Chapter XXV: Humanism and Mediaevalism (11)

[8] _Sarum Missal_, 264. The _York Missal_, i. 102, says, for Good Friday, ‘Diaconus legat Passionem,’ but _MS. D._ adds ‘vel legatur a tribus Presbyteris, si sic ordinatum erit.’ Payments for the singers of the Passion are quoted from churchwardens’ accounts (1447-1562) by Feasey, 81. The singing was sometimes done from the rood loft.

[9] Feasey, 17; _Use of Sarum_, i. 140 ‘quarta autem feria ante pascha dum passio domini legitur ad prolacionem ipsius clausulae _Velum templi scissum est_: praedictum velum in area presbiterii decidat.’ The same rubric is in the Wells _Ordinale_ (H. E. Reynolds, _Wells Cathedral_, 42).

[10] J. W. Legg, _Westminster Missal_ (H.B.S.), 1469; G. F. Aungier, _Hist. and Antiq. of Syon Monastery_, 350; Lanfranc, _Decreta pro Ord. S. Bened._ (_P.L._ cl. 465) ‘Ubi dicitur _Partiti sunt vestimenta mea sibi_, sint duo de indutis iuxta altare, hinc et inde trahentes ad se duos pannos qui ante officium super altare missi fuerant, linteo tamen remanente subtus missale’; _Leofric’s Missal_ (Exeter, eleventh century), 261 ‘hac expleta statim duo diaconi nudant altare sindone quae prius fuerit sub evangelio posita in modum furantis. Aliqui vero, antequam legatur passio domini, praeparant sindones duas sibi coherentes et in eo versu ubi legitur: _Partiti sunt vestimenta_, scindunt hinc inde ipsas sindones desuper altare in modum furantis, et secum auferunt’; _York Missal_, i. 102 ‘hic distrahantur linteamina super altare connexa’; _Sarum Missal_, 323 ‘hic accedant duo ministri in superpelliceis, unus ad dextrum et alius ad sinistrum cornu altaris; et inde duo linteamina amoveant quae ad hoc super altare fuerunt apposita.’ I find the custom in Aquitaine (_Dublin Review_ (1897), 366), and in Hungary (Dankó, _Vetus Hymnarium Eccles. Hungariae_, 534).

[11] Martene, iii. 99; Feasey, 107; Wordsworth, 184.

[12] Feasey, 84; Wordsworth, 290.

[13] Strictly speaking the _Antiphon_ is begun by one half of the choir and finished by the other; the _Responsorium_ is a solo with a short refrain sung by the choir, like the secular _carole_; cf. ch. viii, and _Use of Sarum_, i. 307; Dankó, _Vetus Hymnarium Eccl. Hung._ 11.

[14] Duchesne, 108; Davidson, 134; F. E. Warren, _Liturgy of the Ante-Nicene Church_, 74.

[15] Frere, vi. The Gregorian _Liber Antiphonarius_ is in _P.L._ lxxviii. 641.

[16] Radulphus Glaber, _Hist. sui Temporis_ (†1044), iii. 4 (Bouquet, _Rerum Gallic. et Francic. Script._ x. 29) ‘Igitur infra supradictum millesimum tertio iam fere imminente anno, contigit in universo pene terrarum orbe, praecipue tamen in Italia et in Galliis, innovari Ecclesiarum Basilicas, licet pleraeque decenter locatae minime indiguissent. Aemulabatur tamen quaeque gens Christicolarum adversus alteram decentiore frui. Erat enim instar ac si mundus ipse excutiendo semet, reiecta vetustate, passim candidam ecclesiarum vestem induerit.’

[17] Ekkehardus, _Vita B. Notkeri Balbuli_, c. xvi (Goldast, _Rerum Alaman. Script._ i. 235) ‘Iubilus, id est neuma ... si autem tristitiae fuerit oratio, ululatus dicitur, si vero gaudii, iubilus.’

[18] Gautier, _Les Tropes_, passim; _Winchester Troper_, vi; Dankó, _Vetus Hymnarium Eccles. Hungariae_, 15; Julleville, _Myst._ i. 21; Creizenach, i. 47. Gautier, i, defines a trope, ‘Qu’est-ce qu’un Trope? C’est l’interpolation d’un texte liturgique,’ and M. Gerbert, _de cantu et musica sacra_ (1774), i. 340 ‘Tropus, in re liturgica, est versiculus quidam aut etiam plures ante inter vel post alios ecclesiasticos cantus appositi.’ Of earlier writers, cf. Durandus, iv. 5 ‘Est autem proprie tropus quidam versiculus qui in praecipuis festivitatibus cantatur immediate ante introitum quasi quoddam praeambulum et continuatio ipsius introitus.’ Gautier, 111, describes a large number of Tropers; Frere, _Winchester Troper_, xxvii, xxx, those of English uses from Winchester, Canterbury, Worcester, St. Albans, Dublin; Pamelius, _Liturgicon_ (1609), ii. 611 an English Troper in the library of St. Bavon’s, Ghent. Amongst tropes in the wider sense are included the _farsurae_ (vol. i. p. 277). Many of the later tropes are trivial, indecent, or profane. They are doubtless the work of _goliardi_ (vol. i. p. 60).

[19] _St. Gall MS._ 484, f. 13 (ninth century); cf. Gautier, 34, 62, 139, 218; _Winchester Troper_, xvi; Meyer, 34. It is also in the Winchester Tropers (tenth-eleventh century), and the Canterbury Troper (fourth century), and is printed therefrom in _Winchester Troper_, 4, 102. Here it is divided between two groups of _Cantores_, and has the heading ‘Versus ante officium canendi in die Natalis Domini.’

[20] The _Introit_ is: ‘Puer natus est nobis, et filius datus est nobis: cuius imperium super humerum eius, et vocabitur nomen eius magni consilii angelus. _Ps._ Cantate domino canticum novum.’

[21] Gautier, 219, prints a dialogued trope for a feast of St. Peter from an eleventh-century troper of St. Martial of Limoges; the _Winchester Troper_, 6, 103, has one for St. Stephen’s day (Winchester) and one for St. John the Evangelist’s (Canterbury). Meyer, 35, calls attention to the dialogued Christmas _versus sacerdotales_ in Hartker’s tenth-century St. Gall _Antiphonarium_ (J. M. Thomasius, _Opera_, iv. 187).

[22] _St. Gall MS._ 484, f. 11; printed and facsimiled by Gautier, 216, 220.

[23] _S. Matthew_ xxviii. 1-7; _S. Mark_ xvi. 1-7.

[24] The _Introit_ is: ‘Resurrexi et adhuc tecum sum, alleluia: posuisti super me manum tuam, alleluia; mirabilis facta est scientia tua, alleluia, alleluia. _Ps._ Domine, probasti me.’

[25] Lange, 22, from _Bibl. Nat. Lat. MS._ 1240, f. 30ᵇ. As to date (923-34) and _provenance_ of the MS., I follow H. M. Bannister in _Journal of Theological Studies_ (April, 1901). Lange, 4, considers it an eleventh-century _Antiphonar_ from Beaune.

[26] Printed by Frere, 176; cf. Gautier, 219. The version in Lange, 20, is incomplete. The Limoges Tropers (_Bibl. Nat._ 887, 909, 1084, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121), all of the eleventh century, are described by Gautier, 111; cf. p. 29.

[27] _Bibl. Nat._ 1118, f. 40ᵛ; cf. Gautier, 226; Frere, 176.

[28] _Bodl. Douce MS._ 222, f. 6 (eleventh century; cf. Gautier, 136), printed and facsimiled by Gautier, 215, 219. Du Méril, _Or. Lat._ 149, gives it from a Limoges Troper (_B.N._ 909, f. 9): it is also in _B.N._ 1118, f. 8ᵛᵒ, and probably the other Limoges MSS. Frere, 145, gives it from the twelfth-century St. Magloire Troper (_B.N._ 13,252), and R. Twigge, in _Dublin Review_ (1897), 362, from a fifteenth-century breviary of Clermont-Ferrand (_Cl. F. MS._ 67). Here it is sung by two boys, and near the altar after the Te Deum at Matins. According to Gautier, 123, it is also in the late eleventh-century Nevers Troper (_B.N._ 9449).

