Knapp Éva

Emblematic Manner of Expression in the School Drama

            The close relationship between emblematics and Renaissance and Baroque drama is generally known; but the rhetorics of the Baroque school drama and the use of emblematics within it form—disregarding a few more remarkable authors—a less well explored field. Considering the fact that in the Hungary of the 17th and 18th centuries theatrical culture was represented almost exclusively by the school theatre to which the symbolic, emblematic forms belonged, for a long time, to the most influential qualities, this topic deserves to be examined on  its own. The scattered references of the published texts and settings indicate that the emblematic and related symbolic forms were important elements of the performances; examining these forms of expression we may contribute to the clarification of the unsolved questions of emblem and school-drama research.

            It is well known that among the sources of early modern theatre one must take account of emblematics and that the influence of the Jesuit variant of argutia rhetorics, using, above all, pictorial means, strongly asserted itself in numerous fields of literature and arts, thus also in the theatre. One must also pay attention to the fact that acting in the schools is part of the eloquentia education in which the actors function as the very objects of pedagogy and that also the emblems were used chiefly out of educational, didactic considerations. From the middle of the 17th century on, one can observe the process in the course of which the biblical stories and the historical themes are becoming, in the school drama, exempla with a political content, are  filling with up-to-date allegorical interpretations and, parallel to the fading out of the late humanist influences and to the series of dramatic actions being pushed into the background, neo-Stoic elements, allegorical, emblematic interpretations are gaining the foreground. The arising of texts of this type is greatly stimulated by the model values of the collections of sample texts and by the increase of the role of the mechanical borrowings and compilations. In the interest of persuasio the emotions of the audience were placed into the centre of the theatrical efforts, and a special stress was put upon using tropes as effective forms of pictorially conveyed expression. Parallel to the general loss of significance of rhetorics and to the spreading of enlightened, rationalist criticism, around the middle of the 18th century one can observe also in school drama the gradual fading of the emblematic, allegorical influences.

            The specialized literature concerning the appearance of emblematics in the drama, the stimulants of emblematic drama including the so-called rederijker theatre of the Dutch,¹ and the use of emblems by outstanding authors as, for example, Shakespeare,² Calderón,³ Gryphius,⁴ and others, has reached by now the point where a survey has become well-nigh impossible. In the 1960’s it was Albrecht Schöne who examined methodically the role of emblematics in the texts of theatre plays, using German tragedy, and within it the Silesian playwrights, as an example; his results have, in several respects, remained valid up to the present day.⁵

            Today we know that, by absolutizing the art of emblematics, Schöne had partially concealed the preconditions and interdependences determining the possibilities of emblematics to produce stage effects. More recent research has not completely accepted his conclusions about the fundamentally emblematic structure of Baroque drama, about the theatrum emblematicum nature of the Baroque theatre, and about “history becoming emblematized”; but research concerning the influence of emblematics upon the drama substantially proceeds, even today, in the direction pointed to by Schöne. Thus, for example, Dieter Mehl is examining the possibilities of connections between the emblematic tradition and the drama in three areas (direct borrowings, allegorical scenes, symbolic objects)⁶ and Peter M. Daly in four (stage properties, rhetorical figures, actors and personifications, stage), which are partially overlapping.⁷ The shared lesson of analyses of this type is that, instead of looking for concrete influences, it is more useful to examine the forms and functions of the emblematic methods of the dramatists and to treat the emblem books not as points of departure but as the manifestations of a common way of thought expressed also in the dramatic literature of the time.⁸ More recent research has repeatedly warned against the one-sidedness of the emblematic approach in the analysis as far as the literary genre of drama is concerned.⁹ By today, it has become a certainty that the emblems do not furnish an infallible key to the interpretation of the drama texts; that, instead of the direct sources, one can only determine certain parallels, analogies, and possibilities; and that the emblem books can only be used as a kind of dictionary to document certain variants of meaning and usage. The correctness of this more circumspect approach to the Baroque school drama has been proved by numerous recent French, Polish, and other investigations.¹⁰

            Between the symbolic-emblematic motifs and the texts composed for stage performances there arose a peculiar system of connections at the turn of the 16th and the 17th centuries. The road to the scene on the stage was opened by the emblem picture and to the text performed by the text explicating the emblematic picture. The beginning of this process is well demonstrated by Jan David’s collection of meditations, entitled Occasio arrepta, neglecta, huius commoda: illius incommoda, known also in Hungary, which introduces the Christianized version of Occasio with twelve copper engravings and prose texts explaining them. The work does not end with the last emblem: here the drama Occasio begins, in which the twelve emblem pictures have the function of stage pictures for the twelve scenes (schemata) of the drama. The persons shown on the engravings, as well as the personifications of Tempus and Occasio, become actors, their vestments become costumes, and the titles of the scenes are identical with the inscriptions of the emblems.¹¹ The play is nothing but a series of emblem explications rewritten in dialogue form with role distributions.

            It is generally known that the school theatre of the 17th and 18th centuries made frequent use of symbolic, allegorical motifs and ways of expression. The store of symbolic expressions, distanced from the humanist conception and having become more generally understandable, significantly aided heroic representation, the effective introduction of historical-political, moral, and mythological themes. The staging of emblematic motifs was also helped by the fact that the rules of classical drama had loosened up, the contents had expanded, the action had become more complex, and the very concept of drama, too, had undergone a change.¹² Besides the texts intended to be performed in front of an audience also the declamations without a dialogue and the tableaux vivants without a text belonged to this concept. The hidden threads of action rose in value; “representational argutia,” bound equally to the contents and to the occasion, and the raising of moral problems stepped into the foreground. All these shifts in emphasis ensured ample space to the gaining ground of emblematic expression.¹³

            Emblematic forms were often used in congratulations on the stage and in the representation of virtues. Thus, for example, Ambrosius Heigl staged at Sopron, in 1640, the virtues of St. Ignatius of Loyola, using various symbols as illustrations, and in the epilogue of the school drama performed at Gyõr in 1685 in honour of Leopold Kollonich, bishop of the diocese, there were nine “poetico et pictoreo opere elaborata” symbols used as stage properties, on each of which a letter of the name “Leopoldus” had been painted.¹⁴

            There are several factors which make difficult the taking stock of the emblematic influences upon 17th and 18th-century school theatre in Hungary. A significant part of the plays performed is known to us only in abstracts or by titles, and also the extant texts reflect the stage appearance only in part.¹⁵ The source value of the programmes and playbills differs significantly from that of the complete texts; and for the explication of the declamations again a different approach is needed. The emblematic elements appear in the school drama most of the time within the allegorization or, rather, tightly intertwined with it; their separation from each other is often impossible. A further difficulty is presented by the occasional, variable nature of the framing genre, the diversified use of concepts, the inadequate knowledge of the intentions of the stage director and of the reception processes, as well as by unexplored state of the references concerning emblematics in the contemporary theories of the drama.

Emblematics in the Theory of the Drama

            In 17th-century literary theories and within them, above all, in the handbooks of  poetics there usually was a separate section dealing with the questions of drama. The point of departure was, most of the time, the well-known definition by Cicero (“Drama est imitatio vitae, speculum consuetudinis, imago veritatis”), complemented by references to authoritative theoretical authors (Aristotle, Julius Caesar Scaliger, Donatus, Martinus Antonius Delrio), as well as by the exposition and interpretation of the classical theories of the drama.¹⁶ However, one can observe as early as since the end of the 16th century a change in this approach resting on classical and humanist foundations. Jacobus Pontanus (Spanmüller), for example, draws attention in his poetics, while discussing stage apparatus and ornatus, to the fact that well-chosen pictures hung on the stage sets in harmony with the action of the play amuse the audience and may contribute to the success of the performance.¹⁷

            In the theories following in Pontanus’s footsteps—independently of whether they followed humanist tradition—smaller or greater displacements can be observed; there appeared the new questions raised by 17th-century stage praxis, among them the problem of making use of symbolization and of the emblematic elements. From this point of view the approach of Martin Du Cygne is instructive; he developed his ideas about the drama in his poetics, after the chapter treating the emblem.¹⁸ Du Cygne first excerpted the statements of Cicero, Scaliger, and Donatus, then went into details about the scenes out of the action of the drama, like the prologue and the choruses, and then, in a separate chapter, he summarized the methodology of playwriting. This way of proceeding was made possible by a novel approach to and definition of the drama: “Est plurium personarum collocutio cum gestu et actione.” According to Du Cygne, the mythological figures, personified ideas and genera, the so-called “mirabiles res,” are essentially pictures or series of pictures helping to understand the play. Their place is, above all, in the choruses which are built not from the dramatic argumentation or from the entire story but from its abstract idea (“ex idea argumenti vel totius fabulae”). The “res mirabiles” are connected with the scene through the fact that word and picture can only be interpreted together. Du Cygne considers applicable the so-called scena muta, built upon the stage scene, which—just like an emblem picture—the audience must solve and interpret. Every act (actus) can have its own scena muta, but the latter can also be placed at the beginning of the play where there are many events which happen at various times and places.

