In the beginning was the WORD…

‘Das Prager Abendmahlspiel‘: the words rendered into images

Cobie Kuné (Amsterdam)

Introduction

‘In principio erat Verbum …’; translating the first words of John’s Gospel into his ‘own beloved German’ proved to be difficult for Faust and he could only be content with ‘Im Anfang war die Tat’ (In the beginning was the Act). Yet, first of all there were the words, the written biblical, liturgical and apocryphal texts were made verbal by reading, preaching and singing in churches. Already at a very early stage the biblical events were made visual, in pictures and sculptures. The performances of medieval religious plays also made the words visual, rendering them into action and into images. These plays were written as part of a theological message and were intended to be an act of teaching and worship combined. Consequently their contents were common knowledge.

In order to translate spoken language into any form of images, the performer had to solve several problems, for he had to make many decisions: choosing what the people looked like, what form the objects should have, how to place people and objects in space. In the visual arts in course of time biblical people got their own looks, probably characteristics, with which they can be depicted and by which they can be identified. There are iconographic schemata about many themes, like for instance the way, in which the Last Supper is rendered. The first picture of the Last Supper dates back to the 5th century. Examples of this theme exist both in the East and the West and the number of pictures grows from the Early Middle Ages onwards. Very often images of the Last Supper are found in convent refectories, like the famous Last Supper fresco of Leonardo da Vinci (1495) in Santa Maria della Grazie in Milan. Important aspects of the pictures are the indication of the traitor and the institution and the distribution of the Eucharist. It also is possible to depict several phases in one picture, like the Last Supper and the washing of the feet, or the indication of the traitor and the institution of the Eucharist, or the indication of the traitor and the distribution of the Eucharist.

In dramatic texts the Last Supper can be part of a passion play or it can be an independent play, dealing with one or more events of the Passion. For the Prague Last Supper (Das ‘Prager Abendmahlspiel’) that only has come down to us in a single 15th century manuscript, the beginning is indicated with <I>Ncipit, the end with Explicit. The play has the following scenes: the meal at the house of Simon the Leper (ll. 1-97), the Last Supper (ll. 98-211) with the washing of the feet (ll. 212-226) and the appeal to go into the garden (ll. 227-244). A list of the roles does not exist, but from the stage directions we can gather a register of the actors. In sequence of the first words they speak they are in the original German word forms Simon Leprosus, Jhesus, Maria Magdalena, Judas (Scarioth), Johannes, Andreas, Simon, Philippus, Jacobus minor, Jacobus maior, Bartholomeus, Matheus Ewangelista, Thomas, Paulus and Petrus. Jesus, Mary Magdalene, John and Peter also have a singing role. Angels, a chorus and Jews appear as a group. The angels and the chorus only chant, the Jews are walk-ons, none has a speaking part. It is not possible to determine the size of the groups.

The Bible and the Prague Last Supper

The meal in Bethany

All four Gospels mention a meal in Bethany. The basic account is the one common to Matthew (26: 6-13) and Mark (14: 3-9) where the meal took place in Bethany at the house of Simon the Leper just before the Last Supper. An unnamed woman came with an alabaster box of ointment, broke the box and poured the ointment upon Jesus’ head. In Mark ‘some’ objected the waste of ointment, in Matthew it is ‘the disciples’. In John’s Gospel (12: 1-11) the meal also happened during the early days of Passiontide, but at the house of Martha and Mary, the sisters of Lazarus of Bethany. Mary anointed Jesus feet with ointment and wiped them with her hair. Judas protested at the spilling of valuable ointment (John 12: 4), thereby establishing a connection to the betrayal. Luke’s Gospel (7: 36-50) describes a meal at the house of Simon the Pharisee where a sinful woman came to Jesus with an alabaster jar of perfume. The woman wetted Jesus’ feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair, then she kissed and anointed them. The Pharisee is surprised, for if Jesus were a prophet, he would know that the woman is a sinner. Then Jesus tells the parable of the moneylender and the two debtors. He compares the behaviour of the woman with the way Simon welcomed him. Luke sets the meal during the public life of Jesus and therefore this version bears no relation to the betrayal.

