Medgyesy-Schmikli Norbert

The relation of religious education and playacting in some Franciscan and a Piarist play

(Translated by Boldizsár Fejérvári)

Among the Franciscan schools in Hungary in the 18^th century the grammar school of Csíksomlyó was the most outstanding with regard to acting. This was primarily due to the number of plays and their often medieval motifs. Between 1721 and 1782 more than a hundred plays were performed by the students coming together from Székely villages. The majority of our Hungarian and Latin sources refer to religious plays, most of which – about 39 pieces – were Passion plays. Every year, the performances took place on Good Friday; occasionally on Black Sunday or on 13^th June, the holiday of St Anthony of Padua.[1]

In light of the topics of these plays and the date of their performance one may ask the question what the purpose of presenting mystery plays was, and through which pedagogical methods this purpose was achieved. In the Baroque period, as we know very well, education was controlled by the respective confessions – until Emperor Joseph’s measures. Religious education was natural, and even the daily routine of the students followed the liturgy.[2] The performance of the Csíksomlyó mysteries served not only the spiritual and intellectual development of the students, not only the reinforcement of their Biblical and theological knowledge, but also the instruction, the spiritual education of the audience. This is proved by the frequent remarks on the part of the participants, as well as the stage directions, which confirm the existence of such a relationship between the actors and the audience. On the basis of the text of the plays, and the common education of the students and the audience, I have put the Franciscan Passion plays of Csík county into three categories.

I          The purpose of performing mystery plays

The mere existence and subject matter of the Csíksomlyó mystery plays served to lead the viewers to repentance, recollection over the secrets of their faith and to make the children familiar with the teaching of the Bible and the Church through the presentation of the suffering of Jesus Christ. The primary aim was thus repentance and penitence in the hope of redemption.[3] Repentance is the basis of Christian life and the pivot of religious education. In history, the Franciscan order has always been the one closest to simple, often illiterate people. Religious plays served the communication with and the pastoration of these layers of society. The plays – as the following examples show – were embedded in the spiritual history of the Franciscan order, and thus they reflected  the spirituality of the order in all their features. The Rule of St Francis,[4] the regulation of the third order,[5] and the Octava Seraphica, the fundamental document of Franciscan spiritual life, the collection of meditations by Aemilianus Nieberle,[6] lay special emphasis on the importance of repentance. The collection, organised around eight days, was translated into Hungarian by Antal Takács, a member of the Franciscan Province of the Virgin Mary.[7]

The Octava Seraphica points out how important it should be that its meditative readers seriously consider their salvation amid the various duties of this world (Day 1, Meditation 3, Article 1): “Keressétek előbb az Isten országát és az ő igazságát, és mindenek néktek hozzá adatnak. (Mt 6) Leg-első, leg-föbb, leg-nagyobb, és egyetlen-egy gondod a’ te Lelkedet üdvöziteni, mert az idő veszendő, melly a’ Leleknek üdvösségében nem foglaltatik. Hadakozások, Tanúlások, Kereskedések, és más egyebek, mindenek merő haszontalanságok, ha a’ Léleknek üdvösségével egyben-tétetnek: mert a’ hol a’ Léleknek kára vagyon, ott nincs semmi nyereség. Mit használ az embernek, ha az egész világot megnyeri is, de a lelke kárt szenved.”[8]

Angelus Quartus warns the viewers of the same thing in the play performed on Good Friday in Csíksomlyó in 1763:[9]

“Térjetek meg immár tehát bűnös népek

Bűnőkben meg rőgzőtt keményedett lelkek,

Lágyuljon szivetek egyszer kegyetlenek,

Máskeppen minyajon pokolra vitettek.”[10]

The final lines of the Epilogue in the same play also exhorted the audience:

“Lelki űsmeretét meg visgálja minden,

s regen tett vétkeit kiki meg űsmérvén,

Istent meg kovesse sirván keservesen,

Hogy nyerjen kegyelmet az Istentől.”[11]

In the “Reggeli Istenes Olvasgatás” [Morning Divine Reading], the Octava Seraphica quotes the founder of the Franciscan order, in whose view the first degree of perfection is repentance (Day 5, Meditation 1, Article 3):

“A’ mi Serafikus Szt. Ferencz Atyánk a’ Szerzetes Személyében ezenen kovetendő 10 tökélletességeket kereste: Első tökélletessége az hogy minden igyekezetével igyekezzék büneinek meg-bánására, és azoknak meg-vallására késedelem nélkül és azután kerüllye minden tehetségével, hogy azokban többé vissza ne essen.”[12]

The dramatised version of Bonaventura Potyó’s The Way of the Cross (Via crucis, Csíksomlyó, 1739) best demonstrates of all Csík Passion plays the purpose of sacred acting: almost all characters communicate to the audience the necessity of repentance and spiritual conversion. At Station 7 (Christ falls with the cross for the second time) Angelus Septimus summons for repentance in a straightforward way:

“Tedd le azért mostan kevély gondolatid,

Ne tartsd magad jobbnak, mint felebarátid,

Alázd meg magadot, mint régi Atyáid,

A Kristusnak valld meg minden bűneidet.”[13]

At Station 8 (Christ speaks to the wailing women) Angelus Octavus “preaches” the mercy of God:

“Ugyanis olyan nagy Istennek irgalma,

Hogy csak egy lelket is el nem kárhoztatna,

Pokolra közületek egyet sem taszítna,

Hogyha erre éppen kételen nem volna.”[14]

The Epilogue of the Passion play of 1731 speaks about the forgiveness of sins:

“Mert nincs olyan bűnős a szeljes világon,

Meljet kegyességgel hoza ne fogagyon,

Es hogy bocsanatot nekie ne agyon,

Tőredelmessege ha bűneről vagyon.