[29] Frere, 110, from _Cott. MS. Calig._ A. xiv (eleventh century). It comes between an illumination of the Ascension and the heading ‘In Die Ascensionis Domini.’ It is also in the St. Magloire Troper (_B.N._ 13,252, f. 10ᵛ) under the heading ‘In Ascensione Tropi ad Processionem,’ and in the St. Martial of Limoges Tropers (Gautier, 219; Lange, 20). Martene, iii. 193, describes it as sung in the procession before Mass at Vienne.

[30] Martene, iv. 147 ‘“Post processionem,” _addunt Dionysianae consuet._ [thirteenth century], “ascendant iuxta Sancta Sanctorum quidam bene cantantes, alii in dextro latere, alii in sinistro latere assistentes, bene et honorifice tropas scilicet: _Quem quaeritis_; coniubilantes, et sibi invicem respondentes; et cum intonuerint, _Quia surrexi_, dicens, _Patri_, mox Archicantor et duo socii eius assistentes in choro regias virgas in manibus tenentes, incipiant officium.” Hunc ritum accepisse videntur a Cassinensibus, quorum Ordinarium [before 1105] haec habet: “Processione finita, vadat Sacerdos post altare, et versus ad chorum dicat alta voce, _Quem quaeritis?_ et duo alii Clerici stantes in medio chori respondeant: _Iesum Nazarenum_; et Sacerdos: _Non est hic_; illi vero conversi ad chorum dicant: _Alleluia_. Post haec alii quatuor cantent tropos, et agatur missa ordine suo.”’ As usual in _Ordinaria_ (cf. e.g. p. 309) only the opening words of the chants are given. A similar direction is contained in _MS. Casinense_, 199, a twelfth-century breviary (_Bibliotheca Casinensis_, iv. 124): cf. also Lange, 21, 23.

[31] Martene, iii. 173; Lange, 24 (Tours i).

[32] Lange, 26. Cf. the account of the Vienne _Quem quaeritis_ (p. 26).

[33] Martene, iv. 148.

[34] Mr. Frere does not print any _Introit_ tropes from the Worcester, St. Albans, and Dublin tropers: a leaf is unfortunately missing from the Canterbury troper (Frere, 107) where the _Quem quaeritis_ might have come. It is not amongst the few tropes taken by Pamelius, _Liturgicon_ (1609), ii. 611, from the English troper at St. Bavon’s, Ghent (Frere, 142). As the _Concordia Regularis_ was partly based on Ghent customs (cf. p. 307), I should gladly know more of this.

[35] _Bodl. MS._ 775; described by Frere, xxvii, as _MS. E_ ‘Its date lies between 979 and 1016, since Ethelred is mentioned as reigning sovereign in the Litany on f. 18ᵛ, and in consequence it has sometimes been called “The Ethelred Troper.” Also, as it has the Dedication Festival on the 24th of November, it is probably anterior to the re-dedication of the Cathedral on Oct. 20, 980, since this day became subsequently the Dedication Festival.’ A facsimile from the MS. was published by the _Palaeographical Society_ (Series ii. pl. iii), and it was suggested that it is in an early eleventh-century hand, but possibly copied an earlier text. But surely it would have been brought up to date on such a matter as the Dedication Festival.

[36] _C.C.C. Cambridge MS._ 473, of the middle of the eleventh century, described by Frere, xxvii, as _MS. CC._ The text of the _Quem quaeritis_ differs slightly from that of the _Bodl. MS._ and does not appear to be quite complete. It is facsimiled by Frere (pl. 26ᵃ). The printed text in Frere, 17, represents both versions; that in Manly, i. xxi, follows the _Bodl. MS._ Both Frere and Manly have ‘Angelice uocis consolatio’ where the _Bodl. MS._, as I read it, has ‘Angelice uoces consolatus’ (clearly in error).

[37] A full account of the _Concordia Regularis_ and extracts from the Latin text are in Appendix O.

[38] I cannot understand why Mr. Frere, xvi, thinks that the _Quem quaeritis_ was ‘a dramatic dialogue which came to be used as a trope to the _Introit_ of Easter: but at Winchester it kept its independent place.’ It is used as a trope a century before the date of the _Concordia Regularis_.

[39] Why is the _Quem quaeritis_ in the _Bodl. MS._ apparently on Good Friday? Perhaps this was an irregular use reformed by Bp. Ethelwold. If so the _C. R._ must be about 980 or later. This is not impossible (cf. App. O). In the later _C. C. C. C. MS._ the _Q. q._ might, I think, from its position be intended for Easter Matins. The version described in the _C. R._ differs slightly from that of the tropers.

[40] Martene, iv. 299 ‘Saeculo, ut aiunt, x scriptae’: cf. Douhet, 849. Martene, iii. 173, cites another Matins version from a vetustissimum rituale’ of Poitiers. If this is identical with the ‘pontificale vetustissimum: annorum circiter 800’ mentioned in his list of authorities (i. xxii) it may be earlier than the tenth century. It is certainly not the ‘liber sacramentorum annorum 900 circiter’ with which Douhet, 848, would identify it. The Pontificale was used by Martene in his edition of 1738; about the first edition of 1700-6, I cannot say. This version is not in Lange, and, as the omission of the usual first line is curious, I print it below (p. 29).

[41] Lange, 29; cf. Creizenach, i. 49.

[42] The Verdun _Consuetudines_ do not. The burial and resurrection of the cross clearly formed no part of the Good Friday and Easter rites. The dialogue takes place ‘in subterraneis specubus,’ i.e. the crypt, and the representatives of the Maries return to the choir ‘cruce vacua nuntiantes: _Surrexit Dominus_’ (Martene, iv. 299).

[43] Appendix O.

[44] Bare feet continued to be the rule for the _Adoratio Crucis_. An exception is at Exeter, where, according to Pearson, ii. 296, they were forbidden, cf. Feasey, 115.

[45] St. Ethelwold’s Latin is atrocious, but I think that the sepulchre was made on the altar, not in the hollow of it, and covered from sight until wanted by a veil let down all round it from a circular support above. Cf. the Latin text in Appendix O: perhaps it is corrupt.

[46] _Peregrinatio Silviae_ in Duchesne, 490. The object of adoration was a fragment of the true Cross, ‘sanctum lignum crucis.’ The Invention of the Cross by St. Helena is put by tradition †326. Doubtless many other churches obtained a fragment, and used it for the same purpose: cf. Feasey, 116. Thus the cross used at Rome was ‘lignum pretiosae crucis’ (Duchesne, 465: cf. his ed. of the _Liber Pontificalis_, i. 374).

[47] Duchesne, 238. For the mediaeval ceremony, cf. Feasey, 114; Pearson, ii. 293; Milchsack, 121; Rock, iii. 2. 241; Martene, iii. 129; iv. 137; _Sarum Missal_, 328; _York Missal_, i. 105; _York Manual_, 156, and the Durham extract in Appendix P: for that of modern Rome, Malleson and Tuker, ii. 271.

[48] The _sepulchrum_ is not in the _Sacramentarium Gelasianum_ (†seventh century, ed. H. A. Wilson, 77); nor the _Sacramentum Gregorianum_ (†eighth century, _P. L._ lxxviii. 86), ‘qua salutata et reposita in loco suo’; nor in the Roman _Ordines_ collected by Mabillon (_P. L._ lxxviii) nor in those added by Duchesne, 451, 464. The _Ordines_ of 954 and 963 repeat the Gregorian formula, which is expanded by those of 1215 and 1319 into ‘in suo loco super altare.’ There is no mention of the _sepulchrum_ in the Gallican liturgical books collected by Mabillon (_P. L._ lxxii). Of English books Leofric’s _Exeter Missal_ (tenth century, ed. F. E. Warren) has no _Sepulchrum_; nor the _Missal_ of St. Augustine’s Canterbury (†1100, ed. M. Rule), ‘reposita in loco solito’; nor the _Missal_ of Robert of Jumièges (ninth and tenth century, ed. H. A. Wilson for _H. B. Soc._). Pearson, ii. 316, suggests that the cross used for adoration was the great rood usually placed in the rood-loft, but sometimes ‘super altare.’

