Nagy Szilvia

Teaching Theology in a School Drama

            18^th century school dramas spoke of several topics and were written in order to teach various factual knowledge. The themes and the purpose of teaching are closely connected in some of the dramas. Plays written in the early 18^th century have a closer connection with the dramas of the previous years in theme and structure, too.

            The Csíksomlyó school is one of the most important places of school theatre. Lots of passion plays were produced there, and these dramas give a very important part of the Hungarian school drama treasure. However, the Csíksomlyó school, teachers and students produced not only passion plays: there are some other genres among the pieces, e. g. mystery plays, miracles, comedies etc. They are rooted in earlier school plays, genres. A special kind of these early genres is polemic drama. These “dramas” were originally real disputes of several preachers who tried to persuade each other and the audience of the truth of their own faith with arguments and also with jeer[1]. Not only real but also fictional polemics were edited.[2] The disputes of the 16^th century are not always dramas proper, they have a close connection to Erasmian dialogues.[3] The distinction between polemics and real dramas is not easy in either cases. The polemics and similar plays have a specific structure: the plot is very thin, the dramas are based on dialogues – that is the essence of the dispute. The polemics were in their prime in the 15-16^th centuries, but there are plays with the same polemic structure even in the 18^th century. Franciscans considered confessional education very important[4] and the genre of polemics could be the right tool for it.

            The play titled Actio sine initio[5] “The Conversion of the Jews” is such type of school drama, “real polemic”[6]. It was produced in Csíksomlyó 1722, its auhor is unknown (the authorship was not important in this age[7]). This piece is fragmentary: the first, third, fifth, seventh scenes are missing. (The drama consists of 12 scenes.) The missing scenes might have contained an interludium which could be presented between the other scenes, although there are no references in the text.

The theme of the drama is the conversion of the Jews and the debate of the theologians of several churches in order to convert the Jews. After the missing first scene the second one starts with the debate of the Jews and 12 prophets. The prophets argue with doomsday. After a short debate the Jews ask which church they should join. The prophets suggest them to go to the pope and listen to a dispute after which they could settle which church to join. The 4^th scene shows the Jews’ arrival to the Pontifex who – after a short debate about the Jews’ character – calls doctors and theologians to organise the dispute. In the 6^th scene six councillors discept if the Jews could be accepted or not; a Calvinist doctor also appears. In the 8^th scene nine (Catholic) doctors and three Arians dispute on Trinity, the scene ends with the triumph of Catholicism. In the 9^th scene the author uses different names: in this scene there are antique names (e. g. Hippomachus, Cephalus, Deiphobus) while the persons of other scenes have names like Consiliarius, Doctor, Theologus with a serial number. (All the names are Latin.) The persons debate on the seven sacraments. In the 10^th scene three non-Catholic, two lay Catholic and six Catholic theologians debate on Bread and Wine. In the 11^th scene three non-Catholic laics, a Catholic laic and eight Catholic theologians dispute on the saints. In the 12^th scene a non-catholic laic, a Catholic laic and eight Catholic theologians finish the dispute with the question of idolatry (non-Catholics) or iconophilism (Catholics). All the scenes end up with the Jews’ decision who always settle upon Catholicism. Moreover, the last scene seems to be unfinished: in the end the Jews are locked to make their decision. There might have been a closing scene in the play (to get the decision known), on the other hand the sacral number of the scenes shows the play terminated.

The fragmentary structure, the several personal names show that the drama is a contamination. The author compiled it from different sources to enounce the primacy of Catholic Church. The structure and the method show that the author did not aspire to reach literary value but theological teaching. His aim was to show the dominance of the Catholic doctrine to the children and to the audience by showing the triumph of these doctrines over others. The figures advert to the Bible many times – mainly the Catholic theologians (their roles are the longest). The non-Catholic figures cannot tell too much and do not have real arguments.

I tried to identify the biblical sources of the drama. In most cases the author does not advert denominate verses, just tells “you can find it in several passages of Moses or St. Paul etc.” I looked these verses up if they existed (not in all cases). Some sources are comparatively precise but there are some false citations (the author indicates a book and a verse but the referred passage is not included in the drama).

