LITURGICAL PLAYS (_continued_)
The ‘Twelve days’ of the Christmas season are no less important than
Easter itself in the evolution of the liturgical drama. I have mentioned
in the last chapter a Christmas trope which is evidently based upon
the older Easter dialogue. Instead of _Quem quaeritis in sepulchro,
o Christicolae?_ it begins _Quem quaeritis in praesepe, pastores,
dicite?_ It occurs in eleventh- and twelfth-century tropers from St.
Gall, Limoges, St. Magloire, and Nevers. Originally it was an _Introit_
trope for the third or ‘great’ Mass. In a fifteenth-century breviary
from Clermont-Ferrand it has been transferred to Matins, where it
follows the _Te Deum_; and this is precisely the place in the Christmas
services occupied, at Rouen, by a liturgical drama known as the _Officium
Pastorum_, which appears to have grown out of the _Quem quaeritis in
praesepe?_ by a process analogous to that by which the Easter drama
grew out of the _Quem quaeritis in sepulchro[156]?_ A _praesepe_ or
‘crib,’ covered by a curtain, was made ready behind the altar, and in
it was placed an image of the Virgin. After the _Te Deum_ five canons
or vicars, representing the shepherds, approached the great west door
of the choir. A boy _in similitudinem angeli_ perched _in excelso_ sang
them the ‘good tidings,’ and a number of others _in voltis ecclesiae_
took up the _Gloria in excelsis_. The shepherds, singing a hymn, advanced
to the _praesepe_. Here they were met with the _Quem quaeritis_ by two
priests _quasi obstetrices_[157]. The dialogue of the trope, expanded
by another hymn during which the shepherds adore, follows, and so the
drama ends. But the shepherds ‘rule the choir’ throughout the _Missa in
Gallicantu_ immediately afterwards, and at Lauds, the anthem for which
much resembles the _Quem quaeritis_ itself[158]. The _misterium pastorum_
was still performed at Rouen in the middle of the fifteenth century, and
at this date the shepherds, _cessantibus stultitiis et insolenciis_, so
far as this could be ensured by the chapter, took the whole ‘service’
of the day, just as did the deacons, priests, and choir-boys during the
_triduum_[159].
If the central point of the _Quem quaeritis_ is the _sepulchrum_, that
of the _Pastores_ is the _praesepe_. In either case the drama, properly
so called, is an addition, and by no means an invariable one, to the
symbolical ceremony. The _Pastores_ may, in fact, be described, although
the term does not occur in the documents, as a _Visitatio praesepis_.
The history of the _praesepe_ can be more definitely stated than that
of the _sepulchrum_. It is by no means extinct. The Christmas ‘crib’
or _crèche_, a more or less realistic representation of the Nativity,
with a Christ-child in the manger, a Joseph and Mary, and very often
an ox and an ass, is a common feature in all Catholic countries at
Christmas time[160]. At Rome, in particular, the _esposizione del santo
bambino_ takes place with great ceremony[161]. A tradition ascribes
the first _presepio_ known in Italy to St. Francis, who is said to
have invented it at Greccio in 1223[162]. But this is a mistake. The
custom is many centuries older than St. Francis. Its Roman home is
the church of S. Maria Maggiore or _Ad Praesepe_, otherwise called
the ‘_basilica_ of Liberius.’ Here there was in the eighth century a
permanent _praesepe_[163], probably built in imitation of one which had
long existed at Bethlehem, and to which an allusion is traced in the
writings of Origen[164]. The _praesepe_ of S. Maria Maggiore was in the
right aisle. When the Sistine chapel was built in 1585-90 it was moved
to the crypt, where it may now be seen. This church became an important
station for the Papal services at Christmas. The Pope celebrated Mass
here on the vigil, and remained until he had also celebrated the first
Mass on Christmas morning. The bread was broken on the manger itself,
which served as an altar. At S. Maria Maggiore, moreover, is an important
relic, in some boards from the _culla_ or cradle of Christ, which are
exposed on the _presepio_ during Christmas[165]. The _presepio_ of S.
Maria Maggiore became demonstrably the model for other similar chapels
in Rome[166], and doubtless for the more temporary structures throughout
Italy and western Europe in general.
In the present state of our knowledge it is a little difficult to
be precise as to the range or date of the _Pastores_. The only full
mediaeval Latin text, other than that of Rouen, which has come to light,
is also of Norman origin, and is still unprinted[167]. In the eighteenth
century the play survived at Lisieux and Clermont[168]. The earliest
Rouen manuscript is of the thirteenth century, and the absence of any
reference to the _Officium Pastorum_ by John of Avranches, who writes
primarily of Rouen, and who does mention the _Officium Stellae_, makes
it probable that it was not there known about 1070[169]. Its existence,
however, in England in the twelfth century is shown by the Lichfield
_Statutes_ of 1188-98, and on the whole it is not likely to have taken
shape later than the eleventh. Very likely it never, as a self-contained
play, acquired the vogue of the _Quem quaeritis_. As will be seen
presently, it was overshadowed and absorbed by rivals. I find no trace of
it in Germany, where the _praesepe_ became a centre, less for liturgical
drama, than for carols, dances, and ‘crib-rocking[170].’
