The Second Shepherd's Play

The Second Shepherds’ Play is the best-known play in a series of thirty-two medieval mystery plays called the Wakefield Cycle. Mystery plays were one of the earliest forms of drama in Europe during the Middle Ages and focused on the representation of Bible stories. They were often performed as a cycle, beginning with the story of the Creation and ending with the Last Judgment, and spanned several days in their presentation. The word “mystery” derives from the Latin word for “craft” (ministerium) and alludes to the fact that these plays were performed by craft guilds, often called “mysteries,” which were associations of tradesmen and artisans in a certain area. They were also called “mystery” plays because they dealt with religious miracles and the “mystery” of faith. The plays in the Wakefield Cycle were most likely performed around the time of the Festival of Corpus Christi in the town of Wakefield in Yorkshire, England. At a time when very few people could read or understand the Latin used in church services, mystery plays, which were written in vernacular English, were one way in which ordinary people could become familiar with the contents of the Bible.

The Second Shepherds’ Play centers on the story of Christ’s Nativity from the beginning of the New Testament. Instead of simply offering a religious pageant, however, the play combines the solemn nativity story with a comic plot featuring the three shepherds and Mak the thief. Though markedly different in tone than the serious ending, the farcical parts of the play share key resonances with the solemn story of Christ’s nativity. Most obviously, the stolen sheep, which Mak and Gill disguise as a baby by wrapping it in swaddling clothes, prefigures the infant Christ-Child, whom the shepherds visit in the final scene of the play. The connection is reinforced by the fact that Christ is often referred to as the Lamb of God, sent down to earth to be sacrificed for the salvation of humankind. The shepherds also model Christian values of charity and forgiveness, most notably when they decide not to punish Mak and Gill too severely after discovering their crime. This generosity is rewarded when the shepherds are invited by the Angel to visit the Christ-Child, the ultimate embodiment of charity.

One of the most marked features of The Second Shepherds’ Play is its use of anachronisms. Although the story supposedly takes place around the time of the birth of Christ, the shepherds, Mak, and Gill constantly use expressions that derive from Christianity and refer to Christ’s resurrection. For instance, in Col’s opening speech, he declares that the rich gentlemen in town “rob us of our rest, our Lady them harry!” (3). His reference to “our Lady” is anachronistic because, in the play, the Virgin Mary has not yet given birth to the Christ-Child and therefore has not yet become a sacred figure in Christianity. Later, when Mak and the shepherds wake up from their nap, Col exclaims, “My foot sleeps, by Jesus” (12), and Mak says, “Now Christ's holy name be us among!” (13).

Other examples of anachronistic expressions in the play include the frequent exclamation “By the rood!” (6, 13), which means “by the Cross” and refers to Christ’s crucifixion, and misused Latin phrases like “Judas carnas dominus!” (12), which not only refers to later events in the Christian story but also derives from church liturgy and would not have existed at the time of Christ’s birth.The use of anachronisms reminds us of the fact that medieval audiences would already be familiar with the Nativity story and the basic tenets of Christianity; they went to see mystery plays not because they told new stories but because of the way in which they reimagined familiar Bible stores and mixed sacred and profane elements to communicate their larger religious purpose.In addition to generating comedy, the abundance of anachronistic language foreshadows the coming of the Christ-Child in the play.

While mystery plays primarily served a religious purpose, The Second Shepherds’ Play also contains instances of social criticism and provides some insight into life in medieval England. For instance, the shepherds complain about how they are overworked and underpaid by the rich gentlemen on whose land they tend sheep. They often do not have enough to eat since they do not make enough money to buy sufficient food. Overall, the play calls attention to the disparity between the rich and the poor and reminds the audience that it was the poor shepherds who were first called to visit the Christ-Child, as proof that God sent his son down to earth for the sake of all people. Furthermore, even though Mak and Gill are not exactly sympathetic characters, the play implies that Mak has been reduced to stealing because he has “a house full of young bellies with hunger pains” (13). Through its focus on the experiences of the poor, the play takes the side of the ordinary working people who would have both performed in the play and gone to see its performances. Many of these people might have identified with the shepherds’ complaints about rich employers who do not have to go hungry or work hard themselves or, like Mak, who are faced with the temptation of stealing to provide for their family.

The play also gives insight into medieval views on women. Gib’s first speech contains a misogynistic rant against marriage and characterizes his wife as large, abusive, and heavy-drinking. While Col describes the local gentry as the oppressors, Gib feels that the men are oppressed by women, especially their wives. Women are also characterized as cunning and deceitful; significantly, it is Gill who comes up with the idea to disguise the sheep as a baby. Despite the misogynistic tone of many of the play’s remarks about women, however, Gill is still given the chance to speak up for herself. When Mak complains to her at home, she demands, “Why, who fetches, and who wakes, who comes and who goes? / Who brews and who bakes? Who mends all your hose?” (14). She thus makes it clear that the wellbeing of the family and the household depends on her hard work as a woman. Furthermore, Mak and Gill’s marriage does not seem to be a relationship in which one partner dominates the other since they can both hold their own in their bantering conversation and participate equally in the devious scheme to hide the sheep. In this sense, the play both reinforces and subverts the misogynistic stereotypes typical of the period.