The Humor in Misunderstandings

In Hans Sachs' The Pregnant Farmer, there is a conversation of misunderstandings between Heinz, the farm-hand, and Isaac, the Jewish doctor. One character is on a completely different lingual plane of existence than the other.

This, basically.

(vid: source)

So what about this lack of understanding is so funny? Though I don't know the theoretical discourse behind the comedy of miscommunication, I did notice a few things that stood out to me.

Social Class

Heinz is a farm-hand. And though Isaac is more of a hoax than a healer, he still carries the deceptive title of doctor. This contrast is interesting on two levels: (1) There are two vastly different people standing in a room together, and (2) They are trying to communicate. Now, I don't know why, but the thought of the President of the United States stuck in a room with a Venezuelan coke dealer who doesn't speak a lick of English is hilarious to me. A super conservative Republican and an extremely liberal Democrat find out they go to the same church. A dog and a cat are trapped in the same kennel.

Even if opposites don't attract, they're still an attractive idea. Playing with the social hierarchy of any country has a morbid appeal, like mixing two elements that clearly don't match, just to see what happens.

Along the same lines lies...

Intelligence

Heinz doesn't understand what Isaac is alluding to. This is the basis of what a misunderstanding means. Heinz understands Isaac's words, but ends up applying them to the wrong meaning. It turns into a sort of reverse double entendre, where two meanings can be taken from the same phrase, but Isaac doesn't intend for that to happen.

Isaac, as well, is seen as a more crafty individual (with his scams and his invented "medicine"). And yet, he's still bested by Heinz's unintelligence. By his lack of understanding, Heinz manipulates Isaac into using language that Isaac would rather not say aloud.

Which brings us to...

Vulgarity

Lending to Heinz and Isaac's jargon is that Isaac is of a more subtle disposition, while Heinz speaks blatantly and without remorse. This incorporates both intelligence and social class. Isaac puts on a doctor's air, and must speak in a delicate, doctor-like manner. Heinz spilled a jar of human pee and replaced it with donkey piss -- he's something far removed from delicate.

Far removed.

(img: source)

Part of the humor of putting one kind of person in a room with another kind of person is the uncharacteristic actions that are wrung from one or both. Isaac, for instance, tries very hard to skirt around using any form of vulgarity, but Heinz's misunderstandings force his hand.

In a way, this can be seen as simple-mindedness besting intelligence. Crassness trumping suaveness. It's an unexpected outcome, and for me, that's what makes it funny.

Carnival Play: Priest's food and the poor

In The Grand Inquisitor in the Soup a monk/priest tries to blackmail or trick Simon the innkeeper into giving the church money. The priest is originally considered a responsible and trustworthy person in history.  Hans Sachs brings up this character multiple times to show that many of the commoners considered priests to be untrustworthy. I will focus on The Grand Inquisitor in the Soup and parallel it to something found in the bible.
In 1 Samuel 2:12-17 two wicked priests named Hophni and Phineas would take portions of sacrifices that were not theirs to take. Animal sacrifices were to be presented to the priest alive, slaughtered, and certain portions would be burned for God, some uncooked meat would be given to the priests, and some would go home with the family to be cooked and consumed within 2 days. Hophni and Phineas would send their servants to go into a family's home while they were cooking the meat from their sacrifice and take some of the meat for the priests.


"13 Now the priests would always treat the people in the following way: Whenever anyone was making a sacrifice, while the meat was boiling, the priest’s attendant would come with a three-pronged fork in his hand. 14 He would jab it into the basin, kettle, caldron, or pot, and everything that the fork brought up the priest would take for himself." -1 Samuel 2:13-14

Considering what the priests would take was not part of their portion, they were sinning. Many of the people would remind the priest of this but the priests would threaten them until the meat was given. The Inquisitor threatens Simon with purgatory, hell, long journeys, etc to try and get money out of him. The priest even uses acts of "kindness" to make himself look better through giving the poor some of his soup. In reality he removes "any meat or pieces of fish and save these for ourselves for our own meal this afternoon." (p.77) By threatening Simon and making him sit through his sermon the Inquisitor hoped to gain money or food from him. Simon however fooled the Inquisitor's plan by using the sermon against him and leaving without any threat following him.

This parallel shows that not everyone is who they seem on the outside. The priests in the bible certainly were not who they were supposed to be and neither was the Inquisitor. So maybe we need to examine who we follow, and ourselves, every once in a while.

Carnival Plays: Perception or Reality?

            In The Farmer with the Blur, the farmer’s perception was manipulated so heavily. He was so sure he saw something that was real but someone came along and told him otherwise. He experienced what is called a psychological manipulation. It is a social influence where someone or something tries to change the perception or behavior of others through underhanded, deceptive tactics. 

            We all get caught up in our stories. Most of us think we are our stories. It is when those stories take on a life of their own, and that life is not the one we want, and things start to suck.

If there is no link between perception and reality, you could think that there is no reality at all, that there are infinite realities, or that there are just images that we mistake for the real thing.

            Most of us are naïve realists at heart. We assume that the external world maps perfectly onto our internal view of it. But really there is no such thing as a reality. There’s only “your” version of it, which is essentially just your perception. Remember that what you believe to be true is only as true as your worldly experience and it does not go any further than that. It is important to note that how you choose to perceive things is how they come across to you. I believe that your power to choose how to perceive things makes them appear that way to you. Your reality is much more different than my reality.

