Appendix a Treatise of Miraclis Playing: a Modern

APPENDIX

A TREATISE OF MIRACLIS PLAYING: A MODERN ENGLISH VERSION OF A TRETISE OF MIRACLIS PLEYINGE

Some introductory notes about the translation:

1. The translation of the ToMP into modern English is intended to make the text more accessible to contemporary readers; however, this is a literal translation of the text. By aiming to keep the text as close as possible to the original, one can experience the unique writing style of the text, which is typified by extensive use of parallelisms and by an extremely intricate internal logic. The best full edition of the text is that of Clifford Davidson (1993), annotated with an introduction and accompanied by a Middle English glossary. Another full edition is in W. C. Hazlitt’s The English Drama and Stage under the Tudor and Stuart Princes 1543– 1664, originally published in Bath in 1832, (reprinted New York: Burt Franklin, 1969), 73–96, where it appears as A Sermon against Miracle Plays. 2. Although the logic of the text is coherent throughout, there are sentences that are very long and complicated. I have tried, as much as possible, to convey the simple meaning of each and every sentence, however, I have also tried, where possible, not to change the original wording but to stay as close as possible to the original text. In places where there are a few possible translations for a word, but all have the same meaning, I have separated them with slashes. Where there are a few interpretative options, or where I tried to clarify the meaning of the sentence according to my understanding of the text, I have added the alternatives in brackets. 128 APPENDIX

3. The most significant issue is determining how to translate the pairing of the words “miraclis pleyinge” throughout the text. Altogether there are four possible options: a) To leave it in the original, unsolved. b) To translate it into “the playing of miraclis”— using the term miraclis to denote a performance genre, called “miraclis.” c) To translate it into “the playing of miracles”—still referring to a performance genre while specifically evoking the idea of performing subject matter that has to do with miracles as wonders, specifically referring to God’s miracles or other scriptural events. d) To translate it into “playing miracles” or “miracle(s) playing,” which is most similar to the original but which emphasizes the contemporary meaning of the word miracle because of the spelling. Since the couplet “miraclis pleyinge” is used in the text in both ways— sometimes as a performance genre and sometimes specifically referring to a performance that enacted Christ’s miracles (in addition to the frequent use of the word miracle/s itself unequivocally denoting “miracle” in the sense of a wonder)— I use all four translation options in an attempt to get as close as possible to the specific meaning in each place in the text. I have decided, however, to leave unchanged the original spelling of the word “miraclis” in places where it is impossible to determine whether the specific meaning is a performance genre, a miracle, or both at the same time. In places where the word “miraclis” unequivocally means “miracle” I have changed the spelling into modern English. In all places I have translated “pleyinge” into “playing.”

Line numbers are marked at beginning of paragraphs, following Davidson’s edition.

[1] Here begins a treatise of miraclis playing. [2] Know you, Christian men, that since Christ—God and man— is way, truth, and life, as says the gospel of John1— way to the erring, truth to the unknowing and doubting, and life to those wearily climbing to heaven— so Christ did nothing to us that was not effectual and merciful., truthful and righteous, and in life of giving up everlasting joy for our continu- ous mourning and sorrowing in this valley of tears. Miracles, therefore, that Christ did here on earth either by himself or by his saints, were so effectual [real/true] and earnestly done, that for sinful men who erred they brought forgiveness of sin, setting them in the way of right belief; for doubtful and non-steadfast men they brought the knowledge to better please God, and real hope in God to be steadfast to him; and for those weary in the way of God, because of the great penance and suffering of APPENDIX 129 the tribulation that men must have therein [in life], they [the miracles] brought in love of burning charity to those for which everything is light [taken lightly], even to suffer death, which men most dread, for [in order to achieve] the everlasting life and joy that men most love and desire, that which true hope puts away all weariness here in the way of God.2 [22] Then, since the miracles of Christ and of his saints were thus effectual, as according to our belief we are certain, no man should use in jest/ game3 and play the miracles and works that Christ so earnestly wrought for our well- being. For whoever does such a thing, errs in the faith, con- tradicts4 Christ, and scorns God. He errs in the faith, because he takes the most precious works of God in play and jest, and so he takes his [God’s] name idly and so misuses our belief. A, Lord, 5 since an earthly servant does not dare to take in play and jest what his earthly lord takes earnestly [seriously], much more we should not make our play and game out of the miracles and works that God so earnestly did for us. For surely when we do so, dread of sinning is taken away, just as a servant, when he jokes with his master, his dread of offending him is lessened, especially when he jokes with his master about what his master takes seriously. And just as a smitten-in nail holds two things together, so dread that is smitten toward God holds and sustains our belief in him. [40] Therefore, just as playing and jesting with the most earnest works of God take away the dread of God that men should have in him, so it takes away our belief and thus our greatest help for our salvation. And since taking away our belief is a greater vengeance than suddenly taking away our bodily life, and when we take in jest and play the most earnest works of God as were his miracles, God takes away from us his grace of [letting us have] meekness, dread, reverence, and our belief; then, when we play his miracles6 as men do nowadays, God takes more vengeance on us than a lord that suddenly strikes his servant for playing too familiarly with him. And just as that lord then indeed says to his servant, “don’t play with me but play with your peer,” so when we take in play and game the miracles of God, he takes from us his grace, saying more seriously to us than the abovementioned lord, “don’t play with me but play with your peer.” [57] Therefore, such “miraclis playing” [playing of miracles] contradicts Christ. First, by turning into play what he took most earnestly. Second, by using in miraclis our flesh, our lust [pleasure], and our five senses— those which God took [“used”] in the bringing in of his bitter death and for teaching of doing penance, and for fleeing away the feeding of our senses and for mortifying them. And therefore saints frequently note that we never read about Christ laughing in the Holy Scriptures, but rather 130 APPENDIX about his penance, tears, and shedding of blood, so that we know that everything we do here should be done in penance, in disciplining of our flesh, and in penance of adversity. And therefore, all the works that we do except for these three7 utterly contradict Christ’s works. And therefore Saint Paul said that “If you escape the discipline in which all sons share, you must be bastards and not true sons of God.”8 And such miraclis playing contradicts doing penance since they are done with great pleasure, and are planned for the purpose of great pleasure in advance, whereas penance is done in great mourning of the heart and is ordained for great mourning. [76] It also contradicts discipline, for in true discipline the true voice of our master Christ is heard, as a student hears the voice of his master, and the rod of God in the hand of Christ is seen, in the sight of which all our other three senses tremble and quake because of fear and dread [just] as a child trembles seeing the rod of his master. And thirdly, true discipline is truly turning away and forgetting all those things that Christ hated and turned himself away from here, [ just] as a child under the discipline of his master turns himself away from all the things that his master had forbidden him, and forgets them because of the great thought/reason9 that he has to do his master’s will. [87] And for these three Saint Peter wrote, saying, “Be you humbled therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in the time of visitation: Casting all your care upon him.”10 That is, “be you humbled,” that is, to Christ, hearing his voice by truly obeying his commands; and “under the mighty hand of God,” seeing evermore his rod in his hand to chastise us if we become lacking in discipline or idle, remind- ing us, Saint Peter said, that “It is a terrible thing to fall into the hand of the living God.”11 For just as it is most joyful to climb up into the hand of the mercy of God, so it is most hideous and fearful to fall into the hands of the wrath of God. Therefore we [should] meekly dread him here evermore seeing and remembering his rod over our head, and then he shall enhance us elsewhere in time of his gracious visiting. So that all our busi- ness we throw in him,12 that is, that all other earthly works we do only [should only be done] in order to do his ghostly works, more easily and speedily and more pleasantly to him[,] trusting, that for him is cure for us, that is, if we do for him that which is in our power he shall marvelously do for us that which is in his power, both in delivering us from all perils and in giving us graciously all that we need or ask of him. [109] And since no man can serve two lords together, as Christ said in his gospel,13 no man can hear at once effectually the voice of our master APPENDIX 131

Christ and of his own lust. And since miraclis playing belongs to the lust of the flesh and mirth of the body, no man can effectually hear himself and the voice of Christ at once, since the voice of Christ and the voice of the flesh belong to two contrary lords. And so playing miraclis contradicts discipline, just as Saint Paul said, “and each truly discipline in the time that is now is not a joy but a mourning.”14 Also since it causes to see vain sights of disguise, costumes of men and women with evil behavior, stirring each other to lechery and disputes, since most bodily mirth leads to most disputes,15 since such mirth does not lead a man to patience but leads to gluttony and to other vices, because it enables a man not to wholeheartedly remember of the rod of God over his head, but causes to think about all such things that Christ by the deeds of his passion bade us to forget. Wherefore such miraclis playing contradicts Christ’s commands and deeds of penance, true discipline, and patience. [129] Also, such miraclis playing scorns God, because just as really desert- ing what God said despises God, as did Pharaoh, so using God’s biddings or words or works playfully/amusingly scorns him, as did the Jews that struck Christ, then, since these miraclis players use amusingly the earnest works of God, no doubt that they scorn God as did the Jews that struck/mocked Christ, since they laughed at his passion and these laugh and jape at the miracles of God. Therefore, as they scorned Christ, so these scorn God. And just as Pharaoh, [who] hated to do what God told him, despised God, so these miraclis players and maintainers, [who] turn aside from pleasingly doing what God bid them, scorn God. He for sure had bid us all to hallow his name, with dread and reverence within any thought about his works without any playing or japing, since all holiness is fully earnest. Men then who play the name of God’s miracles pleasingly, they turn away from doing what God bid them and therefore they scorn his name and scorn him. [147] But here again they say [explain/justify] that they play these miraclis in the worship of God whereas the Jews that mocked Christ did not.16 [150] Also since by such miraclis playing men are often committed to good living [conducting a good life], since men and women [by] seeing in miraclis playing that the devil and his order drive each other to lechery and to pride, making them his servants and bringing himself and many others into hell, and causing them to have far more villainy hereafter because of their pride arrayed here than they have worship here, and seeing furthermore that all this worldly being here is only vanity for a while, as is miraclis playing, so that they leave their pride and take on themselves 132 APPENDIX afterwards the meek conversation about Christ and his saints. And so miraclis playing turns [leads] men into belief and does not prevent it.17 [162] Also often by such miraclis playing men and women, seeing the Passion of Christ and of his saints, are moved to compassion and devotion, weeping bitter tears, so they are not scorning God but worshipping. [166] It is also profitable to men and to the worship of God to bring about and search for all the means by which men might leave sin and turn it into virtue; And just as there are men that only by earnest doing are converted to God, so there are other men that cannot be converted to God but by game and play. And [since] nowadays men are not converted by the earnest doing of God or of men, so now it is timely and appropriate to try to convert the people by play and game such as by miraclis playing and other kinds of mirth. [176] Also men must have some recreation, and it is better (or less evil) [sic] that they have their recreation by playing miraclis than by playing other japes. [179] Also, since it is pleasing to have the miracles of God painted, why is it not as well pleasing to have the miracles of God played, since men might better read the will of God and his marvelous works by playing them than in the painting? And they will remain better in men’s mind and more often rehearsed by playing them than by painting, for painting is a dead book, the other is alive. [186] To the first reason we answer saying that such miraclis playing is not done in the worship of God, because it is done more to be seen by the world and to please the world than to be seen by God or to please him, just as Christ never gave examples to them [of such behavior,] but only heathen men that evermore dishonor God, saying that it is in the worship of God, that which is the most offensive of him. Therefore just as the wickedness of the misbelieving of heathen men is a lie to themselves, when they say that the worshipping of their idols is for the worship of God, so men’s lechery nowadays for their own lust, is a lie to themselves when they say that such miraclis playing is for the worship of God. For Christ says that idolatrous men look for such signs [just] as an adulterer seeks signs of real love but no deeds of real love. So since these miraclis playing are only signs of love without deeds, they are not only contrary to the worship of God—that is both in sign and in deed—but also they are devices of the devil to catch men to believe in Antichrist, as words of love without real deeds are devices of the lecher to catch fellows to fulfill his lechery. These miraclis playing are both very false since they are signs APPENDIX 133 without deeds and they are very futile, since they use the miracles of God idly for their own lust. And certainly idleness and lying are the obvious devices of the devil to draw men to believe in Antichrist. And therefore for priests it is utterly forbidden not only to be a miracle player, but also to hear or to see miraclis playing, least of all he that should be the device of God to catch men and hold men in the belief of Christ, [so that] they are turned against [in the opposite direction] by hypocrisy, [becoming] the device of the devil to catch men to believe in Antichrist. Therefore, just as a man swearing lightly by the names of God and saying that this way he worships God and despises the devil, he is really lying and doing the opposite; so miraclis players, since they are doers of idleness [lightness], saying that they do it to the worship of God, actually lie. For as the gospel says, “Not he that says ‘Lord, Lord’ shall come to bliss in heaven, but he who does the will of the Father of Heaven shall come to his kingdom.”18 Thus much more not he that plays the will of God worships him, but only he that does his will indeed worships him. Just as men beguile and despise their neighbors by feigned tokens, so by such feigned miraclis men beguile themselves and despise God, as did the tormentors that mocked Christ. [230] And as an answer to the second reason, we say that just as a virtu- ous deed is sometimes an occasion of evil, as was the Passion of Christ for the Jews, but not an occasion given to them but taken from them, so evil deeds can be occasions of good deeds sometimes, as was the sin of Adam an occasion [the reason] for the coming of Christ,19 but not an occasion given of the [that is for] sin but rather an occasion taken [that shows] the great mercy of God. The same with miraclis playing, although it is sin, it might be claimed sometimes an occasion for converting men, but since it is sin it is far more an occasion of perverting men, not only of one sin- gular person but of all, a whole community, as it occupies all the people in vain against the commands of the book of Psalms that says to all men and especially to priests that each day read it in their service: “Turn away my eyes that they see not vanities,”20 and afterwards, “Lord, thou hated all witting vanities.”21 How then may a priest play in interludes [plays] or watch them since it is forbidden to him so clearly by the foresaid commands of God, especially since he curses every day in his service all those that bow away from the commands of God. But, alas, it is more harmful, that priests nowadays are shrewish, and all day just as a jay that all day cries “What shrew!”— himself shrewing. Therefore miraclis playing, since it is against the command of God that bids that thou shall not take God’s name idly [lightly], is against our belief and so it does not give an occasion of turning men into believers but an occasion of perverting. 134 APPENDIX