Amely szeretetet mind ezeket ertven,

Minden bűneinktől Istent meg kővetven,

Isten színet nezűk az őrők menyekben,

Meljet engegyen meg minyajunknak. Amen.”[15]

In Franciscan spiritual writings as well as dramatic plays the teaching that whoever commits sin makes Christ’s sufferings even more severe is emphatically represented. This is reinforced in “Dei immortalis in corpore mortali parientis historia, moralis doctrinae placitis et commendationibus illustrata”, a collection of meditations on the passion of Christ by the Flemish Jesuit author Guilelmus Stanihurstus (1601–1663).[16] Part 7, Meditation 2, Article 2 of his work is concerned with the binding of Christ. This is what Stanihurstus has to say about the things mentioned above:

“Mellyik az a’ nép, a’ mellyért az Isten Fia meg verettetett? Valaki bűnt tett, a’ megveretett Jézus ostorozásában vétkes, az A’ ki azért bün nélkül az dicsekedgyék, hogy ő tiszta a Kristusnak vérétől. Mi tehát a’ kik vétkezénk, ugyan mi meg is verénk.”[17]

The Epilogue of the play staged in Csíksomlyó in 1766[18] teaches the same, that is, the sins of man aggravate the sufferings of Christ:

“Szünyél meg hát bünös több vétket mivelni,

Te vétkeid által a Kristust kínozni,

Paráznaságaddal ruháját le huzni,

Illetlen csókoddal, mind Júdás, el adni.”[19]

The Epilogue of the play by Ágoston Szabó in 1768[20] was similarly severe in its exhortation addressed to the faithful audience:

“Hitesd el magaddal ember bizonyára,

Hogy midőn vetkezel halalosan tudva,

Mind annyiszor Kristust huzod kereszt fára,

Á mint szent Pál eztet nyilván bizonyitja.

Kely fel bűneidből, ha üdvösségedet

Szereted, s kivánod nyerni eletedet

Fordics Jézusodhoz igazán szivedet.”[21]

In Scene 8 of the Passion play staged in 1741,[22] the seven deadly sins are enumerated. Every one of them prompts the audience to a behaviour opposed to its (negative) own, and then, converting, implores the merciful Christ.

Another purpose of performing sacred plays derived from repentance: various indulgences could thus be achieved, of which the Franciscans could partake on the basis of papal patents. From the rules of the third order one can learn that Passion plays, that is, meditations on the suffering of Christ, were associated with numerous privileges for pardon. The rule of the first (male) branch of the Franciscan order was approved of by Pope Nicholas IV in his “Supra montem” bull of 17 August 1289, as the rule printed in Csíksomlyó in 1753 informs us.[23] The pardons for the third order were confirmed by Pope Clement V (“Cum illuminatium sit”, 8 May 1305), Pope Sixtus IV (“Sacri Praedicatorum et Minorum Franciscanum Ordines”, 1 August 1419), Pope Leo X (“Dudum per nos accepto”, 10 December 1519), Pope Clement VII (“Ad uberes”, 1526), Pope Paul III (“Ad uberes fructus”, 8 November 1584), Pope Clement VIII (“Ratio Pastoralis officii”, 20 October 1597), and Pope Paul V (“Cum certas”, 11 March 1607).[24] Popes Innocent XI and XII were special patrons of the Franciscan order. The blessed Pope Innocent XI (1676–1689), the redeemer of Buda Castle, approved the Franciscan rule in five bulls: in “Universis” (30 September 1681), “Ecclesiae Catholicae” (28 June 1686), “Exponi nobis” (5 September 1686), “Alias” (10 October 1686) and “Exponi nobis II” (15 May 1688).[25] Pope Innocent XII (1691–1700) was also active in supporting the Franciscans; he confirmed the privileges provided for the members of the first, second, and third orders in six bulls: “Adea” (24 October 1692), “Debitum” (19 May 1694), “Sua nobis” (1 January 1695), “Cum sucut dilectus” (21 November 1696), “Exponi nobis” (3 October 1697), and “Ex debita Pastorali”. Pope Benedict XIII approved the spiritual privileges given by the preceding popes on 4 October 1725 in the “Paternae Sedis” bull.[26]

The rule of the third order published in Csíksomlyó enumerates in detail the various holidays and prayers that can lead to partial or complete indulgence. Among others, we find the following here: “Ha egész holnapban minden nap fél óráig, vagy leg-alább egy fertály óráig a’ Kristus kénszenvedéséről elmélkednek, és azon hólnapnak végén meggyónván áldoznak” (Part 2, Paragraph 2).[27] The opportunity was not only there for the members of the third order: “a Bulla[28] nem csak a’ Regula-szerént élő tertiariusok iránt, hanem e’ világon élö házas Tertiariusokért is adatott, egynéhány Pápáktól; nevezet-szerént XI. Innocentiustól 28. Junii 1686-ban és közelebb XII. Benedek Pápától meg-erösittetett”.[29] It is thus more than likely that it was not only the force of the local tradition, and the pastorational and pedagogical purpose which played a substantial role in the performance of Passion plays, but also the desire for indulgence.[30] In the papal bulls, indulgence was connected to confession, that is, penance. It is no coincidence that in every Good-Friday play there are references to contrite repentance – in the Prologue and the Epilogue, if nowhere else.

