"A Table on a Stage: re-thinking how to produce the Last Supper"

Yumi Dohi

In this paper I am going to submit ideas and suggestions regarding dramatic reproductions of the Last Supper in late medieval North-Western Europe. Examples are mainly taken from the German-speaking world and the English Cycles, with the occasional mentioning of some French works, when necessary.

This theme occurred to me when I saw a computer-graphic reproduction of Leonardo’s "Last Supper". His very well known tempera-picture in Milan took an extremely long time - about 20 years - to be restored and reopened to the public. When its restoration was completed in 1999, and the so-called original of Leonardo became accessible, many of those who saw it must have recognised that the picture as a whole looked like the depiction of a dramatic performance. The reproduced picture in computer graphics gave this impression still stronger than the original did. The long table, at which Jesus and his disciples are sitting, is placed in front of a room with a long depth perspective. Leonardo did not follow the mainstream of expressing the Supper represented by his contemporary Italian painters: most paintings of the Supper painted between the mid 15th and the beginning of the 16th century let Judas sit alone on the opposite side of the table opposite of Jesus and the other disciples. In Leonardo’s design, we can see the faces of all that are attending the Supper, since they are sitting behind and on both sides of the table. The theatrical image of Leonardo’s design becomes definitive, if we notice that the table is placed on a stage-like floor, which is apparently much higher than the place where we, the public, are standing.

This experience of recognising the theatrical design in Leonardo’s picture, on the one hand, stimulated me to imagine and reproduce in the air the late-medieval stagings of the Last Supper. On the other hand, however, it was difficult for me to believe that any medieval dramatisations could bring forth Leonardo’s type of staging, if such a precondition is accepted that their performance places in many cases must have been spatially restricted. A staging of the Supper in Leonardo’s form could be practised in case the play was presented in a big hall like a refectory in a cloister, or in a market place, but not on a wagon or a scaffold. Besides, it was lucky for Leonardo that he did not need to keep a certain space for the Foot-washing. In most dramatic texts the Foot-washing was usually integrated into the Supper and performed in the same acting area, whereas in pictures these episodes are presented in different space as is iconographically attested.

Then, questions came into my mind. Is it possible to categorise the assumed stagings of the Last Supper according to the descriptions in dramatic texts? If so, what are the possible categories which can be applied to examination of the dramatic texts? Are there any texts describing how the scene should be planned out? Is there any information concerning the shape and/or the size of the table, the breadth of the performance space, or even where Jesus and his disciples should have their seats? Should the table be covered with a cloth, just as Leonardo and many other artists before him painted? What is on the table? Da Vinci painted fishes, buns of bread, red wine in glasses, and each of the participants has his own plate and glass. Why didn’t he paint the Paschal lamb? Is the Paschal lamb, the main dish of the Paschal supper, referred to unconditionally? Are there any references to the staging of the Supper in archival records of the late medieval dramatic performance? And, can this examination of the dramatic Supper result in the reproduction of the staging according to the categorised characteristics?

In the process of this examination, both spatial and contextual restrictions are taken into account, insofar as either dramatic texts or archival records have remarkable information about performances. Additionally to be considered is whether the Foot-washing should be presented in the same staging space as where the table is situated. The Foot-washing, if it is performed in front of the table, requires a relatively wide space where the disciples stand together, surrounding Jesus who kneels beside a water basin.

One thing should be mentioned before I start presenting the results of my investigation: there may be some simple or more remarkable misunderstandings concerning reproducing or reconstructing medieval stage crafts, since I have no practical experience in this field. I should be grateful to you for any necessary corrections.

I. Form of the Table

There are three - roughly speaking - types of table used for the presentation of the Supper. First, as with Leonardo, a long rectangular table, secondly a square one, and thirdly a round one. The long table is for example used for the performance of the Supper in the Oberammergau Passion Play in the 1950s. The form of the table in the Oberammergau Passion has however changed to a round one by the 1980s. This change gives us the impression that the presentation of the Supper has become dramatically more flexible especially from the viewpoint of the public, since the scene could be seen from all angles except that from behind the stage. The disciples can move more freely on the stage than in the long-table presentation, when they leave the table and come close to Jesus. Of course this is also ideal for a performance on a smaller stage like on a wagon or a scaffold. The Oberammergau Passion Play is staged on the modern stage with its abundant - very wide - staging area, which is comparable only with an arena stage among the staging variations in the Middle Ages.

There are two conditions for performing the Supper with a long rectangular table: first, it needs a wide staging area; second, Jesus has his seat in the middle, facing the public, so no disciples can be seated in any position disturbing the public’s good view of Jesus. Therefore, most of his disciples are sitting showing their faces to the public, except two of them who are on both sides of the table and Judas who could be seated alone on the other side of the table, showing his back to the public. Judas could also be on the same side as Jesus, just as Leonardo painted. The main concern in this case is that Judas must be placed within the space where Jesus’ hand reaches, since Jesus gives Judas a morsel of dipped bread to identify him as traitor.

The staging with a long rectangular table seems almost impossible to realise on a late medieval wagon stage. And yet, the first assumed example for this type is taken from the York Cycle. Its Supper scene furnishes a reason for categorising it as having been performed with a long table:

Ther-fore array 3 ou all on rawe

My selfe schall parte itt 3 ou betwene. (ll. 5-8)

Here Jesus wants his disciples to be seated in a row, so that it may become easy for him to apportion the lamb to everyone. If they are seated in a row, the table must be a long rectangular one. Jesus sits probably in the middle just behind the lamb, in order to apportion it by himself.

Judas, sitting either integrated in the row or on the other side of the table during the Paschal meal, slips away to the Jewish high priests after he notices he is suspected (l. 104), since Jesus offers him a morsel of bread. To prepare himself for this occasion, it is probably correct that he takes his seat on the other side of the table, just as in the Italian pictures of Leonardo’s contemporaries, so that he can quickly leave the Supper. He does not attend the apostles’ communion; he is visually discriminated when coming back from the Foot-washing to the table.

It does not seem necessary to have a deep space behind Jesus and his disciples when they are sitting at the long table; John, who usually leans his head on Jesus’ breast according to the Gospel of John, does not do this in the York Supper; Nor does Peter ask John whether he could ask Jesus of the identity of the traitor. Therefore, the actions of Jesus, John and Peter are more limited than, for example, those gathered from the description in the Gospel of John. The space they require behind them must be wide enough for them to stand up and sit down as occasion demands; or, the other way round, the play text required them to act in such a limited way, since the acting space was not wide enough.

It is generally accepted that the York Cycle was staged on and around wagons on the street. A long rectangular table does not seem suitable for this form of performance, because it needs an oblong place. The widths of the streets and the wagons are, of course, very limited. This staging also requires a space for the Foot-washing in front of the table. So the staging area must have been wide and deep. How could this form of stage have been brought to realisation particularly in the case of the York cycle?

