The Fictional Universe of the German ‘Fastnachtspiel’

Das Spiel von dem König Salomon und dem Bauern Markolf

Orla Lund Nielsen

Every endeavour to re-establish the conditions and techniques of performance in the late Middle Ages is immediately confronted by the almost insuperable problem of the missing object of investigation. It goes without saying that nobody today has had a living experience of those performances, and all of our information on their characteristics and peculiarities seems to stem from only three different kinds of sources: contemporary pictorial evidence that is very rare; the likewise external written evidence found in pamphlets, excerpts of judicial documents, short descriptions in sermons etc. which of course are liable to be hostile towards the dramatic activities; and finally the third kind which is the internal evidence provided by the play-texts themselves, and especially the various kinds of stage direction that can be found in them.

The stage directions taken into consideration in the following include both the extra-dialogic comments normally considered as such, which, in spite of their predominant laconic nature and scarcity, are able to give a hint of the playwright’s intentions, as well as the potentially far more significant so-called intra-dialogic directions, by which are meant words or sentences found within the spoken lines that either explicitly or implicitly stipulate certain ‘actions’ to be undertaken by the performer. This kind of theatrical evidence doesn’t usually get much attention, perhaps due to its lack of accuracy which admittedly is far from pverwhelming, but its informative potential ought not to be left out of consideration.

The great diversity both in thematic content as well in structure of the approximately 150 German play-texts handed down to us, renders generalisations impossible, but Eckehard Catholy’s distinction between ‘Reihenspiele’ and ‘Handlungsspiele’ may serve as a point of departure in the determination of the dramatic specifics of the individual plays. The first one, allegedly the more primitive variant, consists in its simplest form of a recitation by various persons or representatives of social classes of a number of monologues, which sometimes have only the slightest thematic connection to each other, and which are totally unable to form a coherent fictional universe of its own, directed as they are towards the listeners more than to the fellow performers, while the second category, as the name indicates, offers a certain degree of causality in the connection between the incidents, a progressive line of action and real dialogue. This latter type is usually thought of as being of a higher quality, but rather than seeing them as two wholly different types of plays, one ought to look at them as the two extremes of a line of continuity between which the individual types find their place.

The actual stage directions in Das Spiel von dem König Salomon und dem Bauern Markolf consist mostly just of the insignificant dicit followed by the name of the speaker, which doesn’t necessarily cover much more than a flat recitation as known from the ‘Reihenspiele’. Once in a while, however, the directions are amplified a little, like at Markolf’s first line where a "zum konig" (v.8a) is added, and when Fusita is introduced into the action with "Markolff spricht zu seiner swester" (v.162a).

Another four times we find such additions – "Markolff spricht zu den frauen" (v.248a), "Ein frau spricht zu den andern" (v.270a), "Markolff spricht zum konig" (v.317a) and "Salomon spricht zu den frauen" (v.330a) – and it can be said as a minimum that in these six specific cases, there is no doubt that the author of the drama stipulated a genuine dialogue to take place on the ‘stage’ where the speaker directly adresses his interlocutor, thus marking off a vague but nevertheless distinct fictional universe from the sphere of the audience.

Or rather interlocutors, in plural, because it is worth noticing that in all these cases, more than two persons take part in the conversation, and escept in the last case (v.330a) the "zu" is added when the speaker addresses another person than the one who said the previous lines., i.e.. on occasions where a change in the direction of speech occurs.

Besides bearing evidence of the tendency to establish an independent universe of the drama these incidents may then as well serve as an indication of Folz’ dramatic craftsmanship, while he, at those times when a slight confusion concerning direction and development of the dialogue, and when the audience’s attention needs to be moved to another part of the playing area, carefully supplies the performers with sufficient directions to make them able to guide the spectators by use, probably, of gesticulation or movements. The tiny "zu" represents then in reality a stage direction telling them to turn or take a step towards the new interlocutor. Furthermore it seems likely that when Folz only bothered to emphasise the changes in the direction of the dialogue, it was because he already took it for granted that the normal conversation on the stage was acted out as true dialogue and only deviations from or additions to that pattern needed mentioning. In the cases where the stage direction only consists of a name and dicit, a to is therefore implied.

