We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 July 2016
A comprehensive theory which can reduce massive amounts of detailed evidence to simple and pleasing clarity has the ability to survive long after critics have damaged or destroyed essential portions of its arguments or evidence. A radically new comprehensive thesis may arise to displace it, but even then quibbles with details of the new continue to breathe life into the old. Such is at least partially the case with study of the prophets' episode in the twelfth-century Anglo-Norman Adam (Ordo representacionis Ade). Perhaps the single most edited piece of twelfth-century literature, the play has an established importance: linguistically, dramatically, theatrically, and theologically, it deserves the close attention it has been given. And not only is it important, it is also an enjoyable and imaginative work that delights the reader as much as it fascinates the scholar. However, it is a victim of being assigned a fundamental role in a comprehensive theory regarding the development of medieval vernacular drama.
1 Le Jeu d'Adam (Ordo representacionis Ade), ed. Willem Noomen (Les classiques français du moyen ǎge 99; Paris 1971). All references will be to this edition. A facsimile and diplomatic edition of the unique text has been edited by Leif Sletsjöe: Le Mystère d'Adam: Édition diplomatique accompagnée d'une reproduction photographique du manuscrit de Tours et les leçons des é ditions critiques (Bibliothèque française et romane, série D: Initiation, textes et documents 2; Paris 1968). For a discussion of previous editions, see the same author's ‘Histoire d'un texte: Les vicissitudes qu'a connues le Mystère d'Adam (1854–1963),’ Studia Neophilologica 37 (1965) 11–39. A number of good translations in English exist; the two most recent are: Lynette Muir, ‘Adam: A Twelfth-Century Play Translated from the Norman French with an Introduction and Notes,’ Proceedings of the Leeds Philological and Literary Society: Literature and History Section 13 (1970) 153–204; and Carl Odenkirchen, The Play of Adam = Ordo representacionis Ade: The Original Text Reviewed, with Introduction, Notes, and an English Translation (Medieval Classics, Texts, and Studies 5; Brookline, Mass. 1976). Most editors and critics agree in dating the play within the years 1146–1174.Google Scholar
2 Sepet, Marius, Les Prophètes du Christ: Étude sur les origines du théǎtre au moyen-ǎge (Paris 1878). The work first appeared in serial form: Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes 28 (1867) 1–27, 211–64; 29 (1868) 105–39, 261–93; 38 (1877) 397–443. My citations come from the one-volume version. For further discussion of the Latin plays and the pseudo-Augus-tinian sermon, and for texts of the various versions, see Karl Young, ‘Ordo prophetarum,’ Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters 20 (1921) 1–82. A less comprehensively documented discussion of the same materials appears in his Drama of the Medieval Church (Oxford 1933) 2.125–71, 456–62. See also Richard B. Donovan, c.s.c., The Liturgical Drama in Medieval Spain (Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Studies Texts 4; Toronto 1958) passim, but especially 111–16, 121–25, 144–56. A brief but very interesting discussion of the development of the prophets’ play is found in Robert A. Brawer, ‘The Form and Function of the Prophetic Procession in the Middle English Cycle Play,’ Annuale Mediaevale 13 (1972) 88–104.Google Scholar
