When I was in undergrad, I took a course entitled “Drama Since its Beginnings to 1650” that primarily focused on Medieval/Early Renaissance theater. In that course, I was introduced to the York Mystery Cycle plays, as well as other cycles (Chester, N-Town, Coventry, Wakefield). In that course, I learned that each of these towns had their own variations on the mystery cycle, with each cycle compounding to retell the story of Christ. While re-engaging with the York Mystery Cycles this week and taking into account our class discussion of this specific mystery cycle, I decided I want to dedicate my blog post to exploring the way these mystery plays work. As we discussed in class, these plays allowed viewers to feel as though they are interacting with or somehow in the stories in the sense that they were performed in their own language, in their own city, and put on by a traveling guild. These elements of the mystery cycles are important outside of just the York Mystery plays that we read for this week, but also helps us understand why each of the towns involved in the mystery cycles had their own variations of each play.
What do we make of the relatability of the mystery cycles? As Professor Fulton Brown discussed in class, the relatability and localized language of the mystery cycles allowed individuals to place themselves in the stories of the Old Testament and feel closer to these Biblical characters. In this way, it seems like the mystery plays help bridge the gap between the high level and intense language of the Bible and the everyday common person. But why exactly is it important for humans to be able to develop this connection and feel closer to these stories? Auerbach writes in Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature, “there is but one place- the world; and but one action- man’s fall and redemption (Auerbach, 158). For me, this helps put into focus Auerbach’s understanding that the story of Creation is told for mankind, and therefore is centered on the human experience. After all, humans are told that the incarnation of Christ and his death are meant to save mankind from original sin and allow humans to feel closer to God; and also see him through the incarnation. Although Auerbach frames his argument concerning the centrality of humanness in the story of Creation in order to analyze Le Mystere d'Adam, I think there is value in considering how this argument applies to the mystery cycle plays. The mystery cycle plays really play up the inherently human nature of the Creation story by creating an annual spectacle that engages the whole town through a procession of plays that retell the story of Christ beginning to end. Another consideration in discussing the mystery cycle plays is that by creating a visual representation of these stories, the townspeople are able to witness and engage with a form of devotional art. In our class, we have discussed and looked at various paintings and visual representations intended to serve as devotional art, and these feels like an extension of devotional art that helps people feel closer to the text of the Bible.
While considering how the relatability of the mystery cycle plays allow viewers to feel as though they are part of these Biblical stories, I was reminded of another play from this period of history that does not follow this same trend. The Play of the King of Egypt, which is believed to be part of the Benediktbeuern Christmas play from the Carmina Burana, strays from the tradition of liturgical drama that we see in the mystery cycle plays. For example, the Play of the King of Egypt does not use quotations from the Bible and instead incorporates more secular elements. It is strange that this play does not lean on the Bible as heavily as the mystery cycle plays since one of its underlying themes is the issue of conversion and moving away from false idols towards properly loving and worshiping God. For example, there is a moment in the Play of the King of Egypt where the Egyptian king’s idol keeps falling down because they are “false” and he eventually must follow the advice of the wise men around him who say that he needs to turn away from his false idols and recognize the “almighty glory” of “the God of gods” (65). Similar to the mystery cycle plays, the Play of the King of Egypt uses language that is not particularly “high level,” while addressing issues that were probably on the minds of Medieval Christians.
Although the Play of the King of Egypt is attempting to tell a story that is intended to bring viewers closer in their understanding of Christianity and what it means to worship God, it does so differently than the mystery cycle plays. While the mystery cycle plays stay fairly close to their liturgical derivation and primarily work to place viewers within these stories, the Play of the King of Egypt tells a new story that is not inherently from the Bible to spread a message of conversion and religious devotion. I just find it interesting that both the mystery cycle plays and the play from the Carmina Burana are both attributed to circulating during the Medieval time period, yet each engage with a different theatrical style. As a concluding thought, I’d be interested in hearing what other people think about the fact that a play like the Play of the King of Egypt incorporated more secular elements and ignores the notion of including quotes from the Bible.
-AC
Sources:
Erich Auerbach, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature, trans. Willard R. Trask (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1953)
York Mystery Plays: A Selection in Modern Spelling, ed. Richard Beadle and Pamela King (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995)
It sounds to me like the Play of the King of Egypt is drawing on the apocryphal gospel of Matthew. I showed one image from the Biblia Pauperum that had the idols falling down as its central image. That story depends on Isaiah 19:1: "The burden of Egypt. Behold the Lord will ascend upon a swift cloud, and will enter into Egypt, and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence, and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst thereof." So the question is: how much does a story have to be "filling in" before we no longer recognize it as having a scriptural source? Many of the details in late medieval depictions of the Passion seem to have the sole purpose of making the scene more gruesome, but in fact are based on readings of the Old Testament. Is this about "realism"? Yes—but "realism" in the sense that Auerbach describes, the realism of figura. So details that we might read now as "secular" may in fact be sacred! RLFB
ReplyDeleteHi AC, lovely post. I like these quotes in particularly "this helps put into focus Auerbach’s understanding that the story of Creation is told for mankind, and therefore is centered on the human experience" and "Another consideration in discussing the mystery cycle plays is that by creating a visual representation of these stories, the townspeople are able to witness and engage with a form of devotional art." You're spot-on, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI'd be interested to see how the differences between the Mystery Cycle and Play of the King of Egypt relate to our most recent class, where we started talking about the differences between theological, scriptural basis for liturgy and the cultural bases of the church. I've never read the Play of the King of Egypt, but it seems that the idols is related both to the Bible (as Prof. FB says in her comment) and to a cultural tradition of bashing/falling idols. I'm wondering if maybe some of the differences between the plays are a result of the Mystery Plays being based on a scriptural understanding of devotion while PotKoE is based on a cultural understanding of devotion and liturgy. I am uninformed about them, so it could be that really there is no distinction like that, but still, I think it's an interesting path of exploration to take related to your apt comments about the diverse styles of the plays.