            Even from the point of view of employing the symbolic forms of expression on the stage, the fact is not indifferent that in Jesuit education the scenic dialogue was gaining a more and more increasing significance. Jacob Masen develops his ideas concerning the scenic dialogue in the framework of the rhetorical theory of memoria and pronuntiatio, in the fifth book of his Palaestra Styli romani. Here Masen expressly recommends the presentation of various personifications in the dialogues.¹⁹

            Theories of the drama usually discuss the use of emblematic-symbolic elements with restraint, since it depended fundamentally on the occasion, the circumstances of the performance, and the composition of the audience. This restraint can be also observed in the theory of Bohuslav Balbin who treats the role of emblematics in detail.²⁰ Balbin summarizes what he has to say in his compendium of literary theory, after the chapter on emblematics, in caput 8 entitled “De comica et tragica poesi, denique declamationibus.” Like Scaliger, he treats the contemporary praxis as one equal with the classical rules, and he makes a distinction between drama antiquum and drama novum. His definition encompasses the entire sphere of stage actions presented before an audience: “Drama generale nomen est, quod vel ad Comoedias, vel ad Tragoedias, vel ad Declamationes, et denique (ut ipsum nomen significat) ad omnem scenicam Actionem accomodari et contrahi possit.” The arguments may be “vel ficta, vel vera” and, in an artistic manner (“artificio [...] repraesentata”), may also be presented as a picture or as a shadow play. Namely: while, according to Balbin, the classical playwright did not mix historical action with fiction (“Antiquus Poeta Historiam cum fictione sua non permisceret”), “novus et hodiernus totam historiam adulterat, personis Geniorum virtutum, Coelitum et inferorum.” Symbolical, allegorical, and emblematic elements may, according to Balbin’s standpoint, be freely incorporated into the drama.

            Balbin discusses the use of the emblematic mode of expression concerning not only the argument but also the prologue, the chorus, the stage sets, and the costumes. The prologue of 17th-century drama may be simplex, i.e. short and of a summarizing character, but it also may be “mixtus seu compositus” in case “si totius Dramatis Periocha vel per Emblema vel per mutam aliquam repraesentationem vel per musicam vel per Imagines exhibetur.” The choruses representing the elements of fiction raise the quality of the performance especially if they are not involved in the action but “symbolice” accompany and interpret it. Balbin does not recommend incorporating emblems into the action; but the text, the stage sets, and the costumes may be symbolic and hint at emblematics. Emblems or emblematic motifs may also be used in designing the  scenery, and the costumes will be elegant if complemented by insignia fastened to them or held in hand. For putting together the wardrobe of costumes Balbin recommends, besides the works of some outstanding artists (Raphael, Rubens, Dürer, Sadeler, Škréta), the making use of emblem compendia.²¹

            In the part entitled “De compositione Dramatis” Balbin again refers to the two possible variants of the argument of the drama (“aut fictum est aut verum”) and recommends the moderate use of the fictitious argument: “Si fictum [i.e., the argument], svadeo, ut quam proximum sit veritati, et quamvis fictum sit; fieri tamen potuerit: nam odi (ut verum fateor) qui fictis personis scenam solent implere.” He also recommends the presentation of the so-called ficta declamatio only before an audience of connoisseurs: “Declamatio vero inter privatos Scholarum parietes, si ficta sit, tolerari poterit.” Among the eighteen types of declamation he also describes four exclusively emblematic forms:²²

            (1) “Honorum Declamationes.” Its arguments can be “frontispicia librorum, si curiose notentur, et prudenter accomodentur.” An example for it is the first illustration of the collection of meditations Via vitae aeternae by Antonius Sucquet.²³

            (2) “Emblematicae Declamationes.” The characters explicate emblems and pictures (picturae) or stage the emblem itself (“ipsum Emblema in theatro producitur”). Balbin subsumes under this heading the scena muta form introduced by the English Jesuit Edmund Campion who taught rhetorics in the Prague Jesuit college between 1574-1580: “[...] in Dialogo, qui inscribitur Mutus, in quo agebantur multa silentio, sed postea explicabantur.”²⁴

            (3) “Figuratae Declamationes.” The students represent the stories with the help of similitudines. This type can be divided into two parts: “per Protasin et Apodosin dividitur.”

            (4) “Imaginosae Declamationes.” The performers explain pictures or create pictures by linguistic means. The basis for this practice can be an enigma, a hieroglyph, or some other symbolic form.

            The theories arising within the knowledge of Balbin’s Verisimilia had significantly modified the possibilities of emblematics to influence the drama. Otto Aicher, for example, who, in his poetics, incorporated theatrical expressions into the series of emblematic epitaphs instead of  the word emblem, consistently uses the expressions allegory and symbol.²⁵ As he writes, if the drama is dominated by a symbol or an allegory, then this is a performance in which the story is being presented “allegorice et symbolice.” With Aicher, the fictions form part of the action only if the entire play is a  mere symbol. He does know, however, also those stage actions which do not adhere to the classical rules of dramatic composition. Such are, for example, symbolic declamation or the uncommon, allegorical representation of a theme. The symbolical parts accompanying the action, like the prologue, the chorus, and the epilogue, he calls, in a summary fashion, accidentia.²⁶

            The Jesuit poetics considered the use of allegories an important feature not only in the epic and in the eclogue but also in the drama. Jacob Masen’s imago theory—reviewed elsewhere in detail—was the idea which can be considered to be the theoretical basis of the Jesuits’ emblematic stage meditations.²⁷ These so-called meditations in scenes, stage meditations containing emblematic elements, and scenes (scenae mutae, exhibitiones, exhibitio muta, affixiones, etc.) having an emotional effect and, at the same time, affording intellectual amusement, are constructed upon the mutual effect of the stage picture and the dialogue, and the dramatis personae provide the interpretative inscription to the pictura-lemma combination presented as scenery. The most well-known representatives of this genre are Heinrich Scherer, Franciscus Lang, and Franciscus Neumayr. Lang presents, for example, in the appendix to his basic work of dramatic theory (Dissertatio de actione scenica, Ingolstadt – München, 1727)—after the model of Masen’s Speculum—with the title “Imagines symbolicae” a list of allegorical objects and concepts with which one can introduce in an enjoyable manner the central idea of a certain drama.²⁸ Neumayr distinguishes in his poetics (Idea poeseos, Ingolstadt, 1751) between the allegorical “Poesis delectans” (emblema, symbolum, aenigma), the also allegorical “Poesis docens” (lusus allegorici, apologi, Ovid: Metamorphoses), and the “Poesis movens” containing besides the tragedy and the “carmen heroicum” also the comedy with the subgroup “Comoedia allegorica”; this latter he calls allegorical, because lifeless things appear in it as if they were living persons and the irrational as rational ones.