In another case, in the Donaueschingen Passion Play, the first information concerning Judas’ place at the table in SD (= stage direction) 1778c makes us believe that he might have sat alone on the opposite side of the table. But the second bit of information concerning him in SD1786d-e clarifies that he finally takes his seat at the end of the table. Therefore, we should be allowed to imagine that the table for the Donaueschingen Supper was long and rectangular, since a round or square table has no end.

It does not seem so easy to discern whether a square and a round table was used for the Supper only by reading dramatic texts. But at least we could imagine that a square or a small rectangular table should have been used for the Supper-presentation in the form of a mass; i.e. the table of the Supper as the altar for the Eucharistic offering. One of the earliest examples for this form of performance is found in the Ludus breuiter de passione (the short Benediktbeuern Passion Play) in the Carmina Burana Manuscript from Benediktbeuern, Germany (dated between 1225 and 1230). This is a Latin play, and it is usually said that the text was intended to be recited or used as a short directory summary of the Great Benediktbeuern Passion Play, but not for staging. Even the expression, "to/in the forsaid place" (SD 0b and 3a) does not mean that the scene of the Supper had its particular "locus": they are simple translations of the biblical expressions of "illic/illis" (Mc 14, 15/Mt 26, 19 and 21), or "... dixerat illis" (Mc 14, 15). Therefore, the sentence, " ... procedere vult ad locum deputatum, ubi mandatum debet esse" does not support the speculation that there were some "loci" prepared to perform different episodes or characters.

In the Ludus breuiter the table setting is mentioned in the following manner: the table should be covered with a tablecloth, on which only bread and wine are to be seen (SD3a). Although the text is based on the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, the Paschal lamb is not mentioned. It is fair to assume from this description of the table setting that the table looked exactly like an altar, on which only bread and a chalice were placed. Since there is no mention that Jesus or the disciples should take seats, they perhaps remained standing during the Supper around the altar.

If the play was ever performed, the performance must have taken place in a church or a hall such as the refectory of a cloister. The staging area must have been wide enough to show at least two scenes simultaneously, since Judas goes to the Jewish priests and deals with them concerning Jesus, whereas Jesus with his disciples celebrates the Eucharistic offering of bread and wine (SD9a).

The St. Gall Passion Play (1320-1340) has Augustinus, the Precursor, refer to Jesus as a priest who practices the mass: "Das selben dages er sang / sin erste messe. .... / Prister vnd ander heilikeit / sat er der heilgen cristenheit" (ll. 611-614). The priest Jesus differentiates Judas from the other disciples so precisely that he gives Judas the dipped morsel of bread before the bread is consecrated through the mass (SD632ab-ll. 638). In this play the Easter lamb is served on the table, and it is not mentioned whether the lamb has been consumed before the Eucharistic institution begins. Judas goes to the Jewish council after the mass - the Eucharistic bread and wine are pointedly not offered to him -, but he comes back to the Supper when his dealings are successfully concluded (SD644). Therefore, though a very liturgical staging, the St. Gall play, exactly like the Ludus breuiter, has the parallel presentations of the Supper and Judas’ betrayal. There is no trustworthy evidence for its staging either in or outside of a church, but it seems not too far-fetched to say that the performance of the St. Gall play had very much to do with the church itself, if ever performed, because of its obviously liturgical expressions. It would not be a surprise if the play had been presented in a church, using the altar as a table for the Supper.

The Supper with a square table is mentioned in the Meditationes vitae (vite) Christi written by a Franciscan monk, Johannis de Cavlibvs. The detailed description of the table and its setting helps us to discern its shape:

The table was square and made out of a combination of various wood pieces, just as it is seen in the Lateran Basilica, one of the finest cloisters in Rome, built in 1215-32. Between 1305 and 1375 the building was the papal residence until the pope took his exile in Avignon. The Meditationes appeared first around 1300 and spread in the western part of Europe mostly in the middle of the 14th century. At that time the Lateran cloister was definitely the palace of popes, and therefore, the table in the Lateran Basilica (Church/Chapel) might have been the table in the refectory of the popes’ palace.

As referred to in my recently published dissertation on the dramatic presentations of the Last Supper, the Meditationes vitae/vite Christi was one of the most frequently used literary works as a source of the dramatisation of the Passion. It does not mean that the original Latin text was read by writers of the biblical plays. The Meditaitones was translated into English, French, German and other West-European languages, which leads us to believe that many of its readers were the laity. For example, la Passion Isabeau de Bavièr, a paraphrased French translation of the Meditationes written in 1398 and kept by Isabeau of Bavaria, the queen of Charles VI, was found to be a source of the great Mystère de la Passion by Arnoul Grèban. A similar relation between the Meditationes-translations and Passion plays is evident in the German-speaking region. I would not claim the French-German connection concerning the dramatisation of the Passion just because Queen Isabeau was a daughter of Stephan III, Duke of Bavaria. I am merely suggesting that the Meditationes was popular in both regions in the same manner, i.e. popular as a source of the Passion plays. Similarities in dramatisation of the Passion in both regions often originate in the Meditationes translations, sometimes with similar paraphrasings. For example, the emphasis on Mary’s suffering in the farewell scene to her son was frequently taken from the French and German translations of the Meditationes in German and French Passion plays. This interpretative addition of Mary’s emotional disaster in Bethany does not appear in any English cycle plays. A plausible reason for the unpopularity of this scene in England may have been the relatively faithful translations of the Meditationes in English. Nicholas Love’s Mirrour does not mention Mary’s suffering in Bethany, simply because it is not in the original. Rather, Love was keen on describing his engagement in fighting against the Lollardry, which might have resulted in such a play as the N-town Passion. In its extremely dogmatised dramatisation of the Last Supper, the public could only be expected to understand the theological meaning and the liturgical form of the Supper, but not to have any strong compassion with Mary or even with Jesus.

The difference between a square and a short rectangular table can be noticed by the number of people sitting on both sides of the table. At the square table, the same number of people should be seated along each side, as, for example in the Meditationes:

The length of a side of the square table should equal the breadth of two arms and three fingers more or less, and it is actually very short. Three of the twelve disciples should occupy one side of the table, which seems almost impossible. Jesus humbly takes his seat in a corner. Why should they sit at the table in this way? The reason is:

The author of the Meditationes felt it necessary to have a certain situation in the description in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. He thought it was not enough to let Judas put his hand in the dish, but all the disciples had to do it, lest they themselves should recognise who the traitor is.

In this way the disciples in Le Mystère de la Passion of Jean Michel take their seats around the table. Exactly as in the Meditationes, Michel orders Jesus and his disciples to be seated as indicated by the plan of seats in SD18782. The plan in Michel’s dramatic text looks as if the table were long and rectangular, but the number of people sitting on each side indicates that the form of the table must have been very close to square, just as depicted in the Supper painted by Thierry Bouts (1415-1475) in the Church of St. Peter in Louven, Belgium. Michel’s plan of seats cannot be identified with the plan in Bouts’ painting, since John and Peter sit in the reverse order of right and left from the depiction by Bouts, and Judas in Michel’s plan sits in a different place from Judas in Bout’s picture. Nevertheless, Michel’s plan and Bouts’ picture follow the same tradition of the "Supper" presentation in the late 15th century, namely according to the Meditationes tradition.