3 Sepet's discussion of Adam takes place on 81–147; he considers the play ‘semi-liturgique’ (147). The transitional nature of the play is asserted also by those who reject Sepet's larger hypothesis: for example Grace Frank, ‘The Genesis and Staging of the Jeu d'Adam,’ Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 59 (1944) 9. Hardin Craig postulates that Adam ‘was caught in the very act of leaving the church’ and ‘may be an early and incomplete attempt at cycle-building’: English Religious Drama of the Middle Ages (Oxford 1955) 64, 68. A criticism of this view of the play is set forth by O. B. Hardison, Jr., in Christian Rite and Christian Drama in the Middle Ages: Essays in the Origin and Early History of Modern Drama (Baltimore 1965) 258–61, 281–83. A more sympathetic assessment of Sepet's contributions, with a particular emphasis on the prophets’ plays and the Adam, is to be found in E. Catherine Dunn, ‘Voice Structure in the Liturgical Drama: Sepet Reconsidered,’ in Medieval English Drama: Essays Critical and Contextual, edd. Jerome Taylor and Alan H. Nelson (Chicago 1972) 44–63.Google Scholar
4 The connection with Septuagesima Matins was recognized by Sepet, though he argued that this did not militate against a Christmas setting for the play's performance: Prophèes 88, 103–10. Recent discussions have refined the issue: see W. Noomen, ‘Note sur l'élément liturgique du Jeu d'Adam,’ in Omagiu lui Alexandru Rosetti (Bucharest 1965) 635–38; idem, ‘Le Jeu d'Adam: Étude descriptive et analytique,’ Romania 89 (1968) 145–93; Hardison, Christian Rite 258–61; and Lynette R. Muir, Liturgy and Drama in the Anglo-Norman Adam (Medium Ævum Monographs, New Series 3; Oxford 1973) 6–8, 125–26, 173. Tony Hunt argues that Adam is a play for Septuagesima — but he tends to slight the prophets and the prophets’ plays: ‘The Unity of the Play of Adam (Ordo representacionis Ade),’ Romania 96 (1975) passim, but see 369–72, 388, 513, 519, 526–27.Google Scholar
5 Sepet, esp. 96–98.Google Scholar
6 The final remark is M's, A. M.: Mediaeval Drama (London 1968) 40. The earlier quotation is from Hardison, Christian Rite 254; elsewhere, he says that Adam's ‘prophet play has always been recognized as a redaction of a Latin original’ (258).Google Scholar
7 126 note 10. Robert Brawer makes the very useful distinction between the three liturgical plays which follow the Sermon very closely and two more complex works (the Benediktbeuern Christmas play and Adam) in each of which ‘the structure is only superficially like that in the independent sermon and liturgical plays; the new shape of the prophetic recital is intimately related to the way the over-all action of the play is framed and to the way individual incidents are developed’: ‘Form and Function’ 104. He goes so far as to call them ‘two dramatic traditions.’Google Scholar
8 Muir, Liturgy 93–112. She asserts that ‘[e]ach prophecy contains a parallel with an idea, a theme, or an incident in the Adam–Cain section and there are also certain elements which link the prophecies to each other, just as we have been able to observe in the Cain and Abel scene echoes of words or ideas from the Adam sequence. The web of allusion … is further enriched by textual imitation …’ (93). See also Frank, ‘Genesis’ 10 (and see below p. 90 n. 19). The case has been impressively put forward by Hunt, ‘Unity’368–88, 497–527, esp. 523–27. See also W. C. Calin, ‘Structural and Doctrinal Unity in the Jeu d'Adam,’ Neophilologus 46 (1962) 249–54; Erich Auerbach, ‘Adam and Eve,’ in Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (Princeton 1953) 143–73; Noomen, ‘Étude descriptive’; and James C. Atkinson, ‘Theme, Structure and Motif in the Mystère d'Adam,’ Philological Quarterly 56 (1977) 27–42.Google Scholar