II         The content of the mystery plays

During Passion plays, the Biblical and factual knowledge of the acting students and the audience could best be reinforced through the plot of the plays. Bible translations were available at parishes and monasteries from the 17^th and 18^th centuries but still inaccessible to the people. The enormous illiteracy increased the lack of Biblical knowledge. Thus, besides sermons in the vernacular, it was the duty of the students learning at Franciscan monasteries to teach the major events in the history of Redemption to the faithful by means of the school plays. The plays became “religious education” not only because of their spirituality, but also on the basis of their plots. According to their content, the following types of plays can be distinguished.

(1) Scenes taken from the New Testament.

Not only the arrest of Jesus Christ, his trial and execution, but also his parables and miracles were often staged. The following New Testament passages were put on stage in addition to the Passion:

Christ’s temptation (Mt 4:1–11) in 1729[31] and 1768, the calling of the Apostles (Mt 4:17–22) in 1743, St John the Baptist’s testimony about the Lamb of God (Jn 1:29–30) in 1743, Jesus as the Good Shepherd (Jn 10:1–21), the story of the centurion of Capernaum (Mt 8:5–13) and the parable on cockle (Mt 13:24–30) in 1740, the healing of the demoniac in the Gerasenes (Lk 8: 26–30) in 1768, the story of the good Samaritan (Lk 10:25–37) in 1734, the parable about the vinedressers (Mt 21:33–46) in 1726 and 1763, the healing of the woman with a flow of blood (Mk 5:25–34) in 1727, the healing of the 10 lepers (Lk 17:11–17) in 1740 and 1759, the story of Zaccheus the tax collector (Lk 19:1–10) in 1748, the exorcism (Lk 11:14–23) in 1726, 1748, and 1763, the healing of the blind man in Jericho (Mk 10:46–52) in 1726, 1748, and 1768, the forgiveness of the adulterous woman (Jn 8:1–12) in 1736 and 1759, Jesus’ entry to Jerusalem (Mt 21:1–11) in 1729, 1740, and 1751, and finally the cleansing of the temple (Jn 2:13–17) in 1768. The text of the plays demonstrated the Jesus always healed the faithful and the repentant, thus giving an example to the viewers.

(2) The Easter events

Since we are faced with Passion plays, it is natural that in all pieces there should be reference to the events that took place on Good Friday. One can see in all Passion plays that the trial of Christ is given special attention. But this was not merely presented on the basis of the St John Passion to be sung in the Good-Friday liturgy, but in a concordance of the gospels. The usual sequence of Christ’s suffering was the following: Mount of Olives, Annas, Caiaphas, then Pilate, Herod, and Pilate once again, and finally Mount Calvary.

(3) Old Testament antitypes

Such antitypes could appear on stage in two ways and forms: as parts of heavenly trials that decide the necessity of passion and salvation, or as a prefiguration in one scene, explained by the New Testament fulfilment in the next. The mystery plays of 1726, 1729, and 1740, belong to the latter group. The passion play of 1751 must be mentioned here, which shows the history of salvation from the creation up until Christ’s death in a continuous sequence of events.[32] The antitypes set the allegorical explication of the Bible on stage. This form of interpretation has been present in the tradition from the first church communities.[33] According to certain rules it has been possible to determine which prototype belongs to which event. But in the course of the plays one can find correspondences that were not indicated in previous literature or medieval poor-man’s-Bibles. Such a correspondence occurs in the play of 1729, where the accusation of Nabot (1King 21) is juxtaposed with the accusation of Christ, the entrance on an ass of Saul (1Sam 9:11–16) with Jesus’ entry, and Achitophel’s hanging (2Sam 17:3) with Judas’s suicide.[34] An apocryphal example of the antitype appears in the play of 1743, where the mother of Tobit setting out on a long journey is compared to the Virgin Mary, saying goodbye to her Son.[35]

(4) The example of Peter, Mary Magdalen, and Judas

The lamentation of Peter who has denied his Master is another example of repentance. The Bible only tells us that Peter “wept bitterly” (Lk 22:62). The writers of the passion plays staged this event on the basis of pedagogical and pastorational considerations; they created touchingly beautiful lamentations. These affected the emotions of the viewers, and demonstrated the teaching that God forgives the sins of those who practice true repentance. Such lamentations can be found in the mystery playes performed in 1731, 1733, 1727, 1729, 1740, 1744, 1759, and 1768.

The same teaching is presented in the spiritual conversion of Mary Magdalen, which was staged in 1731 and 1765 with the use of allegorical figures (Mundus, Genius Charitatis, Visus, Factus, Odoratus, Spes, Fides).[36]

Judas’s story, on the other hand, is the negative example set in front of the students and viewers. The passion plays depict the last actions of the traitor in surprising intensity. His temptation, and his lamentation in hell is shown in separate scenes. According to the attributes of the medieval and Baroque world view, the torments of the damned was presented in a fairly naturalistic – exemplary – way.