So was it really just his reality, or was it just his perception? Knowing what he saw was so real, will you let someone come in and tell you otherwise? So many people will go a long way to make others believe something. What do we call those people? Liars? Deceitful? Conniving? Or just plain evil?

Carnival Plays: The Audience and the Play

The thing that I loved most about these plays was all of the opportunities for interaction between the audience and the actors. The plays were written in such a manner that allowed the spectators to be a part of the production. The carnival plays wouldn't have had a halfway interested audience that played on their phones during the whole thing like most of the plays today, but an excited, rowdy audience that enthusiastically participated and would come back again and again.
As stated in the introduction, 'An actor may address the audience directly, pay them false compliments, and invite them to celebrate themselves with drink.'
All of these things really draw the audience into the performance and especially for plays performed during such jovial times, there has to be that interest.
While reading the carnival plays, I found my own interest waning and was only able to be fully taken by the story when I imagined it in my head. Unlike Lysistrata, I would rather see the play than read it. I don't think I will be able to fully appreciate the plays until I see them acted out.
A specific example of this, for me, was 'The wife in the well.' While reading, I absolutely hated Gritta the cheating wife for what she did to her husband and on top of that turning the blame on him. It was so frustrating to read about that happening. I wanted the husband to break down the door and let her get in trouble like she deserved. But if I were to watch the play, I have no doubt that I would be turned into Gritta's co-conspirator and would take pleasure in tricking the stupid husband right along with her.
In conclusion, the carnival plays are without a doubt meant to be performed and are best appreciated during a carnival setting. A dry reading of them leaves an slight aftertaste of disgust that I have not been able to shake. Hopefully, I'll be able to see them performed in person and then be able to appreciate the humour in them.

Carnival Plays: Women's Roles

The Carnival plays had many common aspects to them that reoccurred during many of the plays that we were assigned to read.  All of the plays were realistic, but yet absurd.  Although these adjectives of description seem to contradict each other, it is true.  They can be described as realistic due to the lack of fantasy or events that have no possibility of existing, but also absurd due to the unlikelihood of the events actually happening.  In this way, I found that this set of plays aligns with “Lysistrata” that we read last week.  Another common aspect, in which I would like to focus on, which is found among, not all, but many of the plays is the role of women.  In the majority of the plays that was read, women played a strong, confident role and even mean or manipulative.  Like “Lysistrata”, I thought that these plays were written in a time where women played a passive or subservient role in day to day life.  In “The Wife in the Well” and “The Farmer with the Blur”, the women actually played the “trickster”.  As was mentioned in the introduction, “The trickster is one of Sachs's favorite dramatic characters.”  In both of these dramas the women used manipulation and scheming to achieve their desired outcome.  In “The Wife in the Well”, she is quick-witted and clever to come up with tricking her husband shortly after he surprised her by locking her out.   In “The Farmer with the Blur”, it was the cleverness of the neighbor woman who out-witted the husband-who was portrayed as gullible and weak.  In other plays as “The Stolen Bacon” and “The Evil Woman”, the woman is mean and controlling.  Obviously in “The Evil Woman”, due to her harsh words and reputation, but also a little more subtly in “The Stolen Bacon”.  He continues to express fear of what his wife would do if she found out any of the bratwursts were missing.  Again the male character is shown as gullible and weak, due to the chicanery of the priest.  It is to be noted that in some of the plays, it is a man who is the trickster or unkind one.  This was surprising to me due to the time period and is something that I focused on when reading the plays, due to my interest in the role of women in time.  I feel like the flexibility in gender roles in these set of plays could be due forward thinking of equality or all for the sake of comedy.  This idea is consistent with various interpretation of “Lysistrata”.

Carnival Plays: Significance of the Priest

Heinz: "That priest is a shrewd man."  (The Farmer with the Blur)

In The Stolen Bacon, The Farmer with the Blur, and The Grand Inquisitor in the Soup, the priest character fulfills a different purpose than typically expected of a religious figure.  The priests have hidden agendas and are more focused on themselves than the lives of those around them.

Hans Sachs is making quite a statement with these character types.  He is portraying the church as deceitful and self-serving.  Although priests are usually depicted as upstanding citizens with high morals, Sachs is asserting that priests steal from those around them and are not interested in the welfare of others.  This could be commentary on the society at the time when these plays were written.  Perhaps Sachs felt strongly that the clergy were being deceptive, and instead of saying it outright, he disguised his beliefs as  carnivalesque plays. 

In The Grand Inquisitor in the Soup, Simon is described as a simple-minded man, and he manages to outsmart the Inquisitor and not pay a fine.  To me, this is representative of the common man overcoming the oppressive church.  (I’m not saying that the church in general is oppressive, but that is how I am interpreting Sachs’ portrayal.)  Sachs could have been encouraging his readers to not fall victim to a priest’s scheme for money, but instead to stand up for themselves.  On the other hand, the priests could be representative of the government and its lack of compassion toward the citizens.

These plays made me think about a few questions:  Why does society expect a priest to have higher morals than the common citizen?  Do the priests in these plays begin their profession with a selfless attitude, then slowly transition to one of selfishness, or is the selfishness present all along?  Are there any upstanding and honorable priests mentioned in other carnivalesque plays?