In the Prague Last Supper the meal at Simon’s house takes place shortly before the Last Supper, like the meal in Bethany in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and John. However, the scene is mainly based on the Gospel of Luke. First Simon the Leper (l. 4a) and Simon the Pharisee (l. 13) have become one person and the unnamed sinner has got the name Mary Magdalene. After Simon has invited Jesus and his disciples to a meal and Jesus has accepted the invitation Mary Magdalene comes, singing. She washes Jesus’ feet and anoints his head. At Simon’s comment that Jesus as a prophet should know she is a sinner, Jesus responds with the parable of the two debtors. The parable is 22 lines long, more detailed than in Luke’s Gospel or in other passion plays. The most important difference is the way in which Jesus blames Simon the Leper. Simon invited him in his house, but he then behaved rather inhospitably. He did not wash his feet, nor anointed his head and neither did he kiss his mouth. The woman on the other hand did wash his feet with her tears and dried them with her hair and she anointed his head with a valuable ointment. Therefore her sins will be forgiven. She expresses gladness and leaves the scene, singing, like she came. The anger at the waste of money that might have been given to the poor is not included here, so there is no relation to the betrayal.

The Last Supper

The three synoptic Gospels describe which preparations were made for the Last Supper (Matthew 26: 17-19; Mark 14: 12-16; Luke 22: 7-13). Characteristic is the question of the disciples where Jesus wants to eat the Passover meal. In Matthew Jesus sends the disciples into the city to a certain man, in Mark he sends two of his disciples into the city and he says that they will meet a man with a jar of water. They are to follow this man to a house and the owner of the house will show them a large upper room where they are to prepare the Passover meal. The version in Luke’s Gospel is as in Mark except that the two disciples are named as Peter and John. John’s Gospel does not mention the preparations at all.

All four Gospels describe Jesus’ last meal with his disciples, with several differences in sequence as well as in parts. Matthew and Mark begin with the prophecy of the betrayal, after which the apostles ask: ‘Surely not I, Lord?’ Then follows the institution of the Eucharist (Matthew 26: 20-29; Mark 14: 17-25). In Luke’s Gospel these two parts are in reverse order (Luke 22: 14-23) and there Jesus mentions the need to have a sword and the disciples say, they have two swords (Luke 22: 35-38).

Only John’s Gospel (13: 5-20) states that Jesus washes the feet of his disciples, which happens before the beginning of the meal. Jesus takes off his outer garments, wraps a towel round his waist and pours water into a basin. Then he washes the feet of his disciples and dries them with the towel. Peter does not want Jesus to wash his feet, but Jesus replies that if he does not wash his feet, Peter cannot be with him. Peter then swings to the opposite extreme and asks to have not only his feet, but also his hands and his head washed. After washing their feet, Jesus puts on his clothes and returns to his place. After that he says that they should wash each other’s feet, like he, as their Teacher and Lord, has done. After that he warns that one of the disciples will betray him (John 13: 21-30). Finally Jesus exhorts his disciples to do as he did and to love each other (John 13: 31-35).

Also, all four Gospels mention the prediction of Peter’s denial, but only in Luke (22: 31-33) and John (13: 36-38) during the Last Supper, in Matthew (26: 33-35) and Mark (14: 29-31) it happens on the way to Gethsemane.

In the Prague Last Supper the preparations for the Last Supper (ll. 98-120) deviate very much from the descriptions in the Gospels. Jesus expresses his fear about the coming events. His last words he addresses to Judas whom he sends out, not to look for the house where they will have their Passover, but to bring them bread and wine. Judas goes to the Jews and returns with the bread and the wine. He puts all he brought on the table and goes again to the Jews.

