The English moralities from the point of view of allegory

Preface

In beginning this work my aim was to throw some light on the allegorical methods employed in the Moralities, l^ut I had not proceeded far on this quest before it became apparent that a proper presentation of the allegorical methods employed would necessarily include a thorough clearing away of the cobwebs of misapprehension which cling to most treatments of this species of drama, and a complete classification of the Moralities on the basis of allegorical structure. In my discussion of existing treatments of the Morality I have taken high ground, and I shall, without doubt, be most heartily criticized for assuming, from the start, the complacent attitude that I am right and ever)-body else is wrong. I plead, in my defence, that at the beginning of m)- study I used all these treatments, not as interesting bits of reading in themselves, but as prospective guides to a detailed investigation of the Moralities. The result was that each new guide led me into a new morass, and I soon reached the conclusion that I could do no worse, at least, by starting out to explore the country alone. The excuse for bringing in the results of my expedition I can state with a good deal of confidence. It is that the Moralities are, not a series of plays which have for the most part adopted allegory as a method of presentation, but a series of allegories presented in dramatic form. If this is granted it follows that the Moralities, before being considered as dramas or as chronological factors in a history of the drama, must be interpreted and classified as allegories.

There are a few points of obvious and general interest which the most casual student of the Moralities should have in mind at the beginning, and which are not out of place even in a preface.

vm THE ENGLISH MORALITIES

First, and most important, is the reminder that the Morahty, though usually exhibiting a most disgusting freedom of language in its scenes of vice, coupled often with a purely animal and sensual joy in the luxury of sin, had as its constant purpose a desire to edify. It was "a game wherein Vices fyght with Vertues," and it would hardly be consistent to demand that the Vices in this game should deport themselves like prigs, or display themselves as benevolent and clean-minded personifications of vile and abhorrent sins. The average Vice of the Morality has no such virtuous desire in mind. He shows himself in his true colors, and if these colors are often suggestive of mud and filth, we must at least admit that consistency is a jewel, and refrain from a desire to see our friend the Vice clothed in white and gold. Personally, I must confess to a base-born partiality for this rollicking incarnation of sin who skips merrily through so many scenes of the Moralities and interrupts so many doleful homilies. I am quite conscious now that I have shown this partiality — unconscious at the time — in the pages that follow, and the excuse that I must present is that I have not written this work primarily to inculcate morality.

The point, then, that we have almost lost sight of is that the Morality aims at being edifying on the whole, though it is not always so in details. At the close of the action virtue is triumphant, the representatives of vice are discomfited and driven from the stage, and Man, except in one or two cases, has obtained pardon and has attained strength to persist in a useful and moral life. This leads to the second point.

The question might arise, and as a matter of fact often does arise. What is this useful lesson that the Morality presents for the guidance of life ? In the best-known class of Moralities, that in which the human hero is striven for by Virtues and Vices, Man regularly falls from grace, persists in sin during a great part of his life, and is usually reclaimed to virtue at the close of

PREFACE ix

the action, when, in many cases, he has neared the end of his days. Do the Morahties, then, teach us to give free rein to our lusts and our dishonest desires through the prime of hfe and then to embrace virtue with a shrewd eye to the hereafter ? Not so. In studying these plays we must never forget that Man is not presented as stalking in lordly fashion among Virtues and Vices and selecting from them companions at will, but that Virtues and Vices are presented as striving for the possession of Man. The latter is regarded as inclining to good rather than to evil ; consequently, in nearly every case, the Vices have to resort to subterfuge in order to win his temporary companionship. The trick which they almost invariably practise is to introduce themselves by assumed names as Virtues ; and, having once gained the favor of Man, they spur him on to vice and crime while deceiving him into the belief that he is leading the best possible kind of life. At last Man encounters the true Virtues and is reclaimed by them. Thus the spectator of these plays was put on his guard against the sins which have a specious and pleasing aspect, and was taught to recognize the true virtues to be practised in the world.