In the 2^nd scene the prophets cite David[8] about the Jews’ blindness. It’s followed by a longer argument based on Daniel about destruction and rebuilding of Jerusalem in “seven times seven years”[9] The prophets try to persuade the Jews to conversion with the image of approaching doomsday. They count the days, months, years amply for a long time, painting a deterrent picture about doomsday. They mention Moses[10], too, about the destruction of Jerusalem. Jews cite the Genesis saying they are the chosen people[11] but soon after they are convinced about the end of “Moses’s act”. These sources are all from the Old Testament because of the theme: the prophets’ aim is just to let the Jews leave their old belief and be Christian. The real polemics (of Christian churches) follow after it –the real question is not being Christian or not.

The next polemic-like scene is the 8^th one. The Catholic doctors’ explication about Father, Son and Holy Ghost is based mainly on the Gospel according to John. Doctor Tertius quotes from the beginning of the Gospel about Word (Logos)[12]. Doctor Sextus proves Christ’s divinity, citing John: “My Lord and my God!”[13]; “But these have been written in order that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the son of God, and that through your faith in him you may have life.”[14] and adverts to other verses[15]. The 8^th doctor cites Matthew about the same question[16], and there is also an advert to Paul’s Letter to the Romans[17] The 9^th doctor adverts to the Acts of the Apostles as St. Peter says to the Arian (in the Acts to Ananias): “You have not lied to men – you have lied to God!”[18]

The 4^th doctor cites Baruch about God’s appearance on earth: “From that time on, Wisdom appeared on earth and lived among us.”[19] The 5^th doctor also speaks about this theme, citing Isaiah: «A child is born to us! A son is given to us! And he will be our ruler. He will be called, “Wonderful Counselor”, “Mighty God”, “Eternal Father”, “Prince of Peace”.»[20] These citations from the Old Testament don’t really prove the Son’s divinity but are highly appreciated verses.

The Arians cite the New Testament: Matthew: “My God, My God, why did you abandon me?”[21] – For Arianus secundus it is a proof of Christ being human. The 3^rd Arian says: Christ said he couldn’t do anything at all without Father, he proves it from the gospels. (“My Father has given me all things.”[22]; “For the Son of Man is about to come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will reward each one according to his deeds.”[23]; “The Father loves his Son and has put everything in his power.”[24]) One of them cites Paul: “Yet there is for us only one God, the Father, who is the Creator of all things and for whom we live; and there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things were created and through whom we live.” The quotation is not really good, the Arian cites it evidently because of the “only one God” words.

In the 9^th scene Hippomachus, Cephalus, Zingvilus, Theolapius, Oedipus, Diaulus don’t believe in the sacraments and Deiphobus, Piruhmon, Mirmillo try to prove them the truth. Some of the sacraments are accepted by all, Zingvilus says there are evidences of communion[25], penitence[26] and baptism[27] in the New Testament. (He doesn’t give exact verses, only speaks of evidences in the Book.) The others deny even these sacraments. Mirmillo – when proving communion – adverts to the same texts. Deiphobus adverts to several verses of the New Testament: Acts (because of the confirmation): “Paul placed his hands on them, and the Holy Spirit came upon them”[28]; Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians: [Lord Jesus Christ] “will also keep you firm to the end, so that you will be faultless on the Day of our Lord Jesus Christ.”[29] The sacrament of marriage is proved very shortly by Deiphobus, with an advert to St. Paul: “Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands as to the Lord. for a husband has authority over his wife just as Christ has authority over the church; and Christ is himself the Savior of the church, his body.”[30] Proving the churchmen’s sacrament is the longest part of the dispute. Deiphobus adverts to Paul’s letters to Timothy (“Do not neglect the spiritual gift that is in you, which was given to you when the prophets spoke and the elders laid their hands on you.”[31]; “For this reason I remind you to keep alive the gift that god gave you when I laid my hands on you.”[32]) and to the Hebrews[33]. He adverts also to the Acts[34]. The proof of the churchmen’s sacrament is interknit in the proof of the last sacrament; Deiphobus cites James: “Is there anyone who is sick? He should send for the church elders, who will pray for him and rub olive oil on him in the name of the Lord.”[35] Baptism is proved from John: “No one can enter the Kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.”[36]

In this scena there are citations only from the New Testament, because the dispute is on the differences of the Christian churches. The disputers advert to the well-known parts of the Book and their arguments aren’t always clear.