The scene of the Last Supper includes all the elements mentioned in the four Gospels: the institution of the Eucharist (ll. 121-140) and the prophecy of the betrayal (ll. 141f.), with the assurances of the disciples that they are not the traitor (ll. 143-181, 184-191); also the offering of the two swords (ll. 182f.), the prediction of Peter’s denial (ll. 192-205), Judas’ indication as the traitor (ll. 206-211), the washing of the feet of the disciples (ll. 212-225) and the new commandment to love one another (ll. 226-240). Finally they get up from the table to go into the garden (ll. 241-244).

In fact, in the Prague Last Supper, as often is the case in the visual arts, the institution of the Eucharist is the subject. It follows the biblical accounts, but details echo the celebration of the Mass. The next part of the scene is the prophecy of the betrayal. All the apostles speak, eight of them deny the betrayal, and three say what they will do to the traitor. Judas, as the last disciple who speaks, asks if he is the one. Jesus confirms, thereupon Judas does not want to stay any longer, he explicitly says that he is going to tell the Jews something. In the scene of the washing of the feet Peter allows Jesus to wash his feet after the dialogue. Then Jesus washes the feet of all his disciples. The scene closes with a hymn chanted by the chorus.

Finally the Lord exhorts his disciples to do, what he, their Teacher, has done. Then he gets up from the table, to go with his disciples into the garden for the prayer at the Mount of Olives.

Conditions and techniques: some considerations

Since we have no records about a performance, therefore we do not know anything about the tradition of the play. For two fragments of Passion Plays from the same geographical region too, there are no records about performances.. Yet, plays were for performing and consequently we can take it for granted that there were one or more performances. We also have to trust the play itself, with the direct stage directions and the indications in the text, as to whether it was sung or spoken. But we only can interpret the possibilities of the stage directions and the text and it is impossible to do such without comparing with what is known generally about the staging of medieval religious drama in general and in particular. At the same time we must beware of making generalisations about the staging of late medieval German drama on the basis of a single set of known performances such as those of the Lucerne Passion Play. Therefore the circumstances of a performance of the Prague Last Supper remain uncertain. Presumably that the play was staged on a multiple fixed-location set, with simultaneous scenery. That may have been an open place, surrounded by scaffolds (mansions), purpose built structures around. Though they are not actually mentioned in the stage directions or the text it is likely that five or six mansions were needed. In addition a garden is also called for (ll. 169, 243), as well as a raised area for the Mount of Olives (l. 244a). The location must have been fairly large, for instance in the open air a town or village square.

The stage directions, all of them in Latin, are in general very brief and they indicate more than they say. They mention the name of the speaker, or the name after preceding ‘Item’ or a form of ‘dicere, cantare’ or ‘respondere’, possibly also after ‘Item’. They may indicate the movements, but not the gestures, the mime or the intonation. The only detailed stage directions are 114a,b and 120a-c, and these too only state what had to be done not how it had to be done.

As to the movements there are two kinds to be distinguished; in the first place the walking that indicates a change of location, for example between the open space and one of the mansions and vice versa. These movements become only partially clear from the stage directions and the text, but remain unspecific and uninformative, partially even nothing is noted down about them. Secondly there are the movements within a scene, during which the actors did not leave the central acting area. Directions about these movements are hardly mentioned in the stage directions, they have to be gathered from the spoken text.

First of all there are no indications that make it possible to decide if the performers entered in procession into the ‘platea’ at the beginning of the play. But the first stage direction says: Primo Jhesus exyt cum cum [!] duodecim suis discipulis ad mensam vbi est parata et veniet ibi [ad] Symonem … (l. 0a,b). That may have meant that Jesus and his disciples stepped onto the central area at the beginning of the play and that Simon went to the table directly after the entrance procession. From this we can conclude that they had a mansion. That, too, makes it likely that there was a processional entry of all the performers before they went to their mansions. Neither in the stage directions nor in the text is there any indication as to where the angels are at the beginning of the play, not whether they step onto the open space or if they are indeed in Heaven, where they may well have stayed during the whole play. Perhaps the chorus (ll. 120c, 225a) was identical with the angels and also was in Heaven. Otherwise they would have needed a mansion from where they chanted.