The three English cycles other than the York cycle could have had this form of table for the Supper. The Chester "Supper" (Play XV: the Bakers Playe) is performed in a very restricted space, perhaps smaller and narrower than that of the Towneley and the York plays. In l. 65 Jesus says, "Nowe, brethren, goe to your seate", just after Peter informs him that the Supper is ready. This suggests that the stage was not so spatial; the place where Jesus and his other disciples are waiting for Peter’s coming back should be in the same space in which Peter and John prepare the Supper.

The staging of the Chester "Supper" must have been in the form of mass. The altar, usually rectangular, but not particularly long, is used as the table for the Supper. SD88 states, "Tunc Jesus accipiet panem, frangit, et discipulis suis dat, ...", and SD96, "Tunc accipit calicem in manibus, oculis elevatis, ...". These are the clear evidence for the Supper as mass, though Jesus does not offer host but bread. The chalice is referred to in SD104: "Tunc edit et bibit cum discipulis, et Judas Iscarioth habebit manum in patina." Does this "patina" mean the plate on which the host is preserved? If so, a small, altar-like table must have been ideal for Judas to reach the "patina" in front of Jesus. Again in SD120 the "patina" is referred to: "Tunc Judas intingit (dips in) in patinam." What does he dip in? Insofar as he "dips" something in the "patina", is there any liquid such as wine in it? If so, is the "patina" not the plate for the host? In the next speech, however, Jesus says, " ... that in my cuppe (‘dishe’ in MS Harley 2013) weetes his bread...". Is this "cuppe" identical with the chalice? The text of the Chester play is not always to be trusted from the viewpoint of its staging.

The Towneley "Last Supper" is integrated in the Play 20, "Conspiracy and Capture" (l. 338-511). John says to Jesus, "Sir, youre mett is redy bowne" (l. 370). What Stevens and Cawley speculate here, that they prepare the table "as, at the liturgy, the altar in preparation for the Eucharist", does not suit the case, since the roasted lamb, to be sure, is on the table. It seems too early to set the table for a mass at this moment.

SD375, "Tunc commedent, et Iudas porrigit manum in discum cum Iesu", does not mention whether the "discus" means the dish of the lamb or a dish/plate for each person. If Jesus has his own dish and Judas puts his hand in Jesus’ dish/plate, Judas must sit close to Jesus, but not on the opposite side of the table. Otherwise Judas cannot put his hand directly in Jesus’ dish, simply because the lamb is in the middle of the table and is in the way. If the dish might mean the dish of the lamb, Judas could sit on Jesus’ opposite side. In the case of Towneley, however, Jesus criticises Judas for putting his hand "cum Iesu" in the dish (l. 376), the "discus" rather means Jesus’ own plate. Otherwise Jesus could not have criticised Judas.

In the N-town Cycle we observe one more example of this type of presentation. In l. 361: "Þis fygure xal sesse; ... ", Jesus announces the change of sacrifice from that of the Old Testament to the New Testament, and here begins the Eucharistic Supper. SD373, "Here xal Jesus take an oblé in his hand lokyng vpward into hefne, to þe Fadyr þus seyng" proves the ceremonial style of the Supper, and SD448 teaches its doctrinal interpretation for the lay communion: Jesus gives "his body" to his disciples, commenting that the oblé contains his whole body of "flesch and blode" (l. 449). Up to this point, there is no mention of wine/chalice.

It is not until after Judas has finally gone to the Jews (SD466), that Jesus refers to his "blood" and the "chalys" (ll. 484-486). The communion of the Apostles in the form of Priests’ communion without Judas begins. The statement in SD491, "And þe dyscipulys xul sett þem a3 en þer þei wore, ...", suggests that they have been standing until now. The Passover meal must be taken standing, and the communion, too? How does Jesus give host and chalice to his disciples in the N-town play? Does he come to the front of the table? Do his disciples do so as well? And, do they go back to the table and take a seat just before the Foot-washing, although they have to stand up and come to the front again for the Foot-washing?

Either a square or a long table could have been available and convenient for this scene. And a square one must have been more suitable to this presentation, if it is accepted that the scene was presented in a curtained "locus", just as remarked in the SD348c: the place where Christ is, is suddenly opened "all around, everywhere". The table used in the N-town "Supper" can therefore be square, also because Jesus often leaves his seat and comes to the front. Or, even he does not sit in the middle, but at a corner, as mentioned in the Meditationes, so that he is able to come to the front and go back to the table quickly.

A round table was often used in the Supper pictures painted in the German-speaking area, though, of course, not exclusively there. In such an early stage as the Supper presentation in the Fulda Sakramentar, we see a big round table covered with a cloth. Jesus is sitting on the left side of the picture, offering a dipped morsel of bread to Judas in front of the table. The tradition is followed by the painter of the Perikope Book of Emperor Heinrich II. Between the end of the 15th and the beginning of the 16th centuries, the Last Supper at a round table became most popular in the German-speaking area, and its depictions were produced innumerably both in pictures and prints. Even in the printed Passion Play of Jacob Rueff (printed in 1545), the Supper at a round table was used as an added illustration.

Now we will turn our attention to some dramatic examples, which were probably presented with a round table. In Frankfurt, the merchandising metropolis on the river Main there is a long history of staging religious plays. The Frankfurt Director’s Roll for a Passion play was prepared between 1315 and 1345, and the archival records of the city informs of its dramatic performance already in 1360. The first mention of a Passion play thus appeared in 1467: "Anno 1467 tragoedia passionis Christi exhibetur. ... Interfuerunt supra 200 personae". It was apparently one of the big theatrical events of the city. A year after an Antichrist and Last Judgement play was performed: "Anno 1468 comedia de Antichristo et extremo judicio exhibetur. Rector fuit dominus Joannes Bach, vicarius ecclesia nostrae. Interfuerunt personae 265". In Frankfurt, clergies were engaged in the performances of religious plays, and the vicar of perhaps the city’s main church (a Dominican brother?) directed the staging of religious plays. In 1492 a Passion play was performed in the Whitsunday holidays, which reminds us of the performance of the Cycle in Whitsunday in Chester. In 1493 the existing manuscript of the Frankfurt Passion Play was written and used for the performance in the same year.