In the 10^th scene the theme is manducation (Holy communion). Only the Catholics have biblical arguments, non-Catholics define their positions just in the beginning, they do not answer to the encounterers. Actually nearly the whole scene is taken by the Catholics’ text. They advert to the evangelists[37] and St. Paul (“The cup we use in the Lord’s supper and for which we give thanks to God: when we drink from it, we are sharing in the blood of Christ. And the bread we break: when we eat it, we are sharing in the body of Christ.”[38])

In the 11^th scene Catholics and non-Catholics dispute on the saints. Like in the previous scene, non-Catholics speak little. One of them cites Ecclesiastes about the dead: “Yes, the living know they are going to die, but the dead know nothing. they have no further reward; they are completely forgotten. their loves, their hates, their passions, all died with them. They will never again take part in anything that happens in this world.”[39] The Catholics give more examples against this opinion, Tobit[40], Job[41], Baruch[42], the Maccabees[43], Hosea[44], Daniel[45] and Samuel[46], as well from the New Testament, Luke[47] and St. Paul: letters to the Romans[48], Corinthians[49], Galatians[50] and Thessalonians[51]. In these verses there are several examples of the help from the dead or some people’s mystic knowing about supernatural world. The examples haven’t got real connection with each other. In the scene there are surprisingly many citations from the Old Testament. All the verses demonstrate that there is some kind of existence after death and these beings are aware of the people below on earth and may be of their help. The verses do not contain any indications of saints, certainly because of the saints’ respect has begun later.

The structure of the 12^th scene is nearly the same as earlier. In this scene there is no real dispute: a non-Catholic laic begins the scene stating the Catholics are idolater. He cites the Exodus: “Do not make for yourselves images of anything in heaven or on earth or in the water under the earth. Do not bow down to any idol or worship it, because I am the Lord your God and I tolerate no rivals.”[52] The non-Catholic doesn’t even say a word, the scene contains only the thoughts of the lay Catholic and theologians. It’s an interesting phenomenon that they advert just to the Old Testament, mainly to Moses’s books. The 1^st theologian cites also the Exodus, the well-known story of the gold bull-calf[53], saying Catholics do not respect the idol but its meaning. The 2^nd theologian adverts to the Exodus, too, citing God’s commandments: man should respect a lot of things.[54] The 3^rd theologian cites from the same verses emphasizing to observe the Sabbath[55]. He also speaks about the land given to Moses and his descendants: “I will give to you and to your descendants this land in which you are now a foreigner. The whole land of Canaan will belong to your descendants forever, and I will be their God.”[56]. The 5^th theologian mentions the two cherubs viz. their images from the Exodus as an example of reverend creatures[57]. The 4^th theologian cites the Numbers about the sacred utensils which are reverend and forbidden to touch[58]. Other books are also mentioned, e. g. the Maccabees about David’s kingdom[59] and the Psalms[60]. The 2^nd theologian mentions the Ark of the Covenant as a sacred object[61] and the 5^th and the 7^th theologians tell some events connected with the Ark: Uzzah’s death[62] and Obed Edom’s blessing[63]

There are 118 sources in the play (not including the iterative sources), 36 from the Old Testament, 82 from the New Testament. The great number of sources from the NT is attributable to the theme: the Christian churches dispute on their theses. There are many quotations from Moses’s books (18), mainly from the Genesis (6) and the Exodus (10). These are the well-known passages of the OT. There are one or two citations from the 13 other books mentioned above. There are preferred books in the NT, too. The author cited the evangelists 43 times, mostly John: 17 times (others: Matthew 11, Mark 7, Luke 8 times). The Gospel according to John is more spiritual, better for the purpose of polemic. The author adverts 20 times to the Acts and 17 times to St. Paul (1Corinthians: 6, Romans: 4, Galatians: 2, Ephesians, 1Thessalonians, 1Timothy, 2Timothy, Hebrews: 1-1), also mentioning James and Peter (1-1). The scale of the cited books shows that the author used those verses which were the best known and which were to familiar for the audience. He compiled the drama keeping the education in view trying to persuade the children and also the adults of the primacy of the Catholic doctrines showing that even the non-christians (the Jews) choose this church. The structure, the story, the amusement have been surpassed by theological teaching. In fact the play is not entertaining, it gave only a moral delight to the audience, being in harmony with the aim of the school and the Franciscan teachers.

© Nagy Szilvia, 2002