It would be idle, however, to deny the probability of a purely dramatic reason for making the bulk of the action, in a great many Moralities, a picture of life in sin, since their only chance to provide amusement was through the representatives of vice. Consequently these vulgar and fun-provoking persons often occupy the centre of the stage during the greater part of the play. One cannot but wonder at the constant employment of the phrase " bloodless abstractions," used sweepingly to designate the Morality actors, as if they were a set of sermonizing automatons. The Virtues, to be sure, may usually be thus described ; but the Vices, on the contrary, are a troop of as virile, resourceful, red-blooded scoundrels as one could wish to meet — or to avoid. The chief objection to be made in their case is that.

X THE ENGLISH MORALITIES

from the point of view of allegory, they are often rendered entirely too many-sided and human to stand accurately for the abstractions which they are intended to personify. And, in consequence of this tendency to humanize the Vices, we frequently find that they are differentiated as actors on the stage rather than in accordance with the names that specify their characters. This, however, applies to scenes where the Vices foregather to cominre sinful experiences, and scarcely ever to scenes where they appear as the tempters of Man.

I should like also to oppose the usual criticism that it is because of their allegorical structure that the Moralities are often insufferably dull. It is, on the contrary, when the allegory is temporarily neglected in favor of an uncalled-for literal explanation of events, or, as happens more frequently, for a lengthy homily, that the modern student must fight his desire to close the book. And even here one should regard the matter sympathetically, and with the realization that the persons for whom the plays were produced listened with patience and even with pleasure to sermons which inspire us only with impious and revengeful desires. We may admit, then, that these breaks in the allegory are displeasing to the person who turns nowadays to the Moralities in the hope of being amused, but what person with a sense for that which is true and appealing in literature can fail to recognize the beauty of the two Moralities, Everyutati and The Play of Wjt mid Scicjice ? And these are two of the most finished and consistent allegories in existence.

Lastly, I wish merely to reiterate a point which I have mentioned in different parts of this work; that is, the admirable fitness of allegory for the presentation of a moral lesson by means of drama. Indeed, when one considers that a play, to merit the name, cannot be merely a sermon or a set of directions, one is forced to admit that, in drama, the allegorical structure is the most direct means by which a single and connected lesson can

PREFACE xi

be taught for the guidance of life. There is no opportunity for the display of disturbing human passions and interests such as must enter into the play concerned with the fortunes of individual human beings. In the Morality, every character has his course of action decided by his name, so that, once given the proper set of characters, the lesson works itself out inevitably. In the pages that follow, and in more direct connection with the plays, this point has, I hope, been made clear.

This investigation in its first form was presented as a par- \^ tial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Harvard University. It was begun, and has been carried on, with the advice of Professor Neilson, from whom I have received, from first to last, the most sympathetic and helpful criticism. To Professor Kittredge, also, I owe the warmest thanks. His practical suggestions were of the greatest use to me in formulating those chapters in which my main conclusions are presented. Professors Neilson and Greenough have read the manuscript and proof throughout, and have given me many useful hints for revising and emending. And, finally, in the preparation of the entire work I have had the cooperation of my wife, and many of the conclusions that follow we have reached together by the way of discussion.

W. R. M.

Washington University, St. Louis

Contents

PAGE

CHAPTER I. THE SUBJECT DEFINED . . . . i

Inconsistency of present definitions. God and the Devil as actors in the Moralities. Ward's definition ; its defects. ColHer's definition ; its defects. Everyman as a typical Morality ; its characters not in accord with the above definitions. Creizenach's definition ; its defects. A new definition proposed. The definition as a basis of distinction between actual and apparent Moralities: Appius and Virginia; The Conflict of Conscience ; The iVice Wanton ; The Disobedient Child; Like Willto Like, Quoth the Devil to the Collier.

CHAPTER II. THE MORALITIES CLASSIFIED . . i8

Allegorical structure the only satisfactory basis for a classification. Dangers in the chronological method. Collier's classification ; its defects. Professor Bates's classification ; its defects. Gayley's classification ; its defects. A new classification presented on the basis of allegorical structure.

