I am a sucker for
Christmas. I love carols, trees, glitter, lights, German markets and
Nativity sets. But I am also a history teacher, accustomed to look
closely at primary sources and consider their meaning. Because I am a
church choir person I must have heard St Matthew's version of the
Christmas story a hundred times or more and it does seem to me that
his story of wise men from the east has got so loaded with traditions
and myths that it has become very difficult to hear as Matthew might
have meant it. This was one source for my play.
Somewhere in Evelyn
Waugh's wartime diaries he meditates upon the story of the wise men
and reflects what a good parable it is for artists. The Magi
misunderstand what is happening, they turn up late and they cause
terrible trouble, but their gifts are accepted. This comment struck
home with me. Waugh was a creative artist; I was a school teacher,
and it seems to me that the story of the wise men was an even better
parable for those who consider themselves highly educated and
learned. That was another source for the play.
Even when dealing
with serious subjects I usually take my advice from Desiderius
Erasmus: “What is the matter with telling the truth with a smile”,
so there are many witty scenes and jokes. Being a teacher myself I
felt no compunction about making fun of the profession. But the story
contains many dreadful things – the tyranny of Herod, the massacre
of the Innocents, the refugee flight into Egypt. I have pulled no
punches on these. The play was written in the late 1980's, and it was
alarming to discover, while typing it out on a computer for
publication, that the scenes involving tyrants and massacres and
refugees might as well have been written today, not in 1989.
Various friends and
colleagues said nice things about the play. One good judge
particularly liked the rhythm of the dialogue, which was very
flattering. There were one or two criticisms from folk who felt I was
casting doubt on the historical accuracy of St Matthew's account. My
answer to that is this: If the story, and all its details, was an
event in history it is certainly interesting – but it was all a
long time ago and we live 2,000 years later. If, however, it is
partly a work of the imagination it can be as true today as it was
when first written. Take “Pride and Prejudice” as an example of
what I mean. That is a made-up story, and often very funny, but it
contains eternal truths about love and snobbery and women's rights.
In the play St
Matthew directs events. I tried to follow his version – about the
importance of the prophets, for example – rather than intrude my
own.
The original cast
consisted of school pupils aged 11 to 13. Some readers may have
thought, wrongly, that junior pupils would have had trouble with the
sophisticated concepts and dialogue presented here. This was not at
all the case. Writing “down” for children is a terrible error,
too often committed. No pupil who wanted to be in the show was turned
away, and the many substantial parts were done superbly. It does seem
to me that it would work well with older actors. Read it and see what
you think.
When I wrote the
play the school was boys only, so it was easy to follow St Matthew
and have only one female in the play. The boy who played Mary was
first rate. I see no problem for any director who wished to give any
of the parts to girls or women. Twenty years later, when the school
was fully co-educational, I was lucky to direct “Henry V”. We had
girls as French Ambassador, Governor of Harfleur, Boy, and M le Fer.
Two girls shared the role of Chorus very well indeed. There are as
many parts for females as for males in this play. The whole point
about acting is that on stage you are not the same person as you are
off.
I hope you enjoy
reading it. If you do, you will have something extra to think about
every time you hear the story of the wise men. Here is the link to
it:
