CHAPTER XIX

LITURGICAL PLAYS (_continued_)

The ‘Twelve days’ of the Christmas season are no less important than Easter itself in the evolution of the liturgical drama. I have mentioned in the last chapter a Christmas trope which is evidently based upon the older Easter dialogue. Instead of _Quem quaeritis in sepulchro, o Christicolae?_ it begins _Quem quaeritis in praesepe, pastores, dicite?_ It occurs in eleventh- and twelfth-century tropers from St. Gall, Limoges, St. Magloire, and Nevers. Originally it was an _Introit_ trope for the third or ‘great’ Mass. In a fifteenth-century breviary from Clermont-Ferrand it has been transferred to Matins, where it follows the _Te Deum_; and this is precisely the place in the Christmas services occupied, at Rouen, by a liturgical drama known as the _Officium Pastorum_, which appears to have grown out of the _Quem quaeritis in praesepe?_ by a process analogous to that by which the Easter drama grew out of the _Quem quaeritis in sepulchro[156]?_ A _praesepe_ or ‘crib,’ covered by a curtain, was made ready behind the altar, and in it was placed an image of the Virgin. After the _Te Deum_ five canons or vicars, representing the shepherds, approached the great west door of the choir. A boy _in similitudinem angeli_ perched _in excelso_ sang them the ‘good tidings,’ and a number of others _in voltis ecclesiae_ took up the _Gloria in excelsis_. The shepherds, singing a hymn, advanced to the _praesepe_. Here they were met with the _Quem quaeritis_ by two priests _quasi obstetrices_[157]. The dialogue of the trope, expanded by another hymn during which the shepherds adore, follows, and so the drama ends. But the shepherds ‘rule the choir’ throughout the _Missa in Gallicantu_ immediately afterwards, and at Lauds, the anthem for which much resembles the _Quem quaeritis_ itself[158]. The _misterium pastorum_ was still performed at Rouen in the middle of the fifteenth century, and at this date the shepherds, _cessantibus stultitiis et insolenciis_, so far as this could be ensured by the chapter, took the whole ‘service’ of the day, just as did the deacons, priests, and choir-boys during the _triduum_[159].

If the central point of the _Quem quaeritis_ is the _sepulchrum_, that of the _Pastores_ is the _praesepe_. In either case the drama, properly so called, is an addition, and by no means an invariable one, to the symbolical ceremony. The _Pastores_ may, in fact, be described, although the term does not occur in the documents, as a _Visitatio praesepis_. The history of the _praesepe_ can be more definitely stated than that of the _sepulchrum_. It is by no means extinct. The Christmas ‘crib’ or _crèche_, a more or less realistic representation of the Nativity, with a Christ-child in the manger, a Joseph and Mary, and very often an ox and an ass, is a common feature in all Catholic countries at Christmas time[160]. At Rome, in particular, the _esposizione del santo bambino_ takes place with great ceremony[161]. A tradition ascribes the first _presepio_ known in Italy to St. Francis, who is said to have invented it at Greccio in 1223[162]. But this is a mistake. The custom is many centuries older than St. Francis. Its Roman home is the church of S. Maria Maggiore or _Ad Praesepe_, otherwise called the ‘_basilica_ of Liberius.’ Here there was in the eighth century a permanent _praesepe_[163], probably built in imitation of one which had long existed at Bethlehem, and to which an allusion is traced in the writings of Origen[164]. The _praesepe_ of S. Maria Maggiore was in the right aisle. When the Sistine chapel was built in 1585-90 it was moved to the crypt, where it may now be seen. This church became an important station for the Papal services at Christmas. The Pope celebrated Mass here on the vigil, and remained until he had also celebrated the first Mass on Christmas morning. The bread was broken on the manger itself, which served as an altar. At S. Maria Maggiore, moreover, is an important relic, in some boards from the _culla_ or cradle of Christ, which are exposed on the _presepio_ during Christmas[165]. The _presepio_ of S. Maria Maggiore became demonstrably the model for other similar chapels in Rome[166], and doubtless for the more temporary structures throughout Italy and western Europe in general.

In the present state of our knowledge it is a little difficult to be precise as to the range or date of the _Pastores_. The only full mediaeval Latin text, other than that of Rouen, which has come to light, is also of Norman origin, and is still unprinted[167]. In the eighteenth century the play survived at Lisieux and Clermont[168]. The earliest Rouen manuscript is of the thirteenth century, and the absence of any reference to the _Officium Pastorum_ by John of Avranches, who writes primarily of Rouen, and who does mention the _Officium Stellae_, makes it probable that it was not there known about 1070[169]. Its existence, however, in England in the twelfth century is shown by the Lichfield _Statutes_ of 1188-98, and on the whole it is not likely to have taken shape later than the eleventh. Very likely it never, as a self-contained play, acquired the vogue of the _Quem quaeritis_. As will be seen presently, it was overshadowed and absorbed by rivals. I find no trace of it in Germany, where the _praesepe_ became a centre, less for liturgical drama, than for carols, dances, and ‘crib-rocking[170].’