(5) The witness of apocryphal scenes

Those motifs are enumerated here whose direct source is not the Bible. The heavenly trial belongs here, for instance, which will be discussed beneath, in the passage on theological debates. The scene of Bethany belongs here, which shows the last encounter and farewell of Mary and Jesus before Good Friday. This scene is one of the most typical examples of the devotion affecting the emotions. It depicts the relation of a mother and a son, often emphasising the sufferings of Mary. The lamentations of the innocent mother were meant to increase repentance in the souls of the viewers, just like the planctuses sung in front of the rood.

In the mystery plays of 1733, 1734, and 1736, there is a motif of Gothic origin, which refers to exact data to enumerate how many drops of blood and tear Jesus shed, and how many punches and spits he had to suffer. The naturalism of this scene also contributed to the penance of the audience.

The staging of apocryphal scenes proved the holistic way of medieval thinking, and it taught that the Tradition is just as much a part of the Catholic faith as the Scripture. The presentation of scenes from outside the Bible was not alien to the Franciscan tradition either. This is supported by the statement of Duns Scotus, the great representative of the Franciscan theological school:[37] “multa […] non sunt expresse in evangelio et tamen Ecclesia tenet illa esse tradita certitudinaliter.”[38] We are faced with such things here which had become topoi over the centuries, and which were sustained by the tradition of the Church and accepted as divine truth.

III       Theological debates and confessions on stage

The Church can not only express the teachings of the Bible through particular stories, but also through virtual analyses of secrets of faith. This is revealed in the passion play staged in 1723, as Christ prays on the Mount of Olives.

“Atyám, hogy ha lehet, szenvedés pahára,

Mellyeket én tőllem, mélyet Adám s Éva

Szerze, hogy meg szegé a paradicsomba

Parancsolatodot, mely ki vala adva.”[39]

The passage cited clearly refers to the connection explained through the heavenly trial: if Adam had not committed the original sin, Christ would not have had to suffer. Christ perspires blood, while Genus Humanum implores the Father:

“Mert ki teremtéskor vólt mindennek ura,

Most már urasága jutott nagy rabságra.”[40]

From his words the Catholic teaching shines through, that is, Creation was the joint effort of the entire Trinity, including the Christ now suffering, who had come to this world at Christmas, but was born in the Trinity before all times. Genus Humanum asks Christ for forgiveness for the sins of humanity:

“Legy irgalmas, kérlek, a’ szegény Adámnak,

Ő benne el esett sok maradvanyinak,

És meg kesertetett siralmas Aszszonynak,

Azután ők tőllők, kik szaporodtanak.”[41]

From the lines quoted the next dogma becomes evident: the first human couple committed the original sin not only on its own behalf, but on behalf of whole humanity, which inflicts every living person as it is inherited. After this, in the words of Peccator, the words of Psalm 50 (the psalm of repentance) were uttered in verse form. Christus replies to the honest confession of Peccator: he takes on himself the sins of the world, he suffers because he wants the sinner to repent, not to die. The monologue of Christus is the example of the teaching of mercy, which served as an exhortation to actor and viewer alike.

The so-called heavenly trial (Ordo Prophetarum, Proces de Paradise) also addresses essential, fundamentally theological problems. In such mystery plays, the patriarchs and prophets of the Old Testament, as well as allegorical figures (Misericordia, Iustitia, Amor, Sapientia) decide whether Christ needs to be incarnated and suffer for the salvation of mankind. The precursor of the prophet play is the sermon on the incarnation by Pseudo-Augustine (Sermo contra Judeos, Paganos et Arianos de Symbolo), which was read during the matins of Christmas. It was this source which became dramatised in the Middle Ages.[42] This prophet play was joined in 1448 by the trial of Salvation, based on the Meditations of Pseudo-Bonaventure, elaborated by the French Franciscan theologist Arnoul Gréban in the mystery play Passion de niostre saulveur Jhesu Christ. This included the aforementioned allegorical figures as well. [43] In the play by Gréban still only the incarnation is presented. The Good-Friday sermon in Osvát Laskai’s collection of preachings, Sermones Dominicales Biga Salutis intitulati (1498) also combines these two,[44] but here it is no longer the incarnation which is at stake, but Christ’s passion and death. The same notion also occurs in the Makula nélkül való tükör, the popular biography of Jesus and Mary.[45] This is passed on in the Baroque mystery plays of Csíksomlyó (e.g. the passion plays of 1727, 1731, 1733, 1748, 1755, 1766, and 1767), which link the heavenly trial either to the scene in Paradise, or form an individual scene before the presentation of the passion. As regards their content: Adam has committed the original sin, and thus – as reconciliation – the Son of God has to die. The teaching of the plays coincides with that of Duns Scotus insofar as in his system Christ’s incarnation appears as one means of exercising mercy among many possible means. But the plays demonstrate a logical order between the original sin and the crucifixion of Christ: if it had not been for Adam’s sin, Jesus would not have had to die on the cross. Scotus, however, taught that regardless of the original sin and of the salvation as a result of the incarnation of the Word, it had been God’s intention that the second divine Person should become incarnate. This had been among God’s eternal plans. Alexander Halensis (1170–1245), the first significant representative of Franciscan theology had already written about this (Summa theologica III.2.13), and later St Bonaventure confirmed the theses of Scotus in 9 tenets.[46] On the basis of the above one can claim that the heavenly trials of Laskai, and later those of the Csíksomlyó plays, confess a theological system that long preceded the Franciscan theological school in time. This earlier, ancient view is reflected in the Exsultet, the Easter song that dates from the 4^th century. In this song of jubilation, the logical order seen in the plays is already present: “O certe necessarium Adae peccatum, quod Christi morte deletum est! O felix culpa, quae talem ac tantum meruit habere Reedemptorem.”[47] Practically, this means that Adam’s sin was “necessary” insofar as it made God decide the order of salvation thus: taking Adam’s sin in consideration beforehand, he had decided before the beginning of time to send his Son down to the earth. This was interpreted in a literal way in the Middle Ages.[48] From this literal interpretation, the logical sequence still present in the Baroque mystery plays derives.