Chapter III. Allegorical Elements In The Miracle Plays 24

The Coventry cycle : appearance of Contemplacio in Plays VIII, XI,

XIII, and XXIX ; allegorical action and speech in Plays IX, XI,

XIV, XIX, XXV, and XLI. The Chester cycle: deliberate avoidance of allegory in Play XII, as in Play XLII of the Coventry cycle. The Towneley cycle : allegorical dialogue in Play XXXII. The problem of the Coventry cycle, and its bearing on the question of relationship between the Miracles and the Moralities. Allegorical elements in the Digby plays : St. Paul and Mary Magdalene ; importance of allegory in the latter.

Chapter IV. Moralities Dealing With The Conflict Between Virtues And Vices For Supremacy 39

Comparative smallness of the class. Its departure from the older form as in the Psychomachia. Hyckescomer. The Three Laws. New Custom. The Three Ladies of London.

xili

THE ENGLISH MORALITIES xiv

PAGE

CHAPTER V. MORALITIES DEALING WITH THE CON- FLICT BETWEEN VIRTUES AND VICES FOR THE POSSESSION OF MAN S7

Size and importance of the class. Necessity of making three subdivisions : I. Man Spiritual. 2. Man Intellectual. 3. Man represented merely by one or more personified attributes. The broad distinguishing features of the three classes. Similarity and dissimilarity between this class and that presenting the Conflict for Supremacy- i. Man Spiritual: The Castle 0/ Perseverance ; Mankind; A'aturc ; Magnyfyceftce ; Mttndus et Infans ; The Thrie Estaites, Part I; Lnsty Juventus ; Youth; Impatient Poverty; Marie Magdalene; Albion, A'night; The Trial of Treasure; The Longer Thou Livest the More Foole Thou AH; The Conjlict of Conscience. — 2. Man Intellectual. Points in common with the third subdivision, htterhide of the Four Elements. — 3. Man represented merely by one or more personified attributes : H'isdoM, Who is Christ ; Wyt and Science ; Wealth a>id Health ; The Marriage of Wit and Science ; The Marriage of Wit and IVisdom.

Chapter X. The Moralities Considered In Relation To Their Original Audience . 257

Present attitude toward the Moralities due partly to the generic term itself, partly to the employment of allegory and homily. Allegory as viewed by the present-day reader ; manner in which it should be employed ; its effect in the Moralities when acted. The dramatis personae of the Moralities as allegorical figures; considered as "bloodless abstractions." Possibilities of human interest in the spectacle, which are not so apparent in the plays when they are read. Everyman as an acting performance. Dramatic possibilities of the Conflict scheme ; its popularity due to inherent dramatic situations, humor, etc. Compatibility of humor with the avowed moral purpose. Homily in the Moralities ; its prevalence, and apparent attractiveness to the audience. Homiletic moraUzing the chief function of the Virtues. Prevalence of homily in preceding and contemporary literature. Conclusion.

LIST OF AUTHORITIES AND EDITIONS . . .271 INDEX 275

THE ENGLISH MORALITIES FROM

THE POINT OF VIEW OF

ALLEGORY

Chapter I

The first impression that one receives in reading the existing treatments of the MoraHty is that of a curious discrepancy between the definitions presented and the plays which are grouped under the definitions. The chief criticism to be made — and it is a sufficiently damning one — is that many of these treatments restrict the type to such narrow limits that at best only two or three plays could be legitimately admitted ; but the constructors of these limits, having thus appeased their desire for conservatism, proceed to admit many plays that could not be included under any definition that would not be too broad to warrant us in considering the Moralities as a separate class. It is of the first importance, then, that we should have some reasonable definition, applicable to the facts, and based upon the evidence of the plays themselves. If some of the present definitions were accepted literally we should have to consign the Morality, as a type, to the realm of hypothesis, and this might be a satisfactory solution of the problem if it were possible ; but that Moralities do exist is attested by the very writers who, while they make the type theoretically non-existent, continue to discuss it as a real section of dramatic literature.