Still rarer than the _Pastores_ is the drama, presumably belonging to
Innocents’ day, of _Rachel_. It is found in a primitive form, hardly more
than a trope, in a Limoges manuscript of the eleventh century. Here it is
called _Lamentatio Rachel_, and consists of a short _planctus_ by Rachel
herself, and a short reply by a consoling angel. There is nothing to show
what place it occupied in the services[171].
The fact is that both the _Pastores_ and the _Rachel_ were in many
churches taken up into a third drama belonging to the Epiphany. This
is variously known as the _Tres Reges_, the _Magi_, _Herodes_, and
the _Stella_. It exists in a fair number of different but related
forms. Like the _Quem quaeritis_ and the _Pastores_, it had a material
starting-point, in the shape of a star, lit with candles, which hung
from the roof of the church, and could sometimes be moved, by a
simple mechanical device, from place to place[172]. As with the _Quem
quaeritis_, the development of the _Stella_ must be studied without much
reference to the relative age of the manuscripts in which it happens
to be found. But it was probably complete by the end of the eleventh
century, since manuscripts of that date contain the play in its latest
forms[173].
The simplest version is from Limoges[174]. The three kings enter by the
great door of the choir singing a _prosula_. They show their gifts, the
royal gold, the divine incense, the myrrh for funeral. Then they see the
star, and follow it to the high altar. Here they offer their gifts, each
contained in a gilt cup, or some other _iocale pretiosum_, after which a
boy, representing an angel, announces to them the birth of Christ, and
they retire singing to the sacristy. The text of this version stands
by itself: nearly all the others are derived from a common tradition,
which is seen in its simplest form at Rouen[175]. In the Rouen _Officium
Stellae_, the three kings, coming respectively from the east, north, and
south of the church, meet before the altar. One of them points to the
star with his stick, and they sing:
‘1. Stella fulgore nimio rutilat,
2. Quae regem regum natum demonstrat
3. Quem venturum olim prophetiae signaverant.’
They kiss each other and sing an anthem, which occurs also in the Limoges
version: _Eamus ergo et inquiramus eum, offerentes ei munera; aurum thus
et myrrham._ A procession is now formed, and as it moves towards the
nave, the choir chant narrative passages, describing the visit of the
_Magi_ to Jerusalem and their reception by Herod. Meanwhile a star is lit
over the altar of the cross where an image of the Virgin has been placed.
The _Magi_ approach it, singing the passage which begins _Ecce stella in
Oriente_. They are met by two in dalmatics, who appear to be identical
with the _obstetrices_ of the Rouen _Pastores_. A dialogue follows:
‘Qui sunt hi qui, stella duce, nos adeuntes inaudita ferunt.
_Magi respondeant_:
nos sumus, quos cernitis, reges Tharsis et Arabum et Saba, dona
ferentes Christo, regi nato, Domino, quem, stella deducente,
adorare venimus.
_Tunc duo Dalmaticati aperientes cortinam dicant_:
ecce puer adest quem queritis, Iam properate adorate, quia ipse
est redemptio mundi.
_Tunc procidentes Reges ad terram, simul salutent puerum, ita
dicentes_:
salve, princeps saeculorum.
_Tunc unus a suo famulo aurum accipiat et dicat_:
suscipe, rex, aurum.
_Et offerat._
_Secundus ita dicat et offerat_:
tolle thus, tu, vere Deus.
_Tercius ita dicat et offerat_:
mirram, signum sepulturae.’
Then the congregation make their oblations. Meanwhile the _Magi_ pray and
fall asleep. In their sleep an angel warns them to return home another
way. The procession returns up a side aisle to the choir; and the Mass,
in which the _Magi_, like the shepherds on Christmas day, ‘rule the
choir,’ follows.
In spite of the difference of text the incidents of the Rouen and Limoges
versions, except for the angelic warning introduced at Rouen, are the
same. There was a dramatic advance when the visit to Jerusalem, instead
of being merely narrated by the choir, was inserted into the action.
In the play performed at Nevers[176], Herod himself, destined in the
fullness of time to become the protagonist of the Corpus Christi stage,
makes his first appearance. There are two versions of the Nevers play. In
the earlier the new scene is confined to a colloquy between Herod and the
_Magi_:
‘[_Magi._] Vidimus stellam eius in Oriente, et agnovimus regem
regum esse natum.
[_Herodes._] regem quem queritis natum stella quo signo
didicistis? Si illum regnare creditis, dicite nobis.
