Pre-Controversial Moralities.
The _dramatis personae_ are all abstractions, with an occasional moral
type, such as Hickscorner, or a social type, such as a Taverner.
1. †1486-1501. _Henry Medwall._ _Nature._
See s.v. Medwall.
2. †1513. _Hickscorner._
[1501-35.] W. de Worde. Hyckescorner.
[1546-86.] J. Waley.
Fragments of unidentified editions are described by Greg, _Plays_, 139.
On Jan. 15, 1582, the copyright was transferred from the late Sampson
Awdeley to John Charlwood (Arber, ii. 405). Modern reprints are in
Hawkins, vol. i; Hazlitt-Dodsley, vol. i; Manly, vol. i. There are 1,026
lines. Ten Brink, iii. 125, dates the play at about the beginning of the
sixteenth century. Collier, ii. 227, and Ward, i. 119, place it in the
reign of Henry VII, whose ship, the Regent, is named. Brandl, xxviii,
notes that this is spoken of (l. 356) as sunk, which occurred in 1513.
This is one of the ‘auncient Plays’ in _Captain Cox_, cxviii.
3. †1513-29. _Youth._
[1546-86.] J. Waley. Thēterlude of Youth.
[1549-69.] W. Copland.
Greg, _Plays_, 141, mentions a fragment of a third edition. The play
is printed in Hazlitt-Dodsley, vol. ii. There are about 1,200 lines.
Collier, ii. 230; Ward, i. 126; Pollard, liv, put the date in Mary’s
reign; Brandl, xxviii, early in that of Henry VIII. Passages are borrowed
from _Hickscorner_. This is named in _Captain Cox_, cxviii.
4. †1517. _John Rastell._ _The Nature of the Four Elements._
[1516-33.] John Rastell. A new interlude and a mery of the nature of the
.iiii. elements declarynge many proper poynts of phylosophy naturall
and of dyuers strange landys and of dyuers strannge effect and causis,
which interlude, if the whole matter be played, will contain the space of
an hour and a half; but if you list you may leave out much of the said
matter, as ... and then it will not be past three quarters of an hour of
length.
There are modern editions by Halliwell (Percy Soc. lxxiv), and in
Hazlitt-Dodsley, vol. i, and extracts in Pollard, 97. There are about 900
lines. A note says ‘also, yf ye lyst, ye may brynge in a Dysguysinge,’
and a direction for the ‘dance’ or disguising shows that the stage was a
‘hall.’ The date is fixed by Collier, ii. 238; Ward, i. 126; Pollard,
205, on the ground that the discovery of America is said to be ‘within
this twenty years’ and by ‘Americus’ (i.e. Amerigo Vespucci, 1497). The
authorship has been doubted, apparently in ignorance of the ascription
of it to Rastell by Bale, _Scriptores_ (1557), i. 660 ‘Insignis his
Cosmographus, de trium mundi partium, Asiae, Africae, et Europae
descriptione, ingeniosissimam ac longissimam comoediam primum edidit,
cum instrumentis & figuris, quam uocabat _Naturam naturatam. Lib. 1.
Exuberans diuinae potentiae gratia._’ The opening words quoted by Bale
translate those of the play ‘Thaboundant grace of the power devyne.’
Probably Rastell was also the printer, although the unique and imperfect
copy (_B.M._ 643, b. 45) has only a manuscript imprint.
5. †1541-8. _John Redford._ _Wit and Science._
Printed by Halliwell (Shakespeare Soc., 1848) and Manly, vol. i, from
_Brit. Mus. Addl. MS._ 15,233, which is imperfect at the beginning, but
has the colophon ‘Thus endyth the Play of Wyt and Science, made by Master
Jhon Redford.’
There are 1,059 lines. The final prayer is for the ‘Kyng and Quene.’
Brandl, lxxii, dates the play between 1541, when the ‘gaillard,’ which
is mentioned, was first danced in England, and the death of Katharine
Parr in 1548. It was adapted in more than one Elizabethan interlude;
cf. Brandl, loc. cit.; J. Seifert, _Wit- und Science-Moralitäten_
(1892); and p. 200, n. 2. Redford was at one time Master of the St.
Paul’s song-school. The MS. also contains songs and fragments of other
moralities by him.
Pseudo-Interludes: Disputations.
6. †1521. _John Heywood._ _Love._
7. †1521-31. _John Heywood._ _Witty and Witless._
8. †1521-31. _John Heywood_ (?). _Gentleness and Nobility._
See s.v. Heywood.
Pseudo-Interlude: Banns.
9. †1503. _W. Dunbar._ _The Droichis Part of the Play._ Printed in
Dunbar’s _Works_ (ed. J. Small, for Scottish Text Soc.), ii. 314.
One MS. is headed ‘Ane Littill Interlud of the Droichis Part of the
[Play]’; another, and the fuller, ‘Heir followis the maner of the crying
of ane playe.’ Both have at the end ‘Finis off the Droichis Pairt of the
Play.’
There are 176 lines. The Droich (dwarf) enters to an ‘amyable audiens’ in
Edinburgh, ‘to cry a cry.’ He calls himself ‘Welth,’ and bids
‘Ȝe noble merchandis ever ilkane
Address ȝow furth with bow and flane
In lusty grene lufraye,
And follow furth on Robyn Hude.’
The piece is clearly a ‘banns’ for a May-game; cf. vol. i. p. 174. The S.
T. S. editors (i. ccxxxiii), think it was written for the reception of
Princess Margaret in 1503.
Pseudo-Interlude: Translation.
10. _Necromantia._
[1516-33.] John Rastell. Necromantia. A dialog of the poet Lucyan, for
his fantesye faynyd for a mery pastyme. And furst by hym compylyd in the
Greke tonge. And after translated owt of the Greke into Latyn, and now
lately translated out of Laten into Englissh for the erudicion of them,
which be disposyd to lerne the tongis. Inter locutores, Menippus and
Philonides.
R. G. C. Proctor, in _Hand Lists of English Printers_, Pt. ii,
distinguishes two editions, one certainly, the other probably, printed
by Rastell. Hazlitt, _Manual_, 164, describes the translation as
‘after the manner of an interlude.’ The Latin and English are in
parallel columns, and Collier, ii. 280, who saw a fragment in the Douce
collection, thought that it was ‘a modern Latin play, possibly by
Rightwise.’ Bale, _Scriptores_ (1557), i. 656, says that More translated
Lucian’s ‘_Menippum, seu Necromantiam, Dial. 1. Salue atrium, domusque
uesti[bulum]_’; but the reference is probably to the Latin version of
this and other dialogues published in 1506.
Farces of Mediaeval Type.
11. †1521. _John Heywood._ _The Pardoner and the Friar._
12. †1521. _John Heywood._ _The Four Ps._
13. †1521-31. _John Heywood._ _The Weather._
14. †1521-31. _John Heywood._ _John, Tib and Sir John._
See s.v. Heywood.
Translation from Spanish.
15. _Calisto and Melibaea._
[1516-33.] John Rastell. A new cōmodye in englysh in maner Of an
enterlude ryght elygant & full of craft of rethoryk wherein is shewd &
dyscrybyd as well the bewte & good propertes of women as theyr vycys &
euyll cōdiciōs with a morall cōclusion & exhortacyon to vertew.
A modern reprint is in Hazlitt-Dodsley, vol. i. The _dramatis personae_
are Calisto, Melibaea, Sempronio, Celestina, Parmeno. The play is a
partial English version through the Italian of the Spanish _Celestina_
(1492) of Fernando Rojas de Montalvan and Rodrigo Costa. A later
translation is J. Mabbe, _Celestina_ (1630), ed. J. Fitzmaurice Kelly in
_Tudor Translations_; cf. J. G. Underhill, _Spanish Literature in the
England of the Tudors_, 65, 375.
Translation from Classical Latin.
16. _Terence._ _Andria._
[1516-33.] John Rastell (?). Terens in englyssh. The translacyon out of
Latin into englysh of the furst comedy of tyrens callyd Andria.
Translations from Neo-Latin.
17. 1537. _Thersites._
[1558-63.] John Tysdale. A new Enterlude called Thersytes. This Enterlude
Folowynge Dothe Declare howe that the greatest boesters are not the
greatest doers.
There are modern editions in J. Haslewood, _Two Interludes_ (Roxburghe
Club, 1820); F. J. Child, _Four Old Plays_ (1848); Hazlitt-Dodsley, vol.
i; also a facsimile by H. S. Ashbee (1876) and extracts in Pollard, 126.
There are 915 lines. The _dramatis personae_ are Thersites, Mulciber,
Miles, Mater, Telemachus. Mulciber has ‘a sharp sword made in the place,’
and Mater ‘the place which is prepared for her.’ The date is fixed by a
prayer for Prince Edward, born Oct. 12, 1537, and Queen Jane Seymour, who
died Oct. 24, 1537. Bolte, in _Vahlen-Festschrift_, 594, says that the
piece is translated from the _Thersites_ of J. Ravisius Textor, printed
in his _Dialogi_ (1651), 239. The first edition of the _Dialogi_ was in
1530 (Bahlmann, _Lat. Dr._ 31).
18. †1560. _Thomas Ingelend._ _The Disobedient Child._
[Probably an Elizabethan play, but included here on account of its
relation to _Thersites_.]
[1561-75.] Thomas Colwell. A pretie and Mery new Enterlude: called the
Disobedient Child. Compiled by Thomas Ingelend late Student in Cambridge.
There are modern editions by Halliwell (Percy Soc. xxiii) and in
Hazlitt-Dodsley, vol. ii. The closing prayer is for Elizabeth. Bolte,
loc. cit., considers this a translation of the _Iuvenis, Pater, Uxor_
of Ravisius Textor (_Dialogi_, 71). Brandl, lxxiii, finds in it the
influence of the _Studentes_ (1549) of Christopherus Stymmelius
(Bahlmann, _Lat. Dr._ 98).
Farces on Classical Models.
19. †1550-3. _W. Stevenson_ (?). _Gammer Gurton’s Needle._
1575. Thomas Colwell. A Ryght Pithy, Pleasaunt and merie Comedie:
Intytuled Gammer gurton’s Nedle: Played on Stage, not longe ago in
Christes Colledge in Cambridge. Made by Mʳ S. Mʳ of Art.
1661. Thomas Johnson.
There are modern editions in Hawkins, vol. i; W. Scott, _Ancient
British Drama_ (1810), vol. i; _Old English Drama_ (1830), vol. i;
Hazlitt-Dodsley, vol. iii; Manly, vol. ii. The latest is by H. Bradley in
C. M. Gayley, _Representative English Comedies_ (1903).
The play is divided into Acts and Scenes, has a prologue and a
_plaudite_; but the subject is not taken from Latin comedy. It is
probably identical with the _Dyccon of Bedlam_ entered by Colwell on
the Stationers’ Register in 1562-3, since ‘Diccon, the bedlem’ is a
character. The 1575 edition may, therefore, not have been the first.
Jusserand, _Théâtre_, 181, thinks that the satire is even pre-Reformation
in tone. The authorship is much in dispute. I. Reed, _Biographia
Dramatica_ (1782), suggested John Still, afterwards bishop of Bath
and Wells, who was a M.A. of Christ’s in 1565. C. H. Ross, in _Modern
Language Notes_, vii (1892), no. 6, and _Anglia_, xix. 297, accepts John
Bridges, afterwards bishop of Oxford, who is spoken of, but with doubtful
seriousness, as the author, in _Martin Marprelate’s Epistle_ (1588). But
Bridges’ initial is not S, nor was he a Christ’s man. H. Bradley, in
_Athenæum_ for August 6, 1898, and J. Peile, _Christ’s College_ (1900),
54, 73, point out that one William Stevenson, a Bachelor Fellow of
Christ’s, is shown by college accounts to have been in charge of plays
there between 1550 and 1553. His seems to me by far the strongest claim
yet made.
20. †1553-4. _Nicholas Udall._ _Roister Doister._
See s.v. Udall.
21. †1553-8. _Jack Juggler._
[1562-9.] W. Copland, A new Enterlude for Chyldren to playe, named Jacke
Jugeler, both wytte, and very playsent Newly Imprentid.
According to Grosart, two leaves of another edition are bound with the
Duke of Devonshire’s copy.
The play was entered by Copland on the Stationers’ Register in 1562-3.
There are modern reprints in J. Haslewood, _Two Interludes_ (Roxburghe
Club, 1820); F. J. Child, _Four Old Plays_ (1848); A. B. Grosart, _Fuller
Worthies Library Miscellanies_ (1873), vol. iv; Hazlitt-Dodsley, vol.
ii, and a facsimile by E. W. Ashbee (1876). The piece is an imitation of
the _Amphitruo_ of Plautus. Brandl, lxxi, assigns it to the reign of Mary
on the strength of a Catholic sentiment.
Tragedy on Classical Model (?).
22. †1516-33. _Lucrece._
A fragment of a ‘Play concerning Lucretia’ is attributed by R. G.
C. Proctor, in _Hand Lists of English Printers_ (1896), Part ii, to
the press of John Rastell (1516-33). It is in the Bagford collection
of fragments, _Harl. MS._ 5919, f. 20 (no. 98), and consists of two
pages, containing a scene in which Publius Cornelius instructs a
confidential friend with the initial B to sound the feeling of ‘Lucres’
towards him, and the beginning of a scene between B. and ‘Lucres.’
Halliwell-Phillipps, ii. 340, says that the play was written by
Medwall, †1490, and gives the title as ‘A godely interlude of Fulgeus,
Cenatoure of Rome, Lucres his daughter, Gayus Flaminius and Publius
Cornelius, of the Disputacyon of Noblenes.’ The ‘Fulgius and Lucrelle’ of
seventeenth-century play-lists (Hazlitt, _Manual_, s.v.; Greg, _Masques_,
lxx) may be related to this. The heroine is not Shakespeare’s Lucrece.
Latin Neo-Mysteries.
23. †1535-45. _Thomas Watson_ (?). _Absolon._
Ascham, _Scholemaster_ (ed. Mayor, 1869), highly praises, together with
Buchanan’s _Jephthes_, the _Absolon_ of Thomas Watson ‘in Sᵗ John’s
College Cambridge’ which he never would publish because an anapaest
sometimes stood where he thought, incorrectly, that there should have
been an iambus. Watson became bishop of Lincoln. Fleay, _Biog. Chron._
ii. 267, and others ascribe the play in error to John Watson, bishop of
Winchester, and speak of a manuscript at Penshurst, which, however, is
not mentioned in the account of the Penshurst MSS. in _Hist. MSS._ iii.
app. 227. Probably the play is identical with the _Absolon_ preserved in
_Brit. Mus. Stowe MS._ 957, described by G. B. Churchill and W. Keller,
_Die lat. Universitäts-Dramen Englands in der Zeit der Königin Elisabeth_
(_Shakespeare-Jahrbuch_, xxxiv (1898), 229). An eighteenth-century
ascription on the first leaf to John Bale is of no authority. The play is
of a Senecan type, with acts and scenes and a chorus. The first line was
originally ‘Adhuc animus vexatur excusso metu,’ but in the MS., which has
many corrections, ‘Animus adhuc’ has been substituted.
24. †1540. _Nicholas Grimald._ _Christus Redivivus._
25. †1547. _Nicholas Grimald._ _Archipropheta._
See s.v. Grimald.
26. †1550. _John Foxe._ _Christus Triumphans._
1551. Christus triumphans, Comoedia apocalyptica. Autore Ioanne Foxo
Anglo. London 1551. 8ᵒ.
1556. Oporinus, Basle.
1590. Nuremberg, Gerlach.
In 1672 and 1677 the Latin text was edited by Thomas Comber for school
use. A French translation by Jacques Bienvenu appeared in 1562. There is
also
1579. John and Richard Day. Christ Jesus Triumphant, A fruitefull
Treatise, wherein is described the most glorious Triumph, and Conquest
of Christ Iesus our Saviour.... Made to be read for spiritual comfort by
Iohn Foxe, and from Latin translated intoo English by the Printer....
There are later editions of 1581 and 1607. This is generally regarded as
a translation of the _Christus Triumphans_, but Greg, _Masques_, cxxiii,
doubts this, and notes that ‘a modern reprint [1828] in the B. M. is
not dramatic.’ The reprint is in fact a translation of the _De Christo
Triumphante, Eiusdem Autoris Panegyricon_ appended to the Basle edition
of the play. But possibly it does not represent the whole of Day’s work.
The 1551 edition is given by Bahlmann, _Lat. Dr._ 107. According to S.
L. Lee, in _D. N. B._, it only rests on the authority of Tanner. In 1551
Foxe was tutor to the children of Lord Surrey, who had been executed
some years before. In 1555 he entered the printing office of Oporinus
at Basle, and in 1564 that of John Day in London. The MS. of the play
is _Lansd. MS._ 1073. It is an ‘Antichrist’ play, written under the
influence of the _Pammachius_ (1538) of Thomas Kirchmaier or Naogeorgus
(Bahlmann, _op. cit._ 71). A full analysis is given by Herford, 138.
Translation from Latin Neo-Moral.
27. †1530-40. _J. Palsgrave._ _Acolastus._
1540. Thomas Berthelet. Ioannis Palsgravi Londoniensis, ecphrasis Anglica
in comoediam Acolasti. ¶ The Comedye of Acolastus translated into oure
englysshe tongue, ... Interpreted by John Palsgraue.
This is a translation of the _Acolastus_ (1530) of Wilhelm de Volder,
known in learning as Gnaphaeus or Fullonius, of the Hague (Bahlmann,
_Lat. Dr._ 39). It is arranged for school use, with marginal notes on
grammar, &c. The original play is the most important of the group dealing
with the Prodigal Son motive: cf. Herford, 152.
Drama of Catholic Controversy.
28. 1553. _Respublica._
Printed by Collier, _Illustrations of Old English Literature_ (1866),
vol. i, and Brandl, 281, from sixteenth-century MS. of Mr. Hudson Gurney
of Keswick Hall, Norfolk, with the heading ‘A merye enterlude entitled
Respublica, made in the yeare of our Lorde, 1553.’
The play is divided into Acts and Scenes, and is a ‘Christmas devise’
(prol. 6) by ‘boyes’ (prol. 39). The place-names are of London. The
controversial tone is Catholic, and political, rather than theological.
Brandl, lviii, finds the model in Lyndsay’s _Satyre_. Except for the
Prologue (the Poet) all the characters are abstractions. Avarice, _alias_
Policy, is ‘the vice of the plaie.’
Dramas of Protestant Controversy.
29. 1538. _John Bale._ _God’s Promises._
30. 1538. _John Bale._ _John Baptist._
31. 1538. _John Bale._ _The Temptation._
32. 1538. _John Bale._ _The Three Laws._
33. ?1539, 1561. _John Bale._ _King John._
See s.v. Bale.
34. †1547-53. _R. Wever._ _Lusty Juventus._
[1549-69.] W. Copland. An Enterlude called lusty Iuuentus. Lyuely
describing the frailtie of youth: of natur prone to vyce: by grace and
good counsayll, traynable to vertue.—At end of play, ‘Finis, quod R.
Wever.’
[1548-86.] A. Vele.
Copyright was entered on the Stationers’ Register by John King in 1560-1.