The likelihood of such a conjecture increases when the huge number of intra-dialogic stage directions is considered. Numerous times we find the speaker explicitly addressing his or her opponents by their propper names or titles in the beginning of their lines. Altogether, it happens on more than thirty occasions, each time confirming the addressee’s fictional identity as well as testifying to the dialogic character of the text, thus helping to maintain an integrated dramatic universe. At line 156a, where Salomonn shifts the attention from The good WIfe to Markolf without this being indicated in the speech heading, the "zu" has been replaced by this type of direct address: "Markolff, sag mir…" (v.157), and something similar happens a little later when Fusita turns from her brother to the King in the middle of her speech:

This is the only instance where we find a direct address not in the first line of a speech.

Another important indication on the endeavour to establish a fictional universe is the use and density of what is known among semioticians as verbal deictic signs. Every sign meant to guide the attention of the audience and point at or identify persons and objects on the stage pertains to this class of signs, as well as personal and demonstrative pronouns and temporal and spatial adverbs. This memans that the establishment of the time and place of the drama, together with every temporal and spatial orientation afterwards, always depends on deictic signs.

Temporal markers in Das Spiel von dem König Salomon und dem Bauern Markolf are few and show no significant pattern, whereas the evidence stemming from the spatial adverbs is a bit more revealing. The "hynnen" of the Herold’s csecond line definitely refers to the real room and not to a theatrical space, since he is addressing "den wirt, gest und gesint" (v.1), but the "hie" of line 5 is sommewhat more ambiguous, since the reference now is the court of king Solomon. The gradual drift towards a theatrical space seems to be completed when the same word is used by Markolf another five lines later, at which time both the "zum konig" of the speech heading and the direct address "Lieber junckher" (v.9) in the previous line tell us that we are dealing with a proper vdialogue and not with words spoken to the spectators. Later The bald-headed king hints at the nature of the speech by calling it "den sal" (v.24) and Markolf’s remark suggests a wonderfully adorned hall: "Ich solt auff kein zeirung nit speyen" (v.29). Naturally this doesn’t indicate the use of lavish decoration. The setting was made by words alone, and the playwright apparently made an effort to enable the audience to distinguish between their real world and this theatrical universe.

The use of personal pronouns seems to offer even more detailed information, especially the distribution of these deictic signs is valuable when comparing the individual parts of the drama to each other.

One of the strongest dialogical markers is the use of the second person pronouns, and they are now and again found at an extremely high density that makes it virtually impossible for the speaker not to confront the other performer and actually play the scene:

Nearly one hundred instances of second person pronouns can be found throughout the text, confirming beyond any doubt the playwright’s intention to see it acted, but of equal importance is the irregularity at which they occur. In the first part of the text there are quite a lot of them but as the play gradually turns into a stchomythic competition between Salomon and Markolf on wit and slyness after line 65, their number rapidly decreases and they vanish completely after line 71, only to reappear when the section on the Solomonic decision takes its beginning and afterwards continue on a high level until the sentence is passed on Markolf at v.350. The use of direct addresses displays exactly the same pattern, and these peculiarities suggest that the dispute, even though it consists of rhymed lines with Markolf taking his cue from the King’s words, is far less dialogic than the remainder of the play, which means that the affinity to the ‘Reihenspiel’ is fairly strong in this sectin compared to the central parts of the play. The proverbial content of especially Markolf’s lines strengthens the relations with the sphere of the audience rather than helps maintaining the fictional universe.

Towards the end, when the four peasants deplore the fate of their companion, the number of second person pronouns decreases again but instead of vanishing completely they are mixed with other elements in a most interesting way:

The direct address "Lieben freund" is followed by a reference in the third person, "er lut und heult" which logically must be directed to the onlookers rather than to the wailing peasant, before the speaker again turns to his fellow performer and scolds him in the next lines, though not totally letting go of his connection to the audience in front of whom they are exposed.