And therefore many men think that there is no hell of everlasting pain, but that God only threatens us, not to really do it, just as is playing of miraclis in signs and not in deeds [for real]. Therefore such miraclis playing not only perverts our belief but also our true hope in God, by which saints hoped that the more they abstained themselves from such plays, the more rewards they should receive from God, and therefore the holy Sara, the daughter of Raguel, hoping for her rewards from God, said, “Lord, thou knowest well, that I never desired man, but I have kept clean my soul from all concupiscence, I never meddled me with players, ne never had part of them that walk in lightness,”22 and by this true confession to God, as she hoped so she had her prayers heard and received great rewards from God. And since a young woman of the Old Testament for keeping her bodily virtue of chastity and for worthily taking the sacrament of matrimony when her time came, abstained herself from all kinds of idle playing and from all company of idle players, much more a priest of the New Testament, that has passed the time of childhood and that not only should keep chastity but also all other virtues, not only ministering the sacrament of matrimony but all the other sacraments and especially since he is obligated to minister to all the people the precious body of Christ, ought to abstain himself from all idle playing both of miraclis and of other kinds [of plays]. For certainly, since the Queen of Sheba, as Christ said in the gospel, shall condemn the Jews that would not receive the wisdom of Christ,23 much more this holy woman Sara at the day of doom shall condemn the priests of the New Testament that give themselves to plays, contradicting her holy manners approved by God and the holy church; therefore priests surely ought to be ashamed that they contradict this good holy woman and the precious body of Christ that they treat in their hands, the body which never gave himself to play but to everything that is contrary to playing, as is penance and suffering of persecution. [289] And so these miraclis playing not only contradict faith and hope but also real charity through which a man should cry for forgiveness for his own sin and for his neighbors’, and especially priests, for it with- draws not only one person but all the people from deeds of charity and of penance into deeds of lust and mirth and of feeding of our senses. So then these men that say, “Play we a play of Antichrist and of the Day of Doom so that some man may be converted by it,” fall into the heresy of themselves by contradicting the apostle, saying, “Do we evil things, so that good things come,” of whom, as says the apostle, “damnation is the right way.”24 [300] By this we answer to the third reason saying that such miraclis playing gives no occasion of real weeping and meditation, but the weeping APPENDIX 135 that happens to men and women by the sight of such miraclis playing, which is not principally for their own sins nor because of their good faith within, but more because of their sight from without is not allow- able before God but more reprovable. For since Christ himself reproved the women that wept for him in his passion, much more should they be reproved [those] that weep for the play of Christ’s passion, instead of weeping for their own sins and those of their children as Christ told the women that wept for him.25 [312] And by this we answer to the fourth reason, saying that no man can be converted to God but only by the earnest doing of God and by no vain playing, because if the word of God or the sacraments do not work, how should playing work— that which is of no virtue but full of flaw? Therefore, just as the weeping that men weep often in such plays is commonly false witnessing because they love more the liking [pleasure] of their own body and the prosperity of the world than liking [pleasing] God and prosperity of virtue in the soul, and therefore, having more compassion for pain than for sin, they falsely weep for the lack of bodily prosperity, more than for the lack of spiritual prosperity, as do damned men in hell. Right so, often this converting that men seem to be converted by such playing is but feigned holiness, worse than is other sin beforehand. For if he were really converted, he should have hated to see all such vanity, as bid the commands of God, albeit that in such play he takes occasion by the grace of God to flee sin and to follow virtue. And if men say here that if this playing of miraclis is sinful, why would God convert men on the occasion of such playing, here too we say that God does so in order to commend his mercy to us, so that we think fully how good God is to us, that while we are thinking against him, doing idleness and denunciating him, he thinks good about us, and sends us his grace to flee all such vanity. And therefore nothing should be sweeter to us than such kind of mercy of God, as the book of Psalms calls that mercy “bless- ing of sweetness” where he says, “Thou came before him in blessings of sweetness”26— the sweetness which, although it is pleasure of the spirit, it is [in fact] while we are here full of travails of the body, because truly that the f lesh and the spirit are contrary. Therefore, this sweetness of God will not be truly experienced while a man is occupied in seeing plays. Therefore the priests that call themselves holy and busy themselves with such plays are truly hypocrites and liars. [347] And hereby we answer to the fifth reason that says that real recreation should be permitted, because occupying in lesser works, [causes] to more ardently worship greater works. And therefore such miraclis playing or the sight of them are not real recreation but false and worldly, as 136 APPENDIX prove the deeds of those who favor such plays that yet never truly tasted the sweetness of God, travailing so much in them [becoming so occupied with them] that their body does not suffice to bear such a laboring of the spirit, but rather just as a man goes from virtue to virtue, so they go from lust into lust and more steadfastly dwell in them. And therefore just as this feigned recreation of playing of miraclis is false righteousness, so it is double shrewdness, worse than if they played pure vanities. For now the people give credence to many mixed lies for other mixed truths and are led to think goodly about that which is full of evil, and so often it is less evil to play obscenity than to play such miraclis. And if men ask what recreation men should have on the holiday after their holy contemplation in the church, we say to them two things— one, that if he had really occupied himself in contemplation beforehand, neither would he ask that question nor have the will to see vanity; and secondly we say, that his recreation should be in the works of mercy to his neighbor and in delighting himself in all good communication with his neighbor, as beforehand he delighted himself in God, and in all other necessary works that reason and kindness ask for. [373] And to the last reason we say that painting, if it is really without mixing of lies and not too skilful, too much feeding men’s senses, and not an occasion of idolatry for the people, it is but as naked letters to a clerk to read the truth. But so are not miraclis playing that are created more to delight men bodily rather than to be books for unlearned men. And therefore if they are live books, they are live books of shrewdness more than of goodness. Good men therefore seeing that their time is too short to occupy themselves in good earnest works, and seeing the day of their reckoning arriving fast, and unknowing when they shall go from this world, flee all such idleness, hurrying to be with their spouse Christ in the bliss of heaven.

* * *

[386] An half friend, [who is] tarrying the health of the soul, [who is] ready to excuse the evil and, and who it is hard to convince, like Thomas of India,27 says that he will not leave the abovementioned miraclis playing unless men show him that he should [do so] by the Holy Writ openly and according to our belief. In order for this half friend to turn into a whole one, we ask him to behold first the second amendment of God that says, “Thou shall not take God’s name in idle,”28 and since the marvelous works of God are his name, as the good works of a craftsmen are his name, then in the command of God it is forbidden to take the marvelous works of God in vain. And how can they be used more idly than when APPENDIX 137 they are made men’s japing-stick, as when they are played by japers? And since God did them earnestly to us, that is how we should take them; oth- erwise we surely take them vainly. Look then, friend, if you believe the telling that God did his miracles to us in order for us to play them— while in truth it says to thee, “Nay, but for thou should more dread him and love him.” And certainly great dread and great effectual love suffers no playing and no japing with him. Then since miraclis playing contradicts the will of God and the purpose for which he wrought miracles to us, doubtless that miraclis playing is really using God’s name idly. [409] And if this does not suffice you, although it should suffice an heathen man that accordingly will not play the works of his idols, I request you to read entirely in the book of life that is Christ Jesus to see if you may find in it that he ever gave an example that men should play miraclis, but always the opposite and our belief curses those that had or that did less than Christ exampled us to do. How then do you dare to hold on to miraclis playing since all the works of Christ contradict them, and in none of his works are they grounded?—namely, since you say yourself that you will not leave [the plays] unless it is shown in our belief, and since you will do nothing against such a thing that accords with the flesh [body] and for the pleasure of it, as is miraclis playing, unless it is shown [proven] in our belief; much more you should not hold against something that accords with the spirit, and that is always exemplified in the life of Christ and so fully written in the book of life, as is abandoning miraclis playing and all japing, unless it is shown against that in the belief, since in any case of doubt, men should hold onto the party that is more favorable to the spirit and more exemplified in the life of Christ. And so just as each sinner destroys himself and each deceitful man does, so your answer destroys yourself and thereby you may well be certain that it is not true, but real unkindness; For if you had had a father that had suffered a contemptuous death in order to get you your heritage, and thereafter you would so lightly use it to make of it a play for you and for all the people, no doubt that all good men would deny this unkind thing, much more God and all his saints deny all those unkind Christian men that play or favor the play of the death or of the miracles of their most kind father Christ that did and performed miracles in order to bring men to the everlasting heritage of heaven. [442] But perhaps you say here that [even if] playing of miraclis is sin, nevertheless it is but a little sin. But therefore, dear friend, you should know that each sin, is never so little, if it is maintained and preached as good and profitable, it is a deadly sin; and therefore said the prophet “Woe to them that say good evil and evil good.”29 And therefore the wise men abandon those that are glad when they do evil; and therefore all the 138 APPENDIX saints say that it is human to fall, but it is devilish to stay in there [in sin]. Therefore, since this miraclis playing is sin, as you know, and is steadfastly maintained, and also men delight themselves in them, no doubt that it is a deadly sin— deserving of damnation, devilish, inhuman. Lord, since Adam and Eve and all mankind were expelled out of paradise not only for eating of the apple, but more for the excusing of it, much more playing of miraclis not only excused but steadfastly maintained is deserving of damnation and deadly, especially since it does not only pervert one man but all the people that call good, evil, and evil, good. [461] And if this will not suffice you although it should suffice each Christian man (that should do nothing except for the teaching that Christ taught) [sic], take heed to the deeds that God has done, in which we read that by the bidding of God, when Ishmael played with his brother Isaac, both Ishmael and his mother were thrown out of the house of Abraham, because by such playing[,] Ishmael, who was the son of the servant, might have deceived Isaac of his heritage, [he] who was the son of the free wife of Abraham.30 Another reason is that since Ishmael was born after the flesh and Isaac after the spirit, as the apostle says,31 in order to give an example that playing with the flesh is not appropriate or helpful to the spirit but to taking away the spirit’s heritage. [474] And the third reason is to prefigure that the Old Testament, that is the testament of the flesh, should not be held with the New Testament, which is the testament of the spirit; and if it is wholly kept with the testament of the spirit, it postpones true freedom and takes away the heritage of heaven. Then since the play of Ishmael with Isaac was not allowed, much more is fleshly play with the ghostly works of Christ and of his saints not allowed, [and] since his miracles were done in order to convert men into believing, the distance and contrariety between fleshly playing and the earnest deeds of Christ is much greater than between the playing of Ishmael and Isaac, and also the playing of Ishmael and Isaac prefigured the playing between the f lesh and the spirit. Therefore, as two things that are most contrary shall not play together without hurting each other, as experience teaches, and mostly that part shall hurt the one that is most maintained, and that part shall most hurt that is less maintained; then playing that is fleshly with the works of the spirit is so harming of each other, and mostly shall the flesh hurt the spirit, as in such playing the flesh is most maintained and the spirit less. And as in good things the figured is always better than that which [pre]figures, so in evil things the figured is far worse than the figure; then since the playing of Ishmael with Isaac is a figuration of the playing of the flesh with the spirit, and the first one is evil, then far worse is the other. Then playing with the miracles APPENDIX 139 of God deserves more vengeance and it is a greater sin than deserves the playing of Ishmael with Isaac, and it was less evil; and as fellowship of a serf with his lord makes his lord despise him, so much more playing with the miracles of God makes them [the players] despised, since in compari- son playing with the marvelous works of God is far more churlish than any man may be a churl of a lord; and therefore the playing of Ishmael, who was the son of the servant, with Isaac, who was the son of the free woman, was justly reproved, and both the woman and the son were put out of his company; much more men’s play with the marvelous works of God is rightly reproved and worth to be put out of their company. [512] And therefore, as the apostle says, as there is no good communing between the devil and God, so there is no good communing between the devil’s instrument to pervert men, as is fleshly playing, and God’s instrument to convert men, as are his marvelous works; therefore, as this is a real lie to say that for the love of God he will be a good fellow of the devil, so it is a real lie to say that for the love of God he will play his miracles, for in neither is the love of God shown but rather his commands are broken. And since the ceremonies of the old law, although they were given by God, were fleshly, they should not be held with the New Testament, for it is ghostly. Much more playing, since it is fleshly, never bidden by God, should not be brought together with the marvelous works of God, for they are ghostly. For as the playing of Ishmael with Isaac would have taken away from Isaac his heritage, so in keeping the ceremonies of the old law in [together with] the New Testament would have taken away from men their belief in Christ, and make men to go backward, that is to say, from the ghostly living of the New Testament to the fleshly living of the Old Testament. [533] Moreover, playing of miraclis takes away from men their belief in Christ and is really going backward from deeds of the spirit to only signs that are done for the lust of the f lesh that are against all the deeds of Christ, and so miraclis playing is really apostasy of Christ. And therefore we shall never find that miraclis playing should be used by Christian men but since [except for] clergy [who] only show their religion in tokens and not in deeds, and priests [who] show their priesthood only in signs and for money and not in deeds. And therefore the apostasy of these draws many people after them, as the apostasy of Lucifer the first angel drew much of heaven after him. [545] If this, friend, will not suff ice thee while the eye of the blind would take sight, take heed of how the playing of two contrary parties together, as the playing of the children of Abner and the children of Joab wherein 140 APPENDIX three hundred men and sixty were slain and died,32 undoubtedly much more harmful is the playing of the ghostly works together with the lust of the flesh since they are greater enemies. For miraclis playing [players], just like these apostates, preach for bodily advantage. For just as these consider bodily advantage at a higher price [value] than the word of God, as they make the word of God but a means to their advantage, so these miracle players [sic] and the supporters of them, since they make the miracles of God only a means for their play, and the play the end [purpose] of the miracles of God, hold their play at a higher price [value] than the miracles of God. And so these miraclis players and the supporters of them are real apostates, both for putting God behind and their own lust before [in front], since they remember God only for the sake of their play and also because they delight themselves more in the play than in the miracles themselves, as an apostate delights himself more in his bodily winning than in the truth of God and praises more seemly things on the outside than any fairness on the inside toward God. And therefore it is that such miraclis playing are a threat of much vengeance by God. For just as a jealous man who sees his wife japing with his friends, loving another man more than him, does not wait a long time in order to take vengeance to chastise her, so surely God is more jealous over his people as he loves it more than any man jealous of his wife[;] [H]e, seeing the kindness of his miracles put behind and men’s lust in front, and thus men’s will is more loved than his own will, no wonder that he quickly sends vengeance thereafter, as he must, because of his great righteousness and mercy. And therefore it is that the wise man says, “the end of mirth is sorrow, and afterwards your laughing shall be mixed with sorrow.” 33 And therefore, as experience proves, ever since reigned such an apostate manner in the people, the vengeance of God never ceased upon us, in the forms of pes- tilence, quarreling, f loods, famine, and many other ways, and commonly when men are too unreasonably merry, soon after falls sorrow. [584] Therefore such miraclis playing nowadays is evidence of three things. First it is great sin before [in the past/in advance]. Second, it witnesses [testifies to] great folly in the doing [in the present]. And third, great vengeance after [in the future]. For just as the children of Israel, when Moses was on the hill busily praying for them, they mistrusted him, honoring a golden calf, and afterwards eating and drinking and ris- ing to play, and afterwards three thousand and twenty men of them were slain.34 So then this playing witnesses [testifies to] the sin of their idolatry before [in advance] and to their mistrust of Moses when they should have most trusted him, and then their folly in their playing [in the present], and thirdly, to the vengeance that came afterwards. So this miraclis playing is APPENDIX 141 true witnessing [testimony] of men’s avarice and greed in advance35— that is, idolatry, as says the apostle— for that that they should spend upon the needs of their neighbors, they spend upon the plays; and to pay their rent and the debts they will grumble, and to spend so much on the play they will not grumble at all. Also to gather men together to purchase expensive foods and to stir men to gluttony and pride and arrogance, they play these miraclis, and also in order to have wherefrom to spend on these miraclis and to involve fellowship in gluttony and lechery on such days of miraclis pleyinge, they get busy in advance, more greedily beguiling their neighbors into buying and selling. And so this playing of miraclis nowadays is testimony of hideous covetousness— that is, idolatry. And just as Moses was that time on the hill travailing hard for the people, so now Christ is in heaven with his Father most eagerly praying for the people; and just as in the past, as the children of Israel did in their time, in their playing of their idolatry, most foolishly destroyed the great travails of Moses, so men nowadays, following their hideous idolatry of greed in their playing of miraclis what they do is to destroy the eager prayer of Christ in heaven for them, and so their miraclis playing testifies to their utter folly in the present. And therefore just as the children of Israel unkindly said to Aaron, when Moses was on the hill, “We know not how it is of Moses, make us therefore a God who shall go before us,”36 so nowadays men say unkindly, “Christ does no miracles for us now, therefore we play his old ones,” adding many lies to them so persuasively that the people give as much credence to them [the plays] as to the truth. [627] And so they forget to be partners of the prayer of Christ, for the idolatry that men do in such miraclis playing—idolatry, I say, for men honor such playing as much (or more than) (sic) the word of God when it is preached, and therefore blasphemously they say that such playing does more good than the word of God when it is preached to the people. A, Lord, is there anything more blasphemous against you than saying that doing your bidding, which is preaching the word of God, does far less good than doing that which is bidden only by man and not by God, as is miraclis playing? Just as the likeness of miracles we call miraclis, so the golden calf which the children of Israel called God, not because it was God in itself, but because they made it in the likeness of God, while they had memories of the old miracles of God in the past and because of that likeness they worshiped and praised, as they worshipped and praised God when he did miracles for them. And therefore they expressed idolatry. So since nowadays many of the people worship and praise only the likeness of the miracles of God as much as the word of God in the preacher’s mouth through which all miraclis are done. No doubt that the people do 142 APPENDIX more idolatry now in such miraclis playing than did the people of Israel that time in adoring the calf, because the lies and lust of miraclis playing that men worship in them is more contrary to God and more according with the devil than was that golden calf that the people worshipped. And therefore the idolatry that time [in the past] was only a figuration and a likeness of men’s idolatry now, and therefore, says the apostle, “All these things in figure fallen to him,”37 and therefore in such miraclis playing the devil is most pleased, as the devil is best paid [pleased] to deceive men by the likeness of that thing through which God converted men beforehand and grieved the devil beforehand. Therefore doubtless such miraclis playing threatens to bring about much more vengeance than did the playing of the children of Israel after the adoring of the calf, as this playing establishes only japes greater and more benefits of God.38 [664] A, Lord, since children’s playing is [the result of] witnessing their father’s sins in front of them and their [the fathers’] own original sins before and their own default of wisdom when they play, and their chastity afterwards shall more grieve them, so much more this miraclis playing is witnessing men’s hideous sins beforehand and the forgetting of their master Christ, and their own folly and the folly of malice beyond the folly of children, and that there is great vengeance to come to them more than they shall be able to patiently bear, because of the great pleasure that they have in their play. [674] But, friend, perhaps you say that no man shall make you believe but that it is good to play the Passion of Christ and other of his deeds. But hear again hear how when Elisha climbed up into Bethel, playing children came towards him saying: “Climb up baldhead! Climb up, baldhead!” And therefore he cursed them, and two bears of the wild wood tore them up, forty two children.39 And as all saints say, the baldness of Elisha prefigured the Passion of Christ, then since this story clearly shows that men should not game/joke with the figure of the Passion of Christ or with a holy prophet of Christ, moreover in the New Testament. And when men should be wiser [in the present], further from all kinds of playing and earnest deeds should be more commanded now than that time, and the Passion of Christ should raise more dread than Elisha should have. Men should not play the Passion of Christ because it will cause pain that is much greater than was the vengeance of the children that scorned Elisha. [692] For surely playing the Passion of Christ is truly scorning Christ, as is said before; therefore, dear friend, behold how nature tells that the older a man grows the more it is against his nature to play, and therefore APPENDIX 143 says the book, “Cursed be the child of a hundred year.”40 And certainly the world, as says the apostle, is now at his [its] ending, as in his [its] last age; therefore for the great unavoidable coming of the day of doom all creatures of God now condemn and are wrathful at men’s playing, especially of miraclis playing, that most should be showed in earnest and into vengeance at the day of doom; therefore miraclis playinge are against the nature of all creatures, and therefore God nowadays sends sooner wisdom to children then until now, because they should nowadays leave playing and devote themselves more to earnest deeds, pleasant to God. [707] Also, friend, take heed what Christ said in the gospel that “right as it was in the days of Noah before the great flood, men were eating and drinking and their likings dominant, and horribly came the vengeance of God of the great flood upon them; so it shall be of the coming of Christ in the day of doom,”41 so that when men give themselves most to their playing and mirth, strongly shall come the day of doom on them with great vengeance. Therefore, doubtless, friend, this miracle playing that is now used is but a real threaten of a sudden vengeance upon us. [717] And therefore, dear friend, spend we neither our wits nor our money on miraclis playing, but in doing them in-deed, in great dread and penance, for surely the weeping and the fleshly devotion in them are only as strokes of an hammer on the other side to drive out the nail of our dread of God and of the day of doom, and to make the way of Christ slippery and slow in movement for us, as rain on earth and clay ways. Then, friend, if we will in any case play, let us play as David played before the ark of God, and as he spoke before Michal his wife despising his playing, where from to her he said wisely: “The Lord lives, for I shall play before the Lord that has chosen me rather than thy father, and all his house, and he commanded to me that I were duke [ruler] upon the people of the Lord of Israel, and I shall play, and I shall be made a fool more than I am made, and I shall be meek in my own eyes, and in the eyes of the women which you speak about I shall appear more gloriously.”42 [734] So this playing has three parts. The first is that we behold in how many things God has given us his grace passing over our neighbors, and for so much more we thank him, fulfilling his will and more trusting in him against all kinds of reproving of our enemies. The second part is in continually being devoted to God almighty and reproving to the world, as Christ and his apostles showed themselves and as David said. The third part is in being as obedient in our own eye or more than we show on the 144 APPENDIX outside, setting a model by ourselves as we know more sins of ourselves than of any other, and then before all the saints in heaven and before Christ at the day of doom and in the bliss of heaven we shall be more glorious in as much as we play better the three foresaid parts here, the three parts which well to play here and after to come to heaven, grant the Holy Trinity. Amen. NOTES