There are modern reprints in Hawkins, vol. i, and Hazlitt-Dodsley, vol.
ii. The characters are abstractions with the Devil, a Messenger, and
Little Bess a ‘Curtisane.’ The prayer is for a king and his council who
rule, which points to the reign of Edward VI.
35. †1547-53. _T. R._ _Nice Wanton._
1560. John King. A Preaty Interlude called, Nice wanton.—At end of play,
‘Finis T. R.’
There are reprints in Hazlitt-Dodsley, vol. i, and Manly, vol. i. The
characters are curiously heterogeneous: Messenger, Barnabas, Ismael,
Dalila, Eulalia, Iniquitie, Baily Errand, Xantippe, Worldly Shame,
Daniel. Brandl, lxxii, considers the play an adaptation of the _Rebelles_
(1535) of George Van Langeveldt or Macropedius, of Utrecht (Bahlmann,
_Lat. Dr._ 55). The rhyme ‘queenes’—‘things’ in the final prayer shows an
original date of composition under Edward VI.
36. †1547-53. _Somebody, Avarice and Minister._
Fragment of unidentified edition amongst papers of the reign of Edward
VI in Lambeth Library, reprinted by S. R. Maitland, _List of Early
Printed Books at Lambeth_ (1843), 280. Brandl, lix, considers this a
politico-religious interlude of the school of Lyndsay.
Protestant Controversy: Translation.
37. †1561. _Henry Cheke._ _Freewill._
[1558-63.] John Tisdale. A certayne Tragedie wrytten fyrst in Italian,
by F. N. B. entituled, Freewyl, and translated into Englishe, by Henry
Cheeke.
The copyright of a book ‘of frewil’ was entered on the Stationers’
Register on May 11, 1561 (Arber, i. 156). The original is the _Tragedia
del Libero Arbitrio_ (1546) of Francesco Nigri de Bassano. The translator
cannot be, as stated in the _D. N. B._, Henry, the son of Sir John Cheke,
if the date of his birth is as there given (†1548).
Protestant Controversy: Pseudo-Interludes.
38. †1547-53. _Robin Conscience._
Often described as an ‘interlude,’ but really a series of dialogues
between Robin Conscience, his father Covetousness, his mother New-guise,
and his sister Proud-beauty. Collier, ii. 315, describes it from a
printed fragment in the Devonshire library, and inclines to ascribe it to
the reign of Edward VI; cf. Herford, 55. Hazlitt, iii. 225, prints the
full text from a later edition.
39. 1549. _Ponet._ _Bishop of Rome._
A tragoedie or Dialoge of the uniuste usurped primacie of the Bishop of
Rome. A translation by John Ponet, Bishop of Winchester, from the Italian
of Bernardino Ochino (1549); cf. Bale, i. 694; Herford, 33. Among the
speakers are Edward VI and Somerset.
Lost Interludes.
See s.v. Skelton for the alleged _Nigramansir_ (1504).
S. Jones, _Biographia Dramatica_ (1812), ii. 328, describes ‘A newe
Interlude of Impacyente Poverte, newlye Imprinted. M. V. L. X.’ The
copyright of this play, which is in the Sir Thomas More list (cf. p. 200)
and that in _Captain Cox_, cxviii, was transferred on the Stationers’
Register from the late Sampson Awdeley to John Charlwood on Jan. 15, 1582.
Halliwell-Phillipps, _Dictionary of Old English Plays_ (1860), quoting
‘Coxeter’s Notes,’ is the authority for ‘An Interlude of Welth and Helth,
full of Sport and mery Pastyme,’ n.d.
FOOTNOTES
[1] On these tendencies generally, see Davidson, 130; Ward, i. 32;
R. Rosières, _Société française au Moyen Âge_, ii. 228; E. King,
_Dramatic Art and Church Liturgy_ (_Dublin Review_, cxxv. 43). Mediaeval
liturgiologists such as Belethus, Durandus, and Honorius of Autun
(P.L. clxxii), lay great stress on the symbolical aspect of ritual and
ceremonial. J. M. Robertson, _The Gospel Mystery-Play_ (_The Reformer_,
N.S. iii (1901), 657), makes an ingenious attempt to show that the
earlier gospel narratives of the Passion, those of Saints Matthew and
Mark, are based upon a dramatic version. This, he thinks, to have been
on classical lines, and to have been performed liturgically until about
the second century, when it was dropped in deference to the ascetic views
of the stage then prevalent (cf. vol. i. p. 11). But the narrative, with
its short speeches, its crowd of characters and its sufferings ‘coram
populo’ cannot, on the face of it, be derived from a _classical_ drama.
A nearer parallel would be the Graeco-Jewish Ἐξαγωγή of Ezechiel (first
century B.C., cf. Ward, i. 3). The Gospel narrative is, no doubt, mainly
‘a presentation of dramatic action and dialogue’; but this may be because
it was built up around _Logia_. Of external evidence for Mr. Robertson’s
view there is none. The ritual of the first two centuries was probably a
very simple one; cf. F. E. Warren, _Liturgy of the Ante-Nicene Church_,
54. The earliest liturgical dramas, even in the Greek churches, and
those only guessed at, are of the fourth (cf. p. 206). Mr. Robertson
claims support from _Galatians_, iii. 1 οἷς κατ’ ὀφθαλμοὺς Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς
προεγράφη ἐσταυρωμένος. Lightfoot, however, declares that the meaning of
προγράφειν is ‘write up in public,’ ‘placard,’ ‘proclaim.’ If it cannot,
as he says, mean ‘paint,’ still less can it mean ‘represent dramatically.’
[2] Duchesne, 47: A. V. G. Allen, _Christian Institutions_, 515.
[3] Duchesne, 393, 469, with the _Ordo dedicationis Ecclesiae_ from a
ninth-century Metz _Sacramentary_ there printed; Maskell, _Monum. Rit.
Eccl. Angl._ (1882) I. cccxxvi, 196, with text from _Sarum Pontifical_.
The ceremonies are symbolically explained by Hugo of St. Victor, _de
Sacramentis_, ii. 5. 3 (_P. L._ clxxvi, 441), who says, ‘Interrogatio
inclusi, ignorantia populi.’
[4] Duchesne, 236; Martene, iii. 71; Gasté, 69; Feasey, 53; _Use of
Sarum_, i. 59; _Sarum Missal_, 258; _Sarum Processional_, 47; _York
Missal_, i. 84; _York Processional_, 148. The custom is described in the
_Peregrinatio Silviae_ (Duchesne, 486) as already in use at Jerusalem in
the fourth century. ‘Etiam cum coeperit esse hora undecima, legitur ille
locus de evangelio, ubi infantes cum ramis vel palmis occurrerunt Domino,
dicentes: _Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini_. Et statim levat se
episcopus et omnis populus porro: inde de summo monte Oliveti totum
pedibus itur. Nam totus populus ante ipsum cum ymnis vel antiphonis,
respondentes semper: _Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini_. Et quotquot
sunt infantes in hisdem locis, usque etiam qui pedibus ambulare non
possunt, quia teneri sunt, in collo illos parentes sui tenent, omnes
ramos tenentes, alii palmarum, alii olivarum; et sic deducitur episcopus
in eo typo quo tunc Dominus deductus est. Et de summo monte usque ad
civitatem, et inde ad Anastase per totam civitatem, totum pedibus omnes,
sed et si quae matronae sunt aut si qui domini, sic deducunt episcopum
respondentes, et sic lente et lente, ne lassetur populus; porro iam sera
pervenitur ad Anastase.’
[5] Cf. ch. xiv.
[6] Collier, i. 82; Feasey, 68, 75, quoting payments ‘for the prophets.’
their ‘raiment,’ ‘stages’ for them, &c., from sixteenth-century Revels
and churchwardens’ accounts. The _Sarum Processional_, 50 (from eds.
1508, 1517), has ‘finito evangelio, unus puer ad modum prophetae indutus,
stans in aliquo eminenti loco, cantat lectionem propheticam modo quo
sequitur.’ Then come alternating passages between the ‘propheta’ and
‘tres clerici.’ Perhaps the latter were also sometimes disguised, but the
_Sarum Processional_, as well as the thirteenth-century _Consuetudinary_
and the _York Missal_ (_MS. D_), all specify that the clergy, other
than the prophet, shall be ‘habitu non mutato.’ Several of the London
records given by Mr. Feasey mention an ‘angel,’ and one of them a ‘chylde
that playde a messenger.’ A Coutances Order of 1573 (Gasté, 74) forbids
‘spectacula ... cum habitibus inhonestis’ at the Gospel during Mass on
Palm Sunday.
[7] Martene, iii. 72; Gasté, 72; R. Twigge, _Mediaeval Service Bks. of
Aquitaine_ (_Dublin Review_, cxv. 294; cxvii. 67); Pearson, ii. 296.
[8] _Sarum Missal_, 264. The _York Missal_, i. 102, says, for Good
Friday, ‘Diaconus legat Passionem,’ but _MS. D._ adds ‘vel legatur a
tribus Presbyteris, si sic ordinatum erit.’ Payments for the singers
of the Passion are quoted from churchwardens’ accounts (1447-1562) by
Feasey, 81. The singing was sometimes done from the rood loft.
[9] Feasey, 17; _Use of Sarum_, i. 140 ‘quarta autem feria ante pascha
dum passio domini legitur ad prolacionem ipsius clausulae _Velum templi
scissum est_: praedictum velum in area presbiterii decidat.’ The same
rubric is in the Wells _Ordinale_ (H. E. Reynolds, _Wells Cathedral_, 42).
[10] J. W. Legg, _Westminster Missal_ (H.B.S.), 1469; G. F. Aungier,
_Hist. and Antiq. of Syon Monastery_, 350; Lanfranc, _Decreta pro Ord.
S. Bened._ (_P.L._ cl. 465) ‘Ubi dicitur _Partiti sunt vestimenta mea
sibi_, sint duo de indutis iuxta altare, hinc et inde trahentes ad se
duos pannos qui ante officium super altare missi fuerant, linteo tamen
remanente subtus missale’; _Leofric’s Missal_ (Exeter, eleventh century),
261 ‘hac expleta statim duo diaconi nudant altare sindone quae prius
fuerit sub evangelio posita in modum furantis. Aliqui vero, antequam
legatur passio domini, praeparant sindones duas sibi coherentes et in eo
versu ubi legitur: _Partiti sunt vestimenta_, scindunt hinc inde ipsas
sindones desuper altare in modum furantis, et secum auferunt’; _York
Missal_, i. 102 ‘hic distrahantur linteamina super altare connexa’;
_Sarum Missal_, 323 ‘hic accedant duo ministri in superpelliceis, unus
ad dextrum et alius ad sinistrum cornu altaris; et inde duo linteamina
amoveant quae ad hoc super altare fuerunt apposita.’ I find the custom in
Aquitaine (_Dublin Review_ (1897), 366), and in Hungary (Dankó, _Vetus
Hymnarium Eccles. Hungariae_, 534).
[11] Martene, iii. 99; Feasey, 107; Wordsworth, 184.
[12] Feasey, 84; Wordsworth, 290.
[13] Strictly speaking the _Antiphon_ is begun by one half of the choir
and finished by the other; the _Responsorium_ is a solo with a short
refrain sung by the choir, like the secular _carole_; cf. ch. viii, and
_Use of Sarum_, i. 307; Dankó, _Vetus Hymnarium Eccl. Hung._ 11.
[14] Duchesne, 108; Davidson, 134; F. E. Warren, _Liturgy of the
Ante-Nicene Church_, 74.
[15] Frere, vi. The Gregorian _Liber Antiphonarius_ is in _P.L._ lxxviii.
641.
[16] Radulphus Glaber, _Hist. sui Temporis_ (†1044), iii. 4 (Bouquet,
_Rerum Gallic. et Francic. Script._ x. 29) ‘Igitur infra supradictum
millesimum tertio iam fere imminente anno, contigit in universo pene
terrarum orbe, praecipue tamen in Italia et in Galliis, innovari
Ecclesiarum Basilicas, licet pleraeque decenter locatae minime
indiguissent. Aemulabatur tamen quaeque gens Christicolarum adversus
alteram decentiore frui. Erat enim instar ac si mundus ipse excutiendo
semet, reiecta vetustate, passim candidam ecclesiarum vestem induerit.’
[17] Ekkehardus, _Vita B. Notkeri Balbuli_, c. xvi (Goldast, _Rerum
Alaman. Script._ i. 235) ‘Iubilus, id est neuma ... si autem tristitiae
fuerit oratio, ululatus dicitur, si vero gaudii, iubilus.’
[18] Gautier, _Les Tropes_, passim; _Winchester Troper_, vi; Dankó,
_Vetus Hymnarium Eccles. Hungariae_, 15; Julleville, _Myst._ i. 21;
Creizenach, i. 47. Gautier, i, defines a trope, ‘Qu’est-ce qu’un Trope?
C’est l’interpolation d’un texte liturgique,’ and M. Gerbert, _de cantu
et musica sacra_ (1774), i. 340 ‘Tropus, in re liturgica, est versiculus
quidam aut etiam plures ante inter vel post alios ecclesiasticos cantus
appositi.’ Of earlier writers, cf. Durandus, iv. 5 ‘Est autem proprie
tropus quidam versiculus qui in praecipuis festivitatibus cantatur
immediate ante introitum quasi quoddam praeambulum et continuatio ipsius
introitus.’ Gautier, 111, describes a large number of Tropers; Frere,
_Winchester Troper_, xxvii, xxx, those of English uses from Winchester,
Canterbury, Worcester, St. Albans, Dublin; Pamelius, _Liturgicon_ (1609),
ii. 611 an English Troper in the library of St. Bavon’s, Ghent. Amongst
tropes in the wider sense are included the _farsurae_ (vol. i. p. 277).
Many of the later tropes are trivial, indecent, or profane. They are
doubtless the work of _goliardi_ (vol. i. p. 60).
[19] _St. Gall MS._ 484, f. 13 (ninth century); cf. Gautier, 34, 62, 139,
218; _Winchester Troper_, xvi; Meyer, 34. It is also in the Winchester
Tropers (tenth-eleventh century), and the Canterbury Troper (fourth
century), and is printed therefrom in _Winchester Troper_, 4, 102. Here
it is divided between two groups of _Cantores_, and has the heading
‘Versus ante officium canendi in die Natalis Domini.’
[20] The _Introit_ is: ‘Puer natus est nobis, et filius datus est nobis:
cuius imperium super humerum eius, et vocabitur nomen eius magni consilii
angelus. _Ps._ Cantate domino canticum novum.’
[21] Gautier, 219, prints a dialogued trope for a feast of St. Peter from
an eleventh-century troper of St. Martial of Limoges; the _Winchester
Troper_, 6, 103, has one for St. Stephen’s day (Winchester) and one for
St. John the Evangelist’s (Canterbury). Meyer, 35, calls attention to the
dialogued Christmas _versus sacerdotales_ in Hartker’s tenth-century St.
Gall _Antiphonarium_ (J. M. Thomasius, _Opera_, iv. 187).
[22] _St. Gall MS._ 484, f. 11; printed and facsimiled by Gautier, 216,
220.
[23] _S. Matthew_ xxviii. 1-7; _S. Mark_ xvi. 1-7.
[24] The _Introit_ is: ‘Resurrexi et adhuc tecum sum, alleluia: posuisti
super me manum tuam, alleluia; mirabilis facta est scientia tua,
alleluia, alleluia. _Ps._ Domine, probasti me.’
[25] Lange, 22, from _Bibl. Nat. Lat. MS._ 1240, f. 30ᵇ. As to date
(923-34) and _provenance_ of the MS., I follow H. M. Bannister in
_Journal of Theological Studies_ (April, 1901). Lange, 4, considers it an
eleventh-century _Antiphonar_ from Beaune.
[26] Printed by Frere, 176; cf. Gautier, 219. The version in Lange, 20,
is incomplete. The Limoges Tropers (_Bibl. Nat._ 887, 909, 1084, 1118,
1119, 1120, 1121), all of the eleventh century, are described by Gautier,
111; cf. p. 29.
[27] _Bibl. Nat._ 1118, f. 40ᵛ; cf. Gautier, 226; Frere, 176.
[28] _Bodl. Douce MS._ 222, f. 6 (eleventh century; cf. Gautier, 136),
printed and facsimiled by Gautier, 215, 219. Du Méril, _Or. Lat._ 149,
gives it from a Limoges Troper (_B.N._ 909, f. 9): it is also in _B.N._
1118, f. 8ᵛᵒ, and probably the other Limoges MSS. Frere, 145, gives it
from the twelfth-century St. Magloire Troper (_B.N._ 13,252), and R.
Twigge, in _Dublin Review_ (1897), 362, from a fifteenth-century breviary
of Clermont-Ferrand (_Cl. F. MS._ 67). Here it is sung by two boys, and
near the altar after the Te Deum at Matins. According to Gautier, 123, it
is also in the late eleventh-century Nevers Troper (_B.N._ 9449).
[29] Frere, 110, from _Cott. MS. Calig._ A. xiv (eleventh century).
It comes between an illumination of the Ascension and the heading ‘In
Die Ascensionis Domini.’ It is also in the St. Magloire Troper (_B.N._
13,252, f. 10ᵛ) under the heading ‘In Ascensione Tropi ad Processionem,’
and in the St. Martial of Limoges Tropers (Gautier, 219; Lange, 20).
Martene, iii. 193, describes it as sung in the procession before Mass at
Vienne.
[30] Martene, iv. 147 ‘“Post processionem,” _addunt Dionysianae consuet._
[thirteenth century], “ascendant iuxta Sancta Sanctorum quidam bene
cantantes, alii in dextro latere, alii in sinistro latere assistentes,
bene et honorifice tropas scilicet: _Quem quaeritis_; coniubilantes, et
sibi invicem respondentes; et cum intonuerint, _Quia surrexi_, dicens,
_Patri_, mox Archicantor et duo socii eius assistentes in choro regias
virgas in manibus tenentes, incipiant officium.” Hunc ritum accepisse
videntur a Cassinensibus, quorum Ordinarium [before 1105] haec habet:
“Processione finita, vadat Sacerdos post altare, et versus ad chorum
dicat alta voce, _Quem quaeritis?_ et duo alii Clerici stantes in medio
chori respondeant: _Iesum Nazarenum_; et Sacerdos: _Non est hic_; illi
vero conversi ad chorum dicant: _Alleluia_. Post haec alii quatuor
cantent tropos, et agatur missa ordine suo.”’ As usual in _Ordinaria_
(cf. e.g. p. 309) only the opening words of the chants are given. A
similar direction is contained in _MS. Casinense_, 199, a twelfth-century
breviary (_Bibliotheca Casinensis_, iv. 124): cf. also Lange, 21, 23.
[31] Martene, iii. 173; Lange, 24 (Tours i).
[32] Lange, 26. Cf. the account of the Vienne _Quem quaeritis_ (p. 26).
[33] Martene, iv. 148.
[34] Mr. Frere does not print any _Introit_ tropes from the Worcester,
St. Albans, and Dublin tropers: a leaf is unfortunately missing from the
Canterbury troper (Frere, 107) where the _Quem quaeritis_ might have
come. It is not amongst the few tropes taken by Pamelius, _Liturgicon_
(1609), ii. 611, from the English troper at St. Bavon’s, Ghent (Frere,
142). As the _Concordia Regularis_ was partly based on Ghent customs (cf.
p. 307), I should gladly know more of this.