One of the prime causes of confusion is the attitude of some writers toward God and the Devil as actors in the Morahty. Mr, Chambers, for instance, in his Mediaeval Stage, says : "The process of introducing abstractions into the Miracle plays does not seem to have gone very far. On the other hand the Moralities, if God and the Devil may be regarded as abstractions, admit of nothing else." ^

I shall revert presently to the last part of this second statement. Just now I am concerned with the clause italicized. It seems that Mr. Chambers is suggesting that we regard supernatural powers as abstractions in order that the Morality may be defined with one sweep of the arm. Evidently he admits it without question himself. But would his admission, or ours, have anything to do with the case ,? It would seem that the necessary admission here should be from the author of the play and the people who saw it acted : and, to whatever realms of abstraction God and the Devil may have been consigned by modern metaphysics, we may be sure that to the people most concerned in the production of the Moralities they were real and living personages.

Professor Courthope, in his History of Ejiglish Poetry, takes the same view of these supernatural figures. While discussing the Miracle Play, he says: "As its main object was to set before the people the scheme of redemption, the dramatist did not hesitate to place upon the stage impersonations of the most abstract conceptions of the mind. God, the nine orders of angels, the Devil and his rebel host, were all introduced in the pageants," ^ etc.

It is hardly necessary to argue that the theology of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries did not present Jehovah and his great adversary as abstractions conceived by the human

1 E. K. Chambers, The Mediaeval Stage, II, 153. (The italics are mine.) !* W. J. Courthope, A History 0/ English Poetry, I, 398.

mind. To the persons who composed the MoraUties, and to those who beheld them upon the stage, God was without doubt the mighty sovereign of Scriptural story ; and the Devil was, just as truly, an actual personality who, '" as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour."

The matter is, after all, a very simple one. The playwright who believes in the actual existence of supernatural beings, or who accepts for dramatic purposes a belief in their actual existence, presents them exactly as he would present Achilles or Julius Caesar or King Henry the Fifth ; and he knows also that, if his contemporaries are capable of a like belief, they will regard them in the same light. The skeptic may argue that these people are entertaining mistaken beliefs, but that does not affect the situation. He may discuss, as he frequently does, the reality of supernatural visitations in the days when people had certain well-defined theories of demonology ; but if, for instance, the Elizabethans believed that a ghost could exist independently of a diseased mind, and if Shakespeare understood and shared this belief, it is entirely beside the point for the person who does not believe in ghosts to argue that the spirit of Hamlet's father was purely subjective — a conception of Hamlet's unsound imagination.

Instead, then, of admitting that God and the Devil are abstractions in the Moralities, I assume that they were, on the contrary, as real to the people who saw them on the stage as were Hamlet and his father's ghost to a later audience. If this is true, plainly the dramatis persojiac of the Morality must be capable of including more than personifications of abstract qualities.

But let us turn again to Mr. Chambers's statement that " the Moralities, if God and the Devil may be regarded as abstractions, admit of nothing else." I propose to show that the Moralities will admit of much else, but first I should like to refer to a few other treatments of the subject which avow, or take for granted, the same theory, and exclude all but abstractions.

Ward is quite clear upon the subject. In making his distinctions between Mysteries, Miracles, and Moralities, he says : " Lastly, Morals teach and illustrate the same religious truths, not by direct representation of scriptural or legendary events and personages, but by allegorical means, abstract figures of virtues or qualities being personified in the characters appearing in this species of play." ^

This seems, at least, unambiguous ; but apparently Ward is troubled by doubts of its finality, for he presently adds a formal definition : "A Morality may be defined as a play enforcing a moral truth or lesson by means of the speech and action of characters which are personified abstractions — figures representing virtues and vices, qualities of the human mind, or abstract conceptions in general." ^

This definition, as well as its precursor quoted above, evidently points to the same conclusion as does Chambers's statement, the only loophole for escape in Ward's case being the fact that he does not explicitly state that all the characters are personified abstractions. But if not stated, this is at least implied. And in contradistinction to this definition, the treatment of the Morality that follows is based almost entirely upon plays that contain important type figures, — as, indeed, it would have to be if it were based upon actual plays at all.

