The three shepherds-- Coll, Gib and Daw (as performed by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock).
The Second Shepherds’ Play is a medieval mystery play—written by an unknown author—as part of a sequence or “cycle” of plays within the Towneley [Wakefield] manuscript. Typical of the cycles, the Towneley collection is based on biblical scripture, and is believed to have been written in the early fifteenth century.1
The play is preceded by The First Shepherds’ Play, though the two are typically viewed as independent works. The Second Shepherds’ Play weaves the solemn story of Christ’s nativity into a farcical conflict between three shepherds and a thieving couple. Upon realizing that a sheep of theirs has been taken, the shepherds suspect and apprehend the town braggart, who’s notorious for stealing sheep. The plot parallels and connects to the familiar biblical storyline in which the shepherds are invited to visit the Christ Child in Bethlehem.
Characters
The full cast from the Folger Shakespeare Consort performance (2007).
Coll—the first shepherd Gib—the second shepherd Daw—the third shepherd Mak—notorious thief Gill—Mak’s wife Angel—messenger Mary—mother of Jesus
Plot
As the play opens, Coll—the first shepherd—enters into a field. He complains of cold weather and his unfortunate social standing; he’s “oppressed in point to miscarry” –to the point of ruin (Line 33).1 This reference, and subsequent others give the biblical shepherds the appearance of contemporary men. The second shepherd, Gib, enters the field and, at first, does not see Coll. He too complains of the cold before haranguing the audience about the woes of wedlock, which is soon interrupted by Coll; the two question the whereabouts of a third shepherd, Daw—“a lither hine” [or, lazy servant] according to Coll (Line 213).1 Initally, Daw as well does not notice the others, as he himself bemoans; “was never sin Noah’s flood such floods seen.” (Line 183). 1
Mak, a local with a reputation for stealing sheep, enters with a cloak over his clothes, feigning the appearance and speech of a southern yeoman. The shepherds see through this guise and warn Mak of his wrong-doing, before inquiring about his wife—who, according to Mak, does nothing save drink and bear children. The shepherds voice their intent to bed down and invite Mak to lie among them. Shortly thereafter, Mak draws a magic circle around the shepherds, and recites a spell to deepen the shepherds’ slumber; he stealthily sneaks off to steal a sheep, and heads home to his wife, Gill. Upon seeing the sheep, she ensures Mak that his crime warrants his hanging. The couple resolves to hide the sheep in a cradle [as if it were their child] and when the shepherds come in search of their livestock, Gill will feign giving birth to the twin.
Mak returns to the sleeping shepherds, who soon wake; and Daw recites a dream wherein Mak “trapped […] a fat sheep” (Line 536).1 The shepherds wake Mak, who pretends to have been asleep, for interrogation. He claims himself to have dreamt a scene of Gill in painful labor, and tells the men he must return home to his wife. Before doing so, he insists the shepherds check his sleeves, en route to proving his innocence. Daw suggests they count their sheep nevertheless, and quickly discover that one has gone missing; the shepherds set out in search of Mak’s cottage.
The shepherds' realization that the baby in the cradle is actually one of their sheep (as performed by The Players of St. Peter in London, 2005).
Once they arrive, the shepherds hear Gil groaning and Mak guilts them for their intrusiveness as they search his home. The men leave, fooled by the couple’s ruse, but immediately reenter, apologizing for their rude behavior in not bringing the “child” any gifts. They recognize the child as their sheep, yet decide to let Mak off with only the mildest of punishments—wrapping him inside a blanket to toss him around.