The first scene takes place at a table; Simon the Leper invites Jesus and his disciples for a meal:

daz du sist der gast meyn

dor czu alle dy iungern deyn (ll. 5f.)

Simon, Jesus and Mary Magdalene act in the scene, the disciples do come with Jesus to the table, but they do not speak. Simon’s invitation and Jesus’ acceptation are indications that they have a meal, but nothing shows that the meal was in the mansion that represented the house of Simon the Leper. There is also no indication that they arranged themselves round the table, or what Simon, as the host had to do if he was standing or sitting during the meal. There are directions neither about the form of the table nor the table arrangement. Probably the table was prepared for the meal before the beginning of the play or had to be prepared during the play, but we have no description of this. We do not know whether there was food on the table and if so, what food it was.

On pictures of the meal in Bethany in the visual arts there are usually just a few persons at the table. Jesus mostly sits on the left of the table, the woman kneels before him, drying his feet with her hair. The host is at the table, as are one or two disciples and frequently also one or two servants, bringing food and drinks.

As for Mary Magdalene the stage direction about her appearance says: Tunc Maria Magdalena veniet cantando (l. 10a) and about her leaving the central area: Item Maria Madalena recedant [!] et cantent [!] hunc versum (l. 96a). Here, too, we can conclude that she left her mansion and went back to it afterwards. Simon’s retiring is not stated, but his role ends after the first scene and his staying at the table during the Last Supper would be illogical. Therefore it seems that he did leave the open space and went to his mansion, probably at the same time that Mary Magdalene went to hers.

At a very early stage in the tradition three woman blend into the character of Mary Magdalene: Mary Magdalene whom the Gospels mainly mention in connection with the Passion and the Resurrection, Mary of Bethany, the sister of Lazarus and Martha and an unnamed sinner. All medieval dramatists may have had problems with the character of Mary Magdalene and with her appearance in the scene of the meal at the house of Simon the Leper. The biblical accounts are not uniform, there are at least two meals and the author had to make up his mind as to which meal and which woman would appear, for in almost every play only one meal takes place. In the Prague Last Supper the unnamed sinner of Luke 7: 39-48, who washed Jesus’ feet with her tears and dried them with her hair, has got the name Mary Magdalene. Our playwright has tried to create a repentant woman who on appearing confirms her sins:

dor czu bin ich komen her

mit sunde groz vnd swer × (ll. 20f.)

That makes her suffer:

wenne ich leit zo groze quale

in myme herczin obir alle (ll. 26f.)

The stage directions show neither what she had to do, nor how she had to do it. Not from her words, but from the words of Simon and Jesus we may deduce what Mary Magdalene may have done. After her entrance, she had to sit down at the feet of Jesus, for Simon says:

di zich tuckit vndir yn × (l. 32)

She had to wash his feet with her sweet tears and to anoint his head with an expensive ointment:

gewaschin myne fuze

mit eren czeren suze

vnd mit eyner tuern salbe (ll. 76-78)

Therefore Mary Magdalene needed a jar with ointment to anoint the feet of Jesus, but what kind of jar, and what kind of ointment is unknown. Also how it did look like on the stage? Was the Saviour sitting at the left side of the table and was Mary Magdalene kneeling before him? Did the actor have a wig of long, flowing hair with which he dried the feet? The text and the stage directions do not answer these questions. Perhaps she kissed Jesus’ mouth (which the added lines say). This happens as Simon expresses his indignation because Jesus, as a prophet, obviously does not see that the woman is a sinner. Jesus tells the parable of the creditor and the two debtors and he blames Simon because he behaved inhospitably. Then he tells Mary Magdalene to get up, at which she expresses her happiness. Probably he holds out a hand and helps her to get up. In her last words she says that she has carried seven evil spirits for several years (Luke 8: 12), but now she is free of them:

