Th e Tr i α l o f M αγuα nd J o s e p h i n t h e N‑ To wn Mar y P l a y

(1)

Center for Liberal A1ts and Sciences No. 49 (2014), 23・27.

Th e Tr i α l o f M αγuα nd J o s e p h ⁱ ⁿ t h e N‑ To wn Mar y P l a y

Yuko Kudo*

(Accepted October 15, 2014)

23

The trial of Mary and .Joseph in the N‑town Mary play (NT) is a unique episode

明

thno counterparts in other ext.ant English cycle plays. There are no direct sources in the Bible except

凶

e drinking of the ordeal‑water in the Book of Numbers (5: 11 ‑31). Among the apocryphal sources on which several episodes of this series of plays on the Virgin Maiγare based, only the Protevα.ngelium of James (BoJ

〕加d

Pseudo‑Matthew (P‑M

〕

dealwith the subject. .Mary and Joseph are summoned to

凶

e temple for her allegedly committing adultery or for his violating Mary, and they are proven innocent through trial by ordeal. In adapting several elements or motifs from the two sources for a dramatic performance, the N‑town playwright makes good use of secular subjects to create a drama full of suspense and excitement in the setting of a medieval court. In partic

凶

ar,it is the supporting characters rathe than ,Joseph and Mary who contribut色tothis. In this paper, the treatment of apocryphal sources and the characterization of supporting roles are examined to illustrate the dramatic effects they have on the play in redeeming the honor of Mary and Joseph.

There is a difference in the reason for opening court between Numbers and the two apocryゃhal sources and the play. In Mosess law, when a jealous husband suspects his wife, he must bring her to the priest, whether she committed ad

凶

teryor not (Num. 5・： 11‑15). On the other hand, a rumor or a witness is enough to hold court in BoJ, P‑M and NT, and this setting, in the case of Marγand Joseph, is a more natural and persuasive course of event.c; for two reasons. First, it is only a matter of time before people will notice Marys physical change and feel curiosity or doubt. Second, the trial episode is preceded by Josephs doubts in BoJ (Chapters XlfI ‑XIV

，〕

P‑M(Chapters X ‑XI

〕

andNT (Play XII), where Joseph has been provided with a revelation through an angel that Mary conceived the child of God. Joseph is not a jealous husband加ymore but a guardian (BoJ

〕

ora caring husband (P‑M and

N η ，

and supports Mary with an unwavering loyalty in the upcoming trial. Even so, the details of the summons vary according to episodes. There is only a short mention of a great rumor that Mary is pregnant in P‑M, and Joseph is led by the ministers to the temple with Mary. In BoJ, Annas the scribe notices Mary's physical condition and hurries to the priest, who then sends officers to verify the witness and to bring Mary to the place of judgment toge

山

erwith her husband. NT adapts the opening scene to a far more lively and dramatic one by introducing supporting but impressive characters, namely a summoner called Den and two brothers of detractors, and by dealingも;vithsecular matters on marrid l

ife, one of the common motifs infabli似品二

* Department of English, Center for Liberal Arts and Sciences, Iwate Medical University

‑ 1 ‑

(2)

24

Den appears to bustle the crowd to the court by c

剖

lingevery possible name

加

anintimidating maimer. The name of Denis written in the manuscript by a different hand from that of the scribe of the play, and the first 33‑line prologue is inserted between the epilogue of Contemplacio of the

附

sitto Elizαbeth (Play XIII) and the play number 14. It is assumed that the prologue was originally intended to continue with the speech by Contemplacio in the previous play and was added later to the space between the two plays after the body of the play had been transc1ibed (Spector II 467‑8). Whatever the original intent, the summon

、倒

^t^h^rêâ^têⁿⁱⁿ^g^,^t^hûⁿ^dê^rôû^s^vôⁱ^cê^hê^l^p^sⁱⁿ^c^rêâ^sê^t^hêê^x^pê^c^tâÛôⁿ^sâⁿ^d

excitement of the upcoming trial.

Den is ordered to bring Joseph and his wife to the court. Pushing his way through the crowd, he threatens to beat them and enroll them in the list of people to be summoned if they ¥vill not pay him respect and a br

由

e,acting as every summoner does (Play XIV 146‑161〕Heis a bully and abus色shis authority as a summoner before the conunon people. When ordering Mary and ,Joseph to appear in court, the sununoners speech is full of teasing and slanderous expressions with a number of sexual allusions to extra‑marital affairs, such as a cockoldeis bower is ech nyght bent.（165），Dede not 3e archere plese 3ow right well？(169), and come forth, Cokewolde be name

い

(186).When Mary and Joseph say they are w

山

ingto clear theil、namein court, the summoner tells the audience of his experience that every si1mer凶bravein their、house,as these two are, but they begin to bow low once they are found guilty in court (182‑5). U

川

ikethe officers (BoJ〕andthe ministers (P‑M，〕whosetask is simply to b1'illg Mary and Joseph to the temple, Den might be a realistic character for the medieval audience. It can be easily imaginedぬathis vulgar speech and abuse of power evoked various reactions from the audience, such as laughter, hate, and anxiety. Thus the realisUc characterization of the summoner helps build a sense of excitement and anticipation for subsequent events in the trial.

ぐ

l'heother important suppor仙沼charactersin NT are two brothers of cletiactors. They begin to boast about how special they are to the audience. As their names Bakbyter

ぜ（

41,63) and Reysesclaw1dyr（66) show, they have Jong ears and show no mercy in raising slander and backbiting.

I f

they appear together in a town, people will hear more slander from them within an hour than there

・was in a thousand year (44‑48). It is no surp1ise that Raise‑slander (Primus Detractor) picks up a rumor about Mary, and Backbiter (Secundus Detractor) enjoys sprea

出

.ngit. Backbiter has a more vicious tongue than Den does and mocks Joseph in particular. The misery of marriage between an old husband and a youngもvifeis a conunon motif in medieval literature, includ

加

gthe episodes concer

凶

11g Joseph in the English cycle plays. In NT, he is called old shrew Joseph (82), old man (89), or old cuckold (98). Raise‑slander accuses Mary of breaking her vow of chastity and of loving some young m創l who had laid his leggysto her (86‑7〕，whileBackbiter agrees that the wench(l 03) had betrayed her old husband, which is why theJaw says many a man is a cuckold (104‑5).

In addition to their narrative skill, the detractors are good at hit.ting a sore spot with people, in this case，Episcopus.ηThe bishop is offended at their defamation of Mary because she is a relative of his and he knows Mary was Jeac

出

lga holy life in the temple (106‑112). The slanderers persuade the bishop to see her swe

出

ngwomb (115), to hear what the bell says (120), and to face the re

剖

it.y,since Our fayr mayd now gret with childe goth (121〕1vloreover,when Mary and Joseph appear in court to clear their name, Raise‑slander even makes a joke about the bishop, saying that if he would bring a cradle for her, he m

酬はi

veher money because she is his young cousin (198‑200). Now

凶

ecase takes

η︐u

(3)

25 on a personal meaning since, if the rumor were true, it would bring great disgrace upon the bishop himse

ぽ

andher kin. Thus Raise‑slander and Backbiter play a role in creating a feeling of tension even before the trial st.arts.

It is significant to mention who plays a central role in the course of the trial among the apocryphal sources and NT, because, here too, the detractors and other supporting characters contribute to creating comical and dramatic effects in the highlight of the play. In BoJ and

P‑M,

the trial takes place in the setting of the temple with the priests. In BoJ, the priest asks weeping Mary first why she has humbledher soul and forgotten her God, to which Mary answers that she is pure before God (XV: 3). However, it is Joseph who is accused here more than Mary is. Joseph already has two sons and was unw

サ

lingto take Mary in 仕omthe temple (IX: 2 ‑3

〕

asa guardian, not a husband; that is, they are not married. Hence his sins are that he had defiled＇her, stolen her marriage, and not declared it to the people of Israel (XV・： 2,4）.〔Interestingly,before leaving for Bethlehem, Joseph is still wondering whether he should record her as his daughter, which all the people in Israel know that she is not, or as his wife, which he is ashamed to do because of his old age. In the end

，剖

lmust be as God wills.) Therl the pr、iestmakes ,Joseph first drink

count1γ（XVI: l

一

2〕Ifhe is g

山

Jty,th色drinkwill manifest his sins, but he returns whole. Mary passes the s釦neordeal. It is likely that BoJ lays more weight on questioning JosephS misbehaviors than M加γs perjury to avoid the debate of her virginity.

In

P‑M,

on the contrary, Mary is the central figure in the trial (XII). When the chief priest Abiathar reproaches him for violating h告r,Joseph swears

凶

athe has never touched her. Joseph is a keeper as in BoJ, and took her in to marry one of his sons in the future. After d1

力

lkingthe water of the Lords drinking without fear創ldgoing around the altar seven times, no sign of sin appears in him, and he is proved innocent. P‑M is unique in that Mary ancl Joseph are tried separately, ancl her ilmocence is not as convincing as Josephs Surrounded by the priests, her parents and relatives, and other countless people, the priests demand an explanation of her pregnancy, ask who deceived her sil1ce Joseph is found innocent, and make her drink the water. She makes no excuse and proves her ilmocence by drinking the water and going around the altar seven tilnes with confidece, which causes no spot in her. However, the people are surprised and troubled by the consequences; some say she is spotless, and others still believe she is defiled. It is her speech, not the water of the Lords drinking, that dispels the doubts and suspicions. The people begin to kiss her feet, praying her to forgive theiI・ suspicions, and lead her to her house with joy and exaltation. In P‑M, Mary's trial, rather than Joseph's trial, sets an example for the spiritually blind who would not believe Gods judgment.

NT

deals with the drink called the bottle of Goddys vengeauns（234), which is a counterpart to the water of the conviction of the Lord (BoJ〕and

the~九

raterof the Lords drinking

(P‑M 〕 .NT

is closer to

P‑M

in the practice of ordeal: first, the order il1 which Joseph is first made to drink for his purgation (235) and Marry follows suit; next, their、goingaround the altar seven tilnes (279, 29η，加dGods sign on the face of a sinner (208); and third, the logic that Maryshould be guilty due to Josephs acquittal. On the other hand，社1eplay is different from the two apocrγphal sources in that Joseph is married to Marγand thus continuously mocked as a cuckold husband, and in that the play is wrapped up with a comical ending by the contribution of the supportil1g characters.

First, unlike a guardian (BoJ

〕

ora keeper (P‑1

的，

Josephis an easy target of mockery as a cuckold

qJ

(4)

26

husband, as in all the episodes of Josephs Doubts" or Suspicion of Joseph" in English cycles (Towneley X, York X

叩

andChester VI). In NT, according to the attendants in court, .Joseph is responsible for what happened to Mary. The bishop, ashamed of his young cous

加，

asksMary

江

old ,Joseph had taken her with strength (205

，〕

andthe second doctor of law (Secundus Doctor Legis) suspects that Joseph had deceived her with flattery or some false trick (219‑221). J'oseph is consistently confident throughout the trial. He defends his wife, insisting his and her innocence, and faces the ordeal. However, his physical weakness due to old age causes further laughter and teas

加

g,as in the play of Betrothal of Mary (Play X). Josephs weak legs, in particular, are an easy target for mockery incluiling sexual allusions. Backbiter teases hin1 by saying that Josephs legs are painful after pla

戸

ngwith tile young woman (264 ‑5), while his brother laughs at Josephs bent legs and says mockingly that the old churle had great courage when he was dancing with the lady (268 ‑9). Seeing him wobbling, the sununoner, urging him to lift up his legs before being beaten, says that theshrewe is in his dotage but had a lust when he was playing (258 ‑271). The contrast between solemn poise of ,Joseph and vulgar accusation by the attendants creates a dramatic tension in the play.

Next, tile ending of NT is as unique as that in P‑M, where the ordeal does not successfully prove Marys innocence. When the bishop states that Mary, who is a maiden, mother and wife (353), is fair and clean, Primus Detrac

じ

or(Raise‑slander) objects that the t1ial is a fake because Mary is the bishops kin and the drink must have been changed (354 ‑356). Since he accuses them of cheating here and also he first defamed the couple, the bishop makes Raise‑slander drink from the bottle of Gods vengeance, which gives him a severe headache. Ow, ow, alas, what ails my skull

？

he cries

，My

head with fire I think is b111nt

！（3

64 ‑5). Repenting his cursing and false language, Raise‑slander begs Mary for mercy (366‑7), then the people ask her to forgive theircursed language and shame in sound" on their knees (372〕

This mock trial and the subsequent scene of Marys forgiveness are sign

凶

cantin several respects. To the auclience, who see buJI戸ng,b1

治

eryor slander as conunon in tlleir society, the episode serves as an example of the consequences of wrong behaviors or practices, and above all, of defamation. The scenes also persuade them to affirm their faith in God through Mary, who is regarded here as Mediatrix even before the birth of Cu・iJst. In the end, all the doubts and suspicions over Mary and Joseph have been cleared away, and tile couple who endured hardship together share the joy of tlleir purgation by the grace of God. Sharing mercy and bliss with

剖

Ithe characters, the audience now anticipates the birth of theiI、Savior.

In conclusion, the motifs of trial by ordeal and the summoning of Mary and Joseph by officers are adopted from BoJ and P‑M for a play in the setting of a medieval court, where the summoner and the two detractors play their active roles，釘1dwhere the auclience could easily participate as part of the crowd. The vulgar speech and maimers of Den, Raise‑sl創1derand Backbiter are contrasted with the ca.Im, humble and faithful attitudes of Mary and Joseph. Their realistic characterization helps to increase dramatic effects such as tension, suspense, h111nor and excitement. Moreover, the consequences of the vulga.i・ity and sp

廿

itua.Iblindness of these characters teach a moral lesson to the audience. Thus tile supporting characters in the N‑town play of T

r i

αt of Maryαηd Joseph are significant contributors to the main purposes of English cycles: enlight官nmentand entertainment.

．

‑ 4 ‑

(5)

27 References

Beadle, Richard, ed. York Plαys. London: Edward Arnold, 1982.

Block, K. S., ed. Ludus Coventηαe or The Plaie Cαlled Corpus C

九

risti.EETS ES 120. Oxford: Oxford UP, rpt. 1974.

Book of James

。，

^γ^P1^叫^ev

^α

^.^ngelum^and T

^九

^eGospel o^f^t

^九

ê^Nâ^tⁱ^vⁱ^t^yô^f^Mary.^T^hê^Gnostⁱ^c^Socⁱê^t^y

Library. <http://w明w.gnosis.org/library.htrn>

Horne, Charles F., ed. The Gospel of Pseudo‑Matthew from The New Test.

α

仰叫 Apocryp

加

Kessinger Pub. Co., 2005.

Lurniansky, R. M. and David Mills, eds. The Chester Mystery Cycle. 2 vols. EETS SS 3, 9. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1974, 1986.

Meredith, Peter, ed. T

九

GMαryPlαy. London and New York: Longman, 1987.

Arai, Sasagu, ed. T九.eNew Testα竹ientApocrypha. Tokyo: Kodansha Bungei Burllrn, rpt. 2009. Spector, Stephen, ed. The N‑Town Plα.y: Cotton MS Vespasiαn D.8. 2 vols. EETS SS 11, 12. Oxford:

Oxford UP, 1991.

Stevens, .Martin and

A .

C. Cawley, eds. The 1bwneley Plαys. 2 vols. EETS SS 13, 14. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1994.

The Revised E

。旬

LishBible with the ApocnJphαOxford UP a』1dCambi

刈

geUP, 1989.

‑ 5 ‑

Th e Tr i α l o f M αγuα nd J o s e p h i n t h e N‑ To wn Mar y P l a y