The Demise of Primogeniture Successions and the rise of Legitimacy through Moral Character in The Tragedy of King Richard III

Fiona Emes
9954578884
Professor M. Sergi
ENG331H1S
April 16^th, 2014

The Demise of Primogeniture Successions and the Rise of Legitimacy through Moral Character in The Tragedy of King Richard III        

In Legitimacy, Illegitimacy and Sovereignty in Shakespeare’s British Plays, by Dr. Katie Pritchard, Pritchard outlines how in Shakespeare’s The Tragedy of King Richard III, Shakespeare offered his audience at the time, as well as those of his readership today, a dissertation of legitimacy concerning a sovereign’s right to rule. Pritchard delves into how Shakespeare’s dramatization of King Richard III demonstrates the flaws in ‘divine’ primogeniture successions to the throne (Pritchard, 83).  In this paper I will both deconstruct and deepen Pritchard’s argument that Richard’s pursuit of the throne is a Shakespearian dramatization, which highlights the irrelevance of legitimate birth, and underlines the necessity of a good and moral character in order to rule as Sovereign. (Pritchard, 83)” I will outline how Richard the Duke of Gloucester purposefully sidesteps the traditional means of gaining power in England to become King Richard III, through malevolence such as conspiracy and murder. These acts undermine the notion of a divine sovereign, as they do not demonstrate the workings of a God, but of a man. I will use Richard’s means of eluding the customary changeover and passage of power in England as a demonstration of what I shall call ‘illegitimate legitimacy’; or the gaining of the throne through corporeal, non-divine acts to ensure his place on the thrown. Pritchard also discusses how the Duchess of York, Richard’s mother, also rejects Richard in a manner that asserts him as illegitimate, regardless of his noble birth, reinforcing the notion that birth is irrelevant over character regarding one’s ability to rule (Pritchard, 87). Next, I will focus on Act V.3 to further Pritchard’s thesis that Shakespeare’s dramatization of The Tragedy of King Richard III undermines supposed legitimate births. In this act we further ascertain the stark contrast between the moral character of Richard Duke of Gloucester, and the Earl of Richmond (who possesses honourable qualities, but whose birth is determined as illegitimate). This furthers Pritchard’s assertions that both legitimate and illegitimate births are dramatized as irrelevant, with Shakespeare ascertaining that illegitimate births are in fact an invalid means of determining what marks a worthy King or Queen (Pritchard, 83).

To begin, in Act.1.1. the audience is first met with a monologue from Richard Duke of Gloucester, regarding the plans he intends to carry out in order to gain the throne. Richard says,

“Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous...
 To set my brother Clarence and the king
   In deadly hate the one against the other…
      This day should Clarence closely be mewed
About a prophecy which says that G
                        Of Edwards’s heirs the murderer shall be.” (1.1.32-40)

The above excerpt from Richard’s monologue sets several concepts in motion that we see throughout the play. First, by purposely laying plans in order to gain the throne, Richard undermines the notion that the Sovereign is Sovereign through divine choosing. Richard III was originally known as the Duke of Gloucester, and with several brothers born before him, his late birth entailed a highly improbable securement of the throne. By sidestepping the traditions of English nobility, Richard makes his way to the throne through illegitimate means such as the ensuring the murder of his brother Clarence (1.4.269-270). This determines Richard as illegitimately legitimate when he takes the thrown, as although he is legitimate by birth, he takes the throne through illegitimate, malice, and non-divine means. By taking the throne illegitimately, Shakespeare’s dramatization of Richard purposely challenges the status quo of divine leadership by birth, as it ascertains persons of nobility are non-divine, and that it is possible for their personal choices, behavior, making them capable of changing their social mobility (Pritchard, 84). Furthermore, illegitimate legitimacy challenges the audience to consider the ethical behaviour of those of royal birth, casting the actions of those of ‘legitimate birth’ into moral question.

