Fulgens and Lucrece: Classism within the “play”

Gerrit van de Riet

Prof. Matthew Sergi

English 331H1S

February 16, 2014

Fulgens and Lucrece: Classism within the “play”

Characters A & B in Medwall’s Fulgens and Lucrece generate a comic critique through their actions and through their wordplay; the most notable of word with which the production interacts with is the word “play.” Kent Cartwright in “Dramatic Theory and Lucres' ‘Discretion’: The Plays of Henry Medwall” pushes the general distinction of class in the play, but I will assert that this distinction is focused by “play” (Cartwright, 2009). I will argue that the meanings through the word play challenge the boundary surrounding the class divisions. The blurring distinctions surrounding audience and actor, the ambiguous starting point of the play, and the equally indefinite ending of the performance all extend the interplay between the different meanings of “play” in the play and how they affect class roles.

From the beginning of the performance A & B are not formally distinguished from audience or participant. As the play progressed through, these characters initiate interactions between the players and audience. This invites the audience to be equally involved in participation as in being the spectator of the play. “Play” here refers to the carrying out or practice of an action in order to perform or execute (Play, v.5). From the beginning of the performance it appears to have no beginning. This contestation forms an awkward liminal space where the beginning is both the beginning, while it is also explicitly argued that it is not the beginning. The argument is augmented through the tail-rhyme initialized through A&B’s dialogue. This rhyme scheme is a less formal one, connoting that these performers social status is less than the characters operating in rhyme royal.

This class separation is strengthened by the fact that the lower class characters not only receive no name, but also receive no title. Their names are not even attributed to their trade, jobs, or characteristics as is exemplified through other contemporary texts; the characters of A&B are merely letter assignments indicating their existence in the liminal space of both audience and actor. Without any indictors attached to their title these roles could be filled by any member of the court, meaning indicators of their class must be present through their dialogue and action.

“A presents himself as a spectator; B turns into a kind of prologue; Fulgens begins the ‘formal’ play. To B's decision to find office with Cornelius, A objects, ‘thou wyll distroy all the play!’, but B enigmatically responds, ‘Nay, nay, | The play began never till now!’ (1. 364, 365–6).² B's pun on ‘play’ (as both drama and game) implies that the plebeians will figure in the main plot—and, indeed, their improvisation will interject this already told tale with a countervailing sense of contingency.” (Cartwright, 2009)

A chooses to assert his liminal status on to the audience by asking to participate.  A also pushes them self into a spectator role, and by doing so A also initiates the audience to be a player in the play. By playing a role in the play, the audience enact another utterance of “play.” This play is the “activity engaged in for enjoyment or recreation rather than for a serious or practical purpose” (Play, v.6a). The acts of merrymaking suggested in the text then submit that some interaction from the audience was to be expected through the dialogical repetition of “play” from A & B. Several instances A or B suggest performances which would illicit direct involvement from the audience, such as a chant or a jig. These amalgamating actions would suggest that characters A & B come from a comparable class as the members of the banquet halls. All members of the hall would join in on the jig or song, thus breaking the social roles in the hall and creating a common baseline for which all classes could join in on the merrymaking. However, a division between A&B and the rest of the audience is formed through derogatory actions, exemplified through the farte pryke in cule initiated by B.

This action was not an uncommon one for banquet performances, as it often provided an interesting jest; however, this is an immensely degrading act. The initiation of such an uncouth action adds a level of embarrassment which functions as a method of hazing for the players of A & B. It can be said then that although the players were of rank to be in the house, the hazing indicates that they were either on the lower side of class or part of a younger crowd that would make such a high level embarrassment acceptable. This both shows that even at the banquet a range of classes were present, and that classism was present through the action of the play. This heavy involvement from the audience in tandem with the presence of actions which distinguishes members of the audience between classes in hopes for embarrassment creates the presence of a classist undertone.

Though the plot shows breaking with these traditions, with an inherent moral asking to look beyond class boundaries, characters A & B antagonize this moral high ground. Just as they perverted the roles of the actors to the point that the play had several beginnings, they did the same for the end of the play. Before the halfway point we have A drawing the audience out of the play by mentioning that their duration is still long, and that the audience has “not fully dyned” (1456, F&L). To this A insists that there be more of an assertion on the part of the actors and ushers to make the remaining duration of the play the most enjoyable. “And therfore we shall the matter forbere/ And make a poynt evyn here/ Lest we excede a mesure,/ And we shall do oure labour and trewe entent/ For to play the remenant/ At my lordis pleasure.” (Medwall,1466-71) This furthers the desire to execute the play for someone of a higher class. The lord here holds some level of sway here, as his amusement is what drives the plot. Thought the physical actions and plot of the play promote a message of class-less unity, the undertones in A & B’s wordplay suggest that class lines are a truly omnipresent force. And it is this need to appease the higher classes which could suggest the need for multiple iterations of an ending.

“The conclusion of this play has devolved from a senatorial proclamation, to a public pronouncement, to a written private communication, to an oral message given to a servant who garbles what he hears and who refuses to deliver it anyway: how can the content of this message not disappear as the integrity of its delivery collapses? …Certainly the Lucres story does not follow the ending promised in the ‘prologue’; indeed, it may not complete itself at all. The conclusion has become increasingly contingent, and finally wholly dependent, upon a jumble-headed scallywag who refuses to cooperate.” (Cartwright, 2009)

The ending is played with by these uncooperative forces to ensure the enjoyment of the lord and his court. These varied opportunities for ending present with the possibility of the play being cut off at any instance. The play could be extended or cut short depending on a range of things. Being able to play with the play’s duration grants a unique pliability which needed to be afforded to the actors to suitably entertain the guests over the period of the banquet. This suggestion is opened up mostly due to the flexibility in the word play of play, as it is through the dialogue surrounding this that we see scenes that grant an extension to the production.

Through the antiques of A & B we are granted layering to the plot of Fulgens and Lucrece, this spreads the attention of the play away from the plot back to the attention of the court as it frequently references itself to highlight certain tasks. It is through the play’s self-awareness that we are granted the exploration of class, which is performed through the actions and word play presented by A & B. These instances surrounding the word play of “play” not only presents as a way to highlight the entertainment value of the play, as well as the ply’s status as a play, but also presents an awareness of status and class.

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

Work Cited

Cartwright, Kent. "Dramatic Theory and Lucres' ‘Discretion’: The Plays of Henry Medwall." Oxford Handbooks Online. 2012-09-18. Oxford University Press. Date of access 16 Feb. 2014, <http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199205882.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199205882-e-003>.
Fitzgerald, Christina Marie., and John T. Sebastian. "Fulgens & Lucrece." The Broadview Anthology of Medieval Drama. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview, 2013. 395-420. Print.
"play, n.". OED Online. December 2013. Oxford University Press. 16 February 2014 <http://www.oed.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/view/Entry/145474?rskey=MVvZaz&result=1>."play, v.". OED Online. December 2013. Oxford University Press. 16 February 2014 <http://www.oed.com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/view/Entry/145475?rskey=MVvZaz&result=2#eid>.