[35] _Bodl. MS._ 775; described by Frere, xxvii, as _MS. E_ ‘Its date
lies between 979 and 1016, since Ethelred is mentioned as reigning
sovereign in the Litany on f. 18ᵛ, and in consequence it has sometimes
been called “The Ethelred Troper.” Also, as it has the Dedication
Festival on the 24th of November, it is probably anterior to the
re-dedication of the Cathedral on Oct. 20, 980, since this day became
subsequently the Dedication Festival.’ A facsimile from the MS. was
published by the _Palaeographical Society_ (Series ii. pl. iii), and it
was suggested that it is in an early eleventh-century hand, but possibly
copied an earlier text. But surely it would have been brought up to date
on such a matter as the Dedication Festival.
[36] _C.C.C. Cambridge MS._ 473, of the middle of the eleventh century,
described by Frere, xxvii, as _MS. CC._ The text of the _Quem quaeritis_
differs slightly from that of the _Bodl. MS._ and does not appear to be
quite complete. It is facsimiled by Frere (pl. 26ᵃ). The printed text in
Frere, 17, represents both versions; that in Manly, i. xxi, follows the
_Bodl. MS._ Both Frere and Manly have ‘Angelice uocis consolatio’ where
the _Bodl. MS._, as I read it, has ‘Angelice uoces consolatus’ (clearly
in error).
[37] A full account of the _Concordia Regularis_ and extracts from the
Latin text are in Appendix O.
[38] I cannot understand why Mr. Frere, xvi, thinks that the _Quem
quaeritis_ was ‘a dramatic dialogue which came to be used as a trope
to the _Introit_ of Easter: but at Winchester it kept its independent
place.’ It is used as a trope a century before the date of the _Concordia
Regularis_.
[39] Why is the _Quem quaeritis_ in the _Bodl. MS._ apparently on Good
Friday? Perhaps this was an irregular use reformed by Bp. Ethelwold. If
so the _C. R._ must be about 980 or later. This is not impossible (cf.
App. O). In the later _C. C. C. C. MS._ the _Q. q._ might, I think, from
its position be intended for Easter Matins. The version described in the
_C. R._ differs slightly from that of the tropers.
[40] Martene, iv. 299 ‘Saeculo, ut aiunt, x scriptae’: cf. Douhet, 849.
Martene, iii. 173, cites another Matins version from a vetustissimum
rituale’ of Poitiers. If this is identical with the ‘pontificale
vetustissimum: annorum circiter 800’ mentioned in his list of authorities
(i. xxii) it may be earlier than the tenth century. It is certainly not
the ‘liber sacramentorum annorum 900 circiter’ with which Douhet, 848,
would identify it. The Pontificale was used by Martene in his edition of
1738; about the first edition of 1700-6, I cannot say. This version is
not in Lange, and, as the omission of the usual first line is curious, I
print it below (p. 29).
[41] Lange, 29; cf. Creizenach, i. 49.
[42] The Verdun _Consuetudines_ do not. The burial and resurrection of
the cross clearly formed no part of the Good Friday and Easter rites.
The dialogue takes place ‘in subterraneis specubus,’ i.e. the crypt,
and the representatives of the Maries return to the choir ‘cruce vacua
nuntiantes: _Surrexit Dominus_’ (Martene, iv. 299).
[43] Appendix O.
[44] Bare feet continued to be the rule for the _Adoratio Crucis_. An
exception is at Exeter, where, according to Pearson, ii. 296, they were
forbidden, cf. Feasey, 115.
[45] St. Ethelwold’s Latin is atrocious, but I think that the sepulchre
was made on the altar, not in the hollow of it, and covered from sight
until wanted by a veil let down all round it from a circular support
above. Cf. the Latin text in Appendix O: perhaps it is corrupt.
[46] _Peregrinatio Silviae_ in Duchesne, 490. The object of adoration was
a fragment of the true Cross, ‘sanctum lignum crucis.’ The Invention of
the Cross by St. Helena is put by tradition †326. Doubtless many other
churches obtained a fragment, and used it for the same purpose: cf.
Feasey, 116. Thus the cross used at Rome was ‘lignum pretiosae crucis’
(Duchesne, 465: cf. his ed. of the _Liber Pontificalis_, i. 374).
[47] Duchesne, 238. For the mediaeval ceremony, cf. Feasey, 114; Pearson,
ii. 293; Milchsack, 121; Rock, iii. 2. 241; Martene, iii. 129; iv. 137;
_Sarum Missal_, 328; _York Missal_, i. 105; _York Manual_, 156, and the
Durham extract in Appendix P: for that of modern Rome, Malleson and
Tuker, ii. 271.
[48] The _sepulchrum_ is not in the _Sacramentarium Gelasianum_ (†seventh
century, ed. H. A. Wilson, 77); nor the _Sacramentum Gregorianum_
(†eighth century, _P. L._ lxxviii. 86), ‘qua salutata et reposita in
loco suo’; nor in the Roman _Ordines_ collected by Mabillon (_P. L._
lxxviii) nor in those added by Duchesne, 451, 464. The _Ordines_ of 954
and 963 repeat the Gregorian formula, which is expanded by those of
1215 and 1319 into ‘in suo loco super altare.’ There is no mention of
the _sepulchrum_ in the Gallican liturgical books collected by Mabillon
(_P. L._ lxxii). Of English books Leofric’s _Exeter Missal_ (tenth
century, ed. F. E. Warren) has no _Sepulchrum_; nor the _Missal_ of St.
Augustine’s Canterbury (†1100, ed. M. Rule), ‘reposita in loco solito’;
nor the _Missal_ of Robert of Jumièges (ninth and tenth century, ed. H.
A. Wilson for _H. B. Soc._). Pearson, ii. 316, suggests that the cross
used for adoration was the great rood usually placed in the rood-loft,
but sometimes ‘super altare.’
[49] Ethelwold’s _Concordia Regularis_ was largely founded on that of
Benedict of Aniane (†817; cf. Miss Bateson in _E. H. Review_, ix. 700),
but there is no Easter week _ordo_ in this (_P. L._ ciii. 701) nor in
the same writer’s _Memoriale_ or _Ordo Monasticus_ (_P. L._ lxvi. 937:
cf. his _Vita_, c. viii, in _Acta SS._ Feb. ii. 618). Ethelwold also
borrowed customs from Fleury and Ghent (Appendix O). The _sepulchrum_ is
not mentioned in the _Consuetudines Floriacenses_ (tenth century, ed.
De Bosco, _Floriac. Vet. Bibl._ (1605), 390); cf. Creizenach, i. 49:
nor in the description of a thirteenth-century _coutumier_ in Rocher,
_Hist. de l’Abbaye de St.-Benoît-sur-Loire_, 323. The only Fleury _Quem
quaeritis_ is of a late type in a thirteenth-century MS.; cf. p. 32.
At Ghent, however, an inventory of treasures remaining at St. Bavon’s
after a Norman invasion (1019-24) includes ‘tabulas de sepulchro 23,’
which appear to be distinct from _reliquiae_ ‘de sepulchro Domini’ and
‘de operculo ligneo quod super corpus ipsius positum fuit in sepulchro’
(_Neues Archiv_, viii. 374). Did the possession of these ‘reliquiae’
suggest to the monks of St. Bavon’s the construction of an Easter
sepulchre?
[50] It is merely a guess to say St. Gall. Schübiger, _Sängerschule St.
Gallens_, 69, mentions the sepulchre there, but gives no very early
notice. The sepulchre was known in the Eastern, as well as the Western
Church, and for all I know may have come from Jerusalem (Feasey, 177). As
to date, Weber, 32, suggests that pictorial representations of the Maries
at the tomb show the influence of the dramatic _Visitatio Sepulchri_ as
far back as the ninth century. His chief point is that the Maries carry
_turribula_ (cf. p. 25, n. 5).
[51] _E. H. Review_, ix. 706.
[52] _P. L._ cl. 465 ‘adorata ab omnibus cruce, portitores eius elevantes
eam incipiant antiphonam _Super omnia ligna cedrorum_, et sic vadant ad
locum ubi eam collocare debent.’ This does not exclude a sepulchre, but
probably the _locus_ was an altar which might serve as a _statio_ for the
processions ‘ad crucifixum’ ordered on Easter Saturday after vespers and
thrice a day through Easter week. Such processions continued in later
ritual to visit the cross after its _Elevatio_ on Easter morning: cf.
_York Manual_, 177.
[53] See the description of the ceremony by a sixteenth-century
eye-witness in Appendix P. The _sepulchrum_ was also used by the
Bridgettines of Sion monastery, an order of reformed Benedictine nuns (G.
F. Aungier, _Hist. of Syon Monastery_, 350).
[54] J. D. Chambers citing J. B. Thiers, _De Expositione S. Sacramenti_,
iii. 19.
[55] See the extracts from Sarum service-books in Appendix Q.
[56] _York Missal_, i. 106; _York Manual_, 163, 170.
[57] Wordsworth, 278.
[58] _Hereford Missal_ (ed. Henderson), 96.
[59] H. E. Reynolds, _Wells Cathedral_, 32.
[60] The fullest accounts of the Easter sepulchre in England are those by
H. J. Feasey, _Ancient English Holy Week Ceremonial_, 129, and A. Heales,
_Easter Sepulchres: their Object, Nature, and History_ in _Archaeologia_,
xlii. 263; cf. also _Monumenta Vetusta_ (Soc. of Antiquaries), iii. pll.
xxxi, xxxii; Parker, _Glossary of Architecture_, s.v. Sepulchre; M. E. C.
Walcott, _Sacred Archaeology_, s.v. Easter Sepulchre; T. F. Dyer, _Church
Lore Gleanings_, 219; W. Andrews, _Old Church Lore_, iii; J. D. Chambers,
_App._ xxiv; Micklethwaite, 52; Rock, iii. 2. 92, 240, 251. Continental
_ordines_ and notices may be found in Martene, iii. 131, 172, 178;
iv. 141, 145; Milchsack, 41, 121; Pearson, ii. 295; Wetzer and Welte,
_Kirchen-Lexicon_, s.v. Grab; J. Dankó, _Vetus Hymn. Eccl. Hungariae_,
535, 579. I have not seen this writer’s _Die Feier des Osterfestes_
(Wien, 1872). On representations of the sepulchre in mediaeval art, cf.
P. Weber, 32, and the miniature from Robert of Jumièges’ _Missal_ (ed. F.
E. Warren for _H. B. Soc._ pl. viii).
[61] At Exeter on the other hand Vespers on both Good Friday and Easter
Eve were sung before the Sepulchre; and so with the Hours at Tours
(Feasey, 130).
[62] Martene, iii. 179; Milchsack, 122; Lange, 135. The latter gives
a Passau fifteenth-century version which ends ‘quibus finitis stantes
ante altare, mutua caritate se invicem deosculentur, dicentes: _Surrexit
dominus vere. Et apparuit symoni._ Dicatur una oratio de resurrectione.
Statim fiat pulsatio.’ The Easter greeting and kiss of peace were in use,
either before or after Matins at many churches (Martene, iii. 171, 180)
and do not depend upon the sepulchre.
[63] Milchsack, 128, 135; cf. Meyer, 64. The _Ordo Augustensis_ of 1487
directs that a procession shall go from the sepulchre ‘per ambitum
vel cimeterium ... usque ad ultimam ianuam, quae claudatur.’ Here
the _Tollite portas_ dialogue is held with the ‘levita iunior, vel
alius in figura diaboli grossa voce.’ On the other hand, in the _Ordo
Wirceburgensis_ of 1564 the procession knocks at the door from inside,
and the respondent ‘loco Sathanae’ is without.
[64] ‘Sacerdos ... antequam congregetur chorus, cum processione sibi
paucorum adiunctorum ... foribus ecclesiae clausis, secretius tollat
sacramentum de sepulchro’; cf. the fifteenth-century Passau _Breviary_
(Lange, 135) ‘clam surgitur’ and the _Ordo Sepulturae_ in the _Missalis
Posoniensis_ of 1341 (Dankó, 579) ‘laicis exclusis.’ I have not noticed
any such limitation in English rubrics later than the _Concordia
Regularis_.
[65] Milchsack, 119 ‘quum a nostris antecessoribus ad nos pervenerit,
ut in sacra nocte dominicae resurrectionis ad sustollendam crucifixi
imaginem de sepulchro, ubi in parasceve locata fuerat, nimia virorum et
mulierum numerositas, certatim sese comprimendo, ecclesiam simul cum
canonicis et vicariis introire nitantur, opinantes erronee, quod si
viderent crucifixi imaginem sustolli, evaderent hoc anno inevitabilem
mortis horam. His itaque obviantes statuimus, ut resurrectionis mysterium
ante ingressum plebis in ecclesiam peragatur’: cf. Pearson, ii. 298.
[66] A Finchale inventory of 1481 (J. T. Fowler, _Trans. of Durham
and North. Arch. Soc._ iv. 134) includes ‘Item 1 pixis argentea cum
coopertorio et ymagine crucifixi in summitate coopertorii pro corpore
xⁱ deferendo in passione xⁱ.’ A pyx was also used in the Sarum rite
(Appendix Q).
[67] Feasey, 165; Dankó, _Vet. Hymn. Eccl. Hung._ 535.
[68] _York Manual_, 174 ‘cuppa in qua est sacramentum.’
[69] At Durham (Appendix P) and at Lincoln (Wordsworth, 278); cf. Feasey,
164; Heales, 307. The image ‘cum corona spinea’ used at York (_York
Manual_, 170) was of course the crucifix. A Reformation record of 1566 at
Belton, Lincolnshire, speaks of ‘a sepulker with little Jack broken in
pieces’ (Feasey, 165). Either a mere image or a mechanical puppet (cf. p.
158) may be meant. The _labarum_ is the sign of the risen Christ in the
later versions of the _Quem quaeritis_; cf. p. 35. It figures in nearly
all paintings of the Resurrection.
[70] Narbonne _Ordinarium_ (†1400) ‘levent cum filo pannum, qui est super
libros argenti super altare in figura sepulcri’ (Martene, iii. 172;
Lange, 65); Le Mans, _Ordinarium_ ‘Tunc tres clerici accedentes ad altare
cum reverentia sublevent palium cum quo sepulchrum fuerit coopertum’
(Lange, 66); cf. Pearson, ii. 293.
[71] Feasey, 131. In versions of the _Quem quaeritis_ given by Lange,
24, 25, 26, the action is at the altar. A Senlis _Breviary_ (fourteenth
century) has ‘elevantes palium altaris’ (Lange, 27), and a Sens
thirteenth-century MS. ‘Sublevans tapetum altaris, tamquam respiciens
in sepulchrum’ (Lange, 64). But I am not sure that there was a genuine
sepulchre in all these cases: cf. p. 26.
[72] Würzburg _Breviary_ (fourteenth century) ‘descendunt in criptam ad
visitandum sepulcrum’ (Lange, 53): cf. the Verdun _Consuetudines_ (p.
16), where there may or may not have been a regular sepulchre.
[73] I have seen a beautiful one at Tarrant Hinton, Dorset, which is not
amongst those mentioned by Heales or Feasey.
[74] The performers are sometimes directed to enter the sepulchre; cf.
e.g. Lange, 28.
[75] Feasey, 149. There is such a chapel beneath the choir of the
_Jérusalem_ church at Bruges. The Winchester sepulchre is a chapel, but
not of the Jerusalem type. At St. Gall the sepulchre was (†1583) in the
‘sacellum S. Sebastiani’ (Lange, 69).
[76] J. Britton, _Redcliffe Church_, 47, prints a contemporary
description of a sepulchre given in 1470 by ‘Maister Canynge’ to St.
Mary Redcliffe, Bristol, with, amongst other adornments, ‘Heaven made
of timber and stain’d clothes’ and ‘Hell, made of timber and iron-work
thereto, with Divels to the number of 13.’ This is apparently not
a Chatterton forgery. Feasey, 166, gives a somewhat similar London
specification, and also (p. 145) describes a fourteenth-century wooden
sepulchre from Kilsby, Northants, believed to be the only one in
existence. I have a suspicion that the wooden so-called ‘watcher’s
chamber’ to the shrine of St. Frideswide in Christ Church, Oxford, is
really a sepulchre. It is in the right place, off the north choir aisle,
and why should a watcher of the shrine want to be perched up in a wooden
cage on the top of a tomb?
[77] Dankó, 536, 580. Two instances are given. In one the sepulchre was
sealed, in the other the pyx, ‘sigillo vel clavi ecclesiae.’ At Hereford
‘episcopus ... cereo claudat sepulchrum’ (Feasey, 159, from _Harl. MS._
2983).
[78] Cf. vol. i. p. 126.
[79] Wordsworth, 279; Feasey, 161; Heales, 272, 299.
[80] Milchsack, 127.
[81] G. Gilpin, _The Bee-Hive of the Romish Church_ (1579) (translated
from Isaac Rabbotenu of Louvain, 1569) ‘They make the graue in a hie
place in the church, where men must goe up manie steppes, which are
decked with blacke cloth from aboue to beneath, and upon everie steppe
standeth a siluer candlesticke with a waxe candle burning in it, and
there doe walke souldiours in harnesse, as bright as Saint George, which
keep the graue, till the Priests come and take him up; and then commeth
sodenlie a flash of fire, wherwith they are all afraid and fall downe;
and then up startes the man, and they begin to sing Alleluia, on all
handes, and the clocke striketh eleuen.’ Feasey, 168, quotes De Moleon
for a statement that the watchers at Orleans were dressed as soldiers.
[82] Appendix Q.
[83] Hooper, _Early Writings_ (Parker Soc.), 45 ‘The ploughman, be he
never so unlearned, shall better be instructed of Christ’s death and
passion by the corn that he soweth in the field, and likewise of Christ’s
resurrection, than by all the dead posts that hang in the church, or are
pulled out of the sepulchre with _Christus resurgens_. What resemblance
hath the taking of the cross out of the sepulchre and going a procession
with it, with the resurrection of Christ? None at all: the dead post is
as dead when they sing _Iam non moritur_, as it was when they buried it
with _In pace factus est locus eius_’: cf. Ridley, _Works_ (Parker Soc.),
67.
[84] _Articles devised by the King’s Majesty_, 1536 (Burnet, i. 1. 435;
i. 2. 472; cf. Froude, ii. 486); Strype, _Eccles. Memorials_, i. 1. 546;
i. 2. 432.
[85] Dixon, ii. 82, 432, 513, 516; iii. 37; Hardy and Gee, _Doc.
illustrative of English Church History_, 278; Cardwell, _Documentary
Annals of the Reformation_, i. 7; Froude, iv. 281. There certainly were
sepulchres in 1548 (Feasey, 175).
[86] Dixon, iii. 37; Wilkins, iv. 32. The _Act of 2 and 3 Edward VI_,
c. 10 (Froude, iv. 495), against images and paintings, was probably
also held to require the demolition of many sepulchres: cf. Ridley’s
_Visitation Articles_ of 1550, quoted by Heales, 304.
[87] Dixon, iv. 129.
[88] Dixon, iv. 157; S. R. Maitland, _Essays on the Reformation_ (ed.
1899), 186.
[89] Hardy and Gee, _op. cit._ 428. Art. xxiii forbids ‘monuments of
... idolatry and superstition.’ The Elizabethan _Visitation Articles_
collected in the _Second Report_ of the _Ritual Commission_ make no
mention of sepulchres. They generally follow pretty closely the wording
of the _Injunctions_. But the _Articles_ of Bentham, Bishop of Lichfield
and Coventry (1565), specify ‘monuments of idolatry and superstition’
as including ‘Sepulchres which were used on Good Friday’ (Heales, 307).
Notices of the destruction of sepulchres become numerous, being found,
for instance, in the case of 50 out of 153 Lincolnshire churches (Feasey,
142), and pious legacies begin to direct tombs ‘whereas the sepulchre was
wonte to stande.’
[90] Davidson, 140; Malleson and Tuker, ii. 263, 267, 272. The latest
examples of the _Quem quaeritis_ are of the eighteenth century from
Cologne and Angers (Lange, 36, 39) and Venice (_Z. f. d. A._ xli. 77).
[91] This respond begins _Dum transisset Sabbatum_.
[92] Cf. p. 18, n. 2. The Sarum _Custumary_ provides for censing on
feasts (_a_) at the anthem ‘super Magnificat’ at Vespers, (_b_) during
or after the _Te Deum_ at Matins (_Use of Sarum_, i. 113, 121). The
sepulchre is included only at Vespers (cf. Appendix Q), but the variation
I suggest would not be great.
[93] Cf. p. 22, n. 1. The Bamberg _Agenda_ of †1597 (Lange, 93) has
an _Ordo visitandi sepulchrum_ which opens with directions for the
construction of a sepulchre, which would obviously not be the case if the
_Depositio_ and _Elevatio_ had preceded. Lange rarely prints more than
the _Visitatio_, but of one group of texts he notes (p. 135) that the
MSS. generally have also the _Elevatio_.
[94] Lange’s collection from 224 MSS. supersedes those of Du Méril,
Coussemaker, Milchsack, &c. He supplemented it by versions from Meissen,
Worms, Venice, and Grau in Hungary in _Z. f. d. A._ (1896), xli. 77;
and has not got those from the (_a_) Winchester _Tropers_ (cf. p. 12);
(_b_) Autun and Nevers _Tropers_ of the eleventh century (Gautier,
126, 219); (_c_) St. Magloire, twelfth-century _Troper_ (cf. p. 11);
(_d_) Dublin _Processionals_ (Appendix R); (_e_) Laon twelfth-century
_Ordinary_ (Chevalier, _Ordinaires de Laon_, 118); (_f_) Clermont-Ferrand
fifteenth-century _Breviary_ (cf. p. 11); (_g_) Poitiers _Ritual_
(Martene, iii. 173); (_h_) Verdun tenth-century _Consuetudinary_
(Martene, iv. 299; cf. p. 15). The MSS. extend from the tenth to the
eighteenth century. The majority of them are Breviaries; some are
Ordinaries, Antiphoners, Processionals; a few are late Tropers, in which,
besides the Tropes proper, the Holy week _Ordo_ is included (cf. Gautier,
81); two (_B. N. Lat._ 1139 from Limoges, and _Orleans MS._ 178, from
Fleury) are special books of dramatic _repraesentationes_; cf. p. 1.
[95] Martene, iii. 180, from an undated _Caeremoniale_. Lange, 26, only
gives a portion of the text containing the _Quem quaeritis_ proper, which
was sung as a processional trope before the _Missa maior_. The procession
had immediately before gone to the sepulchre and sung other anthems. But
the sepulchre played a part at two other services. Before Matins the
clergy had in turn entered the sepulchre, found it empty, came out and
given each other the kiss of peace and Easter greeting. No _Elevatio_ is
described; perhaps it was still earlier ‘clam.’ After Lauds, the _Missa
matutinalis_ was sung ‘ad sepulchrum’ and the _prosa_ or Alleluia trope
was thus performed: ‘Prosa _Victimae Paschali_. Finito v _Dicat nobis
Maria_, clericulus stans in sepulcro cum amictu parato et stola, dicat ℣.
_Angelicos testes_. Chorus respondeat _Dic nobis Maria_. Clericulus dicat
_Angelicos testes_. Clericus dicat _Surrexit Christus_. Chorus _Credendum
est magis_ usque ad finem.’ On this prose and its relation to the _Quem
quaeritis_ cf. p. 29. At St. Mark’s, Venice (_Z. f. d. A._ xli. 77), the
position of the _Quem quaeritis_ is also abnormal, coming just before
Prime, but this version dates from 1736.
[96] Cf. p. 12.
[97] Lange, 28 (Parma), 30 (Laon), 47 (Constance), 68 (Rheinau), 69 (St.
Gall). At Rheinau, the _Elevatio_ takes place in the course of the _Quem
quaeritis_: at Parma, and probably in the other cases, the ‘sacrista
pervigil’ has already removed the ‘Corpus Christi.’
[98] Durandus, lib. vi. c. 87. He describes the normal _Visitatio_, in
terms much resembling those of Belethus (cf. p. 31), and adds ‘quidam
vero hanc presentationem faciunt, antequam matutinum inchoent, sed hic
est proprior locus, eo quod _Te deum laudamus_ exprimit horam, qua
resurrexit. Quidam etiam eam faciunt ad missam, cum dicuntur sequentia
illa _Victimae paschali_, cum dicitur versus _Dic nobis_ et sequentes.’
Ioannes Abrincensis, _de Offic. eccles._ (_P. L._ cxlvii. 54), briefly
notes the ‘officium sepulchri’ as ‘post tertium responsorium,’ and says
no more.
[99] Strassburg _Agenda_ of 1513 (Lange, 50) ‘Haec prescripta visitatio
sepulcri observetur secundum consuetudinem cuiuslibet ecclesiae.’ Meyer,
33, quotes a passage even more to the point from the Bamberg _Agenda_ of
1587 ‘Haec dominicae resurrectionis commemoratio celebrioribus servit
ecclesiis, unde aliarum ecclesiarum utpote minorum et ruralium rectores
et parochi ex ordine hic descripto aliquid saltem desumere possunt,
quod pro loci et personarum illic convenientium qualitate commodum fore
iudicaverint.’
[100] Laon _Ordinarium_ of twelfth century (U. Chevalier, _Ordinaires
de Laon_, 118). The change consisted mainly in the introduction of the
_Victimae paschali_: cf. p. 29.
[101] Cf. the full discussion, mainly from the textual point of view,
throughout Lange’s book, with that of Meyer, and Creizenach, i. 47;
Froning, 3; Wirth, 1.
[102] The Bohemian fourteenth-century version (Lange, 130) is nearly all
narrative sung by the Ebdomarius: the only dialogue is from the _Victimae
paschali_. Martene, iii. 173, gives, from a ‘vetustissimum Rituale,’
this Poitiers version, not in Lange, ‘Finitis matutinis, accedunt ad
sepulchrum, portantes luminaria. Tunc incipit Maria: _Ubi est Christus
meus?_ Respondet angelus _Non est hic_. Tunc Maria aperit os sepulchri,
et dicit publica voce: _Surrexit Christus_. Et omnes respondent _Deo
gratias_.’ Possibly Maria here is the Virgin, who is not usually included
in the _Visitatio_. But the same anthem opens a twelfth-century Limoges
version, headed ‘Oc est de mulieribus’ in _B. N. Lat. MS._ 1139, a
collection of ritual plays. The full text is ‘Ubi est Christus meus
dominus et filius excelsus?’ which is not really appropriate to any other
speaker: cf. Milchsack, 38. A frequent variant on ‘Quem quaeritis in
sepulchro, o Christicolae?’ is ‘Quem quaeritis, o tremulae mulieres, in
hoc tumulo plorantes?’; nor can the two forms be localized (Lange, 84).
[103] Lange, 32. These MSS. are of the eleventh and twelfth centuries.
I find no such section in the normal text of the Gregorian _Liber
responsalis_, which is the antiphonary for the office (_P. L._ lxxviii.
769). The ‘antiphonae de resurrectione domini ubicumque volueris’ of
the _B. N. Lat. MS._ 17,436 include the ‘Cito euntes dicite, &c.,’
‘Currebant duo simul, &c.,’ ‘Ardens est cor meum, &c.,’ and others which
are regularly introduced into the play. Another commonly used is the
_Christus resurgens_ with its verse, ‘Dicant nunc Iudaei, &c.,’ which the
Sarum books assign to the _Elevatio_ (Appendix Q): cf. Lange, 77.
[104] Text in Daniel, _Thesaurus Hymnologicus_, ii. 95; Kehrein,
_Lateinische Sequenzen des Mittelalters_, 81, and with facsimile and
setting in A. Schübiger, _Die Sängerschule St. Gallens_, 90, &c.;
cf. Lange, 59; Meyer, 49, 76; Milchsack, 34; Chevalier, _Repertorium
Hymnologicum_, s.vv.; A. Schübiger, _La Séquence de Pâques Victimae
Paschali et son auteur_ (1858).
[105] Malleson-Tuker, ii. 27. It is used throughout Easter week.
[106] Lange, 60. It was interpolated during the thirteenth century in a
twelfth-century Laon version (Chevalier, _Ordinaires de Laon_, 118).
[107] Narbonne, †1400 (Lange, 65) ‘duo canonici, tanquam apostoli’; cf.
Lange, 75.
[108] Augsburg _liber liturgicus_ of eleventh or twelfth century (Lange,
82).
[109] Belethus, c. cxiii (_P. L._ ccii. 119) ‘fit enim in plerisque
Ecclesiis ut cantato ultimo responso, cum candelis cereis et solemni
processione eant ex choro ad locum quemdam, ubi imaginarium sepulcrum
compositum est, in quod introducuntur aliquot in personis mulierum et
discipulorum Ioannis et Petri, quorum alter altero citius revertitur,
sicut Ioannes velocius cucurrit Petro, atque item alii quidam in personis
angelorum qui Christum resurrexisse dixerunt a mortuis. Quo quidem
facto personae eae redeunt ad chorum, referuntque ea quae viderint et
audierint. Tunc chorus, audita Christi resurrectione, prorumpit in altam
vocem, inquiens, _Te Deum laudamus_.’ It is to be observed that Belethus
knows no _Depositio_ and _Elevatio_. After the _Adoratio_, he has, like
the older Roman liturgies, ‘crucifixus in suum locum reponi debet’
(c. xcviii). Durandus, vi. 87, has an account very similar to that of
Belethus, but says ‘Si qui autem habent versus de hac representatione
compositos, licet non authenticos non improbamus’; cf. also p. 27.
[110] Engelberg (1372), Cividale (fourteenth century), Nuremberg
(thirteenth century), Einsiedeln (thirteenth century), Prague (six,
twelfth to fourteenth centuries), Rouen (two, thirteenth and fifteenth
centuries), Mont St.-Michel (fourteenth century), Coutances (fifteenth
century), Fleury (_Orleans MS._ 178, thirteenth century); all printed
by Lange, 136 sqq. Gasté, 58, 63, also gives the Rouen and Coutances
versions, the latter more fully than Lange. Meyer, 80, discusses the
interrelations of the texts.
[111] Lange, 138. In this text the Maries have a _locus suus_. The MS.
is a _Processional_, and it may be that the play was given not in the
church, but in the open square, as was the Annunciation play in the
same MS. (Coussemaker, 284; cf. p. 67). It is none the less liturgical.
Rouen had probably an ‘ortus Christi’ out of which came the apparition
‘in sinistro cornu altaris,’ for at Easter, 1570, divine service was
performed in a ‘paradis dressé avec la plus grande solennité dans la
chapelle Notre-Dame, derrière le chœur’ (Gasté, 58).
[112] These are of course the ‘versus’ spoken of with tolerance in the
passage just quoted from Durandus.
[113] Appendix R. The _Heu! pius pastor occiditur_ does not seem to have
been found outside the Fleury and Dublin plays (Chevalier, _Repert.
Hymn._ nᵒ. 7741).
[114] Lange, 136, 141; Milchsack, 35, 66.
[115] Lange, 64, 74.
[116] Ibid. 162.
[117] Ibid. 151. The fourteenth-century text runs:
_Tres Mariae_:
‘aromata preciosa querimus,
Christi corpus ungere volumus,
holocausta sunt odorifera
sepulturae Christi memori.’
_Ungentarius_:
‘dabo vobis ungenta optima,
salvatoris ungere vulnera,
sepulturae eius ad memoriam
et nomen eius ad gloriam.’
The earlier texts have ‘aromata ... memori,’ preceded by ‘Mariae
cantantes “aromata” procedant ad unguentarium pro accipiendis ungentis’
and followed by ‘quibus acceptis accedant ad sepulchrum.’ Meyer, 58,
91, 106, calls this scene, in which he finds the first introduction of
non-liturgical verse, the _Zehnsilberspiel_, and studies it at great
length.
[118] Lange, 24, 51, 64 ‘coopertis capitibus’ (Tours, fifteenth century),
‘capita humeralibus velata’ (Rheinau), ‘amictibus in capitibus eorum’
(Narbonne, †1400).
[119] Lange, 36 (fourteenth century).
[120] Ibid. 27, 36, 53, 64, &c.; Appendix R.
[121] Lange, 51, 160; cf. _Conc. Regularis_ (Appendix O).
[122] Lange, 64 ‘induti albis et amictibus cum stolis violatis et sindone
rubea in facie eorum et alis in humeris’ (Narbonne, †1400).
[123] Lange, 40, 155, 158, 162 ‘palmam manu tenens, in capite fanulum
largum habens’ (Toul, thirteenth century), ‘tenens spicam in manu’
(Rouen, fifteenth century), ‘tenens palmam in manu et habens coronam in
capite’ (Mont St.-Michel, fourteenth century), ‘vestitus alba deaurata,
mitra tectus caput etsi deinfulatus, palmam in sinistra, ramum candelarum
plenum tenens in manu dextra’ (Fleury, thirteenth century).
[124] Appendix R.
[125] Lange, 147.
[126] Ibid. 143 ‘quae sit vestita dalmatica casulamque complicatam super
humeros habeat; coronamque capiti superimpositam, nudis pedibus.’
[127] Lange, 156 ‘albatus cum stola, tenens crucem.’
[128] Ibid. 159, 164 ‘in habitu ortolani ... redeat, indutus capa
serica vel pallio serico, tenens crucem’ (Coutances); ‘praeparatus
in similitudinem hortolani ... is, qui ante fuit hortulanus, in
similitudinem domini veniat, dalmaticatus candida dalmatica, candida
infula infulatus, phylacteria pretiosa in capite, crucem cum labaro
in dextra, textum auro paratorium in sinistra habens’ (Fleury). The
_labarum_ is the banner of Constantine with the Chi-Ro monogram (cf.
Gibbon-Bury, ii. 567): but the banner usually attached to the cross in
mediaeval pictures of the Resurrection itself bears simply a large cross;
cf. Pearson, ii. 310.
[129] A study of the music might perhaps throw light on the relation
of the versions to each other. I am sorry that it is beyond my powers:
moreover Lange does not give the notation; Coussemaker gives it for half
a dozen versions.
[130] For such overtures cf. Lange, 36, 62, 64; Milchsack, 37, 38, 40. On
the doubtful use of the _Gloriosi et famosi_ at Einsiedeln, cf. p. 54.
[131] In the Prague versions (Lange, 151). The choir, or rather
‘conventus,’ introduces the scenes with the three following anthems:
(i) ‘Maria Magdalena et alia Maria ferebant diluculo aromata, dominum
querentes in monumento,’ (ii) ‘Maria stabat ad monumentum foris plorans;
dum ergo fleret, inclinavit se et prospexit in monumentum,’ (iii)
‘Currebant duo simul et ille alius discipulus praecucurrit citius petro
et venit prior ad monumentum.’
[132] Lange, 146 (Nuremberg); for later examples cf. Lange, 99 sqq. The
hymn generally comes just before the _Te Deum_. A fourteenth-century
Bohemian version from Prague (Lange, 131) has a similar Bohemian hymn
‘Buoh wssemohuczy.’ At Bamberg in 1597 ‘potest chorus populo iterum
praecinere cantilenas pascales Germanicas’ (Lange, 95). At Rheinau
in 1573 it is suggested that the _Quem quaeritis_ itself may as an
alternative be sung in German (Lange, 68) ‘hisce aut Germanicis versibus
cantatis.’ At Aquileja in 1495 ‘Populus cantet _Christus surrexit_,’
apparently in Latin (Lange, 106); and at Würzburg in 1477, ‘Populus
incipit Ymnum suum: _Te Deum_’ (Lange, 67).
[133] Lange, 39, 119, 122, 124; cf. Martene, iii. 171.
[134] Lange, 41.
[135] _Z. f. d. A._ xli. 77.
[136] Lange, 39.
[137] Creizenach, i. 56; Julleville, i. 67.
[138] _Lichfield Statutes of Hugh de Nonant_, 1188-98 (_Lincoln
Statutes_, ii. 15, 23) ‘Item in nocte Natalis representacio pastorum
fieri consuevit et in diluculo Pasche representacio Resurreccionis
dominicae et representacio peregrinorum die lune in septimana Pasche
sicut in libris super hijs ac alijs compositis continetur.... De officio
succentoris ... et providere debet quod representacio pastorum in nocte
Natalis domini et miraculorum in nocte Pasche et die lune in Pascha
congrue et honorifice fiant.’
[139] Cf. p. 90.
[140] Text in _Bibl. de l’École des Chartes_, xxxiv. 314, from _B. N.
Lat._ 16,309 (thirteenth-century Saintes _Breviary_), _begins_ ‘Quando
fiunt Peregrini, non dicitur prosa, sed peregrini deforis veniunt canendo
ista’; _ends_ with _Magnificat_ and _Oratio_, ‘Deus qui sollempnitate
paschali.’
[141] Text in Gasté, 65; Du Méril, 117, from Rouen _Ordinarium_
(fourteenth century), _begins_ ‘Officium Peregrinorum debet hic fieri
hoc modo’; _ends_ ‘Et processio, factis memoriis, redeat in choro et
ibi finiantur vesperae.’ Gasté, 68, quotes an order of 1452 ‘Domini
capitulantes concluserunt quod in istis festis Paschae fiat misterium
representans resurrectionem Christi et apparitionem eius suis discipulis,
eundo apud castrum de Emaux, amotis et cessantibus indecenciis.’
[142] Text in G. Desjardins, _Hist. de la Cath. de Beauvais_ (1865),
115, 269, _begins_ ‘Ordo ad suscipiendum peregrinum in secunda feria
Paschae ad vesperas’; _ends_ with _Oratio de Resurrectione_. Meyer, 133,
describes the MS. as of the first half of the twelfth century.
[143] Text in Du Méril, 120, from _Orleans MS._ 178 (thirteenth century),
_begins_ ‘Ad faciendam similitudinem dominicae apparitionis in specie
Peregrini, quae fit in tertia feria Paschae ad Vesperas’; _ends_ ‘Salve,
festa dies.’
[144] E. Hautcœur, _Documents liturgiques de Lille_, 55, from
_Ordinarium_ of thirteenth century, ‘Feria ii. ... in vesperis ... post
collectam fit representatio peregrinorum. Qua facta cantatur Christus
resurgens, et itur in chorum.’
[145] W. Meyer, _Fragmenta Burana_, 131, with text and facsimile. The
play begins ‘Incipit exemplum apparicionis domini discipulis suis <iuxta>
castellum Emaus, ubi illis apparuit in more peregrini,’ &c.
[146] _Use of Sarum_, i. 157; _Sarum Breviary_, i. dcccxxix.
[147] The _Peregrini_ start ‘a vestiario ... per dextram alam ecclesiae
usque ad portas occidentales, et subsistentes in capite processionis.’
Then the _Sacerdos_, ‘nudus pedes, ferens crucem super dextrum humerum’
comes ‘per dextram alam ecclesiae’ to meet them. They lead him ‘usque ad
tabernaculum, in medio navis ecclesiae, in similitudinem castelli Emaux
praeparatum.’
[148] Text in Milchsack, 97; Coussemaker, 21, from _Tours MS._ 927
(twelfth or thirteenth century); cf. Creizenach, i. 88; Julleville,
i. 62; Meyer, 95; and on the MS. which also contains the ‘Ordo
representacionis Adae,’ and is not native to Tours, cf. p. 71.
[149] Milchsack, 105; Creizenach, i. 90. The beginning and end of the
Klosterneuburg play were printed from a thirteenth-century MS., now
lost, by B. Pez, _Thesaurus novus Anecd._ ii. 1. liii. It began ‘Primo
producatur Pilatus cum responsorio: _Ingressus Pilatus_,’ and ended with
‘Christ, der ist erstanden’; cf. Meyer, 126.
[150] ‘Modo veniat angelus et iniciat eis fulgura; milites cadunt in
terram velut mortui.’
[151] Meyer, 97, 125, with text and facsimile, ‘Incipit ludus immo
exemplum Dominice resurrectionis.’ The episode of the Resurrection
with the dismay of the soldiers is found not only in the Tours and
Benedictbeuern MS., but also in the simpler Coutances _Quem quaeritis_.
Lange, 157, omits this passage, but Gasté, 63, gives it; ‘Si Mariae
debeant representari, finito responsorio quatuor clerici armati
accedentes ad sepulcrum Domini pannis sericis decenter ornatum et secum
dicant personagia sua. Quo facto, duo pueri induti roquetis veniant
ad monumentum ferentes duas virgas decorticatas in quibus sunt decem
candelae ardentes; et statim cum appropinquaverint ad sepulcrum praedicti
milites, procidant quasi mortui, nec surgant donec incipiatur _Te Deum_,
... &c.’ There is no actual appearance of the Rising Christ in any of
these three plays as originally written. But a later hand has inserted
in the Benedictbeuern MS. directions for the Christ to appear, discourse
with the angels, and put on the ‘vestem ortulani.’
[152] Creizenach thinks the play (like Adam) was outside the church,
because the Maries appear ‘ante ostium ecclesiae.’ But ‘ante’ may be
inside. Mary Magdalen at one point is ‘in sinistra parte ecclesiae
stans,’ and most of the action is round the _sepulchrum_.
[153] E. Wechssler, _Die romanischen Marienklagen_ (1893); A. Schönbach,
_Die Marienklagen_ (1873); cf. Creizenach, i. 241; Julleville, i. 58;
Sepet, 23; Milchsack, 92; Coussemaker, 285, 346; Meyer, 67; Pearson, ii.
384.
[154] A _planctus_ ascribed to Bonaventura (thirteenth century) has
the titles ‘Officium de compassione Mariae’ (Wechssler, 14), and
‘Officium sanctae crucis’ (_Bibl. de l’École des Chartes_, xxxiv. 315).
Another, the ‘Surgit Christus cum trophaeo,’ is headed in thirteenth-
and fourteenth-century MSS. ‘Sequentia devota antiquorum nostrorum
de resurrectionis argumentis. Sanctarum virginum Mariae ac Mariae
Magdalene de compassione mortis Christi per modum dyalogi sequentia.’
The chorus begins, and ‘tres bene vociferati scholares respondent’
(text in Milchsack, 92; cf. Wechssler, 14). A third, ‘O fratres et
sorores,’ is headed ‘Hic incipit planctus Mariae et aliorum in die
Parasceves’ (text from fourteenth-century Cividale MS. in Coussemaker,
285; Julleville, i. 58; cf. Wechssler, 17). Ducange, s.v. _Planctus_,
quotes a (thirteenth-century) Toulouse rubric, ‘planctum beatissimae
Virginis Mariae, qui dicitur a duobus puerulis post Matutinum et debent
esse monachi, si possunt reperiri ad hoc apti.’ This _planctus_ was sung
from the ‘cathedra praedicatorii.’ On the use of vernacular Italian
_planctus_ by the _laudesi_ in churches through Lent, cf. Wechssler,
30. The vernacular German ‘ludus passionis’ printed by O. Schönemann,
_Der Sündenfall und Marienklage_ (1855), 129, from a Wolfenbüttel
fifteenth-century MS., seems to have still been meant for liturgical use,
as it has the rubric ‘debet cantari post _crux fidelis_ et sic finiri
usque ad vesperam lamentabiliter cum caeteris sicut consuetum est fieri.’
It incorporates the _Depositio_.
[155] Meyer, _Fragmenta Burana_, 64, 122, with text and facsimile. The
piece ends ‘et ita inchoatur ludus de resurrectione. Pontifices: _O
domine recte meminimus_,’ which is the opening of the Easter play already
described.
[156] Printed by Du Méril, 147; Gasté, 25; Davidson, 173, from Rouen
_Ordinaria_ (_Rouen MSS._ Y. 108 of fifteenth century, Y. 110 of
fourteenth century); Coussemaker, 235, with notation, from Rouen
_Gradual_ (_Bibl. Nat. Lat._ 904); it is also in _B. N. Lat._ 1213
(fifteenth century) and _Bibl. Mazarin_, 216 (Du Méril, 148).
[157] The ‘obstetrices’ figure in the _Protevangelium Iacobi_, chh. 18
sqq. (Tischendorf, _Evangelia Apocrypha_, 33), and the _Pseudo-Matthaei
Evangelium_, ch. 13 (Tischendorf, 77). In the latter they are named
Salome and Zelomi.
[158] Gasté, 31 ‘Archiepiscopus, vel alius sacerdos versus ad Pastores
dicat: _Quem vidistis, pastores, dicite; annunciate nobis in terris quis
apparuit_. Pastores respondeant: _Natum vidimus et choros angelorum
collaudantes Dominum. Alleluia, alleluia_, et totam antiphonam finiant’:
cf. Meyer, 39; _Sarum Breviary_, clxxxviii; Martene, iii. 36; Durandus,
vi. 13, 16 ‘in laudibus matutinis quasi choream ducimus, unde in prima
antiphona dicimus; _Quem vidistis, pastores?_ &c. Et ipsi responderunt:
_Natum vidimus_.’
[159] Gasté, 33.
[160] Tille, _D. W._ 309; Pollard, xiii; Durandus-Barthélemy, iii. 411;
E. Martinengo-Cesaresco, _Puer Parvulus_ in _Contemporary Review_, lxxvii
(1900), 117; W. H. D. Rouse, in _F. L._ v. 6; J. Feller, _Le Bethléem
Verviétois_, 10. I find a modern English example described in a letter of
1878 written by Mr. Coventry Patmore’s son Henry from a Catholic school
at Ushaw (_Life of C. Patmore_, i. 308).
[161] Malleson-Tuker, ii. 212.
[162] P. Sabatier, _Life of St. Francis_ (Eng. transl.), 285, from Thomas
of Celano, _Vita Prima_, 84, and Bonaventura, _Vita_, 149; cf. D’Ancona,
i. 116.
[163] Usener, i. 280. It is called ‘oratorium sanctum quod praesepe
dicitur’ (†731-41) and ‘camera praesepii’ (†844-7).
[164] Origen, _adv. Celsum_, i. 51; cf. Usener, i. 283, 287.
[165] Usener, i. 281; Tille, _D. W._ 54; Malleson-Tuker, ii. 210.
[166] Usener, i. 280. Gregory IV (827-43) ‘sanctum fecit praesepe ad
similitudinem praesepii S. dei genetricis quae appellatur maior,’ in S.
Maria in Trastevere.
[167] Gasté, 33, citing _Montpellier MS._ H. 304. The play occurs, with
an _Officium Stellae_, in an anonymous treatise _De ratione divini
officii_. The Amiens _Ordinarium_ of 1291 (Grenier, 389) gives directions
for a _Pastores_ during the procession after the communion at the
midnight mass. In preparation lights were lit at the _praesepe_ during
first vespers ‘dum canitur versus _praesepe iam fulget tuum_.’ At the end
of the first nocturn the figure of a child was placed there. At the first
lesson of the second nocturn the cry of _noël_ was raised.
[168] Du Méril, 148.
[169] Ioannes Abrincensis, _De officiis ecclesiasticis_ (_P. L._ cxlvii.
41, 43). Neither Belethus nor Durandus mentions the _Pastores_.
[170] Cf. vol. i. p. 272. The _praesepe_ is of course in the _Stella_,
which is found at Strassburg, Bilsen, and Einsiedeln, but even this is
more characteristic of France than of Germany.
[171] Text ed. C. Magnin (_Journal des Savants_ (1846), 93), from _Bibl.
Nat. Lat._ 1139.
[172] Gasté, 50 ‘Corona ante crucem pendens in modum stellae accendatur’
(Rouen); Du Méril, 153 ‘stellam pendentem in filo, quae antecedit eos’
(Limoges). The churchwardens’ accounts of St. Nicholas, Yarmouth, from
1462-1512 (_Norfolk Archaeology_, xi. 334), contain payments for ‘making
a new star,’ ‘leading the star,’ ‘a new balk line to the star and ryving
the same star.’ Pearson, ii. 325, lays stress on the prominence of the
star in the German vernacular mysteries. J. T. Micklethwaite, _Ornaments
of the Rubric_, 44, says that the ‘star’ was called a ‘trendle’ or
‘rowell.’ Its use does not necessarily imply the presence of a drama.
[173] The account of the _Stella_ here given should be supplemented from
Creizenach, i. 60; Köppen, 10. The latter studies the verbal relation of
the texts much more fully than can be done here. Meyer, 38, argues for
their origin in an archetype from Germany. There are doubtless many other
texts yet unprinted. Ch. Magnin, _Journal de l’Instruction publique_,
Sept. 13, 1835, mentions such in Soleures, Fribourg, and Besançon
_Rituals_.
[174] Text in Du Méril, 151; Martene, iii. 44, from Limoges _Ordinarium_
of unspecified date. The version is partly metrical, and the action took
place ‘cantato offertorio, antequam eant ad offerendum.’
[175] Text in Gasté, 49; Du Méril, 153; Davidson, 176; from _Rouen MS._
Y. 110 (fourteenth-century _Ordinarium_); Coussemaker, 242, from _Bibl.
Nat. Lat. MS._ 904 (thirteenth-century _Gradual_, with notation); _P. L._
cxlvii. 135, from _B. N._ 904 and _B. N. Lat._ 1213 (fifteenth-century
_Ordinarium_); cf. Gasté, 3. The rubric begins ‘Officium regum trium
secundum usum Rothomagensem. Die epyphaniae, tercia cantata.’ John of
Avranches (†1070) describing the Epiphany service, probably of Rouen,
says, after mentioning the _Evangelium genealogiae_, which follows the
ninth _responsorium_ of Matins, ‘Deinde stellae officium incipiat’ (_P.
L._ cxlvii. 43). Gasté, 53, quotes some Rouen chapter orders. In 1379
Peter Chopillard, painter, was paid ‘pro pingendo baculos quos portant
Reges die Apparitionis.’ In 1507 the chapter after ‘matura deliberatio’
ordered the ‘representatio trium Regum’ to be held. In 1521 they
suppressed it.
[176] Texts ed. L. Delisle, in _Romania_, iv (1875), 1. The earlier
version is from _Bibl. Nat. Lat._ 9449 (†1060, a _Gradual_, or, according
to Gautier, _Les Tropes_, 123, a _Troper_). The text is headed ‘Versus ad
Stellam faciendam.’ The later is from _B. N. Lat._ 1235 (twelfth-century
_Gradual_). It is headed ‘Ad Comm[unionem].’ Of the first part, down to
the end of the interview with Herod, there are two alternative forms in
this MS. The one, a free revision of the normal text, is headed:
‘Sic speciem veteres stellae struxere parentes,
quatinus hos pueri versus psallant duo regi.’
[177] Text in K. A. M. Hartmann, _Über das altspanische Dreikönigsspiel_
(Leipzig Diss. 1879), 43, from eleventh-century _B. N. Lat. MS._ 16,819.
[178] This line is not actually in the Compiègne text. But it is in
most of the later versions of this scene, and is interesting, as being
a classical tag from Sallust, _Catilina_, c. 32; cf. Köppen, 21;
Creizenach, i. 63. Reminiscences of _Aeneid_, viii. 112; ix. 376, are
sometimes put into Herod’s mouth in the scene with the _Magi_ (Du Méril,
164, 166).
[179] The version is described, but unfortunately not printed by Gasté,
53. It is from the _De ratione divini officii_ in _Montpellier MS._ H.
304.
[180] Text, headed ‘Ordo Stellae’ in U. Chevalier, _Ordinaires de
l’église de Laon_, xxxvi, 389 from _Laon MS._ 263 (thirteenth-century
_Trophonarium_).
[181] Text printed by Lange in _Zeitsch. f. deutsch. Alterthum_, xxxii.
412, from _B. M. Add. MS._ 23,922 (_Antiphoner_ of †1200). The play was
‘In octava Epiphaniae’ after the _Magnificat_ at Vespers.
[182] Text in C. Cahier and A. Martin, _Mélanges d’Archéologie_, i.
(1847-9), 258; Clément, 113, from eleventh-century _Evangeliarium_, now
in a Bollandist monastery in Brussels (Meyer, 41). It is a revision of
the normal text. The author has been so industrious as even to put many
of the rubrics in hexameters. The opening is
‘_Ordo._ Post Benedicamus puerorum splendida coetus
ad regem pariter debent protendere gressu,
praeclara voce necnon istic resonare.’
The ‘rex’ who presided and possibly acted Herod (cf. p. 56) was, I
suppose, an Epiphany king or ‘rex fatuorum.’
[183] Translation only in P. Piolin, _Théâtre chrétien dans le Maine_
(1891), 21. The exact source is not given.
[184] The first text in Du Méril, 156; Davidson, 174, from _Munich
MS._ 6264ᵃ (eleventh century). Apparently it begins with a bit of dumb
show, ‘Rex sedens in solio quaerat consilium: exeat edictum ut pereant
continuo qui detrahunt eius imperio.’ Then comes ‘Angelus, in primis.’
Second text, headed ‘Ordo Rachaelis’ in Du Méril, 171; Froning, 871, from
_Munich MS._ 6264 (eleventh century). It is mainly metrical.
[185] Texts in Du Méril, 162, 175; Davidson, 175; Coussemaker, 143;
Wright, 32, from _Orleans MS._ 178. The first part begins with the
rubric ‘Parato Herode et ceteris personis ...’; the second with ‘Ad
interfectionem Puerorum....’
[186] Wordsworth, 147, suggests that the name ‘Le Galilee,’ given at
Lincoln to a room over the south porch and also found elsewhere, may be
‘derived from some incident in the half-dramatic Paschal ceremonies.’ For
another liturgical drama in which ‘Galilee’ is required as a scene, cf.
p. 60.
[187] _B. N. Lat._ 1152 (eleventh century) in _Bibl. de l’École des
Chartes_, xxxiv. 657. Einsiedeln fragment (eleventh-twelfth century)
printed by G. Morel in _Pilger_ (1849), 401; cf. Köppen, 13.
[188] Text in Du Méril, 151, from _Vienne MS._ 941 (fourteenth century).
It is entitled ‘Ad adorandum filium Dei per Stellam invitantur Eoy.’
The first three lines, headed ‘Stella,’ are an address to the ‘exotica
plebs’; each of the remaining ten lines is divided between three
speakers, ‘Aureolus,’ ‘Thureolus,’ ‘Myrrheolus.’
[189] On the use of tropes at these points in the Mass, cf. Frere, xix.
[190] _Use of Sarum_, i. 280.
[191] Martene, iii. 44; in England the royal offering is still made, by
proxy, at the Chapel Royal, St. James’s (Ashton, 237).
[192] I follow the epoch-making _étude_ of M. Sepet, _Les Prophètes du
Christ_, in _Bibl. de l’École des Chartes_, xxviii. (1867), 1, 210, xxix.
(1868), 205, 261, xxxviii. (1877), 397 (I am sorry not to be able to cite
the separate edition printed at Paris, 1878); cf. also Creizenach, i. 67;
Julleville, _Myst._ i. 35; and, especially, Weber, 41. But none of these
writers could make use of the Laon version discovered by M. Chevalier.
Meyer, 53, suggests that Sepet has exaggerated the importance of the
_Prophetae_ in the development of the O. T. dramatic cycle.
[193] Text in _P. L._ xlii. 1117; on the date cf. Weber, 41. The _lectio_
is printed by Sepet, xxviii. 3.
[194] At Arles it was the sixth _lectio_ at Matins on Christmas day
(Sepet, xxviii. 2); at Rome the fourth lesson at Matins on Christmas
eve (Martene, iii. 31); at Rouen it was read at Matins two days earlier
(Martene, iii. 34); in the _Sarum Breviary_, i. cxxxv, it makes the
fourth, fifth, and sixth _lectiones_ at Matins on the fourth Sunday in
Advent.
[195] _Bucol._ iv. 7.
[196] Eusebius, _Orat. Const. Magn. ad Sanctorum Coetum_, c. 18 (_P.G._
xx. 1288). On the _Iudicii Signum_ and the _Dit des quinze Signes_ (Text
in Grass, _Adamsspiel_, 57) derived from it, cf. Sepet, xxviii. 8; Du
Méril, 185. According to Martene, iii. 34, the _Versus Sibyllae_ were
often sung at Matins on Christmas day, apparently apart from the _sermo_.
Thus at Limoges they were sung after the sixth _responsorium_.
[197] Sepet, xxviii. 13; cf. p. 5.
[198] Text in Du Méril, 179; Coussemaker, 11; Wright, 60; from _Bibl.
Nat. Lat._ 1139 (eleventh or twelfth century). Weber, 51, gives an
interesting account of the _Prophetae_ in art, and points out that the
play seems to have influenced such representations in Italy early in the
eleventh century.
[199] Text in U. Chevalier, _Ordinaires de l’Église de Laon_, xxxvi, 385,
from _Laon MS._ 263 (thirteenth century _Trophonarium_). It is headed
‘Ordo Prophetarum.’
[200] Text in Gasté, 4, from _Rouen MS._ Y. 110 (fourteenth-century
_Ordinarium_). The opening is ‘Nota, Cantor; si _Festum Asinorum_
fiat, processio ordinetur post Terciam. Si non fiat Festum, tunc fiat
processio, ut nunc praenotatur. Ordo _Processionis Asinorum_ secundum
Rothomagensem usum. Tercia cantata, paratis Prophetis iuxta suum
ordinem, fornace in medio navis ecclesiae lintheo et stuppis constituta,
processio moveat de claustro, et duo clerici de secunda sede, in cappis,
processionem regant, hos versus canentes: _Gloriosi et famosi_....
Tunc processio in medio ecclesiae stet.’ At the end the ‘Prophetae et
ministri’ rule the choir. Unfortunately the MS., like other _Ordinaria_,
only gives the first words of many of the chants.
[201] The _Gloriosi et famosi_ hymn occurs in a twelfth-century
Einsiedeln MS. (Milchsack, 36) as an overture to the _Quem quaeritis_. It
is arranged for ‘chorus’ and ‘Prophetae,’ and was therefore borrowed from
Christmas. It is followed by another hymn, more strictly Paschal, the
_Hortum praedestinatio_, and this, which is also used with the Sens _Quem
quaeritis_ (Milchsack, 58), is sung at the end of the Rouen _Prophetae_
by ‘omnes prophetae et ministri [? = vocatores] in pulpito’—a curious
double borrowing between the two feasts. Meyer, 51, argues that the
Einsiedeln MS., which is in a fragmentary state, contained a _Prophetae_,
to which, and not to the _Quem quaeritis_, the _Gloriosi et famosi_
belonged.
[202] Sepet, xxviii. 25.
[203] So says Gasté, 4. But I think he must be wrong, for the _Introit_
with which the text concludes is _Puer natus est_, which belongs to the
_Magna missa_ of the feast-day, and not to the eve.
[204] Martene, iii. 41, from a fourteenth-century _Rituale_: ‘dicto
versiculo tertii nocturni, accenditur totum luminare, et veniunt
Prophetae in capitulo revestiti, et post cantant insimul _Lumen Patris_,
et clericus solus dicit _In gaudio_, et post legitur septima lectio.
Post nonam lectionem ducunt prophetas de capitulo ad portam Thesaurarii
cantilenas cantando, et post in chorum, ubi dicunt cantori prophetias,
et duo clericuli in pulpito cantando eos appellant. Post dicitur nonum
[responsorium?] in pulpito.... Post [primam] recitatur miraculum [Martene
conjectures _martyrologium_] in claustro ... [Ad vesperas] dictis psalmis
et antiphonis, ducunt ad portam Thesaurarii prophetas, sicut ad matutinum
et reducunt in chorum similiter, et habent clerici virgas plenas candelis
ardentibus, vocant eos clerici duo sicut ad vesperas [? matutinum].’
Presently follows the _Deposuit_: cf. vol. i. p. 309.
[205] Cf. vol. i. p. 313.
[206] Gasté, 20.
[207] Sepet, xxviii. 219, suggests that Balaam, when first introduced
into the _Prophetae_, merely prophesied, as he does in the _Adam_ (Grass,
46). Possibly, yet his introduction at the end of the Laon play (unknown
to Sepet) looks as if he were an appendix for the sake of his ass.
[208] Champollion-Figeac, _Hilarii Versus et Ludi_ (1838), from _B. N.
Lat. MS._ 11,331. The plays are also printed by Du Méril, _Or. Lat._ On
the life cf. _Hist. Litt. de la France_, xx. 627; _D.N.B._ s.v. Hilary;
Morley, _English Writers_, iii. 107.
[209] Du Méril, 272 ‘Ludus super iconia Sancti Nicolai.’ There is a
‘persona iconie.’ A _Barbarus_ speaks partly in French.
[210] Du Méril, 225 ‘Suscitatio Lazari: ad quam istae personae sunt
necessariae: Persona Lazari, duarum Sororum, quatuor Iudaeorum, Iesu
Christi, duodecim Apostolorum, vel sex ad minus ... (ends). Quo finito,
si factum fuerit ad Matutinas, Lazarus in piat: _Te Deum laudamus_: si
vero ad Vesperas: _Magnificat anima mea Dominum_.’
[211] Du Méril, 241 ‘Historia de Daniel repraesentanda,’ with a list
of the ‘personae necessariae’ and a final rubric as in the ‘Suscitatio
Lazari’: cf. Sepet, xxviii. 232, on this and similar plays and their
relation to the _Prophetae_. From the names ‘Hilarius,’ ‘Iordanus,’
‘Simon,’ attached to parts of the _Daniel_ in the MS., it would seem that
Hilarius had collaborators for this play (Sepet, xxviii. 248).
[212] E. Dümmler, in _Z. f. d. Alterthum_, xxxv. 401; xxxvi. 238, from
_B. M. Addl. MS._ 22,414 (‘Liber Sancti Godehardi in Hild[esheim]’). On
the group of Nicholas plays cf. Creizenach, i. 105.
[213] G. Morel, in _Anzeiger für Kunde der deutschen Vorzeit_, vi.
(1859), 207, from _Einsiedeln MS._ 34.
[214] _Golden Legend_, ii. 109; Wace, _Vie de Saint-Nicolas_ (ed. Delius,
1850).
[215] Du Méril, 262; Coussemaker, 100. The play ends with the _Te Deum_.
The same subject is treated in the Einsiedeln play, and one of those from
Hildesheim.
[216] Du Méril, 254; Coussemaker, 83. The play ends with the anthem ‘O
Christi pietas,’ used at second Vespers on St. Nicholas’ day (_Sarum
Breviary_, iii. 38). The same subject is treated in the other Hildesheim
play.
[217] Du Méril, 276; Coussemaker, 123; begins ‘Ad repraesentandum quomodo
Sanctus Nicolaus, &c. ...’: ends with anthem ‘Copiosae caritatis’ used at
Lauds on St. Nicholas’ day (_Sarum Breviary_, iii. 37).
[218] Du Méril, 266; Coussemaker, 109; begins ‘Aliud miraculum de Sancto
Nicolao, &c. ...’: ends with anthem ‘Statuit ei Dominus,’ not in _Sarum
Breviary_, but used at Rome as _Introit_ on feasts of Pontiffs. This is
the subject of Hilarius’ play.
[219] Text in Du Méril, 213; Coussemaker, 220. The play contains a
Paschal sequence and ends with a _Te Deum_. Part of the action is in
a _platea_; Simon has a _domus_, which afterwards ‘efficiatur quasi
Bethania.’ Other ‘loci’ represent ‘Ierusalem’ and ‘Galilaea’ (cf. p. 50),
and the ‘Suscitatio’ takes place at a ‘monumentum’ (probably the Easter
sepulchre).
[220] Text in Coussemaker, 49, and Danjou, _Revue de la Musique
religieuse_, iv. (1848), 65. Cf. Sepet, xxviii. 232, and on the MS.,
vol. i. p. 284. As in the Beauvais _Officium Circumcisionis_, there are
many processional chants or _conductus_, in one of which are the terms
‘celebremus Natalis solempnia’ and ‘in hoc Natalitio’ which attach the
play to Christmas, or at least the Christmas season. The text begins
‘Incipit Danielis ludus,’ and ends with the _Te Deum_. The following
quatrain serves as prologue:
‘Ad honorem tui, Christe,
Danielis ludus iste
in Belvaco est inventus
et invenit hunc iuventus.’
Meyer, 56, finds relations between the Beauvais _Daniel_ and that of
_Hilarius_.
[221] Text in _Anzeiger für Kunde d. deutschen Vorzeit_ (1877), 169, from
late twelfth-century MS.; cf. Creizenach, i. 74.
[222] Cf. p. 99.
[223] Creizenach, i. 6, 71. The unauthentic _Annales_ of Corvei mention
also a play on _Joseph_ under the year 1264 (Creizenach, i. 75).
[224] Text in Du Méril, 237; Coussemaker, 210; begins ‘Ad repraesentandam
conversionem beati Pauli apostoli, &c. ...’: ends with _Te Deum_. Four
‘sedes’ are required, and a ‘lectus’ for Ananias.
[225] Latest text, with long introduction, mainly philological, by W.
Cloetta, in _Romania_, xxii. (1893), 177; others by Du Méril, 233;
Coussemaker, 1; E. Boehmer, in _Romanische Studien_, iv. 99; K. Bartsch,
_Lang. et Litt. françaises_, 13; cf. also Julleville, _Les Myst._ i. 27;
E. Stengel, _Z. f. rom. Phil._ iii. 233; E. Schwan, _Z. f. rom. Phil._
xi. 469; H. Morf, _Z. f. rom. Phil._ xx. 385. The manuscript is _Bibl.
Nat. Lat._ 1139. MM. Cloetta (p. 221) and G. Paris (_Litt. fr. au moyen
âge²_, 237, 246) assign the _Sponsus_ to the earlier half or second third
of the twelfth century, and the former, with the delightful diffidence
of a philologist, thinks, on linguistic grounds, that it was written at
Saint Amant de Boixe (sixteen _kilomètres_ north of Angoulême). It only
remains for some archivist to find a clerk of St. Martial of Limoges
whose native place was this very village.
[226] Cf. p. 33.
[227] H. Morf, _loc. cit._, considers the _Sponsus_ an Easter play.
[228] Creizenach, i. 77. An Italian dramatic _Lauda_ on the same subject
is headed ‘In Dominica de Adventu’ (D’Ancona, i. 141).
[229] Text in Froning, 206, from edition of Zezschwitz, _Vom römischen
Kaisertum deutscher Nation_ (1877). The earliest edition is by Pez,
_Thesaurus Anecd. Noviss._ (1721-9), ii. 3, 187. This writer introduced
confusion by giving the play the title _Ludus paschalis de adventu et
interitu Antichristi_. It has nothing to do with Easter. The latest and
best edition is that by W. Meyer, in _Sitzungsberichte d. hist.-phil.
Classe d. königl. bayr. Akad. d. Wiss._ (Munich), 1882, 1. The unique
MS. is _Munich MS._ 19,411 (twelfth-thirteenth century), formerly in
Kloster Tegernsee. Both Zezschwitz and Meyer have long and valuable
introductions; cf. also Froning, 199; Creizenach, i. 78. T. Wright prints
the play from Pez, in _Chester Plays_, ii. 227.
[230] 2 _Thessalonians_, ii. 3-12. According to _York Missal_, i. 10,
part of this passage is read at Mass on Saturday in the _Quatuor Tempora_
of Advent.
[231] ‘Templum domini et vii sedes regales primum collocentur in hunc
modum:
Ad orientem templum domini; huic collocantur sedes regis
Hierosolimorum et sedes Sinagogae.
Ad occidentem sedes imperatoris Romani; huic collocantur sedes
regis Theotonicorum et sedes regis Francorum.
Ad austrum sedes regis Graecorum.
Ad meridiem sedes regis Babiloniae et Gentilitatis.’
Other than this direction the play has no heading, but in later
stage-directions it is incidentally called a ‘ludus.’
[232] Printed in _P. L._ ci. 1291.
[233] Pseudo-Augustine, _De altercatione Ecclesiae et Synagogae dialogus_
in _P. L._ xlii. 1131. On this theme and the _débats_ based thereon cf.
_Hist. Litt._ xxiii. 216; G. Paris, § 155; Pearson, ii. 376. P. Weber,
_Geistliches Schauspiel und kirchliche Kunst_ (1894), is mainly occupied
with this motive and its place in the religious drama and religious art.
It is a most valuable study, but I find no ground for the conjecture
(Weber, 31, 36) that the _Altercatio_, like the _Prophetae_, had already,
before the _Antichrist_, been semi-dramatically rendered in the liturgy.
[234] Cf. p. 98.
[235] _Representations_, s.v. Dunstable.
[236] At Rouen, e.g., a confraternity played a _misterium_ on the feast
of the Assumption in a waxen ‘hortus’ set up in their chapel; and this
between 1446 and 1521 required reformation from various ‘derisiones,’
especially a ‘ludus de marmousetis’ (Gasté, 76). But I know of no
evidence for a Latin Assumption play, although such may quite well have
existed. The Lincoln Assumption play was given in the cathedral, as a
wind-up to a cycle (_Representations_, s.v. Lincoln).
[237] Cf. p. 11.
[238] Ducange, s.v. _Festum Ascensionis_, ‘qui ... officio hac die
praeerat, cum modicum panis et vini degustasset, cantato responsorio _Non
vos relinquam_, ambonem ascendebat, ubi ex monte efficto coelum petere
videbatur; tunc pueri symphoniaci veste angelica induti decantabant _Viri
Galilaei_, etc.’
[239] Julleville, _Les Myst._ ii. 9; _Annales archéologiques_, xviii.
173 ‘pro pingendo cicatrices in manibus D. Iohannis Rosnel, facientis
mysterium in die Ascensionis’ (1416), ‘pro potandum cum discipulis,’
‘vicariis representantibus Crucifixum cum suis discipulis et ibidem simul
manducantibus et bibentibus vinum,’ ‘pro pingendo vulnera,’ ‘pro faciendo
novas nubes,’ ‘pro pictura dictarum nubium,’ ‘pro cantando non vos.’ In
Germany (Naogeorgos in Stubbes, i. 337) the crucifix was drawn up by
cords and an image of Satan thrown down. For England, see the end of
Lambarde’s account, below.
[240] Grenier, 388 (Amiens, 1291, and elsewhere in Picardy); Hautcœur,
_Documents liturgiques de Lille_, 65 (thirteenth century), and _Histoire
de l’Église de Lille_, i. 427; Gasté, 75 (Bayeux, thirteenth century,
Caen, Coutances); D’Ancona, i. 31 (Parma), i. 88 (Vicenza, 1379, a
more elaborate out-of-door performance); Naogeorgos in Stubbes, i. 337
(Germany); Ducange, s.v. _nebulae_. I have three English examples: Hone,
_E. D. Book_, i. 685 (_Computus_ of St. Patrick’s, Dublin, for 1509), ‘we
have ivˢ viiᵈ paid to those playing with the great and little angel and
the dragon; iiiˢ paid for little cords employed about the Holy Ghost;
ivˢ viᵈ for making the angel censing (_thurificantis_), and iiˢ iiᵈ for
cords of it—all on the feast of Pentecost’; _Lincoln Statutes_, i. 335;
ii. cxviii. 165 (1330) ‘in distributione autem Pentecostali percipiet
... clericus ducens columbam vj denarios’; W. Lambarde, _Alphabetical
Description of the Chief Places in England and Wales_ (1730, written in
sixteenth century), 459, s.v. Wytney, ‘The like Toye I myselfe (beinge
then a Chyld) once saw in _Poules_ Church at _London_, at a Feast of
_Whitsontyde_, wheare the comynge downe of the _Holy Gost_ was set forthe
by a white Pigion, that was let to fly out of a Hole, that yet is to be
sene in the mydst of the Roofe of the great Ile, and by a longe Censer,
which descendinge out of the same Place almost to the verie Grounde, was
swinged up and downe at suche a Lengthe, that it reached with thone Swepe
almost to the West Gate of the Churche, and with the other to the Quyre
Staires of the same, breathynge out over the whole Churche and Companie
a most pleasant Perfume of suche swete Thinges as burned thearin; with
the like doome Shewes also, they used every whear to furnishe sondrye
Partes of their Churche Service, as by their Spectacles of the Nativitie,
Passion, and Ascension of _Christe_.’ From further notices in W. S.
Simpson, _St. Paul’s and Old City Life_, 62, 83, it appears that the
censing was on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday in Whit-week, that the Lord
Mayor attended, and that the ceremony was replaced by sermons in 1548.
[241] Creizenach, i. 76; D’Ancona, i. 90, 92, 114 (Padua, Venice,
Trevigi), and i. 29 (Parma _Ordinarium_ of fifteenth century) ‘ad
inducendum populum ad contritionem, ... ad confirmandum ipsum in
devotione Virginis Mariae ... fit reverenter et decenter Repraesentatio
Virginis Mariae ... cum prophetis et aliis solemnitatibus opportunis’;
Coussemaker, 280 (Cividale _Processionalia_ of fourteenth and
fifteenth centuries). In the fourteenth century there was a procession
to the market-place, where ‘diaconus legat evangelium in tono, et
fit repraesentatio Angeli ad Mariam.’ In the fifteenth century ‘In
Annuntiatione B. M. Virginis Repraesentatio’ was a similar procession
and ‘cantatur evangelium cum ludo, quo finito, revertendo ad ecclesiam,
cantatur Te Deum.’ The text goes slightly beyond the words of the Gospel
(Luke i. 26-38) having a part for ‘Helisabeth.’ Gasté, 79, describes the
foundation of a _mystère_ of the Annunciation during vespers on the eve
of the feast at Saint-Lo, in 1521.
[242] I gather this from the _consuetudo_ of giving gloves to Mary,
the Angel, and the Prophets at Christmas (_Representations_, s.v.
Lincoln). Here, as at Parma, the _Prophetae_ appear in connexion with the
Annunciation ceremony.
[243] See the curious and detailed document in Appendix S as to the
Tournai ceremony founded by Peter Cotrel in the sixteenth century. A
precisely similar foundation was that of Robert Fabri at Saint Omer in
1543 (_Bull. arch. du Comité des travaux historiques_ (1886), 80; _Mém.
de la Soc. des Antiquaires de la Morinie_, xx. 207). The inventory of
the ‘ornementz et parementz’ in a ‘coffre de cuir boully’ includes ‘ung
colomb de bois revestu de damas blancq.’ Alike at Tournai, St. Omer,
and Besançon (Martene, iii. 30) the ceremony was on the Wednesday in
the _Quatuor Tempora_ of Advent. For the ‘golden Mass’ of this day the
Gospel is the same as that of the Annunciation; cf. _York Missal_, i. 6;
Pfannenschmidt, 438.
[244] Creizenach, i. 154, 317, 346. A slight addition to the _Stella_ is
made by two Provençal plays of †1300 (ed. P. Meyer in _Romania_, xiv.
496) and 1333 (_dramatis personae_ only in _Revue des Sociétés savantes_,
viii. 259) which introduce episodes from the life of the Virgin previous
to the Nativity.
[245] Creizenach, i. 70, quoting _Gesta Alberti Livoniensis episcopi_
(†1226) in Gruber, _Origines Livoniae_ (1740), 34 ‘Eadem hyeme factus
est ludus prophetarum ordinatissimus, quam Latini Comoediam vocant, in
media Riga, ut fidei Christianae rudimenta gentilitas fide etiam disceret
oculata. Cuius ludi et comoediae materia tam neophytis, quam paganis, qui
aderant, per interpretem diligentissime exponebatur. Ubi autem armati
Gedeonis cum Philistaeis pugnabant; pagani, timentes occidi, fugere
coeperunt, sed caute sunt revocati.... In eodem ludo erant bella, vtpote
Dauid, Gedeonis, Herodis. Erat et doctrina Veteris et Novi Testamenti.’