Wol mich hute vnd ymmir mere

mir sint benomen myne swere

di ich lange hab getragin

vnd so clagelich geclagin

wen ich waz besessin

mit seben geistin vmvormessin [!]

di ich hab getragin manch iar (ll. 86-93)

There are no indications in the stage directions that the devils have to leave her body during her appearance and Jesus does not order them to go. In her first words, she only asked the Saviour to forgive her sins, she did not mention the devils. In this way the author - or whoever was responsible for this version - has avoided the difficulty how the seven devils had to go from Mary Magdalene, but he took the opportunity to narrate the story.

There is no mention of what the disciples had to do, they might be seated or stand at or near the table and listen. About the table here and in the next scene are many unsolved questions. What kind of table it was, round or oval, square or oblong cannot be found in the stage directions. Whether the table was prepared for the Supper, with dishes, cups and probably also with food, other than bread and wine, is also not stated in the directions.

The stage directions in this part sometimes express the manner of speaking, Simon the Leper is indignant: Item Simon indignanter dicit ad Jhesum (l. 27a). Also the text can tell us what the manner of speaking had to be. Jesus speaks pedantically to Simon when he tells the parable (ll. 38-59) and when he compares Simons behaviour with that of the woman (ll. 62-80). He speaks gently to Mary Magdalene (ll. 81-85) who is happy about what Jesus said to her and her words sound pleased (ll. 87-96).

The next scene begins with following stage direction: Item legatur ewangelium secundum Johannem ante diem festum pasche quo lecto Jhesus cum discipulis sedeant… (l. 97a,b). From this stage direction we cannot infer if the action switches to another place on the stage. Neither does it say that the table now had to be prepared for the Last Supper. It is more likely that Jesus and his disciples stay on the central space, at the table that was already used in the first scene. Therefore I assume that there is only one table, it literally stood in the centre of the play and all scenes took place at this table (the table on the open space like a ‘dolium’). Jesus and his disciples, except for Judas, stay during the whole play at or near by the table. The description in the above stage direction is the link to the next scene where the table arrangement had to be changed. Jesus had to go to the middle of the table and to sit down between Peter and John. The other disciples could keep their place at the table. With a round table they are sitting around the table, Judas at the front side, a little separated from the others. With a square table the arrangement could be similar. This type of arrangement was obligatory in the visual arts during the Middle Ages and there is no reason to doubt such placing on the stage, for practical details of the Last Supper in drama and in the visual arts are almost the same. But there is a difference, for almost all table arrangements on the stage must have taken up far more space than in the visual arts, where the apostles are not entirely portrayed and where mostly the table is rather small, too small for 12 or 13 people to sit at it. Probably there were stools and benches to sit on and a footstool in front of the table. The stage direction mentions a Bible and the reading of the Gospel of John. It is unclear who holds it and what kind of Bible it was. Nor do we know who reads or if the reading was aloud or how long it took. With his first words Jesus expresses his agony:

Ich bin betrubit zere

von [deleted] der bittern martir swere (ll. 99f.)

Finally he calls Judas by name and sends him out to get bread and wine:

Judas du bist der schaffir myn

nu ge vnd brenge mir brot vnd win (ll. 109f.) {i<e}

In this way the spectators knew immediately who Judas is, the one who will betray the Lord. Judas is glad to do what the Lord asks him, but his words may have sounded ambiguous to the audience:

Hirre daz thuin ich gerne ×

vnd wil mynen mut dorczu keren

wo ich icht mag vindin

vnder den iudischen kindern [!] (ll. 111-114)