The notion of divinity is further mocked in Richard’s plot to lay a prophecy. The imaginary prophecy “which says that G, Of Edwards’s heirs the murderer shall be (1.1.39-40)” does two things simultaneously. First it brings the notion of prophecy, which is interconnected with divinity and divine birth, into question. It demonstrates man’s ability, including those of royal descent, to fabricate supposed truths or divine prophecy in their own favour, thus creating a sense of falsehood around their divine right to rule. Second, Shakespeare demonstrates that men, including those men considered to rule by divine right, as foolish.  We find out from Clarence that King Edward quickly believes the prophecy that Richard has concocted, with Edward even stating that “…a wizard told him that by G his issue disinherited should be (1.1.56-57)” As a reader or as an audience member we are aware that the fabricated prophecy came to King Edward from Richard, which demonstrates the naivety of King Edward to believe any matter coined as prophecy to be unequivocally true. Also, it shows that the King believes wholeheartedly in his right to rule as divine, as he believes the prophecy as equally divine, even believing the lie so deeply that he ascertains that the knowledge came to him from a wizard, rather than from Richard, which once again the audience knows it did. Edward is quick to believe in the tales of prophecy and divinity, rather than to question the moral character of Clarence; a brother who has always loved him. Both the readers and audience are able to see that the prophecy and perhaps even the throne is not divine but created in the minds of man, Shakespeare is further reinforcing the possibility of untruth in both divine power and prophecy.

            Pritchard also notes how Shakespeare begins to markedly dramatize Richard’s illegitimacy through the descriptions of Richard by his mother, the Duchess of Gloucester (Pritchard, 87).  Although Richard is not a bastard, the Duchess characterizes him as such, and rejects him as if he were not born of noble birth (Pritchard, 87). The Duchess describes Richard as a “false glass” (2.2 53) “...in which she sees her [own] disgrace.”(Pritchard, 87). Pritchard notes the relationship between a ‘false glass’ and the “illegitimate and counterfeit” (Pritchard, 87). These metaphors distinctly depict Richard as illegitimate regardless of his birth, once again calling into question legitimacy itself. With the Duchess of York seeing nothing in Richard other than her own downfalls, she ultimately ascertains that Richard does not possess any legitimate qualities (2.2.53-54). Without any favourable qualities, Shakespeare dramatizes Richard as illegitimate, based on his pitiable ethical merits and exploits.

            In Act V.3, both Richard III and the Earl of Richmond are visited in their sleep by the ghosts of those Richard has killed to seize the kingdom and the throne. All of those murdered by Richard of Gloucester in order to seize the throne as King Richard III: Prince Edward, Clarence, Lord Hasting, Lady Anne, Henry VI, Rivers, and Vaughn separately exclaim “despair and die! (V.3. 127,136,141,144),” to King Richard III in his sleep, with the ghost of Grey also exclaiming “let thy soul despair! (V.3.142). By contrast, all the ghosts also visit the Earl of Richmond, whose birthright is less legitimate than King Richard III. However, unlike King Richard III, the Earl of Richmond’s moral character is not tarnished by malevolence, deceit, and conspiracy. Whilst simple threats of hatred are predominantly set against Richard, the ghosts speak to the Earl of Richmond with remarks to his character and in turn his legitimacy to conquer Richard and become King. For example, the ghost of Henry VI speaks to the Earl of Richmond in his sleep to offer him strength. Henry VI says,

“Virtuous and holy, be thou conqueror…
Live and Flourish! (V.3.129-131)”

With no remark or care for the Earl’s birthright, Henry offers his support regardless of the Earl of Richmond’s ‘illegitimacy’ as he is “virtuous and holy (V.3.129)”. Pritchard’s thesis that Shakespeare dramatizes how character is superior to birth is once again ascertained in the rejection of Richard as King, and the acceptance and support of The Earl of Richmond to defeat Richard and take the throne.

Furthermore, the ghost of Lord Hastings greets Richmond in his sleep and also asserts that Richmond must defeat Richard and become King. The Ghost of Lord Hasting’s says,

                        “Quiet untroubled soul, awake, awake!
                                    Arm, fight, and conquer, for fair England’s sake!”

This not only deeply and significantly contrasts Lord Hastings ushers of “bloody and guilty, guiltily awake (V3.147)” to Richard, it also asserts that the individual that is without blame or murder is the one that owns the right to rule.

            The death of Richard at the end of the play, and the knowledge that the Earl of Richmond will be crowned King is the culmination of all previous actions by both men. Whilst Richard possessed the right to rule, he murdered and deceived his family callously in order to take the throne, and thus failed to possess the moral character it takes to lead England. By contrast, the Earl of Richmond would not originally have had a right to the throne, but his qualities and character made him a suitable leader who possessed the ability to “unite the White Rose and the Red (V.5. 19)”; to marry a broken England under the Tudors (Pritchard, 193).

