With the growth of a certain laicization of Christian faith from the 12^th. century onwards and with the visualisation of the liturgical contents that went with it, theatre was "reborn" within the ecclesiastical context. However, it did not develop to the full until the 14^th and 15^th century, when it became also a medium to express, or better enact, typically urban matters within the cities. Theatre consequently developed into "secular play", i.e. theatre which does not primarily focus on religious items. Even though it might still be incorporated within the Christian calendar (the Shrovetide plays, for example, were shown during Shrovetide). It is obviously difficult to maintain a strict division between religious and secular plays, especially since religious plays may well include some secular sequences while secular plays often deal with Christian virtues, as can be seen for example in the "Lasterkatalog" ("catalogue of vices").

Shrovetide plays, as they occur in late medieval German cities, seem to have developed along with the very cities themselves. We have not found any texts older than the 14^th century (There are a few earlier religious plays, some in the vernacular but more of them in Latin, and clearly belonging in a liturgical context). This is precisely the period when the German cities in question (such as Nürnberg and Lübeck) attained a certain independence from the feudal system and its local powers. It is also the period we find groups of craftsmen developing their own group identity and self-esteem. Other constellations of identity, such as a neighbourhood or a peergroup, should also be taken into account.

It is in urban festivities, such as carnival, that these groups find an ideal occasion to show their identity and to affirm it by giving expression to its constituting factors. And one way doing that is through performing theatreplay.

As a different medium to spread role patterns and sociological visions they visualise, also to a non-reading public, existing or intended role patterns or socio-cultural behavioural standards.

In this paper I would like to discuss the specific role of one theatrical figure, namely the knight, respectively nobleman, in this particular theatrical expression of group standards or norms, and the possible functions of the enacted patterns of masculinity within this group-constituting process.

When literary history turned its attention to texts which did not belong to the well defined canon of medieval literature, the texts of secular plays were (re)discovered for scholarly research. Furthermore, the secular sequences in religious plays were no longer seen as simple comical interventions to keep the public interested. Instead, the focus was on everyday life, as well as on the expressions of less dominant groups.

Not only were Shrovetide plays considered as an expression of e.g. groups of craftsmen, the characters or types in these plays were also seen as a means by which certain sociological standards could be expressed. In this way, research not only focused on the structure of the plays and on their comic nature (in general, one can state that most secular plays and sequences are mainly of a comic-parodic nature and use humour that is quite often situated within the scatological or sexual sphere), but also on the often stereotypical presentation of figures such as the peasant or the woman.

In the 80/90s the focus of interest turned to the sociological function of the plays inside the city realm. New impulses which mainly centred around the integration of the plays in a Christian/urban frame came especially from the area of "Volkskunde". Shrovetide plays were now seen as an integral part of Shrovetide which means that they were not only attached to a Christian calendar but also thematically linked to Christian contents. In general, though, these studies ignore that the way in which these Christian values are voiced is one which is of particular interest to an "urban society". The question as to what extent one can speak of an homogeneous urban society is usually left unanswered by the theories mentioned above. Cultural studies and the discussions about social grouping and "the other" reveal, however, that these plays are more than just self-exhibition and self-definition of the city as a whole, when it comes to show status to other groups or authorities. They do indeed play the same role when it comes to different groups within the city itself and maybe even different members of the group in question.

Certain behaviour that seemed intolerable to one particular group is thus often scorned and ridiculed in a satirical manner. In this way these plays are not only highly performative in a self-constituting way but also rather repressive. They show the norms and patterns of behaviour which are favoured by the enacting/organising group, who expects that 1: every member will agree to these norms and 2: every non-member will acknowledge and respect them. (This does not necessarily conflict with the idea that Shrovetide and Shrovetide plays could comprehend or trigger "revolutionary" behaviour to some extent.) These plays are therefore not only similar to the royal entrees or the processions in showing all the power and status of a city and in evoking, if possible, the picture of a close urban community. They are also similar to the "charivari", which reveals undesired behaviour — mostly of the generative kind — to the public and humiliatingly ridicules it. The difference with charivari is that while the plays enact general positions and repressive consequences by means of fictive figures, the charivari aims at actual misbehaviour of real, living members of the community or group. The audience, though, is in both cases the same, as is the intended message.