Introduction 1. Bertolt Brecht, “The Street Scene: A Basic Model for an Epic Theatre,” in Brecht on Theatre: The Development of an Aesthetic. Ed. and trans. John Willett (New York: Hill and Wang, 1964) 121–30. Comparisons between Brechtian theatre techniques and medieval theatricality have been made. See V.A. Kolve, The Play Called Corpus Christi (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1966); Meg Twycross, “The Theatricality of Medieval English Plays,” in Richard Beadle, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Medieval English Theatre (Ca mbr id ge: Ca mbr id ge Un iver sit y Press, 1994); 54. 2. An interesting analogy to this idea is Ernst H. Kantorowicz’s The King’s Two Bodies: A Studies in Medieval Political Theology (New Jersey: Princeton University, Press, 1957). In this book Kantorowicz analyzes a medieval political theology that is based on the idea that the king has two bodies: his human, mortal body on the one hand, and his political body, which includes the divine right to rule, on the other. This idea is relevant to theatrical enactment of holy figures particularly because it demonstrates a conceptual differentiation between two entities within the same body. However, whereas the king was indeed believed to embody a divine power, an actor does not incarnate a holy character. 3. Erika Fischer-Lichte, Theatre, Sacrifice, Ritual: Exploring Forms of Political Theatre (New York: Routledge, 2005); 27. 4. Alexandra F. Johnston and Margaret Rogerson, ed., York: Records of Early English Drama, Vol. 1 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1979), 109. Hereafter referred to as REED: York. 5. See Meg Twycross, “The Theatricality of Medieval English Plays,” especially 37–55. 6. For a different view see Meg Twycross and Sarah Carpenter, Masks and Masking in Medieval and Early Tudor England (Burlington: Ashgate, 2002). Regarding the use of masks in the mystery plays they argue that “Once the mask is on, the actor as an individual simply disappears behind it: only the character is left.” (197). 7. REED: York, 109. 146 NOTES

8. This tension, which is central to the discourse of theatre in general, can be found in the famous eighteenth-century dispute as to whether the actor should really feel the emotions he, or she, performs or be com- pletely detached from them, just as it characterizes in a different way the differences between Brechtian and Artaudian concepts of theatre; the first coining the famous “alienation effect” and the latter envisioning life as theatre’s double because, Artaud argues, of the intensity and total effects that acting and performance should evoke. See Antonin Artaud, The Theatre and its Double, trans. Victor Corti (New York: Calder, 1993). 9. Michal Kobialka, This is My Body: Representational Practices in the Early Middle Ages (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999), 19. 10. See Marvin Carlson, Places of Performance: Semiotics of theatre Architecture (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993). 11. On Shakespeare’s having the opportunity to see the Coventry cycle see Clifford Davidson, “ ‘What hempen home-spuns have we swagg’ring here?’ Amateur Actors in A Midsummer Night’s Dream and the Coventry Civic Plays and Pageants,” Shakespeare Studies 19 (1987): 87–99. 12. On this particular reference, see Davidson, “ ‘What hempen home- spuns.’ ” See also Robert Weimann, Shakespeare and the Popular Tradition in the Theatre: Studies in the Social Dimension of Dramatic Form and Function (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978); Louis Montrose, The Purpose of Playing (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), particularly Chapter 1, “The Reformation of Playing,” 19–29, and Chapter 11, “Bottom’s Dream,” 179–205. Among other references to the mystery plays produced by the commercial guilds Montrose notes that “in the most material way, Bottom’s name relates him to the practice of his craft—the ‘bottom’ was ‘the core on which the weaver’s skein of yarn was wound’ ” (180). It is well known that frequently there was a close connection between a guild’s craft and the play it produced. See on this subject for example: Alan D. Justice, “Trade Symbolism in the York Cycle,” Theatre Journal 31.1 (1979): 47–58. 13. William Shakespeare, Hamlet, ed. David Bevington (New York: Bantam Books, 1980), 69. Subsequent references to the play are from this edition. 14. See for example the Girdlers’ and Nailers’ “The Slaughter of the Innocents,” in York Plays, ed. Richard Beadle (London: Edward Arnold, 1982), where one of the messengers turns to Herod as Mohammed: NUNCIUS. Mahounde withouten pere, My lorde, you saue and see. (168, 73–74) 15. Hamlet, 70. 16. William Shakespeare, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, ed. Stanley Wells (New York: Penguin, 1995). Subsequent references to the play are from this edition. 17. Disney’s Broadway Musical, The Lion King. Directed by Julie Taymor, New Amsterdam Theatre, New York. NOTES 147

18. Robert Weimann, Author’s Pen and Actor’s Voice: Playing and Writing in Shakespeare’s Theatre (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 82. 19. Robert Weimann, Author’s Pen, 83; emphasis added. 20. See also Lesley Wade Soule’s Actor as Anti-Character: Dionysus, the Devil, and the Boy Rosalind (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2000). Here she coins the term “anti-character,” discussing the simultaneous presence of the performer as opposed to the character: A recurring element in early popular theatre was the refusal by a certain kind of performer to remain within the bounds of dramatic illusion. Despite the increasing emphasis in theatrical performance on textual mimesis and the requirements of character imperson- ation, such performers, while playing the character, simultaneously asserted their own non-mimetic presence against it. They were actors functioning as anti-characters. (1) Regarding medieval theatre Wade Soule discusses this phenomenon especially in relation to the enactment of devilish characters. 21. Sir Philip Sidney, An Apology for Poetry, ed. Geoffrey Shepherd (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1973), 133–34. 22. Thomas More, The History of King Richard III, ed. Richard S. Sylvester, in The Complete Works of St. Thomas More, 2 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963), 80–81; quoted in James Simpson, Reform and Cultural Revolution, 502. 23. Simpson notes that More’s use of “scafoldes” is a powerful pun “on the notion of the scaffold as both ‘stage’ and place of execution. Break the royal performance, the pun implies, and the scaffold of the stage becomes the scaffold of punishment.” Ibid., 503. 24. Some references that deal with questions of performance on the medieval stage include Jody Enders’s The Medieval Theatre of Cruelty: Rhetoric, Memory, Violence (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998); and Death by Drama and Other Medieval Urban Legends (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2002). See also: Clifford Davidson, ed. Gesture in Medieval Drama and Art (Michigan: Medieval Institute Publications, 2001); Sarah Beckwith’s Signifying God, and Theresa Coletti’s Mary Magdalene and the Drama of Saints: Theater, Gender, and Religion in Late Medieval England (Philadelphia: Un iversit y of Pennsylvan ia Press, 20 04). In add ition, tr y ing to arg ue for the sophistication of medieval theatre, attempts have been made to prove that medieval acting aimed for “realism.” See for example John R. Elliott Jr.’s “Medieval Acting,” in Contexts for Early English Drama, ed. Marianne G. Briscoe and John C. Coldewey (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989), 238–52; and William G. Marx’s “The Problem with Mrs. Noah: The Search for Performance Credibility in the Chester Noah’s Flood Play,” in From Page to Performance: Essays in Early English Drama, ed. John A. Alford (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1995), 109–26. 25. For a detailed discussion of scenes in the mystery plays where characters’ bodies were exposed and the theatrical solutions for these scenes, see 148 NOTES

Clifford Davidson’s “Nudity, the Body, and Early English Drama,” in History, Religion, and Violence: Cultural Contexts for Medieval and Renaissance English Drama ([1999] Burlington: Ashgate, 2002), 149–79.

1 Game and Performance: A Tretise of Miraclis Pleyinge in Context 1. Clifford Davidson, “Introduction.” A Tretise of Miraclis Pleyinge, ed. Clifford Davidson (Kalamazoo, Mich.: Medieval Institute Publications, 1993), 1. All quotations from A Tretise of Miraclis Pleyinge, henceforth ToMP, are from this edition, marked parenthetically by page numbers followed by line numbers, and all translations are mine. 2. For a view that the tract is not Lollard but was written by a Franciscan or Dominican writer see Lawrence M. Clopper, “Is the Tretise of Miraclis Pleyinge a Lollard Tract against Devotional Drama?” Viator 34 (2003): 229–271. 3. By “religious theatre” I mean theatre in which religious materials are performed and that fulfills social and recreational functions in addition to devotional ones, as opposed to religious ritual in which theatrical elements can be used. On the distinction between theatre and ritual see Eli Rozik, The Roots of Theatre: Rethinking Ritual and Other Theories of Origin. Iowa: University of Iowa Press, 2002. See also Erika Fischer- Lichte, “The Medieval Religious Plays: Ritual or Theater?” in Elina Gerstman, ed. Visualizing Medieval Performance: Perspectives, Histories, Contexts (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008) 249–61. 4. See for example Rosemary Woolf’s “Attitudes to Drama and Dramatic Theory,” in The English Mystery Plays (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1972), 77–105, especially 84–87; Jonas Barish’s “Antitheatrical Lollardy,” in The Antitheatrical Prejudice (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981), 66–79; Glending Olson’s “Plays as Play: A Medieval Ethical Theory of Performance and the Intellectual Context of the Tretise of Miraclis Pleyinge,” Viator 26 (1995): 195–221; Claire Sponsler’s Drama and Resistance: Body, Goods and Theatricality in Late Medieval England (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997) 75–81; and Clifford Davidson’s “The Medieval Stage and the Antitheatrical Prejudice,” in History, Religion, and Violence: Cultural Contexts for Medieval and Renaissance English Drama (Burlington: Ashgate, 2002), 226–39. Two notable exceptions are Theodore K. Lerud’s “Quick Images: Memory and the English Corpus Christi Drama,” Ludus 5: Moving Subjects: Processional Performance in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, ed. Kathleen Ashley and Wim Hüsken (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2001), 213–38, in which Lerud argues through the ToMP that plays were conceived in the same general category as were painted and sculpted images, and David Mills’s “Tretise of Miraclis Pleyinge,” in A. C. Cawley, et al., ed., Medieval Drama. Vol. 1 of The Revels History NOTES 149

of the Drama in English (London: Methuen, 1983), 83–91, who analyzes briefly some of the points the ToMP addresses. 5. Paul A. Johnston, Jr. “The Dialect of A Tretise of Miraclis Pleyinge,” in Clifford Davidson, ed. A Tretise of Miraclis Pleyinge, 77. 6. REED: York; 697 (translation). Emphasis mine. 7. REED: York; 728 (translation). 8. Alan J. Fletcher, “The N-Town Plays,” in Richard Beadle, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Medieval English Theatre, 165. 9. Ibid. 167–71. 10. See John M. Wasson, “The English Church as Theatrical Space,” in John D. Cox and David Scott Kastan, ed., A New History of Early English Drama (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997), 27. 11. Lawrence M. Clopper, “Miracula and The Tretise of Miraclis Pleyinge.” Speculum 65 (1990): 878–905; Drama, Play, and Game: English Festive Culture in the Medieval and Early Modern Period. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2001; “Is the Tretise of Miraclis Pleyinge a Lollard Tract Against Devotional Drama?” Viator 34 (2003): 229–71. 12. Richard Schechner, Performance Theory (New York: Routledge, 2003) 156–7. 13. Claire Sponsler, “Mischievous Governance: The Unruly Bodies of Morality Plays,” Drama and Resistance: Bodies, Goods, and Theatricality in Late Medieval England (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997), 77. 14. Gavin Brown, “Theorizing Ritual as Performance: Explorations of Ritual Indeterminacy.” Journal of Ritual Studies 17:1 (2003): 6. (3–18). 15. Marvin Carlson, P e r fo r m a n c e: A C r it i c a l I n t ro d u c t i o n (New York: Routledge, 1996); 23–24. 16. REED: York, 732 (translation). 17. A similar rhetoric arguing for the plays’ devotional purposes appears in the York records in 1422, in a decision to shorten the length of the entire performance by combining two pageants into one (the stretching and nailing of Christ and the raising of the cross): “He who is ignorant of nothing knows, and the whole people lament, that the play on the day of Corpus Christi in this city, the instruction of which was made of old for the important cause of devotion and for the extirpation of vice and the reformation of customs, alas is impeded more than usual because of the multitude of pageants [. . .].” REED: York, 722 (translation). 18. Clifford Davidson, “Glossary,” A Tretise of Miraclis Pleyinge, 168. 19. For a detailed account of the violent and excessive torture of Jesus in the scenes of the Passion in the York cycle see Clifford Davidson, “Suffering and the York Plays,” Philological Quarterly 81:1 (2002): 31–48. 20. For a discussion of comic elements and potential in hell scenes in religious drama see Gary Schmidt’s The Iconography of the Mouth of Hell: Eighth Century Britain into the Fifteenth Century, Selinsgrove: Susquehanna University Press, 1995. 150 NOTES