[49] Ethelwold’s _Concordia Regularis_ was largely founded on that of Benedict of Aniane (†817; cf. Miss Bateson in _E. H. Review_, ix. 700), but there is no Easter week _ordo_ in this (_P. L._ ciii. 701) nor in the same writer’s _Memoriale_ or _Ordo Monasticus_ (_P. L._ lxvi. 937: cf. his _Vita_, c. viii, in _Acta SS._ Feb. ii. 618). Ethelwold also borrowed customs from Fleury and Ghent (Appendix O). The _sepulchrum_ is not mentioned in the _Consuetudines Floriacenses_ (tenth century, ed. De Bosco, _Floriac. Vet. Bibl._ (1605), 390); cf. Creizenach, i. 49: nor in the description of a thirteenth-century _coutumier_ in Rocher, _Hist. de l’Abbaye de St.-Benoît-sur-Loire_, 323. The only Fleury _Quem quaeritis_ is of a late type in a thirteenth-century MS.; cf. p. 32. At Ghent, however, an inventory of treasures remaining at St. Bavon’s after a Norman invasion (1019-24) includes ‘tabulas de sepulchro 23,’ which appear to be distinct from _reliquiae_ ‘de sepulchro Domini’ and ‘de operculo ligneo quod super corpus ipsius positum fuit in sepulchro’ (_Neues Archiv_, viii. 374). Did the possession of these ‘reliquiae’ suggest to the monks of St. Bavon’s the construction of an Easter sepulchre?

[50] It is merely a guess to say St. Gall. Schübiger, _Sängerschule St. Gallens_, 69, mentions the sepulchre there, but gives no very early notice. The sepulchre was known in the Eastern, as well as the Western Church, and for all I know may have come from Jerusalem (Feasey, 177). As to date, Weber, 32, suggests that pictorial representations of the Maries at the tomb show the influence of the dramatic _Visitatio Sepulchri_ as far back as the ninth century. His chief point is that the Maries carry _turribula_ (cf. p. 25, n. 5).

[51] _E. H. Review_, ix. 706.

[52] _P. L._ cl. 465 ‘adorata ab omnibus cruce, portitores eius elevantes eam incipiant antiphonam _Super omnia ligna cedrorum_, et sic vadant ad locum ubi eam collocare debent.’ This does not exclude a sepulchre, but probably the _locus_ was an altar which might serve as a _statio_ for the processions ‘ad crucifixum’ ordered on Easter Saturday after vespers and thrice a day through Easter week. Such processions continued in later ritual to visit the cross after its _Elevatio_ on Easter morning: cf. _York Manual_, 177.

[53] See the description of the ceremony by a sixteenth-century eye-witness in Appendix P. The _sepulchrum_ was also used by the Bridgettines of Sion monastery, an order of reformed Benedictine nuns (G. F. Aungier, _Hist. of Syon Monastery_, 350).

[54] J. D. Chambers citing J. B. Thiers, _De Expositione S. Sacramenti_, iii. 19.

[55] See the extracts from Sarum service-books in Appendix Q.

[56] _York Missal_, i. 106; _York Manual_, 163, 170.

[57] Wordsworth, 278.

[58] _Hereford Missal_ (ed. Henderson), 96.

[59] H. E. Reynolds, _Wells Cathedral_, 32.

[60] The fullest accounts of the Easter sepulchre in England are those by H. J. Feasey, _Ancient English Holy Week Ceremonial_, 129, and A. Heales, _Easter Sepulchres: their Object, Nature, and History_ in _Archaeologia_, xlii. 263; cf. also _Monumenta Vetusta_ (Soc. of Antiquaries), iii. pll. xxxi, xxxii; Parker, _Glossary of Architecture_, s.v. Sepulchre; M. E. C. Walcott, _Sacred Archaeology_, s.v. Easter Sepulchre; T. F. Dyer, _Church Lore Gleanings_, 219; W. Andrews, _Old Church Lore_, iii; J. D. Chambers, _App._ xxiv; Micklethwaite, 52; Rock, iii. 2. 92, 240, 251. Continental _ordines_ and notices may be found in Martene, iii. 131, 172, 178; iv. 141, 145; Milchsack, 41, 121; Pearson, ii. 295; Wetzer and Welte, _Kirchen-Lexicon_, s.v. Grab; J. Dankó, _Vetus Hymn. Eccl. Hungariae_, 535, 579. I have not seen this writer’s _Die Feier des Osterfestes_ (Wien, 1872). On representations of the sepulchre in mediaeval art, cf. P. Weber, 32, and the miniature from Robert of Jumièges’ _Missal_ (ed. F. E. Warren for _H. B. Soc._ pl. viii).

[61] At Exeter on the other hand Vespers on both Good Friday and Easter Eve were sung before the Sepulchre; and so with the Hours at Tours (Feasey, 130).

[62] Martene, iii. 179; Milchsack, 122; Lange, 135. The latter gives a Passau fifteenth-century version which ends ‘quibus finitis stantes ante altare, mutua caritate se invicem deosculentur, dicentes: _Surrexit dominus vere. Et apparuit symoni._ Dicatur una oratio de resurrectione. Statim fiat pulsatio.’ The Easter greeting and kiss of peace were in use, either before or after Matins at many churches (Martene, iii. 171, 180) and do not depend upon the sepulchre.

[63] Milchsack, 128, 135; cf. Meyer, 64. The _Ordo Augustensis_ of 1487 directs that a procession shall go from the sepulchre ‘per ambitum vel cimeterium ... usque ad ultimam ianuam, quae claudatur.’ Here the _Tollite portas_ dialogue is held with the ‘levita iunior, vel alius in figura diaboli grossa voce.’ On the other hand, in the _Ordo Wirceburgensis_ of 1564 the procession knocks at the door from inside, and the respondent ‘loco Sathanae’ is without.

[64] ‘Sacerdos ... antequam congregetur chorus, cum processione sibi paucorum adiunctorum ... foribus ecclesiae clausis, secretius tollat sacramentum de sepulchro’; cf. the fifteenth-century Passau _Breviary_ (Lange, 135) ‘clam surgitur’ and the _Ordo Sepulturae_ in the _Missalis Posoniensis_ of 1341 (Dankó, 579) ‘laicis exclusis.’ I have not noticed any such limitation in English rubrics later than the _Concordia Regularis_.

[65] Milchsack, 119 ‘quum a nostris antecessoribus ad nos pervenerit, ut in sacra nocte dominicae resurrectionis ad sustollendam crucifixi imaginem de sepulchro, ubi in parasceve locata fuerat, nimia virorum et mulierum numerositas, certatim sese comprimendo, ecclesiam simul cum canonicis et vicariis introire nitantur, opinantes erronee, quod si viderent crucifixi imaginem sustolli, evaderent hoc anno inevitabilem mortis horam. His itaque obviantes statuimus, ut resurrectionis mysterium ante ingressum plebis in ecclesiam peragatur’: cf. Pearson, ii. 298.

[66] A Finchale inventory of 1481 (J. T. Fowler, _Trans. of Durham and North. Arch. Soc._ iv. 134) includes ‘Item 1 pixis argentea cum coopertorio et ymagine crucifixi in summitate coopertorii pro corpore xⁱ deferendo in passione xⁱ.’ A pyx was also used in the Sarum rite (Appendix Q).

[67] Feasey, 165; Dankó, _Vet. Hymn. Eccl. Hung._ 535.

[68] _York Manual_, 174 ‘cuppa in qua est sacramentum.’

[69] At Durham (Appendix P) and at Lincoln (Wordsworth, 278); cf. Feasey, 164; Heales, 307. The image ‘cum corona spinea’ used at York (_York Manual_, 170) was of course the crucifix. A Reformation record of 1566 at Belton, Lincolnshire, speaks of ‘a sepulker with little Jack broken in pieces’ (Feasey, 165). Either a mere image or a mechanical puppet (cf. p. 158) may be meant. The _labarum_ is the sign of the risen Christ in the later versions of the _Quem quaeritis_; cf. p. 35. It figures in nearly all paintings of the Resurrection.

[70] Narbonne _Ordinarium_ (†1400) ‘levent cum filo pannum, qui est super libros argenti super altare in figura sepulcri’ (Martene, iii. 172; Lange, 65); Le Mans, _Ordinarium_ ‘Tunc tres clerici accedentes ad altare cum reverentia sublevent palium cum quo sepulchrum fuerit coopertum’ (Lange, 66); cf. Pearson, ii. 293.

