The Second Shepherd’s Play by the Wakefield Master includes many Biblical references, many of which are inaccurate or anachronistic. There are also significant parallels between the story of Mak tricking the shepherds with his “baby” and the subsequent portrayal of the shepherds visiting the newborn Jesus. Considering the population of the time, what kind of effect would this play have had on the audiences? Is the primary intention to show the importance of the Nativity by presenting it next to the ridiculous story of Mak, or is it to reveal more about the societal and cultural life of the time?
ENGL 201 | British Literature to 1800
Myra Seaman | Fall 2012
The population of this time would cause a positive and humorous effect for those that watched because the style of the plays were meant for those who were commoners and more than likely illiterate which made the play more relateable to them. The primary intention is to show a mixture of the importance of the Nativity and the societal and cultural life of the time. Though the importance of the Nativity was presented in a humorous and crazy way, it’s a biblical story that everyone knew and it relates to the society at the time because biblical stories and plays were more common and influential during this time period.
In the intro to the story the book writes that the play “intended to make biblical stories interesting to a largely illiterate population.” It is important to point out that most of the common people during this time couldn’t read, so they were unable to study the stories of the bible on their own. The Second Shepherds’ Play is able to present biblical stories, although somewhat inaccurate, to the common people in a way that they will remember, with humor. By presenting these stories through a comedy, the common people would be entertained, but also have an easy way to remember the nativity story.
I completely agree with what Caroline has said thus far. The introduction clearly states what the intent and purpose of this play was and how the author wanted the audience to interpret it. However, it begs the question, why were these biblical stories inaccurately represented? Surely the authors of the time knew the current state of society and therefore knew that the general population could not read. Why then did they chose the angle of humor to portray biblical stories? Was it to mock? Was it to make them seem less holy and pure and accurate? I personally believe that the author(s) may have had other motives behind them than just entertaining the general public. In a way, I feel that using humor insults the general population….just because they couldn’t read didn’t make them any less smarter than the ruling class. Maybe it was not only a dig to society, but to the non-nobility class.
I was pondering the same ideas as Julia. Though the intro did state the author’s intent, I also found it a bit of a snub to the lower class. While sometimes humor is a good way to get a message across to reach the masses, it seemed to undermine their ability to interpret biblical stories. It’s interesting to consider whether the author was writing to convey a strictly entertainment based story, or if it was trying to weave in biblical ideals to influence their thinking. I believe that it was simply a story meant to please, and that the twisted biblical stories presented were there as a mark that the lower class were not intellectual enough to understand the true stories and messages. (Though I hope that both mine and Julia’s thoughts are incorrect- Perhaps there is some other reason to the fake tales that I’m missing)
I believe that the authors mains point was to make light of a more serious situation, by grasping the attention of the illiterate population in a humorous way. Many of these people had no other background information on the topics so the Second Shepard’s Play was their insight on cultural information. Because most of the population were not intellectuals this made it more enjoyable for them to see the version with Mak because they will actually want to learn about the nativity story this way. The Intellectual and religious population might disagree with how this story is being told because it is not a direct indication of what happened in the nativity scene with 100% accurate facts.
I believe that since that since the majority of the population was uneducated, this was a clever way to introduce the nativity story. Humor tends to engage an audience, and by weaving the nativity story with the story of Mak, it gave something for the audience to relate to and enjoy, rather than a dull story told by a religious leader. I don’t believe the purpose of this story was to compare the story of the nativity and Mak’s story, but rather to engage, educate, and entertain the audience by a biblical story that most would have not have been exposed to if it weren’t for The Second Shepherd’s Play.
This does this seem to be an entertaining form of a biblical story that the illiterate people would be more inclined to remember, as many of you have mentioned. But The Second Shepherd’s Play also does something else by placing the biblical story in such humorous and inaccurate terms. This makes the story more relatable for people of this time period. The stories of the bible seem very distant but through presenting this in common terms, in humorous situations, the common people would feel a deeper connection to the story and thus a deeper connection to the faith behind the stories. By separating the humorous tale of the stealing of the animal from the shepherds and the going to the actual nativity enforces the notion that the nativity (the story that does not revolve around humor) is of more importance and seriousness while the stealing story (that stands as humor) takes on more of the entertainment form. Not to mention there are some deep parallels between the two stories.