21. The N-Town Play, Cotton MS Vespasian D. 8, ed. Stephen Spector, 2 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991). Quotations from this source appear parenthetically; play number followed by line numbers. 22. For an analysis of metatheatrical elements in the N-Town plays see William Fitzhenry, “The N-Town Plays and the Politics of Metatheater,” Studies in Philology 100:1 (2003); 22–43. 23. Edward Gordon Craig, “The Actor and the Über-Marionette,” in On the Art of the Theatre (Boston: Small, Maynard, & Company, 1925 [1911]) 54–94. 24. Some examples: “Miraclis, therfore, that Crist dude heere in erthe outher in himsilf outher in hise seintis . . . ” (93, 9–13); “Thann, sithen miraclis of Crist and of his seintis were thus efectuel;” (93, 22–25); “and whanne we takun in bourde and pley the most ernestful werkis of God as ben hise miracles . . .” (94, 55–7); “thanne, whanne we pleyin his miraclis as men don nowe dayes . . .” (94, 48–9); “Also sithen it is leveful to han the miraclis of God peintid, why is not as wel leveful to han the miraclis of God pleyed . . .” (98, 179–81). This sentence is perhaps one of the most important ones in the whole text for the purpose of establishing the meaning of the word “miraclis.” Not only is the term specifically used here to denote a “work of God,” but also, in its second appearance in the sentence it is clearly stated that the miracles are played, they are referred to as the content of the performance and not as the performance’s generic category; “Loke, thanne, frend, yif thy byleve tellith that God dide his miraclis to us for we shulden pleyn hem . . .” (105, 400–02); “Thanne sithen miraclis pleyinge reversith the wille of God and the ende for the whiche he wrought miraclis to us, no doute but that miraclis pleyinge is verre taking of Goddis name in idil” (105, 405–08); “[s]o unkindely seyen men nowe on dayes, ‘Crist doth now no miraclis for us, pleye we therfore his olde,’ adding many lesingis therto so colowrably that the puple gife as mych credense to hem as to the trwthe” (111, 622–26). 25. This is despite Clopper’s contention that in the ToMP the meaning of “miraclis” is fixed and determinable. 26. For a concise discussion of Bakhtinian and other models of the social roles of carnival and festivity that ultimately aim to restore social order, see Chris Humphrey’s “Social Protest or Safety-Valve? Critical Approaches to Festive Misrule,” in his The Politics of Carnival: Festive Misrule in Medieval England (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001), 11–37. 27. “The Flood,” The York Plays, ed. Richard Beadle (London: Edward Arnold, 1982) 85–6. All quotations from the York plays are from this edition. Page numbers are marked parenthetically followed by line numbers. Translations are based on the following sources: J. S. Purvis, The York Cycle of Mystery Plays: A Complete Version (London: S.P.C.K., 1957); Richard Beadle and Pamela M. King, ed. York Mystery Plays: A Selection in Modern Spelling (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995). 28. “Noah’s Flood,” Everyman and Medieval Miracle Plays, ed. A. C. Cawley (London: Everyman, 1995) 35, 4. NOTES 151

29. See for example Peter Happé’s “Farcical Elements in the English Mystery Cycles,” Ludus 6: Farce and Farcical Elements, ed. Wim Hüsken and Konrad Schoell (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2002), 29–43. 30. Joan Young Gregg, Devils, Women, and Jews: Reflections of the Other in Medieval Sermon Stories (New York: State University of New York Press, 19 9 7 ), 117–18 . T he st or y or i g i n a l l y appe a r s i n G e of f r e y d e l a Tou r L a nd r y’s The Book of the Knight of La Tour-Landry, ed. G. S. Taylor (London: John Hamilton LTD., 1930), 34–8. The Book of the Knight of the Tower was written in the late fourteenth-century (1371–2) by Tour Landry as an instructions book for his daughters. Tour Landry lived between Chollet and Verins in the province of Anjou but in the fifteenth century his book was translated into several different languages—including English—into which it was translated at least twice. The popularity of the book makes it fair to assume that it reflects popular customs, and hence its relevance to the Noah plays. See Dawn Marie Hayes, Body and Sacred Places in Medieval Europe, 1100–1389 (New York: Routledge, 2003), 62–5. 31. For a critique of the design of gender relations in the Noah Plays as well as in scholarly discussion of this subject see Garrett P. J. Epp’s “Noah’s Wife: The Shaming of the ‘Trew,’ ” Domestic Violence in Medieval Texts, ed. Eve Salisbury, Georgiana Donavin, and Merrall Llewelyn Price (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2002), 223–41. 32. REED: York, 728 (translation). 33. Theresa Coletti, “Purity and Danger: The Paradox of Mary’s Body and the En-gendering of the Infancy Narrative in the English Mystery Cycles,” Feminist Approaches to the Body in Medieval Literature, ed. Linda Lomperis and Sarah Stanbury (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993), 65. See the entire essay (65–95) for an analysis of the complex and paradoxical socio-cultural meanings of the body of Mary in the cycles as well as its use as a sign for the expression and negotiation of “highly charged topics such as age and sexuality in marriage, adultery, cuckoldry, and illegitimacy, and that explores the interaction of domestic and economic relationships” (67). 34. Peter Meredith and John E. Tailby, ed. The Staging of Religious Drama in Europe in the Later Middle Ages: Texts and Documents in English Translation (Kalamazoo, Michigan: Medieval Institute Publications, 1983), 117. 35. Sarah Beckwith, Signifying God: Social Relation and Symbolic Act in the York Corpus Christi Plays (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2001), 63. 36. Lawrence Clopper suggests that this “somergame” might be a lay equiva- lent to clerical miracula. Drama, Play, and Game, 72. 37. Siegfried Wenzel, “Somer Game and Sermon References to a Corpus Christi Play,” Modern Philology 86:3 (1989): 279–80. Emphasis added. See also Clopper, Drama, Play, and Game, 72–4. 38. Martha Bayless, Parody in the Middle Ages: The Latin Tradition (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1996), 210. 39. See Meg Twycross’s “The Theatricality of Medieval English Plays,” The Cambridge Companion to Medieval English Theatre, ed. Richard Beadle 152 NOTES

(Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1994), 37–84; especially 38–45. 40. Beckwith, Signifying God, 66–7. 41. There is no evidence for this suggestion, however, it is an important question to consider because it emphasizes the extreme effort a single actor would have to perform in order to play the same episode twelve times and it focuses our attention on the very moments of transition from one performance of this episode to the next. 42. Wenzel correctly notes that “because of its function as a sermon exem- plum, the . . . text cannot be taken as a complete description of what was actually performed; its details may well have been selected for a purpose” (282). This is of course true but the dialectic flux between character and role is built into the rhetoric of the description and meaning of the event. 43. Siegfried Wenzel, “Somer Game and Sermon References to a Corpus Christi Play,” 280. Quotations in Latin 278. 44. Sandra Billington points out that in the York Christ before Herod a direct reference to the “king for a day” ritual appears, connecting Christ with this role: References to Yule [enacting the Passion and death of Christ] would make the irony clear to an audience which indulged in buffeting and other games at that time. And more detail is found in the York plays. In the first (of the Lytsteres) Herod presumes Christ to be the local Fool-entertainer or magician and looks forward to seeing water turned into wine and the dead brought to life. When Christ is brought in he is welcomed, and Christ remains silent. The soldiers reassure Herod that a man is taking them to assess the mood of his audience. In other words they take him to be a pro- fessional or artificial Fool, who earns his living form entertaining and who, theologically, is the most condemned. Herod, being a trickster himself, is pleased and even when warned that Christ calls himself King of the Jews, Herod interprets this as a King-game in which one of a community is elected king “in his kith where he comes froo” (line 224). A Social History of the Fool (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1984), 18–19. See also Billington’s Midsummer: A Cultural Sub-Text from Chretien De Troyes to Jean Michel, Medieval Texts and Cultures of Northern Europe; 3 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2000), especially Chapter 9, “Religious Theatre,” for an account of the different workings of king games into French biblical drama. 45. Peter Parshall notes that “the mocking of Christ is fully consistent with a range of Roman legal practices entailing the dire humiliation of crimi- nals who were condemned to capital punishment.” This kind of historio- cultural performance of violence might very well be at the roots of such somergames. See Parshall’s “The Art of Memory and the Passion,” The NOTES 153

Art Bulletin 81:3 (1999): 459. See also K. M. Coleman, “Fatal Charades: Roman Executions Staged as Mythological Enactments,” Journal of Roman Studies 80 (1990): 46–7. 46. “Dialogue between Jesus and the B.V. at the Cross,” from a Commonplace Book, dated 1372, in Carleton Brown, ed. Religious Lyrics of the XIVth Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1924), 85–6; Emphasis added, translation mine. On the details and suggested Yorkshire origin of this poem see Brown’s “Introduction,” especially pages xvi–xx. The date and place of composition help establish a connection between this lyric, the “somergame” described above, and the ToMP, which all seem to have been written in the late fourteenth century and in the northern shires of England. For a brief introduction to the contexts of such religious lyrics, see Evelyn Birge Vitz’s “The Liturgy and Vernacular Literature,” in Thomas J. Heffernan and E. Ann Matter, ed., The Liturgy of the Medieval Church (Mich. Kalamazoo: Medieval Institue Publications, 2001), 551– 618; particularly 568–75. 47. Religious Lyrics of the XIVth Century, 266–67. 48. Middle English Dictionary, ed. Sherman M, Kuhn (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1963). 49. Richard Beadle and Pamela M. King, York Mystery Plays: A Selection in Modern Spelling (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 138; emphasis added. This is another example of how lay violent customs and elements of popular culture filtered into devotional drama. 50. Clopper, “Is the Tretise of Miraclis Pleyinge a Lollard Tract,” 233–34. See also G. R. Owst, Literature and Pulpit in Medieval England (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966), 510. 51. B e yo n d t h e d r a m a t i z a t i o n o f p e r f o r m i n g r e a l m i r a c l e s i n The Transfiguration and mocking Christ for not performing them in Christ before Annas and Caiaphas both plays are full of terms that also dominate the ToMP such as synonymously interchanging “werk” with “sign” and “meruayle” (miracle). 52. REED: York, 705 (translation). 53. REED: York, 706 (translation). 54. Clifford Davidson, From Creation to Doom: The York Cycle of Mystery Plays (New York: AMS Press, Inc., 1984), 86. 55. “The Proclamation,” The N-Town Play. Translation mine. 56. Ibid. In her essay “Preaching and Medieval English Drama” Marianne G. Briscoe discusses the potential relations between the clergy and the late medieval religious drama. She argues that although the evidence suggests close relations “each case must be examined carefully.” Her example that supposedly problematizes this relationship rests on the traditional meaning of game: “For instance, in 1244 Bishop Robert Grosseteste com- plained of clergy who ‘make’ miracle and May plays. But Grosseteste’s term ‘play,’ or ‘ludus,’ most probably means ‘game’ and does not refer to drama at all.” Contexts for Early English Drama, 152. 154 NOTES

57. Jody Enders, Death by Drama and Other Medieval Urban Legends (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2002), 55. The story about the performance of the Passion on Metz’s Place en Change in 1437, in which Father Nicholas de Neuchâtel-en-Lorraine played Christ and supposedly almost died himself is recorded in the Chronique de Phillipe de Vigneulles. See Enders’s n2 p. 258 for the full reference. 58. Enders 66. Original emphasis. 59. See Philip Butterworth’s discussion of “Appearances and Disappearances” in his Magic on the Early English Stage, 74–97. 60. For a discussion of a different context of “performing miracles” as a religious practice see C. Clifford Flanigan, Kathleen Ashley, and Pamela Sheingorn’s “Liturgy as Social Performance: Expanding the Definitions,” in The Liturgy of the Medieval Church, 695–714. The authors discuss miracles performed in the Church as described in the Book of Sainte Foy’s Miracles, “an eleventh-century compilation of miracle stories centering on the Benedictine monastery at Conques” (699). 61. Enders, Death by Drama, 11.

2 Concepts of Performance in A Tretise of Miraclis Pleyinge 1. See Pamela Sheingorn’s “The Visual Language of Drama: Principles of Composition,” Contexts for Early English Drama, ed. Marianne G. Briscoe and John C. Coldewey (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989), 173–91. 2. Richard Schechner, Performance Theory, 130. 3. See in the next section of this chapter, “Performance, Signification, and Efficacy” the discussion of the treatise Images and Pilgrimages that argues that even painted and sculpted images might draw attention because of their artfulness rather that the ideas they transmit. 4. Briscoe, “Preaching and Medieval English Drama,” 155. 5. Erick Kelemen, “Drama in Sermons: Quotation, Performativity, and Conversion in a Middle English Sermon on the Prodigal Son and in A Tretise of Miraclis Pleyinge,” ELH 69 (2002): 9–10. 6. Briscoe, ibid., 156. 7. Matthew 6:24. No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. 8. Horace, The Art of Poetry, trans. John Conington, in Theatre/Theory/ Theatre: The Major Critical Texts from Aristotle and Zeami to Soyinka and Havel, Ed. with intros. Daniel Gerould (New York: Applause, 2000), 80. 9. An example of a metaphorical use of “voice” can be given from the York Cain and Abel play. Paraphrasing the famous line from Genesis 4:10 the angel defies Cain: What has þou done? Beholde and heere, Þhe voice of his bloode cryeth vengeaunce NOTES 155

Fro erthe to heuen, with voice entere Þis tyde. (77, 100–3) [What have you done? Behold and hear, The voice of his blood cries for vengeance From earth to heaven, enter with voice This time.] 10. See Marvin Carlson, “Theater and Dialogism,” in Critical Theory and Performance, ed., Janelle G. Reinelt and Joseph R. Roach (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1992), 313–23. He writes: “The theater, through the particularly open-ended process of performance rein- terpretation and the heteroglossia provided by the multiple voices of enactment, provides an utterance, in Bakhtin’s sense, of particular complexity” (321). 11. Sarah Beckwith, Christ’s Body: Identity, Culture, and Society in Late Medieval Writings (New York: Routledge, 1993), 38, original emphasis. 12. Kelemen writes: “Conversion duplicates and relies upon the logic of the performative, wherein the signifier seems to produce the signified by force of its utterance, while it simultaneously unmasks itself as a deferral of presence.” “Drama in Sermons,” 15. 13. Thomas P. Campbell, “Liturgical Drama and Community Discourse,” in The Liturgy of the Medieval Church, ed. Thomas J. Heffernan and E. Ann Matter (Kalamazoo, Mich.: Western Michigan University, 2001), 625. 14. In this quotation, the word that has been translated into Latin as ludere is the Hebrew word “ ” (metzachek) which means laughing, but which sounds very similar to the word “ ” (mesachek) that means playing. 15. See Nicholas Davis, “The Tretise of Miraclis Pleyinge: On Milieu and Authorship,” METh 12:2 (1990), 124–51, for a discussion of the Latin origins and meanings of “ludere” (playing) and its relation to the idea of “lying” and “illusio” as a practice “where the meaning is contrary to that suggested” (129). In this article Davis tries to establish the Wycliffite origin of the ToMP. 16. Jonas Barish, The Antitheatrical Prejudice (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), 72. 17. Here the Hebrew origin is the meaning of “playing” ( yesachaku). 18. 2 Samuel 2. 19. See Ralph Blasting’s “The Pageant Wagon as Iconic Site in the York Cycle,” Early Theatre 3 (2000): 127–36, for a discussion of the pragmatic uses of the street as part of the performance; and Cami D. Agan’s “The Platea in the York and Wakefield Cycles: Avenues for Liminality and Salvation,” Studies in Philology 94 (1997): 344–67, for an analysis of how this spatial tension intensified the experience of audience participation. For a more general discussion of the socially complex use of performance space, see for example David Wiles’s A Short History of Western Performance Space (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003) especially Chapter 3, “Processional Space,” 63–91. 156 NOTES