9 The lectiones initiate what we may call the two ‘acts’ of the play, as distinct from the three ‘scenes’ or ‘episodes’: Adam–Eve, Cain–Abel, Prophets. The terms are only approximate in usage; the play's action is essentially continuous and takes place on a single set.Google Scholar
10 On attribution, see Glorieux, P., Pour revaloriser Migne, tables rectificatives (Mélanges de Science Religieux; Lille 1952) 31. The text of the entire sermon is found in Opera Quodvultdeo Carthaginiensi episcopo tributa, ed. R. Braun (CCL 60; Turnhout 1976) 225–58; and in PL 42.1117–30.Google Scholar
11 Young, ‘Ordo Prophetarum,’ esp. 4–16; the quotation comes from 15. For the homiliary of Paul the Deacon, in which the pseudo-Augustinian sermon appears as the tenth homily, see Cyril L. Smetana, o.s.a., ‘Aelfric and the Early Medieval Homiliary,’ Traditio 15 (1959) 166; or J. Leclercq, ‘Tables pour l'inventaire des homiliaires manuscrits,’ Scriptorium 2 (1948) 205. For further discussion of this point, see below, pp. 98–99.Google Scholar
12 Young, ‘Ordo prophetarum’ 39–49. The Laon text, unknown to Sepet, was first discussed in detail by E. K. Chambers: The Mediaeval Stage (Oxford 1903) 2.52–55. There is no musical notation in the manuscript, but the similarities in text with the Limoges version, which is accompanied by musical notation, and the rubrics ‘Duo cantores’ and ‘Omnis chorus’ would suggest that Laon's was also sung. I am not aware of any previous attempt to explain the addition, and the positioning, of Balaam on the grounds I suggest here. It has been usually assumed that it is a ‘natural’ extension of the prophetic principle in the sermon (or lection). Young's discussion of the order occurs on 45–46 of ‘Ordo prophetarum.’ His edition of the Laon Ordo stelle appears in Drama 2.103–9.Google Scholar
13 Young's discussion of the possible liturgical settings of the Laon and Limoges plays appears in ‘Ordo prophetarum’ 38–39, 48–49, and in Drama 2.144–45, 153.Google Scholar
14 Young's edition and discussion of the Limoges text occurs on 24–39 of ‘Ordo prophetarum,’ and in Drama 2.138–45. The musical setting of the Limoges play is discussed by William L. Smoldon, The Music of the Medieval Church Dramas, ed. Cynthia Bourgeault (London 1980) 149–52.Google Scholar
15 Young, ‘Ordo prophetarum’ 17–24; Drama 2.133–38. The book (Naples 1594) is believed by Young and subsequent scholars to be a copy of a late eleventh-century manuscript.Google Scholar
16 Young, ‘Ordo prophetarum’ 49–71; Drama 2.154–70. The play, alone of the Latin versions, is firmly established in a liturgical setting: immediately after Terce and before Mass on January 1 (the feast of the Circumcision).Google Scholar
17 See, for example, Muir, Liturgy 12–13. For an alternative view, which claims that the Quinze signes du jugement which follows ought to be considered the Sibylline conclusion to the Adam's procession of prophets, see Paul Aebischer's introduction to his edition of the play: Le Mystère d'Adam (Ordo representacionis Ade) (Textes Littéraires Français 99; Geneva/Paris 1964) 19–25. Maurice Accarie has been an even more forceful proponent of this view: ‘L'Unité du Mystère d'Adam,’ in Mélanges de langue et de littérature médiévales offertes à Pierre le Gentil (Paris 1973) 1–12; and ‘Théologie et morale dans le Jeu d'Adam,’ Revue des langues Romanes 83 (1978) 123–47. While I see no persuasive reasons to consider the Quinze signes a part of the Adam, I do think that the play's association with the pseudo-Augustinian sermon may have suggested to the scribe, bothered perhaps by the play's apparent incompleteness or open-endedness, the addition of this obviously heterogeneous Sibylline text as a means of providing suitable closure. A similar hypothesis has been proposed by J. Ch. Payen, though he, unlike me, believes that ‘le texte du manuscrit de Tours forme un tout… .’: ‘Idéologie et théǎtralité dans l’Ordo Representationis Adae,’ Études Anglaises 25 (1972) 19–29, esp. 20.Google Scholar