As the conclusion (Stations 4 and 5) of the passion play performed in 1727, seven Angels converse and witness to the Eucharist. According to Angelus Primus, the adoration of the bread and wine would be idolatry if the Body and Blood of Christ were not veritably present in them. He refers to Zachariah 13 and Isaiah 2. Angelus Secundus contradicts this. Referring to John 6, he claims that Christ is only present in the sacrament in “example, title, and sign”, and not in real body. Meanwhile, he also hints at the exegesis of St Augustine. Angelus Quartus also witnesses against true presence. Angelus Quintus first warns against the danger of the coming of the Antichrist, and reminds the others of the fact that Christ is present in the Eucharist in the form of His transfigured body, and not that of the suffering. Angelus Sextus quotes Acts 16 to claim that Christ does not live in the sacrament.[49] Angelus Septimus calls these words blasphemy.

After all this, the participants of the Statio prima converse about the size of miracles. As the first speaker, Angelus Primus sides with the creation from nothing, and the fact that God has done this out of love for people. Angelus Secundus claims the rod of Moses, whose touch divided the Red Sea, was no smaller a miracle. He also calls the copper snake of Moses a miracle, or the water that flowed from the rock. Angelus Tertius adds to the size of miracles. According to him, the greatest one is the fact that in Christus the divine and human natures are present simultaneously:

“Az emberi testnek, mikor azt olvassuk,

Hogy homalja alat, mikor azt tanityuk:

Isteni termeszet, mivel hogy nem láttyuk,

El rejtve legyen, hitünkel igy valjuk.”[50]

This is how Christ was able to turn water into wine. Here an implicit reference is made to the wedding at Cana.

Angelus Quartus now praises the presence in the Eucharist. In order to support this, he takes Old Testament antitypes. According to him, the Tree of Life in Paradise is the antitype of the Eucharist, since the power that is there in Christ’s Body and Blood, and that gives eternal life, is equal to the power present in that tree. Angelus Sextus mentions another prefiguration: according to Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom built a house for himself, in which he set two pillars, a table and wine. The latter refer to the body and double nature of Christ. The pillars are also antitypes:

“A fel emeltet oszlopok peldaztak,

A mint a szent atyák eztet magyaráztak,

Szent Ciprianus es Agoston meg irtak,

A hét szencségeket jo modon mutattak.

A szent keresztséget s az urvacsoráját,

Bermalassal együtt a Penitencziát,

Az egyházi rendnek szent Sacramentumát,

Jambor házasoknak rendes társaságat,

Utolso kenetnek az o valoságát.”[51]

The Easter Lamb is also an antitype of Christ, as well as the manna from heaven is the antitype for the Eucharist.

The first participant of Statio Secunda is Angelus Primus, who uses psalms to prove the true presence. He claims kings, emperors, and noblemen of all ranks adore Christ in this sacrament, and it is impossible that they should all be idolatrous. Angelus Tertius refers to St Paul,[52] claiming that one must not go to communion if one is in a state of mortal sin. He goes on to add an original thought: many go to communion who should repent before, and they will be damned. If there were only the bread, fewer would come to hell:

“Valjon vettetnek e örök kárhozatra,

Az oljan embernek lelke a kinokra,

Ki puszta kenyeret tenne a fogára,

Eztet ugy itilem, nem jutna pokolra.”[53]

The source of the words of Angelus Quartus is found in the stage directions: “Probatur realitas Christi in specibus Eucharisticis ex Sancto Joanne capite 6 verso 58.” The angel paraphrases the text of the gospel, and adds an explanation, saying Christ exists in the eternal intellect of the Father, and whoever eats his body can meet the redemption of the world. Angelus Quintus mentions the Last Supper, the foundation of the Eucharist on the basis of the Gospel according to Matthew,[54] and refers to Good Friday in his commentary: Christ was wounded, scourged, and crucified because of our sins. The body which lay in Mary’s womb and which is present in the Eucharist was put on the cross. This sacrament is the commemoration of his death, and the token of his return. Angelus Quintus gives one of the central Catholic teachings in this passage.

