Functions of Medieval English Stage Directions

Analysis and Catalogue

Philip Butterworth

• Editore: Routledge
• Anno: 2022
• ISBN:
  9781000610697
• Edizione: 1
• Argomento: Mezzi di comunicazione e arti performative
• Categoria: Arti performative

When we speak of theatre, we think we know what a stage direction is: we tend to think of it as an authorial requirement, devised to be complementary to the spoken text and directed at those who put on a play as to what, when, where, how or why a moment, action or its staging should be completed. This is the general understanding to condition a theatrical convention known as the 'stage direction'. As such, we recognise that the stage direction is directed towards actors, directors, designers, and any others who have a part to play in the practical realisation of the play. And perhaps we think that this has always been the case. However, the term 'stage direction' is not a medieval one, nor does an English medieval equivalent term exist to codify the functions contained in extraneous manuscript notes, requirements, directions or records. The medieval English stage direction does not generally function in this way: it mainly exists as an observed record of earlier performance. There are examples of other functions, but even they are not directed at players or those involved in creating performance.

More than 2000 stage directions from 40 or so plays and cycles have been included in the catalogue of the volume, and over 400 of those have been selected for analysis throughout the work.

The purpose of this research is to examine the theatrical functions of medieval English stage directions as records of earlier performance. Examples of such functions are largely taken from outdoor scriptural plays. This book will be of great interest to students and scholars in theatre, medieval history and literature.

1Observers, Options and Beneficiaries of Stage Directions

DOI: 10.4324/9781003240426-2

Observers

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.

In their introduction to the York Play: A facsimile of British Libray MS Additional 35290, Richard Beadle and Peter Meredith discuss the scribal progress of stage directions in the play and make the following distinction: ‘Stage directions, or perhaps it would be more accurate to call them descriptions of stage action, have been added to a number of the pageants by later hands, among them John Clerke’.¹ This difference in the identification of stage directions may appear to be a simple one, but it is critical in determining the derivation, purpose and function of explicit medieval stage directions. Stage directions such as these exist by virtue of previously observed theatrical action. Thus, Beadle and Meredith’s ‘descriptions of stage action’ point to a much more accurate identification of stage directions brought about by earlier observed performance.

This recognition partly answers the question ‘Why were some stage directions written in Latin?’ They were presumably written in Latin because the observer knew Latin and/or was expected to be able to operate in Latin as part of his formal or commissioned duties. It was the duty of John Clerke at York, ‘seruaunt and deputy’ to the common clerk, Miles Newton, whose task it was in 1542 to check players’ performances against the city’s text or register:

Item paid to the seruant of the common Clerk for kepyng of the Register at the furst place where as ∧ ˹the play of Corpus christi˺ [play] was playd of Corpus christi day this yere accustomed xx d.²

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.

Optional Action

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 options are often conditional on the ability of the players or stage hands to produce the required action. For instance, in the Chester Goldsmythes Playe of the Massacre of the Innocents (Play 10), a stage direction records:

Tunc ibunt et Angelus cantabit, ‘Ecce dominus ascendet super nubem levem, et ingrediatur Egiptum, et movebuntur simulachra Egipti a facie domini exercituum’; et si fueri [fieri] poterit [cadet] aliqua statua sive imago.

[Then they shall go, and the Angel shall sing: ‘Behold, the Lord rideth upon a swift cloud, and is to come into Egypt; and the idols of Egypt shall be moved by the presence of the armies of the Lord’; and if it can be done, some statue or image shall fall.]¹⁰

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

The proviso, ‘if it can be done’, is again stipulated in a stage direction in the Chester Webstars Playe of the The Last Judgement (Play 24):

Finitis lamentationibus mortuorum [descendet] Jesus quasi in nube, si fieri poterit, quia, secundum doctoris opiniones, in aere prope terram judicabit Filius Dei. Stabunt angeli cum cruce, corona spinea, lancea, et instrumentis aliis; ipsa demonstrant.

[When the laments of the dead have ended, Jesus shall come down as if in a cloud, if it can be contrived, because according to the opinions of scholars, the Son of God shall give judgement in the air close to the Earth. The angels shall stand w...