Two reasons are found in the dramatic text of the Frankfurt Passion Play to support the view that the table used for its Last Supper must have been round. SD1957a-b states: "Iam itaque vadunt ad mensam. Ubi Ihesus in mensa sedens dicat / discipulis suis circa eum sedentibus". We naturally cannot say that the expression "circa eum (around him)" directly means that the table itself was round. But afterwards, when Jesus identifies the traitor, another SD informs that "Saluator, Iohannes, Petrus et Iudas intingunt simul et quilibet accepit / id quod est et commedent. ... " (SD2065a-b). And Jesus says, "Eyner mit mir duncket in myn blut, / der das verretenis uber mich dut!" (ll. 2066-2067). Jesus, Peter, John and Judas put something in their hands in wine ("in myn blut", i.e. in the chalice) at the same time, and this is the reason for the statement in the Gospels that no one can identify the traitor with Jesus’ words. It is clearly stated here that the vessel in which all these four put their hands should be the chalice. In order to present this scene, the three must have had their seats close to Jesus, since the chalice normally stands before Jesus. A round table seems ideal to realise this scene, or the table must have been small, so that even Judas, who is not seated near Jesus in late-medieval pictures, could put his hand in the chalice.

Another example for this type will be taken from Southern Tyrol, Italy, where many Passion plays in the German dialects were produced and performed between the end of the 15th to the middle of the 16th century. Bolzano (Bozen), Bressanone (Brixen) and Vipiteno (Sterzing) were the centres of this activity.

The "Play for Holy Thursday", or the "Play of the Last Supper", was performed in either Bolzano or Vipiteno. Its manuscript was written at the end of the 15th century. The Holy Thursday Play of Bolzano begins with the Conspiracy scene at Caiaphas’, which is presented parallel to the Anointing of Jesus by Mary Magdalene in the House of Simon the Leper, followed by the Synagogue scene where Judas deals with the Jewish priests of the selling of Jesus. Then Jesus moves from Simon’s house to Jerusalem to take the Supper. The first Conspiracy scene is acted at Caiaphas’ place (SD32: "Quibus ad statum suum"), but Caiaphas, Annas and the Jews move later to the "consilium" (SD217 a, means "Synagogue" in SD319a) where they meet Judas. So the group of the Jewish senators need two places for their action. Jesus, on the other hand, appears with his disciples (SD64) and goes into Simon’s house (SD65: "Et intrant domum SYMONIS") where surely a table is prepared. When Mary Magdalene retires (SD293a), a Jew named Possensack suddenly starts speaking (l.. 294) and the scene changes to the Synagogue where Judas appears (SD319a). After the deal is settled, Judas goes to Jesus in Simon’s house (SD417a), and at the same time the Jewish senators retire "ex concilio ad statum ipsorum" when the Angels sing, "Silete". Jesus moves out of Simon’s house and goes to Jerusalem where the house for the Supper is to be ready for him. The Synagogue must be kept further, since it is again used during the Supper, when Judas leaves Jesus to the Jews after he is identified as traitor (SD746). By that time, the play needs a total of four staging areas. "Die pun", the stage mentioned in the city archival record of Bolzano and Vipiteno must therefore be either spatially wide, or with stations and loci. The first variation was supposedly taken in Vipiteno, and the second in Bolzano. The text above could suit the Bolzano staging, since stations there were built on graves, probably one by one.

In the Bolzano play, the Hospes arranges the seats for the disciples and tells them where to be seated:

The arrangement starts with John and ends with Judas. Peter and John usually sit on both sides next to Jesus, and in this case John is on the right and Peter is on the left. Peter is called before Judas; i.e. the seats must be so arranged that Peter can still get into his regular position even after all other disciples have been seated. The most convenient form for the table for this occasion must be round, although a square table might be acceptable, but never a long one at which all the disciples sit on one side. Jesus has already been seated before the arrangement of the disciples starts. Judas, called lastly, sits at the end of the bench, when he is asked by the Hospes, "seyt ir auch an der fart? (Are you ready, too?) / Suecht euch auch also ain stat (Try to find therefore a seat" (l. 517). A picture visualises the occasion very identifiably: The "Last Supper" from Baden painted in the 15th century shows the constellation of the seats around a round table almost exactly as explained in the Bolzano play. On the table we see a bleeding lamb (not roasted!) symbolising Jesus’ self-offering, some buns of bread, a pitcher and a chalice. The round table is covered by a white cloth with with geometrical patterns. John sleeps on the table, quasi leaning his head on Jesus’ breast. Peter is standing on the left side and looks as if he is going to ask Jesus something. Judas in the front of the picture dressed in yellow and a wearing a red toga, is opening his mouth to take the morsel of bread Jesus offers. In front of Judas there is a sharp knife, directing its point to the lamb’s wound. A disciple on the right side has a cup in his hand. The disciples are sitting on the benches curving toward the table. This form of the Supper presentation seems typical in the German-speaking region in the 15th century. Also the "Last Supper" of Meister of Lyversberger’s Passion (1460-1490) from Cologne has this type of constellation. In this picture, however, Judas in yellow costume kneels on the right side, waiting for the morsel of bread.

A similar arrangement of the seats made by the Hospes is seen in the "Holy Thursday Play" in the fragment of the Vipiteno Passion Play in a manuscript written by various hands. It has fairly different contents from the Bolzano play. In the Vipiteno play the Supper opens after two long speeches by the Precursor (ll. 1-172), the anti-Semitic discussion by the devils in hell (SD172-l. 280), a long Conspiracy scene with the Jewish senators, rabbis and priests (SD280-l. 544), and Judas’ betrayal and selling of Jesus to the Jews (SD544-l. 611). When Judas comes from the Jewish council to Jesus (SD611b: "JUDAS venit ex consilio accedens ad JESUM"), whose position is not clarified in the stage direction. The preparation of the Supper is introduced with Peter’s question as to where to prepare the Paschal meal (ll. 612-619).

After the long Farewell scene between Jesus and his mother in Bethany (ll. 660-851), eventually Peter can inform Jesus that the lamb is ready (ll. 852-855), and Jesus with his disciples comes from Bethany to the Supper (SD855a). Then, again as in the Bolzano play, the Hospes starts arranging the seats for the disciples:

This time Peter is called first, before John, and Judas between Andrew and Thaddeus. A speculative presentation is in this case not as easy as in the case of the Bolzano play, simply because the two key persons - Peter and Judas - are invited to take seats earlier. On the other hand, this case appears to be more natural than the case of Bolzano, when Peter and John sit on both sides of Jesus, regardless of whether the table is round, square or long. And yet, a long table might be inconvenient even in this case, when Judas takes his seat between Andrew and Thaddeus, as ordered, since he has to leave the Supper after he is identified as traitor (SD1065a). Or does is he seated at the end of a bench, since the Hospes states that he could sit wherever he would like (l. 877), so that he could easily escape?

