Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MHRA Citation
David Jones Authorising English: Power & Textual Practice 1400 – 1560 Essay
Ideology and the Dissenting Voice in Medieval Literature
October 2002
‘Eythyr thow hast the Holy Gost or ellys thow hast a devyl wythin the’
(The Book of Margery Kempe l.632)
2
David Jones Authorising English: Power & Textual Practice 1400 – 1560 Essay
Ideology and the Dissenting Voice in Medieval Literature
of worldly life (‘Prykne not yowr felycytes in things transitory’ l.30) and the
importance of the spiritual rather than the worldly (‘Beholde not þe Erth, but lyfte
yowr ey wppe’ l.31). Interestingly, Mercy’s opening ‘premedytacyon’ (l.44) is very
similar to a much later piece of orthodox Christian doctrine, Paradise Lost. Neither
text refers to God or to the Fall directly, but by using deictic constructions:
‘The very Fownder and Begynner of owr fyrst creacyon’ (Mankind l.1)
‘one greater Man/Restore us’ (Paradise Lost l.4-5)
3
David Jones Authorising English: Power & Textual Practice 1400 – 1560 Essay
Ideology and the Dissenting Voice in Medieval Literature
Apparatus. It was clearly intended for a broad audience, as references to the higher
class members as ‘soverens’ (l.29) and elaborate Latinate expressions indicate, but
these contrast with the main audience, who must align themselves with the anxieties
of the eponymous agricultural labourer. As a didactic piece of folk tradition,
performed in the same way as mummings, Mankind serves as a precursor to the
education system, which Althusser regarded as the foremost ISA (Belsey 2002, 54).
The play educates those who do not have a formal education. It inculcates the
audience into the dominant version of appropriate behaviour.
Surprisingly, The Book Of Margery Kempe, despite being the autobiography of a
figure at odds with her society, also situates itself firmly within the doctrines of the
institutional church. Margery constantly asserts the value of her controversial insights
by referring to the support of a minority of clerics who appreciate her true importance
and even validate the writing of the Book:
Summe of these worthy and worshepful clerkys tokyn it in perel of her sowle
and as thei wold answer to God that this creatur was inspired wyth the Holy
Gost and bodyn hyr that sche schuld don hem wryten and makyn a booke of hyr
felyngys and hir revelacyons’ (ll.57-60).
4
David Jones Authorising English: Power & Textual Practice 1400 – 1560 Essay
Ideology and the Dissenting Voice in Medieval Literature
develys opyn her mowthys al inflaumyd wyth brennyng lowys of fyr as thei
schuld a swalwyd hyr in, sumtyme rampyng at hyr, sumtyme thretyng her,
sumtym pullyng hyr and halyng hir bothe nygth and day duryng the forseyd
tyme’
(ll.150-153).
These demons ask Margery to reject identical virtues to those condemned by the vices
in Mankind and Everyman: ‘goode werkys and alle good vertues’ (ll.155-6).
The similar ideals established in the texts are further enforced by the way in
which both use ‘homiletic’ language (Forest-Hill 2000, 87), that is, sermon-style
preaching with direct reference to Biblical texts. Mercy’s sermons have been seen by
various critics as overly-formal and dull in contrast to those of the Vices, but this may
be an anachronistic stance. His homiletic verse, with its restrained use of an ababbcbc
form, may have been regarded by a contemporary audience as a clear signifier of
authority. Mankind certainly finds Mercy’s rhetoric beautiful: ‘O, yowr louely wordys
to my soull are swetere þen hony’ (l.225). He allows this verse to construct himself
when he is virtuous: “my soull ys well scyatt / Wyth þe mellyfluose doctryne of þis
worschyppful man (l.312). The Book of Margery Kempe is also strongly homiletic.
Staley points out that only God uses direct speech, with Margery acting as a conduit
between God and the scribe (1994, 35)4. The over-arching moral in both texts is a
homiletic one, the idea that dissenters must ‘undyrstondyn the hy and unspecabyl
mercy of ower sovereyn Savyowr Cryst Jhesu’ (ll.2-3).