18 See Muir, , Liturgy 12–15, 110–12. And see my discussion below, pp. 111–13. Nebuchadnezzar could, presumably, head another group of five to balance the preceding two groups. This, however, seems less likely.Google Scholar
19 Frank, ‘Genesis’ 10.Google Scholar
20 Mǎle, Émile, L'Art religieux du XIIe siècle en France (6th ed.; Paris 1953) 144.Google Scholar
21 The identification of the prophets is generally agreed upon, although their sequence is a matter of dispute. Mǎle identifies them as (reading from left to right) Nebuchadnezzar, Moses, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Daniel: XIIe siècle 144. Arthur Kingsley Porter affirms that the order is Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel, Moses, Jeremiah, and Isaiah: The Romanesque Sculpture of the Pilgrimage Roads (Boston 1923) 1.321–22. Jacques Chailley suggests that they are Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel, Isaiah, Moses, and Jeremiah: ‘Du drame liturgique aux prophètes de Notre-Dame-la-Grande,’ in Mélanges offerts à René Crozet, edd. Pierre Gallais and Yves-Jean Riou (Poitiers 1966) 2.835–41. The order I follow in my text, however, is that espoused by Yvonne Labande-Mailfert, Poitou Roman (La nuit des temps 5; La Pierre-qui-vire 1957) 88. René Crozet is in agreement: Dictionnaire des églises de France, Belgique, Luxembourg, Suisse, (Paris 1966–71) 3c.136. And so is Raymond Oursel: Haut-Poitou Roman (La nuit des temps 42; La Pierre-qui-vire 1975) 190–91. The connection of the play with the sculpture has been discussed by Frank, ‘Genesis’ 9, and more recently and at greater length by John Philip Colletta, ‘Influence of the Visual Arts Evident in the Jeu d'Adam,’ Studies in Medieval Culture 12 (1978) 73–83.Google Scholar
22 Muir suggests one, ‘strictly hypothetical, conclusion to the play’ — a mimed Harrowing of Hell, followed by ‘the Mass, which is the logical culmination of the play’ (Liturgy 14–15). This suggestion is an attractive one, as much for not being over-elaborate as for being in keeping with the spirit of the play.Google Scholar
23 The best treatment of this topic is Arthur Watson's, in The Early Iconography of the Tree of Jesse (London 1934). In this study he is intent on clarifying and qualifying the thesis propounded by Émile Mǎle with regard to the origin and early development of the Tree of Jesse: XIIe siècle 141–47, 168–75; see also L'Art religieux du XIIIe siècle en France (8th ed.; Paris 1947) 166–74. A briefer but useful discussion of the topic appears in Gertrud Schiller, Iconography of Christian Art, trans. Janet Seligman (Greenwich, Conn. 1971) 1.12–22.Google Scholar
24 For examples, see Watson, , Early Iconography 83–141; his three appendices, 147–62; and his plates i–xxxiii. And Schiller, Iconography 1 plates 21–40.Google Scholar
25 Watson, , Early Iconography 90–91 and plate vi; Schiller, Iconography 1.16–17 and plate 26. See also her discussion of the Vyšehrad Coronation Gospels on 14–15 and plates 21, 22; and of other ‘figures’ associated with Mary, 53–54. I discuss some of these in the pages following.Google Scholar
