A Play of Love, Wit and Science and Fulgens and Lucres
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Reviewer: prof. dr hab. Barbara Kowalik Graphic design: Paweł Łuszyński Editing: Kirk Palmer Proofreading: Team Technical editing and typesetting: Zbigniew Łaszcz Cover image: “Leaf from Antiphonary for Abbess of Sainte-Marie of Beaupre”, Walters Art Museum, Baltimore © Copyright by Uniwersytet w Białymstoku, Białystok 2016 This publication has been funded by the Faculty of Philology, University of Białystok ISBN 978-83-7431-510-4 University of Białystok Press 15–097 Białystok, ul. M. Skłodowskiej-Curie 14, (85) 745 71 20 http://wydawnictwo.uwb.edu.pl e-mail: [email protected] Printing and binding: Volumina.pl, Szczecin For my Mum, who taught me to love books and without whom I would never be who I am Table of Contents Acknowledgements ..................................................................... 9 Introduction ............................................................................... 11 I. Carnivalesque semiotics ........................................................ 19 Drama, theatre and semiotic signs ................................. 19 Carnival as a dialogic semiotic code ................................32 Carnivalesque theatre and its audiences ........................46 II. Carnivalesque dramatizations of youth in Mundus et In- fans, Youth and Wit and Science ......................................... 53 The morality play pattern ................................................53 Medieval constructions of youth ......................................58 Youth and pride in the interludes ...................................66 Rebellion against paternal virtues ..................................73 Merry-making with carnivalesque vices .........................81 Carnivalesque spaces, carnivalesque clothe ...................89 Carnivalesque degradation and rebirth ........................100 III. Carnivalesque appropriations of courtly love in A Play of Love, Wit and Science and Fulgens and Lucres .............. 113 Courtly spectacles ..........................................................113 Courtly love theorized ....................................................118 A Play of Love: courtly love debated ..............................121 Wit and Science: courtly love enacted ...........................139 Fulgens and Lucres: courtly love carnivalized .............. 151 Carnivalesque re-accentuations ....................................167 IV. Women and households: carnivalesque dialogue in Johan Johan and Godly Queene Hester ...................................... 173 Household and drama ....................................................175 Mysoginist and profeminine dialogue on women ......... 179 Carnivalesque women in medieval theatre .................. 188 The carnivalesque household in John Heywood’s Johan Johan .............................................................................. 194 The profeminine household in Godly Queen Hester ..... 209 Conclusion ............................................................................... 235 Bibliography ............................................................................ 249 Index ........................................................................................ 260 Acknowledgements This book has grown out of my PhD dissertation that I com- pleted at Warsaw University. I want to express my eternal gratitude to Prof. Barbara Kowalik, to whom I am deeply in- debted not only for her expertise knowledge, thought-provok- ing comments and critical remarks about my research, but also for her infi nite patience, unswerving support and empathy. I am grateful for the valuable and constructive feedback given by Prof. Liliana Sikorska and Prof. Małgorzata Grzegorzewska, whose insight greatly helped me in preparing the fi nal version of this book. I owe a great deal to all scholars who inspired me and with whom I had a chance to discuss the issues related to medieval drama, literature and culture during the confer- ences and seminars I attended. In particular, I would like to thank Dr. hab. Anna Czarnowus for her optimism, friendliness and inspiring remarks on medieval culture. I am also grateful to my colleagues at the Institute of Modern Languages at the University of Białystok for their encouragement and support in carrying out this project. Special thanks go to Dr. Kirk Palm- er for reading the manuscript and suggesting improvements. Needless to say, all the remaining faults are my own. Finally, I would like to thank my Mum and Dad for always encouraging me to pursue my passions and believing in my abilities, my sis- ter for offering emotional support, providing peanut butter and lifting my spirits up whenever I needed it, and my husband for his love and understanding that I tend