Upon exiting Mak’s cottage, the biblical story proper begins: the shepherds are visited by the Angel, who invites them to Bethlehem to see the Christ Child. As the shepherds enter the stable, they hail the child as their “sovereign Savior,” only to begin comically cooing at the baby, showering him with odd gifts (Line 1037).1 Mary, mother of Jesus, says the Savior shall “keep [the shepherds] from woe,” and the three rejoice at their salvation, slinking off in song (Line 1072).1 “The bleak beginning, with its series of individual complaints, is ultimately balanced by the optimistic ending, which sees the shepherds once again singing together in harmony.” 1
The first page of the play's original manuscript
Authorship
The authors “identity is not known, but because of his achievement scholars refer to him as the Wakefield Master.”1 The name-phrase “Wakefield Master” was coined by Charles Mills Gayley, initially with “master” in lower case; “but it is when we consider the subtler qualities of the style […] that descry the Master.” 2 The style Gayley refers to is in the maintenance of “a strong metrical structure, presented in the manuscript in the form of nine-line stanzas, with a consistent ababababcdddc rhyming pattern throughout.” 3 Furthermore, The Second Shepherds’ Play distinguishes itself with lively characterization of contemporary rural life, and sheer skill of composition using a northern dialect of Middle English. “The Wakefield Master has a genius for combining comedy, including broad farce, with religion in ways that make them enhance one another.” 1
The author “was probably a highly educated cleric stationed in the vicinity of Wakefield.”1 The play “demonstrate[s] an extensive and sophisticated knowledge of the Bible,” and “some knowledge of continental literature, as the structure suggests some influences from the French comic theater of the time.” 3
Martin Stevens states of the Wakefield Master: “we are bound to conclude that he was the major redactor of the full cycle, if not the compiler himself.” 4 He echoes medievalist John Gardner, who notes, given the “thematic control and unity of action, coherence of technique, and the evidence of language—it seems natural to believe that the Wakefield Master did put together the Wakefield play…” 5
Performance
During the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, “the great English mystery cycles were formed in provincial, yet increasingly powerful and independent cities.” 1 They were produced by the city itself, with particular responsibility for staging and performance devolving onto the city guilds (a guild combined the functions of a modern trade union, club, religious society, and political action group). The performance and staging required “significant investments of time and money from amateur performers, the status of whose [guild] might be at stake in the quality of their performance.”1
A wheeled vehicle, or pageant wagon, used as the stage for English mystery plays
Municipal and guild records reveal that each guild had a wagon which served as a stage; the wagon “proceeded from one strategic point in the city to another, and the play would be performed a number of times on the same day,” or—alternatively—“in sequence [as a cycle] on a platform erected at a single location such as the main city square.”1
“Since external and internal evidence for the staging of The Second Shepherds’ Play is severely limited, any hypothesis will depend largely on a critic’s interpretation of the play’s dialogue and meaning.” 6 It’s widely accepted that the play had two sets: one of Mak’s cottage, and another serving as the field, as well as the holy manger; the two-stage setup is thought to have enhanced the parallel between sacred and profane imagery. Other critics, however, think that the Bethlehem scene replaces Mak’s cottage on stage. “While the idea of such replacement staging is attractive,” the aforementioned simultaneous staging “demands less of the audience and has the added benefit of coinciding with and reinforcing the play’s synchronic treatment of time.” 6
Critique
The “Mak Story” within the play is seen to have analogues across world folklore. Samuel B. Hemmingway was of the opinion that “this is an old legend which was used by the author of the Towneley plays in the fourteenth century, which survived in folklore, and was later fathered upon the notorious court jester of the seventeenth century…” 7
Maynard Mack denounces those who feel The Second Shepherds’ Play is of “radiant simplicity,” stressing the play’s “rare sophistication” and “artistic daring” in redefining a comic parody by following it with the “Birth story.” 8
Lois Roney feels the play reflects the psychology of human nature: a dark psyche “saturated with selfishness.”9 In the first section, Coll and Gib “complain about oppression but practice it themselves”; and in the comic middle section, “the shepherds improve, but now the evil possibilities in human nature are graphically revealed by Mak and Gill.” 9
References
1) Greenblatt, Stephen, ed. The Norton Anthology of English Literature. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2012: pp. 449-475.
2) Gayley, Charles Mills. “An Historical View of the Beginnings of English Comedy,” in Representative English Comedies from Beginnings to Shakespeare. New York, 1903: p. 174.
3) Fitzgerald, Christina. The Broadview Anthology of Medieval Drama. Broadview Press, 2012: p. 146.