20. Clifford Davidson, “Nudity, the Body, and Early English Drama,” in History, Religion, and Violence: Cultural Contexts for Medieval and Renaissance English Drama (Burlington: Ashgate, Variorum, 2002), 149. 21. See for example Pamela Sheingorn’s “Visual Language of Drama,” 173–91, and Pamela Sheingorn and David Bevington’s “ ‘Alle This Was Token Domysday to Drede’: Visual Signs of Last Judgment in the Corpus Christi Cycles and in Late Gothic Art,” in Homo, Memento Finis: The Iconography of Just Judgment in Medieval Art and D rama, ed. David Bevington, (Kalamazoo, Michigan: Medieval Institute Publications, 1985), 121–46. They write: Recapitulation, organizing principles of symmetry and antitheti- cal contrast, the use of symbolic stage structures and scaffolding, hieratic ordering of figures, the rhetorical pairing of virtue and vice and of the generic and the particular, contrastive imagery of the idealized and the particular—all these are carefully suited to the dramaturgic and theatrical needs of the cycle play as a whole, and yet they find their counterparts in sister art forms that do not operate through speech and action, and would seem at first glance to have no need for the closure that belongs to a dramatic action told through narrative in time and space (122–3). 22. See the discussion of this phenomenon in A Midsummer Night’s Dream in chapter 1 and the analysis of the York Plays in chapter 4. 23. Ellen M. Ross, The Grief of God: Images of the Suffering Jesus in Late Medieval England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 78. 24. Sheingorn, “Visual Language of Drama,” 183. 25. See Lynette R. Muir, “Playing God in Medieval Europe,” in The Stage as Mirror: Civic Theatre in Late Medieval Europe, ed. Alan E. Knight (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1997), 25–50, for a detailed survey of cos- tuming and conventional ways of performing Christ and God the Father, and see my analysis of “epic acting” in the next chapter. 26. Thomas K. Lerud thinks it is: We may conclude that miracles, like painted and sculpted images, are viewed as signs. Thus defenders argue that they are presented in worship, but those who, like the author of the “tretise,” in a rather unso- phisticated version of the Augustinian, ultimately Platonian tradition, hold a fundamental distrust of signs of any kind must disagree. “Quick Images,” 219. 27. Schechner, Performance Theory 120–124. See especially Figure 4.4 on page 120. 28. See Pamela M. King’s The York Mystery Cycle and the Worship of the City (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 2006) for an analysis of the plays’ relations to the religious worship and rituals of the city of York. 29. Schechner, ibid. 120. 30. This corresponds to the stance of Dives and Pauper on the same subject: Dives: Steralics, pleyys and dauncis þat arn vsid in grete festis & in Sondayys, arn is nout leful? Pauper: Steralics, pleyys & dauncis NOTES 157

þat arn don principaly for deuocioun & honest merthe [to teche men to loue God þe more] & for no rybaudye ne medelyd with no rebau- dye [ne lesyngis] arn leful, so þat þe peple be nout lettyd þerby fro Godys seruyce ne fro Godis word herynge and þat þer be non errour medelyd in swyche steralics & pleyys aзens þe feyth of holy chirche ne aзenys þe statys of holy chirche ne aзenys good lyuynge. [Dives: Steralics, plays, and dances that are used in great feasts and on Sundays, are not allowed? Pauper: Steralics, plays, and dances that are done principally for devotion and honest mirth (to teach men to love God more) and not for playfulness are allowed, so that the people are not taken by them away from servicing and hearing God’s word and that there should be no error involved in such steralics and plays against the faith of the holy church or against the status of the holy church or against good living.] Dives and Pauper, ed. Priscilla Heath Barnum (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976), Vol. 1, 293. 31. Barish, Antitheatrical Prejudice, 74–5. 32. “Images and Pilgrimages,” in Anne Hudson, ed., Selections from English Wycliffite Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), 83–8. All quotations from the text, henceforth IaP, are from this edition and are indicated by line numbers following page number. Although this text is usually attributed to a Wycliffite writer, Clopper suggests that like the ToMP it might also be a Franciscan text—that is, that despite all earlier assessments neither text is Lollard. “Is the Tretise of Miraclis Pleyinge a Lollard Tract Against Devotional Drama?” 234–36; 248–54. Thomas K. Lerud considers both texts to be Lollard, but offers a position similar to mine regarding their relationship: “What is significant here is the existence of a Lollard polemic against images, despite Wyclif ’s appar- ently moderate position on the matter, and the fact that a polemic against images is paired with one against miracles in the same manuscript.” (“Quick Images,” 216). 33. On the public display of emotions as coded behavior, see for example Stephen D. White, “The Politics of Anger,” in Anger’s Past: The Social Uses of an Emotion in the Middle Ages, ed. Barbara H. Rosenwein (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998), 128–52, in which he points that “whether or not those whom medieval sources represented as weeping felt what we would understand as grief or sorrow, their displays of grief often consti- tuted political acts inextricably associated with the process of making a legitimated political claim.” (146–7). 34. For a critique of Elias’s discourse see Barbara H. Rosenwein, “Controlling Paradigms,” Anger’s Past, 238. See also Robert van Krieken, “Violence, Self-Discipline, and Modernity: Beyond the ‘Civilizing Process,’ ” Sociological Review 37 (1989): 193–218. 35. Other descriptions of “weeping audiences” are documented in John R. Elliott Jr.’s essay “Medieval Acting,” in Contexts for Early English Drama, 238–51. 158 NOTES

36. See Rozik’s The Roots of Theatre for a theory of the theatre’s function as a gathering space in order to collectively see and imagine disturbing and transgressive images. 37. See Carol M. Meale, “ ‘This is a deed bok, the tother a quick’: Theatre and the Drama of Salvation in the Book of Margery Kempe,” in Medieval Women: Texts and Contexts in Late Medieval Britain. Essays for Felicity Riddy, ed. Jocelyn Wogan-Browne et al. (Turnhout: Brepols, 2000), 52–3; And see chapters I 11 and I 80 in The Book of Margery Kempe, trans. and ed. Lynn Staley (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2001), 18–20; 139–42. 38. Meale, “ ‘This is a deed bok,’ ” 53–5. The quotation within quotation from The Book of Margery Kempe at the end of the paragraph is from Lynn Staley’s translation (140) whereas Meale quotes the following edition: Book of Margery Kempe, ed. Stanford Brown Meech and Hope Emily Allen, EETS, os 212 (London: Oxford University Press, 1940 for 1939), 192, 17–21. 39. The Book of Margery Kempe, I 80, 139–42. 40. Meale, “ ‘This is a deed bok,’ ” 61. 41. One of the central reasons for the modern renewed interest in producing the medieval mystery plays is their communal nature. See John Marshall’s “Modern Productions of Medieval English Plays,” in The Cambridge Companion to Medieval English Theatre, ed. Richard Beadle (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 290–311. See also Claire Sponsler’s Ritual Imports: Performing Medieval Drama in America for a postcolonial analysis of the communal nature of medieval theatricalities within different moments of American history. In each of her intriguing studies she examines the ways ritual, performance, and cultural memory simultaneously reinforce communal identity and resist nationalism, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2004). 42. See for example Anne Higgins, “Streets and Markets,” in A New History of Early English Drama, ed. John D. Cox and David Scott Kastan (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997), 77–92. In this essay Higgins discusses and analyzes the process and reasons for changing the route and dates of the Corpus Christi procession and play because of social and political events in York. 43. There is a good reason to identify the word “craftisman” as in the ToMP specifically with the craft guilds who produced the plays. R. B. Dobson writes: “Guild” was not in fact a term at all current in the northern capital at the period of the mystery plays; and it is not perhaps too surprising that late medieval townsmen should have preferred to use a variety of other more specific names to express their inveter- ate habit of creating new social organizations. At York itself the terms almost invariably employed in early references to the Corpus Christi plays were “arte” or “artifice” (in French), “artificium” (in Latin) and “crafte” (in English). NOTES 159

See Dobson, “Craft Guilds and City: The Historical Origins of the York Mystery Plays Reassessed,” in The Stage as Mirror, 95. 44. John C. Coldewey, “Some Economic Aspects of the Late Medieval Drama,” in Contexts for Early English Drama, 77. 45. Coldewey, “Some Economic Aspects,” 83. 46. See for example Martin Stevens’s analysis of the York Skinners’ Jesus’ Entry to Jerusalem which by all odds is the most developed Entry into Jerusalem in the medieval drama, and more than any other pageant, it puts in the foreground York’s obsession with civic ceremony and self-cele- bration . . . In both frames of reference, the Skinners’ play served the ultimate function of highlighting the corporate community of York. Four Middle English Mystery Cycles (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987), 50–1. 47. Margaret Rogerson, “Living History: The Modern Mystery Plays in York,” Research Opportunities in Renaissance Drama, 43 (2004): 21. Rogerson quotes Mike Tyler from his “Report by the Director,” RORD 42 (2003): 158.

3 Street Scenes: Epic Acting, Total Acting, and Performance 1. Brecht, “A Short Organum for the Theatre,” in Brecht on Theatre, 194. 2. See Elin Diamond’s Unmaking Mimesis for a discussion of Brechtian theory and the idea of feminist “unmaking” or “undoing” the rooted and hegemonic concept of mimesis as a realistic mode of acting and performance. 3. Rosemary Woolf, The English Mystery Plays, 105. 4. R. B. Dobson, “Craft Guilds and the City: The Historical Origins of the York Mystery Plays Reassessed,” in The Stage as Mirror, 101. 5. See Brecht, “Short Description of a New Technique of Acting which Produces an Alienation Effect,” in Brecht on Theatre 136; 138–39. 6. Ruth Evans, “When a Body Meets a Body: Fergus and Mary in the York Cycle,” in New Medieval Literatures 1, ed. Wendy Scase, Rita Copeland, and David Lawton (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 207. 7. See Richard Beadle’s “Verbal Texture and Wordplay in the York Cycle,” Early Theatre 3 (2000): 167–84, for an analysis of wordplays and double meanings in the cycle. Based on the idea that in the plays the role of the spectators was not only to view the performance but often mainly to “audiate” (170), that is, “hear the plays,” he gives different kinds of examples of the function of language in performance. Among them are dramatic irony, didacticism, and also deictic self-referential uses of language. He characterizes York’s “lexically restricted style” and tendency to repeat words as a “deliberate narrowness and simplicity of vocabulary 160 NOTES

that directs our attention, by insistent repetition, to key words and concepts in the narrative” (172). 8. REED: York, 55. 9. REED: York, 241. 10. MED, 210. 11. R. W. Ingram, ed., REED: Coventry (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1979), 226; 240. 12. Lawrence M. Clopper, ed., REED: Chester (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1979), 50; 53. See also 68; 73; 78; 88. 13. David Galloway, ed. REED: Norwich 1540–1642 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1984), 53. And see more information on the terminol- ogy and etymology of the word “mask” in Meg Twycross and Sarah Carpenter’s Masks and Masking in Medieval and Early Tudor England (Burlington: Ashgate, 2002), 327–44. 14. REED: Chester, 247. 15. Twycross and Carpenter, Masks and Masking, 194–5. Note also that the meaning they suggest for “disfigure” in the quoted passage might very well agree with Shakespeare’s use of it in the very similar context of the mechanicals’ in A Midsummer Night’s Dream. When Quince has to come up with a solution as to how to represent moonshine he suggests: QUINCE. Ay; or else one must come in with a bush of thorns and a lantern, and say he comes to disfigure or to present the person of Moonshine. (3.1.50–55) 16. Twycross and Carpenter, Masks and Masking, 195. 17. Twycross and Carpenter, 194. 18. REED: York, 19/705. 19. Margaret Rogerson, “English Puppets and the Survival of Religious Theatre,” Theatre Notebook 52: 2 (1998): 91. 20. Rogerson, 91. 21. Rogerson, 92, emphasis added. 22. Rogerson, 100. 23. Twycross and Carpenter, Masks and Masking, 196. 24. Notably, The Creation of the World features a performative yet theatrically deictic and to some extent ironic monologue of God about the creation of the first five days: “Begynnyng, mydes and ende I with my worde hase wrothe” (58, 159–60) [Beginning, middle and end I with my word have wrought]. The complexity and theatrical sophistication of this sentence lies in the fact that God literally created the world with his word, just as the actor both created and obviously did not create the world with his word. 25. This is not the case in the other extant cycles—York is the most frag- mented one. And yet the episodic structure, especially around the sequence of the Passion is shared by most mystery cycles. 26. Martin Stevens suggests that “York consistently divides its material into short episodes, probably to accommodate its diverse crafts.” Four Middle English Mystery Cycles, 28. NOTES 161

27. That the theatrical aesthetic is related or even based on the aesthetics of the tableau vivant or royal entries is probably the case, although as Donal Perret puts it “even though the first entry spectacles antedate the great religious dramas, it seems rash to suggest that we could not have one without the other. The two forms of theatre coexisted throughout the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance. And although no one can over- look the enormous contributions of the entry to its sister form, we must admit that this is in the nature of theatrical experience. There is always begging, borrowing, and stealing between different forms; adaptations occur (for better or for worse), their success in new contexts being proof of their viability.” “The Meaning of the Mystery: From Tableaux to Theatre in the French Royal Entry,” in Moving Subjects, 189. 28. “Ordo Paginarum,” REED: York, 697. (Translation). 29. For a detailed analysis of a reconstruction of this episode that maintained gestural decorum, see Natalie Crohn Schmitt’s “The Body in Motion in the York Adam and Eve in Eden,” in Gesture in Medieval Art and Drama, ed. Clifford Davidson (Kalamazoo, Michigan: Medieval Institute Press, 2001), 158–77. 30. The serpent in the play is called a “worme” (65, 23). 31. Rouse, “Brecht and the Contradictory Actor,” 232. Rouse quotes from the following: Manfred Wekwerth, Schriften: Arbeit mit Brecht (Berlin [East]: Henschel, 1975), 199; Bretolt Brecht, Gesammelte Werke in 20 Banden, ed. Werner Hecht (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1967), 16: 724. 32. Peter Thompson discusses the medieval sources and significance of the theatrical use of doubling as an aesthetic acting convention in the Elizabethan theatre, and argues that “the old assumption that doubling was a necessary but unwelcome chore has been effectively contra- dicted. . . . Doubling, in drama that relies on bold oppositions and instantly recognizable distinctions, is not a defect but a source of delight to the audience.” “Rogues and Rhetoricians: Acting Styles in Early English Drama,” in A New History of Early English Drama, 328. 33. Michael Patterson, Peter Stein: Germany’s Leading Theatre Director (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 8. 34. Patterson, 71. 35. “The Search for a Language,” from an Interview with Ariane Mnouchkine by Emile Copfermann, in David Williams, ed., Collaborative Theatre: The Théâtre du Soleil Sourcebook, trans. Eric Prenowitz and David Williams (New York: Routledge, 1999), 18. 36. Victoria Nes Kirby, “1789 at the Cartoucherie,” in Collaborative Theatre, 4. 37. Freddie Rokem, Performing History: Theatrical Representations of the Past in Contemporary Theatre (Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 2000), 12–3. 38. Rouse gives two typical examples of Brecht’s use of “gestus.” The first is Hans Gaugler’s enactment of Läuffer’s repetitive stylized bow in Brecht’s adaptation of Lenz’s The Private Tutor, which differed from the body language typical of the eighteenth century and “was used as a ‘quotable’ gestural leitmotiv for Läuffer throughout the production” (234). And the 162 NOTES

second, very famous example, is Helene Weigel in the role of Mother Courage and her treatment of money: “Every time she received payment in the course of her play’s performance, Weigel’s Courage would ‘mis- trustfully’ bite the coin to make sure it was real” (237). 39. Rouse, 235. 40. For an in-depth analysis of the use and coded meanings of gesture in performance, see Pamela Sheingorn’s “The Bodily Embrace or Embracing the Body: Gesture and Gender in Late Medieval Culture,” in Stage as Mirror, 51–89; and Clifford Davidson’s “Gesture in Medieval British Drama,” in Gesture in Medieval Art and Drama, 66–127. 41. Peter Happé, “Acting the York Mystery Plays: A Consideration of Modes,” METh 10.2 (1988): 113. 42. Happé, 113. See also Meredith and Tailby, Staging of Religious Drama, 179. 43. Lothar Schreyer, Crucifixion in Mel Gordon, ed. Expresionist Texts (New York: PAJ, 1986). For a text with Schreyer’s woodcut drawings of the performance scene by scene, see Mel Gordon, “Lothar Schreyer and the Sturmbühne,” TDR 24 (1980): 85–102. 44. Evans, “When a Body Meets a Body,” 208. 45. Henk van Os, et al., The Art of Devotion in the Late Middle Ages in Europe: 1300–1500, trans. Michael Hoyle (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 137. See also the “Annunciation with Crucifix on Lily,” Painted Glass in York Minster Choir, in Clifford Davidson, From Creation to Doom: The York Cycle of Mystery Plays (New York: AMS Press, Inc., 1984), Fig. 5, following page 116. For other examples see Bruce Bernard, The Queen of Heaven: A Selection of Paintings of the Virgin Mary from the Twelfth to the Eighteenth Centuries (London: Macdonald Orbis, 1987), 37–9. 46. On this aspect of the plays’ use of epic conventions, see Garrett P. J. Epp’s “Visible Words: The York Plays, Brecht, and Gestic Writing,” Comparative Drama 24:4 (1990–91): 292–5. 47. Peter Happé adds another aspect that is worth considering in relation to the theatrical effect of such coded use of quotable gestures: “Though we know of some changes, the Guilds stuck to the same plays for many years, and in the life of one guildsman there might have been many similar performances. The actors would learn from one another—just as modern actors do in such things as pace, style, gesture and movement— and it could well be that, as in operatic gesture, the medieval actor would learn and transmit a code of dramatic signs which the audience would expect and accept as part of the diegesis of these plays.” “Acting the York Mystery Plays,” 115. 4 8 . S h e i n g o r n , “ T h e B o d i l y E m b r a c e ,” 8 5 – 6 . S e e a l s o L o i s D r e w e r, “ M a r g a r e t of Antioch the Demon-Slayer, East and West: The Iconography of the Predella of the Boston Mystic Marriage of St. Catherine,” Gesta, 32:1 (1993): 11–20. 49. Dolan, Geographies of Learning, 72. NOTES 163

