Image Of Man In The Morality Play

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

Victoria Lukanova

Instructor: Dr. Georgi Niagolov

Course: Medieval and Renaissance Literature

Winter Term 2012/13

The Image of Man in the Morality Play: Mankind

Medieval drama constitutes a large and inseparable part of the cultural and social life of the time. It serves the purposes of entertainment and instruction, of affirming the existing status quo and of subtly undermining it by questioning some of its principles and practices. In any case the drama of the period is a tool for exerting control as well as for bestowing a feeling of relative freedom, and as such it is equally indispensable for the peasant, the lord and the Church. Before reaching the magnitude of the Shakespearean plays, the English theatre underwent a long way of development beginning with the somewhat crude mumming performances and liturgical plays, strictly embedded in the frame of the Church, going through the more permissive mystery plays and rounding off with the individual and secular approach of the morality plays. Without each of these preliminary stages the status and quality of the nascent Renaissance drama would have been unthinkable. What is more, each of these stages points to a phase in the development of human thought and ideology and marks the path from Medieval to Renaissance man.

My aim in this essay will be to highlight the image of man in one of the above stages of spiritual and cultural evolution, namely the image of man as seen within the scope of the morality play. I will try to show that in the context of Mankind, man is presented as an oscillation between good and evil and between virtue and vice, and it is a matter of choice which of these poles he will opt for. In this respect, despite the obvious moral message in accordance with the norms of the genre, we can discern the first features of the early modern man – the man faced with the freedom of choice.

Although for its most part Mankind conforms to the conventional plot structure of the morality play, it displays an unusual originality as far as language and staging are concerned. The plotline evolves according to the traditional allegorical scheme of the period where the main protagonist is tempted into sin by the devil, but after a period of remorse for his moral weakness and a subsequent repentance, he is saved by the mercy of God. Basically the plot revolves around the battle between vice and virtue for man’s soul and it is through his own downfall that he realizes that real happiness does not lie in the earthly ephemeral pleasures typified by the Flesh, the World and the Devil (here presented as New Guise, Nought and Nowadays), but in the eternity of the soul, which could be achieved only through virtuous life and in compliance with the religious laws and the Christian creed. As far as the formal features of the composition are concerned, these have been preserved in Mankind so that the didactic function of the morality play remains intact.

On the other hand, however, this piece of medieval drama exhibits some strong deviations from the established model of the genre. Its most striking feature is the great dynamics of the action achieved by the relatively small number of the cast, as compared to that of other plays, as well as its palpable liveliness and theatricality. Indeed, the play is considered the "liveliest" and most "theatrical" of the moralities of that age (Walker, 2000) which, as Prof. Mincoff comments, is indicative of the way in which English drama was evolving – towards a more professional, secular and original approach (Mincoff,1998). The strict rigidity of language and performance have given way to a more natural, accessible, and eventually more entertaining staging of the play where the audience are not mere passive spectators about to be instructed in the moral principles of life, but are actively involved in the performance, by being addressed both collectively as in Mercy’s speech at the beginning "O ye soverens that sytt and ye brothern that stonde ryght uppe,//" (line 29) or a few lines later by Mischief who invites them to: "Onschett yowr lokke and take an halpenye.//" (line 52) [1] . Later in the play certain members of the audience are even called by name, a device which caters both for a comic effect and for certain implicatures, referring to their moral and social status of the quoted individuals. It seems that the whole nature and idea of theatre slowly begin to change, its function is no longer so much to moralise and instruct as it is to entertain and provoke an active participation and interpretation through such techniques as ridicule or questioning of dogmatic norms and beliefs. An example of the latter is found at the very beginning of the play where Mischief undermines the seriousness and validity of Mercy’s homiletic speech by directly abusing him verbally: "Yowr wytt ys lytyll, yowr hede ys mekyll, ye are full of predycacyon.//" (line 47) and challenging the rationality of what he preaches: " ‘Corn servit bredibus, chaffe horsibus, straw fyrybusque.’//Thys ys as moche to say, to yowr leude undyrstondynge,//As the corn shall serve to brede at the nexte bakynge.//" (lines 57-59) Undoubtedly, the authority of the vice and his role in the play are such that they could not thoroughly disrupt the overall didactic purpose of the play, still a slight ironical wink is made at the teachings of the Church which begin to sound somewhat outdated at the dawn of a new age of thinking. This understanding of the play is reinforced by the usage of language and stage behaviour which were to appeal to the larger masses.