He leaves the table and goes to the Jews: Item conversus ad iudeos… (l. 114a), consequently the Jews had a mansion, probably the Synagogue, where they stayed during the play. Judas negotiates with them and because they have no text they had to express themselves through gesture. He was in a hurry and has fallen, but he brings the bread and the wine and claims the first drink:

Hirre ich bin alhi

vnd bin gevallin off eyn kni

wen is waz spote

vnd muste laufe drote

idoch brenge ich brot vnd win

der erste trunk der sy myn (ll. 115-120)

There are no directions how he did carry the bread and the wine. The wine probably in a jar, but what bread did he bring and how? Perhaps a big, round loaf; but did he have a tray? After putting it all on the table he goes again to the Jews: … et iterum recedat a iudeis … (l. 120a); perhaps to prepare the betrayal. The spectators may have thought so. Neither in a stage direction nor in the text is it made clear that he comes back to the table after he went to the Jews the second time. But Jesus’ warning that one of the disciples will betray him (ll. 141f.) has to mean that Judas too was at the table. He probably came back at the beginning of the meal.

The preparations for the Last Supper are two actions taking place concurrently, both without text. Judas is active while Jesus stays with the other disciples at the table, without stage directions for them. Perhaps in this time the table was prepared for the Last Supper and the disciples took their place. Here we can take it for granted that John sits besides Jesus and leans his head on Jesus’ breast: et Johannes Ewangelista recumbens super pectus domini … (l. 121a). This picture, John leaning on the breast of Christ was well known, not only because of Last Supper images, but also as a devotional picture of just Christ and John. Therefore it will have been clear that this disciple was John.

This scene is very static, for all the participants are sitting – or standing - at the table and what happens appears mainly from the spoken text. The first part of the scene is the institution of the Eucharist. Jesus takes the bread, breaks it and hands it out his disciples (l. 121b), singing Accipite hoc (l. 122), and saying:

Nu nemit vnd essit daz ist myn lichnam (l. 123)

He blesses the wine and offers it to them, saying

nemit vnd trinkit daz ist myn bluet

daz vorgussin wirt vor der sundir glut (ll. 125f)

Jesus closes by stating that one of the disciples will betray him:

wen vndir euch ist ewirn ener

der ist der vorreter meyn (ll. 141f)

The next part begins with a chanted dialogue of Jesus between John. John asks Domine quis est qui tradet te × (l. 143). Jesus replies Cui porrexero intinctum meum (l. 144). This part has no confirmation in the German text; therefore it is uncertain if Jesus actually indicates Judas as the traitor by giving him the sop, there are no stage directions which confirm the gesture. Answering John first sings: Numquid ego sum domine (l. 145) and then he continues in German and guarantees, that he is not the traitor (l. 146-149). After him all the apostles speak; they do not identify themselves by name, as is done for instance in the Bozen Last Supper. The spectators did not see the identification of the speaker in the text, though they probably did not know exactly which apostle was speaking, the more so as their words do not distinguish them clearly from each other. Except Judas, John and Peter they only speak once, for all of them answer with four lines. Otherwise, they may have been identifiable by their attributes and dress. Eight of them deny that they plan such a betrayal (ll. 150-177). The next one is Thomas; he says what he will do to the traitor (ll. 178-181). Then follows Paul, who first mentions the two swords, without Jesus’ reference to the need to have a sword (l. 182f.). There is neither an indication that he left the table to get the swords, nor what kind of swords he offers. Yet Paul’s attribute is a sword, so he may have brought the swords into this scene. Then too, he says what he will do to the traitor (ll. 184-187). Striking is his presence at the Last Supper. Probably this dates back to Byzantine Art, where he is often one of the apostles instead of Judas Iscariot, especially at the institution of the Eucharist. It shows that the author had knowledge of this possibility. The next one is Peter who has a discussion with Jesus (ll. 188-191), who predicts that he will deny him before the cock crows:

Gleube mir Peter vil drote

du besteis nicht bis daz der han crote (ll. 192f.)