[71] Feasey, 131. In versions of the _Quem quaeritis_ given by Lange, 24, 25, 26, the action is at the altar. A Senlis _Breviary_ (fourteenth century) has ‘elevantes palium altaris’ (Lange, 27), and a Sens thirteenth-century MS. ‘Sublevans tapetum altaris, tamquam respiciens in sepulchrum’ (Lange, 64). But I am not sure that there was a genuine sepulchre in all these cases: cf. p. 26.

[72] Würzburg _Breviary_ (fourteenth century) ‘descendunt in criptam ad visitandum sepulcrum’ (Lange, 53): cf. the Verdun _Consuetudines_ (p. 16), where there may or may not have been a regular sepulchre.

[73] I have seen a beautiful one at Tarrant Hinton, Dorset, which is not amongst those mentioned by Heales or Feasey.

[74] The performers are sometimes directed to enter the sepulchre; cf. e.g. Lange, 28.

[75] Feasey, 149. There is such a chapel beneath the choir of the _Jérusalem_ church at Bruges. The Winchester sepulchre is a chapel, but not of the Jerusalem type. At St. Gall the sepulchre was (†1583) in the ‘sacellum S. Sebastiani’ (Lange, 69).

[76] J. Britton, _Redcliffe Church_, 47, prints a contemporary description of a sepulchre given in 1470 by ‘Maister Canynge’ to St. Mary Redcliffe, Bristol, with, amongst other adornments, ‘Heaven made of timber and stain’d clothes’ and ‘Hell, made of timber and iron-work thereto, with Divels to the number of 13.’ This is apparently not a Chatterton forgery. Feasey, 166, gives a somewhat similar London specification, and also (p. 145) describes a fourteenth-century wooden sepulchre from Kilsby, Northants, believed to be the only one in existence. I have a suspicion that the wooden so-called ‘watcher’s chamber’ to the shrine of St. Frideswide in Christ Church, Oxford, is really a sepulchre. It is in the right place, off the north choir aisle, and why should a watcher of the shrine want to be perched up in a wooden cage on the top of a tomb?

[77] Dankó, 536, 580. Two instances are given. In one the sepulchre was sealed, in the other the pyx, ‘sigillo vel clavi ecclesiae.’ At Hereford ‘episcopus ... cereo claudat sepulchrum’ (Feasey, 159, from _Harl. MS._ 2983).

[78] Cf. vol. i. p. 126.

[79] Wordsworth, 279; Feasey, 161; Heales, 272, 299.

[80] Milchsack, 127.

[81] G. Gilpin, _The Bee-Hive of the Romish Church_ (1579) (translated from Isaac Rabbotenu of Louvain, 1569) ‘They make the graue in a hie place in the church, where men must goe up manie steppes, which are decked with blacke cloth from aboue to beneath, and upon everie steppe standeth a siluer candlesticke with a waxe candle burning in it, and there doe walke souldiours in harnesse, as bright as Saint George, which keep the graue, till the Priests come and take him up; and then commeth sodenlie a flash of fire, wherwith they are all afraid and fall downe; and then up startes the man, and they begin to sing Alleluia, on all handes, and the clocke striketh eleuen.’ Feasey, 168, quotes De Moleon for a statement that the watchers at Orleans were dressed as soldiers.

[82] Appendix Q.

[83] Hooper, _Early Writings_ (Parker Soc.), 45 ‘The ploughman, be he never so unlearned, shall better be instructed of Christ’s death and passion by the corn that he soweth in the field, and likewise of Christ’s resurrection, than by all the dead posts that hang in the church, or are pulled out of the sepulchre with _Christus resurgens_. What resemblance hath the taking of the cross out of the sepulchre and going a procession with it, with the resurrection of Christ? None at all: the dead post is as dead when they sing _Iam non moritur_, as it was when they buried it with _In pace factus est locus eius_’: cf. Ridley, _Works_ (Parker Soc.), 67.

[84] _Articles devised by the King’s Majesty_, 1536 (Burnet, i. 1. 435; i. 2. 472; cf. Froude, ii. 486); Strype, _Eccles. Memorials_, i. 1. 546; i. 2. 432.

[85] Dixon, ii. 82, 432, 513, 516; iii. 37; Hardy and Gee, _Doc. illustrative of English Church History_, 278; Cardwell, _Documentary Annals of the Reformation_, i. 7; Froude, iv. 281. There certainly were sepulchres in 1548 (Feasey, 175).

[86] Dixon, iii. 37; Wilkins, iv. 32. The _Act of 2 and 3 Edward VI_, c. 10 (Froude, iv. 495), against images and paintings, was probably also held to require the demolition of many sepulchres: cf. Ridley’s _Visitation Articles_ of 1550, quoted by Heales, 304.

[87] Dixon, iv. 129.

[88] Dixon, iv. 157; S. R. Maitland, _Essays on the Reformation_ (ed. 1899), 186.

[89] Hardy and Gee, _op. cit._ 428. Art. xxiii forbids ‘monuments of ... idolatry and superstition.’ The Elizabethan _Visitation Articles_ collected in the _Second Report_ of the _Ritual Commission_ make no mention of sepulchres. They generally follow pretty closely the wording of the _Injunctions_. But the _Articles_ of Bentham, Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry (1565), specify ‘monuments of idolatry and superstition’ as including ‘Sepulchres which were used on Good Friday’ (Heales, 307). Notices of the destruction of sepulchres become numerous, being found, for instance, in the case of 50 out of 153 Lincolnshire churches (Feasey, 142), and pious legacies begin to direct tombs ‘whereas the sepulchre was wonte to stande.’

[90] Davidson, 140; Malleson and Tuker, ii. 263, 267, 272. The latest examples of the _Quem quaeritis_ are of the eighteenth century from Cologne and Angers (Lange, 36, 39) and Venice (_Z. f. d. A._ xli. 77).

[91] This respond begins _Dum transisset Sabbatum_.

[92] Cf. p. 18, n. 2. The Sarum _Custumary_ provides for censing on feasts (_a_) at the anthem ‘super Magnificat’ at Vespers, (_b_) during or after the _Te Deum_ at Matins (_Use of Sarum_, i. 113, 121). The sepulchre is included only at Vespers (cf. Appendix Q), but the variation I suggest would not be great.

[93] Cf. p. 22, n. 1. The Bamberg _Agenda_ of †1597 (Lange, 93) has an _Ordo visitandi sepulchrum_ which opens with directions for the construction of a sepulchre, which would obviously not be the case if the _Depositio_ and _Elevatio_ had preceded. Lange rarely prints more than the _Visitatio_, but of one group of texts he notes (p. 135) that the MSS. generally have also the _Elevatio_.

[94] Lange’s collection from 224 MSS. supersedes those of Du Méril, Coussemaker, Milchsack, &c. He supplemented it by versions from Meissen, Worms, Venice, and Grau in Hungary in _Z. f. d. A._ (1896), xli. 77; and has not got those from the (_a_) Winchester _Tropers_ (cf. p. 12); (_b_) Autun and Nevers _Tropers_ of the eleventh century (Gautier, 126, 219); (_c_) St. Magloire, twelfth-century _Troper_ (cf. p. 11); (_d_) Dublin _Processionals_ (Appendix R); (_e_) Laon twelfth-century _Ordinary_ (Chevalier, _Ordinaires de Laon_, 118); (_f_) Clermont-Ferrand fifteenth-century _Breviary_ (cf. p. 11); (_g_) Poitiers _Ritual_ (Martene, iii. 173); (_h_) Verdun tenth-century _Consuetudinary_ (Martene, iv. 299; cf. p. 15). The MSS. extend from the tenth to the eighteenth century. The majority of them are Breviaries; some are Ordinaries, Antiphoners, Processionals; a few are late Tropers, in which, besides the Tropes proper, the Holy week _Ordo_ is included (cf. Gautier, 81); two (_B. N. Lat._ 1139 from Limoges, and _Orleans MS._ 178, from Fleury) are special books of dramatic _repraesentationes_; cf. p. 1.