Since the plays aim at the demonstration of misbehaviour in general, their frequent use of stereotype can be easily explained. Indeed, these stereotypes represent one particular pattern of behaviour rather than focusing on specific characters.

I understand stereotype as a presentation of known "commonplaces" which are personified in the same or similar way in different texts and are therefore easily recognisable as such. Examples of these stereotypes are figures as the smart student, the clumsy peasant, the scheming old woman, the old husband, etc.

Obviously also the knight or nobleman can be seen as a stereotype and a commonplace. Yet, as he is usually placed in other contexts and seen from a different perspective and with a different background than expected, he reveals something about the confidence of the group that stages/organises the play and about its definition of the elements that contribute to that specific shared group confidence.

As a stereotype the knight is indeed connected with the values and ideals of literary knighthood, i.e. with the values as a "miles" or "miles christianus" (faith, fidelity, honour, courage, "maze" …) and with the values of the court amour, the minne-play. (This includes among other things "high spirits" and fine, distinguished manners and is in a way contradictory to the first set of values.) But as the situations in which the knight appears differ from the expected pattern, or as the figure itself has the value of an expanded parody rather than of a caricature only, the values and norms that the figure is supposed to represent are placed in a different context and in this way allow a different interpretation and a transfer to other concepts of masculinity/ personality.

Since generative behaviour is the main topic of most of the plays the enacted relation between the sexes also contributes to these concepts of personality

What values are emphasised or neglected? Is the figure in the play called a knight or king because of his position as a soldier or does the social role of the knight as protector of the poor take over? Or is he perhaps a knight because of his social standing as a nobleman, which implies that a king can also be a knight when he agrees with the ideals of knighthood. But then which of these ideals are represented? Are they taken seriously or are they parodied? Or is the theatrical figure called a knight, because he is associated with the minne-play (again either seriously or ironically)? Further on, who calls him a knight, is it another figure or is it himself, and who then are his playmates? Are they for example all knights too or do they belong to another social class?

Other questions arise concerning the performance itself: Is it for example comical or parodic, satirical or serious? Does it scorn a literary example? Where does it play, at court, in an inn, or on the village marketplace?

It is the interplay of all these elements with the stereotype "knight" that renders a particular (in different plays quite different yet very well defined) concept of "masculinity", which in its turn visualises the specific integrative or exclusive values and norms of the performing/organising group.

By means of example I would like to discuss two short Carnival plays (Des Küngs ausz Schnokenlant Vasnacht, Keller nr. 79 and Das Vasnachtspil mit der Kron, Keller nr. 80) that seem to enact unwanted generative behaviour and place it (one wholly and one partly) against an urban sociological background:

A group of kings and knights enters a tavern, apparantly quite late. The reason for their delay lies in the fact, that they come from far away, namely from the land of the king of "Schnokenland" who had invited them to a great tournament. But their participation did them no good. They all got beaten up quite badly; their horses were taken from them and they had to walk home on foot. The first one argues, that all this happend, because they were all far too well-mannered and too pious. But he is interrupted by another who claims, that the first one was rightly beaten up, since instead of ploughing his wife’s nice field, he planted his seed elsewhere. The next argues, that the first accuser should remain silent, since he does not plough at all and is therefore unrightfully married. He should rather walk in front of an oxen’s cart. Hence his beating was also deserved. Although boasting of his way with women the next knight is being cheated by his wife, who lend her field to somebody else and even pays that fellow for his works. The next is nothing but a flatterer, the following a penny pincher, then comes a spendthrift. Then comes the hunter, who hunts down the prey, wounds it and then loses all interest (as he has done with the miller’s daughter for example). The next one has been rightly beaten, since he has been with the mayor’s wife and his friend’s daughter. The next has had an affair with an old woman, and she paid him for his duties, but he did not marry her, as he should have and did not help her sell the milk on the market.

At last the play has two epilogues; one is spoken by a king and the other by a fool and especially the last one summarises the meaning of the play in a nutshell: Not one of the knights and kings presented here is worthy to be honoured, they all deserved to be put on a barrier.