A more elusive definition is that presented by Collier : "A Moral, or Moral play, is a drama, the characters of which are allegorical, abstract, or symbolical, and the story of which is intended to convey a lesson for the better conduct of human life."^

The special characteristic of this definition is extreme vagueness. " Allegorical, abstract, or symbolical " : what steps can

1 A. W. Ward, A History of English Dramatic Literature, I, 42.

2 Ibid., p. 100. 8 J. P. Collier, History of English Dramatic Poetry, II, 183.

one take to reduce this compound to its elements ? Perhaps the author had a shrewd suspicion of the truth, and intended these terms to include characters, like the familiar human hero, that represent neither vices nor virtues ; but one is tempted to suppose that he grouped the words simply as three synonyms, more inclusive than one term by itself. The word "symbolical" is especially troublesome. It means, in general, much the same as "allegorical," though possibly it is used here to indicate the type figures that embody the qualities by which they are dominated. On the whole, however, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the three terms are grouped together for common protection. And undoubtedly the purpose is served, since it is impossible to characterize the statement as wrong. Still, as a definition it is vague and inadequate.

In order to show the kinds of characters that constantly appear in the Moralities, let us take as a specific instance the Morality of Everymaji} since it is better known than any other play of its class, and will serve as well as any other for an example. The following is a list of the dramatis personac :

Messenger

Kyndrede

Strengthe

God

Goodes

Dyscrecyon

Dethe

Good Dedes

Fyve Wyttes

Everyman

Knowledge

Aungel

Felawship

Confessyon

Doctour

Cosyn

Beaute

Two of the characters, the Messenger and the Doctor, we may dismiss from the discussion, since they have no direct connection with the plot, but merely comment from the outside. All the other persons in the list are directly associated with the plot.

Everyman himself, the hero of the play, is identical with Mankind, Man, or Humanum Genus ; that is, he is the representative of the human race, who appears under different names

1 Dodsley, Old English Plays (ed. Hazlitt), Vol. III.

in many of the Moralities. We may regard Everyman as a representative man without any decided bent in the direction of either virtue or vice, but rendered as far as possible colorless in order to personate men in general ; or we may regard him as inclusive, that is, standing for all men with their possibilities for good and evil. The distinction, however, is very hazy and, on the whole, is not worth striving for. The point of importance is that Everyman is to be regarded, not as an individual man, or as the representative of one class, but as a highly universalized type, the representative of the whole human race.

Let me make clear the signification of these terms. The individual man is, of course, easily understood. He is Tom Jones, or William Robinson, or any person with a name applying strictly to himself, though he may be broadened arbitrarily into the representative of a class of men. The specialized type, or representative of a class, is such a character as the lawyer, the priest, or Jack Tar the sailor ; that is, a human being confined to some particular walk of life, or characterized by some idiosyncrasy. Then we pass, without crossing any distinct boundary, to the universalized type, representing persons with more or less universal tendencies. In this class are Mr. Worldly Wiseman of the Pilgrim s Progress, and Greediness, in the Morality All for Money, who stands for greedy men. The most highly universalized type of all is the Morality hero who represents the entire human family.

The hero of Everyman is thus not the personification of an abstract quality, but a type, and he does not in this respect stand alone in the play. After being summoned to his pilgrimage by Death, he repairs to Fellowship and beseeches the latter to accompany him. Fellowship refuses, and Everyman has to leave him behind. What, pray, is Fellowship now ? Fickleness, possibly, but certainly no longer the abstract quality of fellowship or friendship. The lament of Everyman himself at this point indicates the exact nature of the figure Fellowship :

It is said, in prosperity ra&n friends may find Which in adversity be full unkind.

