Society: The Beaver Coat

At the beginning of the semester, I had been under the impression that comedy, or the comedic process behind it, would in some way exemplify the best (or the ideal) in society. The characters in The Hangover, for instance, practically play the parts of fools, and put themselves into situations that, rather than be exemplified, are meant to be looked down upon, or avoided. In the television series Arrested Development, the funniest situations are when the characters act their worst -- when Lucille suggests the family commit perjury, when George Sr. jumps ship and tries to abandon his family, when Buster defies his mother's wishes and gets his hand bitten off by a seal because of it. All of these actions come from a moral tilt, and the consequences are just as twisted. Because of my exposure to these types of stories, I figured, in the end, the message to society was: don't do these bad things, or you'll look stupid too.

And who wants to be judged like that?

(img: source)

But in my reading of The Beaver Coat, I noticed something different. We haven't analyzed the text in class yet, so I'm certain there are other elements to this that I haven't even seen yet, but I still recognized something that made me pause. Mrs. Wolff isn't the "good guy." She uses deception and cunning to get her way, and, the important part, she isn't made the fool because of it.

The people who were being taken advantage of were further pushed into a comic role because of the fact that they were being taken advantage of. The moral of the story wasn't telling society to be nice. It didn't say it was a social obligation to be truthful. The Beaver Coat exemplified a sort of weasel-like cunning, without the consequence of being made fun of, or ultimately bowing to a more morally upright point of view.

This fact brought with it a whole new dimension of flexibility within social constructs. If anything, it made me wonder if cunning and deception were considered positive qualities at the time this play was performed. But beyond anything else, it showed me the great range of who (or what) society might call the butt of the joke.

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?