            In conclusion, Pritchard aptly writes that “…because Richard usurps his kingdom, he cannot make it his own: instead he apes the structure of legitimate society; his is a counterfeit (‘illegitimate’) version of a true reign. (Pritchard, 88)” Pritchard’s article ascertains that Shakespeare dramatizes the illegitimate legitimacy of Richard in order to focus the audience and the readers on the flaws of supposed divine birthright, as well as challenging both an audience and readers to determine and define the legitimacy of a leaders right to rule; whether through good character traits or through the supposed legitimacy to rule by one’s birth and blood-line . Shakespeare seeks to deconstruct the notion of noble birthright by centering his play around Richard, a character with malevolent qualities who sidesteps the traditions of gaining the throne through conceit and murder. Such qualities undermine the notion of divine ruling. Having Richard gain the throne through killing his own family and yet remaining ‘legitimate’ by birth, demonstrates the flaws in ‘divine’ primogeniture successions to the throne (Pritchard 83).  The prophecy which Richard falsely crafts further engages the audience to ascertain that a member of the nobility, who has a ‘legitimate’ birth, is capable of creating a plot to seize the throne through human means, rather than divine.  As well, by demonstrating the willingness of King Edward to believe the lie of the prophecy, divine rule itself is brought into disregard since the audience is fully aware that the prophecy is a lie in order to benefit Richard, and ensure the murder of his brother Clarence. With the audience aware of Richard’s depravity, and Edward not, Edward is cast into a light of naivety as to believe in the fictional prophecy. Edward immediately trusts the system of divine rule and prophecy in which he is embedded in, rather than to trust in the moral character of his brother Clarence who has always loved him.  Pritchard highlights Richard’s mother’s qualms regarding Richard. By coining him a “false glass”(2.2.53), the Duchess indicates her own son’s illegitimacy regardless of his birth, regarding his stake in the bloodline irrelevant due to what she sees as a man filled only with downfalls (Pritchard, 87). The Duchess’s words challenge the audience to consider the corrupt behavior of Richard, casting the actions of those of ‘legitimate birth’ once again into question. In Act V.3 we are subjected to viewing the stark contrast between the guilty King Richard III and the guiltless Earl of Richmond. Although the Earl of Richmond does not hold the same birthright as Richard, he possesses good and moral qualities. The Earl of Richmond’s defeat of King Richard III affirms Pritchard’s assertions that Shakespeare dramatizes birthright as an irrelevant factor in ones right to rule; that it is in the good and character and the competence of a man that gives him the right to serve England as Sovereign, asserting that illegitimate births are in fact an illogical means of determining what makes a suitable King or Queen.

Works Cited

Pritchard, Katie. Legitimacy, Illegitimacy and Sovereignty in Shakespeare’s British Plays.
            Diss. Escholar. Manchester University. 2011. Web. April 14. 2014. 82-95, 193.

Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of King Richard the Third. Ed. Peter Holland. 

 N.p.: Penguin, 2000. Print. 

Drunk & Disorderly in the County of Cheshire

ENG 331H1S

Drama to 1603

Professor Matthew Sergi

Henry Lawson

ARCHIVAL RESEARCH

Drunk & Disorderly in the County of Cheshire

Key Words: drunk and disorderly, alcohol, rush-bearing, bear-beating, crime

In the play of Noah’s Flood, part of the Chester Cycle (c. 1422-1575), Noah’s wife defies his assertion that they must take to their boat as to avoid drowning and instead remarks;

‘Here is a pottle full of malmsey good and strong;

It will rejoice

Both heart and tongue.

Though Noah think us never so long,

Yet we will drink atite.’ (BAMD 223)

We must consider that the Chester plays are Biblical games – entertainment – rather than the stuff of sermon. Noah’s wife provides some of the playfulness which would come to define the festivities. There is a clear blurring of carnival and performance and she calls upon the audience to join her when she says ‘we will drink atite’. The players encourage drinking, and this celebratory air invoked my study of drinking as a cultural institution in Chester, and what the problems associated with it were.  Drunkenness, and disorderliness, was common at the Inns of Court amongst actors following a performance, but who caused the problems in Chester? Is drinking, as it is today, both a unifying centre for culture and a locus of disorder, crime and violence?

            In the REED Appendix’s Selective List of Musicians and Musical Performers, it is fascinating to learn that each musicians musical instrument of choice is mentioned only as a side note to what is their defining characteristic; their crimes. John Beaumont, a piper, is recorded on the 20 July 1602 for ‘Drunk and Disorderly’ (REED 945) behavior, but his hometown is unknown (the REEDS volume reads ‘unlocated’) (REED 945). The record of William Bradbury, also a piper and ‘unlocated’ is exactly the same – guilty of ‘Drunk and Disorderly’ offenses on 20 July 1602 (REED 945).