50. Sarah Beckwith, “Work, Markets, Civic Structure: Organizing the York Corpus Christi Plays,” Signifying God, 45–6. 51. On the complex discourse of work as performance in the plays see Kathleen Ashley’s “Sponsorship, Reflexivity and Resistance: Cultural Readings of the York Cycle Plays,” in The Performance of Middle English Culture: Essays on Chaucer and the Drama, ed. James J. Paxon, Lawrence M. Clopper, and Sylvia Tomasch (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1998) 20–1. 52. Brecht, “The Street Scene,” 125. 53. Martin Stevens, “From Mappa Mundi to Theatrum Mundi: The World as Stage in Early English Drama,” in From Page to Performance: Essays in Early English Drama, ed. John A. Alford (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1995), 38–9. Stevens bases his description of the mappa mundi on the German Ebstorf map, (Figure 2 in this essay, p. 30). 54. Martin Stevens, “From Mappa Mundi,” 27. 55. Jody Enders, “Medieval Snuff Drama,” Exemplaria 10:1 (1998): 171– 206. And see also her Death by Drama and Other Medieval Urban Legends (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2002). For a cultural analysis of the medieval body in pain from the perspective of the one suffering as a mas- ochistic kind of pleasure, see Robert Mills’s “A Man is Being Beaten,” New Medieval Literatures 5, eds. Rita Copeland, David Lawton, and Wendy Scase (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 115–53. 56. As Sarah Beckwith writes, “in the late medieval understanding of the Trinity, it is precisely the embodiedness of Christ that allows God still to figure as absent.” Christ’s Body: Identity, Culture, and Society in Late Medieval Writings (New York: Routledge, 1993), 131 n. 3. 57. Esther Cohen, “The Animated Pain of the Body,” The American Historical Review, February 2000, par. 34. http://historycooperative.press.uiuc. edu/journals/ahr/105.1/ah000036.html 58. See RoseLee Godlberg’s Performance: Live Art sicne the 60s ([1998] New York: Thames and Hudson, 2004). See also Blume et al (ed.), Schmerz: kunst + wissesnschaft (Berlin: DuMont Literatur und Kunst Verlag, 2007). 59. From the perspective of the actor’s suffering body Jody Enders’s The Medieval Theatre of Cruelty: Rhetoric, Memory, Violence is very relevant. She expands on the social, juridical, and rhetorical sources and uses of violence and torture in the theatre as manifestations of sheerly bodily inflictions of pain and punishment that were part of society’s disciplinary norms and agenda. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999). 60. Artaud, “The Theatre of Cruelty, First Manifesto,” The Theatre and its Double, 77. 61. Jerzy Grotowski, “The Theatre’s New Testament,” an interview with Eugenio Barba, Towards a Poor Theatre, ed. Eugenio Barba ([1968] New York: Routledge, 2002), 49. 62. See Ludwik Flaszen, “Akropolis: Treatment of the Text,” in Jerzy Grotowski, Towards a Poor Theatre, 61–78. 164 NOTES

63. Beckwith, Signifying God, 70. 64. Richard Schechner, “Actuals,” Performance Theory, revised and expanded edition (New York: Routledge, 2003), 54. 65. For a detailed documentation and analysis of violence in late medieval French religious drama and its relation to the medieval juridical system and rhetoric of violence, see Enders’s Medieval Theatre of Cruelty, especially Chapter 3, “The Performance of Violence,” 160–229, as well as her Death by Drama. See also John Spalding Gatton’s “ ‘There Must Be Blood’: Mutilation and Martyrdom on the Medieval Stage,” in Violence in Drama, Themes in Drama 13, ed. James Redmond (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 79–92. For other cultural and theatrical analyses of the body in performance, see for example Miri Rubin, “The Body, Whole and Vulnerable, in Fifteenth-Century England,” in Bodies and Disciplines: Intersections of Literature and History in Fifteenth-Century England, eds., Barbara A. Hanawalt and David Wallace (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996), 19–28; and Seth Lerer’s “ ‘Representyd now in yower syght’: The Culture of Spectatorship in Late Fifteenth-Century England,” 29–64 in the same volume. 66. Enders, Medieval Theatre of Cruelty, 201. 67. Beadle and King, York Mystery Plays, 155. 68. On the performativity of raising the cross, see Sharon Aronson-Lehavi, “Raising the Cross: Pre-Textual Theatricality and the York Crucifixion Play,” in Margaret Rogerson, ed. The York Mystery Plays: Performance in the City (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell and Brewer, 2011), 165–79.

Appendix: A Treatise of Miraclis Playing: A Modern English Version of A Tretise of Miraclis Pleyinge 1. John 14:6. I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 2. The final sentence of the first paragraph is long and complicated. It is hard to give complete translation but the general meaning is that when Christ’s miracles really happened, they helped weary men and those tired of suffering and those afraid of death bring love and charity and believe in an everlasting life of joy that depends on belief in God. 3. In the original: “bourde.” Hereafter I translate bourde as jest, joke, or game according to the specific context. 4. In the original: “reverses.” This word in the meaning of contradicting or undermining appears frequently in the text. 5. “A, Lord,” appears a few more times in the tract; an expressive addressing of the Lord. 6. “whanne we playin his miraclis”: note that here the author does not use the form “play with his miraclis” but rather “playin,” most likely referring to playing as in performing. NOTES 165

7. “These three”: penance, disciplining of our body, and penance of adversity. 8. Hebrews 12:8. 9. “minde” in the original. 10. First Letter of Peter 5: 6–7. 11. Hebrews 10:31. Although the author of the ToMP refers this quote to St. Peter, it in fact appears in Hebrews. 12. The text’s ME version of the biblical “casting all our care upon him” as quoted from St. Peter above. 13. Matthew 6:24. No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. 14. Hebrews 12:11. “And each chastising in this present time seemeth to be not of joy, but of sorrow.” 15. The idea is probably that often games and fun develop into fights and quarrels. 16. These lines open the segment that quotes six reasons in favor of the plays and which are brought for the counter argument in the next section. 17. In this second quoted argument in favor of the plays, the idea is that men and women indeed might see undesirable or immoral sights in such events, but afterwards they leave their pride and lechery behind and go home as even stronger believers. This argument is reminiscent of the Bakhtinian carnivalesque “safety-valve” theory, according to which, every now and then a community needs a social space to express and let out repressed issues in order to eventually restore social order. See for example Chris Humphrey’s The Politics of Carnival: Festive Misrule in Medieval England. 18. Matthew 7:21. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 19. This is in reply to the argument that in a bad thing something good can be found, and what might seem as an evil occasion might in fact lead to a good one, but the text objects to this. 20. Psalms 119:37. 21. Psalms 31:7. 22. The Life of Saint Tobit. In The Golden Legend (Aurea Legenda). Compiled by Jacobus de Voragine, 1275. 23. Based on Matthew 12:42; Luke 11:31. 24. Romans 3:8. And not rather, as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say, Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just. 25. Luke 23:27–28. 26. Psalms 21:3. For thou preventest him with the blessings of goodness: thou settest a crown of pure gold on his head. 166 NOTES

27. Doubting Thomas; it is believed that Saint Thomas had come to Kerala, India, to spread Christianity. 28. Exodus 20: 3–6. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments. 29. Isaiah 5:20. Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! 30. Genesis 21. 31. John 3:5–6. Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.” 32. 2 Samuel 2. 33. Referring to Proverbs 14:13. 34. Exodus 32:28. The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. 35. Referring to the investment in preparation of the plays. 36. Exodus 32:1. When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said, “Come, make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don’t know what has happened to him.” 37. 1 Corinthians 10:11. 38. The final segment of this sentence seems incoherent. 39. 2 Kings 2. 40. Isaiah 65:20. There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed. 41. Matthew 24:37–39. But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 42. 2 Samuel 6: 20–22. Then David returned to bless his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, How glorious was the king of Israel to day, who uncovered himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shame- lessly uncovereth himself! And David said unto Michal, It was before NOTES 167 the LORD, which chose me before thy father, and before all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the LORD, over Israel: therefore will I play before the LORD. And I will yet be more vile than thus, and will be base in mine own sight: and of the maidservants which thou hast spoken of, of them shall I be had in honour. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources Artaud, Antonin. The Theatre and Its Double. Trans. Victor Corti. New York: Calder, 1993. Beadle, Richard, and Pamela King, ed. York Mystery Plays: A Selection in Modern Spelling. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995. Bevington, David. Medieval Drama. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1975. The Book of Margery Kempe. Trans. and ed. Lynn Staley. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2001. Brecht, Bertolt. Brecht on Theatre: The Development of an Aesthetic. Ed. and trans. John Willett. New York: Methuen, 1964, 1994. ———. The Measures Taken. In The Jewish Wife and Other Short Plays. Trans. Eric Bentley. New York: Grove Press, INC., 1965. Brown, Carleton, ed. Religious Lyrics of the XIVth Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1924. Davidson, Clifford, ed. A Tretise of Miraclis Pleyinge. EDAM Monograph Series 19. Kalamazoo, Mich.: Medieval Institute Publications, 1993. Dives and Pauper. Ed. Priscilla Heath Barnum. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976. Geoffrey de la Tour Landry. The Book of the Knight of the Tower. Trans. William Caxton. Ed. M. Y. Offord. London: Oxford University Press, 1971. Hazlitt, W. C. ed. The English Drama and Stage under the Tudor and Stuart Princes 1543–1664. Bath: 1832; Reprinted: New York: Burt Franklin, 1969. Hudson, Anne. Selections from English Wycliffite Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978. Meredith, Peter, and John Tailby, ed. The Staging of Religious Drama in Europe in the Later Middle Ages: Texts and Documents in English Translation. EDAM Monograph Series 4. Kalamazoo, Michigan: Medieval Institute Publications, 1983. Middle English Dictionary. Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1952–present. More, Thomas. The History of King Richard III. Ed. Richard S. Sylvester. In The Complete Works of St. Thomas More, 2. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963. 170 BIBLIOGRAPHY

The N- Town Play, Cotton MS Vespasian D. 8. Ed. Stephen Spector. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. Purvis, J. S. The York Cycle of Mystery Plays: A Complete Version. London: S. P. C. K, 1957. Records of Early English Drama: Chester. Ed. Lawrence M. Clopper. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1979. Records of Early English Drama: Coventry. Ed. R. W. Ingram. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1979. Records of Early English Drama: Nor wich, 1540 –1642. Ed. David Galloway. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1984. Records of Early English Drama: York. Ed. Alexandra F. Johnston and Margaret G. Rogerson. 2 vols. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1979. Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Ed. David Bevington. New York: Bantam Books, 1980. ———. A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Ed. Stanley Wells. New York: Penguin, 1995. Sidney, Philip. An Apology for Poetry. Ed. Geoffrey Shepherd. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1973. York Plays. Ed. Richard Beadle. London: Edward Arnold, 1982.

Secondary Sources Agan, Cami D. “The Platea in the York and Wakefield Cycles: Avenues for Liminality and Salvation.” Studies in Philology 94 (1997): 344–67. Alford, John A., ed. Essays in Early English Drama. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1995. Alter, Jean. A Sociosemiotic Theory of Theatre. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990. Aronson- Lehavi, Sharon. “Raising the Cross: Pre- Textual Theatricality and the York Crucifixion Play.” In The York Mystery Plays: Performance in the City, ed. Margaret Rogerson. Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell and Brewer, 2011; 165–79. Ashley, Kathleen. “Sponsorship, Reflexivity and Resistacne: Cultural Readings of the York Cycle Plays.” In The Performance of Middle Englsih Culture, ed. Paxon et al., 9–24. ———, and Wim Hüsken, eds. Moving Subjects: Processional Performance in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Ludus 5. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2001. Auslander, Philip. From Acting to Performance: Essays in Modernism and Postmodernism. New York: Routledge, 1997. Barish, Jonas. The Antitheatrical Prejudice. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981. Bayless, Martha. Parody in the Middle Ages: The Latin Tradition. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1996. Beadle, Richard, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Medieval English Theatre. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1994. BIBLIOGRAPHY 171

———. “Verbal Texture and Wordplay in the York Cycle.” Early Theatre 3 (2000): 167–84. Beckwith Sarah. Christ’s Body: Identity, Culture, and Society in Late Medieval Writings. New York: Routledge, 1993. ———. Signifying God: Social Relations and Symbolic Act in the York Corpus Christi Plays. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001. Bernard, Bruce. The Queen of Heaven: A Selection of Paintings of the Virgin Mary from the Twelfth to the Eighteenth Centuries. London: Macdonald Orbis, 1987. Bevington, David. From Mankind to Marlowe. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962. ———. ed. Homo, Memento Finis: The Iconography of Just Judgment in Medieval Art and Drama. Kalamazoo, Mich.: Medieval Institute Publications, 1985. Billington, Sandra. A Social History of the Fool. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1984. ———. Midsummer: A Cultural Sub- Text from Chretien De Troyes to Jean Michel, Medieval Texts and Cultures of Northern Europe, 3. Turnhout: Brepols, 2000. Blasting, Ralph. “The Pageant Wagon as Iconic Site in the York Cycle.” Early Theatre 3 (2000): 127–36. Blume Eugen, Annemarie Hürlimann, Thomas Schnalke, and Daniel Tyradellis, eds. Schmerz: kunst und wissenschaft. Berlin: DuMont Literature und Kunst Verlag, 2007. Briscoe, Marianne G. “Preaching and Medieval English Drama.” In Contexts, ed. Briscoe and Coldewey, 151–72. Briscoe, Marianne G., and John C. Coldewey, eds. Contexts for Early English Drama. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989. Brooker, Peter. “Key Words in Brecht’s Theory and Practice of Theatre.” In Cambridge Comapnion to Brecht, ed. Thomson and Sacks, 185–200. Brown, Gavin. “Theorizing Ritual as Performance: Explorations of Ritual Indeterminacy.” Journal of Ritual Studies 17:1 (2003): 3–18. Bryant-Bertail, Sarah. Space and Time in Epic Theater: The Brechtian Legacy. Rochester: Camden House, 2000. Burns, Edward. Character: Acting and Being on the Pre-Modern Stage. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1990. Butterworth, Philip. Magic on the Early English Stage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Campbell, Thomas P. “Liturgical Drama and Community Discourse.” In The Liturgy of the Medieval Church, ed. Thomas J. Heffernan and E. Ann Matter, 619–44. Kalamazoo, Mich.: Western Michigan University, 2001. Carlson, Marvin. Theatre Semiotics: Signs of Life. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990. ———. “Theater and Dialogism.” In Critical Theory and Performance, ed. Janelle G. Reinelt and Joseph R. Roach, 313–23. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1992. 172 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Carlson, Marvin. Places of Performance: Semiotics of Theatre Architecture. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993. ———. The Haunted Stage. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2001. ———. Performance: A Critical Introduction. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2004. Cawley, A. C., Marion Jones, Peter F. McDonald, and David Mills, ed. The Revels History of Drama in English: Vol. 1. Medieval Drama. London: Methuen, 1983. Chambers, E. K. The Medieval Stage. 2 vols. London: Oxford University Press, 1903; Unabridged republication in one vol.: New York: Dover Publications, 1996. Clopper, Lawrence M. “Miracula and The Tretise of Miraclis Pleyinge.” Speculum 65 (1990): 878–905. ———. Drama, Play, and Game: English Festive Culture in the Medieval and Early Modern Period. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2001. ———. “English Drama: From Ungodly Ludi to Sacred Play.” Cambridge History, ed. Wallace, 739–66. ———. “Is the Tretise of Miraclis Pleyinge a Lollard Tract Against Devotional Drama?” Viator 34 (2003): 229–71. Cohen, Esther. “The Animated Pain of the Body.” The American Historical Review 105.1(2000): 36–68. http://historycooperative.press.uiuc.edu/journals/ ahr/105.1/ah000036.html Coldewey, John C. “Some Economic Aspects of the Late Medieval Drama.” In Contexts, ed. Briscoe and Coldewey, 77–102. Coletti, Theresa. “Purity and Danger: The Paradox of Mary’s Body and the En- gendering of the Infancy Narrative in the English Mystery Cycles.” In Feminist Approaches to the Body in Medieval Literature , ed. Linda Lomperis and Sarah Stanbury, 65–95. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993. ———. Mary Magdalene and the Drama of Saints: Theater, Gender, and Religion in Late Medieval England. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. Copeland, Rita, David Lawton, and Wendy Scase, eds. New Medieval Literatures 5. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Copferman, Emile. “The Search for a Language: From an Interview with Ariane Mnouchkine by Emile Copferman.” In Collaborative Theatre, ed. Williams, 16–25. Cox, John D., and David Scott Kastan, eds. A New History of Early English Drama. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997. Craig, Edward Gordon. On the Art of the Theatre. Boston: Small, Maynard, & Company, 1925 [1911]. Crohn Schmitt, Natalie. “The Body in Motion in the York Adam and Eve in Eden.” In Gesture in Medieval Art and Drama, ed. Davidson, 158–77. Davidson, Clifford. From Creation to Doom: The York Cycle of Mystery Plays. New York: AMS Press, Inc., 1984. BIBLIOGRAPHY 173