At first sight, the situation of these "knights" seems rather weird. They were going to a tournament, but obviously their "fame" had reached "Schnokenland" before them, since they seem to have been put on a barrier. In other words, they have been punished as thieves and untrue knights. The latter would have been denied as participants, badly beaten and their horses and arms would have been taken away. So they did actually NOT participate, but they are sent home with all the shame. And it is this fact they come to ramble about in the tavern. Of course their shame is respectively revealed by the next person who speaks, so that two accuses one and three accuses two and so on.

Their language is on the one hand full of metaphors, like courtly language ought to be, yet, on the other hand, these metaphors reveal a rural background or at least an urban one, as do the women, they refer to. The one is a miller’s daughter, the other a mayor’s wife (Meyerin). So from the setting of the tavern as the surrounding of the play, from the language and the persons referred to, these knights and kings as revealed seem to be rather rural/urban than aristocratic and their set of values fits in this context as well. For what the short dialogues criticise is deviant generative behaviour: Don’t mess around, if you are married, see that your wife is feeling well in matrimony, so that she does not mess around either, don’t run away with somebody else’s wife or daughter. If you engage in a relationship, take the consequences: marry! But see to it that you marry people your age! Don’t spoil your money, so that your wife has nothing left to keep a running household, but don’t sit on your purse either, that is not in the interest of economy.

I would like to have a closer look on three points with regard to this play.

1: The question in how far the knights and kings of this play can actually be seen as a critique on knighthood. For apart from the reference to the tournament and the naming, nothing really refers to a background of knighthood. On the contrary, references to a sociological frame seem rather urban or even rural. And it remains to be questioned in how far we can actually speak of a parody of knightly values which leads to a critique on knighthood and knightly ideals.

2: The text might evoke the impression that it does not fit into other literary genres, but in fact it can be associated with the literary genre of the "test of virtue", especially because their "misfortune" at the tournament is explicitly connected to the promiscuous behaviour of the company of knights. Moreover it seems that instead of failing the test, they were not even permitted to attend it.

3: The exaggeration which lies especifically in the pure enumeration of the wrong deeds as the theme of adultery can be associated with another genre, namely the Shrove-tide plays themselves. Therefore this particular play does not only fit into the thematic of a great number of other carnival plays it also fits into the intentions of Shrovetide itself and many of its customs, namely not only showing status but also showing unwanted behaviour and, in a way, repressing it.

1a The play "des kûng von schnokenlant vasnacht" does not function as a parody of knighthood, but the parody of deviant generative behaviour functions against the background of the latter. Since the figures are introduced as kings and knights they are also connected with a certain set of virtues and values and which, in the context of generative behaviour in general can be identified as that of courtly love (Minne). But the ideal courtly love is to some extend involved in adultery and also minneplay does involve some "haunting without tracing the deer down", as the play puts it. These are virtues which the context reverses to exactly the opposite. The same holds true for the virtue of "vreude", joy, which includes a certain affection to the here and now, the worldly part of things and life and as such takes a very different position against spending money than the one suggested in the play. The knight who wants to fit himself into the aristocratic world of the court should not at all be concerned with monetary problems. It is part of his lifestyle to be unaware of financial shortcomings and give everything he has to the full. (On the other hand, the play also criticises men who save every penny and ridicules therewith a kind of behaviour that is (stereo)typically associated with trade and salesmen.) That is what the "knight" does in the play but he got beaten up.

2a In this way the tournament prepares the setting: These "knights" are not to be seen as fighting in a battle or exploring their virtues as "milites", but they claim to take their place in a courtly surrounding, which by the way, they are denied from the very beginning, as mentioned above.

In short the background of the court functions in two ways. First it triggers a set of stereotypical expectations that are then not only reversed but also brought into the context of an urban society, as the language and examples given above clearly show. Secondly it serves to unmask the figures as being not courtly at all. In fact they are not even knights who do not live up to knightly standards but citizens who do not even live up to urban ones: If you are a knight, you don’t plough, you might pluck the flower, but not the grain; if you belong to a group urban citizens you may plough literally, you may even use this metaphor to describe your sexual behaviour, but you certainly don’t plough in the fields of your neighbour nor do you have others work in your own fields. If you are a knight or a king you don’t sit on your money. You should not do so too if you are a citizen, but neither should you spend every penny, because then you can’t provide for your family and the community has to take over.