            Turning to the pertinent remarks of the drama theories in Hungary, Imre Varga, György Székely, István Kilián, and others have several times referred to the allegorization and to the piling of symbols that can be observed in the school dramas.²⁹ The statement, however, that the symbol is an autonomous dramatic genre, with the pantomime as one of its subcategories, does not quite fit in the theory and practice of the time.³⁰ In the survey of the manuscripts compiled after the model of the 16th and 17th-century theories of the drama Márta Zsuzsanna Pintér did treat the part on drama theory of Antal Hellmayr’s poetics of 1734, but she did not go into details about the statements concerning the above mentioned topic.³¹

            Hellmayr compiled the part on drama theory of his notes on poetics from the—partially already mentioned—works of Balbin, Masen, Donatus, Scaliger, Iuvancy, Pontanus, Du Cygne, and Aicher.³² He summarized his knowledge, following the model of his sources, after discussing emblematics, on a functional basis, with the title Observationes Drammatico-Historicae. He stresses the fact that he is writing about the ludi theatrales whose two principal types are declamation and the drama proper. The two basic forms of the former are the declamations treating a fictitious and an actual theme. Of the declamations grouped by arguments and by instructional levels one of the forms intended for the students of the poet class is symbolic declamation. For this type Hellmayr recommends selecting examples from Michael Pexenfelder’s Ethica symbolica and from Sucquet’s already mentioned Via vitae aeternae.³³ According to him, this form will be successful if it is built more of allegorical than of emblematic elements. To increase the splendour of the declamation of the poets when congratulating the bachelors of philosophy Hellmayr urges the use of painted enigmas and hieroglyphs in the manner of stage sets, fitting the text performed. One type of the declamations shared by the poets and the rhetoricians is the symbolic presentation built in its entirety upon fiction.

            Following Balbin, Hellmayr, too, separated from each other performances built upon a fictitious and a historical core of action. The figures in the drama fictum are imaginary persons; they have not the slightest connection with reality, just as the invented story they are performing does not. As an example Hellmayr refers to one of the works of Franciscus Sbarra.³⁴ In analyzing the dramatic construction he characterizes the prologue as a symbolizing, allegorizing argument born through the compression and abstraction of the action. The choruses using fictitious elements are each representing, “sub schemate,” one part of the drama. Here the examples are the choruses of Nicolaus Avancinus’s play Genovefa palatina, in which the story is accompanied by a system of pictorial references and lemmas. Hellmayr connects with the prologue and the choruses the scena muta (“[...] quas scenam Anglicanam, vel figuras Anglicanas vocant”) and he recommends a textual explanation at the end of the scene. He emphatically recommends using a symbolic epilogue, because this increases the splendour of the ending and stresses the expression of gratitude to the patron. Hellmayr writes about the emblem also in connection with the scenery: “[...] novarum inventionum spectata saepius serviunt emblemata [...].”³⁵ Writing about the stage properties and about the costumes of the players—excerpting, above all, the works of Ripa, Cartari, and Valeriano—he enumerates more than fifty emblematic personifications. To these costumes there belonged bands with inscriptions on the clothing, in the hand of the player, or fastened to his head, forming, together with the role performed, certain emblematic structures.³⁶

            About using symbolic elements in the drama we do not find, compared to Hellmayr’s lengthy compilation, significantly different, new statements in the works of other authors writing about the theory of the drama, like Zsigmond Varjú (1704), Ferenc Kirina (ca. 1770), and in the anonymous compendia.³⁷ The printed works about literary theory usually contain brief instructions concerning the theory of the drama; of these we refer here to only two. Andreas Graff sums up his ideas in a question-answer form at the end of his poetics published in 1642 with the title Dramaticum poema.³⁸ His pronouncements are restricted to the concept, structure, and kinds of the drama; he sums up with them the knowledge concerning classical drama. Graff is referring, with no exception, to classical authors; he is not concerned with the praxis of the 17th century and with symbolization, and remarks at the end: “Plura, si Deus voluerit, in ipsa Dramatologia.” However, Graff did probably not compose this work he had planned.

            In his poetics set in a framework imitating a dramatic performance, Lukács Moesch treats the theory of the drama in two places.³⁹ When dividing up poesis in Inductio III of Part One, he distinguishes three species: the drama, the epopee, and the dithyramb; he then further classifies and defines them. According to this, the drama “est actus seu praesentatio Historiarum, aut Fabularum, exhibita per introductas personas.” In Inductio V of Part Four where the “Poeta senex” discusses the theory of the drama at greater length and Moesch also prints a “sample drama” with the title “Drama Ethicum contra vitium” he gives a more detailed definition than the former one: “Drama est repraesentatio historiarum, seu fabularum per introductas aut fictas personas.” Moesch does not define the persona ficta but, in another place, he approaches Fictio Poetica as follows: “est rerum verisimilium ad apparentiam excogitatio sub falsitate includens veritatem.”⁴⁰ It is likely that Moesch placed also the personae fictae of the drama in this circle; that is to say, these characters are such invented, abstract figures with whom it was easy to express different ideas. This is also borne out by the fact that, at the end of the above-mentioned “sample drama,” the poeta senex explicates several of the personae fictae playing in the drama. According to the explanation, these figures originated in classical antiquity and had been transmitted through the works of Jacob Masen and Johannes Textor Ravisius, the mythologic compendia, and Conrad Gesner’s Onomastico, sive propriorum nominum serie numerosissima published together with Ambrosius Calepinus’s Dictionarium. According to this tradition, one can represent, for example, with the figure of Andromeda the captivity of the soul (“Captivitas animae per Andromedam exprimitur.”) and with Medea—because of her misery—the soul (“Medea significat animam, propter sua scelera miseram.”). In Moesch’s opinion the fictitious characters amuse an audience of connoisseurs; he does, however, not say, in which part of the drama he recommends their appearance.⁴¹

            We find another approach to the use of symbolic expressions in the drama in the introduction of the scena muta. According to Moesch, the scena separating the acts can be of two kinds: “alia est muta [...] alia non muta.” The scena muta is “quae solis gestibus absque sermocinatione, aut etiam absque ullo gestu per immotas personas, affectum quempiam exprimentes, expeditur.” The acts are concluded by choruses in which the current “moralis [...] doctrina decantatur.” Moesch urges the staging of the scena muta before the acts: “Ante quemlibet Actum praesentari quandoque consveverunt scenae mutae illius Actus; Personis instar statuarum prorsus immotis, ad competentem affectum exhibendum apte dispositus, ita ut ne oculus quidem moveatur.”⁴² Albeit Moesch does not use the word emblem or any related expressions, he indirectly points to the fact that the characters, abstracted from reality, are symbolic personifications. The scena muta, too, belongs to the circle of symbolization with which attention can be directed to the essence of what each scene has to say.

Emblematic Relations in the Action and in Parts of the Framework

            The recognition of emblematic references throughout the plot and the actions accompanying it is hampered by the variability of the contemporary terminology or, rather, by the nearly complete lack of an unambiguous terminology. In Hungary, too, numerous dramas and declamations were performed whose plot could also be interpreted emblematically. Instead of the expression “drama fictum” the designation drama symbolicum was most frequently used. The main characteristics of this type of drama are that the plot is fictitious, it can be bound to everyday life only with symbolic transpositions, and it served to introduce an idea, a social condition, or an existential situation. As such can be considered, for example, a drama symbolicum performed in Trencsén in 1669, at the end of the Corpus Christi celebration, in which the idea of Ecclesia triumphans, victorious over infidelity, was staged⁴³ and a Lutheran play, performed on March 9, 1670 at Eperjes, entitled Religio periclitans.⁴⁴ Both performances were allegorical plays which could also be interpreted as emblems: their title, the inscriptio, concisely describes the plot; the moving and talking pictura is the series of scenes on the stage; and the explicatio was furnished, on the one hand, by the text of the play and, on the other, by the interpretation and further relationships of the situations recognized from the performance.

            Another way of staging an action provided with a meaning beyond itself is that the story shown emblematically interprets a widely-known action which is not staged. Attention is usually directed to this by an expression of the type “sub symbolis in scenam dabant” placed somewhere near the title. It is unambiguously clear, for example, from the printed programme of the play entitled Apollo coelis redditus seu S. Stephanus protomartyr, performed in 1648 at Szepeshely, that a mythological story was being staged in which the leading role, that of Apollo, had to be interpreted to mean Saint Stephen, the first martyr.⁴⁵

            Those spectacula which represented in a hidden manner abstract thoughts or historical personages we can consider to be emblematic declamations. In 1618, for example, in Pozsony [Bratislava, Sl.], at the coronation of Ferdinand II the Nagyszombat Jesuit students represented thirty-six Hungarian kings to congratulate the new king. In the series the title, the inscription identifies the kings, while the motto characterizes them in referential form. The poem recited explains the motto, referring indirectly to the king’s deeds, conduct, and virtues. A production of this type may be thought to have a distant relationship with the ruler symbols of Jacobus Typotius.⁴⁶

            Of the texts and actions accompanying the dramatic plot the title, the argument, the prologue, and/or the part designated by the word antiscenium, scena muta or, rather, representation all preceded the presentation of the story itself. These parts framed the story, so to speak; and the measure and quality of their being bound to it determined the boundaries of their emblematic interpretation.