26 On this topic, see particularly Guldan, Ernst, Eva und Maria: Eine Antithese als Bildmotiv (Graz–Cologne 1966); S. Esche, Adam und Eva: Sündenfall und Erlösung (Düsseldorf 1957), esp. 37ff.; and Schiller, Iconography 1.39–42. For the miniatures in the St. Albans Psalter, see the reproductions in The St. Albans Psalter, edd. Otto Pächt, Francis Wormald, and C. R. Dodwell (Studies of the Warburg Institute 25; London 1960).Google Scholar
27 See Schiller, , Iconography 1.18 and plate 29; and Watson, Early Iconography 125–27 and plate XXVII.Google Scholar
28 More specific comparisons would be suspect since the enthroned Christ in its present form is modern; there may have originally been a representation of the Crucifixion in this position: see Watson, Early Iconography 125–27, and his citations on this issue. If the tree originally climaxed in a Crucifixion, the connection with the Annunciation would be exactly along the traditional lines discussed below in Section III.Google Scholar
29 Jesus appears as the flos of the Jesse tree and also in the crown of the tree to the left of Adam and Eve; Isaiah appears at the lower left of Jesse (with the virga Iesse prophecy) and at the upper right of the Virgin (with the Emmanuel prophecy). Gabriel appears also at the lower left of the Enthroned Jesus as one of the four archangels surrounding that scene.Google Scholar
30 ‘In Annunciatione Sanctae Mariae’ (PL 172.901–8). The following quotation comes from col. 904 (‘muliis’ corrected to ‘multis’). This is the same sermon which Émile Mǎle called upon to explain the various Old Testament figurae associated with the Virgin at Laon: XIIIe siècle 148–53. A more extensive study of the Laon portal has been carried out by M.-L. Thérel, ‘Étude iconographique des voussures du portail de la Vierge-Mère à la cathédrale de Laon,’ Cahiers de civilisation médiévale 15 (1972) 41–51. Payen, ‘Idéologie’ 21–22, has pointed to the Marian aspects of the play, which, he says, ‘cultive une certaine dévotion mariale’ (22).Google Scholar
31 ‘De Nativitate Beatissimae Mariae Virginis’ (PL 141.320–24). The quotation is from col. 321.Google Scholar
32 Ibid.Google Scholar
33 In laudibus Virginis Matris, hom. II, in Sancti Bernardi Opera, edd. J. Leclercq, o.s.b., and H. Rochais (Rome 1957–74) 4.21–35. As the editors note in their ‘Introduction’ (4.3–4), the four sermons are intended for the feast of the Annunciation.Google Scholar
34 It is the text Jeremiah carries in the Klosterneuburg Altarpiece, where he appears in the spandrel between the Annunciation and Nativity. It is also the text he presents in the thirteenth-century Strasbourg Psalter presented by Schiller in plate 27. On the interpretation of the text, see Rabanus Maurus, Expositionis super Jeremiam prophetam libri XX, lib. 12 (PL 111.1039), and Bruno of Asti, Sententiarum liber quintus de laudibus Beatissimae Virginis Mariae, cap. 1 (PL 165.1022). A similar interpretation is also given the verse in Biblia latina una cum glossa ordinaria Walafridi Strabonis et interlineari Anselmi Laudunensis (Strasbourg 1479).Google Scholar
35 One could also add a number of sermons and tracts contra Judaeos which, like Quod-vultdeus’ sermon, make extensive use of Old Testament texts to ‘prove’ Jesus’ messiahship, the mystery of the Incarnation, or the Virgin Birth. Many of the same prophets and texts appear in these, as in Quodvultdeus and in Adam. See for example Guibert of Nogent, Tractatus de Incarnatione contra Judaeos (PL 156.489–528); Hildebert du Mans, ‘Contra Judaeos de Incarnatione’ (PL 171.811–14); and the anonymous twelfth-century Tractatus adversus Judaeum (PL 213.749–808).Google Scholar