to disappear into books. Introduction The story of the term “interlude,” or interludium, is a lengthy and confusing one. It starts with E.K. Chambers, who in his monumental The Mediaeval Stage identifi es a “typical inter- lude” as a play that “deals with a short episode in about a thou- sand lines, and could be handled in an hour or so” (Chambers 1903: 188), often to provide a dramatic interval in the course of banquets or other entertainments. Developing in the late fi fteenth and early sixteenth century, interludes are seen by Chambers as an intermediary form progressing from and even- tually replacing medieval religious drama (especially morality plays) to be fi nally followed by “the magic stage of Shakespeare” ( Chambers 1903: 181). According to Chambers, such a straight- forward evolutionary movement happens at several levels: the- matically the plays progress from religious to secular issues; spatially they migrate from churches to street markets, ban- queting halls and, fi nally, professional theatres; and in terms of acting they move from the hands of the clergy to the citizens and then to professional actors. In short, in this narrative me- dieval religious drama had to die out to give way to a truly secular humanist theatre, and the interlude is just “a kind of missing link or genetic freak of literary history, of interest only because it explained the origins of a more highly valued form of literature” ( Dunlop 2007: 3). Contemporary theories tend to dismiss such a Darwinian perspective developed by Chambers and others in the late nine- teenth and early twentieth century, favouring the view that various theatrical phenomena co-existed in the period. Yet this statement alone does not solve all the problems and the term remains muddy. Lawrence M. Clopper suggests the name in- terlude could denote a plethora of activities, many of them not related to drama at all, for example musical performances and various forms of entertainment or amusements. Moreover, he observes that as the sixteenth century continued, the phrase 12 Enter the Carnival: Carnivalesque Semiotics in Early Tudor Moral Interludes “plays and interludes” was often used as a “catch-all expression for every kind of drama” (Clopper 2001: 17). The presence of the term in the full title of a given play is not particularly help- ful in the discussion as on the one hand we have Enterlude of Youth, which on the basis of its subject matter can be classifi ed as a morality play, and on the other hand Enterlude of Godely Queene Hester, which is based on biblical narrative but in fact more concerned with secular themes. The criterion of brevity of the plays is not particularly informative either as both short debates by John Heywood and lengthy (over 4500 lines) Ane Satyre of the Thrie Estatis by Sir David Lindsay are commonly categorized as interludes. Chambers’ defi nition is repeated by Glynne Wickham (1985), who nevertheless includes both religious and secular plays in his anthology, entitled English Moral Interludes. Greg Walker (2000) perceives the interludes as a ‘subgenre’ of the morality play, again differentiating between them on the basis of wheth- er they deal with spiritual or lay matters. Other critics indi- cate performance circumstances as a more important factor for dividing the plays than the religious/secular distinction, and thus ‘stage plays’ acted out outdoors on a sort of scaffold are perceived to be different from ‘interludes’ performed indoors. This assumption is made by Katie Normington, who empha- sizes that ‘interludes’ (including e.g. Mankind and Heywood’s Play of Weather) are more ‘private’ by nature, more selective in terms of the audience, requiring fewer actors and more ‘mobile’, i.e. easily adaptable to different conditions ( Normington 2009: 113-115). In his reference guide, Darryll Grantley (2004) goes even further using the term ‘dramatic interlude’ to refer to any non-cycle drama in the period of 1300-1580 and encompassing within its scope the plays that are more traditionally designat- ed as morality plays, saint plays, farces, early history plays, and neoclassical drama; yet apart from an attempt to present a wide range of dramaturgical, technical, historical, textual or thematic perspectives, which is indeed useful for anyone inter- ested in the drama of the period, the reason for this decision Introduction 13 remains somewhat unclear. Liliana Sikorska, including in her study both moralities and interludes of 1350-1517, employs the term ‘moral play’ to refer to both religious and secular plays based on psychomachia and the pattern of man’s pilgrimage through life, and convincingly argues that all of them “refl ect the dramatized penitential ethos, . provide models of conduct, … [and] refl ect social ideologies of the times” (Sikorska 2002: 21). Even this brief, and by