            One possibility of titling is that the title consists of two parts which are also linguistically distinct. One indicates the action, the other offers its emblematic interpretation. The order of the parts is arbitrary. This type of titling was very popular in the 17th and 18th centuries. Thus, for example, in the play with the title Ambitio vindicata sive Stilico the stage action tells the story of the Vandal general Stilicho, which could be symbolically interpreted as ambition being punished.⁴⁷

            The main task of the argument is to sum up the stage action in advance. We can talk about an emblematic argument if the action itself is also abstract. For example, the argument of the drama Dii Gemelli [...] sive Divi: Aloysius Gonzaga ac Stanislaus Kostka, performed in 1727 in Trencsén, is like that.⁴⁸ In the play the mythological story of Castor and Pollux was performed, and this had to be related to the figure of two Jesuit saints. An emblematic argument was indicated by the expression argumentum or protasis scenae. It was most of the time followed by an apodosis or apodosis scenae; this helped to interpret the abstract references of the argument.

            The prologue following the argument is often a symbolizing version of the argument. Its use was especially favoured in the 17th and 18th centuries; both Nicolaus Avancinus and Franciscus Neumayr frequently employed it. According to Neumayr, in the prologue “Tragoediae series exhibetur in parabola” and its actors played “sub schemate,” “in persona.”⁴⁹ In the play Ambitio vindicata, for example, the prologue presents a mythological scene, known also from emblematics: the revolt of the ambitious titan, Typhoeus, against Jupiter, and his defeat.⁵⁰ Elsewhere we find instead of a prologue an antiscenium, a proscenium, or a so-called “presentation.” These expressions and the descriptions of the scenes both indicate the insertion of scena muta.

            Between the larger parts of the action usually choruses, interscenia, interludia, and interlocutiones were inserted. The allegorical, emblematic interlude is extremely rare; however, the majority of the choruses accompanied the action in an emblematic manner. For example, between the three parts of the play Hymenaeus fraude proditus, performed in 1725 at Nagyszombat, two choruses which explained the story were inserted. In these allegorical scenes the action was interpreted by mythological figures. In the plays using scena muta instead of a prologue there are no choruses at all; their place was filled by so-called “intermediate presentations” having a function similar to that of the choruses. As to their intellectual content, these were not always connected with each other. For example, in the “first intermediate presentation” of the drama Theodosius junior Iris appears, sent by the gods against Aeneas, while in the second Scamander-Xanthus is attacking Achilles.⁵¹

            The conclusion of the action is followed by the epilogue which is sometimes built together with the action. If the play contains choral scenes connected with each other, then,  in the epilogue, these come at first to rest, following in their meaning the conclusion of the action. This is followed by the triumphus and/or the thanks expressed to the patron, often supplemented with the explication of the patron’s coat of arms. In the epilogue of Ambitio vindicata already mentioned, at first the triumphant Astraea and Pietas show their happiness on account of the broken weapons of Mars and then, in the thanks dedicated to the patron, Pallas “having plucked roses from the age-old Coat of Arms of Pál Esterházy, she hangs them on Cedar trees.”⁵² The reference to the coat of arms of the Esterházy family is connected with the cedar tree signifying long life; thus the epilogue becomes transformed into a good wish with emblematic meaning.

Emblematic Word in the Drama Texts

            The linguistic forms which can be brought into connection with an emblematic influence can be examined, above all, in the declamations and in the drama texts. We have assigned to this group those linguistic structures, expressions, and textual parts which, in the given context, mean more than themselves, contain pictorial elements, and can be interpreted similarly to the emblems. Their recognition and separating out can be aided by the notes accompanying the texts; however, in the Hungarian source material we have not found direct references to emblem books, emblem authors, or sources of symbols. This fact is, at the same time, an indication that the authors considered the emblematic forms used in the dramas to be common knowledge.

            One can consider as an influence of the emblematic way of expression, above all, the motto-like lines and structures. Their function is, beyond being reminders, aiding recognition and interpretation. For example, in the first chorus of the drama Fraternae in fratrem impietas by Imre Mindszenti, performed in 1714, the genii of the two main characters of the action appear upon the stage, together with the figures personifying Pietas and Justitia. The genii attack each other, and the conflict ends with the words of Justitia: “Sic bona semper causa triumphat.” In this line the topos “bona causa triumphat” can be recognized, which had also often been used in emblematics as a motto to express innocence. The expression, together with the two preceding lines (“Furis incassum! quem coelum tegit, / Hic lauros legit”) calls to mind the innocent main character, protected by Heaven and decorated with a laurel wreath; this way it creates a basis for interpreting this part of the text as something pointing beyond the choral scene.⁵³

            The pictorial motifs, often appearing also in emblematics, strengthen and stress, similarly to the mottos, the emphatic parts of the action and direct attention toward appropriate judgement and moral evaluation. In István Székely’s 1697 drama Triumphus Innocentiae seu Abagarus rex, for example, in the second chorus there appear on stage Fortuna, the genius of Abagarus, Livor, and Providentia. The main role is that of Fortuna who, while driving a turning wheel, raises high the genius of Abagarus and makes Livor who is sitting on a throne get into the underworld. Fortuna introduces herself with the following  words close to texts accompanying her figure in emblematics:

            “Sic potentum et regentum

            Infelices volvo vices,

            Sic alterno, summa sterno,

            Ima tollo, fata volvo

                        Caeca volubilis sors,

                        Cito, cito volvere, rapere,

                                   Cito, cito Globule mi.

            Stare nostra nescit rota,

            Torquet gyros, premit Cyros,

            Illos angit, hos et frangit,

            Hinc tam saepe jam triumphat,

                        Dira terribilis mors.

                        Cito, cito volvere, rapere,

                                   Cito, cito Globule mi.⁵⁴

The refrain stresses the constant motion of the wheel and conjures up the images of destiny and death. Thus, Fortuna is not only a part of the choral scene; as a figure directly influencing human destiny she also starts a new interpretation pointing beyond the framework of the drama.

        A further possibility of the influence of emblematics upon drama texts is the use of the so-called emblematic linguistic constructions. These are arrangements of words pointing to pictures having a figurative sense. Thus, for example, in each of the expressions “vana ludit spes,” “sors blanda suo dat,” “favet sors,” and “fovet sors” an abstract idea, favoured also in emblematics, performs some kind of activity and thereby conjures up pictures. In the expressions “rota Fortunae,” “virtutis ardor,” and others of this type an abstract and a concrete noun, connected to each other by the possessive case, form an emblematically interpretable construction starting further pictorial associations.⁵⁵ “Lauri et olivae conjunctio”⁵⁶ and similar, paratactical word arrangements of an enumerating character stimulate the pictorial thinking of the audience through the symbols which can be found in them.

Emblematic Roles, Characters, and Personifications

            Emblematic influences were easily admitted into the dramatic roles when the action carried an abstract meaning and the demand for representing the roles on stage with the greatest possible fidelity provided the characters with symbolic elements. In the drama symbolicum while presenting a fictitious story the allegorical roles represent, most of the time, abstract ideas; they are in harmony with the performed contents and have no meaning beyond themselves. Such a role can become symbolic not through its contents, in the first place, but through its manner of appearance on the stage. Of the characters of the already-mentioned play Religio periclitans, for example, Fides appears on the stage wearing badges (insignia). In the course of the scene his badges are taken away from him, he is captured, bound, they place on his head a crown bearing the motto “Haereticus seditiosus” and banish him.⁵⁷ All this emphasized the significance of the role and transposed it into a context of abstract meaning, in which further interpretations were made possible.