Angelus Sextus, also on the basis of Matthew, mentions Christ’s Transfiguration as evidence.[55] The Transfiguration is the proof of Christ’s divinity, which is present in this sacrament. The Salvator Chapel, which is located on Mount Kis-Somlyó, has long been the herald of the cult of the Transfiguration; it was built as an homage to the Transfiguration, after the victory at Nándorfehérvár (1456).[56]

The first participant in the Statio Tertia is once again Angelus Primus. He sums up what has been said so far. Then he tells Christ’s parable about the vine in first person singular:[57] Christ is the vine-stock, and the disciples the vine-branches.[58] Angelus Secundus[59] mentions the Last Supper once again on the basis of the synoptists[60] and St Paul’s epistles.[61] Angelus Tertius continues this train of thoughts, and encourages the audience to go to communion:

“Igyatok minyájon ebből a poharbol,

Kit most nektek nyuljtok irgalmasságombol,

Veletek kőszlendő szokot jo voltombol,

Reszesűljőn ki ki ezen aldozatbol.”[62]

The play does not separate this passage into scenes (scena), but into stations (statio). It is conceivable that this part of the play was performed in some kind of a procession, since its plot is not linked to the passion. The way in which Angelus Tertius exhorts the faithful could be a quotation from the gospel, or a communion procession. This latter is not very likely, since in Catholic liturgy the communion is always connected to the Mass, but passion plays were not the part of the liturgy. It is more probable that one simply wanted to reinforce the dogmatic knowledge of the viewers. One may also think of the dogmatic debates against Protestants. The stage directions, however, resemble Biblical references in theological textbooks. Such references can be found in dogmatic textbooks which are extant as manuscript in Csíksomlyó.[63] On the basis of this we may claim that the last act of the play of 1727 reveals the connection between religious study and acting in the most typical way.

It was first in 1723 that the dogma of the Trinity appeared on stage in Csíksomlyó, in the final act of the Actio aquatis satis sine initio, a play on the Last Judgement.[64] Deus Pater explains the essence of the Trinity:

“Mindöröktól fogva elünk dicsosegben

Fiuvál s Lelekkel egyenlö felsegben,

Mind harman egyenlö vagyunk termeszetben,

Kűlömbozünk pedig horman csak szemelyben.”[65]

Deus Pater tells us that the “three of them” are still One, they exist since eternity, the Trinity is outside this world, and He created the world from nothing. This is when He explains that the Spirit derives from Him and His Son, and they created man all together. Man was set in Paradise, where he committed a sin. God then sent the flood and talked to the human race through His prophets, and eventually through His Son, who proclaimed His kingdom. The concluding words of Deus Pater ask the audience not to mourn over those who are in hell, but to do all they can to avoid the same. Filius reports on His deeds: he came down to earth, and redeemed mankind through His blood. It is not His fault that many have been damned, but the fault of the sinful life people live on earth, because they do not listen to the teaching. The blessed, however, should rejoice, Filius says. The praise of the 24 Ancients ends the play,[66] who praise God and recite the Four Beatitudes.[67]

In the first scene of the passion play performed in 1736[68] – after the Prologue has told the original sin of Adam – Pater and Spiritus Sanctus sends Verbum down to earth. The dogma of the Trinity is touched on here as well:

“Így én Atya, Fiu és Szentlélek Isten

Egyek vagyunk ugyan mű természetünkben,

Mindazáltal kűlőmbőzűnk személyűnkben

Mind á kiktől lőtt, mind á főldőn, s mind a Ményben.”[69]

In the words of Spiritus Sanctus, the Filioque controversy unfolds, the centre of debates with the Eastern Church from the first centuries of Christianity: “Én is, ki Atyától, s Fiútól származtam”[70] [I too, who have derived from Father and Son]. Then Spiritus utters his preference: the Son (Verbum) must become incarnate. The teaching that the incarnation is decided by the Father and the Spirit first appears in the works of Duns Scotus. St Bonaventure (1221–1275), the other decisive personage of the Franciscan theological school, considers the Father as the source of the Trinity, and derives the Son, the Spirit, and thus the entire creation from the self-uttering primacy of the Father. The Father brings forward the Son, and within Him, the Spirit, so the Father – through the Son – also joins the Spirit as the principle of creation. If He had not brought them forth since eternity, He would not be able to create in time.[71] It is thus no coincidence that already in the mystery plays of 1723 and 1725 the notions of the Trinity and Creation had become intertwined. The polemic Rövid es Fontos Discursus[72] reveals a slightly different approach, as it tries to use Biblical passages as evidence for the notion that it was basically Christ who created the world, since He precedes everyone. But Christ is the Son of the Father. They were never without the Spirit, so the creation is the common achievement of the Trinity. Referring to Isaiah[73] it claims that “the Son was sent by the Father and His Holy Spirit onto this world for the ransom of the human Race”.[74] In this its approach coincides with that of Duns Scotus and the play of 1736.

IV        The moral of a Piarist play

In June 1762, the students of the first and second years at the Piarist grammar school in Szeged performed Vitae rerum Gestarum Josephi Aegyptiaci, a play in Hungarian, Latin, and German by András Dugonics.[75] The play presents the story of Joseph from the Old Testament on a purely Biblical basis. It has no apocryphal scenes. In the first act of the play, Joseph grazes his fold and interprets his dreams. His brothers become jealous and begin to hate him. His father sends Joseph to Dothaim. On the way, his brothers undress him, throw him into the cistern, and sell him as a slave. The uniqueness of Dugonics’s play derives from the fact that he asks historical and moral questions in connection with the first two acts. Among the questions related to the first act (Historicae) we find the following examples: (1) How many children did Jacob’s wives Leah and Rachel, and his servants Bala and Zelpha bear? (2) Why did Jacob prefer Joseph? (3) Why was Joseph thrown into the cistern? (4) Did his brothers all partake of the cruelty of this act? (5) Who persuaded the brothers to sell joseph? (6) How did they convince Jacob that his son had been slain by a beast? The questions reveal that the students had to listen very carefully, since all aspects of the events were examined afterwards. The moral questions (Morales) drew the students’ attention to spiritual processes: (1) Could their hatred be considered a virtue? (2) Which reasons shall one keep away from in order to avoid severe sins? (3) Of all people who have sinned, who are in the greatest danger? As one can see, the questions are concerned with committing sins and imploring mercy here as well, and draw the students’ attention to the most important internal, spiritual processes.

