Authorship of The Crucifixion

Gerrit van de Riet

Matthew Sergi

ENG331H1

Friday, April 04, 2014

Authorship of The Crucifixion

With regard to the York cycle play, there is only one published manuscript which was published somewhere between 1463 and 1477. This timeline provides some insight into authorship of the plays as guilds collaborated and dispersed in a fluid manner as the cycle developed. I will show that despite having four guilds attributed to it the Pinners version of The Crucifixion is a construction of their own doing, with little influence from the other guilds.

In the first few iterations of the play records show that the plot of what is The Crucifixion play was at one point divided into two segments headed by the Pinners and the Painter guild. The division stood that the Pinners were responsible for the Nailing of Jesus to the cross, and the Painters would showcase the erection of Jesus on the crucifix. The records also show that these two parts were put on by the Painters, Stainers, Pinners and Latteners; however overall ownership of the production was split between the Pinners and Painters. In 1422 there is a memorandum book dated on the 31^st of January which recommends that the four guilds work together on the same play “for the shortening of the play rather profitably for the people hearing the holy words of the players.” (York 722) If the two plays which are separate entities were recommended to be one, then it would require further fusion of the text and thus extra one.

However, the same memorandum goes on to suggest that the Painters’ section of the play “should be thoroughly removed from the aforesaid play, and that the crafts men of the Pinners…should take upon themselves the burden of preforming in their pageant the matter of the speeches which were previously performed in their pageant and in the pageant of the Painters” (York 723)  If this recommendation were given in a public manner by one then it must have been seriously considered to remove the Painters’ influence from the texts and continue with the style of the Pinners. This pushes the authorial role solely onto the Pinners, which is reflective of contemporary editions.

Records show that while both Guilds contributed financially, there was not always equity in the distribution of funds. Even within the Pinners there were inequitable costs among the members. This discriminatory cost was associated with the town’s anxiety surrounding the foreign workers, where they’d be fined 40d and an extra 40d if they wanted to be included in the pageant (York). From the records it also shows that the Painters paid their dues to the Pinners making them more responsible for the functionality of the play in addition to being told to write the play, they became the guild that was also fiscally responsible for their group’s portion of the pageant.  This responsibility would then fall on them to write the fused plays, or at least commission to write it for them. Specifically the guilds paid their fees to the Pinners guild, even though their reputation was not always the cleanest in the city. If Mayoral records show a tendency for vagabonds to be associated with the members of the Pinners and they were fully responsible for the production of The Crucifixion play, then the dark humor in The Crucifixion is an extension of the difficult disposition of the Pinners’ guild. This is to say the reputation of the Pinners being full of hooligans and foreigners could contribute to the dark humor surrounding the play.

It seems the opposite is true in regards to what can be seen in the Pinners’ contribution of the text. There is a clear stop in the plot at line 152 where the 4th soldier declares: “I wille goo saie to oure soueraynes/ of all ϸis werkis howe we haue wrought” (Line 151-152). This presents a clear narrative of the originally assigned play to the Pinners.  In the lines prior to this break there was discussion of nails, boring and other things of their craft. “2 Miles: None Othir noote to veven is nede,/ But latte us haste hym for to hange. 3 Miles: AndAnd I haue gone for gere goode speede,/ Both hammered and nayles large and lange” (Line 26-30). This play accomplishes the story aspect of The Crucifixion while fixating on the craft of the Pinners. These soldiers are enthusiastic about accomplishing the task they need to do, and talk about how they will execute it quickly and efficiently. When they encounter difficulty, the soldiers talk about how the fault is on Jesus and how it makes their difficult task of boring and nailing that much harder. This is complimented through one of the soldiers stepping up to the challenge and saying the task could be accomplished due to the strength of the nails they were using. This exemplifies the reason that this cycle was produced in the first place- to show case the crafts of the guilds. Thus it must be said that the Painters’ guild should bolster equal praise towards their craft.

This is not the case though; in the second half of the play we see the soldier’s temperament change. They begin to complain more about the work they have to do, and even begin to fail at their tasks. They turn from enthused workers to bumbling oafs, who are used for comedic purposes, but their behaviour shows a lackadaisical work ethic. If this switch of character is meant to represent the Painters guild then that guild could not have willingly authored the second half of the play. This would indicate both that the Pinners were the sole authors to commission the play and that the relationship between the Pinners and the Painters’ guild was not one of mutual respect.

Further supporting the argument of the Pinners being the chief authors is the title procession. Often left out in most editions, is the fact that in the original copy of the text includes the Painters in the guild title. This was excluded due to the fact that the Painters name was included later in a different ink (Smith 349). This shows that though four guilds were attributed to the production of the play only one was given the credit for it.

When it comes to propriety of The Crucifixion play, it definitely lies with the Pinners’ guild. The Records of REED indicate that the Pinners were financially responsible for the production, and had the ability to produce a superior play to the Painters. This in tandem with the textual evidence favouring the Pinners’ guild proves that it was indeed the Pinners who commissioned the surviving copy of this play.

Work Cited:

"Play of the Pinners." The Broadview Anthology of Medieval Drama. Fitzgerald, ChristinaMarie., and John T. Sebastian e.d. Peterborough: Broadview, 2013. 231-44. Print.

Records of Early English Drama: York. Vol. 1. Eds. Alexandra F. Johnston and Margaret Rogerson. University of Toronto: Toronto. 1979. Print.

Smith, Lucy Toulmin. York plays; the plays performed by the crafts or mysteries of York, on the day of Corpus Christi in the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries.. New York: Russell & Russell, 1963. Print.