Still rarer than the _Pastores_ is the drama, presumably belonging to Innocents’ day, of _Rachel_. It is found in a primitive form, hardly more than a trope, in a Limoges manuscript of the eleventh century. Here it is called _Lamentatio Rachel_, and consists of a short _planctus_ by Rachel herself, and a short reply by a consoling angel. There is nothing to show what place it occupied in the services[171].

The fact is that both the _Pastores_ and the _Rachel_ were in many churches taken up into a third drama belonging to the Epiphany. This is variously known as the _Tres Reges_, the _Magi_, _Herodes_, and the _Stella_. It exists in a fair number of different but related forms. Like the _Quem quaeritis_ and the _Pastores_, it had a material starting-point, in the shape of a star, lit with candles, which hung from the roof of the church, and could sometimes be moved, by a simple mechanical device, from place to place[172]. As with the _Quem quaeritis_, the development of the _Stella_ must be studied without much reference to the relative age of the manuscripts in which it happens to be found. But it was probably complete by the end of the eleventh century, since manuscripts of that date contain the play in its latest forms[173].

The simplest version is from Limoges[174]. The three kings enter by the great door of the choir singing a _prosula_. They show their gifts, the royal gold, the divine incense, the myrrh for funeral. Then they see the star, and follow it to the high altar. Here they offer their gifts, each contained in a gilt cup, or some other _iocale pretiosum_, after which a boy, representing an angel, announces to them the birth of Christ, and they retire singing to the sacristy. The text of this version stands by itself: nearly all the others are derived from a common tradition, which is seen in its simplest form at Rouen[175]. In the Rouen _Officium Stellae_, the three kings, coming respectively from the east, north, and south of the church, meet before the altar. One of them points to the star with his stick, and they sing:

‘1. Stella fulgore nimio rutilat, 2. Quae regem regum natum demonstrat 3. Quem venturum olim prophetiae signaverant.’

They kiss each other and sing an anthem, which occurs also in the Limoges version: _Eamus ergo et inquiramus eum, offerentes ei munera; aurum thus et myrrham._ A procession is now formed, and as it moves towards the nave, the choir chant narrative passages, describing the visit of the _Magi_ to Jerusalem and their reception by Herod. Meanwhile a star is lit over the altar of the cross where an image of the Virgin has been placed. The _Magi_ approach it, singing the passage which begins _Ecce stella in Oriente_. They are met by two in dalmatics, who appear to be identical with the _obstetrices_ of the Rouen _Pastores_. A dialogue follows:

‘Qui sunt hi qui, stella duce, nos adeuntes inaudita ferunt.

_Magi respondeant_:

nos sumus, quos cernitis, reges Tharsis et Arabum et Saba, dona ferentes Christo, regi nato, Domino, quem, stella deducente, adorare venimus.

_Tunc duo Dalmaticati aperientes cortinam dicant_:

ecce puer adest quem queritis, Iam properate adorate, quia ipse est redemptio mundi.

_Tunc procidentes Reges ad terram, simul salutent puerum, ita dicentes_:

salve, princeps saeculorum.

_Tunc unus a suo famulo aurum accipiat et dicat_:

suscipe, rex, aurum.

_Et offerat._

_Secundus ita dicat et offerat_:

tolle thus, tu, vere Deus.

_Tercius ita dicat et offerat_:

mirram, signum sepulturae.’

Then the congregation make their oblations. Meanwhile the _Magi_ pray and fall asleep. In their sleep an angel warns them to return home another way. The procession returns up a side aisle to the choir; and the Mass, in which the _Magi_, like the shepherds on Christmas day, ‘rule the choir,’ follows.

In spite of the difference of text the incidents of the Rouen and Limoges versions, except for the angelic warning introduced at Rouen, are the same. There was a dramatic advance when the visit to Jerusalem, instead of being merely narrated by the choir, was inserted into the action. In the play performed at Nevers[176], Herod himself, destined in the fullness of time to become the protagonist of the Corpus Christi stage, makes his first appearance. There are two versions of the Nevers play. In the earlier the new scene is confined to a colloquy between Herod and the _Magi_:

‘[_Magi._] Vidimus stellam eius in Oriente, et agnovimus regem regum esse natum.