[_Magi._] illum natum esse didicimus in Oriente stella
monstrante.
[_Herodes._] ite et de puero diligenter investigate, et
inventum redeuntes mihi renuntiate.’
The later version adds two further episodes. In one a _nuntius_ announces
the coming of the _Magi_, and is sent to fetch them before Herod: in the
other Herod sends his courtiers for the scribes, who find a prophecy of
the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem. Obviously the Herod scene gives
point to the words at the end of the Rouen play, in which the angel bids
the _Magi_ to return home by a different way.
At Compiègne the action closes with yet another scene, in which Herod
learns that the _Magi_ have escaped him[177].
‘_Nuncius._ Delusus es domine, magi viam redierunt aliam.
[_Herodes._ incendium meum ruina extinguam[178].]
_Armiger._ decerne, domine, vindicari iram tuam, et stricto
mucrone quaerere iube puerum, forte inter occisos occidetur et
ipse.
_Herodes._ indolis eximiae pueros fac ense perire.
_Angelus._ sinite parvulos venire ad me, talium est enim regnum
caelorum.’
In a Norman version which has the same incidents as the Compiègne play,
but in parts a different text, the _armiger_ is the son of Herod, and
the play ends with Herod taking a sword from a bystander and brandishing
it in the air[179]. Already he is beginning to tear a passion to tatters
in the manner that became traditionally connected with his name. Another
peculiarity of this Norman version is that the _Magi_ address Herod in an
outlandish jargon, which seems to contain fragments of Hebrew and Arabic
speech.
The play of the _Stella_ must now, perhaps, be considered, except so far
as mere amplifications of the text are concerned, strictly complete. But
another step was irresistibly suggested by the course it had taken. The
massacre of the Innocents, although it lay outside the range of action in
which the _Magi_ themselves figured, could be not merely threatened but
actually represented. This was done at Laon[180]. The cruel suggestion
of Archelaus is carried out. The Innocents come in singing and bearing a
lamb. They are slain, and the play ends with a dialogue, like that of the
distinct Limoges _planctus_, between the lamenting Rachel and an angelic
_consolatrix_.
The absorption of the motives proper to other feasts of the Twelve nights
into the Epiphany play has clearly begun. A fresh series of examples
shows a similar treatment of the _Pastores_. At Strassburg the _Magi_, as
they leave Herod, meet the shepherds returning from Bethlehem:
‘Pastores, dicite, quidnam vidistis?
infantem vidimus.’
This, however, is not taken from the _Pastores_ itself, but from the
Christmas Lauds antiphon[181]. Its dramatic use may be compared with that
of the _Victimae paschali_ in the _Quem quaeritis_. In versions from
Bilsen[182] near Liège and from Mans[183], on the other hand, although
the meeting of the _Magi_ and the shepherds is retained, a complete
_Pastores_, with the angelic tidings and the adoration at the _praesepe_,
forms the first part of the office, before the _Magi_ are introduced at
all.
The Strassburg, Bilsen, and Mans plays have not the _Rachel_, although
the first two have the scene in which the _nuntius_ informs Herod
that the _Magi_ have deceived him. A further stage is reached when,
as at Freising and at Fleury, the _Pastores_, _Stella_ and _Rachel_
all coalesce in a single, and by this time considerable, drama. The
Freising texts, of which there are two, are rather puzzling[184]. The
first closely resembles the plays of the group just described. It begins
with a short _Pastores_, comprising the angelic tidings only. Then the
scenes between the _Magi_ and Herod are treated at great length. The
meeting of the _Magi_ and the shepherds is followed by the oblation,
the angelic warning, and the return of the messenger to Herod. In the
second Freising text, which is almost wholly metrical, the _Pastores_
is complete. It is followed by a quite new scene, the dream of Joseph
and his flight into Egypt. Then come successively the scene of fury at
court, the massacre, the _planctus_ and consolation of Rachel. Clearly
this second text, as it stands, is incomplete. The _Magi_ are omitted,
and the whole of the latter part of the play is consequently rendered
meaningless. But it is the _Magi_ who are alone treated fully in the
first Freising text. I suggest, therefore, that the second text is
intended to supplement and not to replace the first. It really comprises
two fragments: one a revision of the _Pastores_, the other a revision of
the closing scene and an expansion of it by a _Rachel_.
As to the Fleury version there can be no doubt whatever[185]. The matter
is, indeed, arranged in two plays, a _Herodes_ and an _Interfectio
Puerorum_, each ending with a _Te Deum_; and the performance may possibly
have extended over two days. But the style is the same throughout and
the episodes form one continuous action. It is impossible to regard the
_Interfectio Puerorum_ as a separate piece from the _Herodes_, acted a
week earlier on the feast of the Innocents; for into it, after the first
entry of the children with their lamb, _gaudentes per monasterium_,
come the flight into Egypt, the return of the _nuntius_, and the wrath
of Herod, which, of course, presuppose the _Magi_ scenes. Another new
incident is added at the end of the Fleury play. Herod is deposed and
Archelaus set up; the Holy Family return from Egypt, and settle in the
parts of Galilee[186].
I have attempted to arrange the dozen or so complete Epiphany plays known
to scholars in at least the logical order of their development. There
are also three fragments, which fit readily enough into the system. Two,
from a Paris manuscript and from Einsiedeln, may be classed respectively
with the Compiègne and Strassburg texts[187]. The third, from Vienne,
is an independent version, in leonine hexameters, of the scene in which
the _Magi_ first sight the star, a theme common to all the plays except
that of Limoges[188]. I do not feel certain that this fragment is from a
liturgical drama at all.
The textual development of the _Stella_ is closely parallel to that of
the _Quem quaeritis_. The more primitive versions consist of antiphons
and prose sentences based upon or in the manner of the Scriptures. The
later ones, doubtless under the influence of wandering scholars, become
increasingly metrical. The classical tags, from Sallust and Virgil, are
an obvious note of the scholarly pen. With the exception of that from
Limoges, all the texts appear to be derived by successive accretions and
modifications from an archetype fairly represented at Rouen. The Bilsen
text and the Vienne fragment have been freely rewritten, and the process
of rewriting is well illustrated by the alternative versions found
side by side in the later Nevers manuscript. With regard to the place
occupied by the _Stella_ in the Epiphany services, such manuscripts as
give any indications at all seem to point to a considerable divergence
of local use. At Limoges and Nevers, the play was of the nature of a
trope to the Mass, inserted in the former case at the _Offertorium_,
in the latter at the _Communio_[189]. At Rouen the _Officium_ followed
Tierce, and preceded the ordinary procession before Mass. At Fleury the
use of the _Te Deum_ suggests that it was at Matins; at Strassburg it
followed the _Magnificat_ at Vespers, but on the octave of Epiphany, not
Epiphany itself. Perhaps the second part of the Fleury play was also on
the octave. At Bilsen the play followed the _Benedicamus_, but with this
versicle nearly all the Hours end[190]. I do not, however, hesitate to
say that the Limoges use must have been the most primitive one. The
kernel of the whole performance is a dramatized _Offertorium_. It was a
custom for Christian kings to offer gold and frankincense and myrrh at
the altar on Epiphany day[191]; and I take the play to have served as a
substitute for this ceremony, where no king actually regnant was present.
There is yet one other liturgical play belonging to the Christmas season,
which for the future development of the drama is the most important of
all. This is the _Prophetae_[192]. It differs from the _Quem quaeritis_,
the _Peregrini_, the _Pastores_, and the _Stella_ by the large number
of performers required, and by the epical mode of its composition. Its
origin, in fact, is to be sought in a narrative, a _lectio_, not a chant.
The source was the pseudo-Augustinian _Sermo contra Iudaeos, Paganos
et Arianos de Symbolo_, probably written in the sixth century, but
ascribed throughout the Middle Ages to the great African[193]. A portion
of this sermon was used in many churches as a lesson for some part or
other of the Christmas offices[194]. The passage chosen is in a highly
rhetorical vein. _Vos, inquam, convenio, O Iudaei_ cries the preacher,
and calls upon the Jews to bear witness out of the mouths of their own
prophets to the Christ. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Moses, David, Habakkuk,
Simeon, Zacharias and Elisabeth, John the Baptist;—each in turn is
bidden to speak, and each testimony is triumphantly quoted. Then: _Ecce,
convertimur ad gentes_. Virgil—_poeta facundissimus_—is pressed into the
service, for the famous line of his fourth eclogue:
‘iam nova progenies caelo demittitur alto[195],’
Nebuchadnezzar, who saw four walking in the furnace, and finally the
Erythraean Sibyl, whose acrostic verses on the ‘Signs of Judgement’ first
appear in the writings of Eusebius[196].
The dramatic form of this _lectio_ possibly led to its being chanted
instead of read, and distributed between several voices in the manner
of the Passions from Palm Sunday to Good Friday[197]. At any rate in
the eleventh century there appears in a Limoges manuscript a metrical
adaptation in which it has been wholly converted into a dramatic
dialogue[198]. This Limoges _Prophetae_ follows the sermon pretty closely
in its arrangement. A _Precentor_ begins:
‘Omnes gentes congaudentes, dent cantum laetitiae!
deus homo fit, de domo David, natus hodie.’
He addresses a couplet each _Ad Iudaeos_, _Ad Gentes_, and then calls
in turn upon each of the prophets, who reply, Virgil pronouncing his
line, the Sibyl the _Iudicii Signum_, and the others a couplet or
quatrain apiece. They are nearly identical with the personages of the
sermon: Israel is added, Zacharias disappears, and the order is slightly
different. Finally the _Precentor_ concludes:
‘Iudaea incredula,
cur manens adhuc inverecunda?’
Two later versions, belonging respectively to Laon[199] and to
Rouen[200], diverge far more from the model. They are at much the same
stage of development. In both the play is ushered in with the hymn
_Gloriosi et famosi_, the verses of which are sung by the prophets, and
the refrain by the choir[201]. The costumes and symbols of the prophets
are carefully indicated in the rubrics. The _Precentor_ of Limoges is
represented by two singers, called at Laon _Appellatores_, and at Rouen
_Vocatores_. The dialogue is amplified beyond that of Limoges. _Sex
Iudaei_ and _sex Gentiles_, for instance, take parts: and the _Vocatores_
comment with the choir in an identical form of words on each prophecy.
The Laon text is a good deal the shorter. The prophets are practically
the same as at Limoges, with one remarkable exception. At the end is
introduced Balaam, and to his prophecy is appended a miniature drama,
with the angel and the ass: thus—
‘_Hic veniat Angelus cum gladio. Balaam tangit asinam, et illa
non praecedente, dicit iratus_:
quid moraris, asina,
obstinata bestia?
iam scindent calcaria
costas et praecordia.
_Puer sub asina respondet_:
angelus cum gladio,
quem adstare video,
prohibet ne transeam;
timeo ne peream.’
The Rouen text adds quite a number of prophets. The full list includes
Moses, Amos, Isaiah, Aaron, Jeremiah, Daniel, Habakkuk, Balaam, Samuel,
David, Hosea, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Zephaniah, Haggai,
Zechariah, Ezekiel, Malachi, Zacharias, Elisabeth, John the Baptist,
Simeon, Virgil, Nebuchadnezzar, and the Sibyl. In this version, also, the
part of Balaam is expanded into a drama.
‘_Duo missi a rege Balac dicant_:
Balaam, veni et fac.
_Tunc Balaam, ornatus, sedens super asinam, habens calcaria,
retineat lora et calcaribus percutiat asinam, et quidam
iuvenis, habens alas, tenens gladium, obstet asinae. Quidam sub
asina dicat_:
cur me cum calcaribus miseram sic laeditis.
_Hoc dicto, Angelus ei dicat_:
desine regis Balac praeceptum perficere.’
Here, too, another little drama is similarly introduced. This is the
story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, which, with an _imago_ for the
brethren to refuse to worship and a _fornax_ for them to be cast into,
attaches itself to the _vocatio_ of Nebuchadnezzar.
In the Limoges manuscript the _Prophetae_ is followed by the words _Hic
inchoant Benedicamus_[202]. As has been pointed out in the case of the
Bilsen _Pastores_, this is not conclusive as to the hour at which the
performance took place. The day was probably that of Christmas itself.
But even the day would naturally vary with the variable position of the
_lectio_ out of which the _Prophetae_ grew. At Lincoln it was likewise
Christmas day. But at Rouen the _processio asinorum_ was on Christmas
eve, and took the place of the ordinary festal procession after Tierce
and before Mass[203]. And at St. Martin of Tours the _Prophetae_ was on
New Year’s day, performances being given both at Matins and Vespers[204].
The question naturally suggests itself: What was the relation of these
liturgical plays of the Christmas season to the Feast of Fools and other
ecclesiastical _ludi_ of the Twelve nights, which were discussed in the
first volume? At Rouen, the _Prophetae_ received the name of _processio
asinorum_ and took place at a _festum asinorum_, a name which we know to
have been elsewhere synonymous with _festum fatuorum_. At Tours, it was
played at a reformed _festum novi anni_, with a Boy Bishop and at least
traces of expelled disorder. So, too, with the other plays. The Rouen
_Pastores_ was infected by the fifteenth century with the _stultitiae
et insolentiae_ of the _triduum_. At Bilsen the _Stella_ was performed
before a _rex_, who can hardly have been any other than a _rex fatuorum_
of Epiphany. At Autun the _regnum Herodis_ was considered a Feast of
Fools[205]. Probably in both churches the _rex_ acted Herod in the
play. I think it must be taken for granted that the plays are the older
institution of the two. They seem all to have taken shape by the eleventh
century, before there is any clear sign that the Kalends had made their
way into the churches and become the Feast of Fools. The plays may even
have been encouraged as a counter-attraction, for the congregation, to
the Kalends outside. On the other hand, I do not hold, as some writers
do, that the riotous Feasts of Asses were derived from the pious and
instructive ceremony so called at Rouen[206]. On the contrary, Balaam
and his ass are an interpolation in the _Prophetae_ both at Rouen and,
more obviously, at Laon. Balaam, alone of the Laon performers, is not
from the pseudo-Augustine sermon. Is he not, therefore, to be regarded
as a reaction of the Feast of Fools upon the _Prophetae_, as an attempt
to turn the established presence of the ass in the church to purposes of
edification, rather than of ribaldry[207]? I think the explanation is
the more plausible one. And I find a parallel reaction of the turbulence
of the Feast of Fools upon the _Stella_, in the violence of speech and
gesture which permanently associated itself at a very early stage with
the character of Herod. The view here taken will be confirmed, when
we come to consider certain ecclesiastical criticisms passed upon the
liturgical plays in the twelfth century.