4) Stevens, Martin. The Towneley Plays. Vol 1. London, 1994: p. xxxi.
5) Gardner, John. The Construction of the Wakefield Cycle. Carbondale, 1974: p. 139.
6) Vaughan, Miceal. “The Three Advents in the Secunda Pastorum.” Speculum 55.3 (1980): p. 487.
7) Hemingway, Samuel B. English Nativity Plays. New York, 1909: p. 286.
8) Mack, Maynard. “The Second Shepherds’ Play: A Reconsideration.” PMLA 93.1 (1978): p. 78.
9) Roney, Lois. “The Wakefield Shepherds’ Plays as Compliments in Psychology and Parody.” Speculum 58.3 (1903): p. 722.
Table of Contents
Introduction
The play is preceded by The First Shepherds’ Play, though the two are typically viewed as independent works. The Second Shepherds’ Play weaves the solemn story of Christ’s nativity into a farcical conflict between three shepherds and a thieving couple. Upon realizing that a sheep of theirs has been taken, the shepherds suspect and apprehend the town braggart, who’s notorious for stealing sheep. The plot parallels and connects to the familiar biblical storyline in which the shepherds are invited to visit the Christ Child in Bethlehem.
Characters
Gib—the second shepherd
Daw—the third shepherd
Mak—notorious thief
Gill—Mak’s wife
Angel—messenger
Mary—mother of Jesus
Plot
As the play opens, Coll—the first shepherd—enters into a field. He complains of cold weather and his unfortunate social standing; he’s “oppressed in point to miscarry” –to the point of ruin (Line 33).1 This reference, and subsequent others give the biblical shepherds the appearance of contemporary men. The second shepherd, Gib, enters the field and, at first, does not see Coll. He too complains of the cold before haranguing the audience about the woes of wedlock, which is soon interrupted by Coll; the two question the whereabouts of a third shepherd, Daw—“a lither hine” [or, lazy servant] according to Coll (Line 213).1 Initally, Daw as well does not notice the others, as he himself bemoans; “was never sin Noah’s flood such floods seen.” (Line 183). 1Mak, a local with a reputation for stealing sheep, enters with a cloak over his clothes, feigning the appearance and speech of a southern yeoman. The shepherds see through this guise and warn Mak of his wrong-doing, before inquiring about his wife—who, according to Mak, does nothing save drink and bear children. The shepherds voice their intent to bed down and invite Mak to lie among them. Shortly thereafter, Mak draws a magic circle around the shepherds, and recites a spell to deepen the shepherds’ slumber; he stealthily sneaks off to steal a sheep, and heads home to his wife, Gill. Upon seeing the sheep, she ensures Mak that his crime warrants his hanging. The couple resolves to hide the sheep in a cradle [as if it were their child] and when the shepherds come in search of their livestock, Gill will feign giving birth to the twin.
Mak returns to the sleeping shepherds, who soon wake; and Daw recites a dream wherein Mak “trapped […] a fat sheep” (Line 536).1 The shepherds wake Mak, who pretends to have been asleep, for interrogation. He claims himself to have dreamt a scene of Gill in painful labor, and tells the men he must return home to his wife. Before doing so, he insists the shepherds check his sleeves, en route to proving his innocence. Daw suggests they count their sheep nevertheless, and quickly discover that one has gone missing; the shepherds set out in search of Mak’s cottage.
Once they arrive, the shepherds hear Gil groaning and Mak guilts them for their intrusiveness as they search his home. The men leave, fooled by the couple’s ruse, but immediately reenter, apologizing for their rude behavior in not bringing the “child” any gifts. They recognize the child as their sheep, yet decide to let Mak off with only the mildest of punishments—wrapping him inside a blanket to toss him around.