The entries are entirely separate, and there is nothing we can use to ascribe a definite correlation, but it seems incredibly coincidental. The list of musicians, remembered for their offences rather than their artistry, illuminates something that underlay my research into Chester’s drunk and disorderly. The records of those who drink and commit crime are particular almost totally to musicians, bear-beaters and vagabonds associated with rush-bearing festivals. Rush-bearing ‘often attracted unsavoury characters, such as pedlars, cutpurses and pickpockets, and became a pretext for heavy drinking in otherwise quiet communities’ (Laroque 157) whilst the problem of inappropriate entertainment regarding wakes and love-ales lead to, in 1588, the justices of the peace in England giving instruction to ensure that every parish church forbade such events.

            Records for drunkenness and disorderliness are curiously absent in the most part before 1603, despite the evidence of Beaumont and Bradbury which proves that alcohol-related problems existed. Most of my research, therefore, is located in the seventeenth century. On 22 April 1616, a letter written by a William Glegg and addressed to a Peter Mainwaring describes Ralph Holland as ‘a Common haunter of ale howses, but also found tipplinge & drinkinge in an ale howse with a pyper to make him mirrie withal, at after xij of the Clocke in the night tyme’ (REED 472). This record, in conjunction with another remembering that Holland was disciplined on 3 June 1612 ‘for keepeinge a disordered howse and prophaninge the Sabboath daie with danceinge pypinge drunkenness and such Lude Exercises’ (REED 664), illuminate that perpetrators were not only particular to categories of people: musicians, bearbeaters, rush-bearers, but that those guilty of one offense can often be found elsewhere in the volumes for similar acts.

The people who crop up are seemingly ostracised from society. Although drinking is encouraged and is surely deep-rooted in Chester’s culture, those who breach the societal expectations of time and place for drunkenness are deemed ‘Roagues and idle Wandringe beggers, which pester the neighboures exceedingly’ (REED 846). Two years later the most common location for inappropriate activity, a rush-bearing, is married with a bear-beater. The High Constable’s Presentments for Eddisbury Hundred remembers John Belward ‘for a drunckard’, ‘for a horible blasphemer’ (REED 960); ‘a wandering rouge’ disciplined ‘for beating his bea[t]res at Bunbury at Saint Iames tyde at the Rusbearing there being never non before, contrary to kinges booke’ (REED 960).

            The records continue in using alcohol, or alcoholism, to ostracize members of the public. The Quartier Sessions Petition for the County of Cheshire on 10 October 1620 documents ‘That one Randull Houfeild (who is a Common drunkard & a dissolute lyver hauinge noe certeyne place of aboade)’ (REED 849). His ‘hauinge noe certeyne place of aboade’ seems to work against him, and efforts to help to homeless are altogether absent in the volumes. The issue of rowdy bear-beaters persists over time and place in the Chester volumes. In Malpas, 1625, on 25 April, the Crown Book reads such; ‘we do present that Roger Yardley of malpas selleth ale without lycence & keepeth a disordered house with bearewardes & bearebaytes where Iohn Calcot was slayne.’ (REED 720) This too illuminates the only other sector of people accused of alcohol-related crime and that is those who ‘selleth ale without lycence’. Of course, unlegislated sales only become apparent with the presence of anarchy on their grounds, so the locus of alcohol problems in Chester remain with bear-beaters and the homeless.

Further into the seventeenth century, however, the problem shifts somewhat from ‘dossolute and Idle persons’ (Hale, January 9 1637, Quartier Sessions Warrants, REED 684), ‘Incorrigible Rouges’ who ‘agreate Terrour to the Neighborhoode’ (REED 684), to the innkeepers themselves. This suggests a tighter lawful system regarding the sale, and consumption, of alcohol heading towards the modern day. On 3 April 1638 the Quartier Sessions Indictments the Cunstables of Neither Knuttesfod ‘Complaine against Thomas Gleaue butcher for keeping of a disordered house and beinge druncke in or about the first daye of marche last past and alsoe for profaneige the name of god by seuerall bludy othes as alsoe for Interteninge of an vnlicensed belward with beares and Causinge him to baite his said bares within his backside’ (REED 693). Clearly, the issue of ‘vnlicensed belward[s] with beares’ continues, alongside the strict laws against blasphemy, but alongside this stems a system, perhaps more fairly, critical of those who house troublesome individuals.