Whatever the exact relation of the divine and profane _ludi_ at Easter
and Christmas may be, it seems to have been, in the main, at these two
great seasons of festivity that what may be called the spontaneous growth
of drama out of liturgy took place. There are yet a fair number of Latin
plays to be spoken of which are in a sense liturgical. That is to say,
they were acted, certainly or probably, in churches and during intervals
in the services. But of these such a spontaneous growth cannot be
asserted, although it cannot also, in the present state of the evidence,
be confidently denied. Their metrical and literary style is parallel
to that of the Easter and Christmas plays in the latest stages of
development; and, until further data turn up, it is perhaps permissible
to conjecture that they were deliberately composed on the model of the
_Quem quaeritis_ and the _Stella_, when these had become widespread
and popular. Indeed, some such derivation of the _Peregrini_ from the
_Quem quaeritis_ and of the _Stella_ itself, at least in part, from the
_Pastores_, has already appeared probable.
In dealing with this new group of plays, we come, for the first and only
time, upon an individual author. As might be expected, this author is
a _scholaris vagans_, by name Hilarius. It would even be doing him no
great injustice to call him a goliard. What little is known of Hilarius
is gathered from his writings, which exist in a single manuscript. He
may have been an Englishman, for a large proportion of his verses are
addressed to English folk. He was a pupil, about 1125, of the famous
Abelard at his oratory of Paraclete in a desert near Nogent-sur-Seine.
Afterwards he made his way to Angers. Many of his verses are of the
familiar goliardic type, amorous and jocund; but amongst them are three
plays[208]. Two of these are comparatively short, and contain each a few
stanzas of French interspersed amongst the Latin. The subject of one is
a miracle wrought by St. Nicholas[209]; of the other, the _Suscitatio
Lazari_[210]. The third play, wholly in Latin, falls into two parts, and
gives at considerable length the story of _Daniel_[211]. I take it that
these plays were not written for any church in particular, but represent
the repertory of a band of wandering clerks. At the end, both of the
_Daniel_ and of the _Suscitatio Lazari_, is a rubric or stage-direction,
to the effect that, if the performance is given at Matins, the _Te Deum_
should follow; if at Vespers, the _Magnificat_. Evidently the connexion
with the church service, so organic in the plays of the more primitive
type, has become for Hilarius almost accidental. As to the place of the
plays in the calendar, the manuscript gives no indication, and probably
Hilarius and his friends would be willing enough to act them whenever
they got a chance. But the St. Nicholas play would come most naturally
on the day of that saint, December 6. The _Suscitatio Lazari_ would
be appropriate enough as an addition to the _Quem quaeritis_ and the
_Peregrini_ in Easter week. The story is told, indeed, in the Gospel for
Friday in the fourth week in Lent; but that does not seem a very likely
date for a play. The _Daniel_ perhaps grew, as we have seen a _Balaam_
and a _Nebuchadnezzar_ growing, out of a _Prophetae_; and may have been a
substitute for a _Prophetae_ at Christmas.
These dates are borne out, or not contradicted, by other similar plays,
which have more of a local habitation. For no one of Hilarius’ three
stands quite alone. Of Latin plays of St. Nicholas, indeed, quite a
little group exists; and the great scholastic feast evidently afforded an
occasion, less only than Easter and Christmas, for dramatic performances.
The earliest texts are from Germany. Two are found in a Hildesheim
manuscript of the eleventh century[212]; a third in an Einsiedeln
manuscript of the twelfth[213]. The thirteenth-century Fleury play-book
contains no less than four, two of which appear to be more developed
forms of the Hildesheim plays. The theme is in every case one of the
miraculous deeds which so largely make up the widespread legend of the
saint[214]. Nicholas restores to life the three clerks
‘quos causa discendi literas
apud gentes transmisit exteras,’
and whom the greed of an innkeeper has slain[215]. He provides with a
dowry the daughters of a poor gentleman, who are threatened with a life
of shame[216]. He brings back from captivity the son of his wealthy
adorer[217]. His image preserves from housebreakers the riches of a
Jew[218]. Alone of the extant Latin plays, these of St. Nicholas are
drawn from outside the Biblical story. Each of the Fleury versions
introduces at the end one of the anthems proper to St. Nicholas’ day, and
their connexion with the feast is therefore clear.