[_Herodes._] regem quem queritis natum stella quo signo didicistis? Si illum regnare creditis, dicite nobis.

[_Magi._] illum natum esse didicimus in Oriente stella monstrante.

[_Herodes._] ite et de puero diligenter investigate, et inventum redeuntes mihi renuntiate.’

The later version adds two further episodes. In one a _nuntius_ announces the coming of the _Magi_, and is sent to fetch them before Herod: in the other Herod sends his courtiers for the scribes, who find a prophecy of the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem. Obviously the Herod scene gives point to the words at the end of the Rouen play, in which the angel bids the _Magi_ to return home by a different way.

At Compiègne the action closes with yet another scene, in which Herod learns that the _Magi_ have escaped him[177].

‘_Nuncius._ Delusus es domine, magi viam redierunt aliam.

[_Herodes._ incendium meum ruina extinguam[178].]

_Armiger._ decerne, domine, vindicari iram tuam, et stricto mucrone quaerere iube puerum, forte inter occisos occidetur et ipse.

_Herodes._ indolis eximiae pueros fac ense perire.

_Angelus._ sinite parvulos venire ad me, talium est enim regnum caelorum.’

In a Norman version which has the same incidents as the Compiègne play, but in parts a different text, the _armiger_ is the son of Herod, and the play ends with Herod taking a sword from a bystander and brandishing it in the air[179]. Already he is beginning to tear a passion to tatters in the manner that became traditionally connected with his name. Another peculiarity of this Norman version is that the _Magi_ address Herod in an outlandish jargon, which seems to contain fragments of Hebrew and Arabic speech.

The play of the _Stella_ must now, perhaps, be considered, except so far as mere amplifications of the text are concerned, strictly complete. But another step was irresistibly suggested by the course it had taken. The massacre of the Innocents, although it lay outside the range of action in which the _Magi_ themselves figured, could be not merely threatened but actually represented. This was done at Laon[180]. The cruel suggestion of Archelaus is carried out. The Innocents come in singing and bearing a lamb. They are slain, and the play ends with a dialogue, like that of the distinct Limoges _planctus_, between the lamenting Rachel and an angelic _consolatrix_.

The absorption of the motives proper to other feasts of the Twelve nights into the Epiphany play has clearly begun. A fresh series of examples shows a similar treatment of the _Pastores_. At Strassburg the _Magi_, as they leave Herod, meet the shepherds returning from Bethlehem:

‘Pastores, dicite, quidnam vidistis? infantem vidimus.’

This, however, is not taken from the _Pastores_ itself, but from the Christmas Lauds antiphon[181]. Its dramatic use may be compared with that of the _Victimae paschali_ in the _Quem quaeritis_. In versions from Bilsen[182] near Liège and from Mans[183], on the other hand, although the meeting of the _Magi_ and the shepherds is retained, a complete _Pastores_, with the angelic tidings and the adoration at the _praesepe_, forms the first part of the office, before the _Magi_ are introduced at all.

The Strassburg, Bilsen, and Mans plays have not the _Rachel_, although the first two have the scene in which the _nuntius_ informs Herod that the _Magi_ have deceived him. A further stage is reached when, as at Freising and at Fleury, the _Pastores_, _Stella_ and _Rachel_ all coalesce in a single, and by this time considerable, drama. The Freising texts, of which there are two, are rather puzzling[184]. The first closely resembles the plays of the group just described. It begins with a short _Pastores_, comprising the angelic tidings only. Then the scenes between the _Magi_ and Herod are treated at great length. The meeting of the _Magi_ and the shepherds is followed by the oblation, the angelic warning, and the return of the messenger to Herod. In the second Freising text, which is almost wholly metrical, the _Pastores_ is complete. It is followed by a quite new scene, the dream of Joseph and his flight into Egypt. Then come successively the scene of fury at court, the massacre, the _planctus_ and consolation of Rachel. Clearly this second text, as it stands, is incomplete. The _Magi_ are omitted, and the whole of the latter part of the play is consequently rendered meaningless. But it is the _Magi_ who are alone treated fully in the first Freising text. I suggest, therefore, that the second text is intended to supplement and not to replace the first. It really comprises two fragments: one a revision of the _Pastores_, the other a revision of the closing scene and an expansion of it by a _Rachel_.

As to the Fleury version there can be no doubt whatever[185]. The matter is, indeed, arranged in two plays, a _Herodes_ and an _Interfectio Puerorum_, each ending with a _Te Deum_; and the performance may possibly have extended over two days. But the style is the same throughout and the episodes form one continuous action. It is impossible to regard the _Interfectio Puerorum_ as a separate piece from the _Herodes_, acted a week earlier on the feast of the Innocents; for into it, after the first entry of the children with their lamb, _gaudentes per monasterium_, come the flight into Egypt, the return of the _nuntius_, and the wrath of Herod, which, of course, presuppose the _Magi_ scenes. Another new incident is added at the end of the Fleury play. Herod is deposed and Archelaus set up; the Holy Family return from Egypt, and settle in the parts of Galilee[186].