3a The background of a parody or sociological critique in general is normally based on the ideals and norms against which the parody forms the "photo negative". If such parody is to be understood properly, the distance between the "photo positive" and the "photo negative" ought not to be too big, since otherwise their correlation would fade. This would be the case if one would see this play as a mere critique on knighthood. Of course knights and nobles could be accused of adultery or immoral behaviour, but the examples given in the play as well as its language, such as metaphors stemming from a rural environment, pull the two away from each other, so that a different intention becomes obvious. Therefore the intention of this play must be seen as part of a warning against normatively undesired behaviour rather than as a mockery of the courtly ideals as such.

In this case, therefore the tournament as a test of virtue and the hidden reference to courtly virtues seem to function merely as a basis for the funny yet admonishing dialogues.

(This of course opens a great range of possibilities for actually staging these "Ritter von trauriger Gestalt".)

The second example I would like to give is "das vasnachtspil mit der kron":

King Arthur and his court are about to have a great feast for which the king of Abian has sent them a beautiful crown which will fit only that person whose honour is not yet lost. First the king of the Orient tries the crown, but it does not fit and he grows two horns on his head. Everybody is quite astonished, but another herolt knows what happened: the king of the Orient wears the horns because he cannot keep his hands off the miller’s wife and every young girl in the village. The queen, deeply insulted, refuses to forgive him, since he has acted like a thief and stolen from her, what rightfully should have been given to her. He is just like a dirty pig, that does not like the pure water but searches for the mud instead and he would only deserve that she would pay him back equally.

The king tries to justify himself: He would go out to see other women so as to spare his wife from this duty and keep her in her beauty so that she would be honoured at court before all the others. The herolt however unmasks his speech sweet talk: A wife should be given what is hers, it does not harm her. Next is the king of Cyprus he is reluctant at first, but is the forced to wear the crown, which does not stay on his head but dangles around his neck instead. Again a herolt knows why: He has been with other women as well. His wife, the queen, calls him a fool that does not live up to his duties. Her husband justifies his deeds with the fact that she denies herself too rigorously. So instead of being angry at him, she should be more willing.

A herolt, foreseeing further troubles which the crown might bring, advises to put it away and have a jolly feast to worship king Arthur and his queen. Then the play turns with a monologue of Arthur’s sister, who accuses the queen of being untruthful and therefore not worthy of such honour. But king Arthur furiously rejects all accusations and threats to his own honour associated with them. Instead he threatens his sister with severe punishment, but is withheld by a knight, who reminds him that his court should rather be held with joy (one should not believe every word women say anyway).

Before I come to the play itself, something ought to be said about the literary traditions this text rooted in:

Of course one of them is the Arthurian literature and especially the theme of Arthur’s court as the most honourable place to be for a knight and his lady. Within this frame the topic of the test of virtue is especially referred to here. Indeed there are quite a few texts that tell the story of a coat or a drinking horn that reveals the faith of the ladies at thecourt. Another test is the one the play refers to and this particular one seems to exist only in a German tradition and is handed down to us only in this particular play and a "Meisterlied", in short in two urban genres only. It is interesting to note, that out of the great range of Arthurian motives especially only these of tests of virtue have been chosen for plays. There are indeed only three plays that are set at the court of Arthur and all three enact those tests. It seems that their motive has been chosen because it fits in the thematic generally presented in Shrovetide plays.

The particular play in question is the more interesting as it is the only one of the three which mocks male unfaithfulness and can therefore be linked to the play of the king of Schnokenlant.

Although this play is situated at an Arthurian court and the dispute is held between its kings and queens, it too refers to a more "domestically" sphere of marriage. Furthermore, the first king practises abuse with the miller’s wife and all the young girls of the village and the queen lowers the honour of her husband even further by comparing him with a thief and a pig who loves to rumble in the mud and in his own dirt.