36 And see also lines 488–90. The passage has been discussed in detail by Albert Henry in two separate notes: ‘Ancien français raiz (Jeu d'Adam, v. 860),’ Romania 92 (1971)388–91 and ‘Encore raiz (Jeu d'Adam, v. 489),’ Romania 96 (1975) 561–65. In the latter he responds to the suggestion of Pierre Gardette: ‘Latin chrétien radix, ancien français raiz (Jeu d'Adam, vers 489 et 818),’ in Études de langue et de littérature du moyen ǎge offertes à Félix Lecoy (Paris 1973) 139–46. Their disagreement, as Henry says, is not over the ‘réalité visée’ but over the ‘signification lexicale’ of the word (562–63). See also Hunt, ‘Unity’ 516–18. The exegetical history of the source passage in Genesis (Genesis 3.15), the so-called Protoevangelion, is examined at length by Dominic J. Unger, O.F.M.Cap., The First-Gospel: Genesis 3:15 (Franciscan Institute Publications, Theology Series 3; St. Bonaventure, N.Y. 1954).Google Scholar
37 For example, Craig, English Religious Drama 69; Frank, ‘Genesis’ 10–11; Muir, Liturgy 12–15, 24–25; Hunt, ‘Unity’ e.g., 369–72, 388, 513, 519, 526–27.Google Scholar
38 Hom. XII [de sanctis], ‘In Annuntiatione Beatae Mariae, vel potius in Adventu Domini’ (PL 95.1470–75). This is reproduced by Migne from the 1539 Cologne edition of Eucharius Cervicornus. See the comments by Smetana, ‘Aelfric’ 164–65.Google Scholar
39 ‘Aelfric’ 188 n. 22.Google Scholar
40 See, for a discussion of these matters, Holweck, F. G., Fasti Mariani sive calendarium festorum Sanctae Mariae Virginis Deiparae: Memoriis historicis illustratum (Freiburg i.B. 1892) 45–47, 291–93, 299, and 300; the article by F. Cabrol, ‘Annonciation (Fěte de I’),’ in DACL 1.2241–55; and compare Young, Drama 2.245–50. More extensive discussion of these issues may be found in F. Frénaud, ‘Le culte de Notre Dame dans l'ancienne liturgie latine,’ in Hubert du Manoir de Juaye, ed., Maria (Paris 1961) 6.157–211; and in A. Scheer, m.s.c., ‘Aux origines de la fěte de l'Annonciation,’ Questions liturgiques 58 (1977) 97–169.Google Scholar
41 See Vogel, Cyrille, Introduction aux sources de l'histoire du culte chrétien au moyen ǎge (Biblioteca degli ‘Studi medievali’ 1; Spoleto 1975 [for 1965]) 266; and Vincenzo Loi, ‘Il 25 marzo data pasquale e la cronologia giovannea della passione in età patristica,’ Ephemerides liturgicae 85 (1971) 48–69. The origins of these associations are not altogether clear. A work entitled De solstitiis et aequinoctiis (PL S1.557–68), probably fourth century and Syrian in origin, previously ascribed to John Chrysostom and now to Pontius Maximus, makes the association of the conception and passion of Jesus with March 25th in a manner that suggests that it was a commonplace even then; this work is discussed in some detail by Bernard Botte in Les origines de la Noël et de l'Épiphanie: Étude historique (Louvain 1932). A further number of the associations are established by the eighth century, as is evidenced by the Irish Martyrology of Tallaght: see Archdale A. King, Liturgies of the Past (London 1959) 220, 223. (See also the twelfth-century Irish Martyrology of Gorman: ibid. 220, 223.)Google Scholar
42 Summa de ecclesiasticis officiis 84.b, ed. Heribertus Douteil (CCL, CM 41a; Turnhout 1976) 152. The feast was originally more Christocentric than it became later: see Holweck, Fasti Mariani 45.Google Scholar
43 ‘In Annunciatione Sanctae Mariae’ (PL 172.901–3).Google Scholar
44 Gemma animae 3.123 (PL 172.676).Google Scholar
45 For example, Jacob a Voragine, Legenda aurea 51.1, ed. Theodor Graesse (3rd ed.; Breslau 1890) 220–21; and William Durandus, Rationale divinorum officiorum 6.77.37–28 (Naples 1859) 538.Google Scholar