[95] Martene, iii. 180, from an undated _Caeremoniale_. Lange, 26, only gives a portion of the text containing the _Quem quaeritis_ proper, which was sung as a processional trope before the _Missa maior_. The procession had immediately before gone to the sepulchre and sung other anthems. But the sepulchre played a part at two other services. Before Matins the clergy had in turn entered the sepulchre, found it empty, came out and given each other the kiss of peace and Easter greeting. No _Elevatio_ is described; perhaps it was still earlier ‘clam.’ After Lauds, the _Missa matutinalis_ was sung ‘ad sepulchrum’ and the _prosa_ or Alleluia trope was thus performed: ‘Prosa _Victimae Paschali_. Finito v _Dicat nobis Maria_, clericulus stans in sepulcro cum amictu parato et stola, dicat ℣. _Angelicos testes_. Chorus respondeat _Dic nobis Maria_. Clericulus dicat _Angelicos testes_. Clericus dicat _Surrexit Christus_. Chorus _Credendum est magis_ usque ad finem.’ On this prose and its relation to the _Quem quaeritis_ cf. p. 29. At St. Mark’s, Venice (_Z. f. d. A._ xli. 77), the position of the _Quem quaeritis_ is also abnormal, coming just before Prime, but this version dates from 1736.

[96] Cf. p. 12.

[97] Lange, 28 (Parma), 30 (Laon), 47 (Constance), 68 (Rheinau), 69 (St. Gall). At Rheinau, the _Elevatio_ takes place in the course of the _Quem quaeritis_: at Parma, and probably in the other cases, the ‘sacrista pervigil’ has already removed the ‘Corpus Christi.’

[98] Durandus, lib. vi. c. 87. He describes the normal _Visitatio_, in terms much resembling those of Belethus (cf. p. 31), and adds ‘quidam vero hanc presentationem faciunt, antequam matutinum inchoent, sed hic est proprior locus, eo quod _Te deum laudamus_ exprimit horam, qua resurrexit. Quidam etiam eam faciunt ad missam, cum dicuntur sequentia illa _Victimae paschali_, cum dicitur versus _Dic nobis_ et sequentes.’ Ioannes Abrincensis, _de Offic. eccles._ (_P. L._ cxlvii. 54), briefly notes the ‘officium sepulchri’ as ‘post tertium responsorium,’ and says no more.

[99] Strassburg _Agenda_ of 1513 (Lange, 50) ‘Haec prescripta visitatio sepulcri observetur secundum consuetudinem cuiuslibet ecclesiae.’ Meyer, 33, quotes a passage even more to the point from the Bamberg _Agenda_ of 1587 ‘Haec dominicae resurrectionis commemoratio celebrioribus servit ecclesiis, unde aliarum ecclesiarum utpote minorum et ruralium rectores et parochi ex ordine hic descripto aliquid saltem desumere possunt, quod pro loci et personarum illic convenientium qualitate commodum fore iudicaverint.’

[100] Laon _Ordinarium_ of twelfth century (U. Chevalier, _Ordinaires de Laon_, 118). The change consisted mainly in the introduction of the _Victimae paschali_: cf. p. 29.

[101] Cf. the full discussion, mainly from the textual point of view, throughout Lange’s book, with that of Meyer, and Creizenach, i. 47; Froning, 3; Wirth, 1.

[102] The Bohemian fourteenth-century version (Lange, 130) is nearly all narrative sung by the Ebdomarius: the only dialogue is from the _Victimae paschali_. Martene, iii. 173, gives, from a ‘vetustissimum Rituale,’ this Poitiers version, not in Lange, ‘Finitis matutinis, accedunt ad sepulchrum, portantes luminaria. Tunc incipit Maria: _Ubi est Christus meus?_ Respondet angelus _Non est hic_. Tunc Maria aperit os sepulchri, et dicit publica voce: _Surrexit Christus_. Et omnes respondent _Deo gratias_.’ Possibly Maria here is the Virgin, who is not usually included in the _Visitatio_. But the same anthem opens a twelfth-century Limoges version, headed ‘Oc est de mulieribus’ in _B. N. Lat. MS._ 1139, a collection of ritual plays. The full text is ‘Ubi est Christus meus dominus et filius excelsus?’ which is not really appropriate to any other speaker: cf. Milchsack, 38. A frequent variant on ‘Quem quaeritis in sepulchro, o Christicolae?’ is ‘Quem quaeritis, o tremulae mulieres, in hoc tumulo plorantes?’; nor can the two forms be localized (Lange, 84).

[103] Lange, 32. These MSS. are of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. I find no such section in the normal text of the Gregorian _Liber responsalis_, which is the antiphonary for the office (_P. L._ lxxviii. 769). The ‘antiphonae de resurrectione domini ubicumque volueris’ of the _B. N. Lat. MS._ 17,436 include the ‘Cito euntes dicite, &c.,’ ‘Currebant duo simul, &c.,’ ‘Ardens est cor meum, &c.,’ and others which are regularly introduced into the play. Another commonly used is the _Christus resurgens_ with its verse, ‘Dicant nunc Iudaei, &c.,’ which the Sarum books assign to the _Elevatio_ (Appendix Q): cf. Lange, 77.

[104] Text in Daniel, _Thesaurus Hymnologicus_, ii. 95; Kehrein, _Lateinische Sequenzen des Mittelalters_, 81, and with facsimile and setting in A. Schübiger, _Die Sängerschule St. Gallens_, 90, &c.; cf. Lange, 59; Meyer, 49, 76; Milchsack, 34; Chevalier, _Repertorium Hymnologicum_, s.vv.; A. Schübiger, _La Séquence de Pâques Victimae Paschali et son auteur_ (1858).

[105] Malleson-Tuker, ii. 27. It is used throughout Easter week.

[106] Lange, 60. It was interpolated during the thirteenth century in a twelfth-century Laon version (Chevalier, _Ordinaires de Laon_, 118).

[107] Narbonne, †1400 (Lange, 65) ‘duo canonici, tanquam apostoli’; cf. Lange, 75.

[108] Augsburg _liber liturgicus_ of eleventh or twelfth century (Lange, 82).

[109] Belethus, c. cxiii (_P. L._ ccii. 119) ‘fit enim in plerisque Ecclesiis ut cantato ultimo responso, cum candelis cereis et solemni processione eant ex choro ad locum quemdam, ubi imaginarium sepulcrum compositum est, in quod introducuntur aliquot in personis mulierum et discipulorum Ioannis et Petri, quorum alter altero citius revertitur, sicut Ioannes velocius cucurrit Petro, atque item alii quidam in personis angelorum qui Christum resurrexisse dixerunt a mortuis. Quo quidem facto personae eae redeunt ad chorum, referuntque ea quae viderint et audierint. Tunc chorus, audita Christi resurrectione, prorumpit in altam vocem, inquiens, _Te Deum laudamus_.’ It is to be observed that Belethus knows no _Depositio_ and _Elevatio_. After the _Adoratio_, he has, like the older Roman liturgies, ‘crucifixus in suum locum reponi debet’ (c. xcviii). Durandus, vi. 87, has an account very similar to that of Belethus, but says ‘Si qui autem habent versus de hac representatione compositos, licet non authenticos non improbamus’; cf. also p. 27.

[110] Engelberg (1372), Cividale (fourteenth century), Nuremberg (thirteenth century), Einsiedeln (thirteenth century), Prague (six, twelfth to fourteenth centuries), Rouen (two, thirteenth and fifteenth centuries), Mont St.-Michel (fourteenth century), Coutances (fifteenth century), Fleury (_Orleans MS._ 178, thirteenth century); all printed by Lange, 136 sqq. Gasté, 58, 63, also gives the Rouen and Coutances versions, the latter more fully than Lange. Meyer, 80, discusses the interrelations of the texts.

[111] Lange, 138. In this text the Maries have a _locus suus_. The MS. is a _Processional_, and it may be that the play was given not in the church, but in the open square, as was the Annunciation play in the same MS. (Coussemaker, 284; cf. p. 67). It is none the less liturgical. Rouen had probably an ‘ortus Christi’ out of which came the apparition ‘in sinistro cornu altaris,’ for at Easter, 1570, divine service was performed in a ‘paradis dressé avec la plus grande solennité dans la chapelle Notre-Dame, derrière le chœur’ (Gasté, 58).

