his nose, from far deeper motives. tommy does not assume the hat primarily because it is uncle william's hat, but because it is not tommy's hat. it is a ritual investiture; and is akin to those gorgon masks that stiffened the dances of greece or those towering mitres that came from the mysteries of persia. for the essence of such ritual is a profound paradox: the concealment of the personality combined with the exaggeration of the person. the man performing a rite seeks to be at once invisible and conspicuous. it is part of that divine madness which all other creatures wonder at in man, that he alone parades this pomp of obliteration and anonymity. man is not, perhaps, the only creature who dresses himself, but he is the only creature who disguises himself. beasts and birds do indeed take the colours of their environment; but that is not in order to be watched, but in order not to be watched; it is not the formalism of rejoicing, but the formlessness of fear. it is not so with men, whose nature is the unnatural. ancient britons did not stain themselves blue because they lived in blue forests; nor did georgian beaux and belles powder their hair to match an arctic landscape; the britons were not dressing up as kingfishers nor the beaux pretending to be polar bears. nay, even when modern ladies paint their faces a bright mauve, it is doubted by some naturalists whether they do it with the idea of escaping notice. so merry-makers (or mummers) adopt their costume to heighten and exaggerate their own bodily presence and identity; not to sink it, primarily speaking, in another identity. it is not acting—that comparatively low profession—comparatively i mean. it is mummery; and, as mr. kensit would truly say, all elaborate religious ritual is mummery. that is, it is the noble conception of making man something other and more than himself when he stands at the limit of human things. it is only careful faddists and feeble german philosophers who want to wear no clothes; and be “natural” in their dionysian revels. natural men, really vigorous and exultant men, want to wear more and more clothes when they are revelling. they want worlds of waistcoats and forests of trousers and pagodas of tall hats toppling up to the stars.

thus it is with the lingering mummers at christmas in the country. if our more refined revivers of miracle plays or morrice dances tried to reconstruct the old mummers' play of st. george and the turkish knight (i do not know why they do not) they would think at once of picturesque and appropriate dresses. st. george's panoply would be pictured from the best books of armour and blazonry: the turkish knight's arms and ornaments would be traced from the finest saracenic arabesques. when my garden door opened on christmas eve and st. george of england entered, the appearance of that champion was slightly different. his face was energetically blacked all over with soot, above which he wore an aged and very tall top hat; he wore his shirt outside his coat like a surplice, and he flourished a thick umbrella. now do not, i beg you, talk about “ignorance”; or suppose that the mummer in question (he is a very pleasant ratcatcher, with a tenor voice) did this because he knew no better. try to realise that even a ratcatcher knows st. george of england was not black, and did not kill the dragon with an umbrella. the rat-catcher is not under this delusion; any more than paul veronese thought that very good men have luminous rings round their heads; any more than the pope thinks that christ washed the feet of the twelve in a cathedral; any more than the duke of norfolk thinks the lions on a tabard are like the lions at the zoo. these things are denaturalised because they are symbols; because the extraordinary occasion must hide or even disfigure the ordinary people. black faces were to mediæval mummeries what carved masks were to greek plays: it was called being “vizarded.” my rat-catcher is not sufficiently arrogant to suppose for a moment that he looks like st. george. but he is sufficiently humble to be convinced that if he looks as little like himself as he can, he will be on the right road.

this is the soul of mumming; the ostentatious secrecy of men in disguise. there are, of course, other mediæval elements in it which are also difficult to explain to the fastidious mediævalists of to-day. there is, for instance, a certain output of violence into the void. it can best be defined as a raging thirst to knock men down without the faintest desire to hurt them. all the rhymes with the old ring have the trick of turning on everything in which the rhymsters most sincerely believed, merely for the pleasure of blowing off steam in startling yet careless phrases. when tennyson says that king arthur “drew all the petty princedoms under him,” and “made a realm and ruled,” his grave royalism is quite modern. many mediævals, outside the mediæval republics, believed in monarchy as solemnly as tennyson. but that older verse

when good king arthur ruled this land

he was a goodly king—

he stole three pecks of barley-meal

to make a bag-pudding.

is far more arthurian than anything in the idylls of the king. there are other elements; especially that sacred thing that can perhaps be called anachronism. all that to us is anachronism was to mediævals merely eternity. but the main excellence of the mumming play lies still, i think, in its uproarious secrecy. if we cannot hide our hearts in healthy darkness, at least we can hide our faces in healthy blacking. if you cannot escape like a philosopher into a forest, at least you can carry the forest with you, like a jack-in-the-green. it is well to walk under universal ensigns; and there is an old tale of a tyrant to whom a walking forest was the witness of doom. that, indeed, is the very intensity of the notion: a masked man is ominous; but who shall face a mob of masks?