Now whither for succour shall I flee Sith Fellowship hath forsaken me ? ^

That is, Fellowship does not personify an abstract quality, as his name strictly interpreted would indicate, but represents worldly friends with their capacities for fidelity or fickleness. He also is a type — less highly universalized than Everyman — of a kind very common in allegory. The Red Cross Knight, for instance, in Spenser's Faerie Qneene, is not the quality of holiness, or, if so, why should he enter into intimate relations with Duessa ? He is rather the man striving for holiness, who may at times, consistently with his character as a man, exhibit tendencies in the opposite direction. Mercy, in Banyan's Pilgrim's Progress, is not the quality of mercy personified, but the woman of merciful disposition. It is entirely to misunderstand and over-simplify the methods of allegory to suppose that its characters may not be designated by abstract names and at the same time be types.

If we now permit Everyman to resume his speech he will presently introduce two other type figures :

To my kinsmen I will truly, Praying them to help me in my necessity :

I believe that they will do so : For kind will creep where it may not go.

I will go say : for yonder I see them go : Where be ye now, my friends and kinsmen [lo] ? '^

This appeal brings Kindred and Cousin to his side. After the lines just quoted it is unnecessary to argue for their identity. They are types — also less highly universalized than Everyman — representing kinsfolk.

iDodsley, III, 113. « Ibid.

Thus we have, out of fifteen characters taking part in the action, one individual character — God; and five more or less universalized types, — Everyman, Fellowship, Kindred, Cousin, and the angel. The rest are personified abstractions.

I have selected this play as exemplifying the sort of treatment one may expect to find in practically all of the Moralities. The Play of Wit and Science, and its later working over as The Marria^^c of Wit and Science, exhibit only personified abstractions ; but every other existing English Morality (with the possible exceptions of Hyckcscorncr and New Qistoni ^) contains also types, or individuals, or both ; and a special warning is necessary against the conclusion that all abstract names appearing in the lists of dramatis pcrsonae must necessarily refer to personified abstractions in the plays.

Creizenach's definition of the Morality, though it fails to mention some of the chief points of the type, will now be seen to come nearer suiting the facts about the dramatis personae than any of the definitions already considered : " Mit dem Ausdruck Moralitaten bezeichnen die Literar-historiker diejenigen Dramen des ausgehenden Mittelalters und der Reformationszeit, in welchen die Trager der Handlung ausschiesslich oder vorwiegend personificierte Abstracta sind." ^

The chief advantage of this definition is that it leaves the door ajar for the entry of the clamorous characters who recognize their eligibility, but who realize that they cannot consistently pose as "' personificierte Abstracta." Its chief disadvantage is that it makes no mention of the prime object of the Morality, the presentation of some lesson for the guidance of life. Remove this from the Morality and you strip it of its essential quality, its reason for being. Creizenach, also, like every one else who has attempted to define the Morality, neglects to

^ See the treatments of these two plays in Chapter IV.

^ Wilhelm Creizenach, Geschichte des neneren Dramas, I, 458.

mention the important element of allegorical structure. Any sort of play may introduce allegory as an accidental embellishment, but these plays, written primarily to teach a moral lesson, involve the allegorical plot as their basis, since any other kind of plot is liable to produce a merely human interest in the spectacle of living characters in action, instead of centering the attention on a moral lesson. Any definition of this species, furthermore, which attempts to characterize the chief actors, should make explicit mention of the class of figures, exemplified by Everyman, who are the natural heroes of the plays. Such figures as God, Satan, and individual men and women need not be alluded to, since they rarely have any prominent part in the action. My definition, then, may take the following shape :

A Morality is a play, allegorical in stmctnrc, zuhich has for its main object the teacJiijig of some lesson for the guidance of life, and in which the prijicipal characters arc personified abstractions or highly tmiversalized types.

Before we proceed to a detailed examination of the Moralities I should like to show by a brief examination of some of the plays that approach the border-line from opposite sides, how the above definition is to be applied throughout this discussion. During the second half of the sixteenth century the Morality made noticeable advances toward the drama of real life, and, in addition to this, various experiments were being made in the dramatic field ; so that we find the materials of Comedy, History Play, and Tragedy combined in varying proportions with the older Morality. As a consequence of this mingling of forms a special confusion has arisen in denominating the plays of the period, and no two works on the subject can be found that follow the same method — or, indeed, any consistent method — in consigning plays to one group or another.^ If my definition