          In the dramas performed “sub symbolis” the main role is often transformed into a figure expressing more or something else than itself in such a way that—although the figure appearing is the one designated by the action—it is becoming, as far as the entirety of the dramatic action is being considered, the moving pictura of a symbol, and the name of the role can be considered to be the inscriptio of an emblematic sense. In the Judith drama performed in 1649 at Nagyszombat, for example, the title, the prologue, and the third and the sixteenth scenes indicate the emblematic interpretability of the main role. On the stage the story of Judith was performed; but the main character symbolized, instead of the biblical heroine, the Holy Virgin Mary, as Hungary’s patron saint, taken up into Heaven. This interpretation was made possible by the occasion of the performance: the opening of the Collegium Generale at Nagyszombat, bearing the title Patrona Hungariae in Coelos Assumpta.⁵⁸ Attention was called to the cautious employment of such interpretations also by the authors of theories. Otto Aicher, for example, points out that not every so-called Gualbertus drama can be considered without further ado to be a play about Joannes Gualbertus: when, namely, the centre of the performance is occupied by the representation of the passion of Christ, then the play is about the Saviour and the main role belongs to Christ suffering on the cross.⁵⁹

          Also those characters can be considered as emblematic ones about which one learns already from the cast that the performers actually represent a different figure. In such a “double cast” the character on the stage behaves, so to speak, as the imago of the other, “hidden” role and makes possible the interpretation of the latter. In 1708, at Kézdivásárhely-Kanta, for example, the Minorites performed a play about the Spanish War of Succession. In this, for example, Hircanus and Silvanus, representing France, personified ambitio and dolus, and the other characters, designated by syntactical concepts, also represented various virtues and sins.⁶⁰

          If the prologue, the choruses, and the epilogue symbolically follow the stage action, the characters of the framing action are in harmony with the characters of the action proper and can be made to correspond with them. This fact is most obviously pointed to by the genius characters. In the framing actions the genii usually represent “in persona” the central messages of the main characters and perform, together with the characters personifying ideas, virtues, and sins, the main episodes of the action on the level of ideas and abstractions. In this manner do appear, for example, in the drama Carolus I performed in 1712 at Nagyszombat, the Genius Caroli and in Imre Mindszenti’s play Fraternae in fratrem impietas, staged in 1714 at Nagyszombat, the genii of the two main characters, Alexius and Isaacius. The symbolic quality of the “in persona” characters of the choruses is pointed to by the expression “In saltu symbolico” in the cast of characters of József Bartakovics’s Moses.⁶¹

          A certain part of the characters crossed over into the circle of emblematic meaning through the stage representation. Of such characters and players only a few scattered pieces of data are extant, and we know of them usually from pictures of the players and descriptions of the costumes. One can consider as an exceptional source the copper-engraved stage designs to Petrus Eisenberg’s play Ein zwiefacher poetischer Act und geistliches Spiel, performed in 1650 at Eperjes (Slovakia) and published in print in 1652 at Bártfa; on these the clothing, posture, and gesture of the main characters, played by children, as well as the objects held in their hands are reminiscent of the symbolic anima representations of Herman Hugo’s Pia desideria, well-liked also in Protestant environments. In order to design the costumes the list of books with recommendations of Antal Hellmayr’s poetics notes enumerates three aids: a work without an author, specified by the expression “de induendis personis,” which is probably identical with the compendium mentioned by Balbin under the title “Modus induendi comicas”; further, the Iconologia by Cesare Ripa and a few chapters of Jacob Masen’s Speculum imaginum. The compilation Vestitus personarum pro Actionibus of the notes helps to imagine the stage representations of the personified ideas; it also names further sources used in designing the costumes. These are, besides Ripa’s Iconologia, Valeriano’s Hieroglyphica, Vincenzo Cartari’s Imagines Deorum, and works not further specified by Alexander ab Alexandro, Martin Schrott, and Ludwig Schönleben. In fifty-six cases the costume also has a motto; this helps the symbolic interpretation. The figure of Amor proprius, for example, was played by a crowned virgin holding in her hand a staff bearing the inscription FILAYTIA, and Abstinentia was worn on her forehead or close to her heart the inscription “Non utar, ne abutar.” All this also emphatically draws attention to the role played by Ripa’s Iconologia and by other iconographic compendia in the stage representation of symbolic figures and costumes and in the process of the plays being born.⁶²

          The interpretation of another group of symbolic characters were aided, instead of a lemma, by various symbolic objects. Conjugal love, for example, appeared on stage as a youth holding in his one hand two hearts become one and, in the other, a ring on which the sun and the moon were connected with each other. Aequitas appeared in a white costume, with a balance in her right hand and a cornucopia in her left. Several characters were represented by symbolically interpreted mythological figures. The character of Appetitus was, for example, staged as Eurydice bitten by the snake. Another form of appearance of Self-love was Narcissus looking into a spring. The interpretation of part of the costumes was aided by plant and animal figures. To Ebrietas, for example, the picture of a panther belonged, and Ambitio’s green costume was ivy-covered and at her feet a lion with its head raised was standing.⁶³

Emblematic Space on the Stage

          In the following we shall mean by scenery the totality of stage sets, characters and stage properties, since these components cannot always be unambiguously separated on the basis of the contemporary descriptions and depictions. The extant iconographic source material offers relatively few possibilities for the examination of sceneries; in the texts and programmes one rarely finds references to locations or to stage sets. Of the emblem pictures constituting a part of the store of stage properties only scattered data have survived. Thus, for example, among the stage decorations of the Lutheran high school at Pozsony [Bratislava, Sl.] there was a total of 46 smaller or larger “Emplemas.”⁶⁴ The joint examination of artistic and literary sources has drawn attention to several scenic details allowing conclusions as to the role of the emblems and of emblematics influencing the scenery.⁶⁵

          The reconstruction of the sceneries is greatly helped by the scena muta descriptions, because the programmes and the scripts furnish an exact record of the stage “representations.” Thus, for example, in the proscenium of Johannes Schwartz’s play Hungaria respirans, which has expressly a scena muta character, an astrologer is examining the starry sky with a telescope and his attention is drawn to sinister prophecies. Meanwhile another character, Gelanius, is parodistically imitating the astrologer. Then Mors appears and sets off in pursuit of the astrologer; Gelanius is jeering at him. This prelude is determined by the motif of the astrologer searching the sky with a telescope, which is well known also from emblematics; and the first scene, in which the disaster is proven true as foretold, refers back to the proscenium.⁶⁶

          There are also several extant descriptions proving that now and then a scene assumed an emblematic meaning with the help of the scenery. Not only the proscenium and the entire action of Johannes Schwartz’s above-mentioned play have an emblematic character but also several of its scenes. In the second act, for example, the positive main character, Constantius, is sleeping before his victory under a palm tree onto which two singing angels are placing a wreath.⁶⁷ The palm tree, known as the symbol of strength, is here the symbol of the slumbering main character, and the wreath placed upon it signified Constantius’s victory in advance. In this scene the stage sets and the characters had become a single emblematic picture, and the audience, too, could follow this with the help of the song of the angels.

          Differing from the variable scenery of the scena muta scenes, the declamations had fixed stage sets which could also be used for performing several texts. In Eger, for example, in 1738 part of the Jesuit church was decorated by ten symbols referring to Jean-François Regis, and the rhetors and poets who recited their declamations on four occasions among these settings. The Jesuit students of Kassa [Košice, Sl.] were declaiming in August, 1728 about King Charles III to salute those who had just received their Master’s degree.⁶⁸ On the foldout frontispiece of the print Augusta Hungariae Spectacula containing 12 poems the settings made for this festive occasion were recorded: on top of a staircase, on a canopied throne, the genius of Charles III is sitting in martial attire, wearing a laurel wreath. The draperies of the throne are pulled to the side, each by a putto holding a laurel or, rather, a palm branch; above them eagles are hovering, holding an inscribed band, a laurel-decorated sword or, rather, a sceptre with a palm branch around it. On the left-hand side of the flight of stairs leading to the throne, on top of columns girded by laurel, there are six laurel-framed emblem pictures the interpretation of which is helped by inscriptions written on the plinth. On the right-hand side of the flight of stairs six lions, prancing on a pedestal bearing an inscription, are each holding an emblem picture framed by palm branches. In the forefront of the stairs the Pallas of Kassa is sitting, and Mars is just getting ready to wreathe her with laurels and palm branches. Opposite to them a putto is holding Hungary’s coat of arms  decorated with laurel and palm.