Enforcing Biblical doctrine serves a social purpose in Mankind, discouraging
ideas of class mobility. Although on a surface level the play is about the universal
leveller of death, which will affect the complete social spectrum of the audience: “O
ye soverens þat sytt and ye brothern þat stonde ryght uppe” (l.29), the narrative
pattern actually endorses a rigidly divided social order5. Mankind’s attempt to
abandon his predestined agricultural lifestyle, symbolically throwing away his spade,
comes at the pinnacle of his fall. John Watkins has gone as far as to suggest that the
5
David Jones Authorising English: Power & Textual Practice 1400 – 1560 Essay
Ideology and the Dissenting Voice in Medieval Literature
6
David Jones Authorising English: Power & Textual Practice 1400 – 1560 Essay
Ideology and the Dissenting Voice in Medieval Literature
He points out that there is room, if not a necessity, for chaff (it feeds horses). What
Mercy defines as the undesirable and evil elements of the world are in fact necessary
parts of its working. This makes Mercy’s reply seem hopelessly pompous, describing
his own teaching as ‘delectable’ (l.65). The word derives from the Latin for ‘delight’,
but what is delightful about Mercy’s sermon on punishment and death? Mischief’s
story, mischievously enough, is far more delightful. The Vices have a maxim which
demonstrates that they are far more suited to the performance medium of the play than
Mercy’s sermons are: “Lett ws be mery wyll we be here!” (l.77). There is strong
economic evidence that the appeal of the play lies in its vice. Collection boxes come
out immediately prior to the much-hyped entrance of Titivillus, the greatest demon.
Wearing an elaborate costume he is clearly a major draw.
The Vices are, of course, precursors of the figures prevalent during Carnivals,
especially Titivillus whose rhetoric “Ego sum dominantium dominus” (l.475) marks
him out as a Lord of Misrule. In their call for chaos, the end of physical labour, sexual
deviancy and the abuse their social superiors, the Vices fulfil the Carnivalesque
concept of turning the existing social order on its head. However, the subversive
potential of these ideas may be limited. Historian Peter Burke emphasises that
medieval peasantry were not interested in changing the fabric of their society, and
treated the carnival ideas as pure fantasy (1994, 182). After a performance, as after a
Carnival, normal social balance would be restored.
Vice is necessary, it would seem, because orthodox Christian doctrine
demands a split self. Mankind’s opening lines reveal that this split is his greatest
struggle:
Several classic Freudian symbols are readily apparent. Mercy often symbolises the
super ego: he is austere, moralistic, embodies the values and doctrines of the dominant
social order and is overwhelmingly patriarchal, Mankind’s ‘seemly father’. Mankind
internalises Mercy’s words to use as a moral code, Mercy says that Mankind ‘sett my
wordys in herte’ (l.259). The Vices symbolise the voice of the unconscious, the id.
They are chaotic, animalistic (‘þei be wers þen bestys’ l.165) and obsessed with sex.
7
David Jones Authorising English: Power & Textual Practice 1400 – 1560 Essay
Ideology and the Dissenting Voice in Medieval Literature
Most notably, they speak to Mankind in dreams, when Titivillus fulfils Satan’s role by
whispering in his ear. The Vices stress their necessity by enforcing the idea that good
and evil are inextricably linked: ‘Gode brynge yow, master, blyssyde Mary / to þe
number of þe demonycall frayry!’ (ll.152-153), they are as much a part of Mankind as
virtue.
The Vices are especially subversive when they mock Latin, the language of
institutional authority. They identify it with aloofness and spurious power. Newguise
mockingly responding to Mercy’s proverbs: “Ey, ey! yowr body ys full of Englysch
Laten” (l.124). It is aligned with the pointless abstractions of scholarly thought: “Now
opyn yowr sachell wyth Laten wordys / Ande sey me þis in clerycall manere!” Latin
is relocated in a base context, putting a “Pravo te” (l.126) into the mouth of a helpless
butcher when Newguise steals a leg of mutton (implying the language has little
practical application). Latin is no longer the tool of spiritual dignity but just another
vehicle for insults in the Vice’s scattalogical discourse: “Osculare fundamentum!”
(l.142)6.