Here again the Lord mentions the name, so there can be no doubt who Peter is. Judas as the last disciple who speaks, is indignant: Item Judas Scarioth indignanter dicit (l. 201a) and unlike the other apostles he does not say what he will do to the traitor but, he asks if he is the one:

Hirre meister saga mir an alle [!] spot

sint du bist der wore got

so saga mir an alle [!] has

ab ich bin daz (ll. 202-205)

Jesus confirms this with harsh words:

Ich werde an dir gerochin

wen du host is selbir gesprochin

vnd wirst in di helle varn

dir were besser vngeborn (ll. 206-209)

Then Judas leaves the table and goes again to the Jews to tell them something:

No wil ich nicht lenger dagin

den iuden wil ich iczwaz sagin × (l. 210f.)

The meeting of the Jewish council is not represented on stage, but here again may be clear that Judas had the opportunity to carry out the betrayal.

Probably the scene of the washing of the feet is a reaction to the words of the disciples, telling Jesus what they will do to the traitor. The scene begins with a stage direction: Item lauantur pedes discipulorum et etiam cantatur (l. 211a) and with the Latin hymn Mandatum nouum do vobis × (l. 212). Each action has an introduction in Latin verses before the corresponding spoken text. First the table arrangement had to change, Jesus had to rise from the table, perhaps he wrapped round his waist a towel (John 13: 4), which he needed to dry the feet of his disciples. He would surely needed water, probably in a basin. For the second time Jesus is in discussion with Peter, to whom he first comes. Presumably Peter has gone to another place, probably a footstool in front of the table. The other disciples could keep their seats around the table. Peter objects, first in Latin (l. 213) and withdraws his feet: et retrahit pedem … (l. 213a). In the German text (ll. 214-217) he confirms that he does not want Jesus to wash his feet:

myne fuze weschs du mir nicht eweclicht (l. 217)

Jesus answers, also first in Latin (l. 218) and continues in German (ll. 219-222), saying that in that case Peter cannot have part in his father’s kingdom:

du host nicht teil in mynes vatirs riche (l. 222).

Peter gives in, both in Latin (l. 223) and in German:

hirre meister noch der geredin [!]

nicht di fuze sunder di hende vnd daz haup myn (ll. 224f.).

The scene closes with a hymn chanted by the chorus: Dominus Jhesus postquam cenauit cum disipulis suis × (l. 226). The spoken text says that Jesus washed the feet of all the disciples:

… ewir fuze han getwan (l. 233)

So we have to accept that he came to them and wetted their feet and dried them with the towel. Afterwards he may have gone back to his seat and then he reacts with words. He gives them the new commandment to love each other and he exhorts his disciples to do, what he, their Lord and Teacher, has done. Finally he assigns John to comfort his mother, then he will get up from the table, to go with his disciples into the garden for the prayer at the Mount of Olives:

vnd auch di libe muter myn

Johannes sal ir vorweser sin

wir sullen von dem tische off sten

vnd czuhant in den garten geen ×

an meyn gebet in den gartin

dor wil ich der martir varthin (ll. 241-244)

The last stage direction says: Et transsibunt [!] ad scalas × (l. 244a). This may have meant that there was an upward slope, indicating the Mount of Olives and situated in a garden (ll. 169, 243), where the Saviour and his disciples went.

Conclusion

The author of the Prague Last Supper is unknown, but he probably was a priest, or had been trained as a priest. He had knowledge of the Bible; however, his Latin is incorrect, with many mistakes. Certainly he was not a first rank poet, but he had a feeling for dramatic effects, even though the surviving text does not give us a complete picture of what was actually performed. He used the possibility of narrating events that seem difficult to perform and he shows originality in the selection, the sequence and the development of the scenes. The play begins with the invitation of Simon the Leper to Jesus and his twelve apostles to come to his table and to be his guests. It closes with Jesus’ invitation to his eleven disciples to get up from the table and to go with him into the garden. These two scenes are each other’s mirror image and in between them are two scenes, which also seem to mirror each other. In the scene of the anointing by Mary Magdalene Jesus expresses his opinion about human behaviour and this is a parallel to the washing of the feet. There again the Saviour gives his disciples a lesson in humility, not in words this time, but in action. He behaves like a slave and washes the feet of his disciples, as an answer to their intention to take revenge on the traitor among them.

