Just as it is not always clear who provided explicit stage directions, it is similarly not always clear to whom medieval stage directions were addressed. Nor, indeed, are the purposes of such stage directions always transparent. On the face of it, many medieval stage directions appear to be addressed to the performer. This may be perceived to be so because of the practical information contained in them. However, as indicated in the Prelude, such practical details are often not sufficient to specifically direct the player or the action. The practical information generally exists because it has been witnessed in a previous performance, although its articulation is conditioned by descriptive incident of the kind that might be observable in performance but not as internal directives to the player. This implies that the writer of the stage direction may have observed the required outcome but not the means of its production. Thus it appears that the purpose of the stage direction is simply to record the details of earlier performance and, in doing so, fulfil official or religious requirements, and only by extension—if at all—to determine what could or should happen in subsequent performance.

John Clerke was responsible for including some of the stage directions or, more accurately, ‘descriptions of stage action’ in the York register.³ The same, or similar, role is recorded in the Smiths Accounts at Coventry through payment to John Harryes: ‘It’ paid to John Harryes for berying of þ^e Orygynall þ^t day vj^d—1506. Resevyd amonge bredren and other good ffelowys toward the Orygynall ij^s ix^d in sums of 1d. & 2d each’.⁴ At Bassingbourn, Cambridgeshire, the Churchwardens’ Book for 1500/1 records payment towards a ‘playe book’: ‘Item paid uppon Wytson Mondaye for a playe book \ii^d/, the berer theroff \ii^d/, John Best clerk and taberer, the mynstrell \iii^d/’.⁵ The apparent mistake in labelling ‘John Best’ as the ‘clerk’ does at least indicate the possible presence of a clerk, even if he is not John Best, with the task of bearing the ‘playe book’. The book bearer at Bassingbourn is more clearly identified in 1511 as the priest, John Hobard: ‘Item rec’ off John Hobard, preste, towardes theys costes in all out of his labour for beryng the play booke, with iii^d for a bos’ of malte, summa [2s 8d]’.⁶ At Chester, the Cordwainers’ and Shoemakers’ Accounts for 1549–50 record payment to an unknown ‘Reygenall beyrer xii d.’. Later, in 1572–73 and 1574–75 at Chester, the Bowyers’, Fletchers’, Coopers’ and Stringers’ Accounts identify payment to ‘hugh sparke for rydyng [reading] of the Ryegenalle ij s.’ and ‘houghe sparke for redinge the regynall ij s.’.⁷ What were the respective purposes of ‘kepyng of the Register at the furst place’, ‘berying of þ^e Orygynall’, ‘beryng the play booke’ and ‘redinge the regynall’ at York, Coventry, Bassingbourn and Chester? It appears that the occupants of these roles were relatively well paid for their reading and observational functions. The relatively substantial amounts paid to Hugh Sparke at Chester ‘for redinge the regynall’ (ij s), John Clerke at York for ‘kepyng of the Register at the furst place’ (xxd) and John Harryes at Coventry for ‘berying of þ^e Orygynall þ^t day’ (iv^d plus ii^s ix^d from ‘other good ffelowys’) suggest their roles required them to follow the performance by reading the master copy of the play. Checking the players’ performances against the recorded text must have been the primary function, with the possible, but not inevitable, added task of prompting.⁸ John Clerke, John Harryes, John Hobard, Hugh Sparke and possibly John Best were named and well-paid observers engaged in formal roles to carefully observe their respective performances and, as such, were in prime positions to create stage directions from their observations. Most other observers were not named or even identified in their roles. Such observers may have come from diverse backgrounds and occupations, but their common task was a formal one, often requiring knowledge of Latin, determined and dictated by those who put on the plays or those from a larger authority who sanctioned the plays.

There are a number of stage directions that record optional opportunities as a means of realising their requirements. Such options seem to have existed because performance had been previously witnessed both with and without enactment of the discretionary action. The practical detail contained in the stage direction might initially suggest that it was the player who would most benefit from the direction, for it was he who was seemingly able to choose action from the options. However, the player was not the intended recipient of the stage direction. The purpose of the recorded stage direction appears to be simply that—to record previously witnessed action. In which case, the intended recipient of the stage direction appears to be someone with access to the manuscript, or, in Walter J. Ong’s and Linda McJannet’s terminology, the ‘producer’.⁹ It is not clear how the player was able to respond to the recorded options, although it is possible and likely that he was able to relate to customary practice as his guide.

The imperative that ‘some statue or image shall fall’ is contained in Isaiah 19:1, and the stage direction is clearly intended to respond to this stipulation in the biblical narrative. The staging option, ‘if it can be done’, indicates some uncertainty on behalf of the observer. What, therefore, produces this uncertainty? Is it the observer’s lack of knowledge or experience of the working of this effect? Or is it an expression of doubt as to the ingenuity and/or ability of the Goldsmiths to produce the effect on their pageant carriage?¹¹ The implication from the stage direction is that the observer knows that this effect can be produced, presumably because he has seen it done previously, but is unsure of whether the Goldsmiths are capable of reproducing the effect. What might be regarded as constructional skill clearly plays a role in the possibility of producing this effect.¹²