            It is interesting to see the presence of drunkenness and subsequent disorder continue beyond the Chester Cycle’s discontinuation. It was quashed with the rise of Protestantism and the final record of its production is 1575. It provides an example of a cultural event welcoming alcohol consumption, an example which exists in stark contrast to the musicians and bear-beaters who are criticised for their drinking for many years afterwards. Drinking has an association with anarchy, and I argue that it is used to frame members of the public deemed surplus to societal requirements. The suggestion of collective drinking in the play of Noah’s Flood, coupled with the two counts of drunk and disorderly crime in 1602, gives heed to the claim drunkenness and disorderliness did not start to occur in the seventeenth century. It seems unlikely such a culture would spring from nowhere, and the lack of evidence from the sixteenth century only problematizes archival research, and provokes questions of where the records for drinking were lost, why they were lost and who lost them.

Works Cited

The Broadview Anthology of Medieval Drama. Eds. Fitzgerald and Sebastian. Broadview Press: Toronto, 
2013. Print.

Laroque, François, Shakespeare's festive world: Elizabethan seasonal entertainment and the professional stage. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1993. Print.

Records of Early English Drama: Cheshire including Chester. Ed. Elizabeth Baldwin, Lawrence M. Clopper, and David Mills. University of Toronto Press: Toronto, 2007. Print. 

The Sword in 16th century drama

Elisa Jeanalle Kim

999071123

ENG331H1S

Professor Matthew Sergi

Tuesday April 1, 2014

The Sword in 16^th century drama

In 1976, the Records of Early English Drama, for short REED, was established. The Records of Early English Drama had one mission, “to provide the scholarly world with uniform, accurate and complete editions of all the surviving evidence of drama, secular music and community celebrations in Great Britain.” (REED 1). Over the years, these surviving records have provided information for students and scholars about the history of this performance art. The information provided can be anything from sports, to costumes and to props. The origin information about these elements can help us understand the history and the significance of early English drama to the modern age. One of these important elements is props, weapons to be more specific. Since there are a variety record of Early English Drama on different types of weapons, such as the dagger, spear and even East Asian weaponry, we are focusing on the weapon that is of the sword. The sword has a special and long history with an origin as early as the Bronze Age and in Ancient Greek and East Asian history. These records about swords do not just talk about it being a prop but its importance in ceremonies and for certain nobles. To focus on these set of records, we look in the records from Devon, Dorset/Cornwall, York and Lancashire. These set of records from these areas have shown a significant amount of information about the sword and the uses in the 16^th century drama.

            Devon is located in the southern part of England. By the end of the 16^th century, its military and economy importance increased due to its posts on the coast. This leads to increased weaponry being made and sold to nobles and the army of the British. Many of the records show that these transactions are made in Mount Edgcumbe, and in Dartmouth. In Mount Edgcumbe, it showed that it made use of the sword as a prop in 1553-1558 by a company. Word came to Mount Edgcumbe that a company of armed men came from Plymouth. This company in the records had no specific title. This company was mistrusted by Sir Richard so in result made restrictions on many of their practices such as the use of their props. The armory and weapons used in their plays were not be the same as if it were used in combat. Instead the swords and other weapons were to be painted on paper, and because they are made of paper, they had to limit their force that they use to perform their blows. In Dartmouth, many accounts call for the transaction of the sword for St. George. St George is referred to as Henry St. George who was an English officer of arms and the son of the herald Richard St George. It is intriguing why his name was to appear in this transaction but he was important in these records of early English drama because of his status. This transaction was a payment towards him for his work administering the company of the Churchwardens. The sword was used as a payment for the work that he has done in the time period of 1530-1552 which cost 6 pence. The sword was not used a lot in drama but as payment for different play companies.

            Just south west of England is the areas of Dorset and Cornwall. The Records of Early English Drama recorded into both of these together because of the traditions that occurred in both of these cities. There was a custom that started in 1527 in Cornwall that happen to involve a sword. This sword was used as a ceremonial device. This tradition occurred on St. George day and is called Lostwithiel’s riding. This was sponsored by a religious guild of St. George at the Saint Bartholomew Church. The Saint George mentioned is the Christian martyr and not the St. George that was mentioned in Devon. During this ceremony, a member is chosen within a guild to represent Saint George to lead the procession through the streets. The person is to ride on a horse wearing a crown and carrying a specter and a sword. This was a tradition that went on until 1602 for unknown circumstances. The accounts note for in 1535-1536 about the cost of the scouring of the armory and even the payment for the labour that played Saint George which cost 12 pence. It can be said that playing the part of Saint George is a huge privilege and can only be given to those who show great faith in the church.