———. “ ‘What hempen home- spuns have we swagg’ring here?’ Amateur Actors in A Midsummer Night’s Dream and the Coventry Civic Plays and Pageants.” Shakespeare Studies 19 (1987): 87–99. ———. “Introduction.” Tretise of Miraclis Pleyinge, 1–52. ———. ed. Gesture in Medieval Drama and Art. EDAM Monograph Series 28. Kalamazoo, Mich.: Medieval Institute Publications, 2001. ———. “Gesture in Medieval British Drama.” In Gesture in Medieval Art and Drama, ed. Davidson, 66–127. ———. Histor y, Religion, and Violence: Cultural Contexts for Medieval and Renaissance English Drama. Burlington: Ashgate, 2002. David, Nicholas. “The Tretise of Miraclis Pleyinge: On Milieu and Authorship.” METh 12:2 (1990): 124–51. Davis, Tracy and Thomas Postlewait, eds. Theatricality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Diamond, Elin. “Introduction.” Performance and Cultural Politics. Ed. Elin Diamond. New York: Routledge, 1996. ———. Unmaking Mimesis: Essays on Feminism and T heatre. New York: Routledge, 1998. Dillon, Janette. L anguage and S pa c e in Medie val and R en aissan c e E ngland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Dobson, R. B. “Craft Guilds and the City: The Historical Origins of the York Mystery Plays Reassessed.” In The Stage as Mirror, ed. Knight, 91–106. Dolan, Jill. Geographies of Learning: Theory and Practice, Activism and Performance. Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press, 2001. Dyer, Christopher. “The Economy and Society.” In Oxford Illustrated History of Medieval England, ed. Nigel, 137–73. Elliott, John R. “Medieval Acting.” In Contexts, ed. Briscoe and Coldewey, 238–51. ———. Playing God: Medieval Mysteries on the Modern Stage. Toronto: Universit y of Toronto Press, 1989. Emmerson, Richard K. “Dramatic History: On the Diachronic and Synchronic in the Study of Early English Drama.” Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 35 (2005): 39–66. Enders, Jody. “Medieval Snuff Drama.” Exemplaria 10:1 (1998): 171–206. ———. The Medieval Theatre of Cruelty: Rhetoric, Memory, Violence. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999. ———. Death by Drama and Other Medieval Urban Legends. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2002. Epp, Garrett P. J. “The Semiotics of Flatness: Characterization in Medieval Cycle Drama,” Scintilla 2/3 (1986): 132–40. ———. “Visible Words: The York Plays, Brecht, and Gestic Writing.” Comparative Drama 24:4 (1991): 289–305. ———. “Noah’s Wife: The Shaming of the ‘Trew.’ ” In Domestic Violence in Medieval Texts, ed. Eve Salisbury, Georgiana Donavin, and Merrall Llewelyn Price, 223–41. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2002. Evans, Ruth. “When a Body Meets a Body: Fergus and Mary in the York Cycle.” In New Medieval Literatures, ed. Scase et al., 193–212. 174 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Fischer- Lichte, Erika. Theatre, Sacrifice, Ritual: Exploring Forms of Political Theatre. New York: Routledge, 2005. ———. “The Medieval Religious Plays: Ritual or Theater?” In Elina Gerstman, ed. Visualizing Medieval Performance: Perspectives, Histories, Contexts. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008; 249–61. Fitzhenry, William. “The N-Town Plays and the Politics of Metatheater.” Studies in Philology 100:1 (2003): 22–43. Flanigan, Clifford C., Kathleen Ashley, and Pamela Sheingorn. “Liturgy as Social Performance: Expanding the Definitions.” In Liturgy of the Medieval Church, ed. Heffernan and Matter, 695–714. Franko, Mark and Annette Richards, ed. Acting on the Past: Historical Performance Across the Disciplines. Hanover: Wesleyan University Press, 2000. Fuchs, Elinor. The Death of Character: Perspectives on Theatre after Modernism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996. Gardiner, Harold C. Mysteries’ End: An Investigation of the Last Days of the Medieval Religious Stage. Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books, 1946, 1967. Gatton, John Spalding. “ ‘There Must Be Blood’: Mutilation and Martyrdom on the Medieval Stage.” Violence in Drama . Themes in Drama 13. Ed. James Redmond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Gerould, Daniel, ed. Theatre/Theory/Theatre. New York: Applause Books, 1999. Gerstman, Elina, ed. Visualizing Medieval Performance: Perspectives, Histories, Contexts. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008. Gregg, Joan Young. Devils, Women, and Jews: Reflections of the Other in Medieval Sermon Stories. New York: State University of New York Press, 1997. Goldberg, RoseLee. Performance: Live Art since the 60s. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1998, 2004. Gordon, Mel. “Lothar Schreyer and the Sturmbühne.” TDR 24 (1980): 85–102. ———, ed. Expresionist Texts. New York: PAJ, 1986. Grotowski, Jerzy. Towards a Poor Theatre. Ed. Eugenio Barba. New York: Routledge, 1968, 2002. Hanawalt, Barbara A., and David Wallace, ed. Bodies and Disciplines: Intersections of Literature and History in Fifteenth-Century England. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996. Happé, Peter. “Acting in the York Mystey Plays: A Consideration of Modes.” METh 10.2 (1988): 112–6. ———. “Farcical Elements in the English Mystery Cycles.” Farce and Farcical Elements, ed. Hüsken and Schoell, 29–43. Hayes, Dawn Marie. Body and Sacred Places in Medieval Europe, 1100–1389. New York: Routledge, 2003. Heffernan, Thomas J., and E. Ann Matter, ed. The Liturgy of the Medieval Church. Kalamazoo, Mich.: Medieval Institue Publications, 2001. Higgins, Anne. “Streets and Markets.” In A New History, ed. Cox and Kastan, 77–92. Homan, Richard L. “Ritual Aspects of the York Cycle.” Theatre Journal 33.3 (1981): 302–15. BIBLIOGRAPHY 175

Humphrey, Chris. The Politics of Carnival: Festive Misrule in Medieval England. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001. Hüsken, Wim and Konrad Schoell, ed. Farce and Farcical Elements. Ludus 6. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2002. Justice, Alan D. “Trade Symbolism in the York Cycle.” Theatre Journal 31 (1979): 47–58. Kelemen, Er ick. “Drama in Ser mons: Quotation, Per for mativ it y, and Conversion in a Middle English Sermon on the Prodigal Son and in A Tretise of Miraclis Pleyinge.” ELH 69 (2002): 1–19. King, Pamela M. The York Mystery Cycle and the Worship of the City. Rochester, NY: D.S. Brewer, 2006. Knight, Alan E., ed. The Stage as Mirror: Civic Theatre in Late Medieval Europe. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1997. Kobialka, Michal. This is My Body: Representational Practices in the Early Middle Ages. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999. Kolve, V. A. The Play Called Corpus Christi. London: Edward Arnold Publishers Ltd., 1966. Lerer, Seth. “ ‘Representyd now in yower syght’: The Culture of Spectatorship in Late Fifteenth- Century England.” In Bodies and Disciplines, ed. Hanawalt and Wallace, 29–64. Lerud, Theodore K. “Quick Images: Memory and the English Corpus Christi Drama.” In Moving Subjects, ed. Ashley and Hüsken, 213–38. Marshall, John. “Modern Productions of Medieval English Plays.” In Cambridge Companion to Medieval English Theatre, ed. Beadle, 290–311. Martin, Carol and Henry Bial, ed. Brecht Sourcebook. New York: Routledge, 2000. Marx, William G. “The Problem with Mrs. Noah: The Search for Performance Credibility in the Chester Noah’s Flood Play.” In From Page to Performance: Essays in Early English Drama, ed. John A. Alford, 109–26. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1995. Meale, Carol M. “ ‘This is a deed bok, the tother a quick’: Theatre and the Drama of Salvation in the Book of Margery Kempe.” In Medieval Women: Texts and Contexts in Late Medieval Britain. Essays for Felicity Riddy, ed. Jocelyn Wogan-Browne et al., 49–67. Turnhout: Brepols, 2000. Mills, David. “Tretise of Miraclis Pleyinge.” In Revels History, ed. A. C. Cawley, et al., 83–91. Mills, Robert. “A Man is Being Beaten.” New Medieval Literatures 5, ed. Rita Copeland, et al., 115–53. Montrose, Louis. The Purpose of Playing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996. Mueller, Roswitha. “Learning for a New Society: the Lehrstück.” In Cambridge Comapnion to Brecht, ed. Thomson and Sacks, 79–95. Muir, Lynette R. “Playing God in Medieval Europe.” In Stage as Mirror, ed. Knight, 25–50. Nes Kirby, Victoria. “1789 at the Cartoucherie.” In Collaborative Theatre, ed. Williams, 3–15. 176 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Nigel, Saul, ed. The Oxford Illustrated History of Medieval England. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Olson, Glending. “Plays as Play: A Medieval Ethical Theory of Performance and the Intellectual Context of the Tretise of Miraclis Pleyinge.” Viator 26 (1995): 195–21. Owst, G. R. Literature and Pulpit in Medieval England. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966. Parshall, Peter. “The Art of Memory and the Passion.” The Art Bulletin 81:3 (1999): 456–72. Patterson, Michael. Peter Stein: Germany’s Leading Theatre Director. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Pavis, Patrice. Dictionary of the Theatre: Terms, Concepts, and Analysis. Trans. Christine Shantz. Preface by Marvin Carlson. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1998. Paxon, James J., Lawrence M. Clopper, and Sylvia Tomasch, ed. The Performance of Middle Englsih Culture: Essays on Chaucer and the Drama. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1998. Perret, Donald. “The Meaning of the Mystery: From Tableaux to Theatre in the French Royal Entry.” In Moving Subjects, ed. Ashley and Hüsken, 187–211. Postlewait, Thomas and Tracy C. Davis. “Theatricality: an Introduction.” In Theatricality, ed. Davis and Postlewait, 1–39. Rogerson, Margaret. “English Puppets and the Survival of Religious Theatre.” Theatre Notebook 52: 2 (1998): 91–111. ———. “Living History: The Modern Mystery Plays in York.” RORD 43 (2004): 12–29. Rokem, Freddie. Performing History: Theatrical Representations of the Past in Contemporary Theatre. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 2000. Rosenwein, Barbara H. Anger’s Past: The Social Uses of an Emotion in the Middle Ages. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998. ———. “Controlling Paradigms.” In Anger’s Past, ed., Rosenwein, 233–47. Ross, Ellen M. The Grief of God: Images of the Suffering Jesus in Late Medieval England. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Rouse, John. “Brecht and the Contradictory Actor.” In Acting (Re)considered, ed. Zarrilli, 248–60. Rozik, Eli. The Roots of Theatre: Rethinking Ritual and Other Theories of Origin. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 2002. Rubin, Miri. Corpus Christi: The Eucharist in Late Medieval Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. ———. “The Body, Whole and Vulnerable, in Fifteenth-Century England.” In Bodies and Disciplines, ed. Hanawalt and Wallace, 19–28. Russell, Mark, ed. Out of Character: Rants, Raves, and Monologues from Today’s Top Performance Artists. New York: Bantam, 1997. Sauter, Willmar. The Theatrical Event: Dynamics of Performance and Perception. Iowa: University of Iowa Press, 2000. Scase, Wendy, Rita Copeland, and David Lawton, ed. New Medieval Literatures Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. BIBLIOGRAPHY 177

Schechner, Richard. Performance Theory. Revised and Expanded Edition. New York: Routledge, 2003. Schmidt, Gary. The Iconography of the Mouth of Hell: Eighth Century Britain into the Fifteenth Century. Selinsgrove: Susquehanna University Press, 1995. Schreyer, Lothar. Crucifixion. In Mel Gordon, ed. Expresionist Texts (New York: PAJ, 1986). Sheingorn, Pamela, and David Bevington “ ‘Alle This Was Token Domysday to Drede’: Visual Signs of Last Judgment in the Corpus Christi Cycles and in Late Gothic Art.” In Homo, Memento Finis, ed. Bevington, 121–46. ———. “The Visual Language of Drama: Principles of Composition.” In Contexts, ed. Briscoe and Coldewey, 173–191. ———. “The Maternal Behavior of God the Father: Divine Father as Fantasy Husband.” In Medieval Mothering, ed. John Carmi Parsons and Bonnie Wheeler, 77–99. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1996. ———. “The Bodily Embrace or Embracing the Body: Gesture and Gender in Late Medieval Culture.” In Stage as Mirror, ed. Knight, 51–89. Simpson, James. Reform and Cultural Revolution: The Oxford English Literary History, Vol. 2, 1350–1547. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Skura, Meredith Anne. Shakespeare the Actor and the Purposes of Playing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1993. Sponsler, Claire. Drama and Resistance: Bodies, Goods, and Theatricality in Late Medieval England. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997. ———. Ritual Imports: Performing Medieval Drama in America. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2004. States, Bert O. Great Reckonings in Little Rooms: On the Phenomenology of Theater. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1964. Stevens, Martin. Four Middle English Mystery Cycles. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987. ———. “From Mappa Mundi to Theatrum Mundi: The World as Stage in Early English Drama.” In From Page to Performance, ed. John A. Alford, 25–50. Swanson, R. N. Church and Society in Late Medieval England. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989. Thomson, Peter and Glendyr Sacks, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Brecht. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Thompson, Peter. “Rogues and Rhetoricians: Acting Styles in Early English Drama.” In A New History, ed., Cox and Kastan, 321–36. Twycross, Meg. “The Theatricality of Medieval English Plays.” In Cambridge Companion to Medieval English Theatre, ed. Beadle, 37–84. Twycross, Meg and Sarah Carpenter. Masks and Masking in Medieval and Early Tudor England. Burlington: Ashgate, 2002. Van Krieken, Robert. “Violence, Self-Discipline, and Modernity: Beyond the ‘Civilizing Process.’ ” Sociological Review 37 (1989): 193–218. Van Os, Henk, et al., ed. The Art of Devotion in the Late Middle Ages in Europe: 1300–1500. Trans. Michael Hoyle. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994. 178 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Vitz, Evelyn Birge. “The Liturgy and Vernacular Literature.” In Liturgy of the Medieval Church, ed. Heffernan and Matter, 551–618. Wade Soule, Lesely. Actor as Anti Character: Dionysus, the Devil, and the Boy Rosalind. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2000. Wallace, David, ed. The Cambridge History of Medieval English Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Wasson, Joh n M. “The Eng lish Church as Theatr ica l Space.” In A New History, ed. Cox and Kastan, 25–38. Watkins, John. “The Allegorical Theatre: Moralities, Interludes, and Protestant Drama.” In Cambridge History, ed. Wallace, 767–92. Weber, Carl. “Brecht’s Concept of Gestus and the American Performance Tradition.” In Brecht Sourcebook, ed. Martin and Bial, 43–9. Weimann, Robert. Shakespeare and the Popular Tradition in the Theatre: Studies in the Social Dimension of Dramatic Form and Function. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978. ———. Author’s Pen and Actor’s Voice: Playing and Writing in Shakespeare’s Theatre. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Wenzel, Siegfried. “Somer Game and Sermon References to a Corpus Christi Play.” Modern Philology 86:3 (1989): 274–82. Whilte, Stephen D. “The Politics of Anger.” In Anger’s Past, ed. Rosenwein, 128–52. Wiles, David. A Short History of Western Performance Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Williams, David, ed. Collaborative Theatre: The Théâtre du Soleil Sourcebook. New York: Routledge, 1999. Woolf, Rosemary. The English Mystery Plays. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1972. Zarrilli, Phillip B. Acting (Re)considered: Theories and Practices. New York: Routledge, 1995. INDEX

