Chris Reidak
Professor Matthew Sergi
ENG331
13 February 2014
Gaius
as an Aggressive Character in Fulgens and Lucres
Fulgens and Lucres
is the first known piece of English drama to circulate in print. The interlude
was likely performed at festive occasions as a source of live entertainment (Medwall
392). This should not be overlooked, because as the first form of secular drama
printed in England, versions are likely to vary across transcriptions from live
performances. For example, Britt Mize implies in his version that lines are
missing from a modern interpretation of the text (Medwall 417). This is indicated
by patterns of rhyme and sense in the language that suggest that there are
words missing from the transcription (Medwall 417). Mize also wrote Lexical and Textual Studies on Fulgens and
Lucres, an article in which he analyzes the use of language and possible
meanings that vary across different versions of the interlude. Mize evaluates
the use of language across these interpretations, citing the source print to
suggest a reading of the text that is more linguistically appropriate than
others. Mize’s article acknowledges a disparity between the meaning of the term
“checkmate” that can arguably restrict the interpretation of the drama to one
particular reading. He suggests that the term should be read in a way that is
based on Gaius being a virtuous character. However, Gaius’s virtue is capable
of being challenged in a way that allows for a different reading of the term
“checkmate.” I will argue in this essay that through a close reading of the language
in the play, Gaius Flaminius’s nobility of character can be challenged in a way
that makes him appear dishonest and aggressive.
Gaius Flaminius is considered a virtuous man in Fulgens and Lucres. By Character B,
Gaius is called honourable through his “great wisdom and virtuous behaviour” (Medwall
397). Reinforcing his nobility, Lucres describes him as “the more noble man,
sith he this wise, by mean of his virtue, to honor doth arise” (Medwall 432).
In defending his nobility, Gaius even explains that the title of nobleness “growth
of long-continued virtue” (Medwall 431). In the case of an interlude, which in
this case holds a strong moral element between the dichotomy of virtue and
vice, Gaius is explicitly presented as a character who is more noble and
virtuous than his counterpart, Cornelius. Conversely, Cornelius is described as
being a great dishonour (Medwall 431). It is important to make note of these
superficial characterizations of nobility and licentiousness, in order to
deconstruct the language and draw interpretations of the text that may draw
contrary understandings of the characters. Gaius’s language can be indicative
of qualities that are not at all virtuous, and allows for a reading of his
character that could have him appear aggressive and dishonest.
In his article, Mize analyzes various interpretations of
the term “checkmate.” Cornelius says that Gaius “among noble gentlemen, playest
checkmate” (Medwall 429). Mize suggests that there are definitions of the term
that differ from each other. One possibility is that the term can imply “defeat
utterly” or “frustrate” (checkmate). An alternative suggestion is that a Tudor
use of the word can mean “to bring to ruin” (Mize, 785). Mize offers a point
that these destructive definitions are not apt, because they do not follow the
less aggressive character of Gaius. He states, “none of these explanations,
with their implications of aggression and disorder, especially fits Gaius’s
character or comportment, even in Cornelius’s negative portrayal of him” (Mize,
785). This quote seems to suggest that Gaius is simply incapable of being
offensive, because of his apparent passivity. It appears that Mize is
attempting to make an assumption of what Medwall intended in his writing. He assumes
an interpretation of the term that is based on one particular reading of Gaius;
however, if one analyzed Gaius’s language in such a way that challenged his
character and nobility, it could negate the one particular reading in favor of
contrary definitions. This is to enforce the idea that one should avoid making
conclusions of lexical meanings based on an assumption of what is supposedly
true in a text, namely that Gaius is a virtuous character who lacks aggression.
In the final argument between Gaius and Cornelius for
Lucres’s love, Gaius opens his defence by saying:
“For
loath would I be as any creature
To
boast of mine own deeds: it was never my guise.
On
that other side, loath I am to make any reporture
Of
this man’s folly or him to despise” (Medwall 430).