[246] Text edited by V. Luzarche (Tours, 1854); L. Palustre (Paris,
1877); K. Bartsch, _Chrestomathie_, (ed. 1880, 91); K. Grass (Halle,
1891); cf. the elaborate study by Sepet, xxix, 105, 261, and Julleville,
_Les Myst._ i. 81; ii. 217; Creizenach, i. 130; Clédat, 15. The
manuscript is _Tours MS._ 927, formerly belonging to the Benedictines of
Marmoutier. Grass, vi, summarizes the opinions as to its date. In any
case the text is probably of the twelfth century, and Grass, 171, after
an elaborate grammatical investigation, confirms the opinion of Luzarche,
doubted by Littré and others, that it is of Anglo-Norman rather than
Norman origin. But, even if the writer was an Anglo-Norman clerk, the
play must have been written for performance in France. I doubt if it was
ever actually played or finished. It is followed in the MS. by a Norman
(not Anglo-Norman) poem on the Fifteen Signs of Judgement (text in Grass,
57), which looks like material collected for an unwritten Sibyl prophecy.
The remaining contents of the first part of the MS., which may be of the
twelfth century, are some hymns and the Latin Tours _Quem quaeritis_ (p.
38).
[247] Sepet, xxix, 112, 128, points out that certain _lectiones_ and
_responsoria_ which accompany the _Adam_ and _Cain and Abel_ are taken
from the office for Septuagesima. Possibly an independent liturgical
drama of the Fall arose at Septuagesima and was absorbed by the
_Prophetae_. But mention of the ‘primus Adam’ is not uncommon in the
Nativity liturgy; cf. Sepet, xxix, 107, and the _Sponsus_ (p. 61).
[248] _Annales Ratisponenses_ (_M. G. H. Scriptores_, xvii. 590) ‘Anno
Domini 1194. Celebratus est in Ratispona ordo creacionis angelorum
et ruina[e] Luciferi et suorum, et creacionis hominis et casus et
prophetarum ... septima Idus Februarii.’
[249] Köppen, 35, discusses the textual relation between the St. Gall and
Benedictbeuern plays and their common source, the Freising _Stella_.
[250] Text in Mone, _Schauspiele des Mittelalters_, i. 143; cf.
Creizenach, i. 123.
[251] Text in Schmeller, _Carmina Burana_, 80; Du Méril, 187; Froning,
877, from a Munich MS. of thirteenth to fourteenth century formerly in
the abbey of Benedictbeuern in Bavaria; cf. Creizenach, i. 96; Sepet,
xxxviii, 398. The title ‘Ludus scenicus de nativitate Domini’ given by
Schmeller is not in the MS.
[252] Cf. p. 56. The Balaam in _Adam_ is ‘sedens super asinam,’ but no
further notice is taken of the animal.
[253] Text ed. Le Verdier (_Soc. des Bibliophiles normands_); cf.
Julleville, _Les Myst._ ii. 36, 430.
[254] Cf. p. 38.
[255] Tischendorf, _Evangelia Apocrypha_ (1876), 389.
[256] Cf. pp. 4, 5, 20. One of the anthems for Easter Saturday in the
_Sarum Breviary_ is _Elevamini, portae_.
[257] Text in Pollard, 166; K. Böddeker, _Altenglische Dichtungen des
MS. Harl._ 2253 (1878), 264; E. Mall, _The Harrowing of Hell_ (1871);
cf. Ten Brink, ii. 242; Ward, i. 90; Creizenach, i. 158. There are three
MSS.: (_a_) _Bodl. Digby MS._ 86 (late thirteenth century); (_b_) _Harl.
MS._ 2253 (†1310); (_c_) _Edin. Advoc. Libr._ (_Auchinleck_) _MS._ W. 41
(early fourteenth century). The Digby version has a prologue beginning:
‘Hou ihesu crist herewede helle
Of hardegates ich wille telle.’
The Harleian has:
‘Alle herkneth to me nou,
A strif will I tellen ou.’
The Auchinleck prologue lacks the beginning, but the end agrees with the
Harleian. Böddeker, who accepts the dramatic character of the piece,
thinks that the prologues were prefixed later for recitation. In any case
this poem became a source for a play in the _Ludus Coventriae_ cycle
(Pollard, xxxviii).
[258] Text of Muri fragments in Froning, 228; cf. Creizenach, i. 114;
Wirth, 133, 281. A French fragment (†1300-50) also introducing this
theme is printed by J. Bédier, in _Romania_, xxiv. (1895), 86. Pez,
_Script. rerum austriacarum_, ii. 268, describes a vision of the
thirteenth-century recluse Wilbirgis: ‘Item quadam nocte Dominicae
Resurrectionis, cum in Monasterio ludus Paschalis tam a Clero quam a
populo ageretur, quia eidem non potuit corporaliter interesse, coepit
desiderare, ut ei Dominus aliquam specialis consolationis gratiam per
Resurrectionis suae gaudia largiretur. Et vidit quasi Dominum ad Inferos
descendentem et inde animas eruentem, quae quasi columbae candidissimae
circumvolantes ipsum comitabantur, et sequebantur ab inferis redeuntem.’
Meyer, 61, 98, deals fully with the development of the Resurrection and
Harrowing of Hell themes in the early vernacular plays.
[259] Text in Monmerqué et Michel, _Théâtre fr. au moyen âge_, 10, from
_Bibl. Nat. fr._ 902; cf. Creizenach, i. 135; Julleville, _Les Myst._
i. 91; ii. 220; Clédat, 59. The MS. is of the fourteenth century,
but the Norman-French, which some writers, as with the _Adam_, think
Anglo-Norman, is assigned to the end of the twelfth century.
[260] D’Ancona, i. 90. The original authority for the statement, taken
from a MS. treatise on the _Commedia italiana_ by Uberto Benvoglienti, is
not given.
[261] D’Ancona, i. 87, quoting several chronicles: ‘hoc anno in festo
Pascae facta fuit Reppraesentatio Passionis et Resurrectionis Christi
solemniter et ordinate in Prato Vallis.’
[262] Text in Schmeller, _Carmina Burana_, 95; Du Méril, 126; Froning,
284; cf. Creizenach, i. 92; Wirth, 131, 278. The only heading to the play
in the MS. is ‘Sancta Maria assit nostro principio! amen.’
[263] Scenes between the _Mercator_, his wife, and their lad Rubin play a
large part in the later German Passion plays; cf. Wirth, 168.
[264] Creizenach, i. 155. Two fourteenth-century texts exist, one in
Provençal, one in Catalan.
[265] Text in Mone, _Schauspiele des Mittelalters_, i. 72; cf.
Creizenach, i. 121; Wirth, 135, 282.
[266] Text in Froning, 340 (begins ‘Incipit ordo sive registrum de
passione domini’); cf. Creizenach, i. 219; Wirth, 137, 295.
[267] Text in Froning, 305 (begins ‘Ad materiae reductionem de passione
domini. Incipit ludus pascalis’); cf. Creizenach, i. 92, 120; Wirth, 134,
293.
[268] Giuliano da Cividale, _Cronaca Friulana_ (D’Ancona, i. 91;
Muratori, _Rer. Ital. Script._ xxiv. 1205, 1209): ‘Anno domini
MCCLXXXXVIII die vii exeunte Maio, videlicet in die Pentecostes et in
aliis duobus sequentibus diebus, facta fuit Repraesentatio Ludi Christi,
videlicet Passionis, Resurrectionis, Ascensionis, Adventus Spiritus
Sancti, Adventus Christi ad iudicium, in curia Domini Patriarchae
Austriae civitatis, honorifice et laudabiliter, per Clerum civitatensem
.... Anno MCCCIII facta fuit per Clerum, sive per Capitulum civitatense,
Repraesentatio: sive factae fuerunt Repraesentationes infra scriptae: In
primis, de Creatione primorum parentum; deinde de Annunciatione Beatae
Virginis, de Partu et aliis multis, et de Passione et Resurrectione,
Ascensione et Adventu Spiritus Sancti, et de Antichristo et aliis,
et demum de Adventu Christi ad iudicium. Et predicta facta fuerunt
solemniter in curia domini Patriarchae in festo Pentecostes cum
aliis duobus diebus sequentibus, praesente r. d. Ottobono patriarcha
aquileiensi, d. Iacobo q. d. Ottonelli de Civitate episcopo concordiensi,
et aliis multis nobilibus de civitatibus et castris Foro-iulii, die XV
exeunte Maio.’ Still earlier, some dramatic fragments not later than the
mid-thirteenth century from Kloster Himmelgarten near Nordhausen, include
scenes from both the early and late life of Christ (Text, ed. Sievers, in
_Zeitsch. f. d. Phil._ xxi. 393; cf. Creizenach, i. 124); but these might
conceivably belong to a set of plays for different dates, such as those
of the Sainte Geneviève MS. (Julleville, _Les Myst._ ii. 379). Besides
the English cosmic cycles, there are several fifteenth-century French
ones described by Julleville, _Les Myst._ ii. 394 sqq.: in Germany plays
of this scope are rare.
[269] Pearson, ii. 312; Köppen, 49; Ten Brink, i. 287.
[270] Cf. Sepet, xxxviii. 415; Creizenach, i. 260; G. Smith, 253;
Julleville, _Les Myst._ ii. 352. _Le Mistère du viel testament_, printed
†1510 (ed. Rothschild, 1878-91, for _Soc. des anciens textes français_),
is a fifteenth-century compilation of O. T. plays from various sources.
[271] French versions of the _Vengeance de Notre Seigneur_, of which the
chief episode is the Siege of Jerusalem, appear in the fifteenth century
(Julleville, _Les Myst._ ii. 12, 415, 451). A late Coventry play on the
same theme is unfortunately lost.
[272] Cf. p. 99.
[273] Cf. p. 79.
[274] Pearson, ii. 315; and cf. the angels aloft in the Rouen _Pastores_
(p. 41).
[275] Cf. p. 50.
[276] Plan in Mone, ii. 156; Froning, 277; Davidson, 199; Pearson, ii.
320; Könnecke, _Bilderatlas_, 55: on the play, cf. Creizenach, i. 224;
Wirth, 139, 327. Another sixteenth-century plan from Lucerne is given
by Leibing, _Die Inscenierung des 2-tägigen Osterspiels_, 1869; cf.
Creizenach, i. 168.
[277] See the mention of ‘en mi la place’ in the prologue; but ‘place’
might be only the French equivalent of ‘platea’ as used in the Fleury
_Suscitatio Lazari_.
[278] Pearson, ii. 322.
[279] Julleville, _Les Myst._ ii. 37.
[280] Reproduced in Clédat, 4; Bapst, 33, from _Horae_ of †1460; cf.
Jusserand, _Lit. Hist._ i. 470.
[281] D’Ancona, i. 191, however, describes the Italian _devozioni_ as
taking place on _talami_ or platforms in the naves of churches. In
France, minor religious plays at least took place on scaffolds, built up
sometimes against the wall of a church (Bapst, 23, 29). A raised stage,
with _sedes_ along the back of it, is shown by the miniatures in the MS.
of the Valenciennes _Passion_ (reproduced in Jusserand, _Shakespeare in
France_, 63; cf. Julleville, _Les Mystères_, ii. 153); but this is as
late as 1547.
[282] Julleville, _Les Myst._ i. 386; Bapst, 28.
[283] Cf. p. 137. Amongst the ‘establies’ required for the Rouen play
of 1474 was ‘Enfer faict en maniere d’une grande gueulle se cloant et
ouvrant quant besoing en est’ (Julleville, _Les Myst._ ii. 37). Just such
an ‘enfer’ is represented in the Fouquet and Valenciennes miniatures.
[284] Cf. p. 98.
[285] Cf. p. 77.
[286] Froning, 363 ‘Et notandum, quod optime congruit, ne populus nimiam
moram faciendo gravetur, et ut resurrectio domini gloriosius celebretur,
ut ulterior ordo ludi in diem alterum conservetur; quod si apud rectores
deliberatum fuerit, Augustinus coram populo proclamet dicens sine rigmo,
ut in die crastino revertatur.’
[287] Creizenach, i. 340.
[288] Cf. p. 130.
[289] Cf. p. 74. By the fifteenth century lay performers appear even in
the ritual _Quem quaeritis_. An Augsburg version of 1487 (Milchsack, 129)
concludes ‘Permittitur tamen aliis, qui forsan huiusmodi personas [i.e.
‘sacerdotes’ et ‘cantores’] non habent, ut cum aliis personis et etiam
moribus honestis tamen et discretis, huiusmodi visitationem sepulchri
exequantur.’ See also the jest of Tyll Ulenspiegel with the parson’s
concubine who played the angel, quoted by Pearson, ii. 308.
[290] Julleville, _Les Myst._ ii. 2. For plays by German guilds cf.
Pearson, ii. 364.
[291] Creizenach, i. 137; Julleville, _Les Myst._ i. 115; _Les Com._ 43.
Probably the ‘Jeu de Nicholas’ of Jean Bodel, and the fourteenth-century
‘Miracles de Notre Dame,’ belong to the _répertoires_ of _puys_.
[292] Julleville, _Les Myst._ i. 412; _Les Com._ 55.
[293] Du Méril, 410, 414, prints examples of such _épîtres farcies_ for
the feasts of St. Stephen and St. Thomas of Canterbury: cf. the numerous
references in D’Ancona, i. 66, and vol. i. p. 277.
[294] Text in Coussemaker, 256, from _Bibl. St. Quentin MS._ 75
(fourteenth century); cf. Julleville, _Les Myst._ i. 64. The _Quem
quaeritis_ includes the _Hortulanus_ scene and has, like the Prague
versions, the _Mercator_. It was probably written later than 1286, as the
_Ordinarius_ of that year (Coussemaker, 337) directs a shorter version in
Latin.
[295] Text in Froning, 49, from _Trier MS._ 75 (begins ‘incipit ludus de
nocte paschae, de tribus Mariis et Maria Magdalena’ ... ends ‘explicit
ludus’); cf. Creizenach, i. 112; Davidson, 149; Wirth, 120, 235.
[296] Cf. _Academy_ for Jan. 4 and 11, 1890, where Prof. Skeat prints the
text from _Shrewsbury MS. Mus._ iii. 42 f. 48 (a book of anthems). Manly,
i. xxviii, also gives it with some valuable notes of his own.
[297] Creizenach, i. 109.
[298] Ibid. i. 99, 202; Pearson, ii. 271, 302, 394; Wirth, 168, 201, 215;
D’Ancona, i. 62.
[299] Cf. vol. i. p. 83.
[300] Cf. vol. i. pp. 185, 207, 213.
[301] Cf. p. 56.
[302] Cf. p. 4.
[303] Cf. vol. i. pp. 258, 268, 327.
[304] Julleville, _Les Myst._ ii. 412; _Les Com._ 149, 237 (Chaumont),
239 (Chauny).
[305] Creizenach, i. 356; cf. p. 146.
[306] D’Ancona, i. 87 sqq.; F. Torraca, _Discussioni e ricerche_ (1888),
92; Creizenach, i. 299 sqq.; J. A. Symonds, _Renaissance in Italy_,
iv. 242 sqq.; G. Smith, 297; Wechssler, 30; Gaspary, i. 138, 357; I.
S. A. Herford, _The Confraternities of Penance, their Dramas and their
Lamentations_ in _E. H. Review_, vi. (1891), 646. A first instalment of
dramatic Lauds was published by Monaci, _Appunti per la storia del teatro
italiano in Rivista di Filologia Romana_, i. 235, ii. 29. For other
collections cf. D’Ancona, i. 153; Gaspary, i. 361. D’Ancona has published
_Sacre Rappresentazioni_ (1872). A selection of Lauds, Devozioni, and
Rappresentazioni is in F. Torraca, _Il teatro italiano dei Secoli xiii,
xiv, e xv_ (1885).
[307] D’Ancona, i. 94.
[308] Galvano Fiamma, _de rebus gestis a Vicecomitibus_ (D’Ancona, i.
97; Muratori, _Rer. Ital. Script._ xii. 1017). The ceremony was ‘in die
Epifanie in conventu fratrum Praedicatorum.... Fuerunt coronati tres
Reges in equis magnis, vallati domicellis, vestiti variis, cum somariis
multis et familia magna nimis. Et fuit stella aurea discurrens per aera,
quae praecedebat istos tres Reges, et pervenerunt ad columnas Sancti
Laurentii, ubi erat rex Herodes effigiatus, cum scribis et sapientibus.
Et visi sunt interrogare regem Herodem, ubi Christus nasceretur, et
revolutis multis libris responderunt, quod deberet nasci in civitate
Bethleem in distantia quinque milliariorum a Hierusalem. Quo audito, isti
tres Reges coronati aureis coronis, tenentes in manibus scyphos aureos
cum auro, thure et myrrha, praecedente stella per aera, cum somariis
et mirabili famulatu, clangentibus tubis, et bucinis praecedentibus,
simiis, babuynis, et diversis generibus animalium, cum mirabili populorum
tumultu, pervenerunt ad ecclesiam Sancti Eustorgii. Ubi in latere altaris
maioris erat praesepium cum bove et asino, et in praesepio erat Christus
parvulus in brachiis Virginis matris. Et isti Reges obtulerunt Christo
munera; deinde visi sunt dormire, et Angelus alatus ei dixit quod non
redirent per contratam Sancti Laurentii, sed per portam Romanam: quod et
factum fuit. Et fuit tantus concursus populi et militum et dominarum et
clericorum, quod nunquam similis fere visus fuit. Et fuit ordinatum, quod
omni anno istud festum fieret.’ This is precisely the liturgic _Stella_
translated into an out-of-door _spectacle_, which in its turn becomes the
model for many a Quattrocento painting; cf., e.g., Botticelli’s _Magi_ in
the Uffizi, or Gentile da Fabriano’s, with the baboons done to the life,
in the Accademia.
[309] D’Ancona, i. 94, 301, considers, however, that the late
fifteenth-century _Passio_ of Revello was not a native growth, but
modelled on contemporary cyclic plays from France.
[310] The Rouen play of 1474 (Julleville, _Les Myst._ ii. 36) was one,
and cf. pp. 119, 122.
[311] Creizenach, i. 242; cf. the lists in Julleville, _Les Myst._ ii.
183.
[312] Julleville, _Les Myst._ ii. 9 sqq.
[313] D’Ancona, i. 218; Guasti, _Le feste di San Giovanni Baptista in
Firenze_ (1884). _Rappresentazioni_ on St. John’s day were known to
the late fourteenth-century Florentine historian Goro di Stagio Dati.
An account of the feast in 1407 makes no mention of them, but they
appear in that of 1439, and are elaborately described in the _Storia_
of Matteo di Marco Palmieri about 1454 (D’Ancona, i. 228). Early in
the morning of June 22 started a procession of clergy, _compagnie_,
_edifizii_, and _cavalleria_. These stopped in the Piazza della
Signoria, and _rappresentazioni_, forming a complete cycle from the
Fall of Lucifer to the Last Judgement, and lasting sixteen hours, were
given upon the _edifizii_. D’Ancona suggests that the dumb show type of
_rappresentazioni_ preceded the dialogued one, ‘come più semplice.’ But
this seems equally inconsistent with his view that the _rappresentazioni_
grew out of _devozioni_, and mine that they were an adaptation of earlier
cyclical plays to the conditions of the Florentine feast.
[314] Cf. ch. xxi.
[315] D’Ancona, i. 243; Schack, ii. 103; Ticknor, _Hist. of Spanish Lit._
ii. 249. The _Autos Sacramentales_ are so named from their connexion with
this day.