A second Lazarus play, which includes not only the _Suscitatio_ but also
the episode of Mary Magdalen in the house of Simon, is likewise in the
Fleury play-book[219]. A second _Daniel_, composed by the _iuventus_ of
Beauvais, occurs in the same manuscript which contains the Office of
the Circumcision for that cathedral[220]. It was perhaps intended for
performance on the day of the _asinaria festa_. Other plays seem, in
the same way as the _Daniel_, to have budded off from the _Prophetae_.
A fragment is preserved of an _Isaac and Rebecca_ from Kloster Vorau
in Styria[221]. A twelfth-century mention of an _Elisaeus_[222] and
an eleventh-century one of a _Convivium Herodis_[223], which suggests
rather the story of John the Baptist than that of the _Magi_, point to an
activity in this direction of which all the traces have possibly not yet
been discovered.
Three plays, each more or less unique in character, complete the tale.
The Fleury play-book has a _Conversio Beati Pauli Apostoli_, doubtless
designed for the feast on January 25[224]. The shorter, but highly
interesting collection from Limoges, has a play of the wise and foolish
virgins, under the title of _Sponsus_[225]. This has attracted much
attention from scholars, on account of the fact that it is partly in
French, or more strictly in a dialect belonging to the Angoumois, and
slightly affected by Provençal. As it is therefore of the nature of a
transitional form, it may be well to give a somewhat full account of it.
It opens with a Latin chorus beginning
‘Adest sponsus qui est Christus: vigilate, virgines!’
The angel Gabriel then addresses the virgins, and warns them in four
French stanzas to expect ‘un espos, Sauvaire a nom.’ Each stanza has a
refrain, probably sung chorally:
‘gaire noi dormet:
aici’s l’espos que vos or atendet!
Then comes a lyric dialogue, in which the _Fatuae_, who have wasted their
oil, attempt in vain to get some, first from the _Prudentes_, and then
from some _Mercatores_, whose presence here recalls the _unguentarius_
in the Prague versions of the _Quem quaeritis_[226]. This dialogue is in
Latin, but with a French refrain:
‘dolentas, chaitivas, trop i avem (_or_ avet) dormit.’
Then comes the _Sponsus_, to whom the _Fatuae_ finally appeal:
‘audi, sponse, voces plangentium:
aperire fac nobis ostium
cum sociis ad dulce prandium;
nostrae culpae praebe remedium!
dolentas, chaitivas, trop i avem dormit.
_Christus._
amen dico, vos ignosco, nam caretis lumine,
quod qui perdunt procul pergunt huius aulae limine.
alet, chaitivas, alet, malaüreias!
a tot jors mais vos son penas livreias,
e en efern ora seret meneias!
_Modo accipiant eas daemones et praecipitentur in infernum._’
This stage direction, together with an allusion in the opening lines of
the _Sponsus_ to the ‘second Adam,’ link this remarkable, and, I venture
to think, finely conceived little piece to the Christmas play of _Adam_
to be discussed in the next chapter. It has essentially an Advent theme,
and must have been performed either in Advent itself or at the Christmas
season, with which Advent is prophetically connected[227].
Finally, there is a play which was almost certainly performed at
Advent[228]. This is the Tegernsee play of _Antichristus_[229]. It
is founded upon the prophecy in St. Paul’s second epistle to the
Thessalonians of the _homo peccati, filius perditionis_, who shall sit
in the temple of God until the Christ shall slay him with the breath
of his mouth, and destroy him with the glory of his advent[230]: and
it is an elaborate spectacle, requiring for its proper performance
a large number of actors and a spacious stage, with a temple of God
and seven royal _sedes_, together with room for much marching and
counter-marching and warfare[231]. It must have taken up the whole nave
of some great church. It begins with a procession of Emperor, Pope, and
Kings, accompanied by personages emblematic of _Gentilitas_, _Sinagoga_
and _Ecclesia_ with her attendants _Misericordia_ and _Iustitia_. The
first part of the action represents the conquest of the four corners of
Christendom by the Emperor and his championship of Jerusalem against the
King of Babylon. _Ecclesia_, _Gentilitas_, and _Synagoga_ punctuate the
performance with their characteristic chants. Then come the Hypocrites,
_sub silentio et specie humilitatis inclinantes circumquaque et captantes
favorem laicorum_. They are followed by Antichrist himself, who instructs
Hypocrisy and Heresy to prepare the way for his advent. Presently
Antichrist is enthroned in the temple and gradually saps the Empire,
winning over the King of the Greeks by threats, the King of the Franks by
gifts, and the King of the Teutons, who is incorruptible and invincible,
by signs and wonders. He marks his vassals on the brow with the first
letter of his name. Then the Hypocrites attempt to persuade _Synagoga_
that Antichrist is the Messiah; but are refuted by the prophets Enoch
and Elijah. Antichrist has the rebels slain; but while he is throned in
state, thunder breaks suddenly over his head, he falls, and _Ecclesia_
comes to her own again with a _Laudem dicite deo nostro_.
