The Morall as an Elizabethan Dramatic Kind: An Exploratory Essay

Abstract

Most students of the drama would agree that the story of the has been oft told and well expressed. Literary historians have surveyed the terrain, mined the ore deemed of value, and displayed their finds to non-specialists glad to forego any firsthand experience of the raw material. The justly famous fifteenth century moralities, to be sure, have sustained their devotees, but few of the many sixteenth century plays have found their way into modern editions, college survey courses, or live productions. With few exceptions (e.g., T. W. Craik, David Bevington), scholars are apologetic when dealing with much of the tradition, perhaps in the fear of echoing Aristarchus' dedication to Dullness (For thee we dim the eyes, and stuff the head/ With all such reading as was never read). Certainly behind most treatments of these plays lie shared assumptions that the development (to many readers the degeneration) of the moralities has been accurately mapped with little need for new voyages of discovery. The standard histories of the play, however, often omit many problems and anomalies. Of particular interest is the question of dramatic nomenclature, for not all readers are aware that and morality play are not Elizabethan terms. Admittedly, John Young's account of the marriage of James IV and Margaret Tudor in 1503 states: After Dynnar, a Moralite was played by the said Master Inglishe and hys Companyons, in the Presence of the Kyng and Qwene,l but Young's spelling probably indicates a borrowing of the French moralite rather than usage of the term familiar to us. Outside of this account and a curious reference from Thomas Nashe,2 I