[316] Creizenach, i. 170, 227. The earliest German mention is at the
council of Prague in 1366 (Höfler, _Concilia Pragensia_, 13, in _Abhandl.
d. königl. böhmischen Gesellsch. der Wiss._ series v. vol. 12) ‘omnibus
... clericis et laicis ... mandatur ut ludos theatrales vel etiam
fistulatores vel ioculatores in festo corporis Christi in processionibus
ire quovis modo permittant et admittant.’ Extant _Frohnleichnamsspiele_
are those of Innsbruck, †1391 (Text in Mone, _Altteutsche Schauspiele_,
145), and of Künzelsau, †1479 (ed. H. Werner, in _Germania_, iv. 338).
Cf. the description (†1553) of Naogeorgos (transl. Googe) in Stubbes, i.
337.
[317] Julleville, ii. 208.
[318] Ward, i. 44; Davidson, 215; Malleson-Tuker, ii. 227.
[319] See e.g. the ‘Processio huius ludi’ at the end of the text of the
Alsfeld Passion of 1501 (Froning, 858); cf. Pearson, ii. 365. As to the
general relations of processions and plays, cf. p. 160.
[320] Cf. p. 136.
[321] The closest merging of play and procession is suggested by an
order at Draguignan in 1558 (Julleville, _Les Myst._ ii. 209), where it
was ordered ‘Le dit jeu jora avec la procession comme auparadvant et le
plus d’istoeres et plus brieves que puront estre seront et se dira tout
en cheminant sans ce que personne du jeu s’areste pour eviter prolixité
et confusion tant de ladite, prosession que jeu, et que les estrangiers
le voient aisement.’ Perhaps the short speeches of the Innsbruck play
were similarly delivered while the procession was moving. The nearest
continental approach to the English type is the Künzelsau play, which
was divided into three parts and played at three different stations
(Creizenach, i. 227).
[322] Creizenach, i. 218.
[323] Creizenach, i. 128, 137 sqq., 156; Julleville, _Les Myst._ i. 95,
107, 115, 185; ii. 2, 4, 5, 221, 226, 345; _Les Com._ 49; Sepet, 202,
242; Clédat, 63, 73, 105.
[324] Creizenach, i. 130, 165, 176; Julleville, _Les Myst._ i. 347; _Les
Com._ 291; D’Ancona, i. 57; Pearson, ii. 303; Wirth, 144. A play could
be given outside the church without wholly losing its connexion with the
liturgy. It became a sort of procession: cf. pp. 32, 67. D’Ancona, i. 59,
quotes from _Bibl. de l’École des Chartes_, iii. 450, a licence given by
the Bishop of Langres in 1408 ‘Ut in quadem platea vel plateis congruis
et honestis, infra vel extra villam, prope et supra rippariam loci, coram
clero et populo, alta et intelligibili voce, lingua latina et materna,
cum magna reverentia et honore ac diversis personacium et habituum
generibus ad hoc congruis et necessariis, solemniter et publice vitam et
miracula egregii confessoris et pontificis Machuti, recitare et exponere,
missamque solemnem in pontificalibus, in platea seu plateis supradictis
super altare portatili consecrato per alterum vestrum canonicorum
vel alium ydoneum sacerdotem celebrare ... licentiam et auctoritatem
impertimus per praesentes.’ Cf. the examples of plays at the Feasts of
Fools and of the Boy Bishop (vol. i. pp. 295, 296, 299, 304, 306, 309,
313, 342, 348, 349, 380).
[325] Cf. p. 16.
[326] Cf. vol. i. p. 318. Pearson, ii. 285, translates: ‘The old Fathers
of the Church, in order to strengthen the belief of the faithful and
to attract the unbeliever by this manner of religious service, rightly
instituted at the Feast of Epiphany or the Octave religious performances
of such a kind as the star guiding the Magi to the new-born Christ, the
cruelty of Herod, the dispatch of the soldiers, the lying-in of the
Blessed Virgin, the angel warning the Magi not to return to Herod, and
other events of the birth of Christ. But what nowadays happens in many
churches? Not a customary ritual, not an act of reverence, but one of
irreligion and extravagance conducted with all the license of youth. The
priests having changed their clothes go forth as a troop of warriors;
there is no distinction between priest and warrior to be marked. At an
unfitting gathering of priests and laymen the church is desecrated by
feasting and drinking, buffoonery, unbecoming jokes, play, the clang of
weapons, the presence of shameless wenches, the vanities of the world,
and all sorts of disorder. Rarely does such a gathering break up without
quarrelling.’
[327] On Gerhoh (1093-1169) see the article in the 2nd ed. of Wetzer and
Welte’s _Kirchenlexicon_. He took a strong reforming and anti-imperial
line in the controversies of his day.
[328] Gerhohus, _Comm. in Ps. cxxxii_ (_P. L._ cxciv. 890) ‘Cohaerebat
ipsi Ecclesiae claustrum satis honestum, sed a claustrali religione
omnino vacuum, cum neque in dormitorio fratres dormirent, neque in
refectorio comederent, exceptis rarissimis festis, maxime in quibus
Herodem repraesentarent Christi persecutorem, parvulorum interfectorem,
seu ludis aliis aut spectaculis quasi theatralibus exhibendis
comportaretur symbolum ad faciendum convivium in refectorio aliis pene
omnibus temporibus vacuo.’
[329] Gerhohus, _de Inv. Ant._ lib. i. c. 5, _de spectaculis theatricis
in ecclesia Dei exhibitis_ (_Gerhohi Opera Inedita_, ed. Scheibelberger,
i. 25) ‘Et sacerdotes, qui dicuntur, iam non ecclesiae vel altaris
ministerio dediti sunt, sed exercitiis avaritiae, vanitatum et
spectaculorum, adeo ut ecclesias ipsas, videlicet orationum domus,
in theatra commutent ac mimicis ludorum spectaculis impleant. Inter
quae nimirum spectacula adstantibus ac spectantibus ipsorum feminis
interdum et antichristi, de quo nobis sermo est, non ut ipsi aestimant
imaginariam similitudinem exhibent sed in veritate, ut credi potest
iniquitatis ipsius mysterium pro parte sua implent. Quidni enim diabolus
abutatur in serium rebus sibi exhibitis in vanitatis ludicrum, sicut
Dominus quoque Iesus convertens in seria ludibria, quibus apud Iudaeos
vel Pilatum in passione sua affectus est?... Quid ergo mirum si et isti
nunc antichristum vel Herodem in suis ludis simulantes eosdem non, ut
eis intentioni est, ludicro mentiuntur sed in veritate exhibent, utpote
quorum vita ab antichristi laxa conversatione non longe abest?...
Contigit, ut comperimus, aliquando apud tales, ut eum quem inter ludicra
sua quasi mortuum ab Elisaeo propheta suscitantem exhiberent peracta
simulatione mortuum invenirent. Alius item antichristo suo quasi
suscitandus oblatus intra septem dies vere mortuus, ut comperimus, et
sepultus est. Et quis scire potest an et cetera simulata antichristi
scilicet effigiem, daemonum larvas, herodianam insaniem in veritate non
exhibeant?... Exhibent praeterea imaginaliter et salvatoris infantiae
cunabula, parvuli vagitum, puerperae virginis matronalem habitum, stellae
quasi sidus flammigerum, infantum necem, maternum Rachelis ploratum.
Sed divinitas insuper et matura facies ecclesiae abhorret spectacula
theatralia, non respicit in vanitates et insanias falsas, immo non falsas
sed iam veras insanias, in quibus viri totos se frangunt in feminas quasi
pudeat eos, quod viri sunt, clerici in milites, homines se in daemonum
larvas transfigurant....’
[330] Prynne, _Histriomastix_, 556, refers to ‘the visible apparition
of the Devill on the Stage at the Belsavage Play-house, in Queene
Elizabeth’s dayes (to the great amazement both of the Actors and
Spectators) whiles they were there prophanely playing the History of
Faustus (the truth of which I have heard from many now alive, who well
remember it), there being some distracted with that fearefull sight.’
[331] Pollard, xxiv. I do not know how Ward, i. 43, gets at the very
different theory that in 1210 (_sic_ for 1207) Innocent III ordered plays
‘to be represented outside the church as well as inside.’ Mr. Pollard, by
the way, assigns the prohibition to ‘Pope Gregory,’ a further mistake,
due, I suppose, to the fact that it was subsequently included in the
Gregorian _Decretals_.
[332] Cf. vol. i. p. 279.
[333] Quoted by Creizenach, i. 101, ‘Non tamen hic prohibetur
repraesentare praesepe Domini, Herodem, magos et qualiter Rachel ploravit
filios suos, etc., quae tangunt festivitates illas, de quibus hic fit
mentio, cum talia ad devotionem potius inducant homines quam ad lasciviam
vel voluptatem, sicut in pascha sepulcrum Domini et alia repraesentantur
ad devotionem excitandam’: cf. vol i. p. 342. J. Aquila, _Opusculum
Enchiridion appellatum ferme de omni ludorum genere_, f. 14 (Oppenheim,
1516), after referring to the canon, says, ‘Demonstrationes quae fiunt
ad honorem dei puta passionis Christi aut vitae alicuius sancti non
prohibentur in sacris locis ac temporibus fieri.’ Both canon and gloss
are cited in _Dives and Pauper_, a book of fifteenth-century English
morality (F. A. Gasquet, _Eve of Reformation_, 317): cf. also D’Ancona,
i. 54.
[334] Cf. vol. i. p. 91. An anchoress of Tarrant Keynston (_Ancren
Riwle_, †1150, C. S. 318) was bound to confess if she ‘eode oðe pleouwe
ine chircheie: biheold hit ⁊ oðe wrastlinge ⁊ oðer fol gomenes’: but
‘pleouwe,’ like _ludus_ (vol. i. p. 393), may have a very general meaning.
[335] Manning, 146:—
Un autre folie apert
Vnt les fols clercs cuntroue,
Qe ‘miracles’ sunt apele;
Lur faces vnt la deguise
Par visers, li forsene,—
Qe est defendu en decree;
Tant est plus grand lur peche.
Fere poent representement,—
Mes que ceo seit chastement
En office de seint eglise
Quant hom fet la deu servise,—
Cum iesu crist le fiz dee
En sepulcre esteit pose,
Et la resurrectiun,
Pur plus auer deuociun.
Mes, fere foles assemblez
En les rues des citez,
Ou en cymiters apres mangers,
Quant venent les fols volunters,—
Tut dient qe il le funt pur bien,—
Crere ne les deuez pur rien
Qe fet seit pur le honur de dee,
Einz del deable, pur verite,
Seint ysidre me ad testimone
Qe fut si bon clerc lettre;
Il dist qe cil qe funt sepectacles
Cume lem fet en miracles,
Or ius qe nus nomames einz—
Burdiz ou turneinens,—
Lur baptesme vnt refusez,
E deu de ciel reneiez,’ &c.
Robert Mannyng of Brunne (1303) translates:—
‘Hyt ys forbode hym, yn the decre,
Myracles for to make or se;
For myracles, ȝyf þou begynne,
Hyt ys a gaderyng, a syghte of synne,
He may yn þe cherche þurghe þys resun
Pley þe resurrecyun,
Þat ys to seye, how Gode ros,
God and man yn myȝt and los,
To make men be yn beleue gode
That he has ros wyþ flesshe and blode:
And he may pleye wyþoutyn plyghte
Howe god was bore yn ȝole nyght,
To make men to beleue stedfastly
Þat he lyghte yn þe vyrgyne Mary.
Ȝuf þou do hyt in weyys or greuys,
A syghte of synne truly hyt semys.
Seynt Ysodre, y take to wytnes,
For he hyt seyþ þat soþ hyt es;
Þus hyt seyþ yn hys boke,
Þey foresake þat þey toke—
God and here crystendom—
Þat make swyche pleyys to any man
As myracles and bourdys,
Or toumamentys of grete prys,’ &c.
The reference to ‘Seynt Ysodre’ is to Isidore of Seville, _Etymologiarum_
xviii. 59, _de horum [ludorum] exsecratione_ (_P. L._ lxxxii. 660). The
saint is speaking of course of the Roman _spectacula_.
[336] On the ‘pardon’ or ‘Ablass’ given to actors at Oberammergau, and
the meaning, or want of meaning, to be attached to it, see an amusing
controversy in the _Nineteenth Century_ for January and February, 1901.
[337] L’Enfant, _Hist. du Concile de Constance_ (1727), ii. 404; Hardt,
_Magnum Oecumenicum Constantiense Concilium_ (1700), iv. 1089; K.
Schmidt, _Die Digby-Spiele_, 12. The performance, which was possibly a
dumb show, took place at a banquet on Jan. 24, 1417/8, and was repeated
on the following Sunday before the emperor, who had arrived in the
interval. Hardt quotes the German of one Dacher, an eye-witness: ‘Am
24ᵗᵉⁿ tag des Monats Januarii, das war auff Timotheus tag, da luden die
Bischöff aus Engeland, der Bischoff Salisburgensis, der Bischoff von
Londen, und demnach funff Bischoff von Engeland, alle Räht zu Costniz
und sonst viel ehrbar Bürger daselbst, in Burchart Walters Haus, das man
vorzeiten nennt zu dem Burgthor, itzt zu dem gulden Schvvert, allernächst
bey S. Laurenz. Und gab ihnen fast ein köstlich mahl, ie 2. Gericht nach
einander, jedes Gericht besonder mit 8 Essen: Die trug man allvveg eins
mahl dar, deren allvveg waren 4 verguld oder versilbert. In dem mahl,
zvvischen dem Essen, so machten sie solch bild und geberd, als unser
Frau ihr Kind unsern Herrn und auch Gott gebahr, mit fast köstlichen
Tüchern und Gevvand. Und Joseph stellten sie zu ihr. Und die heiligen
3 Könige, als die unser Frauen die Opffer brachten. Und hatten gemacht
einen lauteren guldnen Stern, der ging vor ihnen, an einem kleinen eisern
Drat. Und machten König Herodem, vvie er den drey Königen nachsandt, und
vvie er die Kindlein ertodtet. Das machten sie alles mit gar köstlichem
Gevvand, und mit grossen guldenen und silbernen Gürteln, und machten das
mit grosser Gezierd, und mit grosser Demuht.’
[338] The provincial _C. of Sens_ (1460), c. 3 (Labbé, xiii. 1728),
while confirming the Basle decree, allowed ‘aliquid iuxta consuetudines
ecclesiae, in Nativitate Domini, vel Resurrectione ... fiat cum honestate
et pace, absque prolongatione, impedimento, vel diminutione servitii,
larvatione et sordidatione faciei’; cf. the Toledo decree of 1473 quoted
vol. i. p. 342. The _C. of Compostella_ (1565), c.c. 9-11 (Aguirra _Conc.
Hispan._ v. 450, 460), forbade ‘actus sive repraesentationes’ during
service in church; they might take place with leave of the bishop,
or in his absence the chapter, before or after service. Devotional
‘actus’ were allowed in Passion week on similar conditions. The
Corpus Christi procession ‘semel tantum subsistat, causa horum actuum
vel representationum in eo loco extra ecclesiam quem Praelatus aut
[capitulum] idoneum iudicabit.’ On the other hand the _C. of Seville_
(1512), c. 21 (Aguirra, v. 370), had forbidden priests or monks to
perform or give a ‘locus’ for such ‘actus’: ‘Sumus informati, quod in
quibusdam Ecclesiis nostri Archiepiscopatus et Provinciae permittitur
fieri nonnullas repraesentationes Passionis Domini nostri Iesu Christi,
et alios actus, et memoriam Resurrectionis, Nativitatis Salvatoris
nostri, vel alias repraesentationes. Et quia ex talibus actibus orta
sunt, et oriuntur plura absurda, et saepe saepius scandala in cordibus
illorum qui non sunt bene confirmati in nostra sancta fide Catholica,
videntes confusiones, et excessus, qui in hoc committuntur....’ Cf. also
the Langres licence of 1408 (p. 97).
[339] Text in _Reliquiae Antiquae_, ii. 42; Hazlitt, 73; from late
fourteenth-century volume of homilies formerly in library of St.
Martin’s-in-the-Fields. There is also in _Rel. Ant._ i. 322 a satirical
English poem from _Cott. MS. Cleop._ B. ii (fifteenth century), against
the miracle plays of the ‘frer mynours,’ apparently at Rome. But the
Minorite in _Pierce the Ploughman’s Crede_ (†1394, ed. Skeat), 107, says
of his order, ‘At marketts & myracles we medleþ vs nevere.’
[340] Creizenach, i. 157, 162: Julleville, _Les Myst._ i. 107, 187; G.
Smith, 251; Pollard, xix; Ward, i. 41.
[341] Cf. ch. xxv.
[342] Cf. p. 54 (Rouen, _Prophetae_, fourteenth century).
[343] Cf. pp. 37, 41, 45; Lange, 130, 155; ‘officium sepulchri,’
‘officium peregrinorum,’ ‘officium pastorum,’ ‘officium regum trium,’
‘stellae officium’ (Rouen, eleventh century-fifteenth century);
‘resurrectionis domini aguntur officia’ (Prague, fourteenth century).
At Melk in 1517, ‘acturus officium angeli’ (Lange, 110), ‘officium’ has
rather the sense of ‘part.’
[344] Cf. pp. 37, 48, 49, 53, 71, 77; Lange, 48, 93, 95, 146; ‘Ordo
visitationis sepulchri’ (Strassburg, 1513), ‘Ordo visitandi sepulchrum’
(Bamberg, 1597), ‘Ordo ad visitandum sepulchrum’ (Prague, twelfth
century, Haarlem, thirteenth century), ‘Ordo sepulchri’ (Würzburg,
thirteenth century), ‘Ordo ad suscipiendum peregrinum’ (Beauvais),
‘Ordo stellae’ (Laon, thirteenth century), ‘Ordo [stellae]’ (Bilsen,
eleventh century), ‘Ordo Rachaelis’ (Freising, eleventh century),
‘Ordo Prophetarum’ (Laon, thirteenth century), ‘Ordo creacionis, etc.’
(Regensburg, 1194), ‘Ordo, sive registrum de Passione domini’ (Frankfort,
fourteenth century).
[345] See last note.
[346] Cf. p. 58.
[347] Cf. pp. 36, 37, 47; Lange, 160 ‘ad faciendam similitudinem domini
sepulchri,’ ‘ad faciendam similitudinem domini apparitionis’ (Fleury,
thirteenth century), ‘versus ad stellam faciendam’ (Nevers, †1060),
‘fiunt peregrini’ (Saintes, thirteenth century).
[348] Cf. p. 103, n. 5 above.
[349] Cf. pp. 58, 60; Lange, 157; ‘ad repraesentandum quomodo
sanctus Nicolaus’ (Fleury, thirteenth century), ‘historia de Daniel
repraesentanda’ (Hilarius, twelfth century), ‘si Mariae debeant
repraesentari’ (Coutances, fifteenth century).
[350] Cf. pp. 37, 39.
[351] Cf. pp. 45, 107; Lange, 136; ‘in resurrectione domini
repraesentatio’ (Cividale, fourteenth century), ‘repraesentatio trium
Regum’ (Rouen, 1507, 1521), ‘repraesentacio pastorum ... resurreccionis
... peregrinorum’ (Lichfield, †1190).
[352] Cf. vol. i. p. 393.