[112] These are of course the ‘versus’ spoken of with tolerance in the passage just quoted from Durandus.

[113] Appendix R. The _Heu! pius pastor occiditur_ does not seem to have been found outside the Fleury and Dublin plays (Chevalier, _Repert. Hymn._ nᵒ. 7741).

[114] Lange, 136, 141; Milchsack, 35, 66.

[115] Lange, 64, 74.

[116] Ibid. 162.

[117] Ibid. 151. The fourteenth-century text runs:

_Tres Mariae_:

‘aromata preciosa querimus,
Christi corpus ungere volumus,
holocausta sunt odorifera
sepulturae Christi memori.’

_Ungentarius_:

‘dabo vobis ungenta optima,
salvatoris ungere vulnera,
sepulturae eius ad memoriam
et nomen eius ad gloriam.’

The earlier texts have ‘aromata ... memori,’ preceded by ‘Mariae cantantes “aromata” procedant ad unguentarium pro accipiendis ungentis’ and followed by ‘quibus acceptis accedant ad sepulchrum.’ Meyer, 58, 91, 106, calls this scene, in which he finds the first introduction of non-liturgical verse, the _Zehnsilberspiel_, and studies it at great length.

[118] Lange, 24, 51, 64 ‘coopertis capitibus’ (Tours, fifteenth century), ‘capita humeralibus velata’ (Rheinau), ‘amictibus in capitibus eorum’ (Narbonne, †1400).

[119] Lange, 36 (fourteenth century).

[120] Ibid. 27, 36, 53, 64, &c.; Appendix R.

[121] Lange, 51, 160; cf. _Conc. Regularis_ (Appendix O).

[122] Lange, 64 ‘induti albis et amictibus cum stolis violatis et sindone rubea in facie eorum et alis in humeris’ (Narbonne, †1400).

[123] Lange, 40, 155, 158, 162 ‘palmam manu tenens, in capite fanulum largum habens’ (Toul, thirteenth century), ‘tenens spicam in manu’ (Rouen, fifteenth century), ‘tenens palmam in manu et habens coronam in capite’ (Mont St.-Michel, fourteenth century), ‘vestitus alba deaurata, mitra tectus caput etsi deinfulatus, palmam in sinistra, ramum candelarum plenum tenens in manu dextra’ (Fleury, thirteenth century).

[124] Appendix R.

[125] Lange, 147.

[126] Ibid. 143 ‘quae sit vestita dalmatica casulamque complicatam super humeros habeat; coronamque capiti superimpositam, nudis pedibus.’

[127] Lange, 156 ‘albatus cum stola, tenens crucem.’

[128] Ibid. 159, 164 ‘in habitu ortolani ... redeat, indutus capa serica vel pallio serico, tenens crucem’ (Coutances); ‘praeparatus in similitudinem hortolani ... is, qui ante fuit hortulanus, in similitudinem domini veniat, dalmaticatus candida dalmatica, candida infula infulatus, phylacteria pretiosa in capite, crucem cum labaro in dextra, textum auro paratorium in sinistra habens’ (Fleury). The _labarum_ is the banner of Constantine with the Chi-Ro monogram (cf. Gibbon-Bury, ii. 567): but the banner usually attached to the cross in mediaeval pictures of the Resurrection itself bears simply a large cross; cf. Pearson, ii. 310.

[129] A study of the music might perhaps throw light on the relation of the versions to each other. I am sorry that it is beyond my powers: moreover Lange does not give the notation; Coussemaker gives it for half a dozen versions.

[130] For such overtures cf. Lange, 36, 62, 64; Milchsack, 37, 38, 40. On the doubtful use of the _Gloriosi et famosi_ at Einsiedeln, cf. p. 54.

[131] In the Prague versions (Lange, 151). The choir, or rather ‘conventus,’ introduces the scenes with the three following anthems: (i) ‘Maria Magdalena et alia Maria ferebant diluculo aromata, dominum querentes in monumento,’ (ii) ‘Maria stabat ad monumentum foris plorans; dum ergo fleret, inclinavit se et prospexit in monumentum,’ (iii) ‘Currebant duo simul et ille alius discipulus praecucurrit citius petro et venit prior ad monumentum.’

[132] Lange, 146 (Nuremberg); for later examples cf. Lange, 99 sqq. The hymn generally comes just before the _Te Deum_. A fourteenth-century Bohemian version from Prague (Lange, 131) has a similar Bohemian hymn ‘Buoh wssemohuczy.’ At Bamberg in 1597 ‘potest chorus populo iterum praecinere cantilenas pascales Germanicas’ (Lange, 95). At Rheinau in 1573 it is suggested that the _Quem quaeritis_ itself may as an alternative be sung in German (Lange, 68) ‘hisce aut Germanicis versibus cantatis.’ At Aquileja in 1495 ‘Populus cantet _Christus surrexit_,’ apparently in Latin (Lange, 106); and at Würzburg in 1477, ‘Populus incipit Ymnum suum: _Te Deum_’ (Lange, 67).

[133] Lange, 39, 119, 122, 124; cf. Martene, iii. 171.

[134] Lange, 41.

[135] _Z. f. d. A._ xli. 77.

[136] Lange, 39.

[137] Creizenach, i. 56; Julleville, i. 67.

[138] _Lichfield Statutes of Hugh de Nonant_, 1188-98 (_Lincoln Statutes_, ii. 15, 23) ‘Item in nocte Natalis representacio pastorum fieri consuevit et in diluculo Pasche representacio Resurreccionis dominicae et representacio peregrinorum die lune in septimana Pasche sicut in libris super hijs ac alijs compositis continetur.... De officio succentoris ... et providere debet quod representacio pastorum in nocte Natalis domini et miraculorum in nocte Pasche et die lune in Pascha congrue et honorifice fiant.’

[139] Cf. p. 90.

[140] Text in _Bibl. de l’École des Chartes_, xxxiv. 314, from _B. N. Lat._ 16,309 (thirteenth-century Saintes _Breviary_), _begins_ ‘Quando fiunt Peregrini, non dicitur prosa, sed peregrini deforis veniunt canendo ista’; _ends_ with _Magnificat_ and _Oratio_, ‘Deus qui sollempnitate paschali.’

[141] Text in Gasté, 65; Du Méril, 117, from Rouen _Ordinarium_ (fourteenth century), _begins_ ‘Officium Peregrinorum debet hic fieri hoc modo’; _ends_ ‘Et processio, factis memoriis, redeat in choro et ibi finiantur vesperae.’ Gasté, 68, quotes an order of 1452 ‘Domini capitulantes concluserunt quod in istis festis Paschae fiat misterium representans resurrectionem Christi et apparitionem eius suis discipulis, eundo apud castrum de Emaux, amotis et cessantibus indecenciis.’

[142] Text in G. Desjardins, _Hist. de la Cath. de Beauvais_ (1865), 115, 269, _begins_ ‘Ordo ad suscipiendum peregrinum in secunda feria Paschae ad vesperas’; _ends_ with _Oratio de Resurrectione_. Meyer, 133, describes the MS. as of the first half of the twelfth century.

[143] Text in Du Méril, 120, from _Orleans MS._ 178 (thirteenth century), _begins_ ‘Ad faciendam similitudinem dominicae apparitionis in specie Peregrini, quae fit in tertia feria Paschae ad Vesperas’; _ends_ ‘Salve, festa dies.’

[144] E. Hautcœur, _Documents liturgiques de Lille_, 55, from _Ordinarium_ of thirteenth century, ‘Feria ii. ... in vesperis ... post collectam fit representatio peregrinorum. Qua facta cantatur Christus resurgens, et itur in chorum.’

[145] W. Meyer, _Fragmenta Burana_, 131, with text and facsimile. The play begins ‘Incipit exemplum apparicionis domini discipulis suis <iuxta> castellum Emaus, ubi illis apparuit in more peregrini,’ &c.

[146] _Use of Sarum_, i. 157; _Sarum Breviary_, i. dcccxxix.

[147] The _Peregrini_ start ‘a vestiario ... per dextram alam ecclesiae usque ad portas occidentales, et subsistentes in capite processionis.’ Then the _Sacerdos_, ‘nudus pedes, ferens crucem super dextrum humerum’ comes ‘per dextram alam ecclesiae’ to meet them. They lead him ‘usque ad tabernaculum, in medio navis ecclesiae, in similitudinem castelli Emaux praeparatum.’

