The paper focuses on comparing these two plays. I choose the two plays as they present substantial difference in the way the two authors use the stylistic devices, plot and character. Petrus Dorlandus is accredited for the authorship of the master piece “ Everyman ” and David H. Keller takes the honor of having authored “ Homulus ”. The main Focus in this paper is that considering the modern sense of the world it is imperatively impossible to perceive Homulus as a translation of Everyman.
The comparison
Difference in the structures
There is a substantial visible change when comparing the structural levels in both plays. Homulus a Latin version has the liberty to be more profound in structural levels; as it is more elaborate and two times in length when comparison is made to the original English version Everyman. A comparison in monologue and dialogue in the two plays reveal a sharp contrast. The contrast is in respect to the scope of the two plays and extends even to the basic unit the characters as they are presented. Ischyrius, is credited to most of these changes. As he reworked on the English version he introduced substantial changes in terms of restructuring and composition of the original text Everyman.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The proportion of dialogue and monologue in the two plays differ sharply and so is verse distribution in regard to specific characters. The paper focuses on this distribution. To ease comparison verses with twenty five lines or more are to be considered as long monologue. Stichomythia that comprises of monologues of two to one line in length and short monologues that inculcates twenty five lines maximum and four lines minimum. When it comes to comparison, there is more of short speech usage in ‘ Everyman ’. The shot speech apparently makes up three quarters of the whole play with the remaining two types constituting the remaining part of the play evenly distributed equally. In the opening monologue by the messenger of God there is the use of long speech. The same is employed in the closing speech by the “Doctor character”. The use of the long speech in this case is empirical as it introduces the play and concludes the play hence very key to the author in portraying his thoughts. There is employment of stichomythia, this is evident in discussion of everyman and personified Virtues.
It is important to note that the extent of the common types of speech in Homulus differs from that of Everyman. The distinction is brought about by the number of monologues that are put in place as well as the amount of stichomythia. The fact that stichomythia is the one that is used most during communication compared to the text of Everyman cannot be ignored. More short energized talks take place between the characters in this play than in the previous. It could also be noted that this happens because many characters meet Everyman on his way to death. This is what brings about the aspect of more occasions for discussion. Characters who act provide more room and chances for longer speeches. The aspect of additionally extended speeches is brought about by the fact that extra characters are have more personified virtues and this is what makes them speak in a universal way.
Plot comparison
The plot is another factor of consideration and discussion. The plot that is found in Everyman has some kind of a basic pattern. The pattern tends to have been adapted and extended by the author of Homulus. There is a similarity between the layouts of the two plays. They tend to contain similar crucial points. Another point to put in mind is that there are certain situations which are independent in Homulus when compared to that of Everyman. The beginnings of the two plays are different. A character known as Messenger plays the role of delivering prologue in Everyman. We do not experience such a thing in Homulus. Each of them fills a marginally unique need with regards to the specific play. The prologue of Homulus brings about the expected full account with regards to the plot of the play. On the other hand, the plotline of Everyman does not play the role of drawing out the core objective of the play that involves advising everyman to live a holy life and also remember that there is death at the end of it all. The two plays also try their best to capture the attention of their audience. This was an undeniable and essential point of each preface of a medieval play.
The difference in characters between the two plays
God’s character is not happy with the corruption and foolishness of man. The character is seen complaining about the two actions of man. The character of God eventually brings Everyman to book by asking him to account for his deeds. The character of God also tells Everyman to prepare to face death if his deeds were not good. There comes a time when God summons Death to make pass his decision on the deeds of Everyman. Death honours the order from God and delivers the message to Everyman. Death orders Everyman to summon his retribution and follow him to God. Everyman refuses to do this. Everyman tries his best to bribe Death for him to be able to evade passing away, but Death refuses to be bribed. Everyman then asks Death if there was a possibility of coming back to life again.
There is also a difference in the number of characters in the two plays. The length of the two plays is different and this is the reason why the number of actors increases. Characters in Humulus double those in Everyman, and this creates too much suspicion because there is no prominence in the number of verses in that play. Speculating about why Ischyrius decided to double the characters is a tough job to do. The fact of the matter could be because he intended to engage a huge number of actors in the performance of the play.
Conclusion
There are various differences in the structure, motive, and style of the two plays. We cannot refer Homulus as the translation of Everyman. Calling Homulus an adaptation of Everyman sounds appropriate and better because there is a good number of texts that are translated compared to the original. The act of translation is not a major concern here. What catches the attention of the audience is the idea that Ischyrius had in mind when he was composing this piece of literature. Literary critics should put more energy into distinguishing the similarities and differences between the two pieces of literature and explaining the occurrences to readers. This is what will enable readers to appreciate these plays and be in a position to understand them better at the end of the day.
References:
Copeland, R.(1995). Rhetoric, Hermeneutics, and Translation in the Middle Ages: Academic
Traditions and Vernacular Texts . 1 st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge UP
Gale, C. (2000). Study Guide For Anonymous's "Everyman." . Detroit: Gale, Cengage Learning.
Ryan, L. V.(1957) “ Doctrine and Dramatic Structure in Everyman
.” Speculum 32:4:722-735