46 Jeremiah's text in the Sermon comes from Baruch 3.36–38; I quote from Young's text in ‘Ordo Prophetarum’ (p. 5): ‘Hic est, inquit, Deus noster, et non estimabitur alius absque illo qui inuenit omnem viam scientie et dedit eam Iacob puero suo et Israel dilecto suo. Post hec in terris uisus est, et cum hominibus conuersatus.’ In modern editions of Baruch the last two verbs have a feminine subject, namely, scientia. Verse 38 is given a distinctly Resurrectional exegesis by Honorius, Gemma animae 3.108 (PL 172.671).Google Scholar
47 Werckmeister, O. K., ‘The Lintel Fragment Representing Eve from Saint-Lazare, Autun,’ Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 35 (1972) 1–30. On the north portal in general see also Denis Grivot and George Zarnecki, Gislebertus, Sculptor of Autun (New York 1961) 146–52. Some further stylistic connections between Adam and the Saint-Lazare Eve are discussed by Jos. Streignart, s.j., ‘L’Éve de la cathédrale Saint-Lazare d'Autun et le Jeu d'Adam et Ève,’ Les Études classiques 18 (1950) 452–56.Google Scholar
48 Even in this case the address to the Jews seems not to have anti-Semitic or even strongly polemical overtones. The figural function of the Jews in this play seems quite apparent; from Moses’ address to ‘vos’ up to the Isaiah–Judaeus exchange the emphasis is on transformation rather than condemnation, and the negative aspects of Jewish history are balanced against the positive. Jews, like Christians, the play implies, contain Abels and Cains. So the historical and moral history of Old Testament Judaism becomes a model, a figure, of Christian history. Typological aspects of Adam, though not this particular one, are discussed at length by Hunt, ‘Unity’ 368–88.Google Scholar
49 In the sermon David's text is a combination of verses from other psalms: Ps. 71.11; 109.1; and 2.1. The Latin plays use the first two of these, apparently altering the first under the influence of Ps. 21.28, which is quite similar to 71.11.Google Scholar
50 See Muir, , Liturgy 98–100.Google Scholar
51 For example, Bernard, , In laudibus Virginis Matris I.1, 3 and II.14 (Opera 4.14, 16, and 32). And Ildefonsus, De virginitate perpetua Sanctae Mariae adversus tres infideles, cap. 3 (PL 96.67). For Christmas Matins, see Liber responsalis (PL 78.734). Cf. Liber antiphonarius (PL 78.641) and the commentary on it by Rupert of Deutz: Liber de divinis officiis 3.2, ed. Hrabanus Haacke, o.s.b. (CCL, CM 7; Turnhout 1967) 64. And for a related use of the text, see also the leaf from a twelfth-century Gospel book reproduced in Schiller, Iconography I plate 173, discussed on page 72.Google Scholar
52 See also Muir's discussion of Solomon's prophecy: Liturgy 100–2. Balaam's explanation of the star in his prophecy and Daniel's of the ‘saint’ in his are also parallel to Isaiah's case.Google Scholar
53 Enarratio in Psalmum LXXXIV, edd. Eligius Dekkers, o.s.b., and Iohannes Fraipont, Opera 10.2 (CCL 39; Turnhout 1956) 1173–74. Cf. Jerome, Tractatus in librum Psalmorum, ed. Germanus Morin (CCL 78; Turnhout 1958) 107–8; Cassiodorus, Expositio in Psalmum LXXXIV, ed. M. Adriaen (CCL 98; Turnhout 1958) 778–79; and Glossa ordinaria.Google Scholar
54 ‘The “Mystère d'Adam”: Two Problems,’ Modern Language Review 34 (1939) 71–72. The use of the twelve lections at the Easter Vigil is characteristic of Gelasian usage, and while the pure Gregorian Sacramentary gives only four lections (numbers 1, 4, 8, and 11 of the Gelasian), the Gelasian practice does survive: see Michel Andrieu, Les Ordines Romani du haut moyen ǎge (VIIIe–Xe siècle) (Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense, Études et Documents 11, 23, 24, 28, 29; Louvain 1931–61) 5.399–400. See also Honorius, Gemma animae 3.103–9, esp. 108 (PL 172.669–72). On the Easter associations of the Adam see also Hardin Craig, ‘The Origins of the Old Testament Plays,’ Modern Philology 10 (1912–13) 473–87, esp. 477; Frank, ‘Genesis’ 9; and Colletta, ‘Influence’ 77–80.Google Scholar