            The area of York is located in the northern part of England and had a significant change in the 16^th century. By the 16^th century, the economy went into decline during because of the Tudors.  Under Henry VIII, the end of York’s many monastic houses, large institutions and hospitals were ordered, which was called the Dissolution of the Monasteries. This led the uprising who went against the religious reform. This uprising was called the Pilgrimage of Grace and it made the city of York into a city where it provided trade and service In the York records, the account that provided with the payment of the sword was from the Skinners’ Guild.  The Skinners’ Guild used these swords as stage props and not to be used by the players themselves. The swords that were used by the players are to be painted paper. The swords that were used for the stage were a bit expensive because of the declined economy. This payment of the swords was done by trade and not by shillings or pence. This trade included fruits, meats and clothing. The quality of these items were said to be on the level of luxury. This can be said that the trades were the main way of doing of transactions during the 16^th century in York.

            Overall, these records can give you an insight of how much the swords meant for the period of the Early English drama. The REED is a great read and can provide other information that the readers might want to know. The sword was an important part to English drama and REED provided enough information about the use and history during this important time period.

Work Cited

Records of Early English Drama. Records of Early English Drama: Devon. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986. Print.

Records of Early English Drama. Records of Early English Drama: Dorset/Cornwall. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999. Print.

Records of Early English Drama. Records of Early English Drama: Dorset/Cornwall. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1979. Print.

The Purpose of Dramatic Performance in Chester

Graham Jaskula

998909793

ENG331H1S

Prof. Matthew Sergi

Keywords: Chester, Painters Guild, Celebration, Aesthetics, Performance

 The Purpose of Dramatic Performance in Chester

The Play of the Shepherds by the Chester Painters Guild offers a substantially complete picture of the nature of dramatic performance in sixteenth century Chester. The play’s excessive emphasis on feasting and drinking, and its involvement in the Whitsun festivities are instructive of the party-like nature of drama, in the sense that it serves as an excuse for celebration on behalf of the public and the actors. While the play is certainly an excuse for public celebration and festivities, it still maintains another function as an instructive tool, providing the audience with valuable moral lessons. Furthermore, at the most external level, the play is an aesthetic work of art, and there is a sense in which it is designed to be pleasing and simply enjoyed for entertainment’s sake. The performance aspects of the play warrant the sense in which the play serves as an excuse for excessive eating and drinking. These facts are confirmed by evidence retrieved from the Records of Early English Drama.

            Among the more exemplary instances of the festive nature of the play is the seemingly unnecessary feast scene of the three shepherds. Each of the shepherds brings out their own contribution to the meal, and they all indulge whole-heartedly. The records for the Painters guild from the 1568 Whitsun play show that a great deal of the expenses for the play went towards food as props for the performance, as each food item mentioned by the shepherds appears in the expenses (REED, 83). There are multiple receipts for drinks to the players, pots of wine and ale, and other beverages and “celebration” items. Much of the expenses are warranted by their inclusion in the play, but for the most part, these receipts paint a picture of a grand celebration surrounding the play. Out of the total four pounds, two shillings, and six pence spent by the guild, one pound, one shilling, and eleven pence was spent on food and drink (REED, 84). This is a substantial amount of the budget for food and drink alone, which shows that perhaps the performance aspect of the play was secondary to indulging in the festivities. Even having the food props included in the performance itself seem to be a cheeky way of bringing the party inside the play, and giving it a primary role.

            This scene however is crucial to one of the central themes of the play, but this in turn happens to raise even more questions as to the purpose of the play as a whole. The play aims to instruct upon the sin of gluttony, and attempts to steer viewers of the play away from such activities. The shepherds’ servant Trowle is the most prominent voice of reason in the play, albeit an inebriated one. As he stumbles down the hill towards the shepherds, he admonishes them for their indulging and rejection of their shepherdly duties. Trowle wrestles each of the three shepherds and ends up throwing them all (BAMD, 237). The activities of the shepherds are shown in a negative light in this sense; those who act in this way do not come out on top. This being the case, it would appear that the moralizing aspect of the play is undermined by the Painters Guild’s hypocritically indulging with their substantial food and drink expenses for the play, as this is precisely what they attempt to instruct against. But this is only one side of the story, as the end of the play demonstrates. After having received the angel’s song and giving the last of their belongings to the baby Jesus, the shepherds renounce their way of life and vow to change. The play seems to be implying that grace can still be attained by those who coddle, but only through good deeds.