The ease with which The second peasant moves back and forth between the fictional universe and the real world of the audience may serve as an example of the fragility of the boundary between those worlds, which must never be underestimated. Though the play-text on several occasions shows the author’s effort to establish a coherent fictional universe, this comes nowhere near to the illusionistic theatre of the later centuries.

The central parts of the play, however, show various kinds of evidence of the endeavou to avoid appearing as an endless line of badly connected proclamations. Apart from their strong dialogic character already discussed, the neatly interpolated verse 138: "Freulein, was sagt ir darzu?" which is actually noot necessary for the development of the scene, is surprisingly efficient in extinguishing any similarity with the ‘Reihenspiel’ because Salomon’s line is pushed in between those of the quarrelling women, thus strengthening their connection and easing the change of attention from one woman to the other at the same time.

Occasionally the text provides evidence of the playwright’s dramatic ability when the intra-dialogic stage directions const of actuel cues to the actors such as when Markof’s ‘re-entry’ is prescribed by "Wo mag Markolffus hin kumen sein?" (v.179), the signal to the women’s revolt is given with "Wol auff, ir weyber alle gar! / Und laufft mit mir zum konig dar" (v.271-272), or Markolf’s exit – real this time because he has to fetch a pilgrim’s outfit – is marked by "Nu eylt pald mit im darvan!" (v.350). At other times his deftness is seen inn the ease with which a presentation of a new character is included in the dialogue, thus facilitating the understanding of the new development by a perhaps not all to sober audience: "Hor, Fusita, traut schwester mein" (v.163) and "O frauen, wes sitzt ir hie?" (v.249). It is hardly a coincidence that especially the female parts needed a special attewntion played as they were by men.

One ought to notice the opportunities for the performers to act physically provided by the text too. We do not have any precise evidence on the nature and extent of the use of gesticulation, facial expression or movements on the stage, but taking for granted that they were employed to provoke as much laughter among the audience as possible, Merkel concludes that they were deviated considerably from the "ernste ‘erhabene’ Bewegung", and thus were marked by crudeness and exaggeration. The two rather extraordinary stage directions in the scene between Markolf and The bald-headed Knight seem to confirm this, while they stipulate, not only that Markolf spits on the naked crown of his opponent, but that this action has been prepared for several lines earlier with the beginning of his violent coughing. Physical action can hardly be avoided after the women’s revolt has been ignited at v.271-272 cited above, at least if Salomon’s words a little later are to be taken as an indication of the commotion and noise it has caused:

Even silence can be telling. When Fusita claims that Markolf carries a hidden knife, he answers with a most explicit intra-dialogic direction. "Such an und nym dir wol die weil!" (v.202), and only after a while the Knight who carried out the search can report the result: "Her konigk, ich find kein messer nicht" (v.204). I like to imagine Markolf as very ticklish here, but that is, of course, not verifiable.

Finally, one can find a careful casual connection between the scenes in the middle of the play. First, when Markolf, to prove his theory of the unreliability of women that was provoked by the Solomonic decision, schemes against his sister Fusita to make her appear in front of the King as a liar, and later when the content of his "Frauenschelte" apparently is confirmed by their uprising. The revolt entices Salomon to give his consent: "Nit posers ist, dan ein pob weip" (v.313), but it is of course just the result of another carefully invented deception. In fact Markolf’s activities show no little affinity to that of the dramatist as is acknowledged by several of the other characters: "Die schand hast du selber zu gericht" (v.322).

On the basis of the internal evidence provided by the text of Das Spiel von dem König Salomon und dem Bauern Markolf investigated here, the conclusion will be that a certain endeavour to form a coherent fictional universe independent from that of the audience can be detected. Especially the use of second person pronouns and direct address in the dialogue indicates that such a universe gradually grows out of the first speeches by the Herold and Markolf and that it is particularly strong in the central part of the play which displays both a progressive development of the plot as well as signs of physical action. This last feature, however, must not be exaggerated, and there are sequences where the boundary between reality and fiction is quite weak such as the dispute and during the peasants’ lamentations in the end where it hardly exists at all.