In the preparations for the Last Supper the author shows originality, because he lets Judas alone take care of the food. His going to the Jews and coming back to the table makes it a lively scene, with much activity. In this way it forms a contrast to the serious words spoken by Jesus before and afterwards. Judas leaves the scene before the washing of the feet and that is exceptional, for normally he is still with the others at the table.

In the Last Supper the author has placed the events in a logical sequence. He begins with the distribution of the Eucharist (in accordance with Luke) and at the end of his speech Jesus mentions that one of the disciples will betray him (in accordance with Matthew and Mark). John asks at once if he is the one and Jesus answers how he will indicate the traitor, both only in Latin verses. John himself continues and emphasises that he is not the traitor. The playwright - or a reviser - could omit Peter’s suggestion to John to ask Jesus which one he meant to be the traitor. In some plays this leads to illogical double pronouncements, for Jesus has already indicated Judas as the traitor, which is followed by the question of John and Jesus’ answer how he will indicate him. The way all the disciples react to Jesus’ remark about the betrayal is original. For these words there is no text in the Bible. In the Prague Last Supper all the disciples say what they will do to the traitor and this provides the opportunity to stress the antithesis between their words and Jesus’ behaviour. Judas leaves the scene and goes to the Jews at once after Jesus has indicated him as the traitor, before the washing of the feet. Theatrically, the effect is striking; it means that he cannot be with Jesus. For the spectators it might have been clear that he now continues his preparations for the betrayal.

We do not know how long a performance of the play may have lasted. There are several reasons for this: we do not know how slowly and solemnly the text had to be spoken and sung (without a microphone it must have taken up more time as the actors had to speak much louder). Neither do we know the distance between the stage and the spectators nor if the audience was standing or if there were erected stands for the spectators. How much time a simultaneous scene took, like the one in which Judas negotiates with the Jews, is difficult to decide. We can only compare with plays of which we know how much time the performances took. The most important examples are the Lucerne Passion Play with the notes of Renward Cysat for the performances of 1571 and 1597, and already earlier from Hans Salat and Zacharias Bletz. The Passions Plays from Tyrol also lasted more than one day (with a part for Maundy Thursday and one for Good Friday). For the Passion Plays from the Hesse group the average length is 2500 lines on one day. The text of the Donaueschingen Passion had to be performed on two days, the part for the first day has 1728 lines, for the second day 2449 lines. Comparison with our play that has 244 lines suggests this could mean a performance of an hour and a half at most.

How Jesus and the disciples looked and how they were dressed is not indicated in the stage directions. But this holds good for most other plays. Indeed, here again we only have the notes of Renward Cysat for the Lucerne Passions Play with descriptions for the clothes and the appearance of all the actors. An eyewitness account of a performance of the Ascension in Florence in 1439 matches these descriptions. He noted down in his diary: ‘the Apostles walk barefoot and they are dressed as they can be seen in holy paintings: some with beards and some without, just as they really were.’

Music played a considerable role in many plays. In this play we only have the texts of the liturgical hymns, well known also from other plays, with stage directions indicating that they had to be sung by one of the actors or by the chorus. Since the manuscript has no musical notation, we cannot decide if the melody was the same as in other plays. Too, it is unknown if musical instruments were used. The antiphon ‘Pro celesti gloria’ that the angels had to sing at the beginning of the play probably was used to urge the spectators to be silent and functioned in the same way as the warning ‘Silete’.

Back