This message relates to another point the play addresses, which helps to shed light on the other side of the story concerning the Painters Guild’s expenditure records. The interactions between Trowle and the shepherds draw heavily on work conditions of the time. Among the more pertinent reasons for Trowle’s admonishing of the shepherds is their stinginess concerning wages:

Therefore meat if I may,

Of your dighting today

Will I nought by no way

        Till I have my wage (BAMD, 236.221)

Trowle refuses to join in their feast as the shepherds have yet to pay him for his work. Although the amount the Painters Guild budgeted towards food and drink was quite high, the amount that was put towards wages for the players, and payment to others for goods and services makes up a substantially greater portion of the total budget. Fifteen shillings and two pence alone was for players’ wages (REED, 83), which is quite fair when considering that food and drink was also provided to the players during the production. The various receipts for services provided by others shows that this play was not simply an excuse for celebration, but was also an economic enterprise creating work for those in the city.

This is compelling evidence to question where the power of the play lies, whether it is in its ability to instruct on virtue, its aesthetic value, or simply as an excuse for celebration. In truth, to limit the play to any one of these qualities is not sufficient, as it accomplishes all three at once. This point made clearer by again turning to the records. One entry reads “item for mending Trowes cote” (REED, 82). This item stands out as in the play itself, Trowle mentions “so ragged is mine array” (BAMD, 236.226) when confronting the shepherds about his lack of pay. If the play were purely an excuse for celebration, the mending of the tattered coat would be of little importance. The inclusion of this expense shows the play is concerned with aesthetics, and how the appearance of the performance affects the event. For this reason as well, the inclusion of real food in the feast scene seems to be warranted. While it certainly adds to the revelry of the event for the players, it also helps to add to the aesthetic and dramatic experience for the audience.

Each of these aspects of the play are dependant on one another, and to try and extract one and claim its precedence over the others would only subtract from the overall value of the play. The party-like atmosphere surrounding the production only adds to the aesthetic of the performance, which in turn allows the audience to become more involved and perhaps take something away from the experience, the hope being it has some lasting moralizing effect. For all these reasons, The Play of the Shepherds is a perfect example of why drama is performed and continues to be a significant form of entertainment.

Works cited

Clopper, Lawrence M. Records of Early English Drama: Chester (REED). Toronto:

University of Toronto, 1979. Print.

"The Chester Play of the Shepherds." The Broadview Anthology of Medieval Drama

(BAMD). Ed. Christina Marie. Fitzgerald and John T. Sebastian. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview, 2013. N. pag. Print.

York’s Version of “The Crucifixion”

Vasilios Pavlounis

998307158

ENG331H1S

Professor Matthew Sergi

April 1, 2014

Keywords: York, Crucifixion, Pinners, Painters, Guilds

York’s Version of “The Crucifixion”

The York Corpus Christi Play, “The Crucifixion,” is widely known to be authored by the Pinners guild. While I agree with the theory, I will argue that the Pinner’s version of “The Crucifixion” is influenced by the writings and behaviors of other guilds from the time. Through the origins of the production, the structure of the play, and the circumstances that put the Pinners in creative control, some of the more unusual aspects of the play are revealed in REED. Both words and personality are borrowed. To clarify my arguments I must first detail how the play was created.

“The Crucifixion” took many forms before it was finished. Originally there were two plays owned by separate guilds: the Painters’ “The Stretching and Nailing of Christ” and the Latteners’ “The Raising of Christ on the Mountain” (Johnston 676-7). The Stainers aided the Painters and the Pinners aided the Latteners (676). Unfortunately these plays have since been lost, retired and scrapped well before the York pageants stopped being performed; this is because the two plays merged into one for the sake of time. In a memorandum book passage, dated 31 January, 1422, it is noted that “the matter of both pageants could be shown together in one pageant for the shortening of the play rather profitably,” resulting in “the pageant of the Painters and Stainers [being] thoroughly removed” (722-3) and the creative responsibility for the new play falling mostly on the Pinners. With only one guild in charge the Pinners have been attributed full authorship in the modern day. However, all York plays are collaborative projects and the three other guilds did assist in some ways.

The three other guilds, along with the Pinners, supported the pageant financially. Some proof is found in the Bakers’ books which shows that they regularly “receyced of the paynters and pynners for there paygyant rent” (364, 376, 382, 384, 392, 428, 431); more records like these are also recorded, some concerning the Stainers and Latteners as well. And yet, although many years in the future, there is a glimpse of disparity seen in a brief note: “Pageant money: Painters complain that they pay more than Pinners. Both to pay same amount” (676). For many years the Painters felt cheated in the costs they were paying even though they were not performing or writing the play. There is some unevenness between guilds, and the same type of asymmetry is found in the play itself.