I have attempted to arrange the dozen or so complete Epiphany plays known to scholars in at least the logical order of their development. There are also three fragments, which fit readily enough into the system. Two, from a Paris manuscript and from Einsiedeln, may be classed respectively with the Compiègne and Strassburg texts[187]. The third, from Vienne, is an independent version, in leonine hexameters, of the scene in which the _Magi_ first sight the star, a theme common to all the plays except that of Limoges[188]. I do not feel certain that this fragment is from a liturgical drama at all.

The textual development of the _Stella_ is closely parallel to that of the _Quem quaeritis_. The more primitive versions consist of antiphons and prose sentences based upon or in the manner of the Scriptures. The later ones, doubtless under the influence of wandering scholars, become increasingly metrical. The classical tags, from Sallust and Virgil, are an obvious note of the scholarly pen. With the exception of that from Limoges, all the texts appear to be derived by successive accretions and modifications from an archetype fairly represented at Rouen. The Bilsen text and the Vienne fragment have been freely rewritten, and the process of rewriting is well illustrated by the alternative versions found side by side in the later Nevers manuscript. With regard to the place occupied by the _Stella_ in the Epiphany services, such manuscripts as give any indications at all seem to point to a considerable divergence of local use. At Limoges and Nevers, the play was of the nature of a trope to the Mass, inserted in the former case at the _Offertorium_, in the latter at the _Communio_[189]. At Rouen the _Officium_ followed Tierce, and preceded the ordinary procession before Mass. At Fleury the use of the _Te Deum_ suggests that it was at Matins; at Strassburg it followed the _Magnificat_ at Vespers, but on the octave of Epiphany, not Epiphany itself. Perhaps the second part of the Fleury play was also on the octave. At Bilsen the play followed the _Benedicamus_, but with this versicle nearly all the Hours end[190]. I do not, however, hesitate to say that the Limoges use must have been the most primitive one. The kernel of the whole performance is a dramatized _Offertorium_. It was a custom for Christian kings to offer gold and frankincense and myrrh at the altar on Epiphany day[191]; and I take the play to have served as a substitute for this ceremony, where no king actually regnant was present.

There is yet one other liturgical play belonging to the Christmas season, which for the future development of the drama is the most important of all. This is the _Prophetae_[192]. It differs from the _Quem quaeritis_, the _Peregrini_, the _Pastores_, and the _Stella_ by the large number of performers required, and by the epical mode of its composition. Its origin, in fact, is to be sought in a narrative, a _lectio_, not a chant. The source was the pseudo-Augustinian _Sermo contra Iudaeos, Paganos et Arianos de Symbolo_, probably written in the sixth century, but ascribed throughout the Middle Ages to the great African[193]. A portion of this sermon was used in many churches as a lesson for some part or other of the Christmas offices[194]. The passage chosen is in a highly rhetorical vein. _Vos, inquam, convenio, O Iudaei_ cries the preacher, and calls upon the Jews to bear witness out of the mouths of their own prophets to the Christ. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Moses, David, Habakkuk, Simeon, Zacharias and Elisabeth, John the Baptist;—each in turn is bidden to speak, and each testimony is triumphantly quoted. Then: _Ecce, convertimur ad gentes_. Virgil—_poeta facundissimus_—is pressed into the service, for the famous line of his fourth eclogue:

‘iam nova progenies caelo demittitur alto[195],’

Nebuchadnezzar, who saw four walking in the furnace, and finally the Erythraean Sibyl, whose acrostic verses on the ‘Signs of Judgement’ first appear in the writings of Eusebius[196].

The dramatic form of this _lectio_ possibly led to its being chanted instead of read, and distributed between several voices in the manner of the Passions from Palm Sunday to Good Friday[197]. At any rate in the eleventh century there appears in a Limoges manuscript a metrical adaptation in which it has been wholly converted into a dramatic dialogue[198]. This Limoges _Prophetae_ follows the sermon pretty closely in its arrangement. A _Precentor_ begins:

‘Omnes gentes congaudentes, dent cantum laetitiae! deus homo fit, de domo David, natus hodie.’