The second act of the play shows how Joseph comes to Potiphar’s household, and later to the prison, where he interprets the dreams of his fellow inmates. In this act, it is only Latin questions referring to the plot that are given; this was meant to improve the Latin knowledge of the students. Evidently, it was also in Latin that the answers should be given to these questions: (1) Whose dreams does Joseph interpret? (2) Whom does Joseph call for after he has been set free? (3) How long is Joseph’s appeal ignored? (4) What was the dream of the Pharaoh, and how have others interpreted it? (5) What kind of position does Joseph get after having interpreted his dream?

V         Summary

Between the Franciscan and Piarist plays a fundamental difference is the fact that the Franciscan play elaborates apocryphal scenes as well, which only exist in the Tradition, whereas Dugonics’s text insists on Biblical passages. The Franciscan plays educated the actors and the audience both through their subject matter and the various theological discourses (e.g. incarnation, Trinity, sacraments), while the Piarist play is accompanied by particular questions, forming a part of religious education. The heavenly trial appearing in the Csíksomlyó mystery plays decides the incarnation (or, here, the passion), but it does not refer to the Franciscan theological school of the 13^th century, but rather to ancient views, which were somewhat misinterpreted in the Middle Ages. In the 1727 mystery play of Csíksomlyó, the stage directions and the references to the sources let one understand that the last three stations have been inserted from textbooks on dogmatics. In the Csíksomlyó passion plays the lines of the Prologue and the Epilogue (as well as certain passages by Peter, Mary Magdalen, and Judas) exhort the audience to exercise repentance. This was the main aim of religious plays: to lead faithful students and viewers to penance, so that they should avoid hell. In this respect, Peter and Mary Magdalen are the positive, and Judas is the negative example throughout the plays. The New Testament miracles and conversations, as well as the presentation of Christ’s sufferings and its Old Testament prefigurations extended or reinforced the theological knowledge of the students and the audience. The subject matter and structure of the plays remind one of the poor-men’s-Bible of medieval cathedrals, and, later, etched books. This is how the Franciscans educated the youth in the Csík of the 18^th century, and taught them the eternal truths.

Bibliography

A halandó testben szenvedő halhatatlan Istennek Szentséges Historiája, melly a Jézus Zászlója alatt vitézkedő Szent Társaságbéli Tisztelendő Pater Guilielmus Stanihurstus által deák nyelven ki adattatott. Most pedig Töb Keresztény hiveknek lelki idvösségekre Szent Ferencz szerzetbéli Magyar országi Boldog Asszony Provincziája-béli T. P. Provincialis rendeléséből magyar nyelvre fordéttatván, a méltoságos baro, ikladi Szluha Ferencz Salgó Vára örökös Urának, Császár, és Koronás Király Urunk eö Felsége Udvári Actualis Tanatcsának, és Magyar Cancellariája Assessorianak, Nagy jó Patronus Urnak eö Nagyságának istenes költségével ki nyomtattatott. Posonban Proyer János Pál által, 1727 dik Esztendőben.

Barsi-Dobszay 2001.

BARSI Balázs – DOBSZAY László, „Íme most fölmegyünk Jeruzsálembe”: Hitünk misztériumai a nagyheti liturgiában, Bp., Márton Áron, 2001.

Biblia

KÁLDI György, Szent Biblia, az egész Keresztyénségben Bévött Régi Deák bötüböl magyarra fordította, KÁLDI György, Bécs, 1626.

Dicsoseges Szent Ferencz Atyank Harmadik Rendén-lévő Atyafiaknak REGULAJA. Mellyet regenten 3-dik Honorius, 9-dik Gergely és több következendő Szentséges pápák meg-erösitvén ki-adtak. […] Mostan pedig magyorra fordíttatvan, a’ Magyarok lelki hasznokra Tisztelendö Pater Tamási György Theol. Doctornak, Szent Miklós pk. Patrociniuma-alatt vitézkedö Al-Torjai Catholica Ecclesia buzó Megyés Pásztorának, Nemes Kézdi, és Orbai Székek Erdemes Fő Esperestenek Istenes költségével ki-nyomtattatottSuperiorok engedelméből A Csiki Sarlós Boldog Aszszony Klastromában 1753. Esztendöben

Fülöp 1897.

FÜLÖP Áprád, Csíksomlyói nagypénteki misztériumok, Bp., 1897 (Régi Magyar Könyvtár, 3)

Glósz 1884

GLÓSZ Miksa, A csíksomlyói Szent Ferencz-rendi szerzetesek nyomdájában 1662-1884. évig megjelent könyvek és egyéb nyomtatványok teljes czímtára, Csíksomlyó, 1884.

Iskoladrámák 1995.

Iskoladrámák: A magyar dráma gyöngyszemei, szerk., DEMETER Júlia, Bp., Unikornis, 1995.

Kedves 1999.

KEDVES Csaba, Actio parascevica: Történeti rétegek a csíksomlyói misztériumdrámákban, = K. Cs. Székelyföld 1999/5. 66-89.

Kilián 1994.

KILIÁN István, A magyarországi piarista iskolai színjátszás forrásai és irodalma 1799-ig, Bp., Argumentum, 1994.