II. What is on the Table for the Supper?

First of all, we might think that the Paschal lamb must have been on the table for the Last Supper, because it starts as the Passover meal. But it is not always right to have the lamb on the table for Jesus’ Last Supper. In the Gospel of John it is mentioned that the Last Supper was held "ante diem autem festum paschae" (Io 13, 1), i.e. on the day before the Passover feast. So, if someone presents the Last Supper exclusively according to the Gospel of John, he/she would not need to show the lamb on the table. Leonardo might have known of this, as he did not paint the lamb in his Supper-painting, since he apparently took the theme, "Announcing the Betrayal" from the Gospel of John. Consequently, he does not to paint the bread as unleavened, but as normal round buns. A living (not roasted!) and bleeding lamb could appear in the Johannine Supper, to symbolise Jesus himself as the "immaculate" sacrifice.

The occasion of identifying the traitor with a dipped morsel of bread should therefore be presented without Paschal lamb, because it is mentioned only in the Gospel of John. A faithful example of this is found in the Supper from Baden as already mentioned, in which a bleeding but living lamb and leavened bread are seen on the table. Jesus, leaving John sleeping on his breast, gives Judas a morsel of leavened bread. Or, in the Last Supper depicted in the "27 pictures of the Life of Jesus" from Cologne (around 1316), several fish but no lamb are served on the table. Among the dramatic texts examined for this study, however, this type of presentation has not been found. As a main reason we could refer to the tradition of Gospel Harmonies in which the Synoptic Gospels are placed into the frame provided by the Gospel of John. In dramatic presentations the Supper usually begins as the Passover feast and proceeds to the Eucharistic offering, so that the lamb and the bread (or host as unleavened bread) and wine are mentioned parallel to one another.

If the doctrinal elements of the Supper overcome its historical descriptiveness, its presentation does not need anything other than bread (host) and wine (chalice) on the table. In the simplest form of the Supper-presentation, e.g. in the Ludus breuiter, we see only bread (or host) and wine on the table, teaching significantly that which is to be understood in the Supper. In the-N-town Supper, however, might the public have not been confused, if they hear the words of Jesus instituting the concomitance, " ... be a mystery / Of my flesch and blood in forme of bred" (ll. 363-64), and then see bread (= oblé = host) and wine at the same time on the table? The lamb is seen at the beginning of the Supper on the table (SD76 states, "Here Cryst enteryth into þe hous with his desciplis and ete þe paschal lomb"), but is soon taken away after Jesus describes the manner of eating the Paschal meal.

Another variation of the table setting is demonstrated in the Meditationes, in which we learn that the table is at first set for the Paschal meal:

The lamb is on the table and eaten with wild lettuce, just as stated in Ex 12, 8 in which unleavened bread but not the lamb is eaten with lettuce. Other than the lamb and the lettuce, bread and wine should be seen. This wild lettuce is taken directly in the Meditationes-translations in French and German, but not in a play during the Supper. If it is ever referred to in dramatic texts, it happens exclusively in the presentation of the Jewish Passover feast, as for example in the Alsfeld Passion Play (ll. 3238-3273). The N-town play has two descriptions of the Paschal meal in Jesus’ prayers for the Supper, but may not have been visualised. But it is not clear whether the Paschal meal is eaten, e.g. "with þe byttyr sokelyng (clover, but not lettuce in the Meditationes)". In the Luzern Easter (Passion) Play the Jewish Paschal meal is described (SD6890a-r).

It was important for the plays from Southern Tyrol to relate and differentiate visually between the Paschal meal and the Eucharistic Supper. The servant in the Vipiteno Holy Thursday Play, a pious man, brings a staff and a chalice, too, according to the tradition of the Old Testament: "Herr, die stab sind da vnd als damit, / Wie es dann ist der juden syt, / So man das osterlamb essen thuet" (ll. 904-906). During the Paschal meal, the Hospes and his servant intervene between Jesus and his disciples, until they eat up the lamb (SD937a-b). This verbal intervention of the "lay" people can be understood as a sign to differentiate between the Paschal meal and the Eucharistic Supper as well as the Communion of the Apostles, as emphasized in the Meditationes. Therefore, too, the lamb disappears before the Foot-washing begins (SD942a-b). In the Bolzano play as well, the Supper starts as a Paschal meal (SD482-SD592) by which Jesus announces the betrayal and identifies Judas (SD592-l. 688), and then the Foot-washing (SD688-722) takes place before the Eucharist is instituted. The identification of the traitor happens after the institution of the Eucharist in both Meditationes (p. 249, ll. 168-173) and the Bozen play of the Supper (SD739-744). After the Foot-washing only bread and a chalice are to be seen on the table.

In the Chester play, SD61 informs us that "Tunc adornent (prepare) mensam et revertunt (= go back to Jesus)". Peter and John prepare the lamb / the Supper: " ..., lett us hye / the pascall lambe to make readye" (l. 57-8). The lamb is definitely on the table and left relatively long, i.e. until the Foot-washing begins. Jesus’s words, "Therefore, make haste,"(l. 71) confirms that they eats the lamb according to the Jewish custom of eating the Paschal lamb. If the text had followed the Meditationes tradition, the lamb had to be taken away at this moment. However, in l. 137 Jesus says, "take up this meate anon" and this proves that the lamb still on the table.

A relatively detailed description of the table-setting for the Supper is given in the Donaueschingen Passion Play: "Nu gat der huß vater vnd git / den iungern tischlachen ein kelch (The father of the house goes and gives the disciples a tablecloth and a chalice)" (SD1778a-b), as well as, " ... loufft iudas vnd bringt ein brates / lembly oder gitzi (?) ... (Judas goes quickly and brings the lamb or (?) ... " (SD1786b-c). Judas bringt the lamb to the table, a suggestive staging to foretell Jesus’ future.

In the Frankfurt play, Jesus uses host instead of bread for the Institution of the Eucharist (SD1967): i.e. the Supper was staged in the form of a mass. Since the word "mensa" also means "altar", it is possible that the Communion of the Apostles takes place. Jesus offers also the chalice to his disciples (SD1971), and this means there were host and a chalice on the table. The lamb must have been on the table, since Jesus says, "das ich dis osteryms du / mit uch, ee das ich morn frue /liden mus myn noit ..."(ll. 1964-1966), and yet we cannot really judge whether the lamb had once been on the table or not. Jesus, just after he announces the opening of the Supper, starts his Institution of the Eucharist without paying any attention to the lamb or the Paschal meal. Insofar as it is known that the city of Frankfurt at that time tended toward anti-Semitism, we can easily imagine that the Paschal meal was not presented at all.

Unfortunately, there is no hint in the dramatic text of the Bolzano Holy Thursday Play that could give us any clue regarding the table setting. The only thing we know is that the lamb was on the table, and, according to the archival records, both oblate and buns, and of course wine are taken. There is a remarkable thing as to the lamb: a cook named Jacob, a servant of the Hospes, roasts the lamb and brings it to the table (SD570-l. 584). This cook cannot be seen by the Hospes and, presumably, by the public, and so, the stage needs one more station/locus for the cook, namely a kitchen.

