No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The York Cycle at Toronto: Staging and Performance Style
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 January 2009
Extract
Because the York Corpus Christi cycle drew so much of its dramatic power from the life of the medieval community, it presents formidable problems to modern producers. One obvious difficulty stems from the anachronistic dramatization of scriptural history. How can one convey to a twentieth-century audience the contemporaneity of a play in which Pilate holds a Parliament with his ‘bishops’ and Christ enters Jerusalem like a king passing in royal procession through the gates of a medieval walled city? The forty-seven separate pageants in which the York cycle treats the story of man from the Creation to the Last Judgment were mounted by the craft guilds of the city under the supervision of the municipal authorities. By what process are these pageants to be produced today without the social and economic structure of the towns that gave to cycle plays the character of a truly civic drama? Finally, what performing style is to be used by modern actors? Even if the modern productions were to employ a historically accurate style (supposing that one could be reconstructed from surviving evidence), this style would only very partially convey to a modern audience the devotional, didactic, and ceremonial purposes of the medieval cycle.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © International Federation for Theatre Research 1978
References
Notes
1. Elliott, John R. Jr., in Research Opportunities in Renaissance Drama, 15–16 (1972–1973), pp. 125–8Google Scholar. Browne, E. Martin discusses his productions at the York Festival in Drama Survey, 3 (1963–1964), pp. 5–15.Google Scholar
2. David Parry in the souvenir program. See also the REED Newsletter, 1977, No. 1, pp. 18–19Google Scholar. The performance took place on October 1 and 2, 1977.
3. Arguments for processional staging appear in Dorrell, Margaret, ‘Two Studies of the York Corpus Christi Play’, Leeds Studies in English, NS, 6 (1972), pp. 63–111Google Scholar, and Johnston, Alexandra F., rev. of The Medieval English StageGoogle Scholar, by Nelson, Alan H., University of Toronto Quarterly, 44 (1974–1975), pp. 238–48Google Scholar. Dorrell is responding to opposing arguments in Nelson, 's ‘Principles of Processional Staging: York Cycle’, Modern Philology, 67 (1970), pp. 303–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Stevens, Martin' ‘The York Cycle: From Procession to Play’Google Scholar, which precedes her article in Leeds Studies in English. Johnston is responding to the expanded treatment of the York records in Nelson's book.
4. Dorrell gave this information in a paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Modern Language Association in 1973.
5. In Traditions of Medieval English Drama (London, 1974), pp. 53–8Google Scholar, Stanley J. Kahrl discusses the restrictions imposed by the staging of pageants on wagons.
6. Nelson, , The Medieval English Stage (Chicago, 1974), pp. 65–81.Google Scholar
7. Stevens, passim.
8. Young, M. James argues for a wagon measuring about ten by twenty feet in Speech Monographs, 34 (1967–1968), pp. 1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar. His is the most detailed study of the York pageant wagons. In Early English Stages, 1300–1660, Vol. I (London, 1959), pp. 169–74Google Scholar, Glynne Wickham proposes a wagon measuring fifteen by twenty feet, supplemented by a scaffold cart of similar dimensions. For the Brussels wagons as analogues, see Wickham, , pp. 173 and 396Google Scholar, and Nelson, , ‘Some Configurations of Staging in Medieval English Drama’, in Medieval English Drama, ed. Taylor, Jerome and Nelson, Alan H. (Chicago and London, 1972), pp. 120–1.Google Scholar
9. See, for example, Wickham, , pp. 169–73Google Scholar. Young, , pp. 10–12Google Scholar, argues against Wickham's suggestion, as does Nelson in ‘Some Configurations of Staging’, pp. 121–2Google Scholar. Nelson concludes that ‘we must imagine that the ordinary platea was the humble earth’.
10. Johnston, and Dorrell, give a detailed reconstruction of the York Mercers' Doomsday pageant wagon of 1433 in Leeds Studies in English, NS, 6 (1972), pp. 10–35.Google Scholar
11. The Play Called Corpus Christi (Stanford, Calif., 1966), chap. 2.Google Scholar
12. Shakespeare and the Idea of the Play (London, 1962), chap. 1.Google Scholar
13. See Robinson, J. W., ‘The Late Medieval Cult of Jesus and the Mystery Plays’, PMLA, 80 (1965), pp. 508–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Robinson, , ‘The Art of the York Realist’, Modern Philology, 60 (1962–1963), pp. 241–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Davidson, , ‘The Realism of the York Realist and the York Passion’, Speculum, 50 (1975), pp. 270–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Davidson, , p. 281.Google Scholar
16. See Robinson, , ‘Medieval English Acting’, Theatre Notebook, 13 (1958–1959), p. 83Google Scholar, and his qualification in ‘The Art of the York Realist’, p. 249.Google Scholar
17. The English Mystery Plays (London, 1972), pp. 100–1.Google Scholar
18. ‘Popular Iconography of the Passion’, PMLA, 46 (1931), p. 340.Google Scholar
19. The fresco is discussed by Stuart, Donald Clive, ‘The Stage Setting of Hell and the Iconography of the Middle Ages’, Romanic Review, 4 (1913), pp. 338–9Google Scholar, and Anderson, M. D., Drama and Imagery in English Medieval Churches (Cambridge, Eng., 1963), pp. 128–9.Google Scholar