He addresses a couplet each _Ad Iudaeos_, _Ad Gentes_, and then calls in turn upon each of the prophets, who reply, Virgil pronouncing his line, the Sibyl the _Iudicii Signum_, and the others a couplet or quatrain apiece. They are nearly identical with the personages of the sermon: Israel is added, Zacharias disappears, and the order is slightly different. Finally the _Precentor_ concludes:

‘Iudaea incredula, cur manens adhuc inverecunda?’

Two later versions, belonging respectively to Laon[199] and to Rouen[200], diverge far more from the model. They are at much the same stage of development. In both the play is ushered in with the hymn _Gloriosi et famosi_, the verses of which are sung by the prophets, and the refrain by the choir[201]. The costumes and symbols of the prophets are carefully indicated in the rubrics. The _Precentor_ of Limoges is represented by two singers, called at Laon _Appellatores_, and at Rouen _Vocatores_. The dialogue is amplified beyond that of Limoges. _Sex Iudaei_ and _sex Gentiles_, for instance, take parts: and the _Vocatores_ comment with the choir in an identical form of words on each prophecy. The Laon text is a good deal the shorter. The prophets are practically the same as at Limoges, with one remarkable exception. At the end is introduced Balaam, and to his prophecy is appended a miniature drama, with the angel and the ass: thus—

‘_Hic veniat Angelus cum gladio. Balaam tangit asinam, et illa non praecedente, dicit iratus_:

quid moraris, asina, obstinata bestia? iam scindent calcaria costas et praecordia.

_Puer sub asina respondet_:

angelus cum gladio, quem adstare video, prohibet ne transeam; timeo ne peream.’

The Rouen text adds quite a number of prophets. The full list includes Moses, Amos, Isaiah, Aaron, Jeremiah, Daniel, Habakkuk, Balaam, Samuel, David, Hosea, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Ezekiel, Malachi, Zacharias, Elisabeth, John the Baptist, Simeon, Virgil, Nebuchadnezzar, and the Sibyl. In this version, also, the part of Balaam is expanded into a drama.

‘_Duo missi a rege Balac dicant_:

Balaam, veni et fac.

_Tunc Balaam, ornatus, sedens super asinam, habens calcaria, retineat lora et calcaribus percutiat asinam, et quidam iuvenis, habens alas, tenens gladium, obstet asinae. Quidam sub asina dicat_:

cur me cum calcaribus miseram sic laeditis.

_Hoc dicto, Angelus ei dicat_:

desine regis Balac praeceptum perficere.’

Here, too, another little drama is similarly introduced. This is the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, which, with an _imago_ for the brethren to refuse to worship and a _fornax_ for them to be cast into, attaches itself to the _vocatio_ of Nebuchadnezzar.

In the Limoges manuscript the _Prophetae_ is followed by the words _Hic inchoant Benedicamus_[202]. As has been pointed out in the case of the Bilsen _Pastores_, this is not conclusive as to the hour at which the performance took place. The day was probably that of Christmas itself. But even the day would naturally vary with the variable position of the _lectio_ out of which the _Prophetae_ grew. At Lincoln it was likewise Christmas day. But at Rouen the _processio asinorum_ was on Christmas eve, and took the place of the ordinary festal procession after Tierce and before Mass[203]. And at St. Martin of Tours the _Prophetae_ was on New Year’s day, performances being given both at Matins and Vespers[204].

The question naturally suggests itself: What was the relation of these liturgical plays of the Christmas season to the Feast of Fools and other ecclesiastical _ludi_ of the Twelve nights, which were discussed in the first volume? At Rouen, the _Prophetae_ received the name of _processio asinorum_ and took place at a _festum asinorum_, a name which we know to have been elsewhere synonymous with _festum fatuorum_. At Tours, it was played at a reformed _festum novi anni_, with a Boy Bishop and at least traces of expelled disorder. So, too, with the other plays. The Rouen _Pastores_ was infected by the fifteenth century with the _stultitiae et insolentiae_ of the _triduum_. At Bilsen the _Stella_ was performed before a _rex_, who can hardly have been any other than a _rex fatuorum_ of Epiphany. At Autun the _regnum Herodis_ was considered a Feast of Fools[205]. Probably in both churches the _rex_ acted Herod in the play. I think it must be taken for granted that the plays are the older institution of the two. They seem all to have taken shape by the eleventh century, before there is any clear sign that the Kalends had made their way into the churches and become the Feast of Fools. The plays may even have been encouraged as a counter-attraction, for the congregation, to the Kalends outside. On the other hand, I do not hold, as some writers do, that the riotous Feasts of Asses were derived from the pious and instructive ceremony so called at Rouen[206]. On the contrary, Balaam and his ass are an interpolation in the _Prophetae_ both at Rouen and, more obviously, at Laon. Balaam, alone of the Laon performers, is not from the pseudo-Augustine sermon. Is he not, therefore, to be regarded as a reaction of the Feast of Fools upon the _Prophetae_, as an attempt to turn the established presence of the ass in the church to purposes of edification, rather than of ribaldry[207]? I think the explanation is the more plausible one. And I find a parallel reaction of the turbulence of the Feast of Fools upon the _Stella_, in the violence of speech and gesture which permanently associated itself at a very early stage with the character of Herod. The view here taken will be confirmed, when we come to consider certain ecclesiastical criticisms passed upon the liturgical plays in the twelfth century.

