---

Siemens, R.G. "'As Strayght as Ony Pole': Publius Cornelius, Edmund de la Pole, and Contemporary Court Satire in Henry Medwall's Fulgens and Lucres." Forthcoming in Renaissance Forum.

[Note: Abstracts should be roughly 500 words, and should outline the argument and information presented by the piece it intends to summarize. References, as to the above, should follow the current Modern Language Association Handbook (the format given in the course materials).]

Among the expectations excited by dramatic interludes of the early Tudor period is the possibility of their employment as political vehicles. Aspects of Medwall's Fulgens and Lucres -- a drama which has previously been studied with such a view by Colley, Bevington, Kipling, Fox and others -- are explored further here by Siemens. Because the conclusion is presented at the outset of the interlude and discussed by two players even though the dramatic action-proper has yet to begin, and because the ending of the piece draws one's attention back upon the action of the play, the interlude's dramatic structure de-emphasises the conclusion in such a way that it draws attention more upon the way by which the ending is justified than upon the movement towards it. In the debate about the nature of true nobility that is the focus of the drama, the figure who receives the greatest attention is the example of nobility by blood, Publius Cornelius.

Following Medwall's detailed characterisation of Cornelius -- first and foremostly the linguistic hint in the token that Cornelius' servant transmits to Lucres (2.202-4; 2.280-7), which emphasises and corrupts the word "pole" -- Siemens suggests that the character of Cornelius may be intended to reflect the real court figure of Edmund de la Pole, whose own life and family parallels that presented of Cornelius. The argument concludes with a re-assessment of the date of the interlude, proposed by Boas and Reed to be ca. December 1497/8, to a date of February 1496/7, a time which fits the criteria of Boas and Reed's argument about the play's first performance date, but also helps explain the contemporary court satire directed at Edmund de la Pole.

---