Nonsense is a powerful weapon for the Vices. It throws into question the real
meaning and power of Mercy’s elevated rhetoric. For many of the audience, Mercy’s
declarations such as ‘Dominus custodit te ab omni malo / In nominee Patris, et Filii,
et Spiritus Sancti’ (ll.909-1) would make little more sense than Mischief’s nonsense-
rhyme: ‘Mysse-masche, dryff-draff, / Sume was corn and sume was chaffe, / My
dame seyde my name was Raffe; / Onschett yowr lokke and take an halpenye’. (ll.49-
52). By demonstrating that Latin can be used as doggerel, the Vices succeed in
debasing Mercy’s invocation of the language in the assumption that it will naturally
elevate his argument. Margery also condemns Latin, though it is a far smaller theme
in her book. When she is under arrest for Lollardy, she defies her captors attempt to
belittle her by speaking in Latin: “Spekyth Englysch, yf yow lyketh, for I undyrstonde
not what ye sey." (ll.2650-2651) Nought leaves Mercy with a prayer, “I prey Gode
gyf yow now goode nyght!” (l.161). This is the ultimate example of Vice
appropriating orthodox language in order to subvert it, making Christianity a byword
for insincerity7. Their ‘ydyll language’ (l.143) is capable of debasing Mercy’s ‘few
and well sett’ words (l.102). This attack on clerical hierarchies certainly has overtone
of Lollardy, but in reality orthodox Lollards would probably have regarded the
recreation of God and heavenly beings onstage as a form of idolatry.
8
David Jones Authorising English: Power & Textual Practice 1400 – 1560 Essay
Ideology and the Dissenting Voice in Medieval Literature
9
David Jones Authorising English: Power & Textual Practice 1400 – 1560 Essay
Ideology and the Dissenting Voice in Medieval Literature
10
David Jones Authorising English: Power & Textual Practice 1400 – 1560 Essay
Ideology and the Dissenting Voice in Medieval Literature
warning of how easy it is to be tempted into sin. As Forest-Hill puts it: “‘Entertaining
displays of transgressive language by evil and corrupted characters . . . may set up
tensions for the audience as their awareness of vice conflicts with with their
enjoyment of the verbal transgression” (2000, 87). The audience are drawn into
physically sinning themselves, by joining in with a song that ironically corrupts the
word holy: ‘Holyoke, holyoke, holyoke!’ (l.343). The Vices comment on the
audience’s complicity: ‘Her ys a schrewde sorte’ (l.80).
This theory does not deny the subversive potential of the play, merely that it is
limited by the use of an orthodox Christian frame as closure. The audience gradually
realises that the Vices are detestable as their behaviour becomes less comic and
increasingly destructive, from the realisation that their games could break Nought’s
neck onwards. Their violent imagery crescendos as the play progresses: ‘þe Deull put
out both yowr eyn!’ (l.156). This culminates in a (false) piece of unification ideology,
which claims that the laziness that Mankind has developed will inevitably lead to
murder: ‘robbe, stell, and kyll’ (l.708). Ashley sums up this position: ‘Mercy’s words
frame the drama; the audience is not allowed to think what it will about the play
because Mercy, mediating between audience and drama at two crucial points, sets up
the governing interpretation of the action’ (1975, 130).
Margery is not reigned in by the implications of closure as her story is not a
chronological narrative, she recounts events “not in ordyr as it fellyn but as the creatur
cowd han mend of hem whan it wer wretyn” (ll.116-117). However Margery’s voice
cannot be truly rebellious as it is constructed through preceding discourses –
individual expression is tempered through an inter-textual frame. There has been
extensive critical coverage of Margery’s position in the tradition of female devotional
writing, and the way in which she aligns herself with the anchorites and Preaching
Friars. Generic constrictions make her more of an exemplum than a character. She
situates herself firmly as a female mystic, a conventionally unconventional figure
whose main purpose is to speak orthodox Christian doctrine: “rygth as I spak to Seynt
Bryde ryte so I speke to the, dowtyr, and I telle the trewly it is trewe every word that
is wretyn in Brides boke, and be the it schal be knowyn for very trewth.” (ll.1089-91).