The tradition of performing religious plays during Holy Week and on the day of Corpus Christi in this Alpine city must have already started in the 14th century, although the archival records of the city such performances first in 1472. In 1476 the probable performance of a play on Holy Thursday in Bolzano is mentioned, but the reference does not say much about the play. The next reference to Holy Thursday follows in 1478:

Even this only tells us that there was a need of "oblate, buns of bread and wine" on Holy Thursday for the "mandat", for both "to take (to taste) and to offer". The sentence therefore suggests that there were two parts in the "mandat" to taste (with buns of bread) and to offer (with oblate). Thus follows the description of the event on Holy Thursday in 1481:

The words "die pun", "die Bühne" (the stage) is built on Holy Thursday and removed on Passion Friday. Das "grab (grave)" was used to build the stage, so the place of performance was either in a church or its churchyard. The reference on the same day follows: "Item am weichpfintztag verbraucht zu dem mandatt: wein 9 mass, pretzen, oblat, prott und anders, darzu kaufft 6 neu pecher. Facit alles 3 lb 7gr". In addition to wine, buns of bread, oblate, (loaves of) bread and others, 6 new cups were bought for the "mandat". These cups were made of wood, as mentioned in 1486. Such references to Holy Thursday continue to appear in 1482 and almost every year between 1486 and 1490. Other than wine, bread, oblate and cups, a pitcher is recorded in 1486: "Dem Jacob Katzenloher umb ain peckh (= Becher? = cup) und kanndl (= kännchen? = pitcher/jug/tankard), so man braucht zum mandat am weyhenphintztag, 6 lb". Although we do not know of any relation between the manuscript of the Holy Thursday Play of Bolzano and the references to the event of "mandat" mentioned above, it is almost certain that a stage (for the performance of plays) was built on Holy Thursday, and the "mandat" was presented with oblate, buns, wine, cups and a pitcher on the table.

III. The Supper on Stage: Space, Place and Action

Before getting into the investigation of dramatic texts, let us see what the characteristics of the "House of the Supper" in the Meditationes are. References such as that John sits beside Jesus or that the Supper should take place in a spacious, paved or strewed/covered (with straws?) loft ("cenaculum grande stratum" in Mc14, 15), has come out of the Gospels and does not have its origin in the Meditationes. But, for example, the detailed description of how the table looked, the strict differentiation between the Paschal meal and the Eucharistic Supper, the execution of the hand-washing at the beginning of the Supper, and the Foot-washing as introducing the Eucharistic Supper, are typical of the original Meditationes-description of the Last Supper. Additionally, in the paraphrased translations, Jesus’ farewell to his mother in Bethany, contextually bound with Judas’ betrayal, is inserted in the complex of the Supper, as already mentioned.

Should the Foot-washing be presented in the same staging area as the Supper, even if the space before the table is limited? The Foot-washing in the Meditationes takes place in a different room from that where the Supper is eaten:

After the Paschal meal is consumed, Jesus and his disciples go down to another room downstairs. The room has already been seen by them, as they have said, on the way up to the loft. Now the construction of the house of the Supper has become clear. It is a two storied house in which people need to go through the room downstairs to get into the upper room where the table of the Supper is set. A stairway or a ladder is settled in a deeper part of the downstairs, so that Jesus and the disciples inevitably go through the downstairs to reach the stairway/ladder. As already mentioned, the Supper in the Gospels of Mark and Luke has to take place upstairs (in a loft), whereas the Gospel of John does not say that Jesus and his disciple go downstairs to perform the Foot-washing. A supposed reason for the location of the Foot-washing being downstairs could be a practical one; it seems inconvenient to bring the water basin to the upstairs.

It is, by the way, interesting to see that the two translations of the Meditationes, la Passion Isabeau and the Passionstraktat of Heinrich von St. Gallen change the order of the episodes exactly in this point: they start the Supper with the Foot-washing, which in their original takes place between the first Announcement of the Traitor and the Eucharist. For what reason did these translations place the Foot-washing in a different order from that of their original? Were these translations made not only for reading and meditation but also for presentation with acting as like the case of la Passion des Jongleurs? The Bolzano Holy Thursday Play is chosen to be examined because its episodes in the Supper are presented in exactly the same order as that of the Meditationes. This characteristic of the Bolzano Supper Play is worth mentioning as an exception among the Passion plays in the German language: all other examples which have been influenced by the Meditationes do not follow the original Meditationes order of the Supper episodes, but present the episodes according to the order either in Heinrich’s Traktat or in the Cursor Mundi.

The place of action and the loca seem clearly differentiated in the Vipiteno Holy Thursday Play. When the deal with Judas comes to its end, the Jews stay in the "loco consili" (SD611a), whereas Seruus Hospitis comes onto (SD633a: "obuiat") the street of Jerusalem, the platea, where he meets Peter and John. While they go to the house of the Supper (SD641: "ad Hospidem") and prepare the Supper with the Hospes und his servant, Mary, Jesus’ mother suddenly appears, and starts speaking (SD659c onwards): i.e. the scene changes to Bethany where Jesus spends time with his mother, Mary Magdalene and his disciples, before he goes to Jerusalem to celebrate his last supper. The scene of Jesus’ taking farewell of his mother originates in one of the paraphrased Meditationes translations in German, for example the Passionstraktat of Heinrich von St. Gallen. As already mentioned, this scene was so popular among the authors of German and French Passion plays that many 15th-century plays in both languages integrated this emotional scene in their Supper presentations. Because of this non- biblical insertion, the Supper in the Vipiteno play has to present four big loci, namely hell, the Jewish council, the Supper and Bethany. Besides the platea is used e.g. when Peter and John meets the servant of the Hospes in the street.

In the Vipiteno Holy Thursday Play no stage direction informs of the change of location for the Foot-washing. The disciples remain seated, as Jesus says (l. 942). As Judas is called by Jesus first, just as in the Meditationes, it should be proven that he has kept his seat at the end of the row, or on the other - front - side of the table. The disciples probably leave their seats one by one and come to Jesus to be washed, and then go back to the table and take the same seats as before. By the end of the Foot-washing, they have been re-seated just as they were (SD974a) before.

In the city of Vipiteno, the reference to the performance of plays starts in 1455 and continues until 1580. The performance of the Vipiteno Passion Plays became began in the 1480s, and the manuscripts of two Passion plays are dated 1486. Another Passion play manuscript is available from 1496: this was used for the performances in 1496 and 1503. It was traditional in Vipiteno that the Passion plays were performed in its parish church, so the Supper was also presented in the church where a stage was built for it:

The first quotation informs us that the stage was removed on Holy Thursday; i.e. it was built particularly for the Supper play. The second proves that the stage was usually built in the church. Other than the mentioned manuscripts of the Vipiteno Passion Plays, the city has a play of the Last Supper dated between 1530 and 1550 in the so-called "Mischhandschrift = manuscript written by mixed hands".

