The York Play of the Crucifixion

by Unknown ., Stephen Greenblatt (Editor)

Genres: Plays, Classics, School, Theatre, Drama, Read For School, Medieval

8 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1425

About the author

Books can be attributed to "Unknown" when the author or editor (as applicable) is not known and cannot be discovered. If at all possible, list at least one actual author or editor for a book instead of using "Unknown".

Books whose authorship is purposefully withheld should be attributed instead to Anonymous.

Reviews

[Rebecca Fell · Rating 2 out of 5]

2.5|| This felt way longer than it actually was, probably because it mainly consisted of soldiers complaining in Middle English about carrying a cross. However, it did provide really interesting discussion in my seminar regarding how it functioned within the York cycle.

[Elli]

currently writing an essay on this. not having fun in the slightest lads and ladies.

"ye woot" is my new saying. bringing medieval slang back is my knew mission in life btw.

[gurleen · Rating 1 out of 5]

have no idea what i just read but jesus was in it

[hannah ౨ৎ · Rating 2 out of 5]

rip jesus. you would’ve hated this - ye woot

[Fred · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some literary forms don’t last, and that is for the best. They worked in their time, and less so now. The medieval mystery play is one of those.

This is about four men setting up Jesus’s cross for him. As they violate God physically (by killing Jesus), they then feel physical pain themselves - it’s all very poetic. And Jesus prays for them, because the ultimate point of the play is that these are ordinary men led astray rather than bad people. But alas, there’s a cyclical structure when the men end up just as corrupt as they were at the beginning, because humans can’t escape religious sin that easily, et cetera.

Meh.

[Emily]

cannot get over ‘ye woot yourself’

[Freya Abbas · Rating 4 out of 5]

This had a lot of realism and grisly details. The 4 soldiers are the villains in the story but they are also described as being ordinary people even though they are cruel. Jesus talks about forgiving them because he believes they don't know what they're doing. Very interesting play overall.

[Sabrina Blandon]

I thought this was pointless but somewhat funny. It goes over the 4 soldiers who crucified Christ but the way they talk shows they don't really care and want to get it over with. Could exemplify humanity's unknowing to calamities

[Owen Andrews · Rating 3 out of 5]

“The foulest death of all shall he die for his deeds”

I read this in Middle English, so it was a pain, but it turned out to be a pretty good satire in the end, so I appreciated that. Overall, surprisingly solid.

[Rene · Rating 1 out of 5]

read for theatre literature class

[Tori Taylor · Rating 4 out of 5]

I just read and understood a medieval text on the first read! I could cry !

[sanika · Rating 3 out of 5]

if i read it out loud like a drunk text then it becomes very quickly more understandable

[Ashley · Rating 2 out of 5]

read for school

[Maia L · Rating 2 out of 5]

For World Theatre A

[Taylor's♡Shelf · Rating 4 out of 5]

The York Play of the Crucifixion is part of a sequence of plays written by an unknown author in the 14th-century. What comes to mind the most rereading this play after almost ten years (yikes!) is how early Christians might have felt watching it - it is known that Richard II famously went to see the cycle of plays in which The York Play of the Crucifixion is a part of. One would think that the passion (or suffering) of Jesus at Calvary would be considered sacrilegious to depict in what I could only describe as a black comedy in this play. Displaying the soldiers that took part in the crucifixion as anything but faceless villains must have been alien to the common Christian viewer.

Even a nonreligious reader (or viewer) as myself would feel a little uncomfortable reading this, and I think that may be the point of its conception, by whomever it was conceived. Nothing should be considered untouchable to illustrate through a very unclouded lens, as this play does with the crucifixion: the soldiers were not acting maliciously, nor were they motivated by their own agency. It was their job. It was probably done imperfectly.

I'd really love to read the rest of this cycle if I can get my hands on it.

[Rosy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ordinary men engage in what they see as Ordinary work.

[Trisha · Rating 4 out of 5]

The York “Crucifixion”, which you can read here, chronicles the conversation between four soldiers who are nailing Jesus to the Cross; Jesus himself speaks only twice. For the four soldiers, this is their job. Their conversation is not particularly political or emotional. When they realize that the bored holes for the nails are a bit too far apart, they simple make Jesus's body a bit longer so the holes line up. Gruesome.

They are simply fulfilling their duty; although they do appear to take a certain amount of pleasure in torturing Jesus. At the least, they do not care about the pain he is in. This complicity in the crucifixion may be the point of the play. By highlighting the work of the soldiers, by having them as the speakers, the audience relates to them more so than to Jesus. This choice by the playwright directly points out the ability of every human to commit great evils.

[Katie · Rating 2 out of 5]

*2.5

I wouldn't read it again, but reading in the original Middle English was at once interesting and obfuscating. And both these factors probably increased the rating (?)

While dealing with similar themes (religion) as Dulcitius, this was (by pretty far) superior. There was a lack of obvious finger-pointing, that group X is evil because they don't believe – rather, the play was on the ignorance of the soldiers, who were given the task of crucifying Jesus, but do not ever acknowledge or even realize the significance of their task. As a premise that's already much better. Of course, watching them stand around and talk about why their task is hard isn't much of a plot, but this can hardly be good criticism (see Godot, for instance). Maybe it would have been better still in a more modernized dialect (I can't believe I'm saying that. but that's how I feel about it.)

[Carly · Rating 2 out of 5]

These plays are really interesting in terms of their literary and historical significance. They were performed in English vernacular instead of Latin, and thereby made religion more accessible to people of all classes and genders. They used "affective piety" to engage people emotionally, creating a more tangible 'religious experience'. When considered in context, The York Play of the Crucifixion and the other plays in the York cycle are intriguing, and worth a read.

That said, it gets a low-ish rating from me, because, as a stand alone text, I didn't find it that particularly engaging or groundbreaking. It was for the time, but not for a modern reader. As a literature student: thumbs up, very cool. As a reader: less so.

[Diana · Rating 3 out of 5]

The York mystery plays are interesting. I had to read this one for Literature class, I never knew that certain cities had plays specifically for them, and no one else was allowed to do that exact play. The latter part of the Middle Ages, church, religion, and everyday life all the same for most people. The plays you watched were mostly religious, what you read/listened to had religious overtones, and your daily life followed the rhythm of the church calendar. I probably would have never read this if it hadn't been for the class, and I will more than likely never read it again. I enjoyed the peek into something that was vastly important to the average person of the time though.

[Kelly · Rating 3 out of 5]

Disturbing, Gruesome, Savage.

[Kristine Lenda · Rating 2 out of 5]

2018: Honestly, It was pretty good.

2019: I understood the meaning a lot better after the second time reading it, but unfortunately, that did not leave me to like it any more than I did last year,