The author of the _Antichristus_ is not only a skilled craftsman in
rhyming Latin metres; he is also capable of carrying a big literary
scheme successfully to a close. His immediate source was probably
the tenth-century _Libellus de Antichristo_ of Adso of Toul[232].
Into this he has worked the central theme of the _Prophetae_ and the
debating figures from that very popular _débat_ or ‘estrif,’ the
_Altercatio Ecclesiae et Synagogae_[233]. His work differs in several
obvious respects from the comparatively simple, often naïve, liturgical
dramas which have been considered. It is ambitious in scope, extending
to between four and five hundred lines. It introduces allegorical
figures, such as we shall find, long after, in the moralities. It has
a purpose other than that of devotion, or even amusement. It is, in
fact, a _Tendenzschrift_, a pamphlet. The instinct of the drama, which
sways the imaginations of men perhaps more powerfully than any other
form of literature, to mix itself up with politics is incorrigible:
_Antichristus_ is a subtle vindication, on the one hand, of the Empire
against the Papacy, on the other of the _rex Teutonicorum_ against the
_rex Francorum_. It probably dates from about 1160, when Frederick
Barbarossa was at the height of his struggle with Alexander III, who
enjoyed the sympathies of Louis VII of France. And it is anti-clerical.
The Hypocrites who carry out the machinations of Antichrist are the
clerical reformers, such as Gerhoh of Reichersberg[234], who were the
mainstay of the papacy in Germany.
It is improbable that the few and scattered texts which have come to
light represent all the liturgical plays which had made their appearance
by the middle of the twelfth century. Besides the lost _Elisaeus_ and
_Convivium Herodis_, there is evidence, for example, of scholars’ plays
in honour, not only of St. Nicholas, but of their second patron, the
philosophical St. Catharine of Alexandria. Such a _ludus de Sancta
Katarina_ was prepared at Dunstable in England by one Geoffrey, a Norman
clerk who had been invited to England as schoolmaster to the abbey of St.
Albans. For it he borrowed certain choir copes belonging to the abbey,
and had the misfortune to let these be burnt with his house. Deeply
repentant, he took the religious habit, and in 1119 became abbot of St.
Albans. From this date that of the _ludus_ may be judged to be early in
the twelfth century[235].
It cannot, of course, be assumed that every play, say in the fifteenth
century, which although probably or certainly written in the vernacular
was performed in a church, had a Latin prototype[236]. Many such may
have been written and acted for the first time on existing models, when
the vernacular drama was already well established. But there are certain
feasts where it is possible to trace, on the one hand, the element of
mimetic ceremony in the services, and on the other, perhaps, some later
representation in the dramatic cycles, and where a Latin text might at
any time turn up without causing surprise. With a few notes on some of
these this chapter must conclude. A highly dramatic trope for Ascension
day, closely resembling the _Quem quaeritis_, has already been quoted
from the tropers of Limoges[237]. An _Ordinarium_ of St. Peter’s of Lille
directs that, after the respond _Non vos relinquam_, the officiant shall
mount a pulpit and thence appear to ascend towards heaven from the top of
a mountain[238]. Fifteenth-century _computi_ speak of this or of a more
elaborate performance as a _mysterium_, and include amongst other items
payments for painting the scars on the hands of the performer[239]. On
Whit-Sunday it was the custom at St. Paul’s in London and many other
churches, during the singing of the hymn _Veni Creator Spiritus_ at
Tierce, to open a hole in the roof and let down symbols of the Pentecost;
a dove, a globe of fire, bits of burning tow to represent tongues of
fire, a censer, flowers, pieces of flaky pastry[240]. This same hole in
the roof sometimes served a similar purpose at a mimetic representation
of the Annunciation. The Gospel for the day was recited by two clerks
dressed as Mary and the angel, and at the words _Spiritus Sanctus
supervenit in te_ a white dove descended from the roof. This can hardly
be called a drama, for, with the exception of a short fifteenth-century
text from Cividale, only the words of the Gospel itself seem to have
been used; but obviously it is on the extreme verge of drama. A curious
variant in the date of this ceremony is to be noted. In several Italian
examples, of which the earliest dates from 1261, and in one or two
from France, it belongs to the feast of the Annunciation proper on
March 25[241]. But in later French examples, and apparently also at
Lincoln[242], it has been transferred to the Advent season, during which
naturally the Annunciation was greatly held in remembrance, and has
been attached to the so-called ‘golden’ Mass celebrated ten days before
Christmas during the _Quatuor Tempora_[243]. It thus became absorbed into
the Christmas dramatic cycle.