The City of Bressanone (Brixen) does not have references to dramatic performances before 1522, and its later developments are attested to by the manuscript of the Brixen Passion Play dated 1551. This play contains the part for Holy Thursday, so the Supper scene was staged in Bressanone in the middle of 16th century. In its Diocesan Archival Record a long reference to the performance on Holy Thursday (around 1555) states:

The play on Holy Thursday was apparently performed in the church or in the churchyard where the grave of St. Harman (Hermann?) was. Many candles were used for illumination, because the play must have been performed in the evening - just as the mass and ceremony of Holy Thursday took place. Two benches covered with carpets were brought in and placed on the place where the Foot-washing is done. The positions of the candles on candle-holders were exactly prescribed, so that the stage area by the grave should not be too dark. A procession went through the graves, for which the "stängelen" (torches) were needed. From this record we gather that the graves were used as stations and staging areas (loci) at the same time.

In Southern Tyrol the performance of the religious plays took place in or around churches, and naturally the connection between the churches and the dramatic activities was inseparable. So it was not unusual that the roles were taken by the clergy, for example in the performance of the Bolzano Passion Play in 1495: according to the list of players, Peter, John, James minor, Simon and Andrew were taken by clergymen, probably Dominican brothers, just as in Frankfurt. If we imagine the Supper scene performed by the group of clergymen sitting around Jesus, its form would automatically be a presentation of the Communion of the Apostles.

For the performance of the Passion play in Frankfurt the stage was built in front of the town hall (the Römer): "... und die spele waren beyde uff dem placze vor dem raidhuß (Rathaus) und waren alle von hantwercks luden" and ".., so die passion unsers hern mit erleubniß deß rats uff dem platz vor dem Römer gehalten und begangen haben, ...". This leads us to imagine that the acting area must have been spacious, upon which several scaffolds ("Gerüste") or small houses/cabins ("Hütte") were built. Textual evidence suggests that at least two staging areas for the Frankfurt Supper scene were needed. SD2111 suggests the beginning of a parallel presentation of the Supper with Jesus and the disciples with the Jewish council and Judas joining in, after he is identified as traitor. Also the dialogue has alternate appearances of Jesus and the disciples versus Judas, the Jews and the Synagogus (ll. 2113-2167). Other evidence in the text of the play, however, suggests that the Frankfurt play could have used only one area for acting. SD2073 states that the table for the Supper is taken away before the Foot-washing starts. There is no change of stage area, but the table is removed in order to provide enough space for the next scene. The stage, if ever built, must have been a single scaffold stage, on which no difference between locus and platea could have been made. In any case the table used for the Frankfurt Supper should not have been a big, long one like Leonardo’s, or it could not have been removed quickly.

Jesus in the Frankfurt play says the house for the Supper must be "gros und weit" (l. 1930). This expression is repeated by the Family Father (the host) in l. 1948, of course to satisfy what Jesus foretold. The table is covered with a cloth (l. 1951), around which Jesus and the disciples take their seats (SD1958).

When the Foot-washing in the Frankfurt Play finishes, Jesus takes his seat near his disciples, almost certainly without a table. SD2095 tells us, "Post locionem pedum Salvator sedeat aud discipulos. Petrus vertat se ad Johannem dicens". As seen in many contemporary plays, Jesus’ announcement of the traitor is divided into two parts. In the Frankfurter play, the first part comes shortly after the Eucharistic Institution, and the second part begins after the Foot-washing. Here we remember that the table has been taken away, so the second announcement, or the identification of the traitor is presented without a table. And yet, Jesus still says to John: "da duncket he mit mir in das fas (= Gefäß? = vessel/pot), / der mich den Judden verraden sal!" (l. 2105). This time only Jesus and Judas put something in the bowl (dish). But, if the table has already been removed, it is not easy to imagine where the bowl is. Or is the basin for the Foot-washing to be adapted?

In the Frankfurt play, there is evidence for a simultaneous staging of Jesus with his disciples and Judas with the Jews: "Diabolus venit et sibulat (= hisses/whistles at?) Jude in aurem (?) , surgit et vadit ad Judeos, quibus Judas sibulat in aures tacendo (= silently) (Iudas abijt = retires). Salvator dicit discipulis" ( SD2111 ). Ll. 2112-2165 show that the two scenes, the Supper and Judas’ visit to the Jewish priests, were staged parallel. The simultaneous presentation of these scenes had been traditional for the staging of the Supper in the German-speaking area. This idea was already used in the Ludus breuiter, as previously referred to, and developed so interestingly that Judas comes back again to Jesus after having promised them to sell Jesus. Pfarrkircher’s Passion Play from Vipiteno has this „developed" form of the parallel presentation. The N-town Passion Play, though not German, contains a much more complicated variation of this form consisting of compilations of its text. In this form of staging, Judas leaves the Supper and comes back to the table again, so it is natural to let him sit on a place from where he can easily slip in and out. In every case of this simultaneous staging, Judas is the dramatis persona who advances the story and is finally driven to hell. In the Frankfurt play he does not come back to the Supper - the table has been removed and nothing important happens after he has left. The stage without table could therefore have been smoothly changed into the Mount of Olives.

In the York Supper Play, the Paschal meal is clearly separated from the Eucharistic Supper by the Foot-washing. The lamb is eaten up very quickly in order to end the Paschal tradition: " ... and ete it clene" (l. 16), "The remelaunt parted schall be / To þe poure þat purueyse none" (ll. 23-4) and "Euere forward nowe I itt deffende / Fro cristis folke, what so befall" (ll. 31-2). Jesus and his disciples come in front of the table after the Paschal meal to perform the Foot-washing. Therefore, a fairly wide and deep space was needed to install a long table and to keep a space for the Foot-washing in front of the table. In the so-called Burton’s list dated 1415, the play is commented on as follows:

The scenes of the Last Supper in the York play are presented in the order of 1. Paschal lamb, 2. Foot-washing, 3. Institution of the Sacrament of Corpus Christi, and 4. Apostles’ Communion. If the York Supper-text had been restored and its original text recovered, the scene could have closed with the Communion of the Apostles: i.e. the disciples are waiting for Jesus’ offer of bread and wine again in a row, either at the table or in front of the table.

In the Towneley play, the man who John and Peter meet on the street says, "Lo, here a chambre fast by, / Therin to make youre mangery. / I shal warand it fare strewed" (l. 366-67). Stevens and Cawley suggest "the discovery of a room at this point, ... by the opening of a curtain as at N-town on several occasions during the first Passon play". The staging of this scene therefore needs first "the street" and a "house" in which a "strewed" room is seen. In this room John and Peter prepare the Paschal lamb.

In ll. 406-407 in the Towneley play, Jesus tells his disciples to go ("let vs go") to another place where the Foot-washing is to take place: "For we haue othere thyngys at do" (l. 407). SD407 informs of the starting of the Foot-washing: "Hic lauet pedes discipulorum". No stage direction mentions whether there is another scene of action other than the room of the Supper, so it is probable that they all come in front of the table where some space is still left. The water basin, which is brought at the beginning of the Supper and used for hand-washing, can be left there while Jesus announces the treason and used for the Foot-washing.