Gaius then
proceeds to verbally attack Cornelius, in an attempt to reveal him as a vain,
hedonistic brute, who is not at all noble. This is done by describing the
latter’s life as being “voluptuous and so bestial in following of every lust
sensual” (Medwall 430). This quote is just as insolent as Cornelius berating
Gaius for not being of noble birth. He also points out Corenlius’s “sloth, his
cowardy, and other excess, his mind disposed to all uncleanness” (Medwall 430).
Gaius appears to contradict his own virtuous character here, and his loutish
lambasting shows it. He transitions from being a passive person, who is clearly
regretful that he has to be rude to Cornelius, to barraging the latter
character with insults. The contradictions create similarities between Gaius
and Cornelius, the latter being criticized by Gaius as being so dishonourable
that he shouldn’t be allowed to live in the country (Medwall 431). Drawing the
similarities between the characters’ mutual insolence appears contrary to the
moral conflict attributed to interlude drama. The didactic message of nobility
of character prevailing over nobility of birth is challenged by the scornful
wording attributed to both of their speeches, as neither appears any more
virtuous than the other through their choices of language. There are similarities
made explicit by Gaius pointing out “that both he and I came of Adam and Eve” (Medwall
431). The similarity to Cornelius affords a possibility that Gaius could have a
more aggressive nature. This could warrant a definition of “checkmate” that is
contrary to what Mize considers appropriate. The contrary reading of Gaius as
an aggressive character allows the interpretation of “checkmate” to be
construed as being more offensive.
Gaius
also appears less generous than Cornelius in attempting to win Lucres’s
affection. Cornelius offers Lucres a life spent in “ease and pleasant idleness”
(Medwall 429). Conversely, Gaius refuses to offer Lucres any gifts, simply
stating that “it is the thing that I never used” (Medwall 404). It may appear
that Gaius is simply offering his honesty in place of material goods, but Gaius
may simply be too cheap to offer Lucres any gifts, a quality that is not at all
virtuous. It isn’t the case that he simply cannot afford them, because he has
the money to pay for character A’s services in helping with an assertive courting
of Lucres (Medwall 406). Mize makes assumptions of Gaius’s character in a way
that ignores his potential to be unethical and aggressive. Gaius demonstrates
qualities that cause him to appear insolent and cheap, as opposed to virtuous.
These qualities allow the word “checkmate” to be read in a way that follows
these negative qualities, challenging Mize’s reading of Gaius’s passivity.
The language used by Gaius in Fulgens and Lucres allows an
interpretation of “checkmate” that suggests that he is an aggressive character.
This runs contrary to the ideas of nobility and passivity expressed by Mize in
his article (Mize, 785). It is easy to read his character in a way that appears
contrary to his supposed virtue. His insolence manifests a similarity between
himself and Cornelius that calls his own virtue into question. Perhaps he is
not the gentle, honest person that is praised by the characters in the
interlude; rather, he can be seen as an aggressive, stingy trickster, who is
capable of manipulating the other characters into assuming his nobility by
means of his apparent good deeds. Making assumptions as to which interpretation
is correct limits the versatility of the language in drawing diverse readings
of the material that conflict with others. Needless to say, these contrary
readings cannot simply be ignored because the text material is still capable of
suggesting their aptness. I argue that Gaius’s language is capable of weakening
Mize’s claim that he is not an aggressive character. The reading of Cornelius’s
“checkmate” that suggests this aggression is nevertheless relevant and entirely
possible.
Works
Cited
Medwall, Henry.
“Fulgens and Lucres.” The Broadview
Anthology of Medieval Drama. Ed. Britt
Mize, Christina M. Fitzgerald, John T. Sebastian.
Peterbrough: Broadview Press, 2012. 392-435. Print.
Mize, Britt.
"Lexical and Textual Studies on Fulgens and Lucres." English
Studies 93.7 (2012):
775-808. Web. 9 Feb. 2014
"Checkmate,
v.". OED Online. December 2013. Oxford University Press. 9 February 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment