Term-time Essay

A convention is a way in which something is usually done. Indeed, the way we usually see is fundamental in the creation of meaning during dramatic performance. This process of vision is a response involving the evocation of resonances or images which encompass allusion, connotation and overtone-in a way, what is 'known'. As Aquinas put it, 'whenever the intellect actually regards anything there must at the same time be formed in us a phantasm, that is, a likeness of something sensible'. During dramatic performance, the spectator is confronted by sights which take the form of images, and it is from these that the individual creates further mental-images or 'phantasms'. The York Cycle of Mystery Plays were determined in questioning how biblical events appeared; as Clifford Davidson points out, the plays are 'embedded in a very specific kind of Northern piety that stressed a devotional imagining of scenes from biblical history as useful or even necessary for salvation.' As such, it seems that through the process of seeing and forming mental-images, the York Mystery Plays aim to deepen their audience's understanding of such scenes, bringing them closer to what it is they see, and ultimately God himself. These 'phantasms' are significant beyond feeling and understanding; they have consequential impact upon our will. The process of vision not only has the power to shape our understanding, but also determine our actions. The fact the imagination makes its own mental-images, in response to what it sees, can be seen as an exercise of free will. What is more, it is an act of free will in the Bible that leads to the Fall of Man, so, in turn, one might ask where that places the audience in relation to the scenes being presented. If we consider free will to be possible, then the audience watching the York Mystery Plays is simultaneously brought closer to piety, while also further away from it. On the other hand, if free will is non-existent, as mental-images and actions are formed in response or influenced by something, then we find ourselves contemplating our freedom of thought and action in relation to dramatic performance, as well as reality itself. Images of light and dark, and purity and dirt are presented to the audience in the York Mystery Plays. The connotations held by these images, what is 'known', ultimately impacts on the audience's creation of meaning; in this case, it is the determination of good and evil. In the first play, The Creation of the Angels and the Fall of Lucifer, Lucifer's costume is responsible for the communication of images. Lucifer is referred to as 'berar of lyghte' and in turn, his appearance is defined as such: The bemes of my bryghthede are bygged with the beste. My schewyng es schemerande and schynande. The splendour of Lucifer's appearance is 'shimmering and shining' in these lines, and consequently we might assume his character to be equally pristine. However, the role of the audience is crucial in supplying the interpretation or mental-images in response to the images presented here. Our consideration of Lucifer before the fall as a figure of purity and glorious bedazzlement relies what we 'know', what we associate with the images of brightness and light. In Davidson's notes on the play, he notes that 'his appearance demanded a splendid costume, which appeared to be changed utterly into one that is dirty and tattered after his fall.' Similarly the angels are undefiled, as they are 'felyng of fylth' (60). Not only does this image call on an original connotation held by the audience that connects celestial beings with the purity that is God, but, in presenting such an image, the playwright reinforces the same image, making what is 'known' stronger in the mind of the audience. Such radiance is contrasted to the images of 'myrknes emel' (146) and dirt associated with Lucifer after his fall. As such, the antithetical images of light and darkness presented to the audience during the play triggers a response which, if in line with what is 'known' or at least believed, will secure the audience's definitions of good and evil. Vision thus allows for morals to be constructed in relation to the mental faculty to form phantasms in response to performance-images. In turn, these morals will then influence the way in which individuals act. Thus, the plays not only provoke their audiences to create meaning and thus feel closer to the sacred scenes, but in an exercise of will, images of drama can determine the audience's actions, which in the case of sin and virtue, will signify proximity to God and heaven. The Fall of the Angels illustrates this notion rather explicitly: For right als God yhe shalle be wyse And pere to hym in allkyn thynge. Ay, goddis shalle ye be, Of ille and gode to have knawyng, For to be als wise as he. (69-73) If we compare these lines to Genesis 3:5 in which we are told, 'your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil.' As such, there is suggestion that not only is meaning created through what we already know, but deeper knowledge and understanding comes from the connections we make with our eyes- our ability to visualise. Just as the audience's eyes are opened to the images of light and dark in the play, and in turn, are reminded of what they 'know' about the symbolic significant of light and dark in relation to good and evil, the eyes in The Fall of Angels similarly signify the elucidation of knowledge and meaning. It is perhaps pertinent, however, that the 'eyes' mentioned in Genesis are passive; they are 'opened' rather than opening themselves. Newman argues that '"seeing" in short means visualizing, with a certain measure of imaginative freedom'. However such a detail as the one in Genesis calls into question whether the process of creating mental-images, of deep thinking that is, can be considered an act of free will. We are forced to ask ourselves whether we open our eyes to the images presented on stage and create new ones, or are our eyes opened and mental-image formation is something beyond our will. In the same play in the York Mystery Plays, the audience is once again required to complete the image, or at least interpret it in a way that allows it to carry out its task. Angelus Seraphyn asks 'Lorde, to be fede with the fode of thi fayre face' (76) in which there is a suggestion of the Eucharist, as Davidson notes, 'since seeing the Host was considered a kind of visual communing.' Here, it is not so much a depiction of an image so much as a recalling of one. The audience are asked to visualise the image of communion, or at least conjure up the image of the Eucharist in relation to the Angel's speech. In such a way, the formation of mental-images-the visual- impacts on the oral, altering its reception depending on the capacity of the audience to call upon what they 'know'. If this knowledge is absent, then the creation of meaning is lessened or at least different. It seems that the audience embody a very active role in supplying the meaning to the image, or the symbol performed. Similarly, in The Flood the analogous Ark as symbol for the Church, only functions if the audience 'knows' enough. If the audience cannot create that mental-image in response to the symbol presented, then not only does the symbol cease to mean what was intended, but the analogy as a whole fails to work as a method of divine elucidation. As such, it is only through an act of will or remembrance that meaning occurs. Moreover, if free will exists in the role enabled by the audience, then they are brought closer to sacred meaning and understanding, as Davidson notes 'onlookers benefitted spiritually and morally from the experience as a penitential act.' However, the Fall of Man is an act of supposed free will, as is the Fall of Lucifer. Does this complicate the audience's relationship to the divine histories performed, and ultimately God himself? The York Cycle presents the good characters as having willed loyalty to God which becomes implicated in a dichotomy in which controlled will opposes the dangerous freedom of will that defines Lucifer's Fall, as well as that of Adam and Eve. Richard Beadle recognises that the York cycle is a 'unified drama of the Fall and Redemption of mankind presented in such a way as to implicate the spiritual lives of the audience throughout.' Nonetheless, the distance between the audience and the divine images presented, as well as God himself, alters depending on one's definition of free will and whether it exists in the mental process of vision, as well as elsewhere. If we consider free will to exist in the process of creating meaning in these plays, as well as in the biblical texts themselves, then we are reminded theological fatalism whereby omniscience of God and free will are contradictory. Perhaps complete free will is impossible, or sometimes illusory, yet freedom of imagination is undoubtedly essential in an audience's ability to supply meaning to acts. In a similar way to the paradox of free will, drama similarly exerts an omnipotence in its interpretation of sacred histories in which actors are directed to portray a certain image, and in turn are under the influence of another's will. The audience too embody such a paradox which enables freedom of thought to an extent while simultaneously revealing the limitations of free will as what we 'know' both consciously and subconsciously, influences our thoughts and our actions, ultimately defining the audience's relationship to both the drama and God.