Less well covered is the way in which Margery’s dissenting voice is reigned
into archetypes of sinning women. In the first Chapter, as a consequence of her sin
Margery ties herself into a ready-established tradition of female self-harm:
11
David Jones Authorising English: Power & Textual Practice 1400 – 1560 Essay
Ideology and the Dissenting Voice in Medieval Literature
sche bot hir owen hand so vyolently that it was seen al hir lyfe aftyr. And also
sche roof hir skyn on hir body agen hir hert wyth hir nayles spetowsly, for sche
had noon other instrumentys
(ll.161-163)
This has strong echoes of the behaviour of Queen Herodis in Sir Orfeo, after she has
succumbed to the temptation offered in a similar evil vision to Margery’s:
12
David Jones Authorising English: Power & Textual Practice 1400 – 1560 Essay
Ideology and the Dissenting Voice in Medieval Literature
13
David Jones Authorising English: Power & Textual Practice 1400 – 1560 Essay
Ideology and the Dissenting Voice in Medieval Literature
14
David Jones Authorising English: Power & Textual Practice 1400 – 1560 Essay
Ideology and the Dissenting Voice in Medieval Literature
Sources Cited
Anon (2002) Everyman etext
http://www.umm.maine.edu/faculty/necastro/drama
Abrams, M.H. & Greenblatt, S ed. 1999 The Norton Anthology Of English Literature
Vol 1 (7th edition) USA: Norton
Ashley, K.M. 1975 ‘Titivillus & The Battle Of Words In Mankind’ in Annuele
Mediavale 16
Burke, Peter 1994 Popular Culture In England c.1500-1850 Aldershot: Scholar Press,
1994
Lester, G.A. ed 1981 Three Late Medieval Morality Plays: Mankind, Everyman,
Mundus et Infans USA: Ernest Benn
Sands, Donald B. ed. 1996 Middle English Verse Romances Exeter: Exeter Univ.
Press
15
1
Notes
Belsey 2002, 83-84: ‘the imperative text, giving orders to its readers . . . aligns the reader ‘as in
identification with one set of discourses and practices and in opposition to others . . . maintaining that
identification and opposition and . . . not resolving it but rather holding it in a position of closure’.
2
This idea of the spiritual being above and beyond language is also present in Everyman, where ‘wordes
fayre’ (l.469) are debased in relation to God, since words can be undone and promises broken.
3
Obviously, this is a fairly crude evocation of Althusser, not least because it applies his capitalist model
to a feudalist society. However, as there is no space for detailed redefinitions and his basic ideas of
ideology and Ideological State Apparatus fit Mankind rather well, it seems most appropriate to simply
apply his model as it is.
4
The Book of Margery Kempe specifically utilises Biblical sources, using Margery’s visions to actually
insert her into Biblical events – assisting the births of the Virgin Mary, John the Baptist and Christ and
adoring the Magi. As well as enforcing the unavoidable importance of these events, this strategy also
works in a similar fashion to Lydgate inserting himself into Chaucer’s position in The Siege of Thebes,
as it elevates Margery’s status to the realm of these mythical characters.
5
Mankind’s description of Mercy as a ‘seemly father’ (l.209) who he can go to for solace has been
interpreted by Coogan as demonstrating that Mercy is dressed as a cleric (see Ashley 1975, 131).
Mercy’s overbearing preaching style and Latinate diction certainly indicate an institutional authority
figure, as does his assertion: ‘I haue be þe very mene for yowr restytucyon’ (l.17). If this is the case
then we can establish a vital piece of assimilation ideology, tying the spiritual moral of the play to
institutional church authority. No matter how strong the Vices’ attack on church corruption, if it is tied
to the eponym’s redemption then the ideology of the play serves to elevate the church above Mankind,
enforcing social divisions. This idea is extended in the image of Mercy as man’s ‘defendawnte’ (l.24) in
the metaphor of purgatory as a court. Spiritual authority is once again tied to conventional institutions.
6
Whether the entire audience could understand this Latin insult is a huge point of contention. If so,
then Mankind’s implied audience would clearly have been socially superior to the eponymous
exemplum, so limiting its subversive potential. However, an audience may have known some select
scattalogical Latin phrases, and since the point of the exercise is simply to mock the sound of Latin so
it actually matters little whether the audience understood or not.
7
The dissenting voice in both texts indicates that the institutional church has an unspiritual economic
self-interest. Nought lampoons the selling of indulgences in the image of ‘Pope Pokett’. The indulgence
he offers is a circle of sin, since Nowadays’ sin can only be absolved by the sinful pleasure of inserting
his nose in his wife, demonstrating the falseness of spirituality in a society that revolves around money
and sex. Margery is a contrasting exemplum of anti-materialist spirituality. After her first visions, her
maid servants are warned not to deliver her keys as ‘sche wold but geve awey swech good as ther was’
(ll.180-181). The position of money and spirituality in The Book is rather ambiguous, however, as
initially corrupt clergy give Margery money after she has helped to absolve them. This is subversive, at
least, because the figures to whom indulgences are normally paid find themselves giving what are
effectively indulgences to Margery. Authority figures come to her, such as the vicar of Chapter 23, not
the other way around.