Whatever the exact relation of the divine and profane _ludi_ at Easter and Christmas may be, it seems to have been, in the main, at these two great seasons of festivity that what may be called the spontaneous growth of drama out of liturgy took place. There are yet a fair number of Latin plays to be spoken of which are in a sense liturgical. That is to say, they were acted, certainly or probably, in churches and during intervals in the services. But of these such a spontaneous growth cannot be asserted, although it cannot also, in the present state of the evidence, be confidently denied. Their metrical and literary style is parallel to that of the Easter and Christmas plays in the latest stages of development; and, until further data turn up, it is perhaps permissible to conjecture that they were deliberately composed on the model of the _Quem quaeritis_ and the _Stella_, when these had become widespread and popular. Indeed, some such derivation of the _Peregrini_ from the _Quem quaeritis_ and of the _Stella_ itself, at least in part, from the _Pastores_, has already appeared probable.

In dealing with this new group of plays, we come, for the first and only time, upon an individual author. As might be expected, this author is a _scholaris vagans_, by name Hilarius. It would even be doing him no great injustice to call him a goliard. What little is known of Hilarius is gathered from his writings, which exist in a single manuscript. He may have been an Englishman, for a large proportion of his verses are addressed to English folk. He was a pupil, about 1125, of the famous Abelard at his oratory of Paraclete in a desert near Nogent-sur-Seine. Afterwards he made his way to Angers. Many of his verses are of the familiar goliardic type, amorous and jocund; but amongst them are three plays[208]. Two of these are comparatively short, and contain each a few stanzas of French interspersed amongst the Latin. The subject of one is a miracle wrought by St. Nicholas[209]; of the other, the _Suscitatio Lazari_[210]. The third play, wholly in Latin, falls into two parts, and gives at considerable length the story of _Daniel_[211]. I take it that these plays were not written for any church in particular, but represent the repertory of a band of wandering clerks. At the end, both of the _Daniel_ and of the _Suscitatio Lazari_, is a rubric or stage-direction, to the effect that, if the performance is given at Matins, the _Te Deum_ should follow; if at Vespers, the _Magnificat_. Evidently the connexion with the church service, so organic in the plays of the more primitive type, has become for Hilarius almost accidental. As to the place of the plays in the calendar, the manuscript gives no indication, and probably Hilarius and his friends would be willing enough to act them whenever they got a chance. But the St. Nicholas play would come most naturally on the day of that saint, December 6. The _Suscitatio Lazari_ would be appropriate enough as an addition to the _Quem quaeritis_ and the _Peregrini_ in Easter week. The story is told, indeed, in the Gospel for Friday in the fourth week in Lent; but that does not seem a very likely date for a play. The _Daniel_ perhaps grew, as we have seen a _Balaam_ and a _Nebuchadnezzar_ growing, out of a _Prophetae_; and may have been a substitute for a _Prophetae_ at Christmas.

These dates are borne out, or not contradicted, by other similar plays, which have more of a local habitation. For no one of Hilarius’ three stands quite alone. Of Latin plays of St. Nicholas, indeed, quite a little group exists; and the great scholastic feast evidently afforded an occasion, less only than Easter and Christmas, for dramatic performances. The earliest texts are from Germany. Two are found in a Hildesheim manuscript of the eleventh century[212]; a third in an Einsiedeln manuscript of the twelfth[213]. The thirteenth-century Fleury play-book contains no less than four, two of which appear to be more developed forms of the Hildesheim plays. The theme is in every case one of the miraculous deeds which so largely make up the widespread legend of the saint[214]. Nicholas restores to life the three clerks

‘quos causa discendi literas apud gentes transmisit exteras,’

and whom the greed of an innkeeper has slain[215]. He provides with a dowry the daughters of a poor gentleman, who are threatened with a life of shame[216]. He brings back from captivity the son of his wealthy adorer[217]. His image preserves from housebreakers the riches of a Jew[218]. Alone of the extant Latin plays, these of St. Nicholas are drawn from outside the Biblical story. Each of the Fleury versions introduces at the end one of the anthems proper to St. Nicholas’ day, and their connexion with the feast is therefore clear.

