The English Moral Plays 343 
not altogether alien to the matter of the Psychomachia. But the 
Bataille d’Enfer et de Paradis, in which the principals are represented 
by their respective champions, the cities Arras and Paris personified, 
and especially the Bataille de Karesme et de Charnage, which may 
be called the mock-heroic of this literary genre, owe, I think, less 
to the Psychomachia than to such pieces as the debate between 
wine and water. These trivial combats, however, are plain per- 
versions of the theme; serious combat-literature, which alone had 
influence on the early morals, was unaffected by the debate. 
One illustration may make the matter clear. In the Bataille that 
we call the mock-heroic two great barons meet at court, one Ka- 
resme (Lent), the other Charnage (the period when flesh may be 
eaten). Lent is haughty and insults Flesh-Time, and, when he 
retorts angrily, orders him from the palace. But the supporters of 
each are hot-headed, and blows follow words, so that the poem, 
which promised at the outset to be a mere debate, becomes a 
chronicle of actual conflict, in which the whale, the herring, and 
all the other “chevaliers de mer” fight with Lent, while choice 
cuts of beef, pork, and venison, rally to Flesh-Time’s aid. The cat- 
alogue of combatants is tediously drawn out, the poet being evidently 
a gourmand with no taint of Fletcherism. Suffice to say, the battle 
is long and hard—so the reader is told—and Lent is decisively 
worsted, largely because Christmas with her “ bacons,” the Bluechers 
of the day, arrive in time. Lent is forced to come to terms of sub- 
mission, and becomes the vassal of Lord Flesh-Time. 
Such was the contamination that the theme of moral conflict 
suffered from the debate; but, since the contamination did not affect 
the serious moral combats that alone would inspire the early mo- 
ralities, the debate should be studied as an independent influence 
upon the drama. The form of the debate is essentially dramatic. 
In some poems the author himself reports a controversy that he 
professes to have heard; in others, the contestants themselves carry 
on the dispute, debating vigorously the pros and cons of a question 
that one puts formally to the other. The subject-matter was varied 
—though not so much as one would expect; but whether it was 
secular or religious, trivial or significant, the form was always in 
essence dramatic, necessitating the use of dialogue, however crude 
or tedious, and giving opportunity for a suggestion of complication 
and action. Unquestionably, therefore, the debate must have furthered 
somewhat the rise of the regular modern drama. 
Many debates, of course, were too simple to reveal any of the 
dramatic possibilities that were latent in the class. What these 