          The basic unit of the declamation is given by these twelve emblem pictures: the series starts twice, downwards from the throne, and follows the order of performance of the declamatory poems. The orations explain first the emblem pictures placed onto the columns and then the series with the lions. In accordance with this, the pictura exhibiting the royal insignia, the inscriptio on the plinth of the column, referring to the crowning of Charles III, and the motto “Rex optatissime,” placed in the oratio and highlighted by a different letter type, belong to the first poem. The twelfth and last poem glorifies the peace treaty of Passarowitz; the pictura shows, on Hercules’s columns, an eagle with its wings spread or, rather, a half-moon. On the pedestal of the pictura one sees the inscriptio “Pax Passaroviczensis” and in the poem we find the motto “Rex Gloriosissimus” referring to Charles III. Albeit the print does not give details about the performance, it is probable that the students marched in one by one and saluted the coats of arms symbolizing the ruler, Mars, Pallas, and Hungary, after which they recited, standing on the stairs, the poem belonging to and explaining the pictura in question. Thus, in the course of the declamation, the scenery continually kept expanding and  the declamations themselves, too, became part of the emblematic picture which became complete after the 12th oratio had been delivered. This example also demonstrates the process in whose course the symbolic way of expression penetrates the scenery and subordinates it to itself.

Summary

          The main stimulators and sources of the stage employment of emblematic elements are the pertinent remarks of the theoretical works and the various symbol and emblem compendia, as well as the sample plays using such an apparatus. In the employment of the symbolic forms one cannot detect denominational or religious-order peculiarities of any real significance. Lutheran and Catholic plays both liked to employ the symbolic variants of explication. In the Calvinist and Unitarian performances symbolization appears to be more moderate; this fact can be brought into connection, above all, with the theological views about pictures these denominations are holding. Albeit the exploration of school dramas in Hungary has not been finished so far and we do not exactly know the ratio of the Latin plays to those in the vernaculars, yet, according to the texts examined, the extent of symbolization seems to be stronger in the Latin dramas and the pictorial means used also have greater variety.

          One can only partially determine the extent of influence of the emblematic way of expression, the components of hidden symbolization, its character, and its effective range in the school drama. Drama symbolicum and purely emblematic declamation can be found relatively rarely, while plays reflecting the various mixed solutions (so-called drama mixtum) were often performed even in the second half of the 18th century. The greatest number of drama fictum was staged in the second half of the 17th century, which is considered to be the golden age of emblematics in Hungary. The symbolic elements influencing the entirety of the drama appeared, above all, in the argument and in the action; but the performance could become symbolic also when the scenery moved the interpretation of the play in this direction.

          From the second half of the 17th century until the middle of the 18th century that version appears to be the most favoured in which the performance, built upon a historical action, is accompanied in the framing scenes by a series of abstract actions. This exhibits the essence of the play in a symbolical-allegorical form and thus helps its moral-didactic interpretation. With this solution they did not perform two “stories”; they staged the same story on two different levels of mediation, in two different forms. The allegorical presentation of personified ideas and mythological characters intensified the spectacle and made the lesson one could draw from the play sink in deeper. The contents would not have been injured even if the framing scenes had been abandoned.

          Beginning with the 1730’s the degree of symbolization is becoming palpably reduced, and the abstract elements are influencing the stage action less and less. Besides the allegorization affecting the entirety of the performances one can observe throughout the period under consideration the point-like, occasional appearance of the symbolical, emblematic elements. At such times only a smaller unit of the drama becomes saturated by abstract meaning and one turn or scene becomes the emphatic element of the story.

            The symbolic, emblematic elements were favoured in the school theatres in Hungary for close to two hundred years. This pictorial tradition was connected, often directly and at other times merely indirectly, with parts and layers of the drama and equally imbued the action, the text, the roles, the scenery, and the reception of the plays. It projected ahead the turns of the performance, referred to the background of the events, helped in recognizing the situations, and contributed to creating a connection between the characters (players) and the audience.

***

  ¹ Ernst Friedrich von Monroy, Emblem und Emblembücher in den Niederlanden 1560-1630. Eine Geschichte der Wandlungen ihres Illustrationsstils. Hg. von Hans Martin von Erffa. Utrecht 1964. 7-23., 67-76.; Walter S. Gibson, Artists and Rederijkers in the Age of Breugel. The Art Bulletin 63 (1981) 426-446.

  ² See, for example, W. Lansdown Goldsworthy, Shakespeare’s heraldic emblems; their origin and meaning. London 1928.; William S. Heckscher, Shakespeare in his Relationship of the Visual Arts: A Study in Paradox. Research Opportunities in Renaissance Drama. The Report of the Modern Language Association Seminar XIII-XIV. 1973. 5-71.; Shakespeare and the Emblem. Studies in Renaissance Iconography and Iconology. Ed. Tibor Fabiny. (Acta Universitatis Szegediensis de Attila József nominatae. Papers in English and American Studies. vol. III.) Szeged 1984.; A reneszánsz szimbolizmus – ikonográfia, emblematika, Shakespeare. Ed. Tibor Fabiny, József Pál, György Endre Szõnyi. (Acta Universitatis Szegediensis de Attila József nominatae Cathedra Comparationis Litterarum Universarum. Ikonológia és mûértelmezés. 2.) Szeged 1987.; Peter M. Daly, Teaching Shakespeare and the Emblem. A Lecture and Bibliography. Acadia University 1993.; Soji Iwasaki, Shakespeare and Iconology. Tokyo 1994.; Tibor Fabiny, "The Eye" as a Metaphor in Shakespearean Tragedy. Hamlet, Cordelia and Edgar: Blinded Parents’ Seeing Children. = Celebrating Comparativism. Papers offered for György M. Vajda and István Fried. Ed by Katalin Kürtösi and József Pál. Szeged 1994. 461-478.; Peggy Munoz Simmonds, Iconographic Research in English Renaissance Literature: a Critical Guide. New York 1995.; Lyndy Abraham, Weddings, Funeral and Incest: Alchemical Emblems in Shakespeare’s Pericles, Prince of Tyre. =  Fourth International  Emblem Conference, Leuven, 18-23. August 1996. Abstracts. Leuven 1996. 3.

  ³ Ansgar Hillach, Sakramentale Emblematik bei Calderón. = Emblem und Emblematikrezeption. Vergleichende Studien zur Wirkungsgeschichte vom 16. bis 20. Jahrhundert. Hrsg. von Sybille Penkert. Darmstadt 1978. 194-206.

  ⁴ Dietrich Walter Jöns, Das "Sinnen-Bild". Studien zur allegorischen Bildlichkeit bei Andreas Gryphius. Stuttgart 1966.; Patricia D. Hardin, Gryphius’ Educational Emblems: Didactics in’ the German Schultheater. = Fourth International Emblem Conference, Leuven, 18-23. August 1996. Abstracts. Leuven 1996. 78-79.

  ⁵ Albrecht Schöne, Emblematik und Drama im Zeitalter des Barock. München ²1968.; cf. G. Pasternack, Spiel und Bedeutung. Untersuchungen zu den Trauersspielen Daniel Caspar von Lohensteins. Diss. Hamburg 1967.; Áron Petneki, Intrada. Az ünnepélyes bevonulás formája és szerepe a közép-kelet-európai udvarokban. = Magyar reneszánsz udvari kultúra. Ed. Ágnes R. Várkonyi. Budapest 1987. 281-290., 382-384.; M. B. Smits-Veldt, Ornaments of the stage ("Sieraaden van het toneel"): Emblem and Allegory in tableaux vivants in tragedies by Joost van den Vondel. Paper on the Conference "Emblem Studies. The State of the Art", June 7-11, 1995, Wroclaw.

  ⁶ Dieter Mehl, Emblémák az angol reneszánsz drámában. = A reneszánsz szimbolizmus (note 2) 165-190.; Dieter Mehl, Emblematic Theatre. Anglia 95 (1977) 130-138.

  ⁷ Peter M. Daly, Literature in the Light of the Emblem. Toronto 1979.; Peter M. Daly, Shakespeare and the Emblem. The Use of Evidence and Analogy in Establishing Iconographic and Emblematic Effects. = Shakespeare and the Emblem (note 2) 117-188.

