Performances On and Off Stage in “Fulgens and Lucres”

Vasilios Pavlounis
998307158
ENG331 H1S
Professor Matthew Sergi
February 17, 2014

Performances On and Off Stage in “Fulgens and Lucres”

The characters A and B are not typically found in plays like “Fulgens and Lucres.” The comedic duo disrupts the play’s relatively formulaic love story by acting unpredictably. They occasionally change their own behavior and actions based on the audience and they are unusually self-aware. This essay will focus specifically on their first appearances and the dialogue they share about performance. It will build off Bowers’ argument that that A and B “freely create themselves from the audience through the play in their moment-to-moment comic action and performance” (Bowers 45) by looking at their odd balance of artificiality and sincerity, and how their reliance on the audience is based on a sense of flattery. A and B’s existence speaks about what it means to have an identity. They are made for and from the audience, yet somehow they hold more free will and personality than any other character in the play. I will argue that A and B’s identity-through-performance is a satirical critique on a society that values flattering constructs over authenticity, and in the end encourages audiences to accept these constructs.

A and B’s meeting is the first indicator that performance happens both intentionally and unintentionally. A assumes that B is an actor and B takes offense. When apologizing A insists his error was caused because “nowadays / a man shall not lightly / know a player from another man” (Medwall 55-57), offering a pleasant joke to cover up his mistake. The meta-joke does not just rely on the lackluster flattery and irony. It is also humourous because A’s excuse works and sharply criticizes society. Bowers claims that the misunderstood “Tudor self-fashioning” is an example that allows A and B to “convey new forms of Tudor competition and performance” (Bowers 5); this Tudor competition revolves around maintaining one’s appearance and the performance is how a person manages it. A’s comment suggests that there are many men dressing extravagantly to seem more distinguished, thus participating in the competition. Dressing like a dandy does not necessarily make a person cultured but it does help create the illusion. However, without the proper knowledge and social graces the clothes are just clothes. A person can be exposed as a fraud, an actor, and in this light it clear why B takes such offense.

The conversation displays a strange dichotomy: to be addressed as an actor is insulting, but looking like an actor (or at least dressing well enough to belong on stage) is desired. Not only that, but being mistook for an actor is aggressively insulting, as seen when B declares that A “speakest in derision / to like [him] thereto” (Medwall 47-48). B is a common man so the insult is not an attack on his class. Rather, he is offended by what an actor does. An actor plays, puts on different clothes, and acts like someone else; this frightens B. He fears that he is being accused of insincerity in his apparel and so he becomes defensive, reinforcing that he has “never a dell” (52) been a player. Of course B’s uptightness is also a joke because he is clearly an actor to the audience. However, his position stays the same and the greater commentary still stands. B is uncomfortable admitting that he has elements of artificiality and is playing a role in society, and the irony and fact that he is a parody of himself is lost on him.

The most direct commentary of societal performance comes during the conversation about the morality of the play itself:
          A.  Yea, but truth may not be said always,
           For sometime it causeth grudge and despite.
          B.  Yea, goeth the world so nowaday
           That a man must say the crow is white?      
          A.  Yea, that he must, by God all-might.
           He must both lie and flatter now and then
           That casteth him to dwell among worldly men.
           In some courts such men shall most win!
          B.  Yea, but as for the parish where I abide
           Such flattery is abhorred as deadly sin. (Medwall162-171)
Secretly A has already won a small battle to support his point; this is because, as noted earlier, B falls victim to A’s flattery. Even though he is against using dishonest compliments for gain, B still succumbs to them—as most do—because of his ego and A’s acting ability. A admits that he sees value in false flattery and it is because of this acceptance he is able to act undetected for the most part. Lying and flattering both in conversation and in the play is mandatory to A, but Bowers asserts that A and B’s characters are “in opposition to the histrionics of the truly powerful” (Bowers 48) who flatter and were flattered. In bringing up the question the duo satirize the ideal Roman past that the play sometimes romanticises. But A and B are not to be worshipped in its place by the audience, and instead come off as clowns for the better portion of the play.

The above passage openly questions false flattery’s morality and whether it should be encouraged. B’s main problem is the sinful nature of the exercise. Calling a crow white is not only a lie but also a bastardising of Christian beliefs. It is a misinterpretation the truth. While in theory it makes the bird appear more dove-like or Christ-like, the truth is still lost and the symbol of a white dove is weakened. And yet, a flattering lie is what brought A and B together and prevented a possible conflict. There is a moral grey area that becomes less defined depending on how well a person acts. Furthermore, the consequences seem to only be spiritual. It is a sin in theory but not in practice, and the play pokes fun at anyone who does not admit to committing these small sins regularly. And if not the flatterer, accepting flattering lies can only inflates one’s ego and encourage others to use the technique more. Perhaps A and B’s conversation is used to keep the play humble, as they are able to bring new life and cracks to the statically beautiful Rome. While pompous occasionally, the love plot can never be taken completely seriously with two clowns always interrupting on the sidelines.

One may argue that because “Fulgens and Lucres” ends in a marriage based on sincerity that the world does not encourage lying, but the story of A and B is really the play’s main plot. They are the real play, the real attraction, and the real depth. The marriage plot, on the other hand, is simply the flattering lie that steers the play away from being witty slapstick. A and B are characters created for the audience and in essence are mirrors and therefore critiques of the audience. Bowers puts it best when he states: “the message [of the play] is the medium of humanist performance itself” (Bowers 57). It is an experiment in audience interaction and arguably much more of a satire than a sermon. It is even B who when confronted about the play’s morality asks “why should [the audience] care” (Medwall 178). No one has a relation to Rome and everyone performs now and then. In truth the closest connection between the audience and the story, the present and the past, are the timeless A and B. With those two in charge nothing can be certain, leaving the moral meaning of the play truly up to the audience.

A and B embody and satirize flattery in complex ways that reflect social norms. Their first encounter reflects the difficulties of sincerity and the morally ambiguous performances people uphold through life. What they are created for is to unknowingly entertain the audience, and it is their earnestness in their confused identity that makes them loveable; this disconnect also makes the absurd characters relatable. Their identity is familiar to audiences who also struggle with false flattery and constant performance. But not only that, the audience also becomes more like actors in the play because they are engaging with the performers. Bowers writes: “look around yourselves, the play seems to say, you are the show and together as actors we provide the action” (Bowers 50). It is a joyous notion, and one that encourages people to drop their guards and to embrace their competence as performers. Perhaps it is in these moments when the sense of artificiality is heightened, charades are exposed, and people relate to clowns, that sincerity is real.

Works Cited

Bowers, Rick. "How to Get from A to B: Fulgens and Lucres, Histrionic Power, and the     ……… Invention of the English Comic Duo." Early Theatre 14.1 (2011): 45-……… 59. DigitalCommons. Web. 30 Jan. 2014.
Medwall, Henry. "Fulgens and Lucres." The Broadview Anthology of Medieval Drama. Ed. ……….Christina Marie. Fitzgerald and John T. Sebastian. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview, 2013. ……….195-435. Print.