Culture does not exist in a vacuum, and the echoes of naming phenomena present in cultures around the world are felt in dramatic performance when saying a character’s name aloud reaffirms the actor’s persona to the audience. In many English folk dramas the transformation from the actor’s name to the character’s is often made explicit as soon as a character is introduced. For example, in the mummers’ play, St. George and Slasher from 1817 in Cheshire, most players with actionable roles are verbally introduced before they “step into” the scene; step into is marked in quotations as these plays often occurred in public spaces where all actors would already be visible in the public eye. These players are announced in one or both of two ways: by another character anticipating their “entrance” or by themselves. The narrator or “First Captain” (according to the transcript) of the play proclaims the “next that enters in/ Is the captain of this worthy crew” which is shortly followed by the Second Captain, or simply the “Captain,” entering and saying, “I am the Captain of this worthy crew.” Similarly, there are marginally more fluid ways of making this introduction such as the introduction of the Doctor, wherein after one of the fighters is wounded Sir Guy calls out for a doctor, saying, “A doctor, a doctor here.” The Doctor enters and responds, “Hark thee, here am I,” thus identifying as this figure. Likewise, some characters are only declared by themselves when they make their entrance such as Bold Slasher whose first line is, “I am bold Slasher.”

           However, the figure of the Fool, also labelled as the Prince of Beezlebub in the cast list, has a unique introduction. He begins his entrance with a negative, saying, “I am not the Prince of Beelzebub.” There is no description in the script about the costuming choices to reaffirm any one title, Fool or Prince, but as the money collecting fool figure it would make sense within his role to describe himself in a nonsensical way. Yet, as noted in the cast list, this character is still identified by the name he says he is not, the Prince of Beezlebub. This identification is likely made because it is a notable title and it is the only name he says in relation to himself, making it memorable for the audience. In other plays like “Galatian, a New Year Play” from Peebles in 1841 the figure of the money collector explicitly states, “Here comes in Judas, Judas is my name,” and is subsequently labelled as Judas in the cast list. Crucially, this cast list would not be made available to audiences because mummers’ plays were often spontaneous and informal, often taking place in public locations (Cotswolds). This knowledge of the cast list would only be available to scholars who had transcribed it or actors who had this knowledge passed to them in some form when learning the play. However, the figures starring in the plays would be recognizable within the community as folk dramas drew on the local knowledge of their audiences.

           Notably, in Jitka Štollova’s study on the impact of character lists in early modern printed drama, Štollova cites Charles B Lower who points to a sizable difference in the perception of plays when audiences knew the names of all players, including “names by which the figures are never addressed on stage,” than from audiences who took in the performance entirely based on costumes and dialogue (Štollova 315). This indicates that the mere knowledge of a name has the ability to alter the perception of a show.

           With this in mind, it is important to recognize that characters in traditional English folk drama are not known for their depth like we might see in Shakespeare, instead their identity is based primarily on occupation. Even for audiences who were likely already familiar with many of the figures present in the play, the ability to recognize characters quickly is a necessary function of folk drama due to its short play time and the unconventional performance setting which allows audiences to come and go at any time during the performance. Notably, Thomas Pettitt describes mummers’ plays as non-representational because there is minimal effort made to create a distinct dramatic reality separate from the immediate surrounding social reality (Pettitt 49). Specifically, Pettitt attributes this at least partially to the location of the play and the subsequent staging which does not separate players from spectators to preserve the illusion of a fictional reality where characters may hide themselves backstage. It may be the case that this lack of adherence to the representation of realism in mummers’ plays may not necessitate the same dramatic transformation a more complex play may have. However, I would argue due to the constraints of the setting it is all the more imperative that characters create the illusion themselves, through naming, rather than through the surrounding set. As mentioned before, instead of a more subtle or natural insertion of a name into dialogue, characters announce who they are when they enter for expedience. Therefore it makes sense to identify most characters not from their personal name but from a name derived from their occupation or notable enough that it has strong associations like Father Christmas.

           Naturally, one might assume considering the benefits for quick audience recognition that mumming plays would feature costumes to aid in the identification of characters, however originally this was not the case. In the south of England, mummers would all dress the same, commonly using long strips of wallpaper or rag and sewing it into their clothes (Roud 17). Significantly, this would be accompanied by a tall cardboard hat adorned with these strips to completely obscure the face of each performer (Roud 17). As previously mentioned, Merrill draws strong correlations between the self and facial identification, thus when this factor is hidden a key component for differentiating and identifying characters in these older dramas can be attributed to the actor’s dialogue which would be used to name. To cement this point, Roud discusses the minimal acting style of older performances of mumming plays which would not have long bouts of dialogue or appeals to the audience, yet would still retain the entrance statement, “In comes I-” followed by their name (Roud 16). This common practice of announcing “In comes I” can be observed in every character except the Doctor in the “Romsey Mummers’ Play” from sometime between 1796 and 1837, who is identified by someone calling on him before he enters and then saying, “there is an Italian Doctor,” in reference to himself. This method of identification, and the fact that the verbal identification of persona persists through mummers’ plays for hundreds of years, implies that it is a foundational component in the structure of the play.

           In later years, many folk drama performers would begin dressing in character rather than all in the same strips of paper or rags (Roud 18). However, even in modern mummers’ plays characters who did not have an easily recognizable persona might still obscure their faces using these paper strips (Roud 18). The examples Roud gives are for the characters Twing Twang or Hind Before, whose costumes might not be as clear cut when attempting to derive meaning from their name in comparison to someone like Saint George or Black Knight. This is significant because of the implication that persona is based entirely off of name, likely as a result of the lack of dynamic characters in mummer’s plays wherein characters are defined in relation to their occupation. In the case of Twing Twang, his occupation is not in his name which makes his role within the play less distinct.

           That being said, in the “Romsey Mummers’ Play” every character, including Twing Twang, is named, highlighting their transformation into that character formally in front of the audience. Despite what Roud describes as a less identifiable persona, Twing Twang is still given distinct character traits as a “Lieutenant of ye Press Gang,” who sends mummers to fight “the French and Dutch and Spaniards.” Giving a character a name is saying they are important enough to deserve one, but also acts upon them inversely granting them importance and distinction. In the case of Galatian, a New Year Play, the Talking Man character remains verbally unnamed within the play and is thus referred to simply as Talking Man in the transcript. Furthermore, Talking Man takes on the necessary role of a narrator but lacks any distinctive character traits or actionable parts narratively. In other plays like the “Romsey Mummers’ Play” the role of narrator is taken on by Father Christmas, whose name is announced to the audience in the customary “In comes-” manner. In contrast to Talking Man, Father Christmas has taken the recognizable persona associated with his name and it is thus shared with the audience.

           However, the transformative process is not only witnessed by an audience but experienced by the actors themselves. As discussed earlier, the relationship between naming and identity holds cultural significance internationally which suggests an intrinsic relationship between self-identification and the names we take on. When an actor temporarily leaves behind their true name to take on the name of their on-stage persona, it is part of an internal transformative process that will eventually support the creation of the play-space needed to establish the fictional reality where the story can take place.