With time drama became increasingly vernacular and popular in its nature, a fact which suggests its greater influence over the people. In Mankind this is illustrated in the sharp distinction between the language of the Church (as represented by Mercy) and that of its usurpers (Mischief and the other vices). The first is markedly solemn, stiff and authoritative, whereas the latter is bawdy, raucous, cheeky and peppered with scatological references, whose effect is highly humourous and exhilarating. Together with the numerous pranks, mischievous tricks and physical technicalities, language becomes a device to win the audience over and to divert its attention from the more serious matters of the sermons and the religious teachings of the day. This is not to say that the morality play has lost its formal function, but that it has gained a new dimension which reflects on the changing nature of man – man appears to have become more bold and independent in his interpretation of the world and his place in it; he has been given the right to choose which way to take – the righteous or the sinful and this idea reverberates the philosophy of the emerging age of Humanism where man is perceived in his intermediary, but central position in the Universe and thus incorporates both divine and pernicious qualities and it is a matter of individual choice which ones he will cultivate. [2] In this sense one can also apply the Bachtinian principle of synthesis to the nature of man which implies that man harbours both good and evil and constantly oscillates between the two. Ultimately, it is the job of the Church to steer man to the more virtuous principles.

On another level the play invites the reader to place the ever-shifting nature of man in the carnivalesque spirit of the popular culture of the time. The disorder of the human soul can be perceived in the light of the general upsetting of balance in the medieval world at certain times of the year – vice overturns virtue, bad language suppresses formal speech, boisterous activities and crude primitive needs replace obedience and decency; there is a sense of chaos and permissiveness which violates the established order of society, mocks and questions authority and disrespects the norms peaceful existence. Such practices were to a great extent licensed by the Church and the state and functioned as an outlet for any accumulated discontent and as symbolic preparation for a new cycle in the religious, as well as biological life of the people. As it is, Mankind was most probably staged in the days between Christmas and Lent and can be interpreted as mirroring a period of mirth and joy when the order of normal life gets turned upside down, so that it can be restored again with the resurrection of Christ and the salvation of man that is to follow; further, it can be seen as celebrating the end of Winter and the coming of new life in Spring. [3] Such an interpretation of the play would not be amiss if we consider the various grotesque elements in it connected to body and verbal language. In my opinion, these elements are indicative of the birth of a more liberating understanding of the world and the ways in which it operates, and again confirm the heterogeneous and consequently unique nature of man. Laughter and entertainment start walking hand in hand once again, as was the custom in the Antiquity and it seems that this new concept of drama – as both instructive and entertaining, marks the end of a somewhat dark and dour period in the history of man and the arrival of optimism, individualism and more personal freedom. As a result of these tendencies, man emerges as the quintessence of the divine, embodying seemingly incompatible principles of good and bad, sublime and primitive, earthly and heavenly, but which ultimately make up the image of one whole complete being.

Using as a starting point the text of the morality play Mankind this paper made and attempt to outline the new direction which English drama takes at the close of the 15th century. In its evolution theatre gradually begins to take a more secular and individualistic approach, outstepping the boundaries of the Church and relying increasingly on creativity and originality. These changes reflect the growing complexity of man and his ever expanding knowledge of the world around him and within him in anticipation of the complex, multi-faceted image he is to acquire in the Renaissance.

Literature used:

Primary texts:

http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/teams/ashfr.htm

http://research.uvu.edu/mcdonald/3610/mankind.html

Secondary literature:

Mincoff, Marco, A History of English Literature, Pleiada, Sofia, 1998.

Happé, Peter, English Drama Before Shakespeare, Longman, London&N. Y., 1999

Walker , Greg (ed.), Medieval Drama: an Antology, Blackwell, 2000

Richards, Christine and Johnson, Jackie, Medieval Drama, Macmillan, 1991

Styan , J.L., The English Stage. A History of Drama and Performance, Cambrigde University Press, Cambridge, 1996