Upon exiting Mak’s cottage, the biblical story proper begins: the shepherds are visited by the Angel, who invites them to Bethlehem to see the Christ Child. As the shepherds enter the stable, they hail the child as their “sovereign Savior,” only to begin comically cooing at the baby, showering him with odd gifts (Line 1037).1 Mary, mother of Jesus, says the Savior shall “keep [the shepherds] from woe,” and the three rejoice at their salvation, slinking off in song (Line 1072).1 “The bleak beginning, with its series of individual complaints, is ultimately balanced by the optimistic ending, which sees the shepherds once again singing together in harmony.” 1
The author “was probably a highly educated cleric stationed in the vicinity of Wakefield.”1 The play “demonstrate[s] an extensive and sophisticated knowledge of the Bible,” and “some knowledge of continental literature, as the structure suggests some influences from the French comic theater of the time.” 3
Martin Stevens states of the Wakefield Master: “we are bound to conclude that he was the major redactor of the full cycle, if not the compiler himself.” 4 He echoes medievalist John Gardner, who notes, given the “thematic control and unity of action, coherence of technique, and the evidence of language—it seems natural to believe that the Wakefield Master did put together the Wakefield play…” 5
Performance
During the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, “the great English mystery cycles were formed in provincial, yet increasingly powerful and independent cities.” 1 They were produced by the city itself, with particular responsibility for staging and performance devolving onto the city guilds (a guild combined the functions of a modern trade union, club, religious society, and political action group). The performance and staging required “significant investments of time and money from amateur performers, the status of whose [guild] might be at stake in the quality of their performance.”1Municipal and guild records reveal that each guild had a wagon which served as a stage; the wagon “proceeded from one strategic point in the city to another, and the play would be performed a number of times on the same day,” or—alternatively—“in sequence [as a cycle] on a platform erected at a single location such as the main city square.”1
“Since external and internal evidence for the staging of The Second Shepherds’ Play is severely limited, any hypothesis will depend largely on a critic’s interpretation of the play’s dialogue and meaning.” 6 It’s widely accepted that the play had two sets: one of Mak’s cottage, and another serving as the field, as well as the holy manger; the two-stage setup is thought to have enhanced the parallel between sacred and profane imagery. Other critics, however, think that the Bethlehem scene replaces Mak’s cottage on stage. “While the idea of such replacement staging is attractive,” the aforementioned simultaneous staging “demands less of the audience and has the added benefit of coinciding with and reinforcing the play’s synchronic treatment of time.” 6
Critique
The “Mak Story” within the play is seen to have analogues across world folklore. Samuel B. Hemmingway was of the opinion that “this is an old legend which was used by the author of the Towneley plays in the fourteenth century, which survived in folklore, and was later fathered upon the notorious court jester of the seventeenth century…” 7Maynard Mack denounces those who feel The Second Shepherds’ Play is of “radiant simplicity,” stressing the play’s “rare sophistication” and “artistic daring” in redefining a comic parody by following it with the “Birth story.” 8
Lois Roney feels the play reflects the psychology of human nature: a dark psyche “saturated with selfishness.”9 In the first section, Coll and Gib “complain about oppression but practice it themselves”; and in the comic middle section, “the shepherds improve, but now the evil possibilities in human nature are graphically revealed by Mak and Gill.” 9
References
1) Greenblatt, Stephen, ed. The Norton Anthology of English Literature. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2012: pp. 449-475.2) Gayley, Charles Mills. “An Historical View of the Beginnings of English Comedy,” in Representative English Comedies from Beginnings to Shakespeare. New York, 1903: p. 174.
3) Fitzgerald, Christina. The Broadview Anthology of Medieval Drama. Broadview Press, 2012: p. 146.
4) Stevens, Martin. The Towneley Plays. Vol 1. London, 1994: p. xxxi.
5) Gardner, John. The Construction of the Wakefield Cycle. Carbondale, 1974: p. 139.
6) Vaughan, Miceal. “The Three Advents in the Secunda Pastorum.” Speculum 55.3 (1980): p. 487.
7) Hemingway, Samuel B. English Nativity Plays. New York, 1909: p. 286.
8) Mack, Maynard. “The Second Shepherds’ Play: A Reconsideration.” PMLA 93.1 (1978): p. 78.
9) Roney, Lois. “The Wakefield Shepherds’ Plays as Compliments in Psychology and Parody.” Speculum 58.3 (1903): p. 722.