 “The Crucifixion” has a strict ababababcdcd rhyming structure that supports the theory that it is mostly written by scratch. It is unknown whether the Painters and Latteners used the same scheme in their plays but it is unlikely that they both did, especially considering how varied the York plays are. If one of their plays did use the same rhyming structure the odds are in favour of “The Raising of Christ on the Mountain” because the Pinners had also worked on it. Regardless, the Pinners were instructed to perform the “matter of the speeches which were previously performed” (723) in their play, not to perform the actual speeches themselves. However, this does not mean that the new Pinner writers were not inspired by the past plays or that they did not simply adjust certain lines. The Pinners would be very familiar with the plays and the stark contrast between the soldiers’ and Jesus’s speech suggests that they did borrow elements from the former productions.

The Jesus character speaks twice in the play but never addresses the soldiers or their actions specifically; this suggests that his lines may have been lifted directly from the Latteners’ previous play because, judging from its title, it also dealt with him being raised on the cross. In Jesus’s first dialogue he refers to being “buxom” (“Crucifixion” 51) after the soldiers orders him to “come forth” (45). While his words are related to the soldiers’ commands, the commands themselves are not necessary for Jesus’s dialogue. He would have been buxom regardless. In Jesus’s second speech he asks God to forgive the “these men” claiming that “what they work wot they not” (260-1); this line is also easily interchangeable with other crucifixion plays, so-much-so that it is actually a Bible quote from Luke 23.34. Those two lines are only sections that might be dependent on the soldiers’ actions, and yet, even with these small moments, Jesus’s dialogue could be transferred into any public crucifixion play and probably still fit. It is clear that the soldiers’ lines are original to the Pinners’ play because they rhyme while being incredibly intertwined. Jesus’s lines, on the other hand, are in chunks. The choice makes sense stylistically—Jesus is more spiritually whole and his words reflect that—but the blocks of text may have just been an easy carryover from the past.

Once the Pinners were told to merge the two plays and create “The Crucifixion” the leading Painters and Stainers specifically stated that they would “pledge themselves and their successors of their crafts, provided only that the said craftsmen of the Painters and Stainers do not meddle in the pageant of the Pinners or in their accounts hereafter in any way” (Johnston 724). The Painters’ refusal to provide any artistic help is odd and their motives are unknown. All that is certain is that there was a disinterest by the Painters to continue working on the pageant. It was possibly for financial reasons, and how the time-commitment would cut into their normal work hours. There is also the chance that the Painters were upset that their pageant was cut, which, although attributed to time-management, is partially a reflection on the play’s lackluster quality. Or perhaps the Painter and the Pinner guilds simply did not want to work with each other. It is all speculation with the only certainty being that the Painters quit. However, based on the soldiers’ characters in “The Crucifixion,” it is very possible that the Pinners felt negatively about the Painters final decision and decided to represent the Painters in their play.

The tone of “The Crucifixion” is unlike any other of the York plays. It is darkly comedic and awkwardly uncomfortable considering its brutal subject matter. But everything comes from somewhere and it is strange to think the Pinners simply made the play awkward for the sake of comedy. No, instead the Pinners warped the Painters’ original script of “The Stretching and Nailing of Christ” to subtly poke fun at the guild. As established, the soldiers’ dialogue is fully attributed to the Pinners due to the new content fitting the rhyming scheme. The soldiers’ were therefore written as bumbling fools to take a jab at the Painters; this is because the Painters were once responsible for the soldiers’ dialogue but instead left the re-write work to the Pinners. The play’s final lines are reminiscent of the real-world situation the Painters found themselves in. Soldier 2 ends by declaring: “go we then hence tite, / this travail here we tine” (“Crucifixion” 299-300); these words exemplify the speedy retreat the Painters took as well as their loss of labour. In the end the soldiers mimic the Painters: they do a sloppy job and then leave. The Pinners may not have meant to be malicious in their portrayal of the soldiers. They just bring attention to the bizarre circumstances surrounding their involvement in the new play.

Without more primary documents the complete origin of “The Crucifixion” will never be known. The REED publications help shape the picture and it is up to interpreters to finish the puzzle. It is a fact that “The Crucifixion” is the result of merging two plays and it is highly likely that those former works—be it through their actual content or the story surrounding them—greatly influenced the Pinners’ production. Through the previous work by the Latteners and the choices of the Painters everything is an influence. Of course the Pinners deserve full authorship, but it is good to reflect on the stories that inspired them outside of the Bible.

Works Cited

Johnston, Alexandra F., and Margareted Rogerson, eds. Records of Early English Drama. York. Toronto. Toronto University Press, 1979. Print.

"The Crucifixion." The Broadview Anthology of Medieval Drama. Ed. Christina Marie..Fitzgerald and .John T. Sebastian. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview, 2013. 103-110. Print.