One could of course imagine that the noble "used" his subjects for abuse, but typically only these texts that deal with male infidelity, that is the texts with an urban origin, place the practise in this particular context. In doing so they evoke moral insinuations that are of special significance for an urban society, although of course one can clearly see a critique on nobles who commit this kind of behaviour as well.

In addition, the interplay of the husbands and wives reveals some more details about role patterns and expected behavioural standards, for the play does not put the responsibility entirely by the men. It is rather seen as an interaction of the two married partners: While the wife accuses the husband of his unfaithful behaviour, he tries to justify it by refering to the quality or character of the wife. In the first case the husband finds his wife of such beauty that he does not want to oblige her to commit into generative practises of any kind, so as not to destroy her good looks. In the second case he does not manage to oblige her due to her own strong reluctance towards any advances from his side. In both cases the herolt reacts to the dispute of the two. In the first case he puts the husbands reaction into perspective. Since her husband wears trousers as he should, he should also behave like a husband is supposed to: The wife does not lose her looks from that, but he also admits that the husband made at least a nice attempt to save his honour by suggesting that she would. After the second couple’s turn the herolt suggests that this testing should stop altogether since it brings nothing but misfortune and anger. And this is what the party seems to do, so that the play strangely stops after only two tests. (What follows seems to be rather a reference to the motive of Arthur’s scheming sister, and seems to provide a link to the following play in the manuscript, where the women are tested by a coat that in the Arthurian circles is said to be sent by Arthur’s sister, to trouble her brother’s court and reveal his wife’s infidelity.)

That the wives are partly held responsible for their husband’s wrongdoing suggests that they do have some power within the marriage and this impression is in fact strengthened by the play as the husbands relate their justifications. It seems in both cases that the wife determines and regulates the generative behaviour within these marriages, although the first woman does not seem to be aware of it. In this case it is the husband’s exaggerated consideration that leads him to lose his position and power over his wife, at least if his words are not only sweet-talk, which would be equally wrong. The second husband seems to have lost all power within marriage anyway, because he is in no way able to command his wife to give in to his wishes. In fact, she is the one wearing the trousers in that household. This is suggested by the fact that she makes her husband wear the crown although he does not want to do so at all.

Seen in this way, the play is not only about untruthful men, but mainly about the position of husbands and wives within the relationships and about the "right" or "wrong" distribution of power and its consequences. (Maybe this is a reason why this play becomes such a strange turn in the end and the testing is abandoned altogether, because by showing these kinds of untruthful men, the author also comes very close to show subordinated men and powerful women, although the wives of course have to live with the consequences, i.e. the infidelity of their men.)

Research seems to look at the figure of the knight in late medieval plays only as a means by which the bourgeois who gained more self-esteem, caricaturises the knighthood of that time, which had lost its social rank due to changes in military policy and the increasing dominance of the monetary-system. But recent research shows that knighthood continues to play a prominent role throughout the later middle ages not only because the values and the idea of ideal knighthood continue to be dominantly present and are even taken over and imitated by patricians who have gained considerable wealth and try now to climb the social ladder. Moreover, research that focuses on sociological groups and grouping has shown that one cannot speak undifferentiatedly of an urban society or even a bourgeois in general. It has proven more fruitful to look at the urban society as a conglomerate of many different, often overlapping groups, such as the group of craftsmen which cannot only be divided into different crafts but also into groups like the masters and the journeymen, the younger and the elder, the married and the unmarried. Apart from that there are also groups of the different streets or neighbourhoods, ...

Thirdly it is noteworthy, that the plays mainly make use of values or models given in literature so that one cannot speak of a direct reference to reality. Therefore one cannot come to the conclusion, that a critique on the existing knighthood is the main intention of these plays, but rather that a questioning of values in general is at hand.

And it is right at this point, that research about male role-patterns and concepts of masculinity could be of use and lead to a broader view on sociological groups and their expressions in theatre plays.

The general function of showing status and group contemplating norms, is of course –in rough lines- the presentation of own values and the presentation of the group as a unity, whereby the group members themselves are of concern as well as all non-members or "others" of the community or naturally, non- members of the community.

The way in which the repressive as well as the constituting values are realised through stereotypes, commonplace en literary references may also lead to conclusions about the respective view on other social groups and grouping.