In the Chester Supper Play, Jesus orders Peter and John to follow the man they meet in the city and go into the house "that he shall go" (ll. 18-22). The house must have "A fayre parlour" (l. 30), which was repeatedly emphasised by the Pater Familius: "Loe, here a parloure (l. 53-54) all readye dight (assaigned or prepared) / with paved flores and windowes bright" (ll. 53-54). Some of the medieval pictures of the Supper paint both "paved (with tiles) floors and windows".

There is no sign of changing staging areas at the beginning of the Foot-washing (l. 137). Lumiansky and Mills comments, "This line presumably indicates the clearing and removal of the table and its contents, thus removing specific suggestions of setting in preparation for 257ff.: i.e. they surmise that the table should be removed before the Foot-washing starts, which reminds us of the Frankfurter Passion Play whose table was removed before the Foot-washing started. If so, the staging of the Chester "Supper" follows the iconographical rule to give separate spaces to the Supper and the Foot-washing. A comparable visualised example to this is "Christ washing the disciples’ feet", a miniature from a Book of Hours produced perhaps at Ghent about 1480. But Judas has not left the hall of the Supper in this picture.

Then, how did the House of the Supper in the N-town Passion Play I look? SD36 tells us, "Here petyr and Johan gon forth, metyng with Symon leprows beryng a kan with watyr, Petyr þus seyng". Spector suggests here the Meditationes influence, but Jesus in the N-town play does not say that Peter and John should "go to the house of a very dear friend", but just as it is described in the Gospels and the Northern Passion (l. 25-32). Jesus and the other disciples are staying behind. Peter and John "gon forth" to the front where Simon is coming forth. Since Simon’s house is located in Bethany, the Supper consequently takes place in Bethany where, surprisingly, also Mary, Mary Magdalene and Lazarus are.

In ll. 45-52 Simon says that he "xal ordeyn withinne short space / For my good Lordys welcomyng. ... And se what vetaylys þat I xal take". Simon prepares his house for the Supper alone, while Peter and John just "gon in with Symon to se þe ordenawns" (SD52). Jesus comes, without being informed by Peter and John, to Simon’s house just at this moment (SD52), so that Simon’s house must have been readily open to be seen by this time. Although the change of scenes in SD76 is indicated, there is no indication of closing Simon’s house, so that the public could see the two scenes simultaneously.

In line 141 Mary Magdalene appears suddenly in or in front of Simon’s house. If the house is staged on a scaffold, she could stand under it and speak to Jesus. If the O-quire were not interpolated, the story jumps to line 269 where Judas stands up to leave the Supper and go to the Jewish bishops. The stage direction 268 informs, "Here Judas rysyth prevely and goth in þe place and seyt ‘Now cownter ...’". But this SD is written in the O-quire and its newly added pages especially for interpolation, i.e. to keep the flow of the scene. Therefore, if the O-quire were not interpolated, the Supper scene was not necessarily seen during the "Conspiracy" between the Jewish bishops and Judas. Therefore, the interpolation of the O-quire must have been required by the form of staging, which enabled the public to watch two or more scenes simultaneously, and they actually must have been excited to see a parallel presentation of the two scenes. And, of course, Judas’ movement between the Supper and the Jewish bishops helps to visually follow the flow between the two scenes.

The anointing of Jesus’ feet by Mary Magdalene was done in front of / beside the table, as was the Foot-washing: see SD511: "Here Jesus takyth a basyn with watyr and towaly gyrt abowtyn hym and fallyth beforn Petyr on his o kne". There is no mention of Jesus’ change of place. Therefore, some space must be left in front of or beside the table.

The SD348 states, "Here the buschopys party in þe place, and eche of hem takyn here leve be contenawns, resortyng eche man to his place with here meny, to make redy to take Cryst". The Jewish bishops go back to their own "locus" where they prepare themselves for the next appearance: i.e. the "Conspiracy" scene must dissolve and be closed. An interesting remark: in this SD it is announced that "þe place þer Cryst is in sodeynly vnclose rownd abowtyn (= all around, everywhere) shewyng Cryst syttyng at þe table and hese dyscypulis ech in ere degré (= manner)". This clearly means that the scene of the Supper has been closed. But we have not yet found a sign for closing the Supper scene before. This inconsequence must have been caused by the interpolation of the O-quire. As mentioned, there is no need to show the Supper scene during the "Conspiracy", if the O-quire had not been interpolated, though the simultaneous performance had been done before the O-quire was interpolated. The interpolation of the O-quire was supposedly required by the form of staging which enabled the performance of two or more scenes simultaneously and focus the public’s attention on Jesus even during the "Conspiracy" scene in which Jesus has no lines to deliver.

The Foot-washing in the N-town Supper takes place in the same staging area as the Supper (SD510) and probably as the anointing by Mary Magdalene as well, i.e. in front of the conjectured square table. Jesus, after having washed the feet of all his disciples, takes his seat (SD527: "settyth hym down"). But where? Do he and his disciples go back to the table again, although he and some of them have to leave the hall of the Supper soon?

Conclusion

Leonardo’s form of the table checks Jesus in his course of acting, when the Foot-washing takes place not at the beginning but in the middle of the Supper. This is especially true between the Announcement of the Betrayal and the Eucharist, as happens in the plays whose chronology follows that of the Mediationes. Otherwise, Jesus should not sit in the middle, but in a corner, just as the Meditationes informs. The long table does not always suit the dramatisation of the Supper, since the actors have to move away from the table, if the scene contains not only the Supper with the Announcement of the Betrayal, but the Foot-washing and even the Communion of the Apostles. The performance in a two storey stage, a faithful visualisation of the description in the Meditationes, can offer enouch space to present the Foot-washing, if the Supper was taken upstairs and the Foot-washing performed downstairs, similar to the iconographic order. However, this possibility has not been found in dramatic texts. The technical arrangement to remove the table quickly, like in the Frankfurt play, was needed when the acting space was not wide enough for the two scenes.

Before concluding this investigation, I would call your attention to a miniature in the Missale of Florentine Baptism (Florence, around 1494-1510) illuminated by Monte di Giovanni. In this illumination of the Missale manuscript, the five episodes in and around the Supper are presented. At the top we see the Entry into Jerusalem, the Last Supper with the Announcement of the Betrayal directly under it, the Communion of the Apostles with the preparation for the Foot-washing in the middle and at the bottom Jesus on the Mount of Olives. The Supper, the Communion and the Foot-washing are depicted in a common space, in order to show that they all happened on the same occasion. The harmonised image of the Last Supper from the four Gospels was possibly thus presented in one staging area, and exactly for this type of presentation, a high stage in its strict sense was the most inconvenient form. A table on a stage, rectangular, square or round, occupied a relatively large space, and even disturbed the actions of the players. If the Supper was expected to be performed just as it is in the dramatic texts, the proper choice of the form and the size of the table must have been required.

Back