A second Lazarus play, which includes not only the _Suscitatio_ but also the episode of Mary Magdalen in the house of Simon, is likewise in the Fleury play-book[219]. A second _Daniel_, composed by the _iuventus_ of Beauvais, occurs in the same manuscript which contains the Office of the Circumcision for that cathedral[220]. It was perhaps intended for performance on the day of the _asinaria festa_. Other plays seem, in the same way as the _Daniel_, to have budded off from the _Prophetae_. A fragment is preserved of an _Isaac and Rebecca_ from Kloster Vorau in Styria[221]. A twelfth-century mention of an _Elisaeus_[222] and an eleventh-century one of a _Convivium Herodis_[223], which suggests rather the story of John the Baptist than that of the _Magi_, point to an activity in this direction of which all the traces have possibly not yet been discovered.

Three plays, each more or less unique in character, complete the tale. The Fleury play-book has a _Conversio Beati Pauli Apostoli_, doubtless designed for the feast on January 25[224]. The shorter, but highly interesting collection from Limoges, has a play of the wise and foolish virgins, under the title of _Sponsus_[225]. This has attracted much attention from scholars, on account of the fact that it is partly in French, or more strictly in a dialect belonging to the Angoumois, and slightly affected by Provençal. As it is therefore of the nature of a transitional form, it may be well to give a somewhat full account of it. It opens with a Latin chorus beginning

‘Adest sponsus qui est Christus: vigilate, virgines!’

The angel Gabriel then addresses the virgins, and warns them in four French stanzas to expect ‘un espos, Sauvaire a nom.’ Each stanza has a refrain, probably sung chorally:

‘gaire noi dormet: aici’s l’espos que vos or atendet!

Then comes a lyric dialogue, in which the _Fatuae_, who have wasted their oil, attempt in vain to get some, first from the _Prudentes_, and then from some _Mercatores_, whose presence here recalls the _unguentarius_ in the Prague versions of the _Quem quaeritis_[226]. This dialogue is in Latin, but with a French refrain:

‘dolentas, chaitivas, trop i avem (_or_ avet) dormit.’

Then comes the _Sponsus_, to whom the _Fatuae_ finally appeal:

‘audi, sponse, voces plangentium: aperire fac nobis ostium cum sociis ad dulce prandium; nostrae culpae praebe remedium! dolentas, chaitivas, trop i avem dormit. _Christus._ amen dico, vos ignosco, nam caretis lumine, quod qui perdunt procul pergunt huius aulae limine. alet, chaitivas, alet, malaüreias! a tot jors mais vos son penas livreias, e en efern ora seret meneias! _Modo accipiant eas daemones et praecipitentur in infernum._’

This stage direction, together with an allusion in the opening lines of the _Sponsus_ to the ‘second Adam,’ link this remarkable, and, I venture to think, finely conceived little piece to the Christmas play of _Adam_ to be discussed in the next chapter. It has essentially an Advent theme, and must have been performed either in Advent itself or at the Christmas season, with which Advent is prophetically connected[227].

Finally, there is a play which was almost certainly performed at Advent[228]. This is the Tegernsee play of _Antichristus_[229]. It is founded upon the prophecy in St. Paul’s second epistle to the Thessalonians of the _homo peccati, filius perditionis_, who shall sit in the temple of God until the Christ shall slay him with the breath of his mouth, and destroy him with the glory of his advent[230]: and it is an elaborate spectacle, requiring for its proper performance a large number of actors and a spacious stage, with a temple of God and seven royal _sedes_, together with room for much marching and counter-marching and warfare[231]. It must have taken up the whole nave of some great church. It begins with a procession of Emperor, Pope, and Kings, accompanied by personages emblematic of _Gentilitas_, _Sinagoga_ and _Ecclesia_ with her attendants _Misericordia_ and _Iustitia_. The first part of the action represents the conquest of the four corners of Christendom by the Emperor and his championship of Jerusalem against the King of Babylon. _Ecclesia_, _Gentilitas_, and _Synagoga_ punctuate the performance with their characteristic chants. Then come the Hypocrites, _sub silentio et specie humilitatis inclinantes circumquaque et captantes favorem laicorum_. They are followed by Antichrist himself, who instructs Hypocrisy and Heresy to prepare the way for his advent. Presently Antichrist is enthroned in the temple and gradually saps the Empire, winning over the King of the Greeks by threats, the King of the Franks by gifts, and the King of the Teutons, who is incorruptible and invincible, by signs and wonders. He marks his vassals on the brow with the first letter of his name. Then the Hypocrites attempt to persuade _Synagoga_ that Antichrist is the Messiah; but are refuted by the prophets Enoch and Elijah. Antichrist has the rebels slain; but while he is throned in state, thunder breaks suddenly over his head, he falls, and _Ecclesia_ comes to her own again with a _Laudem dicite deo nostro_.

The author of the _Antichristus_ is not only a skilled craftsman in rhyming Latin metres; he is also capable of carrying a big literary scheme successfully to a close. His immediate source was probably the tenth-century _Libellus de Antichristo_ of Adso of Toul[232]. Into this he has worked the central theme of the _Prophetae_ and the debating figures from that very popular _débat_ or ‘estrif,’ the _Altercatio Ecclesiae et Synagogae_[233]. His work differs in several obvious respects from the comparatively simple, often naïve, liturgical dramas which have been considered. It is ambitious in scope, extending to between four and five hundred lines. It introduces allegorical figures, such as we shall find, long after, in the moralities. It has a purpose other than that of devotion, or even amusement. It is, in fact, a _Tendenzschrift_, a pamphlet. The instinct of the drama, which sways the imaginations of men perhaps more powerfully than any other form of literature, to mix itself up with politics is incorrigible: _Antichristus_ is a subtle vindication, on the one hand, of the Empire against the Papacy, on the other of the _rex Teutonicorum_ against the _rex Francorum_. It probably dates from about 1160, when Frederick Barbarossa was at the height of his struggle with Alexander III, who enjoyed the sympathies of Louis VII of France. And it is anti-clerical. The Hypocrites who carry out the machinations of Antichrist are the clerical reformers, such as Gerhoh of Reichersberg[234], who were the mainstay of the papacy in Germany.

It is improbable that the few and scattered texts which have come to light represent all the liturgical plays which had made their appearance by the middle of the twelfth century. Besides the lost _Elisaeus_ and _Convivium Herodis_, there is evidence, for example, of scholars’ plays in honour, not only of St. Nicholas, but of their second patron, the philosophical St. Catharine of Alexandria. Such a _ludus de Sancta Katarina_ was prepared at Dunstable in England by one Geoffrey, a Norman clerk who had been invited to England as schoolmaster to the abbey of St. Albans. For it he borrowed certain choir copes belonging to the abbey, and had the misfortune to let these be burnt with his house. Deeply repentant, he took the religious habit, and in 1119 became abbot of St. Albans. From this date that of the _ludus_ may be judged to be early in the twelfth century[235].

It cannot, of course, be assumed that every play, say in the fifteenth century, which although probably or certainly written in the vernacular was performed in a church, had a Latin prototype[236]. Many such may have been written and acted for the first time on existing models, when the vernacular drama was already well established. But there are certain feasts where it is possible to trace, on the one hand, the element of mimetic ceremony in the services, and on the other, perhaps, some later representation in the dramatic cycles, and where a Latin text might at any time turn up without causing surprise. With a few notes on some of these this chapter must conclude. A highly dramatic trope for Ascension day, closely resembling the _Quem quaeritis_, has already been quoted from the tropers of Limoges[237]. An _Ordinarium_ of St. Peter’s of Lille directs that, after the respond _Non vos relinquam_, the officiant shall mount a pulpit and thence appear to ascend towards heaven from the top of a mountain[238]. Fifteenth-century _computi_ speak of this or of a more elaborate performance as a _mysterium_, and include amongst other items payments for painting the scars on the hands of the performer[239]. On Whit-Sunday it was the custom at St. Paul’s in London and many other churches, during the singing of the hymn _Veni Creator Spiritus_ at Tierce, to open a hole in the roof and let down symbols of the Pentecost; a dove, a globe of fire, bits of burning tow to represent tongues of fire, a censer, flowers, pieces of flaky pastry[240]. This same hole in the roof sometimes served a similar purpose at a mimetic representation of the Annunciation. The Gospel for the day was recited by two clerks dressed as Mary and the angel, and at the words _Spiritus Sanctus supervenit in te_ a white dove descended from the roof. This can hardly be called a drama, for, with the exception of a short fifteenth-century text from Cividale, only the words of the Gospel itself seem to have been used; but obviously it is on the extreme verge of drama. A curious variant in the date of this ceremony is to be noted. In several Italian examples, of which the earliest dates from 1261, and in one or two from France, it belongs to the feast of the Annunciation proper on March 25[241]. But in later French examples, and apparently also at Lincoln[242], it has been transferred to the Advent season, during which naturally the Annunciation was greatly held in remembrance, and has been attached to the so-called ‘golden’ Mass celebrated ten days before Christmas during the _Quatuor Tempora_[243]. It thus became absorbed into the Christmas dramatic cycle.