Kilián 2002.

KILIÁN István, A piarista dráma a XVII-XVIII. században, Bp., Argumentum, 2002

La Mystére de la Passion d’ Arnoul Gréban. Szerk, Otto JODOGNE, Paris, 1965.

Lelki-isméretnek ösztöne, Az az: egy titkos értelmű tövisses kert Mellyben A’ nyóltzad napig kesergő buzgó áhétatos Lélek tsendes nyúgodalommal magánossan munkálódik. Elsőben Jött ez vilagosságra Deák nyelven a’ most folyó Saeculumnak vagy-is századik esztendőnek harmincz harmadikában. T. P. Fr. Aemilianus Nieberle Fölső Németh-Országi Szerafikus Szent Ferencz Provincziabéli Szerzetesse által. Most pedig Ugyan azon Szent Atyának Magyar-Országi Bóldog Asszony Provintziabéli Fő Tisztelendő s nagy Érdemű Pater Provincialissa Egedelméből egy méltatlan szolgája Magyar nyelvre fordította többeknek is lelki vigasztalásokra. Nyomtattatott Győrbe, Streibig Gergely János Királyi, Püspöki és Városi privil Könyv-nyomtató által, 1770-dik Esztendő ben.

Léstyán 1996.

LÉSTYÁN Ferenc, Megszentelt kövek I-II.: A középkori erdélyi püspökség templomai, Kolozsvár, Gloria, 1996

Liber Dogmatum I-III. Csíksomlyó, XVIII. század vége (Kézirat)

Liber exhibens Actiones parascevicas

Liber exhibens Actiones parascevicas ab anno 1730 usque ad Annum 1774 diem aprilis 27. Libellus, Scholarum Csik Somlyoviensium, nihilominus Median Syntaxeos, ac Grammatices signanter, specialiter concernens,  et continens Repraesentationem, Enucleationem Mysteriorum Passionis Dominicae, seu Actiones Tragoco-Parascevicas, Devoto Populo ad aedificationem quott Annis exhiberi solitas, in usum faciliorem Moderatorum sedulo congestas. Confectus 1774. 1-1344. (48 plays)

Makula nélkül való tükör, melly az Üdvözitö Jesus Kristusnak, és Szent Szüléinek életét, ugy keserves kinszenvedését és halálát adgya elé, Melly Superiorok Engedelmébül Szűz, Szent Klára Szerzetében lévő Ujfalusi Judith által Cseh nyelvből Magyar nyelvre fordittatott, Nagy-Szombatban, Á Jesus Társasága Akademiája betűivel 1712. Esztendöben

Mészáros 1996.

MÉSZÁROS István, Az iskolaügy története Magyarországon 996-1777 között, Bp., Akadémiai, 1996

Muckenhaupt 2001.

MUCKENHAUPT Erzsébet, A csíksomlyói ferences nyomda és könyvkötő műhely 1676-2001.: emlékkiállítás a Csíki Székely Múzeumban 2001. december 15. – 2003. november 30. Csíkszereda, 2001.

Nagy 1999.

NAGY Szilvia, Az Actio antiqua satis sine initio című dráma kritikai kiadása. Szakdolgozat, Miskolc, Miskolci Egyetem BTK, 1999.

Octava seraphica religiose spiritualia ecercitia facienti Singulis ansis per Octo Continuos Dies Studiose pariter ac devote celebranta authore P. F. Aemiliano Nieberle. Reimpressum: In Conventu Csikiensi, Anno 1733.

Pintér 1993.

PINTÉR Márta Zsuzsanna, Ferences iskolai színjátszás a XVIII. században, Bp., Argumentum, 1993. (Irodalomtörténeti Füzetek, 132)

Rövid es Fontos Discursus Melyben Meg-bizonyittatik némely Atyafiak-ellen, hogy mind a’ Fiu, mind a Sz. Lelek igaz örök Isten mint szintén az Atya; még-sem három, hanem egy Isten légyen; Mely ki-bocsáttatott vólt Kolosváratt 1725-dik Esztendöben a'’Kolosvári Romai Catholica Ecclesianak Plébánussa-által. Most pediglen az ellenkezö vallásban-lévő Lelkeknek tévelygések megismerésére, és lelki hasznokra Ujabban ki-nyomtattatott, Mélt. Gróff Kálnoki Antal Generalis Úr ö Excellentiája praefectussanak tekentetes Tatai Janos urnak istenes költségével. A Csiki Kalastrom betüivel 1757.

Schmikli [Medgyesy] 1999.

SCHMIKLI [MEDGYESY] Norbert, A csíksomlyói passiójátékok forrásvidéke, = Sch. N. PPKE Műhelytanulmányok, Bp., 1999. 9-32.

Schütz 1926.

SCHÜTZ Antal, A klasszikus ferences theológia, = Sch. A., Szent Ferenc nyomdokain 1226-1926, Bp., A csonkamagyarországi ferences rendtartományok kiadása, 133-184.

Szerafim Szent Ferencz Regulaja, Csíksomlyó, 1726.

Vanyó 1997.

VANYÓ László, Az ókeresztény egyház irodalma, Bp., Jel Kiadó, 1997.

Young 1933.

YOUNG, Karl, The Drama of the Medieval Church, Oxford, At the Clarendon Press, 1933.

© Medgyesy-Schmikli Norbert, 2002