  ⁸ Dieter Mehl, Emblémák az angol reneszánsz drámában. = A reneszánsz szimbolizmus (note 2) 168.

  ⁹ Zoltán Szilassy, Emblems, Stage, Dramaturgy. (Preliminary Notes to an Iconographic/Iconological and "Iconoclastic" Approach to the Shakespearean Theatre). =  Shakespeare and the Emblem (note 2) 337-352.

  ¹⁰ Jean-Marie Valentin, Le théâtre des Jésuites dans les pays de langue allemande (1554-1680). Salut des âmes et ordre des cités. I-III. Bern – Frankfurt/M 1978. I. 178-257.; Janusz Pelc, Obraz – slowo – znak. Studium o emblematach w literaturze staropolskiej. Wroclaw – Warszawa – Kraków – Gdansk 1973. 207-218.; Paulina Buchwald-Pelcowa, Emblematics in Polish Jesuit Colleges. =  Fourth International  Emblem Conference, Leuven, 18-23. August 1996. Abstracts. Leuven 1996. 25-26.

  ¹¹ Jan David, Occasio arrepta, neglecta, huius commoda: illius incommoda. Antverpiae 1605.

  ¹² Cf. Tekla Dömötör, Drámai szövegeink története a XVII. században. = Régi magyar drámai emlékek I. Ed. Tibor Kardos. Budapest 1960. 193-237.

  ¹³ Cf. the two theatre-emblems of Jacobus Boschius, Symbolographia sive de arte symbolica sermones septem. Augustae Vindelicorum – Dilingae 1701. Classis II. n. DXI: with the motto "Non est mortale, quod ambit" and with the meaning "maiestas", Classis II. n. DCXXXIII: with the motto "Vetustate nobilius" and with the meaning "nobilitas".

  ¹⁴ Géza Staud, A magyarországi jezsuita iskolai színjátékok forrásai II. 1561-1773. Budapest 1986. Ambrosius Heigl, Virtutes Ignatianae symbolis variis illustratae. 137., "[...] deinde subsecutum ipsum drama cuius epilogum clauserunt novem symbola Poetico et pictoreo opere elaborata, quae referebant secundum ordinem novem litteras auro coruscas Illustrissimi Nominis [ti. Leopoldus] cuilibet litterae correspondente, in pictura, conceptu Poetico." 15.

  ¹⁵ Régi magyar drámai emlékek I-II. Ed. Tibor Kardos, Tekla Dömötör. Budapest 1960.; Géza Staud, A magyarországi jezsuita iskolai színjátékok forrásai I-III. 1560-1773. Budapest 1984-1988.; Imre Varga, A magyarországi protestáns iskolai színjátszás forrásai és irodalma. Budapest 1988.; A magyarországi katolikus tanintézmények színjátszásának forrásai és irodalma 1800-ig. Ed. Imre Varga. Budapest 1992.; A magyarországi piarista iskolai színjátszás forrásai és irodalma 1799-ig. Ed. István Kilián. Budapest 1994.; István Kilián, A minorita színjáték a XVIII. században. Elmélet és gyakorlat. Budapest 1992. 21-44.; Márta Zsuzsanna Pintér, A ferences iskolai színjátszás a XVIII. században. Budapest 1993. 113-132.; Régi magyar drámai emlékek XVIII. század. I-IV. Ed. István Kilián, Imre Varga. Budapest 1989-1995.

  ¹⁶ See, for example, Jacobus Pontanus, Poeticarum institutionum libri III. Ed. II. emendatior. Ingolstadii 1597. 87-118.; Martinus Du Cygne, De arte poetica libri duo. Leodii 1664. 239-287.

  ¹⁷ Pontanus, (note 16) 109.

  ¹⁸ Du Cygne, (note 16) 239-287.

  ¹⁹ Jacob Masen, Palaestra styli romani. Coloniae 1659.; cf. Barbara Bauer, Jesuitische 'ars rhetorica' im Zeitalter der Glaubenskämpfe. Frankfurt/M. – Bern – New York 1986. 457-458.

  ²⁰ Bohuslav Balbin, Verisimilia humaniorum disciplinarum. Pragae 1666. 205-227.

  ²¹ See, for example, Typus mundi (Antwerpen 1627) as a source of Jesuit stage emblems: Barbara Bauer, Das Bild als Argument. Emblematische Kulissen in den Bühnenmeditationen Franciscus Langs. Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 64(1982) 79-170. esp. 104-109.

  ²² Balbin, (note 20) 210., 217-225.

  ²³ Balbin, (note 20) 219.; cf. Antonius Sucquet, Via vitae aeternae Iconibus illustrata per Boetium a Bolswert. Antverpiae 1665.

  ²⁴ Balbin, (note 20) 220.; cf. Lubomír Konecny, Edmund Campion S. J., as emblematist. =  The Jesuits and the Emblem Tradition. Selected Papers of the Leuven International  Emblem Conference, 18-23 August, 1996. Ed. John Manning, Marc van Vaeck. Turnhout 1999. 147-159.

  ²⁵ Otto Aicher, Theatrum funebre. Salzburg 1673., 1675.; Otto Aicher, Iter poeticum, quo intra septem dierum spatium tota fere Ars Poetica absolvitur. Salisburgi 1674. 316-335.

  ²⁶ Aicher, Iter, (note 25) on "Nam possunt Allegorice et Symbolice induci actiones [...]" and on "Dramatum Allegoricam" 317.

  ²⁷ Cf. Bauer, (note 21) 87-92.; see, for example, Jacob Masen, Speculum imaginum veritatis occultae. Coloniae ³1681. Cap. LXXVIII. Imagines Artefactorum XLIII. 3. Theatrum. 995-996.; Jean-Marie Valentin, Die dramatischen Meditationen der Münchner Jesuiten im 18. Jahrhundert: Zum Problem ihrer poetischen Legitimation. = Politik — Bildung — Religion. Hans Maier zum 65. Geburtstag. Hg. v. Theo Stammen. Paderborn 1996. 87-95.

  ²⁸ Dieter Breuer, "Ein Theater Voller Wunder" – Jesuitische Argutia-Poetik und barockes Schultheater. = Barokk színház – barokk dráma. Az 1994. évi egri  "iskoladráma és barokk" címû konferencia elõadásai. Ed. Márta Zsuzsanna Pintér. Debrecen 1997. 35-43. esp. 38.

  ²⁹ See, for example, Imre Varga, Közjátékainkról. = Iskoladráma és folklór. A noszvaji hasonló címû konferencián elhangzott elõadások. Ed. Márta Zsuzsanna Pintér, István Kilián. Debrecen 1989. 157-166.; Imre Varga, A magyarországi protestáns iskolai színjátszás a kezdetektõl 1800-ig. Budapest 1995. 160-167.

  ³⁰ Kilián, (note 15) 165.

  ³¹ Márta Zsuzsanna Pintér, Kéziratos drámaelméletek a XVII-XVIII. századból. = Az iskolai színjáték és a népi dramatikus hagyományok. A noszvaji hasonló címû konferencián elhangzott elõadások. Ed. Márta Zsuzsanna Pintér, István Kilián. Debrecen 1993. 11-18.

  ³² Antonius Hellmayr, Institutio Humanistica dictata Anno primo Repetitionis in Hungaria Szakolczae inchoatae, nempe 1734. BEK K F 33. Pars IV. Observationes Drammatico-Historicae. 356-395.; cf. Flóris Szabó, A költészet tanításának elmélete és gyakorlata a jezsuiták gyõri tanárképzõjében (1742-1773). Irodalomtörténeti Közlemények 84 (1980) 469-485.

  ³³ Michael Pexenfelder, Ethica symbolica. Monachii 1675.; Sucquet, (note 23).; Hungarian editions: Michael Pexenfelder, Ethica symbolica. Tyrnaviae 1752-1764. = Calendarium Tyrnaviense, 1752-1764. suppl.; Antonius Sucquet – (Transl. György Derekay), Az örök életnek uttya. Nagy-Szombatban 1678.; Hellmayr, (note 32) 364-365.

  ³⁴ Hellmayr, (note 32) 368-369.

  ³⁵ Hellmayr, (note 32) 383-392.; cf. Nicolaus Avancinus, Poesis Dramatica. Pars V. Romae 1686. 1-220.