Acting, Actor Bourding (joking, jesting, playing, Acting, enacting, or playing God, gaming), 2, 22, 32–9, 52 18, 87, 88, 90, 92, 93–4, 95 Brecht, Bertolt, 1, 85, 87, 88, 91, 101, As demonstrating, 51, 110, 114 107, 110, 111, 114, 124 Many actors in the same role, 6, 66, Brechtian, 35, 106, 107, 110, 112, 86, 95–106 114 As mediator, 56, 57–8, 61, 82, 91, Good Soul of Szechwan, The, 101 113 Lehrstücke, (Learning Plays), As opposed to preaching, 57–8; 101 see also Preaching, preacher Measures Taken, The, 101 Actor-Character dialectics, 3, 4, 7, 11, “Short Organum for the 12, 13, 15, 55, 56, 58, 59–67, Theatre,” 87 80, 82, 83, 86, 95, 107, 117, “Street Scene, the,” 1, 85, 114, 118 115 Aesthetic, aesthetics, 1, 2, 3, 6–9, 13, Broederlam, Melchior, (The 14, 15, 18, 52, 53, 55, 56, 65, Annunciation and the Visitation), 66, 74, 81, 82, 83, 86, 87, 89, 109 91, 92, 95, 96, 100, 101, 102, Bryden, Bill, (The Mysteries), 96 112–17, 121, 124–6 Anachronism, 53, 57, 65, 80, 83, Carlson, Marvin, 25, 155 n. 10 126 Catharsis, 75 Anagnorisis (recognition), 100 Character Artaud, Antonin, 85, 119, 120, 124 Holy characters, 1, 3, 5, 7, 36, 65, Avant-garde theatre, 31, 69, 107, 120 82, 91 Chester Plays, 34, 36, 90, 91, 92 Barish, Jonas, (The Antitheatrical Chester Banns, The, 91–3, 94, 95 Prejudice), 64, 70, 81 Clopper, Lawrence, 20, 157 n. 32 Beckwith, Sarah, 39, 42, 61, 113, 118, Community, communal, 119, 121 communality, 6, 7, 29, 42, Body, the, bodily, 2, 3, 6, 18, 22, 23, 56, 57, 62, 69, 71, 74, 30, 32, 42, 44, 59, 60, 62, 65, 78–81, 82, 83, 103, 66, 74, 76, 82, 83, 86, 88, 106, 113, 114, 115, 124 108, 112, 113, 115–24 Contrariety, 14, 56, 57–67, 71, 82, see also Flesh, fleshly 85, 89, 92, 114 180 INDEX

Corpus Christi plays, 2, 3, 4, 5, 18, Enders, Jody, 51, 52, 117, 120 19, 26, 52 Epic theatre, epic acting, 1, 6, 11, 14, Corpus Christi pageants, 4, 19, 39 67, 83, 85, 86, 87–115, 117, Corpus Christi procession, 19, 32, 121, 124 96, 119 Episodic, 6, 86, 95–101, 102, 115 Coventry Plays, 8, 19, 20, 90 Eventness, 2, 3, 7, 18, 31, 34, 118, 125 Craftsmanship, 5, 79, 90, 158–9 n. 43 Expenses, (financial investment in Craig, Edward Gordon, (“The Actor plays), 79–81, 83, 90–1 and the Übermarionette”), 31 Cross-dressing, 34, 65 Face, 10, 11, 35, 48, 66, 86, 89–92, Crucifixion, see York cycle, York plays: 93, 94, 95 Episodes in see also Mask, masks Crying, (also weeping, tears), 20, Farce, farcical, 7, 34, 38, 39, 109 22, 24, 29, 30, 73, 74, 75, Festival, festivity, 7, 19, 37, 41, 45, 80, 76, 77, 83 81, 115 Fischer-Lichte, Erika, 3 Davidson, Clifford (on the ToMP), 17, Flesh, fleshly, 31, 59, 65, 82, 124 48, 127, 128 As opposed to spirit, 63–7, 72, Deictic, deixis, 3, 10, 86, 87–9, 109, 75, 82 110, 120 Folklore, 2, 7, 36, 53, 57 Devotional drama, devotional theatre, Fool, 21, 40, 42, 43, 88, 90, 111, 120, 2, 3, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26–31, 35, 152 n. 44 36, 37, 38, 43, 45, 52, 55, 56, 57, 61, 70, 73, 74, 80, 82, 83, Game, games, 2, 5, 7, 13, 14, 17, 18, 100, 112, 113, 115, 117, 20, 21, 22, 30, 32, 33, 36, 124, 125 40–52, 53, 58, 60, 61, 65, 68, Dialectics, dialectical, 4, 7, 11, 13, 14, 75, 81, 100, 110, 118, 121, 125 15, 55, 65, 66, 56, 66, 80, 83, Gesture, gestures, 35, 42, 57, 86, 87, 86, 91, 95, 101, 107, 113, 118 106–15 Dialogic, 2, 22, 60, 61, 62, 125 Gestus (Brechtian), 35, 106–15 Didactic, 21, 28, 43, 53, 58, 65, 82, Goldoni, Carlo, (Servant of Two 100, 101, 107, 110, 114 Masters), 61 Disfigure, 11, 92 Grotowski, Jerzy, (Akropolis), 119 Dives and Pauper, 156–7 n. 30 Guild, guilds, 5, 8, 13, 41, 79, 80, 81, Drink, Drinking, 36–7, 40, 41, 42, 83, 91, 85, 96, 113, 118, 124, 44, 46, 118 158 n. 43

Efficacy, efficacious, effectual, 3, 14, Hamlet, 8–10, 12, 28 17, 21, 23, 31–2, 33, 52, 56, 57, Harrison, Tony, (The Mysteries), 96 58, 59, 67–73, 74, 82, 85, 118 Heaven, 12, 48, 63, 65, 66, 72, 73, Embody, embodiment, 1, 5, 67, 113, 112 125 Hell, hell-mouth, 12, 27, 28, 29, 44, Emotional, emotionality, 3, 14, 22, 51, 65, 66, 68, 74, 75, 90 24, 30, 45, 57, 73–8, 83, 85, Herod, 7, 8, 9, 120, 146 n. 14, 86, 87, 117, 119, 120, 124, 126 152 n. 44 INDEX 181

Holiness, 56, 68, 91, 109, 111, 125 Mock king, “king for a day,” 43, 117, Horatio, 59 124, 152 n. 44 Modern theatre, 6, 7, 8, 14, 25, 26, Iconic personae, iconographic, 4, 5, 41, 46, 86, 92, 96, 102, 106, 7, 9, 65, 86, 88, 100, 103, 106, 120, 126 107, 109, 114 More, Sir Thomas, 8, 13 Illusionist, 6, 8, 13, 67, 87, 91 Mystery plays, 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, Pre-illusionist, postillusionist, 1, 20, 26, 27, 29, 30, 35, 40, 47, 6, 7, 86 49, 51, 53, 56, 57, 58, 65, 78, Image, images, 5, 6, 9, 11, 18, 24, 28, 79, 81, 86–8, 91, 94, 103, 107, 30, 31, 42, 52, 55, 57, 61, 66, 115–17, 121, 122, 123, 125 71–3, 75, 76, 83, 90, 91, 100, see also Corpus Christi plays 102, 106, 107, 108, 109, 112, 113, 117, 119, 121, 126 N-Town plays, the, 19, 28, 49–50, Images and Pilgrimages, 71–3 66, 112 The Parliament of Heaven, 112 Kantorowicz, Ernst H., The King’s The Parliament of Hell and the Two Bodies, 145 n. 2 Temptation in the Desert, 28 Kempe, Margery, 76–7 The Proclamation, 49–50 Kobialka, Michal, 7 Norwich, 91

Laughter, 26, 31, 33, 34, 37, 38, 41, Old Testament 46, 63, 76 Abner and Joab, 64–5 Liminal, liminality, liminoid, 25, David dancing before the ark, 70 34, 42, 45, 64, 66, 68, 83, Golden calf, the, 71 117, 125 Isaac and Ishmael, 63–4 Lincoln, 19–20 Ordo Paginarum, 47, 93 Liveness, 1, 2, 18, 30, 31, 55, 69, 121 Ludic, ludere, 22, 30, 63–7 Pain, 3, 29, 40, 44, 40, 42, 51, 56, 66, 68, 75, 77, 83, 106, 117, 118, Martyr, martyrs, 117, 118, 119 119 Mask, masks, 11, 65, 66, 86, 89–95 Painting and sculpting (as opposed to see also Face theatre and performance), 22, Melton, Friar William, 19, 37 30, 31, 55, 57, 66, 71–3, Metatheatre, metatheatrical, 8, 28, 90, 96 41, 45, 88, 89, 90, 96, 112, Passion, the, performing the passion, 113, 122 passion plays, 3, 6, 19, 20, 27, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, 8, 10–12 29, 30, 33, 34, 42, 43, 45, 47, Mimesis, mimetic, 3, 9, 21, 23, 56, 58, 51, 52, 73–7, 83, 87, 96, 112, 59, 69, 71, 82–3, 86, 87 117–24 Miracle, miracles, 17, 18, 21, 22, Performance 23, 24, 25, 29, 31–2, 33, 43, Chance in, 40 45–52, 60, 62, 63, 67, 71, 73, Performance art, 86, 118 79, 93, 127–8 Performance theory, 2, 15, 17, 18, Mnouchkine, Ariane, 102–3 30, 31, 69, 81, 83, 86, 125 182 INDEX

Performance—Continued Representation, representational, 11, Performer, performers, 1, 3, 5, 6, 23, 29, 30, 35, 39, 41, 45, 51, 7, 8, 11, 13, 31, 46, 50, 58, 61, 63, 66, 69, 70, 71, 86, 88, 90, 62, 65, 66, 69, 74, 82, 83, 86, 93, 94, 95, 113, 116, 121 88–91, 96, 100, 103, 112, 113, Ritual, ritualistic, 6, 17, 20, 30, 117–22, 125, 126 36, 37, 53, 57–8, 60, 63, 67, Phenomenology of, 6, 39, 86, 69–71, 80–2, 97, 107, 112, 118, 118 119, 124, 125 Performative, Performativity, 3, 14, Rogerson, Margaret, 81, 93, 94 28, 30, 31, 36, 38, 41, 42, 45, Rokem, Freddie, 106 50, 52, 53, 57, 58–60, 65–7, 71, 76, 78, 81–3, 102, 106, Schechner, Richard, 21, 25, 56–7, 69 111–13 Schreyer, Lothar, (Crucifixion), 107–8 Personne, 5, 6 Semiotics, 39, 52, 69 Platea, 12, 65 Shakespeare, William, 8–12, 13, 35 Play analysis, 34 Sheingorn, Pamela, 66, 112, 113, Players, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 33, 40, 42, 156 n. 21 43, 57, 91, 92, 114 Sidney, Sir Philip, An Apology for Playfulness, 41, 57, 64 Poetry, 8, 12–13 Postmedieval attitudes to medieval Sign, signs, signification, signifier, 3, theatricality, 8–14 4, 5, 8, 12, 14, 18, 22, 29, 31, Potentiality, 2, 25, 26 39, 51, 52, 56, 66, 67–73, 77, Preaching, preacher, 19, 34, 37, 40, 82, 83, 85, 91, 92, 93, 106, 42, 43, 57–8, 62, 67, 70, 107, 108, 111–13, 115, 117, 71, 82 124, 125 Presence, 1, 3, 5, 6, 39, 40, 42, 44, 56, Simultaneity, 7–8, 11, 14, 56, 57–67, 63, 65, 82, 86, 87, 93, 98, 112, 71, 82, 85, 114, 126 116, 121 Spectatorship, (reception theory), 1, 5, Silence as, 120–1 6, 10, 13, 19, 22, 27–9, 33, 41, Puppet, puppet theatre, 94, 97 46, 50, 52, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 73–8, 81–3, 87, 89, 90–1, Quem Queritis, 63 95–6, 98, 102, 109, 113, 117, 118, 119, 124 Realness, 21, 22, 23, 32, 33, 50, 52, Speech-act, 38, 89, 98 67–73, 91, 121 Sponsler, Claire, 24, 158 n. 41 Records of Early English Drama Stations, 4, 42, 96, 120, 123 (REED), 4 Stein, Peter, 101–2 Recreation, recreational, 22, 30, 34, Storytelling, 90 58, 59, 60, 61, 68 Street Scenes, 1, 14, 85, 96, 114, 115, Religious theatre, 1, 2, 3, 14, 15, 17, 124 18, 21, 39, 41, 53–8, 60, 62, Street, 1, 2, 4, 8, 37, 39, 65, 85, 87, 65, 69, 74, 81–3, 86–7, 91, 96, 108, 114–16, 121, 124, 125 101, 107, 111, 114, 120, 121, Street theatre, 5, 6, 20, 85, 121, 122 124–6 Summer games, 20, 40, 121 Repetition, repetitive, 4, 41, 42, 47, “somergame,” 40, 41, 42–5, 47, 85, 98, 108 49, 118 INDEX 183

Taymor, Julie, (Lion King), 11 39, 40, 41, 45, 47, 49, 51, 66, Theatrum Mundi, 124 76, 77, 81, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, Total theatre, total acting, 3, 6, 14, 67, 93, 95, 96, 108, 113, 115, 116, 73, 83, 85, 86, 115–24 121, 123, 124 Turner, Victor, 25 Episodes in Twycross, Meg, and Sarah Carpenter, Abraham and Isaac, 39 91, 92, 95 Adam and Even in Eden, 95, 97–8 The Annunciation and Visitation, Violence, violent, 8, 26, 27, 31, 34, 38, 109 36, 41, 46, 47, 65, 83, 87, 112, The Assumption, 88–9 117, 118, 120, 121 The Building of the Ark, 7, 113 Voice, 4, 5, 7, 35, 47, 56, 57, 59, 60, Cain and Abel, 154–5 n. 9 61–4, 82, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, Christ before Annas and Caiaphas, 94, 124 45, 46, 47–8, 49, 120 Christ before Herod, 120, 152 n. 44 Wenzel, Siegfried, 40 The Creation of Adam and Eve, 95, Work, works, werkis, 11, 17, 20, 32, 96–7 33, 41, 46, 51, 52, 64, 65, 67, The Creation to the Fifth Day, 90, 69, 77, 79, 113, 119, 121 95 The Crucifixion, 6, 7, 28, 30, 76, Yerushalmi, Rina, 102, 103–6 77, 85, 112, 120–4 York craft guilds The Death of Christ, 76 Armourers, 95, 99 The Entry to Jerusalem, 7, Bakers, 113 159 n. 46 Bowers and Fletchers, 45–9 The Expulsion, 95, 99–100 Butchers, 76 That Fall of the Angels, 27, 87–8, Cardmakers, 95, 96 89–90 Coopers, 95 The Fall of Man, 95, 98–9 Curriers, 45–9, 93 [Fergus], 26 Fullers, 95 The Flood, 7, 34–7, 46, 113 Girdlers and Nailers, 146 n. 14 Joseph’s Trouble about Mary, 34, Mercers, 90 37–8, 108–12 Pewterers and Founders, 108 The Last Judgment, 27 Pinners, 41, 77 The Last Supper, 113 Plasterers, 95 The Nativity, 38, 111 Shipwrights, 113 The Slaughter of the Innocents, Skinners, 159 n. 46 146 n. 14 York cycle, York plays, 3, 4, 5, 7, 14, The Transfiguration, 45–6, 47, 19, 20, 26, 27, 31, 34, 36, 37, 48–51, 93