55 This is the passage Jeremiah uses in the pseudo-Augustinian sermon. For my suggestions why this may have been changed, see above, p. 102.Google Scholar
56 Andrieu, , Ordines 5.123–24. Since we are not certain of the exact provenance of Adam, and since much of the liturgical evidence has been lost, we have real difficulty in identifying exact liturgical sources. It is for this reason that I choose to refer to the widely influential Ordo L. The connection between the Ash Wednesday expulsion of sinners and Adam has been made by, among others, Sepet, Prophètes 87–89; Muir, Liturgy 38, 77–80; and Hunt, ‘Unity’ 515. There is also a relevant discussion in Werckmeister, ‘Lintel Fragment,’ 7–8 (esp. n. 37), 15–27.Google Scholar
57 On this topic, see for instance Muir, Liturgy 2–5, 118–20; Hunt in ‘Unity’ implies an at least semi-learned audience.Google Scholar
58 Fortunately, the trend in recent criticism has been toward a more holistic approach, as the works of Noomen, Muir, and Hunt attest.Google Scholar
In addition to their works cited above in n. 4, see Willem Noomen, ‘Aspects stylistiques du Jeu d'Adam,’ in Actele celui de-al XII-lea congres international de linguistica si filologie romanica, ed. Alexandru Rosetti (Bucharest 1971) 2.765–72. On page 765 he makes clear his approach: ‘Les éléments latins, liturgiques (leçons et répons), n'ont pas une fonction ornementale, comme on a pu le soutenir, mais forment l'ossature de la pièce. Ils constituent un ensemble très coherent, auquel sont subordonnés les éléments (dialogue et monologue) en langue vulgaire.’
59 Liturgy 12–15, 110–12.Google Scholar
60 See Kaske, R. E., ‘The Character “Figura” in Le Mystère d'Adam ,’ in Mediaeval Studies in Honor of Urban Tigner Holmes, Jr., edd. John Mahoney and John Esten Keller (Chapel Hill 1965) 103–10. See also Muir, Liturgy 15–16; and Hunt, ‘Unity’ 372–78.Google Scholar
61 See, for example, Hardison's discussion in Christian Rite 139–44.Google Scholar
62 For example, Maurus, Rabanus, De universo libri XXII 3.1 (PL 111.65); and Rupert of Deutz, De victoria verbi Dei 6.7 (PL 169.1342–43).Google Scholar
63 Cf. Muir, Liturgy 111–12; and Hunt, ‘Unity’ 378–80.Google Scholar
64 Adam would not be an unsatisfactory means of catechizing those preparing for Easter Baptism. Ordo L directs that such catechesis take place specifically during the Vigil lections: ‘Interim autem dum lectiones leguntur, presbiteri catecizent infantes qui non sunt catecizati et praeparent ad baptizandum’ (Andrieu, Ordines 5.275–76). Furthermore, the questions addressed to those requesting Baptism correspond quite strikingly with the range of topics treated in Adam — even to the point of excluding any mention of Jesus’ Resurrection: ‘Abrenuntias Satanae? … Et omnibus operibus eius? … Et omnibus pompis eius? … Credis in Deum patrem omnipotentem, creatorem caeli et terrae? … Credis et in Iesum Christum filium eius unicum dominum nostrum, natum et passum ? …’ (Andrieu, Ordines 5.283).Google Scholar
65 I am grateful to the Humanities Council of the University of Washington for providing from funds made available by the National Endowment for the Humanities, a study grant to aid in preparing this paper; and to the Mellon Foundation for a visiting fellowship to enable me to undertake researches at the Vatican Film Library at St. Louis University.Google Scholar