  ³⁶ Hellmayr, (note 32) Vestitutus Personarum pro Actionibus. 435-474.

  ³⁷ Sigismundus Varjú, Observationes Poeticae. 1704. FKE Ms. 0088.; [Franciscus de Paula Kirina], Notata poetica et oratoria scholarum S. J. Institutiones Poeticae. FKP 119.B.33. ff. 57-92.; Commentarii in Litteras Humaniores. BEK K F 37.; Commentarii in Litteras Humaniores. BEK K F 38.; cf. Pintér, Kéziratos, (note 31) 11-18.

  ³⁸ Andreas Graff, Methodica Poetices Praecepta in usum Scholae Solnensis edita. Trenchini 1642. III. Caput. Dramaticum Poema. B3/b-B5/b.

  ³⁹ Lucas a S. Edmundo (Moesch Lukács), Vita poetica per omnes aetatum gradus deducta. Tyrnaviae 1693. 6-7., 239-281.; cf. István Kilián, Figurengedichte im Spätbarock. = Laurus Austriaco-Hungarica. Literarische Gattungen und Politik in der zweiten Hälfte des 17. Jahrhunderts. Hrsg. von Béla Köpeczi, Andor Tarnai. Budapest – Wien 1988. 119-179. esp. 129-152.; Kilián, (note 15) 193.

  ⁴⁰ Moesch, (note 39) 10.

  ⁴¹ Moesch, (note 39) 270-281. Ambrosius Calepinus, Dictionarium [...] una cum Conradi Gesneri Onomastico, sive propriorum nominum serie numerosissima. Basiliae 1562.; Moesch, (note 39) Captivitas: 272., Medea: 276.

  ⁴² Moesch, (note 39) 239-240.

  ⁴³ Staud, (note 14) II. 268.

  ⁴⁴ Varga, (note 15) 131-132. E 205.; Varga, (note 29) 161-162.

  ⁴⁵ Staud, (note 15) I. 454.; Apollo coelis redditus seu S. Stephanus Protomartyr [...] sub symbolis in scenam dabant. Leutschoviae 1648.

  ⁴⁶ Staud, (note 15) I. 84.; Apparatus Regius. Sereniss. ac Potentissimo Fredinando II. [...] symbolis regum Hungariae adornatus. Viennae 1618.; Jacobus Typotius, Symbola Divina et Humana Pontificum Imperatorum Regum II. Pragae 1602. 98-103.; cf. Silvestro Pietrasanta, De symbolis heroicis libri IX. Antverpiae 1634. 209.

  ⁴⁷ Ambitio vindicata. Sive Stilico Romani Imperii sceptrum violentia manu sibi vindicare volens [...] ludis theatralibus [...] exhibitus. Tyrnaviae 1719.; Staud, (note 15) I. 144-145.; Régi magyar drámai emlékek XVIII. század. IV/2. Budapest 1995. 996-1004.

  ⁴⁸ Dij Gemelli [...] Sive Divi: Aloysius Gonzaga, ac Stanislaus Kostka [...]. Tyrnaviae 1727.

  ⁴⁹ Franciscus Neumayr, Eutropius infelix politicus. = Franciscus Neumayr, Theatrum Politicum. Augustae Vind. – Ingolstadii 1760. 70-74.; Franciscus Neumayr, Salomon propter malum usum prosperitatis malus et miser. = Franciscus Neumayr, Mundus in maligno positus [...] Argumentum Theatri Ascetici. Augustae Vind. – Ingolstadii 1761. 336-338.

  ⁵⁰ Ambitio ..., (note 47) A2/a. Prologus – Elöl járó Beszéd.

  ⁵¹ Hymenaeus fraude proditus. Tyrnaviae 1725.; Theodosius junior. Tyrnaviae 1737.; Régi magyar drámai emlékek XVIII. század. IV/2. (note 47) 1005-1017., 1033-1044.; cf. Varga, (note 29) 157-166. esp. 161.

  ⁵² Ambitio ..., (note 47) A4/a.

  ⁵³ (Emericus Mindszenti), Fraternae in fratrem impietatis ultio. Tyrnaviae 1714. A8/b-B1/a.; Philippus Picinellus, Mundus symbolicus in emblematum universitate formatus [...] in latinum traductus a R. D. Augustino Erath [...] Tomus Primus [...]. Coloniae 1687. 214.

  ⁵⁴ (Stephanus Székely), Triumphus Innocentiae seu Abagarus Rex Osroenorum. Tyrnaviae 1697. 38-40.

  ⁵⁵ Mindszenti, (note 53) Chorus secundus, Epilogus.

  ⁵⁶ Franciscus Xaverius Goettner, Lauri et Olivae conjunctio. Seu pax ter secundis Caroli VI. [...] armis Hungariae recuperata. Tyrnaviae 1719.

  ⁵⁷ Varga, (note 15) 131-132. E205.; Varga, (note 29) 161-162.

  ⁵⁸ (Gabriel Dietenshamer), Patrona Hungariae in coelos assumpta sub schemate victricis, triumphatricis Judith. Tyrnaviae 1649.; cf. Éva Knapp, Gabriel Dietenshamer: Judit. ( Patrona Hungariae in coelos assumpta sub schemate victricis, triumphatricis Judith. Nagyszombat, 1649) = Barokk színház – barokk dráma. (note 28) 81-99.

  ⁵⁹ See, for example, Aicher, (note 25) 317-318.; Staud, (note 15) I. 103.; cf. Pintér, (note 31) 15. and Commentarii in res Litteras Humaniores BEK K F38. 435-443.

  ⁶⁰ Kilián, (note 15) 31., 114-115.

  ⁶¹ Franciscus Csepelényi (Adamus Fitter?), Carolus I. superatis aemulis Hungariae Rex electus. Tyrnaviae 1712.; Mindszenti, (note 53).; Josephus Bartakovics, Moyses. Tyrnaviae 1749. C3/b.

  ⁶² Petrus Eisenberg, Ein zwiefacher Poetischer Act und geistliches Spiel. Bartfeld 1652.; Herman Hugo, Pia desideria emblematis elegiis et affectibus. Antwerpen 1624.; Herman Hugo, Gottselige Begirde [...]. Augsburg 1627.; Herman Hugo, Piorum desideriorum libri tres. Gedani 1657. nr. 21.; cf. Dmitrij Tschižewskij, Ausserhalb der Schönheit. Ausserästhetische Elemente in der slawischen Barockdichtung. = Die nicht mehr schönen Künste. Grenzphänomene des Ästhetischen. Hg. H. R. Jauss. München 1968. 207-238.; Margarethe Potocki, Wenn Ripa nicht gewesen wäre ...!: Auf dem Spuren der 'Iconologia' des Cesare Ripa im schlesischen Theater des 17. Jahrhunderts. = Die Affekte und ihre Repräsentation in der deutschen Literatur der Frühen Neuzeit. Hg. Jean-Daniel Krebs. Bern – Berlin 1996. 247-263.

  ⁶³ Hellmayr, (note 32) 489., 435-474. Amor proprius: 437., Abstinentia: 435., Amor conjugalis: 439., Aequitas: 435., Appetitus: 437., Ebrietas:445., Ambitio: 436.

  ⁶⁴ Varga, (note 15) 254.; Varga, (note 29. jegyzet) 160-161.

  ⁶⁵ The Sopron Collection of Jesuit Stage Designs. Ed. József Jankovics. Budapest 1999. 

  ⁶⁶ Varga, (note 15) 144-146. E224.; cf. Lubomir Konecny, Young Milton and the telescope. Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 37(1974) 368-373.

  ⁶⁷ Imre Varga, Valóság és barokk mese (Schwartz János "Hungaria respirans" címû drámája). = Barokk színház – barokk dráma (note 28) 142-153. esp. 142-146.

  ⁶⁸ István Kilián, Az egri jezsuita iskola színjátszásának adatai (1692-1772). = Egri Fõegyházmegye sematizmusa VI(1995) 185-225. esp. 203.; Augusta Hungariae Spectacula. Augustissimi [...] Caroli VI. Regis Hungariae Potentissimi, Constantia et fortitudine exhibita. Cassoviae 1728.

© Knapp Éva, 2002