[148] Text in Milchsack, 97; Coussemaker, 21, from _Tours MS._ 927 (twelfth or thirteenth century); cf. Creizenach, i. 88; Julleville, i. 62; Meyer, 95; and on the MS. which also contains the ‘Ordo representacionis Adae,’ and is not native to Tours, cf. p. 71.

[149] Milchsack, 105; Creizenach, i. 90. The beginning and end of the Klosterneuburg play were printed from a thirteenth-century MS., now lost, by B. Pez, _Thesaurus novus Anecd._ ii. 1. liii. It began ‘Primo producatur Pilatus cum responsorio: _Ingressus Pilatus_,’ and ended with ‘Christ, der ist erstanden’; cf. Meyer, 126.

[150] ‘Modo veniat angelus et iniciat eis fulgura; milites cadunt in terram velut mortui.’

[151] Meyer, 97, 125, with text and facsimile, ‘Incipit ludus immo exemplum Dominice resurrectionis.’ The episode of the Resurrection with the dismay of the soldiers is found not only in the Tours and Benedictbeuern MS., but also in the simpler Coutances _Quem quaeritis_. Lange, 157, omits this passage, but Gasté, 63, gives it; ‘Si Mariae debeant representari, finito responsorio quatuor clerici armati accedentes ad sepulcrum Domini pannis sericis decenter ornatum et secum dicant personagia sua. Quo facto, duo pueri induti roquetis veniant ad monumentum ferentes duas virgas decorticatas in quibus sunt decem candelae ardentes; et statim cum appropinquaverint ad sepulcrum praedicti milites, procidant quasi mortui, nec surgant donec incipiatur _Te Deum_, ... &c.’ There is no actual appearance of the Rising Christ in any of these three plays as originally written. But a later hand has inserted in the Benedictbeuern MS. directions for the Christ to appear, discourse with the angels, and put on the ‘vestem ortulani.’

[152] Creizenach thinks the play (like Adam) was outside the church, because the Maries appear ‘ante ostium ecclesiae.’ But ‘ante’ may be inside. Mary Magdalen at one point is ‘in sinistra parte ecclesiae stans,’ and most of the action is round the _sepulchrum_.

[153] E. Wechssler, _Die romanischen Marienklagen_ (1893); A. Schönbach, _Die Marienklagen_ (1873); cf. Creizenach, i. 241; Julleville, i. 58; Sepet, 23; Milchsack, 92; Coussemaker, 285, 346; Meyer, 67; Pearson, ii. 384.

[154] A _planctus_ ascribed to Bonaventura (thirteenth century) has the titles ‘Officium de compassione Mariae’ (Wechssler, 14), and ‘Officium sanctae crucis’ (_Bibl. de l’École des Chartes_, xxxiv. 315). Another, the ‘Surgit Christus cum trophaeo,’ is headed in thirteenth- and fourteenth-century MSS. ‘Sequentia devota antiquorum nostrorum de resurrectionis argumentis. Sanctarum virginum Mariae ac Mariae Magdalene de compassione mortis Christi per modum dyalogi sequentia.’ The chorus begins, and ‘tres bene vociferati scholares respondent’ (text in Milchsack, 92; cf. Wechssler, 14). A third, ‘O fratres et sorores,’ is headed ‘Hic incipit planctus Mariae et aliorum in die Parasceves’ (text from fourteenth-century Cividale MS. in Coussemaker, 285; Julleville, i. 58; cf. Wechssler, 17). Ducange, s.v. _Planctus_, quotes a (thirteenth-century) Toulouse rubric, ‘planctum beatissimae Virginis Mariae, qui dicitur a duobus puerulis post Matutinum et debent esse monachi, si possunt reperiri ad hoc apti.’ This _planctus_ was sung from the ‘cathedra praedicatorii.’ On the use of vernacular Italian _planctus_ by the _laudesi_ in churches through Lent, cf. Wechssler, 30. The vernacular German ‘ludus passionis’ printed by O. Schönemann, _Der Sündenfall und Marienklage_ (1855), 129, from a Wolfenbüttel fifteenth-century MS., seems to have still been meant for liturgical use, as it has the rubric ‘debet cantari post _crux fidelis_ et sic finiri usque ad vesperam lamentabiliter cum caeteris sicut consuetum est fieri.’ It incorporates the _Depositio_.

[155] Meyer, _Fragmenta Burana_, 64, 122, with text and facsimile. The piece ends ‘et ita inchoatur ludus de resurrectione. Pontifices: _O domine recte meminimus_,’ which is the opening of the Easter play already described.

[156] Printed by Du Méril, 147; Gasté, 25; Davidson, 173, from Rouen _Ordinaria_ (_Rouen MSS._ Y. 108 of fifteenth century, Y. 110 of fourteenth century); Coussemaker, 235, with notation, from Rouen _Gradual_ (_Bibl. Nat. Lat._ 904); it is also in _B. N. Lat._ 1213 (fifteenth century) and _Bibl. Mazarin_, 216 (Du Méril, 148).

[157] The ‘obstetrices’ figure in the _Protevangelium Iacobi_, chh. 18 sqq. (Tischendorf, _Evangelia Apocrypha_, 33), and the _Pseudo-Matthaei Evangelium_, ch. 13 (Tischendorf, 77). In the latter they are named Salome and Zelomi.

[158] Gasté, 31 ‘Archiepiscopus, vel alius sacerdos versus ad Pastores dicat: _Quem vidistis, pastores, dicite; annunciate nobis in terris quis apparuit_. Pastores respondeant: _Natum vidimus et choros angelorum collaudantes Dominum. Alleluia, alleluia_, et totam antiphonam finiant’: cf. Meyer, 39; _Sarum Breviary_, clxxxviii; Martene, iii. 36; Durandus, vi. 13, 16 ‘in laudibus matutinis quasi choream ducimus, unde in prima antiphona dicimus; _Quem vidistis, pastores?_ &c. Et ipsi responderunt: _Natum vidimus_.’

[159] Gasté, 33.

[160] Tille, _D. W._ 309; Pollard, xiii; Durandus-Barthélemy, iii. 411; E. Martinengo-Cesaresco, _Puer Parvulus_ in _Contemporary Review_, lxxvii (1900), 117; W. H. D. Rouse, in _F. L._ v. 6; J. Feller, _Le Bethléem Verviétois_, 10. I find a modern English example described in a letter of 1878 written by Mr. Coventry Patmore’s son Henry from a Catholic school at Ushaw (_Life of C. Patmore_, i. 308).

[161] Malleson-Tuker, ii. 212.

[162] P. Sabatier, _Life of St. Francis_ (Eng. transl.), 285, from Thomas of Celano, _Vita Prima_, 84, and Bonaventura, _Vita_, 149; cf. D’Ancona, i. 116.

[163] Usener, i. 280. It is called ‘oratorium sanctum quod praesepe dicitur’ (†731-41) and ‘camera praesepii’ (†844-7).

[164] Origen, _adv. Celsum_, i. 51; cf. Usener, i. 283, 287.

[165] Usener, i. 281; Tille, _D. W._ 54; Malleson-Tuker, ii. 210.

[166] Usener, i. 280. Gregory IV (827-43) ‘sanctum fecit praesepe ad similitudinem praesepii S. dei genetricis quae appellatur maior,’ in S. Maria in Trastevere.

[167] Gasté, 33, citing _Montpellier MS._ H. 304. The play occurs, with an _Officium Stellae_, in an anonymous treatise _De ratione divini officii_. The Amiens _Ordinarium_ of 1291 (Grenier, 389) gives directions for a _Pastores_ during the procession after the communion at the midnight mass. In preparation lights were lit at the _praesepe_ during first vespers ‘dum canitur versus _praesepe iam fulget tuum_.’ At the end of the first nocturn the figure of a child was placed there. At the first lesson of the second nocturn the cry of _noël_ was raised.

[168] Du Méril, 148.

[169] Ioannes Abrincensis, _De officiis ecclesiasticis_ (_P. L._ cxlvii. 41, 43). Neither Belethus nor Durandus mentions the _Pastores_.

[170] Cf. vol. i. p. 272. The _praesepe_ is of course in the _Stella_, which is found at Strassburg, Bilsen, and Einsiedeln, but even this is more characteristic of France than of Germany.

[171] Text ed. C. Magnin (_Journal des Savants_ (1846), 93), from _Bibl. Nat. Lat._ 1139.

[172] Gasté, 50 ‘Corona ante crucem pendens in modum stellae accendatur’ (Rouen); Du Méril, 153 ‘stellam pendentem in filo, quae antecedit eos’ (Limoges). The churchwardens’ accounts of St. Nicholas, Yarmouth, from 1462-1512 (_Norfolk Archaeology_, xi. 334), contain payments for ‘making a new star,’ ‘leading the star,’ ‘a new balk line to the star and ryving the same star.’ Pearson, ii. 325, lays stress on the prominence of the star in the German vernacular mysteries. J. T. Micklethwaite, _Ornaments of the Rubric_, 44, says that the ‘star’ was called a ‘trendle’ or ‘rowell.’ Its use does not necessarily imply the presence of a drama.

[173] The account of the _Stella_ here given should be supplemented from Creizenach, i. 60; Köppen, 10. The latter studies the verbal relation of the texts much more fully than can be done here. Meyer, 38, argues for their origin in an archetype from Germany. There are doubtless many other texts yet unprinted. Ch. Magnin, _Journal de l’Instruction publique_, Sept. 13, 1835, mentions such in Soleures, Fribourg, and Besançon _Rituals_.

[174] Text in Du Méril, 151; Martene, iii. 44, from Limoges _Ordinarium_ of unspecified date. The version is partly metrical, and the action took place ‘cantato offertorio, antequam eant ad offerendum.’

[175] Text in Gasté, 49; Du Méril, 153; Davidson, 176; from _Rouen MS._ Y. 110 (fourteenth-century _Ordinarium_); Coussemaker, 242, from _Bibl. Nat. Lat. MS._ 904 (thirteenth-century _Gradual_, with notation); _P. L._ cxlvii. 135, from _B. N._ 904 and _B. N. Lat._ 1213 (fifteenth-century _Ordinarium_); cf. Gasté, 3. The rubric begins ‘Officium regum trium secundum usum Rothomagensem. Die epyphaniae, tercia cantata.’ John of Avranches (†1070) describing the Epiphany service, probably of Rouen, says, after mentioning the _Evangelium genealogiae_, which follows the ninth _responsorium_ of Matins, ‘Deinde stellae officium incipiat’ (_P. L._ cxlvii. 43). Gasté, 53, quotes some Rouen chapter orders. In 1379 Peter Chopillard, painter, was paid ‘pro pingendo baculos quos portant Reges die Apparitionis.’ In 1507 the chapter after ‘matura deliberatio’ ordered the ‘representatio trium Regum’ to be held. In 1521 they suppressed it.

[176] Texts ed. L. Delisle, in _Romania_, iv (1875), 1. The earlier version is from _Bibl. Nat. Lat._ 9449 (†1060, a _Gradual_, or, according to Gautier, _Les Tropes_, 123, a _Troper_). The text is headed ‘Versus ad Stellam faciendam.’ The later is from _B. N. Lat._ 1235 (twelfth-century _Gradual_). It is headed ‘Ad Comm[unionem].’ Of the first part, down to the end of the interview with Herod, there are two alternative forms in this MS. The one, a free revision of the normal text, is headed:

‘Sic speciem veteres stellae struxere parentes,
quatinus hos pueri versus psallant duo regi.’

[177] Text in K. A. M. Hartmann, _Über das altspanische Dreikönigsspiel_ (Leipzig Diss. 1879), 43, from eleventh-century _B. N. Lat. MS._ 16,819.

[178] This line is not actually in the Compiègne text. But it is in most of the later versions of this scene, and is interesting, as being a classical tag from Sallust, _Catilina_, c. 32; cf. Köppen, 21; Creizenach, i. 63. Reminiscences of _Aeneid_, viii. 112; ix. 376, are sometimes put into Herod’s mouth in the scene with the _Magi_ (Du Méril, 164, 166).

[179] The version is described, but unfortunately not printed by Gasté, 53. It is from the _De ratione divini officii_ in _Montpellier MS._ H. 304.

[180] Text, headed ‘Ordo Stellae’ in U. Chevalier, _Ordinaires de l’église de Laon_, xxxvi, 389 from _Laon MS._ 263 (thirteenth-century _Trophonarium_).

[181] Text printed by Lange in _Zeitsch. f. deutsch. Alterthum_, xxxii. 412, from _B. M. Add. MS._ 23,922 (_Antiphoner_ of †1200). The play was ‘In octava Epiphaniae’ after the _Magnificat_ at Vespers.

[182] Text in C. Cahier and A. Martin, _Mélanges d’Archéologie_, i. (1847-9), 258; Clément, 113, from eleventh-century _Evangeliarium_, now in a Bollandist monastery in Brussels (Meyer, 41). It is a revision of the normal text. The author has been so industrious as even to put many of the rubrics in hexameters. The opening is

‘_Ordo._ Post Benedicamus puerorum splendida coetus
ad regem pariter debent protendere gressu,
praeclara voce necnon istic resonare.’

The ‘rex’ who presided and possibly acted Herod (cf. p. 56) was, I suppose, an Epiphany king or ‘rex fatuorum.’

[183] Translation only in P. Piolin, _Théâtre chrétien dans le Maine_ (1891), 21. The exact source is not given.

[184] The first text in Du Méril, 156; Davidson, 174, from _Munich MS._ 6264ᵃ (eleventh century). Apparently it begins with a bit of dumb show, ‘Rex sedens in solio quaerat consilium: exeat edictum ut pereant continuo qui detrahunt eius imperio.’ Then comes ‘Angelus, in primis.’ Second text, headed ‘Ordo Rachaelis’ in Du Méril, 171; Froning, 871, from _Munich MS._ 6264 (eleventh century). It is mainly metrical.

[185] Texts in Du Méril, 162, 175; Davidson, 175; Coussemaker, 143; Wright, 32, from _Orleans MS._ 178. The first part begins with the rubric ‘Parato Herode et ceteris personis ...’; the second with ‘Ad interfectionem Puerorum....’

[186] Wordsworth, 147, suggests that the name ‘Le Galilee,’ given at Lincoln to a room over the south porch and also found elsewhere, may be ‘derived from some incident in the half-dramatic Paschal ceremonies.’ For another liturgical drama in which ‘Galilee’ is required as a scene, cf. p. 60.

[187] _B. N. Lat._ 1152 (eleventh century) in _Bibl. de l’École des Chartes_, xxxiv. 657. Einsiedeln fragment (eleventh-twelfth century) printed by G. Morel in _Pilger_ (1849), 401; cf. Köppen, 13.

[188] Text in Du Méril, 151, from _Vienne MS._ 941 (fourteenth century). It is entitled ‘Ad adorandum filium Dei per Stellam invitantur Eoy.’ The first three lines, headed ‘Stella,’ are an address to the ‘exotica plebs’; each of the remaining ten lines is divided between three speakers, ‘Aureolus,’ ‘Thureolus,’ ‘Myrrheolus.’

[189] On the use of tropes at these points in the Mass, cf. Frere, xix.

[190] _Use of Sarum_, i. 280.

[191] Martene, iii. 44; in England the royal offering is still made, by proxy, at the Chapel Royal, St. James’s (Ashton, 237).

[192] I follow the epoch-making _étude_ of M. Sepet, _Les Prophètes du Christ_, in _Bibl. de l’École des Chartes_, xxviii. (1867), 1, 210, xxix. (1868), 205, 261, xxxviii. (1877), 397 (I am sorry not to be able to cite the separate edition printed at Paris, 1878); cf. also Creizenach, i. 67; Julleville, _Myst._ i. 35; and, especially, Weber, 41. But none of these writers could make use of the Laon version discovered by M. Chevalier. Meyer, 53, suggests that Sepet has exaggerated the importance of the _Prophetae_ in the development of the O. T. dramatic cycle.

[193] Text in _P. L._ xlii. 1117; on the date cf. Weber, 41. The _lectio_ is printed by Sepet, xxviii. 3.