Vasilios Pavlounis
998307158
ENG331H1S
Professor Matthew
Sergi
April 1, 2014
Keywords: York, Crucifixion, Pinners, Painters, Guilds
York’s Version of “The Crucifixion”
The York Corpus Christi Play, “The Crucifixion,” is
widely known to be authored by the Pinners guild. While I agree with the theory,
I will argue that the Pinner’s version of “The Crucifixion” is influenced by
the writings and behaviors of other guilds from the time. Through the origins
of the production, the structure of the play, and the circumstances that put
the Pinners in creative control, some of the more unusual aspects of the play
are revealed in REED. Both words and personality are borrowed. To clarify my arguments
I must first detail how the play was created.
“The Crucifixion” took many forms before it was
finished. Originally there were two plays owned by separate guilds: the Painters’
“The Stretching and Nailing of Christ” and the Latteners’ “The Raising of
Christ on the Mountain” (Johnston 676-7). The Stainers aided the Painters and
the Pinners aided the Latteners (676). Unfortunately these plays have since been
lost, retired and scrapped well before the York pageants stopped being
performed; this is because the two plays merged into one for the sake of time. In
a memorandum book passage, dated 31 January, 1422, it is noted that “the matter
of both pageants could be shown together in one pageant for the shortening of
the play rather profitably,” resulting in “the pageant of the Painters and
Stainers [being] thoroughly removed” (722-3) and the creative responsibility for
the new play falling mostly on the Pinners. With only one guild in charge the
Pinners have been attributed full authorship in the modern day. However, all
York plays are collaborative projects and the three other guilds did assist in
some ways.
The three other guilds, along with the Pinners, supported
the pageant financially. Some proof is found in the Bakers’ books which shows
that they regularly “receyced of the paynters and pynners for there paygyant
rent” (364, 376, 382, 384, 392, 428, 431); more records like these are also
recorded, some concerning the Stainers and Latteners as well. And yet, although
many years in the future, there is a glimpse of disparity seen in a brief note:
“Pageant money: Painters complain that they pay more than Pinners. Both to pay
same amount” (676). For many years the Painters felt cheated in the costs they
were paying even though they were not performing or writing the play. There is
some unevenness between guilds, and the same type of asymmetry is found in the
play itself.
“The Crucifixion”
has a strict ababababcdcd rhyming structure that supports the theory that it is
mostly written by scratch. It is unknown whether the Painters and Latteners used
the same scheme in their plays but it is unlikely that they both did,
especially considering how varied the York plays are. If one of their plays did
use the same rhyming structure the odds are in favour of “The Raising of Christ
on the Mountain” because the Pinners had also worked on it. Regardless, the Pinners
were instructed to perform the “matter of the speeches which were previously
performed” (723) in their play, not to perform the actual speeches themselves.
However, this does not mean that the new Pinner writers were not inspired by
the past plays or that they did not simply adjust certain lines. The Pinners would
be very familiar with the plays and the stark contrast between the soldiers’
and Jesus’s speech suggests that they did borrow elements from the former productions.
The Jesus character speaks twice in the play but never
addresses the soldiers or their actions specifically; this suggests that his
lines may have been lifted directly from the Latteners’ previous play because, judging
from its title, it also dealt with him being raised on the cross. In Jesus’s
first dialogue he refers to being “buxom” (“Crucifixion” 51) after the soldiers
orders him to “come forth” (45). While his words are related to the soldiers’
commands, the commands themselves are not necessary for Jesus’s dialogue. He
would have been buxom regardless. In Jesus’s second speech he asks God to
forgive the “these men” claiming that “what they work wot they not” (260-1); this
line is also easily interchangeable with other crucifixion plays, so-much-so
that it is actually a Bible quote from Luke 23.34. Those two lines are only
sections that might be dependent on the soldiers’ actions, and yet, even with
these small moments, Jesus’s dialogue could be transferred into any public
crucifixion play and probably still fit. It is clear that the soldiers’ lines
are original to the Pinners’ play because they rhyme while being incredibly intertwined.
Jesus’s lines, on the other hand, are in chunks. The choice makes sense
stylistically—Jesus is more spiritually whole and his words reflect that—but
the blocks of text may have just been an easy carryover from the past.
Once the Pinners were told to merge the two plays and
create “The Crucifixion” the leading Painters and Stainers specifically stated
that they would “pledge themselves and their successors of their crafts,
provided only that the said craftsmen of the Painters and Stainers do not
meddle in the pageant of the Pinners or in their accounts hereafter in any way”
(Johnston 724). The Painters’ refusal to provide any artistic help is odd and
their motives are unknown. All that is certain is that there was a disinterest
by the Painters to continue working on the pageant. It was possibly for
financial reasons, and how the time-commitment would cut into their normal work
hours. There is also the chance that the Painters were upset that their pageant
was cut, which, although attributed to time-management, is partially a
reflection on the play’s lackluster quality. Or perhaps the Painter and the Pinner
guilds simply did not want to work with each other. It is all speculation with
the only certainty being that the Painters quit. However, based on the soldiers’
characters in “The Crucifixion,” it is very possible that the Pinners felt
negatively about the Painters final decision and decided to represent the
Painters in their play.
The tone of “The Crucifixion” is unlike any other of
the York plays. It is darkly comedic and awkwardly uncomfortable considering its
brutal subject matter. But everything comes from somewhere and it is strange to
think the Pinners simply made the play awkward for the sake of comedy. No,
instead the Pinners warped the Painters’ original script of “The Stretching and
Nailing of Christ” to subtly poke fun at the guild. As established, the
soldiers’ dialogue is fully attributed to the Pinners due to the new content fitting
the rhyming scheme. The soldiers’ were therefore written as bumbling fools to
take a jab at the Painters; this is because the Painters were once responsible
for the soldiers’ dialogue but instead left the re-write work to the Pinners. The
play’s final lines are reminiscent of the real-world situation the Painters
found themselves in. Soldier 2 ends by declaring: “go we then hence tite, / this
travail here we tine” (“Crucifixion” 299-300); these words exemplify the speedy
retreat the Painters took as well as their loss of labour. In the end the
soldiers mimic the Painters: they do a sloppy job and then leave. The Pinners
may not have meant to be malicious in their portrayal of the soldiers. They
just bring attention to the bizarre circumstances surrounding their involvement
in the new play.
Without more primary documents the complete origin of “The
Crucifixion” will never be known. The REED publications help shape the picture
and it is up to interpreters to finish the puzzle. It is a fact that “The Crucifixion”
is the result of merging two plays and it is highly likely that those former
works—be it through their actual content or the story surrounding them—greatly influenced
the Pinners’ production. Through the previous work by the Latteners and the
choices of the Painters everything is an influence. Of course the Pinners
deserve full authorship, but it is good to reflect on the stories that inspired
them outside of the Bible.
Works Cited
Johnston,
Alexandra F., and Margareted Rogerson, eds. Records
of Early English Drama. York. Toronto.
Toronto University Press, 1979. Print.
"The Crucifixion." The Broadview Anthology
of Medieval Drama. Ed. Christina Marie..Fitzgerald and .John T. Sebastian. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview, 2013. 103-110. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment