Peter Macardle - The ST - Gall Passion Play

The St Gall Passion Play
» LUDUS «
Medieval and Early Renaissance Theatre and Drama
10
Edited by
Peter Happé and Wim Hüsken
Volume 1: English Parish Drama

Volume 2: Civic Ritual and Drama
Volume 3: Between Folk and Liturgy
Volume 4: Carnival and the Carnivalesque
Volume 5: Moving Subjects
Volume 6: Farce and Farcical Elements
Volume 7: Cyclic Form and the English Mystery Plays
Volume 8: Acts and Texts
Volume 9: Interludes and Early Modern Society
Volume 10: The St Gall Passion Play
Music and Performance
by
Peter Macardle
Amsterdam – New York, NY 2007

Cover design: Studio Pollmann
The illustration on the cover of this book is from a15th-century antiphonal

fragment, Karlsruhe, Generallandesarchiv, 65/738, fols. 35r.
All titles in the Ludus - Medieval and Early Renaissance Theatre and Drama
series (from 2002 onwards) are available to download from the Ingenta web-
site http://www.ingentaconnect.com
The paper on which this book is printed meets the requirements of “ISO
9706:1994, Information and documentation - Paper for documents -
Requirements for permanence”.
Le papier sur lequel le présent ouvrage est imprimé remplit les prescriptions
de "ISO 9706:1994, Information et documentation - Papier pour documents -
Prescriptions pour la permanence".
ISBN: 978-90-420-2346-8
©Editions Rodopi B.V., Amsterdam – New York, NY 2007
Printed in The Netherlands
Table of contents
Acknowledgements 7
Introduction 11
I The Text and the Problem 21

II Liturgy and Localization 45
III Approaches 79
IV Cantat dicat respondeat :
Directions and Performers 93
A note on the transcription and editing of text and notation 119
V Localizing the Play 123

VI Before the Passion 165
VII The Passion (1) 227
VIII The Passion (2) 281
IX The Resurrection and the Harrowing of Hell 321
X The Empty Tomb 357
XI Conclusions 391
Bibliography 397
Acknowledgements
n Africa they know it takes a whole village to bring up a single

child. Similarly, bringing out a single book is impossible without
the help and support of the academic village, and it gives me the
greatest of pleasure to acknowledge my indebtedness to many of
its members.
The help I have received from two outstanding scholars in the field
of medieval German theatre, Prof. Emeritus Hansjürgen Linke and
Prof. Ulrich Mehler, both of the University of Cologne, has been in-
valuable. They have advised, encouraged, and given me access to the
uniquely rich medieval drama collection at the Institut für Deutsche
Sprache und Literatur of the University of Cologne. To Prof. Her-
mann Reifenberg, the pioneer of modern scholarly study of the Mainz
liturgy, go my sincere thanks for detailed information at an early stage
of the project. Another student of Mainz liturgical tradition, Dr Kon-
rad Wiedemann of the Universitätsbibliothek, Landesbibliothek und
Murhardsche Bibliothek, Kassel, most generously put unpublished
material from his own researche at my disposal.
Assembling the material for this book involved research in many
libraries and archives, where I often received assistance and advice far
beyond the call of duty. First and foremost I must thank the Durham
libraries in which I have spent so much of my time: the University Li-
brary, especially Sheila Hingley, Beth Rainey, Ian Doyle and all the
ever-helpful staff at Palace Green; the Cathedral Dean and Chapter
Library, especially Roger Norris; and the Library of Ushaw College,
especially Michael Sharratt and Alistair MacGregor.
Further afield, there are nearly thirty libraries and archives to be
acknowledged: the library of the Institut für Deutsche Sprache und
Literatur of the University of Cologne, especially Frau Hiltrud Hoff-

mann-Richter; the Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek, Darmstadt; the
Bruno-Stäblein-Archiv of the Institut für Musikwissenschaft of the
University of Erlangen, especially Prof. Andreas Haug; the Stadt- und
Universitätsbibliothek, Frankfurt am Main, especially Dr Gerhardt
Powitz and Dr Bernhard Tönnies; the Universitätsbibliothek, Heidel-
berg; the Badische Landesbibliothek, Karlsruhe, especially Dr Ute
Obhof; the Generallandesarchiv, Karlsruhe; the Universitätsbiblio-
thek, Landesbibliothek und Murhardsche Bibliothek, Kassel; the Brit-
ish Library, London; the Institute of Germanic Studies and the War-
burg Institute, University of London, the Martinusbibliothek of the
Bischöfliches Priesterseminar, Mainz; the library of the Gutenberg-
museum, Mainz; the Stadtbibliothek, Mainz, especially Frau Annelen
Ottermann; the John Rylands Library, University of Manchester; the
Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munich; the Bibliothek des Me-
tropolitankapitels, Munich; the Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Nur-
emberg; the Taylor Institution Library, Oxford; the Bibliothèque Ma-
zarine, Paris; the Pfälzische Landesbibliothek, Speyer; the Bibliothek
des Gymnasiums am Kaiserdom, Speyer; the Archiv des Bistums
Speyer, especially Dr Hans Ammerich; the Biblioteca Apostolica Vati-
cana, Vatican City; the Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenbüttel; the
Stadtarchiv, Worms; the Stadtbibliothek, Worms.
Specialized information, constructive criticism and best of all, in-
terest and encouragement, has come in abundance from my colleagues
in Durham and elsewhere, especially Jeff Ashcroft, Jenny and Richard
Britnell, Anna Carrdus, Andrew Davis, John Flood, Peter Ganz, the
late Colin Good, Margaret Harvey, Kevin Hilliard, Tim Jackson, Jona-
than Long, John McKinnell, Ann Moss, Nigel Palmer, Nicholas Saul,
Peter Scott, Michael Shields, Jane Taylor, Dick Watson and Chris
Wells. Special words of appreciation must go to my son Killian, for IT
assistance, to Gabriele Fischer and Michael Straeter, for vital help and
support in Cologne; and to Alfons Pyka, former director of the Mar-
tinusbibliothek, Mainz, and Mrs Pyka, for both bibliographical assis-
8
Acknowledgements
tance and extraordinarily generous hospitality on several research vis-

its to Mainz.
My most important debt is to my wife Fiona. She has freely shared
her musical expertise, and has been of enormous practical help in
processing the chant texts. More importantly, without her unstinting
support, material and emotional, over many years, this book would
simply never have seen the light of day. I dedicate it to her in gratitude
and love.
9
Introduction
Since the plays of the Church were actually

sung, our knowledge of them cannot be
complete until such of their music as exists
has been published, elucidated and heard.
(Karl Young, The Drama of the Medieval
Church, Oxford, 1933, vol. I, pp. xiii-xiv.)
early seventy years ago, in a pioneering study of the music

of the Alsfelder Passionsspiel, Karl Dreimüller lamented the
scholarly neglect of music in medieval religious drama and
pleaded for increased co-operation between specialists in literature,
liturgy and musicology.1 This has been long in coming: even recent
publications routinely bemoan the ignorance of liturgy displayed by
literary students of liturgical drama, or liturgiologists lack of con-
cern for music.2 Literary scholars tend to give the music of medieval
theatre a wide berth, whilst musicologists regard most of it as late and
1
Karl Dreimüller, Die Musik des Alsfelder Passionsspiels: Ein Beitrag zur Ge-
schichte der Musik in den geistlichen Spielen des deutschen Mittelalters. Mit
erstmaliger Veröffentlichung der Melodien aus der Kasseler Handschrift des Als-
felder Spiels (Landes-Bibl. Kassel 2o Mss. poet. 18) (Doctoral thesis), 3 vols.,
Universität Wien, 1935, vol. I: Abhandlungen, p. 8; idem, Die Musik im geistli-
chen Spiel des späten deutschen Mittelalters. Dargestellt am Alsfelder Passions-
spiel , Kirchenmusikalisches Jahrbuch 34 (1950), pp. 27-34, esp. 27-28 and 30.
2
C. Clifford Flanigan, Medieval Latin Music-Drama , in Eckehard Simon (ed.),
The Theatre of Medieval Europe: New Research in Early Drama, Cambridge,
1991, pp. 21-41, esp. 26 and 29; JoAnna Dutka, Music in the English Mystery
Plays, Kalamazoo, MI, 1980 (Early Drama, Art, and Music Reference Series, 2), p.
1 and notes 1 and 2; Wolfgang Suppan (ed.), Texte und Melodien der Erlauer Spie-
le; auf Grund einer Textübertragung von Johannes Janota, Tutzing, 1990 (Mu-
sikethnologische Sammelbände, 11), p. 9.
lacking in interest.3 And so this large corpus of music has languished

under the neglect of both disciplines, and a vital aspect of the overall
effect and meaning of medieval religious drama has been largely dis-
regarded.
If this situation has improved in recent years, then above all in the
Anglo-Saxon world, where the English Mystery cycles are staples of
theatre, and even of radio and television,4 and where universities have
developed a vigorous interdisciplinary approach to the study and per-
formance of early drama.5 In the German-speaking countries, by con-
trast, the genre is still largely the fief of university Germanistik with
its linguistic, editorial and literary focus. Important studies have often
entirely disregarded the musical dimension of their subject-matter.6
Performances are still the exception.
Nonetheless, a concern with aspects other than the literary text
has begun to infiltrate recent scholarship on German drama. Consider-
able input here, in both the staging and study of German plays, has
3
In Gustav Milchsack (ed.), Egerer Fronleichnamsspiel, Tübingen, 1881, p. 349,
this is given as the rationale for not editing the play s chants.
4
Glynne Wickham s introduction to Simon (ed.), Theatre of Medieval Europe, pp.
1-18, esp. 9-10, reviews landmarks in medieval drama production over the last cen-
tury; cf. John R. Elliott, Playing God, Toronto, 1990, passim, and John W. Robin-
son, Studies in Fifteenth-Century Stagecraft, Kalamazoo, MI, 1991 (Early Drama,
Art, and Music Monograph Series, 14), pp. 1-12.
5
David Bevington, The Staging of Twelfth-Century Liturgical Drama in the Fleury
Playbook , in Thomas P. Campbell & Clifford Davidson (eds.), The Fleury Play-
book: Essays and Studies, Kalamazoo, MI, 1985 (Early Drama, Art, and Music
Monograph Series, 7), pp. 62-81; Cynthia Bourgeault, Liturgical Dramaturgy and
Modern Production , in ibid, pp. 144-60. Richard Rastall, The Heaven Singing:
Music in Early English Religious Drama, Cambridge, 1996, vol. I, pp. 160-62, sur-
veys scholarship on the documents of medieval English drama.
6
E.g. Helmut de Boor, Die Textgeschichte der lateinischen Osterfeiern, Tübingen,
1967 (Hermaea, Germanistische Forschungen, n.s., 22). See the critiques in Flani-
gan, Medieval Latin Music-Drama and Andrew Hughes, Liturgical Drama: Fall-
ing between the Disciplines , in Simon (ed.), Theatre of Medieval Europe, pp. 42-
62. Brigitte Lehnen, Das Egerer Passionsspiel, Frankfurt, 1988 (Europäische
Hochschulschriften, Reihe 1, 1034).
12
Introduction
come from outside the German-speaking world.7 But German scholars

too have begun to range wider: Hansjürgen Linke has recognized the
vast spectrum of knowledge needed to comprehend medieval drama
and has encouraged interdisciplinary work; Bernd Neumann s archival
study has added considerably to our knowledge of the extent and con-
ditions of dramatic performance in medieval Germany.8
There are also encouraging signs that general scholarly attitudes to
music in German plays are shifting considerably. Collaboration be-
tween Germanists and musicologists, though still far from the norm, is
now at least established. The editorial partnerships of Hansjürgen
7
E.g. the work of Johan Nowé, such as Die Regie als symbolstiftende Instanz des
Alsfelder Passionsspiels , Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift, 45 (1995), pp.
3-23; Nowé s ambitious production of the Redentiner Osterspiel, Catholic Univer-
sity of Leuven, April 2000; Katja Scheel (ed.), Et respondeat : Studien zum deut-
schen Theater des Mittelalters. Festschrift für Prof. Dr. Johan Nowé anlässlich
seiner Emeritierung, Leuven, 2002 (Medievalia Lovaniensia, Series I, Studia,
XXXII). Also Michael Rudick, Theme, Structure and Sacred Context in the Bene-
diktbeuern Passion Play , Speculum 49 (1974), 267-86; Thomas Binkley, The
Greater Passion Play from Carmina Burana: An Introduction , in Peter Reide-
meister & Veronika Gutmann (eds.), Alte Musik: Praxis und Reflexion, Winterthur,
1982 (Sonderband der Reihe Basler Jahrbuch für historische Musikpraxis, zum 50,
Jubiläum der Schola Cantorum Basiliensis), pp. 144-57; idem, [Recording of] The
Greater Passion Play, Reconstructed from the Thirteenth-Century Manuscript
Carmina Burana . Singers and Instrumentalists of the Early Music Institute, Indi-
ana University School of Music, 1983 (Focus, 831); idem, [Recording of] Das
große Passionsspiel Carmina Burana (13. Jh.), Mittelalterensemble der Schola
Cantorum Basiliensis, 1984 (Deutsche Harmonia Mundi, IC 2LP 165); Stephen K.
Wright, The Ingressus Pilatus Chant in Medieval German Drama , Comparative
Drama 28 (1994), pp. 348-66.
8
Hansjürgen Linke, Drama und Theater des Mittelalters als Feld interdisziplinärer
Forschung , Euphorion 79 (1985), pp. 43-65; Bernd Neumann, Geistliches Schau-
spiel im Zeugnis der Zeit: Zur Aufführung mittelalterlicher religiöser Dramen im
deutschen Sprachgebiet, 2 vols., München-Zürich, 1987 (Münchener Texte und
Untersuchungen zur deutschen Literatur des Mittelalters, 84-85) cf. Eckehard
Simon, Das Egerer Fronleichnamspiel in den Stadtrechnungen , in Elrich Mehler
& Anton H. Touber (eds.), Mittelalterliches Schauspiel: Festschrift für Hansjürgen
Linke zum 65. Geburtstag, Amsterdam-Atlanta, GA, 1994 (Amsterdamer Beiträge
zur älteren Germanistik, 38-39), pp. 299-311.
13
Linke and Ulrich Mehler, and Wolfgang Suppan and Johannes Janota,
have important work to their credit; another multi-disciplinary team
produced the compendious edition of the plays of the Sterzing group.9
Significant studies of music in medieval plays are appearing.10 And
music is increasingly being recognized as an important source of
scholarly insights. The shape of neumes is adduced in Georg Steer s
re-localization of the Carmina Burana manuscript in the South Tyrol;
9
Hansjürgen Linke & Ulrich Mehler (eds.), Die österlichen Spiele aus der Rats-
schulbibliothek Zwickau; Kritischer Text und Faksimilia der Handschriften, Tü-
bingen, 1990 (Altdeutsche Textbibliothek, 103); Suppan (ed.), Texte und Melodien
der Erlauer Spiele; Walther Lipphardt & Hans-Gert Roloff (eds.), Die geistlichen
Spiele des Sterzinger Spielarchivs, Bern, 1980- (Mittlere Deutsche Literatur in
Neu- und Nachdrucken, 14-19).
10
E.g. Renate Amstutz, Ludus de decem virginibus: Recovery of the Sung Liturgical
Core of the Thuringian Zehnjungfrauenspiel , Toronto, 2002 (Studies and Texts,
140); Rainer Gstrein, Anmerkungen zu den Gesängen der Osterspiele des Sterz-
inger Debs-Kodex , in Max Siller (ed.), Osterspiele: Texte und Musik. Akten des 2.
Symposiums der Sterzinger Osterspiele (12.-16. April 1992), Innsbruck, 1994
(Schlern-Schriften, 293), pp. 91-98; Helmut Hucke, Zur Situation der musikali-
schen Mittelalterforschung in Deutschland , Die Musikforschung 37 (1984), 257-
59; Johannes Janota, Zur Funktion der Gesänge in der hessischen Passionsspiel-
gruppe , in Siller (ed.), Osterspiele, pp. 109-20; Walther Lipphardt, Musik in den
spätmittelalterlichen Passionsspielen und Osterspielen von Bozen, Sterzing und
Brixen , in Egon Kühebacher (ed.), Tiroler Volksschauspiel: Beiträge zur Theater-
geschichte des Alpenraumes, Bozen, 1976 (Schriftenreihe des Südtiroler Kulturin-
stitutes, 3), pp. 127-66; Wolfgang Suppan, Zur Musik der Erlauer Spiele , Stu-
dia musicologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 11 (1969), pp. 409-21;
Anthonius H. Touber, Das Osterspiel im Donaueschinger Passionsspiel: Text und
Musik , in Siller (ed.), Osterspiele, pp. 203-09; Andreas Traub, Zwischen Aufge-
zeichnetem und Nichtaufgezeichnetem: Probleme bei der Edition der Melodien der
Sterzinger Spiele , in ibid, pp. 211-18; idem, Überlegungen zur Edition von Me-
lodien in geistlichen Spielen an Beispielen aus dem Sterzinger Spielarchiv , in An-
ton Schwob (ed.), Editionsberichte zur mittelalterlichen deutschen Literatur: Bei-
träge der Bamberger Tagung Methoden und Probleme der Edition mittelalterli-
cher deutscher Texte , Göppingen, 1994 (Litterae, 117), pp. 255-59. Cf. summary
of literature in Ulrich Mehler, Dicere und cantare : Zur musikalischen Termi-
nologie und Aufführungspraxis des mittelalterlichen geistlichen Dramas in
Deutschland, Regensburg, 1981 (Kölner Beiträge zur Musikforschung, 120), pp. 1-
12.
14
Introduction
the music of the Sterzing plays is shown to be a clue to other aspects

of performance; Klaus Wolf s commentary on the Frankfurt plays rec-
ognizes the importance of the liturgical-musical stratum; Bernd Neu-
mann envisages the possibility of liturgical localization of the Inns-
brucker Spiel von Mariae Himmelfahrt.11
This change in attitudes to music is both influenced by, and itself
influences, modern developments in editorial practice. Nineteenth-
and earlier twentieth-century editing of medieval drama reflected the
aim of genealogical textual criticism: to reconstruct an Urtext, of
which later versions represented progressive contaminations .12
Wackernell s edition of the Tyrolean plays is a classic example; yet
ironically, the archetypal Tiroler Passion it reconstructs is a hypo-
thetical text, which never took that precise form in any actual manu-
script or performance.13 This kind of editing also assumed readerly
textual reception: perusal in the study, not performance on stage. This
both reflected and encouraged a logocentric fixation on spoken dia-
logue: early editors like Milchsack and Wackernell often simply left
other manuscript strata, pre-eminently music, out of account.14 The re-
11
Georg Steer, Carmina Burana in Südtirol. Zur Herkunft des clm 4660 , Zeitschrift
für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 112 (1983), pp. 1-37, esp. p. 37,
note 116; Andreas Traub, Der Debs-Codex als musikalische Quelle , in Mehler &
Touber (eds.), Mittelalterliches Schauspiel, pp. 339-47; Wolf, Kommentar; Bernd
Neumann, Das Innsbrucker Spiel von Mariae Himmelfahrt : Gedanken zu einer
Neuedition , Neue Beiträge zur Germanistik 109 (2002), pp. 191-206, esp. 203-04.
12
E.g. Hermann Kantorowicz, Einführung in die Textkritik, Leipzig, 1921, p. 5; Jo-
hannes Janota, Auf der Suche nach gattungsadäquaten Editionsformen bei der
Herausgabe mittelalterlicher Spiele , in Kühebacher (ed.), Tiroler Volksschauspiel,
pp. 74-87, esp. 83.
13
J. E. Wackernell (ed.), Altdeutsche Passionsspiele aus Tirol, Graz, 1897 (Quellen
und Forschungen zur Geschichte, Litteratur und Sprache Österreichs und seiner
Kronländer, 1); cf. Dieter Trauden, Archetyp oder Aufführung? Überlegungen zur
Edition mittelalterlicher Dramen , Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik
37 (1993), pp. 131-45, esp. 133.
14
Wackernell s edition repeatedly omits the manuscript abbreviation Rm (respon-
sorium) (e.g. p. 354, ll. 82b-c) and misreads the abbreviation An- (antiphona) as
ante or antea (e.g. p. 368, l. 649b).
15
stricted aims of such editions matched the limited expectations of their

readership.
More recently an increasing concern with performance and with ef-
fects beyond the textual has raised awareness of the limitations of such
editions. Technological advances, first in reprographics, now in the
electronic media, have also offered liberating new editorial possibili-
ties denied to previous ages. All this has led to scholarly debate about
the gattungsadäquate Editionsform for medieval plays: the kind of
edition which will best do justice to medieval drama as a performance-
based genre, and to the ways in which it was, may have been, and can
still be, received. This is a problem which can only be alluded to
briefly here.15
Paul-Gerhard Völker was among the first Germanists to criticize
the literary editing of medieval drama as an approach better suited
to the courtly novel or lyric poetry than to the theatre.16 In 1976 Jo-
hannes Janota developed Völker s ideas, arguing that editions which
privilege literary text and form over the stage reality of the plays ef-
fectively turn medieval theatre into Lesedrama, and actively impede
the Rekonstruktion von Spielsituationen , a necessary interpretative
response to the genre.17 Janota stressed that the different textual forms
taken by plays are not corruptions of an original, but different Entste-
hungsvarianten eines immer neu realisierbaren [ ] Textes ; editors
should present them in ways that allow the history of these different
15
Discussion and secondary literature summarized in Trauden, Archetyp oder Auf-
führung? , passim.
16
Paul-Gerhard Völker, Schwierigkeiten bei der Edition geistlicher Spiele des Mit-
telalters , in Hugo Kuhn, Karl Stackmann & Dieter Wuttke (eds.), Kolloquium über
Probleme altgermanistischer Editionen, Marbach am Neckar, 26. und 27. April
1966. Referate und Diskussionsbeiträge, Wiesbaden, 1968 (Deutsche Forschungs-
gemeinschaft, Forschungsberichte, 13), pp. 160-68.
17
Janota, Auf der Suche nach gattungsadäquaten Editionsformen , pp. 76 and 80.
16
Introduction
realisations to be readily grasped something which approaches like

Wackernell s make well-nigh impossible.18
This is precisely the problem which Janota himself addressed two
decades later in his edition of the Hessian plays, an edition which tries
to make the successive alterations to the text of the Frankfurter Di-
rigierrolle explicit, and to clarify the relations between the plays of
the Hessian group; in the attempt it pushes the possibilities of print
technology and of parallel text edition about as far as they will go.19
The editorial future for medieval drama is doubtless in electronic
form, allowing the whole range of information carried by the man-
uscripts to be accessed and evaluated in a variety of ways for different
academic purposes; though this is likely to be some way off.
Janota s main concern is for the relationship of different Realisa-
tionsformen of a play or group of plays. But generic adequacy also
involves the question of the different strata within a single text or Re-
alisationsform , especially the strata other than the spoken text which
the older editions routinely left out or played down; of these music is a
very important example. A consensus has been developing that mod-
ern editions need to include information of this kind, and to treat it
much more adequately than did their older counterparts, so that read-
ers realize the closeness of the plays to liturgy, understand the impor-
tance of the musical dimension, and appreciate the true length and
scale of performances, of which the spoken text gives a very mislead-
ing idea.20
18
Ibid, p. 83 and passim.
19
Janota (ed.), Hessische Passionsspielgruppe, vol. I, p. 4; cf. Hansjürgen Linke,
[Review of Janota (ed.), Hessische Passionsspielgruppe, vol. I] , Beiträge zur Ge-
schichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (Tübingen) 121 (1999), pp. 156-62,
esp. 162.
20
Bernd Neumann, [Review of Rudolf Schützeichel (ed.), Das Mittelrheinische Pas-
sionsspiel der St. Galler Hs. 919, Tübingen, 1978] , Beiträge zur Geschichte der
deutschen Sprache und Literatur (Tübingen) 104 (1982), pp. 318-23, esp. 318-19;
cf. John Tailby, Schwierigkeiten der Dramenedition , in Schwob (ed.), Editionsbe-
richte, pp. 251-54, esp. 253; Hansjürgen Linke, [Review of Janota (ed.), Hessische
17
Change is still slow, however. Over thirty years after Karl Konrad
Polheim criticized Peter Liebenow s edition of the Künzelsauer Fron-
leichnamsspiel for an outdated disregard of music, liturgy and theatri-
cality, such one-sidedly textual editing is not entirely a thing of the
past.21 Polheim s own edition of the Admonter Passionsspiel (1972-
80), with its manuscript facsimile and its commentary on every chant,
is exemplary; but its example is followed by few. Recent editions of
the Zwickau and Sterzing plays do handle the music carefully it is in
fact the text which is inadequately treated in the Sterzing edition.22
But many plays have still not been edited in a form that does justice to
the music. Ironically, Janota s edition of the Hessian plays has been
taken to task for its failure to reconstruct chant-incipits, and for con-
fusing and inconsistent editorial treatment of the notated chants of the
Alsfelder Passionsspiel.23 And too often music is grudged its place:
Touber s edition of the Donaueschinger Passionsspiel relegates the
Passionsspielgruppe, vol. II] , Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und
Literatur (Tübingen) 126 (2004), pp. 359-66, esp. 365.
21
Karl Konrad Polheim, [Review of Peter K. Liebenow (ed.), Das Künzelsauer
Fronleichnamsspiel, Berlin, 1969 (Ausgaben Deutscher Literatur des XV. bis
XVIII. Jahrhunderts, Reihe Drama, 2)] , Zeitschrift für Volkskunde 67 (1971), pp.
286-88, esp. 287.
22
Linke & Mehler (eds.), Die österlichen Spiele aus der Ratsschulbibliothek Zwick-
au; Lipphardt & Roloff (eds.), Die geistlichen Spiele des Sterzinger Spielarchivs;
Janota (ed.), Hessische Passionsspielgruppe. II. Alsfelder Passionsspiel. Major
textual inaccuracies in Lipphardt & Roloff (eds.), Die geistlichen Spiele des Ster-
zinger Spielarchivs, vol. I, led to its withdrawal and re-editing in 1986; cf. John
Tailby, Drama and Community in South Tyrol , in Alan Hindley (ed.), Drama
and Community: People and Plays in Medieval Europe, Turnhout, 1999 (Medieval
Texts and Cultures of Northern Europe, 1), pp. 554-66, esp. 555. Mistakes in mu-
sical transcription were subsequently noted: Andreas Traub, Die geistlichen Spiele
des Sterzinger Spielarchivs, vol. VI:2: Kommentar zur Edition der Melodien, Mitt-
lere Deutsche Literatur in Neu- und Nachdrucken, 19:2, Bern, 1996, pp. 139-56; cf.
idem, Der Debs-Codex als musikalische Quelle , p. 339, note 2. The later volumes
also contain many, often gross, textual misreadings.
23
Linke, [Review of Janota (ed.), Hessische Passionsspielgruppe, vol. I] , p. 159;
idem, [Review of Janota (ed.), Hessische Passionsspielgruppe, vol. II] , pp. 364-
66.
18
Introduction
melodies to an appendix, and whilst even minor errors in the dialogue

are dealt with editorially, analogous problems in the sung portions are
often left uncommented.24 And all this applies to plays whose manu-
scripts include some or all of the music used in them. In the case of
plays without notation, the solely textual approach is still very much
alive.25 Renate Amstutz s recent reconstruction of the chants of the
Mühlhäuser (thüringisches) Zehnjungfrauenspiel is a splendid excep-
tion to a general trend.26
How should the unnotated musical dimension in plays like this, a
class to which many of the surviving German plays belong, be treated
in editions? This is a question which the subject of this book, the St.
Gall Passion Play, poses in a very interesting way.
24
E.g. gätly for gältly (l. 3887) is noted, but not the major verbal and melodic
gaps in the chant Tollite portas (ll. 3907a-10, melody transcribed, p. 255).
25
E.g. Cobie Kuné (ed.), Das Prager Abendmahlspiel , Zeitschrift für deutsches
Altertum und deutsche Literatur 128 (1999), pp. 414-24; Janota (ed.), Hessische
Passionsspielgruppe, vol. I; its lack of chant reconstruction is criticized in the re-
view by Hansjürgen Linke, Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und
Literatur (Tübingen) 121 (1999), pp. 158-59 and 161. Comment on the chants in
the Ergänzungsband to this edition by Klaus Wolf, Kommentar zur Frankfurter
Dirigierrolle und zum Frankfurter Passionsspiel , Tübingen, 2002, is limited in
scope.
26
Amstutz, Ludus de decem virginibus. The chants are reconstructed on the basis of
Mainz-rite liturgical books from the area in which the play originated.
19
Chapter I
The Text and the Problem
etween two pages of Codex 919 of St Gall Abbey Library,

there is bound a paper booklet, now numbered pages 197-
218, preserving the only known copy of the St Gall Passion
Play, a fourteenth-century vernacular play from the central Rhineland.
It is part of the collection of Dom Gall Kemli (1417-c. 1477), a monk
of St Gall who spent a long enforced absence from the abbey (1443-
70) collecting manuscripts in the dioceses of Mainz, Trier and Co-
logne; he very likely acquired the play somewhere in this area.1 The
manuscript was not however copied by Kemli himself; it is written in
a rather careless hand of the earlier fourteenth century.2 The play may
have originated before the start of the fourteenth century, indeed nu-
merous scribal errors strongly suggest that the manuscript is a copy
rather than an original;3 but any earlier manuscript or manuscripts of
1
Rudolf Schützeichel (ed.), Das Mittelrheinische Passionsspiel der St. Galler Hs.
919, Tübingen, 1978, pp. 44-51.
2
Ibid., pp. 55-56; cf. Rudolf Schützeichel, Zum Mittelrheinischen Passionsspiel der
St. Galler Handschrift 919 , in Ursula Hennig & Herbert Kolb (eds.), Mediævalia
litteraria. Festschrift für Helmut de Boor zum 80. Geburtstag, München, 1971, p.
532; Rolf Bergmann, Katalog der deutschsprachigen geistlichen Spiele und Ma-
rienklagen des Mittelalters, München, 1986, no. 54, pp. 133-35.
3
Ursula Schulze, Schmerz und Heiligkeit: Zur Performanz von Passio und Com-
passio in ausgewählten Passionsspieltexten (Mittelrheinisches, Frankfurter, Donau-
eschinger Spiel) , in Horst Brunner & Werner Williams-Krapp (eds.), Forschungen
zur deutschen Literatur des Spätmittelalters. Festschrift für Johannes Janota, Tü-
bingen, 2003, p. 214 and note 10, notes the lack of influence on the St Gall Passion
Play of Die Erlösung, an early-fourteenth-century biblical poem which influenced
the Hessian plays depiction of the Passion. Scribal errors: Schützeichel (ed.), Das
Mittelrheinische Passionsspiel, pp. 56-60; cf. Rolf Bergmann, Studien zu
the play, which may have preserved previous textual stages or details
of earlier performances, are seemingly long destroyed. Rudolf Schütz-
eichel convincingly concludes, however, that the original from which
the manuscript was copied cannot have been significantly older than
the copy.4
Various plays have been suggested as sources of the St Gall Pas-
sion Play and vice versa, but there is no scholarly consensus on this. It
is clear, however, that the play is connected with the Hessian tradition,
and very recently Klaus Wolf s work has thrown further light on simi-
larities between it and the Frankfurt plays. Wolf notes that both the St
Gall Passion Play and the Frankfurter Dirigierrolle give a brief
speaking part to St Bartholomew, a very minor figure indeed both in
the gospels and in German drama. In Frankfurt this was local pride:
the Dirigierrolle was produced under the aegis of the Kaiserdom,
which in 1239 had been re-dedicated as Sankt Bartholomäus, and
where the saint s skull was preserved. The mention of Bartholomew in
the St Gall Passion Play thus surely reflects Frankfurt origins; rela-
tions between Frankfurt and Mainz Cathedral were close.5 And a con-
siderable amount of text from a play closely related to the St Gall Pas-
Entstehung und Geschichte der deutschen Passionsspiele des 13. und 14. Jahr-
hunderts, Munich, 1972 (Münstersche Mittelalter-Schriften, 14), pp. 18, 22.
4
Schützeichel (ed.), Das Mittelrheinische Passionsspiel, p. 60; cf. Hugo Stopp,
Untersuchungen zum St. Galler Passionsspiel , Diss. University of Saarbrücken,
1959, p. 117; Bergmann, Studien, pp. 38-39, 91-97.
5
St Gall Passion Play, ll. 685a-86; Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 41 (cf. 38-44). Rolf
Bergmann, St. Galler (mittelrheinisches) Passionsspiel , in Kurt Ruh et al. (eds.),
Die deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters: Verfasserslexikon, Berlin-New York,
1978- [2nd ed.], vol. II, cols. 1042-44 (col. 1043); Klaus Wolf, Kommentar zur
Frankfurter Dirigierrolle und zum Frankfurter Passionsspiel , Tübingen, 2002
[first volume of additions to Johannes Janota (ed.), Die hessische Passionsspiel-
gruppe: Edition im Paralleldruck, Tübingen, 1996-2002], pp. 106-08; idem, Für
eine neue Form der Kommentierung geistlicher Spiele. Die Frankfurter Spiele als
Beispiel der Rekonstruktion von Aufführungswirklichkeit , in Hans-Joachim Zie-
geler (ed.), Ritual und Inszenierung: Geistliches und weltliches Drama des Mittel-
alters, Tübingen, 2004, pp. 5-6, 21, 23 and note 113.
22
I. The Text and the Problem
sion Play (though not the play in the form in which we know it), has
made its way into the late-fifteenth-century Frankfurter Passions-
spiel.6 Yet despite all these similarities with Frankfurt tradition, the St
Gall Passion Play is not simply a Frankfurt play. It is different dialec-
tally from the Frankfurt texts, and despite various interesting parallels
by no means identical to the roughly contemporary Frankfurter Diri-
gierrolle. It is clearly a play that has developed at some remove from
Frankfurt but at precisely what remove? For all its undoubted interest,
Wolf s approach does not seem to offer an answer to this question.
The play has so far had four editors: Franz Joseph Mone (1846),
Emil Wolter (1912), Eduard Hartl (1952) and Rudolf Schützeichel
(1978).7 It has also gone under as many names: Das St. Galler Spiel
vom Leben Jesu (Wolter, following Mone); Das St. Galler Passions-
spiel (Hartl); Das Mittelrheinische Passionsspiel (Schützeichel); and
the modern standard Das St. Galler (mittelrheinische) Passionsspiel.8
The play is of considerable literary interest. In a compact 1400
lines it covers a broad sweep of action: the miracle of Cana; John the
Baptist and the Jews; the baptism of Christ and his temptation in the
6
E.g. the numerous parallels in the episode of the healing of the blind man, St Gall
Passion Play, ll. 315a-449; cf. Frankfurter Passionsspiel, ll. 881b-965a. Wolf,
Kommentar, pp. 2, 590-95; idem, Für eine neue Form der Kommentierung geist-
licher Spiele , p. 23, note 113.
7
Franz Joseph Mone (ed.), Schauspiele des Mittelalters, Karlsruhe, 1846, vol. I, pp.
49-132; Emil Wolter (ed.), Das St. Galler Spiel vom Leben Jesu: Untersuchungen
und Text, Breslau, 1912 [rpt. Hildesheim, 1977] (Germanistische Abhandlungen,
41); Eduard Hartl (ed.), Das Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel: Das St. Galler Pas-
sionsspiel, Halle an der Saale, 1952 (Altdeutsche Textbibliothek, 41), pp. 56-131;
919, Tübingen, 1978.
8
This is the title used in Bergmann, Katalog, no. 54, and in Wolfgang Stammler &
Karl Langosch (eds.), Die deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters: Verfasserlexikon,
Berlin-Leipzig, 1933-55, vol. II, cols. 1042-44; cf. Rolf Steinbach, Die deutschen
Oster- und Passionsspiele des Mittelalters: Versuch einer Darstellung und We-
sensbestimmung nebst einer Bibliographie zum deutschen geistlichen Spiel des
Mittelalters, Köln, 1970 (Kölner Germanistische Studien, 4), p. 134.
23
wilderness; the calling of Peter and Andrew; the repentance of the

woman caught in adultery and of Mary Magdalene; the healing of the
blind beggar; the raising of Lazarus; then the standard episodes of the
Passion and Easter plays, from the High Priests council to the appear-
ance of the risen Christ to Mary Magdalene, and her passing on the
news of the resurrection to the Apostles.9 The play s conciseness, and
its avoidance of the coarse comedy and the antisemitism of so much of
the Passion play tradition, give it a lapidary, austere dignity which has
repeatedly impressed readers. Yet as Eduard Hartl notes, the scale of
the play is not unambitious, and despite adhering closely to the bibli-
cal original, the compiler of the drama manages to connect and relate
the individual episodes through judicious selection and compression,
carefully considered repetition of key material, and the use of tensions
and oppositions. Considerable room is given to the human, emotional
aspects of the action, yet the play never descends into the merely pro-
fane: the transcendence of its matter is always apparent, the atmos-
phere consistently serious and solemn.10
The St Gall Passion Play, like most German Passion plays, has two
textual strata : vernacular rhyming dialogue, and sung Latin chants,
almost all liturgical in origin, and the relation of these two Sprache-
benen has also been judged favourably. Hartl attributes the solemnity
of the play to a pervasive liturgischer Grundton :11 the chants play an
important aesthetic part in the drama as a whole. Steinbach remarks on
9
Full contents listed in Bergmann, Katalog, pp. 134-35; cf. William Louis Boletta,
The Role of Music in Medieval German Drama: Easter Plays and Passion Plays ,
Diss. Vanderbilt University, 1967, p. 122.
10
Eduard Hartl, Untersuchungen zum St. Galler Passionsspiel , in Gerhard Eis, Jo-
hannes Hansel & Richard Kienast (eds.), Festschrift für Wolfgang Stammler zu
seinem 65. Geburtstag, dargebracht von Freunden und Schülern, Berlin-Bielefeld,
1953, pp. 109, 117-21, 126-27. Similarly Friedrich Ranke, Von der ritterlichen zur
bürgerlichen Dichtung, 1230 1430 , in Heinz Otto Burger (ed.), Annalen der
deutschen Literatur, Stuttgart, 1971 [2nd revised ed.], p. 216; Steinbach, Oster-
und Passionsspiele, pp. 133-41, esp. 133.
11
Hartl, Untersuchungen , p. 123.
24
the careful balance of German and Latin in the text, which gives both
strata the prominence they deserve.12
So far, however, the Latin liturgical stratum has received scant
scholarly attention. This is partly explained by the sketchy, problem-
atical representation of the sung Latin in the manuscript. For whilst
the vernacular dialogue is recorded complete, the chants are given
only as incipits, often of the briefest kind: ten consist of a single word,
twenty of only two. The highly abbreviated Latin has challenged edi-
tors skills of deciphering.13
The manuscript contains not a single musical note or neume for
any of its chants. Written in one colour of ink, it does not even clearly
mark the boundary between chants and directions or dialogue, as do
many performance-oriented manuscripts. Such an absolute lack of
musical indications is rare: even unnotated manuscripts like the
Frankfurter Dirigierrolle distinguish directions in red ink from chant
and dialogue incipits in black, and even contain occasional neumes.14
Only a few St Gall Passion Play directions clearly describe a chant as
a liturgical item antiphon, responsory, or verse, yet most of the
chants are demonstrably from liturgical sources.
Nowadays, medieval drama scholars increasingly insist that editors
have the right, indeed the duty, to reconstruct the text and if possible
even the music of the chants represented by incipits, so as to give a
fuller and clearer impression of the play s total effect. Such editorial
practice demonstrates the plays relationship to liturgy and their
12
Steinbach, Oster- und Passionsspiele, pp. 133-34. Bergmann, Katalog, p. 89,
points out that the proportions of the two strata are typical of fourteenth-century
German plays.
13
Rudolf Schützeichel, Das Mittelrheinische Passionsspiel: Paläographie und Edi-
tion , in idem, Textgebundenheit. Kleinere Schriften zur mittelalterlichen deut-
schen Literatur, Tübingen, 1981, p. 167; cf. chant no. 17 below.
14
Hessische Passionsspielgruppe, vol. I, p. 5 on colours of ink; neumes over Bap-
tista contremuit (26), Ductus est Jesus (32a) and Sicut ovis (222a).
25
starke musikalische Bestimmtheit ;15 one could add that it would also
permit, perhaps even encourage, reasonably authentic performance.
Hansjürgen Linke has lost no opportunity to encourage editors to re-
construct incipits, or to castigate them when they do not.16 Might such
a reconstruction be possible in the case of the St Gall Passion Play?
None of the four editions of the play offers a reliable textual ver-
sion of its chants. In 1846 Mone contented himself with reproducing
the incipits, insofar as he could decipher them, without any comment
or attempt at reconstruction. The sound but unaccountably disregarded
scholarly edition of Wolter (1912) also gave the incipits only, though
Wolter usually read them accurately. Hartl s edition of 1952, which
has been taken to task by critics for general inaccuracy,17 must be
given credit for first attempting to reconstruct the chants, but in doing
so Hartl showed a startling unfamiliarity with the topic: seemingly un-
aware of the liturgical origin of most such chants, he reconstructed
15
Bernd Neumann, [Review of Schützeichel (ed.), Das Mittelrheinische Passions-
spiel] , Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (Tübingen)
104 (1982), pp. 318-23, esp. 318, 319.
16
Hansjürgen Linke, [Review of Peter K. Liebenow (ed.), Das Künzelsauer Fron-
leichnamsspiel, Berlin, 1969 (Ausgaben Deutscher Literatur des XV. bis XVIII.
Jahrhunderts, Reihe Drama, II)] , Anzeiger für deutsches Altertum und deutsche
Literatur 81 (1970), pp. 69-72, esp. 72; idem, [Review of Schützeichel (ed.), Das
Mittelrheinische Passionsspiel] , Anzeiger für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Li-
teratur 90 (1979), pp. 154-60, esp. 159; idem, [Review of Johannes Janota (ed.),
Die hessische Passionsspielgruppe. Edition im Paralleldruck, vol. I: Frankfurter
Dirigierrolle. Frankfurter Passionsspiel. Mit den Paralleltexten der Frankfurter
Dirigierrolle , des Alsfelder Passionsspiels , des Heidelberger Passionsspiels ,
des Frankfurter Osterspielfragments und des Fritzlarer Passionsspielfragments ,
Tübingen, 1996] , Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur
(Tübingen) 121 (1999), pp. 156-62, esp. 159. Cf. Karl Konrad Polheim, [Review
of Liebenow (ed.), Das Künzelsauer Fronleichnamsspiel] , Zeitschrift für Volks-
kunde 67 (1971), pp. 286-88, esp. 287.
17
Criticism of Hartl summarized in Schützeichel (ed.), Das Mittelrheinische Pas-
sionsspiel, pp. 90-91; cf. Bergmann, Katalog, pp. 26-27; Steinbach, Oster- und
Passionsspiele, p. 138, note 44.
26
them on the basis of biblical text, producing results which are wrong
in a great many cases.
Yet ironically, Rudolf Schützeichel s compendious edition of 1978
is most disappointing of all in respect of the chants. Produced by a
team of scholars, and over twelve years in the making, it nonetheless
gives only the incipits, albeit in an accurate transcription.18 Apart from
the briefest of footnote references to those identified by Rolf Berg-
mann, the chants of the play are not even mentioned in the extensive
apparatus and commentaries.19 Modern readers thus have a defini-
tive edition which as far as the chants are concerned offers little more
than did Mone one hundred and thirty years previously. Several re-
viewers expressed disappointment at this.20
In the case both of Hartl s and Schützeichel s editions, one prob-
lem was timing: Hartl s edition appeared only a year after Schuler s
catalogue of the music of medieval German drama21 too late, pre-
sumably, for Hartl to have consulted Schuler s results, which made it
abundantly clear that the chants were largely liturgical. At any rate,
Hartl s edition makes no reference to Schuler.
18
The edition was announced in Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 85 (1966), pp.
458-60.
19
Rolf Bergmann, F. Interpretation. I. Der Inhalt des Spiels , in Schützeichel (ed.),
Das Mittelrheinische Passionsspiel, pp. 219-39, referring to Bergmann, Studien.
This section criticized by Bernd Neumann, [Review of Schützeichel (ed.), Das
Mittelrheinische Passionsspiel] , Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache
und Literatur (Tübingen) 104 (1982), pp. 318-23, esp. 321.
20
Reviews of Schützeichel (ed.), Das Mittelrheinische Passionsspiel, by Ursula
Hennig, Daphnis 8 (1979), pp. 351-55, esp. 351; Hansjürgen Linke, Anzeiger für
deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 90 (1979), pp. 154-60, esp. 159-60;
Bernd Neumann, Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur
(Tübingen) 104 (1982), pp. 318-23, esp. 318-19.
21
Ernst August Schuler, Die Musik der Osterfeiern, Osterspiele und Passionen des
Mittelalters, Kassel-Basel, 1951 (vol. II: Melodienband , only as doctoral thesis,
Universität Basel, 1940).
27
Similar chronological misfortune attended the preparation of

Schützeichel s edition: simultaneously, Hermann Manfred Pflanz, a
doctoral student at the University of Saarbrücken, was attempting to
reconstruct the St Gall Passion Play chants and to draw conclusions
from them about the localization of the play. His dissertation appeared
in late 1977, before Schützeichel s edition was published but after its
completion in September 1976.22 Pflanz, relying on Wolter s and
Hartl s editions, thus had to wrestle with many a textual problem
which Schützeichel had already resolved. Equally, several reviewers
suggested that Pflanz s reconstructions would have enriched Schütz-
eichel s edition.23 To this suggestion Schützeichel reacted with extra-
ordinary vehemence, dismissing Pflanz s scholarship as virtually
worthless.24
In this brief but caustic critique Schützeichel made four main
points. First, that to include a reconstruction of the chants in his edi-
tion would have been editorially improper: the St Gall Passion Play
manuscript was not a performance text. Second, that Pflanz s recon-
struction of the play s chants simply repeated work already done by
others. Third, that a reliable reconstruction of the chants was in any
case impossible. And fourth, that Pflanz s methods, legitimate or not,
added nothing to our knowledge of the dating and localization of the
22
Hermann Manfred Pflanz, Die lateinischen Textgrundlagen des St. Galler Pas-
sionsspieles in der mittelalterlichen Liturgie, Frankfurt [etc.], 1977 (Europäische
Hochschulschriften, Reihe 1, 205). Dates: Schützeichel, Das Mittelrheinische
Passionsspiel , p. 167, note 10.
23
Reviews of Schützeichel (ed.), Das Mittelrheinische Passionsspiel by Ursula
Hennig, Daphnis 8 (1979), pp. 351-55, esp. 351; Hansjürgen Linke, Anzeiger für
deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 90 (1979), pp. 154-60, esp. 159-60;
Bernd Neumann, Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur
(Tübingen) 104 (1982), pp. 318-23, esp. 320; Eckehard Simon, Speculum 54
(1979), pp. 627-28, esp. 628. Reviews of Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, by
Johannes Janota, Germanistik 20 (1979), pp. 148-49; Ulrich Mehler, Anzeiger für
deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 91 (1980), pp. 120-24, esp. 120.
24
Schützeichel, Das Mittelrheinische Passionsspiel , pp. 164-72.
28
play. A swingeing critique indeed; but how well does it stand up to

scrutiny?
Schützeichel s first objection was that even had Pflanz s results
been to hand, it would not have been legitimate to incorporate them in
his edition as a completion of the chant-incipits. This, he insisted,
would distort the manuscript, which had not been conceived as an
Aufführungsvorlage , into a Regiebuch .25 Here, however, Schützei-
chel completely contradicted what he himself had written ten years
previously about his projected edition. Then he had described a chant
reconstruction as a major desideratum, without which an edition
would give an unvollständiges und schiefes Bild of the play.26 Now
inclusion of the music would distort the edition an unexplained edi-
torial volte-face.
Here Schutzeichel touches on, without engaging with, two complex
and closely related questions. The first is whether medieval play
manuscripts can be readily divided into performance and reading
manuscripts. The second is how modern editions of the plays pre-
served in these manuscripts should be presented: the problem of the
gattungsadäquate Editionsform . Both these questions have been dis-
cussed in some detail, by Hansjürgen Linke and Dieter Trauden.27
25
Ibid., p. 167, note 10: Solche Ergänzungen [verfehlten] den Sinn der Edition .
26
Schützeichel, Zum Mittelrheinischen Passionsspiel der St. Galler Handschrift
919 , p. 537. Bergmann, Katalog, pp. 15-29, too, had asked for editing that would
allow a Rekonstruktion der Spielsituation .
27
Hansjürgen Linke, Versuch über deutsche Handschriften mittelalterlicher Spiele ,
in Volker Honemann & Nigel F. Palmer (eds.), Deutsche Handschriften, 1100-
1400: Oxforder Kolloquium 1985, Tübingen, 1988, pp. 527-89; Dieter Trauden,
Archetyp oder Aufführung? Überlegungen zur Edition mittelalterlicher Dramen ,
Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 37 (1993), pp. 131-45. Cf. Jo-
hannes Janota, Auf der Suche nach gattungsadäquaten Editionsformen bei der
Herausgabe mittelalterlicher Spiele , in Egon Kühebacher (ed.), Tiroler
Volksschauspiel: Beiträge zur Theatergeschichte des Alpenraumes, Bozen, 1976
(Schriftenreihe des Südtiroler Kulturinstitutes, 3), pp. 74 87.
29
Linke makes two crucially important points. First, that a crude di-
vision of manuscripts into Aufführungsmanuskripte and Lesehand-
schriften ignores the large category of those which cannot firmly be
put in either camp. Ascribing a manuscript to one of these groups is a
complex matter, requiring the convergence of several criteria. Second,
that the distinction between Text and Textträger , between the text
of the play and the manuscript in which it is preserved, is vital: fre-
quently a manuscript clearly not designed for use in a performance
preserves a text which very evidently was.28
As Textträger , St Gall ms 919 admittedly displays none of the
features typical of an Aufführungsmanuskript . It is not laid out in the
style of a Dirigierrolle (a text designed for the director or ductor ludi)
with different colours and hands highlighting the different strata of
dialogue, chant and directions. It does not refer to the date, place or
casting of an actual performance, to the arrangement of the playing
area or the order in which players are to enter it, or to the disposition
of props. There are none of the cuts, additions and shifted blocks of
dialogue often noted in undoubted working books such as the Als-
felder Passionsspiel, nor do crosses or pointing fingers alert the direc-
tor to cues, musical entries and other crucial performance details.29 It
is clear that the manuscript was not designed for use in an actual per-
formance; nor indeed has this ever been seriously suggested.
But does the manuscript show any positive signs of being specifi-
cally intended for reading? These are: explicit dedication of the manu-
script to members of the audience or players; a description of the text
as a book ( liber or buoch ); illustrations or decoration clearly
28
Linke, Versuch über deutsche Handschriften , pp. 528-29, citing Bergmann, Zur
Überlieferung der mittelalterlichen geistlichen Spiele and idem, Aufführungstext
und Lesetext: Zur Funktion der Überlieferung des mittelalterlichen geistlichen
deutschen Dramas , in Herman Braet, Johan Nowé & Gilbert Tournoy (eds.), The
Theatre in the Middle Ages, Leuven, 1985 (Medievalia Lovaniensia, Series I /
Studia, 13), pp. 314 51.
29
Linke, Versuch über deutsche Handschriften , pp. 530, 531, and 536-40.
30
aimed at readerly pleasure; the use in later manuscripts of vellum

rather than paper; dialogue written out not in lines of verse but con-
tinuously; rhymed or narrative texts rather than performance-orientat-
ed stage directions; marginal glosses on biblical texts quoted in the
play; a text preserved in a manuscript containing other, miscellaneous
material. Several of these criteria together can reliably indicate the
pure Lesehandschrift.30
Only two of these features apply to St Gall ms 919. The text is
written in continuous lines rather than in single verses; but this crite-
rion is reliable only for late manuscripts, since this layout was com-
mon in earlier ones; in the case of this fourteenth-century manuscript
it cannot be seen as decisive.31 The St Gall Passion Play is found in a
Sammelhandschrift containing other very diverse material; but this is
not its original home: it is in a separate booklet, later bound into St
Gall ms 919.32
The manuscript itself, then, is neither clearly an Aufführungs-
manuskript nor a Lesehandschrift . What of the text preserved in it?
As Linke stresses, the fact that a play is contained in a manuscript de-
signed primarily for reading does not automatically make the play it-
self a Lesedrama (in any case a modern concept, barely applicable to
the middle ages). Texts in Lesehandschriften often contain features
30
Ibid, pp. 540-43; Trauden, Archetyp oder Aufführung? , pp. 140-41, with exam-
ples.
31
Linke, Versuch über deutsche Handschriften , p. 541; Trauden, Archetyp oder
Aufführung? , p. 141. Similarly, Bergmann s generalization that performance man-
uscripts have a narrow page format (Bergmann, Aufführungstext , p. 320), is
shown by Linke ( Versuch über deutsche Handschriften , p. 534, note 19) as inap-
plicable to thirteenth- and fourteenth-century books, a point conceded by Rolf
Bergmann, Geistliche Spiele des Mittelalters Katalogerfassung und Neufunde ,
in Max Siller (ed.), Osterspiele: Texte und Musik. Akten des 2. Symposiums der
Sterzinger Osterspiele (12. - 16. April 1992), Innsbruck, 1994 (Schlern-Schriften,
293), pp. 13-32.
32
Linke, Versuch über deutsche Handschriften , p. 541. Inventory of St Gall, Codex
919, in Schützeichel (ed.), Das Mittelrheinische Passionsspiel, pp. 31-43.
31
which indicate closeness to performance. These include: references to

an actual performance of the play; a text which describes itself as a
play ( spil , ludus ); stage directions expressed in imperative forms;
references to props or stage effects; allusions to stage conditions, the
players, or the audience; alternative or ad libitum texts. Again, a num-
ber of such features is needed to establish Aufführungsnähe .33 And
indeed, with the exception of references to a performance, the St Gall
Passion Play manuscript does present examples of nearly every one of
these; in fact Linke exemplifies many of the typical signs of Auf-
führungsnähe from this very play.
The text does call itself a play : et sic finiatur ludus prenotatus
(l. 1347f). The Latin stage directions never use past indicative forms,
which could suggest a reader-oriented, narrativized description of a
past performance; they are functionally imperative, instructions to di-
rector and actors.34 The present subjunctive predominates overwhelm-
ingly: tollatur lapis (l. 529a); [Iudas] suspendatur (l. 861a); as well
as the ubiquitous respondet , there are about a dozen present and fu-
ture indicatives: Tunc discipuli fugiunt (l. 752a); Postea vestient
eum purpura et imponent ei coronam spineam (l. 917c).
In the directions, a variety of verbs differentiate ways of perform-
ing the sung texts ( dicere , cantare , dicere cantando ); these too are
designed for the director and actors rather than for a reader. Directions
often allude to practicalities of staging and performance: Omnibus
personis decenter ornatis, cantent angeli (l. 0b); cantet ter aliqua per-
sona abscondita voce Patris (ll. 111a-b); Tunc angeli cantent respon-
sorium Ductus est Iesus in desertum usque Si es filius Dei quod
accedens Dyabolus cantet (ll. 123a-c); sangu[is] lanceam descen-
33
Linke, Versuch über deutsche Handschriften , pp. 543-51; Trauden, Archetyp
oder Aufführung? , p. 141.
34
Cf. Linke, Versuch über deutsche Handschriften , pp. 542 and 545. Past-tense di-
rections are found, for example, in the Admonter Passionsspiel. Hartl, Untersu-
chungen , p. 128, bizarrely interprets the subjunctive in the St Gall Passion Play as
an authorial reminder of the play s fictional status.
32
den[s] tangat oculos et videbit (l. 1188a). The direction tunc Lazarus
fingat se mortuum (l. 476a) oscillates between fictive Spiel-
wirklichkeit (the character Lazarus ) and literal reality (the actor play-
ing Lazarus feigns death); this shows awareness of the process of fic-
tive dramatic representation.35 The angels repeatedly exhort the audi-
ence to silence, and Augustinus adverts to what they are about to see:
Man wil begen nu vorbaz | wie Iesus hude zu tische saz | bit den lie-
ben iungern sin (ll. 599-601); both are clearly part of a text aimed at a
real audience.36 In general, the directions are far too laconic to act as a
readerly substitute for witnessing a performance. They are intended
for a Spielleiter and players to fill out in a real production.
The brief chant incipits themselves are of course references to the
musical stratum of the play as performed, and designed for the per-
formers guidance rather than for readerly pleasure. When Mary Mag-
dalene washes Jesus s feet, for example, the text (ll. 305a-c) suggests
three possible chants, information aimed at a director rather than a
reader.37 Even more obviously for directorial eyes are the prescrip-
tions for Mary Magdalene s dances, such as: Tunc Maria Magdalena
cum una puella et duobus iuvenibus curizet (ll. 161c-d), and the di-
rection that the soldiers go off to guard Christ s tomb cantantes
aliquid (l. 1262a); an eminently performance-oriented instruction to
the director to find a suitable song, which would be unhelpful, even
annoying, to a reader.
In these ways the St Gall Passion Play text is so clearly per-
formance-related as to call severely into question Schützeichel s po-
lemics about the edition becoming a Regiebuch . And indeed,
Schützeichel seems to have been exaggerating for effect here: in the
35
Cf. Linke, Versuch über deutsche Handschriften , pp. 547-48. Hartl, Unter-
suchungen , pp. 128-29, mistakenly sees here a conflation of actor and role: Die
Einheit von Darsteller und dargestellter Person [kann] so bedrohlich eng werden,
daß der Darsteller darüber sein eigenes Ich verliert.
36
Cf. Linke, Versuch über deutsche Handschriften , pp. 547-49.
37
Ibid, p. 545; Trauden, Archetyp oder Aufführung? , p. 141.
33
non-polemical context of his edition, he concedes that the manuscript,

though not an actual Aufführungsmanuskript , does preserve the text
in a form which could serve as a basis for further productions.38
In any case, the idea that chant reconstructions would have turned
the edition into a Regiebuch is grossly overstated: they could easily
have been signalled as editorial additions and need not have compro-
mised the integrity of the text.39 They could have been placed in one
of the many commentary sections appended to the edition. One of
these, for example, discusses elements of Regie : props and stage
layout and movement, and draws conclusions, some necessarily
speculative, on this aspect of the play.40 By drawing out the implica-
tions of the text for the staging, the commentary generates a distinctly
more concrete impression of the play than the manuscript alone; many
of its conclusions could be used as an aid to performance. If this is a
licit editorial way of going beyond the bare textual shape of the play,
then so, surely, is a comparable reflection on the chants.
Schützeichel s second major point is that Pflanz s work had not in
any sense relativized the value of his own edition, as some reviewers
had suggested. Pflanz, he asserted, had effectively done no more than
Rolf Bergmann, who had already identified the play s chants of the St
Gall Passion Play.41 Now Pflanz s apparent ignorance of Bergmann s
38
Schützeichel (ed.), Das Mittelrheinische Passionsspiel, p. 59.
39
Ursula Hennig, [Review of Schützeichel (ed.), Das Mittelrheinische Passions-
spiel] , Daphnis 8 (1979), pp. 351-55, esp. 351; Linke, [Review of Janota (ed.),
Hessische Passionsspielgruppe, I] , Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen
Sprache und Literatur (Tübingen) 121 (1999), pp. 156-62, esp. 159; cf. idem,
[Review of Janota (ed.), Hessische Passionsspielgruppe, II] , Beiträge zur Ge-
schichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (Tübingen) 126 (2004), pp. 359-66,
esp. 364-66.
40
Bergmann, F. Interpretation. I: Der Inhalt des Spiels , pp. 219-39. Adverse criti-
cism in reviews of Schützeichel (ed.), Das Mittelrheinische Passionsspiel by
Linke, Anzeiger für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 90 (1979), pp. 154-
60, esp. 155-56, and Simon, Speculum 54 (1979), pp. 627-28.
41
Schützeichel, Das Mittelrheinische Passionsspiel , p. 167, note 10; Bergmann,
34
work in this area is indeed a major flaw of his study. But Bergmann
had in fact identified only about forty-five of the more than seventy
chants of the play, by no means all correctly, as this study will show,
and without considering possible textual variation or questions of per-
formance practice. Further work on this topic is neither impossible nor
undesirable.
Thirdly, Schützeichel argues that the play s chants cannot in any
case be reliably reconstructed, because they are only angedeutet in
the stage directions.42 In his edition he had made a similar point, re-
jecting Hartl s reconstruction of the chants as unreliable, because
based on insufficient evidence.43 This view is highly problematic. It
glaringly contradicts the assertion that Bergmann had already identi-
fied the chants of the play: for how could this have been done if the
basis was indeed so shaky? Schützeichel s position on this point
seems unwarrantedly pessimistic. In his edition, pages 91-95, where
he subsumes the incipits into the Bühnenanweisungen of the manu-
script, his brief comment on the chants is revealing. The chants were,
he concedes, an important part of a play such as the St Gall Passion
Play. However, reconstructing them is bound to be a risky undertak-
ing, because of the various ways in which they were characterized by
Variabilität and freie Gestaltungsmöglichkeiten : the size of the
choir, the number of repetitions, the precise wording, and the general
musikalische Ausgestaltung und Darbietung .44
Studien, Initienregister , pp. 290-91.

42
Schützeichel, Das Mittelrheinische Passionsspiel , p. 167; Eckehard Simon,
Speculum 54 (1979), pp. 627-28, esp. 628, reviewing Schützeichel (ed.), Das Mit-
telrheinische Passionsspiel, seems to agree.
43
Schützeichel (ed.), Das Mittelrheinische Passionsspiel, p. 91: Ergänzung der
angesprochenen Gesänge ohne auch nur annähernd gesicherte Grundlage ; cf. p.
94: Die Auflösung der Abbreviaturen in den Bühnenanweisungen geht nicht bis
zur Ergänzung der immer nur angedeuteten Gesänge, weil dazu eine wirklich ver-
läßliche Grundlage fehlte.
44
Ibid., p. 94.
35
Now, three of these aspects of performance practice might indeed

vary, even between performances of the same play. But one, the pre-
cise wording, would not. Schützeichel confuses variability in wording
with these other variables, asserting that the wording of chants varied
to the extent that incipits are effectively mere Andeutungen . This
suggests a distorted view of the nature and function of chant incipits in
the manuscripts of medieval drama.
The fact that notation is usually missing in these manuscripts, and
is often deplorably inaccurate when it is found, does not mean that the
status of music in the plays was secondary or unstable.45 The manu-
script was the primary, indeed the only, record of a play s spoken text,
but not of its music, which was primarily preserved in the memory of
those who performed it, and in the liturgical books which fixed it in
written form. Insofar as it could be fixed, that is: the musical ambigui-
ties and inaccuracies, notably in modality, found in many liturgical
manuscripts show that long after the development of precise-pitch no-
tation, these books were still more an aide-mémoire than a primary re-
45
Andreas Traub, Die geistlichen Spiele des Sterzinger Spielarchivs, vol. VI:2:
Kommentar zur Edition der Melodien, Mittlere Deutsche Literatur in Neu- und
Nachdrucken, 19:2, Bern, 1996, p. 7: Sterzing manuscripts often depict neumatic
nuances inadequately; idem, Überlegungen zur Edition von Melodien in geist-
lichen Spielen an Beispielen aus dem Sterzinger Spielarchiv , in Anton Schwob
(ed.), Editionsberichte zur mittelalterlichen deutschen Literatur: Beiträge der
Bamberger Tagung Methoden und Probleme der Edition mittelalterlicher deut-
scher Texte , Göppingen, 1994 (Litterae, 117), pp. 255-59, esp. 255 and 257, on
poor standards of musical information in Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel; cf. Andreas
Traub, Zwischen Aufgezeichnetem und Nichtaufgezeichnetem: Probleme bei der
Edition der Melodien der Sterzinger Spiele , in Siller (ed.), Osterspiele, pp. 211-
18, esp. 211; Hansjürgen Linke & Ulrich Mehler (eds), Die österlichen Spiele aus
der Ratsschulbibliothek Zwickau: Kritischer Text und Faksimilia der Handschrif-
ten, Tübingen, 1990 (Altdeutsche Textbibliothek, 103), pp. 29-44, footnotes,
passim, on inaccuracies and inconsistencies in notation. By contrast, Lipphardt s
and Osthoff s negative characterization of musical transcription in the Erlau plays
is refuted by Wolfgang Suppan, in idem (ed.), Texte und Melodien der Erlauer
Spiele; auf Grund einer Textübertragung von Johannes Janota, Tutzing, 1990 (Mu-
sikethnologische Sammelbände, 11), pp. 7-16, esp. 9-13.
36
pository of liturgical melodies.46 Clerics acting in plays, or rehearsing

lay actors, will not have used the play manuscripts as a primary practi-
cal basis, but will have consulted their memory, clerical colleagues, or
probably as a last resort a liturgical book.47 The inadequate re-
presentation of music in so many play manuscripts reflects this simple
truth; it does not mean that the music was unimportant, arbitrarily va-
riable and practically irretrievable by later scholars. Indeed, the chants
written in manuscripts of religious plays testify on the whole to a great
stability in the musical repertoire of that drama. A recent study of the
Hortulanus scenes in the Sterzing plays reveals considerable differ-
ences in the dialogue and the vernacular sung items from play to play,
but great stability in the Latin chants, implying that stronger inhibi-
tions were quite understandably felt about altering liturgical chants
than about changing spoken text.48
The convention of the chant-incipit combines abbreviation with
precision of reference. Play manuscripts can use incipits precisely be-
cause they refer to a textually and melodically stable corpus of liturgi-
cal material whose primary locus of preservation was not in the play
manuscripts themselves. Schuler s identification of the chants of me-
dieval German drama in the liturgy, based mainly on the incipits in the
46
Clyde W. Brockett, Osanna! New Light on the Palm Sunday Processional Anti-
phon Series , Plainsong and Medieval Music 9 (2000), pp. 95-129, esp. 111-22;
Suppan (ed.), Texte und Melodien der Erlauer Spiele, pp. 12-14; Richard L.
Crocker, An Introduction to Gregorian Chant, New Haven, 2000, pp. 148-60;
Susan K. Rankin, From Memory to Record: Musical Notations in Manuscripts
from Exeter , Anglo-Saxon England 13 (1984), pp. 97-112.
47
Trauden, Archetyp oder Aufführung? , p. 134, note 12; Wolfgang Suppan, Zur
Musik der Erlauer Spiele , Studia musicologica Academiae Scientiarum Hunga-
ricae 11 (1969), p. 418. Cf. Zwickauer Osterspiel I, ll. 143a-d: tunc plebanus [ ]
cantet [ ] Surrexit dominus de sepulchro vt in Anthiphonario . Richard Rastall,
The Heaven Singing: Music in Early English Religious Drama, Cambridge, 1996,
vol. I, pp. 17-18, doubts even that performers learnt speaking parts from copies of
the play manuscript.
48
Rainer Gstrein, Anmerkungen zu den Gesängen der Osterspiele des Sterzinger
Debs -Kodex , in Siller (ed.), Osterspiele, pp. 91-98, esp. 93-94.
37
relevant manuscripts, is in effect a vindication of the approach.49

Schützeichel s own view of the St Gall Passion Play manuscript as
the Grundlage für eine spätere Bearbeitung im Hinblick auf eine Auf-
führung in fact implicitly concedes this possibility.
In other ways too there was less scope for musical variation than
Schützeichel suggests. The size of choirs no doubt varied; but many
chants in the St Gall Passion Play and other plays are sung not by a
choir but by soloists or small groups (see Chapter IV). Little, admit-
tedly, is known about how the plainsong might have been embellished
(vocal organum, conceivably instrumental accompaniment in later
plays);50 but, as emphasized above, this affects neither the verbal nor
the basic musical form of the chant performed. Most Latin chants in
medieval plays were not strophic, so the number of verses sung is not
an important consideration.
The number of times a chant might be repeated is also hardly an is-
sue. The repetition of most pieces of liturgical plainsong is intrinsi-
cally unlikely. It would probably only apply to responsories, where
the refrain of the chant might either be repeated after the verse and re-
petenda (as in liturgical performance), or be sung only once, without
the verse, if a briefer effect was required. This is not, in truth, an im-
portant variation; and in any case it belongs to the flexibility of actual
performance, which by its very nature can never be reflected in any
49
William Smoldon, The Music of the Medieval Church Dramas, (ed.) Cynthia
Bourgeault, London [etc.], 1980, pp. 4-5, refutes the assertion of Young, Drama,
vol. I, p. 601, that incipits do not allow the full reconstruction of chants.
50
E.g. Edmund A. Bowles, The Role of Musical Instruments in Medieval Sacred
Drama , Musical Quarterly 45 (1959), pp. 67-84; idem, Were Musical Instruments
used in the Liturgical Service during the Middle Ages? , Galpin Society Journal 10
(1957), pp. 40-56 and 12 (1959), pp. 89-92; Andreas Traub, Der Debs-Codex als
musikalische Quelle , in Ulrich Mehler & Anton H. Touber (eds.), Mittelalterliches
Schauspiel: Festschrift für Hansjürgen Linke zum 65. Geburtstag, Amsterdam-At-
lanta, 1994 (Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik, 38-39), pp. 339-47,
esp. 342-43; Susan Rankin, [Review of recordings of Das große Passionsspiel
Carmina Burana, dir. Binkley] , Early Music 14 (1986), pp. 443-46, esp. 446.
38
written text. Obviously it cannot be known exactly how much of a

particular chant was sung at any particular performance of a play; di-
rectorial decisions, exigencies of staging and other imponderables will
all have played a part. But this of course applies to the spoken dia-
logue too: that recorded in a play manuscript may have been altered in
any given performance of that play without the changes being noted,
at least in copies that survive. Manuscripts like the Frankfurter
Dirigierrolle, Alsfelder Passionsspiel, or Künzelsauer Fronleich-
namsspiel, which do contain such changes, show that medieval direc-
tors were just as given to cutting, adding and adapting to suit the prac-
tical demands of performance as their modern counterparts. It is a
fundamental truth that the precise dialogue of any individual per-
formance of a medieval play is simply unknowable from the manu-
scripts, even from those which clearly have a close relationship with
performance and record alterations; for it is never possible to know
whether they have recorded them all.51 But this is an unavoidable area
of indeterminacy which applies to any textual copy of any play from
any period, with the exception (perhaps) of carefully marked prompt
copies used for specific productions in modern professional theatres,
and it most certainly does not invalidate the practice of making edi-
tions of medieval drama. The impression given by Schützeichel of
musical possibilities so shot through with potential variations that the
manuscript can only hint vaguely at the chants is a serious misrepre-
sentation.
Thus far, Schützeichel s critique of Pflanz often seems ill-focused,
self-contradictory and overstated. But his fourth line of attack has
rather more weight. Pflanz, on pages 151-161, argued that his liturgi-
cal investigations allowed him to localize the St Gall Passion Play in
the Mainz diocese. In a direct deprecation of this method, Schützei-
chel contends that all Pflanz has done is to confirm that the play s
chants do indeed occur in manuscript and printed service books: far
51
Trauden, Archetyp oder Aufführung? , pp. 139, 142.
39
from contributing towards dating or localizing the manuscript, this

simply presupposes the results arrived at by palaeography, codicology
and historical dialectology.52 In other words, even if Pflanz s results
are correct, his approach is footling and insubstantial, capable at best
of confirming the results of the staple methods of medieval Germanic
studies (if such confirmation were needed), but not of adding anything
new. Is this simply odium theologicum, the over-reaction of traditional
Germanistik to a methodology which it sees as upstart and ama-
teurish? Or might it have more substance? This is one of the questions
this study aims to explore.
The Problem of Localization

Pflanz examined twenty-three manuscript and six printed liturgical
books from three German dioceses, Mainz, Trier and Cologne. On the
basis of the number of the St Gall Passion Play s incipits which
matched chants in books from the different uses, he concluded that the
play had been written in the Mainz diocese.53 His choice of bishoprics
reflected the then current scholarly opinion on the localization of the
play. The language of the manuscript was agreed to be West Central
German, but whilst Mone had localized the play in the moselfränkisch
area, between Mainz, Cologne and Trier, Wilmotte had proposed the
ribuarisch region, Weinhold the Wetterau or Hessia, Wolter the Wet-
terau or Nassau. Rueff and Ranke had suggested Rheinhessen or the
Rheingau, Dörrer the Frankfurt area; Hartl had even seen indications,
in part of the play, of Allemannic origins.54
52
Schützeichel, Das Mittelrheinische Passionsspiel , p. 167, note 10.
53
Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, pp. 151-61.
54
Mone (ed.), Schauspiele des Mittelalters, vol. I, p. 71; Maurice Wilmotte, Les pas-
sions allemandes du Rhin dans leur rapport avec l ancien théâtre français, Paris,
1898, p. 14; Karl Weinhold, Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik, Paderborn, 1883 [rpt.
1967], paragraphs 167, 218 and 222; Wolter (ed.), Das St. Galler Spiel vom Leben
Jesu, p. 61; Hans Rueff, [Review of Wolter (ed.), Das St. Galler Spiel vom Leben
Jesu] , Anzeiger für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 38 (1919), 66-70,
40
Schützeichel s edition, however, brought a new localization. In it,

Hugo Stopp, who had already investigated the language of the play in
a study of 1959, presented a masterly synthesis of updated research.55
Having established that the dialect was neither ribuarisch nor mosel-
fränkisch,56 Stopp went on to a more detailed investigation, in which a
number of major criteria emerged as important for localization (see
map).
The use of both forms bis and bit for Middle High German biz
(modern German bis) pointed to the west of the Rhine, since east of
the river, and east of a line between Wiesbaden and Gießen, only the
form bis was found.57 Both endings (-nt and -t) of the second person
plural of the present indicative verb paradigm were found in the
manuscript (e.g. komment and kommt). The predominance of the -nt
form (96%) was typical of usage in the Rheingau and in Rheinhessen
down as far as south of Worms.58
Using further criteria Stopp concluded that the manuscript had not
originated very far south of Worms. Both the forms sol and sal for the
first and third person singular of the verb sollen (modern German soll)
occurred. This was typical of Mainz and Worms, whereas in the
Speyer region sal seemed to be unknown.59 The play s initial and in-
tervocalic d rather than t (dun, godes) were typical of Worms written
usage, but not of Speyer.60 The manuscript s near-complete failure to
esp. 68-69; Ranke, Von der ritterlichen zur bürgerlichen Dichtung , p. 216; Anton
Dörrer, Baldemar von Peterweil , in Stammler & Langosch (eds.), Verfasserlexi-
kon, vol. I, cols. 155-58, esp. 156; Hartl (ed.), Das Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel:
Das St. Galler Passionsspiel, p. 48. Summary in Schützeichel (ed.), Das Mittel-
rheinische Passionsspiel, p. 172.
55
Stopp, Untersuchungen zum St. Galler Passionsspiel ; idem, E. Lokalisierung ,
in Schützeichel (ed.), Das Mittelrheinische Passionsspiel, pp. 161-215.
56
Schützeichel (ed.), Das Mittelrheinische Passionsspiel, pp. 210-12.
57
Ibid., p. 213.
58
Ibid., pp. 200-03, esp. 203, and 214.
59
Ibid., pp. 205, 215.
60
Ibid., pp. 188, 215.
41
mark umlaut characterized writing from Worms and further north;

Speyer documents of the fourteenth century typically indicated it more
fully.61 The most decisive of these criteria, however, was the unshifted
initial and medial p found in the text (pennig; plegen; schopper). This
was untypical of early fourteenth-century use in Speyer and further
south, where the shifted form pf was consistently found.62
Combining these data staked out a rough area within which the
manuscript had almost certainly been written; and, since nothing indi-
cated that the manuscript had been copied from an original in a differ-
ent Schreibdialekt, this was presumably the home of the play itself.63
This area lay west of the Rhine, no further north than the Rheingau,
not very much further south than Worms; a north-south distance of
about seventy kilometres. However, only the eastern boundary was
reasonably exact. To the north, Stopp suspected that the Rheingau
should be excluded, but this required more detailed linguistic evi-
dence.64 The southern limit, the boundary between shifted and un-
shifted p, was difficult to fix. East of the Rhine, it was somewhere
around Lorsch or Weinheim; to the west, Stopp could place it no more
precisely than südlich Worms ; moreover, in the fourteenth century it
seemed to have been shifting southwards.65 How precisely could it be
located, early in the the century, in the mere thirty-five kilometres be-
tween Worms and Speyer? Even harder to pin down was the western
boundary. In the Palatinate, roughly on the latitude of Worms-Speyer
but further west, not enough was known about Schreibdialekte: docu-
ments were lacking, or had not yet been analysed in detail.66 Stopp
himself thought southern Rheinhessen the most likely Heimat: hence
61
Ibid., pp. 175-76, 205.
62
Ibid., pp. 166-77, 170-71, 214-15.
63
Ibid., p. 215.
64
Ibid., p. 215.
65
Ibid., pp. 214-15.
66
Ibid., p. 215.
42
his conclusion that the play was to be localized an den linken Mit-
telrhein in die Gegend um Worms und Mainz .67
Even with these few uncertainties, Stopp made previous localiza-
tions look amateurish; but his results effectively undermined Pflanz s
entire liturgically-based attempt. For by excluding the ribuarisch and
moselfränkisch dialect areas Stopp had ruled out the bishoprics of Co-
logne and Trier. Pflanz had been looking in the wrong place: the dio-
ceses he ought to have examined were Mainz, Worms and Speyer.
Yet Stopp s conclusions were also highly suggestive, because in
this area, as the map shows, diocesan and dialect boundaries relate in
interesting and potentially helpful ways. If the play could be localized
liturgically in any one of the three dioceses, this would dramatically
reduce the area in which it must have been written. If the play defi-
nitely belonged to Worms, for example, it could be placed in a com-
pact triangle between Oppenheim and Mundenheim on the Rhine and
Landstuhl in the west; the diocesan border from Mundenheim west-
wards would be a much clearer demarcation than the only vaguely
traceable p/pf line. Localization in Mainz or Speyer would be equally
helpful; even a limitation to two of the three dioceses would mean a
useful gain in precision. Here is a possible vindication of the liturgical
localization which Pflanz was attempting. The question is, however,
whether this method, applied to the correct data, can in fact deliver a
reliable localization.
67
Ibid., p. 215.
43
The boundaries of the Diocese of Worms (diagonally hatched) are based on the map
in Hans Meyer, Topographie der Diözese Worms im Mittelalter ,
Archiv für hessische Geschichte und Altertumskunde,
N.F. 17 (1932), pp. 1-92.
44
Chapter II
Liturgy and Localization
In all, the problems concerned with the

identification of liturgical material in the
plays are as yet very far from a solution.
Here, more than anywhere else, perhaps, is
room for some carefully-designed research:
but it must be said that the risk of getting
nowhere is considerable.
(Richard Rastall, The Heaven Singing:
Music in Early English Religious Drama,
Cambridge, 1996, vol. I, p. 299.)
n recent years scholars have been emphasizing the need for en-
gagement with the local liturgies of the areas in which medieval
plays were produced as a means of understanding their liturgical-
musical content in detail.1 This is a welcome development, but it is
well to sound a note of caution.
Before the reforms of the Council of Trent, western Catholic lit-
urgy did indeed vary from region to region. But by the early four-
1
E.g. Thomas Binkley, The Greater Passion Play from Carmina Burana: An Intro-
duction , in Peter Reidemeister & Veronika Gutmann (eds.), Alte Musik: Praxis
und Reflexion, Winterthur, 1982 (Sonderband der Reihe Basler Jahrbuch für histo-
rische Musikpraxis, zum 50. Jubiläum der Schola Cantorum Basiliensis), pp. 144-
57, esp. 149-55; Johannes Janota, Zur Funktion der Gesänge in der hessischen
Passionsspielgruppe , in Max Siller (ed.), Osterspiele: Texte und Musik, Innsbruck,
1994 (Schlern-Schriften, 293), pp. 109-20, esp. 118; Hansjürgen Linke, Drama
und Theater des Mittelalters als Feld interdisziplinärer Forschung , Euphorion 79
(1985), pp. 43-65, esp. 61; Bernd Neumann, [Review of Rudolf Schützeichel
(ed.), Das Mittelrheinische Passionsspiel der St. Galler Hs. 919, Tübingen, 1978] ,
Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (Tübingen) 104
(1982), pp. 318-23, esp. 322-23.
teenth century, when the St Gall Passion Play was produced, the local
variation of previous centuries had been reduced by ecclesastical and
imperial fiat, and with the establishment of the European diocesan
structure. Uses were by now specific not to individual churches or lo-
calities, but to entire dioceses. The production of text-only breviaries
and missals for the individual cleric rather than the individual church,
both reflected and speeded the process.2 Diocesan traditions were
probably never absolutely uniform, and particularly in those ceremo-
nies not intrinsically part of mass or office, and usually written down
not in the breviary or missal but in the ritual, a considerable diversity
prevailed till early modern times.3 But for the period of the St Gall
Passion Play one can properly speak, for the great bulk of the mass
and office, of standardized local liturgy (Ortsliturgie or Eigenliturgie),
of a diocesan rite or use (Ritus).4
The degree of variation of such local liturgies should not be over-
estimated. By the fourteenth century, apart from the very few non-
Roman rites like the Ambrosian (Milan) and Mozarabic (Spain, from
the eleventh century only Toledo),5 the western European dioceses
used what, for all their jealously guarded particularities, were recog-
nizably local variants of the Roman liturgy itself the original use of
the city of Rome cross-fertilized, between the sixth century and the
2
Archdale A. King, Liturgy of the Roman Church, London, 1957, p. 38.
3
In Agenda Spirensis, Speyer, 1512, first unsigned gathering, sig. ii, bishop Philipp
von Rosenberg describes medieval Speyer rituals as partim inter se discordes: [ ]
partim etiam minus emendatas , leading to multos [ ] errores: pericula et confu-
siones .
4
Technically, the more inclusive rite is distinguished from use, a local variant of a
rite (e.g. the Mainz or Salisbury use within the Roman rite); cf. Archdale A. King,
Liturgies of the Past, London, 1959, p. v; William J. McDonald et al. (eds.), New
Catholic Encyclopedia, New York [etc.], 1967-, vol. XII, pp. 519-22, esp. 519.
German tends to use the term Ritus for both, and often there is no real danger of
confusion. So this book often uses the terms interchangeably when this is not am-
biguous.
5
Archdale A. King, Liturgies of the Primatial Sees, London, 1957, pp. 286-456
(Ambrosian), 457-632 (Mozarabic).
46
II. Liturgy and Localization
ninth, by ritual and musical developments from the Frankish tradi-

tion.6 This was true even of very distinctive local uses such as that of
Lyon or the English sees of Sarum (Salisbury) and York, and the lit-
urgy of orders like the Dominicans.7
By the fourteenth century, the main differences between diocesan
liturgies were calendrical. The framework of the temporal liturgy
(temporale or proprium de tempore) commemorating the salvific
events of the life of Christ and of the church Advent, Christmas,
Epiphany, Lent, Easter, Pentecost had long been standardized, the
same chants occurring everywhere, in near-identical textual and musi-
cal forms. Variations in the repertoire were slight; diocesan differ-
ences in the precise liturgical placing of the same chants did not affect
the chants themselves.
But by the same period the sanctoral cycle (sanctorale or pro-
prium de sanctis), the round of feasts in honour of the saints, had de-
veloped mightily and diversely. Many saints were local figures whose
cult was limited to a particular area. Even the cult of saints of a more
universal rank often varied regionally. The precise selection of saints
to be venerated, the degrees of ceremony with which this was done,
and the calendar which governed it, were thus characteristic of differ-
ent regions or dioceses; even sometimes of different cities or churches.
The particularities of sanctoral calendars in different manuscripts pro-
vide one important criterion for the diocesan localization of service-
books.8
6
King, Liturgy of the Roman Church, pp. 31-38; Helmut Hucke, Toward a New
Historical View of Gregorian Chant , Journal of the American Musicological Soci-
ety 33 (1980), pp. 437-67.
7
Lyon: see King, Liturgies of the Primatial Sees, pp. 1-154. Sarum, York: see King,
Liturgies of the Past, pp. 276-374. Dominicans: see Archdale A. King, Liturgies of
the Religious Orders, London, 1955, pp. 325-95.
8
E.g. Eef A. Overgaauw, Saints in Medieval Calendars from the Diocese of Utrecht
as Clues for the Localization of Manuscripts , Codices Manuscripti 16 (1992), pp.
81-97; cf. the description of the investigation of the liturgical manuscripts in Kas-
47
Differences, then, between local uses were numerous rather than

radical. They did not affect the basic style or structure of the mass or
office, but rather the precise selection of chants and prayers for the
feasts of the sanctorale, and to a very much lesser extent the tempo-
rale. And even here differences were less marked than may sometimes
be imagined: after all, the Corpus antiphonalium officii, compiled
from a mere twelve manuscripts, contains the bulk of office chants
found in all the European dioceses of the Roman rite.
It is important to insist on this because medieval drama scholars of-
ten sound over-optimistic about the precision of the information that
local liturgical books can provide. Binkley, for example, envisages
finding specific south German breviaries which could locate the
(Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel and the Carmina Burana man-
uscript.9 The probability is remote. Schuler s results show, and this
study of the St Gall Passion Play will confirm, that apart from biblical
verses performed to reciting tones, items from the repertoire of litur-
gical drama , and a few hymns, the vast majority of chants used in the
Passion and Easter plays are office chants from the temporale (Epiph-
any, Lent and Easter); and these are precisely the chants which show
hardly any local variation. Diocesan differences here hardly ever con-
cern the particular chants used, or divergences in wording or melody,
but simply the order in which they were sung in the various hours.
sel in Konrad Wiedemann, Manuscripta theologica: Die Handschriften in Folio,

Wiesbaden, 1994 [in Hans-Jürgen Kahlfuß (ed.), Die Handschriften der Gesamt-
hochschulbibliothek Kassel Landesbibliothek und Murhardsche Bibliothek, 1:1],
pp. XXIV-XXIX.
9
Binkley, The Greater Passion Play from Carmina Burana , pp. 152-53; cf. pp.
149-50, 156.
48
Liturgical Sources
Before any localization on liturgical criteria can be undertaken, how-
ever, one must have a reasonable corpus of liturgical works which can
be reliably dated and linked to dioceses. This is provided by only one
of the dioceses in question, Mainz, which has preserved an extensive
range of liturgical books from the early Middle Ages to the present
day, and subjected it to intensive scholarly study. By comparison, the
traditions of the other two dioceses are patchily preserved and much
less fully investigated.
Diocese of Mainz
Mainz, a bishopric since the second century, was by the time of the
Anglo-Saxon missionary Boniface (bishop, c. 746-54) the ecclesiasti-
cal centre of Germany. It became the largest German church province,
at its greatest extent containing fifteen suffragan dioceses; its arch-
bishop was primate of Germany, chancellor and senior elector of the
Holy Roman Empire. As well as the Cathedral, the city of Mainz was
home to numerous collegiate churches and religious houses. In the
wake of the French ocupation (Treaty of Lunéville, 1801) the old
Mainz diocese was abolished in 1803, and the present-day one is con-
siderably smaller.10
The main collections of manuscript and printed Mainz liturgical
sources are in the library of the Mainz Bischöfliches Priesterseminar
(Diocesan Seminary), now known as the Martinusbibliothek, the
Stadtbibliothek Mainz, the Stadt- und Universitätsbibliothek Frankfurt
10
Karl Heinemeyer, Mainz I , in Gerhard Krause & Gerhard Müller (eds.), Theolo-
gische Realenzyklopädie, Berlin, 1977-, vol. XXI, pp. 710-17; Anton Brück,
Mainz , in Josef Höfer & Karl Rahner (eds.), Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche,
11 vols., Freiburg, 1957-67 [2nd ed.], vol. VI, cols. 1300-05; idem, Mainz , in
Kurt Galling et al. (eds.), Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart: Handwör-
terbuch für Theologie und Religionswissenschaft, 6 vols. and index, Tübingen,
1957-65 [3rd ed.], vol. IV, cols 614-17, all citing the relevant historical literature.
49
am Main, the Stiftsbibliothek Aschaffenburg, the Universitätsbiblio-

thek Würzburg, and the Landesbibliothek and Murhardsche Bibliothek
Kassel, particularly rich in books from Fritzlar, a Mainz outpost in
Fulda diocese where a local variant of Mainz liturgy was used, but
with the Mainz ordo applying till 1359.11 Smaller collections are
found in other libraries and archives, notably the Vatican, the Guten-
bergmuseum Mainz (printed books only), the Dom- und Diözesanar-
chiv Mainz, the Dombibliothek Fritzlar, the Universitäts- und Landes-
bibliothek Darmstadt, the Chorstift Kiedrich, the Bistumsarchiv
Speyer, the library of the Gymnasium am Kaiserdom, Speyer, and the
Stadtarchive of Darmstadt, Mainz and Würzburg.12
11
Published catalogues: Gerhard List & Gerhardt Powitz, Die Handschriften der
Stadtbibliothek Mainz, vol. I: Hs. I 1 - Hs. I 150, Wiesbaden, 1990; Clemens Köt-
telwesch (ed.), Die Kataloge der Stadt- und Universitätsbibliothek Frankfurt am
Main, 3 vols., Frankfurt, 1968-79, vol. I: Gerhardt Powitz, Die Handschriften des
Dominikanerklosters und des Leonhardstifts in Frankfurt am Main (1968), vol. II:
Gerhardt Powitz & Herbert Buck, Die Handschriften des Bartholomaeusstifts und
des Karmeliterklosters in Frankfurt am Main (1974), vol. III: Karin Bredehorn &
Gerhardt Powitz, Die mittelalterlichen Handschriften der Gruppe Manuscripta la-
tina (1979); Josef Hofmann & Hermann Hauke, Die Handschriften der Stifts-
bibliothek und der Stiftskirche zu Aschaffenburg, Aschaffenburg, 1978 (Veröffent-
lichungen des Geschichts- und Kunstvereins Aschaffenburg e.V., 16); Die Hand-
schriften der Universitätsbibliothek Würzburg, vol. II: Hans Thurn, Handschriften
aus benediktinischen Provenienzen, I, Wiesbaden, 1973; vol. IV: idem, Die Hand-
schriften der kleinen Provenienzen und Fragmente, Wiesbaden, 1995; Wiedemann,
Manuscripta theologica, pp. XXIV-XXIX, esp. XXVI; cf. Karl E. Demandt, Das
Chorherrenstift St. Peter zu Fritzlar: Quellen und Studien zu seiner mittelalterli-
chen Gestalt und Geschichte, Marburg, 1985 (Veröffentlichungen der Historischen
Kommission für Hessen, 49), p. 536.
12
Published catalogues: Henricus Stevenson Jr., Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae
codices manu scripti recensiti, vol. I: Codices Palatini latini, Roma, 1886; more
detailed information in Pierre Salmon, Les manuscrits liturgiques de la Bibliothè-
que Vaticane: Studi e Testi, 5 vols., Vaticano, 1968-72; Gerhard List, Die Hand-
schriften der Dombibliothek Fritzlar, Wiesbaden, 1984; Leo Eizenhöfer & Her-
mann Knaus, Die Handschriften der Hessischen Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek
Darmstadt, vol. II: Die liturgischen Handschriften der Hessischen Landes- und
Hochschulbibliothek Darmstadt, Wiesbaden, 1968.
50
Mainz liturgy has enjoyed extensive scholarly investigation.13 A

particularly important modern figure is Hermann Reifenberg, who has
published studies of the Mainz office, mass and other liturgical tradi-
tions, identifying and listing many manuscript and printed sources, no-
tably those in the Mainz Seminary.14 More recently the Mainz ordo
13
Esp. Adam Gottron, Tausend Jahre Musik in Mainz, Mainz-Berlin, 1964 [2nd ed.]
(Mainz: Geschichte und Kultur einer Stadt, 2); idem, Mainz , in Friedrich Blume
(ed.), Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 16 vols., Kassel, 1949-79), vol.
VIII, cols 1522-29; Theodor Heinrich Klein, Die Prozessionsgesänge der Mainzer
Kirche aus dem 14. bis 18. Jahrhundert, Speyer, 1962 (Quellen und Abhandlungen
zur mittelrheinischen Kirchengeschichte, 7); Georg Paul Köllner, Der Accentus
Moguntinus: Ein Beitrag zur Frage des Mainzer Chorals , Diss. Johannes-
Gutenberg-Universität, Mainz, 1950; idem, Die Bedeutung des Johann Philipp
von Schönborn für die Reform des liturgischen Kirchengesangs , Kirchenmu-
sikalisches Jahrbuch 39 (1955), pp. 55-70; idem, Der Accentus Moguntinus nach
den Schönborn-Drucken , Kirchenmusikalisches Jahrbuch 40 (1956), pp. 44-62;
idem, Zur Tradition des Accentus Moguntinus , Kirchenmusikalisches Jahrbuch
42 (1958), 39-46; Johannes Rau, Tropus und Sequenz im Mainzer Cantatorium
Cod. Lond. Add. 19768 , Diss. Universität Heidelberg, 1959; Hermann Reifen-
berg, Messe und Missalien im Bistum Mainz seit dem Zeitalter der Gotik, Münster,
1960 (Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen, 37); idem, Stunden-
gebet und Breviere im Bistum Mainz seit der romanischen Epoche, Münster, 1964
(Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen, 40); idem, Sakramente, Sa-
kramentalien und Ritualien im Bistum Mainz seit dem Spätmittelalter, 2 vols.,
Münster, 1971-72 (Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen, 53-54);
Karlheinz Schlager, Über den Choralgesang in Mainz , Archiv für Mittelrheini-
sche Kirchengeschichte 27 (1975), pp. 19-26, esp. 24-26; Andreas Ludwig Veit,
Kirche und Kirchenreform in der Erzdiözese Mainz im Zeitalter der Glaubens-
spaltung und der beginnenden tridentinischen Reformation (1517-1618), Freiburg,
1920 (Erläuterungen und Ergänzungen zu Janssens Geschichte des deutschen Vol-
kes, 10:3); idem, Kirchliche Reformbestrebungen im ehemaligen Erzstift Mainz
unter Erzbischof Johann Philipp von Schönborn, 1647-1673, Freiburg, 1910 (Stu-
dien und Darstellungen aus dem Gebiete der Geschichte, 7:3); Stephan Alexander
Würdtwein, Commentatio historico-liturgica de stationibus ecclesiae Moguntinae,
ex antiquitatibus ecclesiasticis eruta et addito ecclesiarum Trevirensis et Colo-
niensis ritu illustrata, Mainz [= Frankfurt], 1782.
14
See, apart from the works referred to in footnote 13, also his unpublished theo-
logical dissertation Der Ordo Missae Moguntinus seit dem 14. Jahrhundert , Uni-
versität Mainz, 1952; Vom Missale Moguntinum des Jahres 1602 zum Missale
51
has been further investigated by Konrad Wiedemann, in the course of

cataloguing the many Mainz liturgical manuscripts in the Hessische
Landesbibliothek Kassel.15 Other Mainz liturgica have been, or are
presently being, reliably catalogued and inventorized.16
This remarkable corpus shows that the distinctive diocesan use, the
Mainz-römischer Ritus , remained amazingly stable throughout the
medieval period. It is found in the manuscripts and earliest printed
books, the latest being the ritual of 1513, the breviary of 1517 and the
missal of 1520.17 After Trent, a very limited accommodation to the
Roman liturgy was made: the reformierter Mainz-römischer Ritus ,
first seen in the breviary of 1570, the ritual of 1599 and the missal of
1602.18 A thoroughgoing liturgical Romanization came only in the
seventeenth century, reaching fruition under the two archbishops Jo-
hann Philipp and Lothar Franz von Schönborn.19 This Romanized
Mainz liturgy was enshrined in impressive printed books, the most
magnificent being the antiphonal Cantus Gregoriano-Moguntinus of
1666 and 1667, and the Graduale of 1671, where a Roman text was
Romano-Moguntinum von 1698 , Archiv für Mittelrheinische Kirchangeschichte

13 (1961), pp. 432-39; and Mainzer Liturgie vor dem Hintergrund des Mainzer
Chorals , Archiv für Mittelrheinische Kirchengeschichte 27 (1975), pp. 9-17.
15
Wiedemann, Manuscripta theologica, pp. XXIV-XXIX.
16
E.g. those in Frankfurt am Main, Stadt- und Universitätsbibliothek; Fritzlar, Dom-
bibliothek; cf. List, Handschriften der Dombibliothek Fritzlar, p. VII; Mainz,
Stadtbibliothek; cf. List & Powitz (eds.), Handschriften der Stadtbibliothek Mainz,
vol I: Hs. I 1 - Hs. I 150, p. 7.
17
Agenda Maguntin[a] [...], Mainz, 1513, [two printings]; Enchiridion seu Breui-
arium: secundum morem insignis ecclesie Moguntine [ ], Mainz, 1517; Missalis
Moguntiaci [ ] opus [ ] [Speyer], 1520. See Reifenberg, Vom Missale Mogun-
tinum , pp. 432-33, esp. note 4.
18
Breviarium Moguntinum [...] integritati pristinæ fidelißimè restitutum, Köln, 1570;
Agenda Ecclesiae Moguntinensis [ ], Mainz, 1599; Missale Moguntinum [ ] ad
pristinam normam ac ordinem Breuiarii restitutum, Mainz, 1602. See Reifenberg,
Vom Missale Moguntinum , pp. 432-33, esp. note 3.
19
Köllner, Die Bedeutung des Johann Philipp von Schönborn ; Reifenberg, Vom
Missale Moguntinum ; idem, Stundengebet, pp. 24-30, 255.
52
married, not always very comfortably, with the traditional Mainz

melodies.20 The ritual, however, remained comparatively unchanged,
effectively staying in the reformierter Mainz-römischer Ritus phase
till the mid-twentieth century.21
Mainz liturgical books have already been dealt with in consid-
erable detail in an extensive secondary literature. What follows is not
a complete list but only a comment on those consulted for this study.
The Mainz Ordo

Authoritative for the medieval Mainz ordo is Mainz, Martinus-
bibliothek, Hs. 92, the Sakristeibuch of Mainz Cathedral, which com-
bines the Cathedral liber ordinarius with a list of payments to canons,
rubrics of Cathedral ceremonies, and a chronicle. Begun in 1544, it
has additional entries from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.22 It
is usefully supplemented by three manuscripts in the Landesbibliothek
Kassel. Ms. 2o theol. 143 is a mid-fourteenth-century breviary, psalter
and liber ordinarius of the Mainz collegiate churches, identified dur-
ing the cataloguing of the Kassel manuscripts; Ms. 2o theol. 138 and
20
Cantus Gregoriano-Moguntinus Breviario Romano accommodatus, Mainz, 1666-
67, 2 vols.: Pars hiemalis and Pars aestiva; Graduale Missali Romano, cantui vero
Gregoriano-Moguntino accommodatum [ ], Mainz, 1671. See Köllner, Die Be-
deutung des Johann Philipp von Schönborn , pp. 57-60. Text-only books: Hebdo-
madarium et commune sanctorum, Mainz, 1665; Missale Romano-Moguntinum,
Mainz, 1698. See Köllner, Die Bedeutung des Johann Philipp von Schönborn , pp.
57 and 69.
21
Rituale sive Agenda ad usum Ecclesiarum Metropolitanae Moguntinae, et Cathe-
dralium Herbipolensis et Wormatiensis [...], Würzburg, 1671; Rituale sive Agenda,
ad usum Ecclesiae Metropolitanae Moguntinae [ ], Mainz, 1695; Rituale sive
Agenda, Ad usum Archi-Di ceseos Moguntinæ [...], Mainz, 1696. See Reifenberg,
Vom Missale Moguntinum , p. 433, note 8.
22
Mainz, Martinusbibliothek, Hs. 92: Registrum praesentiarum secundum chorum
ecclesiae Maguntinae. Other relevant sources include Mainz, Martinusbibliothek,
Hs. 3, Calendarium praesentiarum and liber ordinarius for special feasts, second
half of the fourteenth century; and various libri ordinarii for the Mainz collegiate
churches; listed in Wiedemann, Manuscripta theologica, p. XXVII, note 1.
53
Ms. 2o theol. 99 are two examples of a combined liber ordinarius and

collectar from the collegiate church of St Peter, Fritzlar, respectively
from the early thirteenth and the first half of the fifteenth century; they
illustrate the Fritzlar variant of the Mainz ordo.23
Mass
Mainz graduals and missals are extant from the early Middle Ages.
About twenty have been consulted; they are listed in the bibliography.
Particularly useful is Frankfurt, Stadt- und Universitätsbibliothek,
Barth. 107, a combined missal and ritual of the first half of the four-
teenth century. Since notated sources from the early fourteenth cen-
tury are very rare, melodies have been identified in Frankfurt, Stadt-
und Universitätsbibliothek, Ms. lat. qu. 44, a gradual of the second
quarter of the fifteenth century used in the important collegiate church
of Sankt Bartholomäus, Frankfurt.24 Though considerably later than
the period of the St Gall Passion Play, it has the advantage of present-
ing a full, uniform corpus of notated mass chants unavailable in any
earlier book; its contents have routinely been checked against the wide
range of Mainz mass books from various parts of the diocese, in-
cluding Fritzlar and Würzburg, and the printed Mainz gradual of
1500.25 This has confirmed that the chants of the medieval Mainz lit-
urgy show a remarkable degree of textual and melodic stability. There
23
2o theol. 143: Wiedemann, Manuscripta theologica, pp. 198-202; 2o theol. 138:
ibid., pp. 187-88; 2o theol. 99: ibid., pp. 117-19.
24
Bredehorn & Powitz, Die mittelalterlichen Handschriften der Gruppe Manuscripta
latina, Frankfurt, 1979 (Köttelwesch [ed.], Kataloge der Stadt- und Universi-
tätsbibliothek Frankfurt am Main, 3), pp. 32-33.
25
Fritzlar: Kassel, Landesbibliothek, 2o Ms. theol. 100, neumed missal, thirteenth
century; 2o Ms. theol. 122, pars aestivalis, fourteenth century; 2o Ms. theol. 125,
pars hiemalis, fourteenth century; Würzburg: esp. Universitätsbibliothek, M. p. th.
f. 85, Mainz diocesan missal, mid-fourteenth century; printed Mainz gradual (no ti-
tle), [Speyer], 3 June 1500; printed Mainz missals also listed in the main liturgical
bibliography.
54
is no danger that the chants given in lat. qu. 44 misrepresent the form
which they took in the early fourteenth century.
Office
From the very wide range of Mainz office books, several from the
Frankfurt Stadt- und Universitätsbibliothek have been chosen as the
main sources. Three are text-only breviaries dating from the same pe-
riod as the St Gall Passion Play and coming from the same area. Ms.
Barth. 150 is a breviary for a Mainz collegiate church from the first
third of the fourteenth century, possibly written in the Liège diocese
and used in Frankfurt since the early fifteenth century. Barth. 160 is a
Mainz diocesan breviary of the fourteenth century, used in Sankt Bar-
tholomäus, Frankfurt, in the late part of that century. Barth. 161 is a
Mainz diocesan breviary (pars hiemalis) of the first half of the four-
teenth century, probably from the Rhine/Main area.26 As with the
mass chants, office chants have had to be taken from later books: the
matching pair of late-fifteenth-century antiphonals from Sankt Bar-
tholomäus, Frankfurt, Ms. lat. qu. 48 (pars hiemalis) and Ms. Barth.
94 (pars aestivalis).27 Again, a broad range of other office books,
manuscript and printed, has been consulted to ensure an overview of
the Mainz tradition.
Ritual
The ritual is an important source of several Holy Week chants, notably
those of the Palm Sunday Procession and the antiphons for the Man-
26
See detailed descriptions and inventories in Powitz & Buck, Die Handschriften des
Bartholomaeusstifts und des Karmeliterklosters in Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt,
1974 (Köttelwesch [ed.], Kataloge der Stadt- und Universitätsbibliothek Frankfurt
am Main, 2): Barth. 150 (Vellum, I+488 fols.): pp. 342-45; Barth. 160 (Vellum,
I+529 fols.): pp. 358-62; Barth. 161 (Vellum, I+461 fols.): pp. 362-64.
27
Lat. qu. 48: Bredehorn & Powitz, Die mittelalterlichen Handschriften der Gruppe
Manuscripta latina, pp. 37-39, esp. 37. Barth. 94: Powitz & Buck, Die Hand-
schriften des Bartholomaeusstifts und des Karmeliterkloster, pp. 205-06 esp. 205.
55
datum or washing of feet on Maundy Thursday. Because they are used

only once every year, and at ceremonies which are not an integral part
of mass or office, these chants are very often missing from graduals,
missals, antiphonals and breviaries.28
Medieval rituals in Mainz, as in many other dioceses, are much
rarer than liturgical books of other kinds. Apart from Frankfurt, Ms.
Barth. 107, a combined missal and ritual of the first half of the four-
teenth century, there are only Darmstadt, Universitäts- und Landesbib-
liothek, Hs. 3183, a festal and votive missal and ritual written for a
parish church in about 1175, Vatican, cod. pal. lat. 488 (fifteenth cen-
tury, noted) and cod. pal. lat. 490 (fourteenth century, from the Abbey
of Lorsch).29 None contains Mandatum liturgy; the two Vatican books
are particularly sparse. The printed diocesan rituals of 1480, c. 1492
and 1513 preserve the medieval liturgy, but offer more detail than the
earlier manuscripts, and are often quoted in this study; that of 1551 al-
ready shows some accommodation to Roman models, but sometimes
confirms the older tradition.30
28
Cyrille Vogel, Introduction aux sources de l histoire du culte chrétien au moyen
âge, Spoleto, 1981 (Biblioteca degli Studi Medievali, 1), pp. 215-33; Jean-Baptiste
Molin & Annick Aussedat-Minvielle, Répertoire des rituels et processionaux
imprimés conservés en France, Paris, 1984, pp. 9-17.
29
Barth. 107: Powitz & Buck, Die Handschriften des Bartholomaeusstifts, pp. 247-
50, used in Sankt Bartholomäus, Frankfurt. Darmstadt 3183: ritual sections in man-
uscript, pp. 49-124, 177-202, 213-26; detailed inventory in Eizenhöfer & Knaus,
Die liturgischen Handschriften der Hessischen Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek
Darmstadt, pp. 120-23. Vatican, cod. pal. lat. 488 and 490: Stevenson, Codices
Palatini, vol. I, pp. 159, 160; Salmon, Manuscrits liturgiques, vol. III, nos 198,
199.
30
Mainz ritual: Mainz, 1480. See Reifenberg, Die Mainzer Inkunabel-Agende von
1480 ; Agenda ecclesie Moguntinensis, Straßburg, [c. 1492]; Agenda Maguntina:
Mainz, 1513; Agenda Ecclesiae Moguntinensis, Mainz, 1551. Cf. Reifenberg,
Vom Missale Moguntinum , p. 432, note 4.
56
Processional
Processionals, too, are a valuable source of antiphons and responsories
associated with particular feasts, and of information on diocesan ordo;
none, however, survive for Mainz from earlier than the fifteenth cen-
tury. Two in the Stadtbibliothek Mainz are a reliable witness to the use
of Mainz Cathedral. Hs. II 74, from the early fifteenth century, has
musical notation from the fifteenth, sixteenth-seventeenth, and seven-
teenth-eighteenth centuries; almost identical in content is Hs. II 303,
from late in the same century. Mainz, Martinusbibliothek, Hs. 118, is
a processional of Sankt Peter, Mainz, of the fifteenth-sixteenth cen-
tury; Aschaffenburg, Stiftsbibliothek, Ms. perg. 32, is a fifteenth-cen-
tury processional from Aschaffenburg.31
The numerous surviving seventeenth- and eighteenth-century man-
uscript processionals illustrate the great stability of the Mainz tra-
dition. Three are in the Mainz Martinusbibliothek: Hs. 110, from
Mainz Cathedral, with the title Processionale Sumptibus Joannis Kleij
Metropolitanae Ecclesiae Vicarij conscriptum. Anno 1704; Hs. 121,
from Liebfrauen in Mainz, 1762 (without musical notation); and Hs.
142, also probably from Liebfrauen, of the eighteenth century. Three
further Mainz Cathedral processionals, nearly identical to that of 1704
(Mainz, Martinusbibliothek, Hs. 110) are found in two Speyer libra-
ries, though the current catalogues identify them wrongly.32 They
31
Hofmann & Hauke, Handschriften der Stiftsbibliothek und der Stiftskirche zu
Aschaffenburg, pp. 69-71. No published catalogue for Mainz, Martinusbibliothek;
relevant volume for Mainz, Stadtbibliothek not yet published.
32
Speyer, Bistumsarchiv, Hs. 4 and Hs. 5, Mainz Cathedral processionals, early
eighteenth century; in 1999 still wrongly described in the handlist (Bestand A: Bü-
cher, Handschriften, Frühdrucke, Drucke) as Antiphonar [Speyer] [16./17. Jh.] .
Speyer, Gymnasialbibliothek, no shelfmark, Mainz Cathedral processional, early
eighteenth century, wrongly dated 1500 by Klaus Finkel, Die Speyrer Domkantorei
im Mittelalter, Speyer, 1975 (Schriften des Diözesanarchivs Speyer, 1), pp. 12-13.
Described in 1999 as Psalterium in the Gymnasium library handlist. Cf. Jürgen
Vorderstemann, Die Büchersammlungen des Speyerer Domes in tausend Jahren:
57
came to Speyer in 1825 from a collection of displaced Mainz Cathe-

dral liturgica in Aschaffenburg.33
A detailed observation on one book is in order here. The attribution
of Hs. 100 of the Mainz Martinusbibliothek, a processional of the fif-
teenth or early sixteenth century, to Mainz Cathedral by Klein is al-
most certainly a mistake.34 Neither its processional stations nor its
antiphons match those in guaranteed Cathedral sources.35 There is no
reference to the distinctive spatial order of the Cathedral, with its two
choirs, the eastern one always called the chorus ferreus in Mainz
processionals.36 Most of the distinctive Mainz saints are absent, most
strikingly the Mainz patron Boniface and the responsory Felix Mo-
guntinensis populus for his feast; so is O Martine o pie (Corpus an-
tiphonalium officii 4038), a trademark Mainz chant which would
Ein Überblick aus Anlaß der 950-Jahr-Feier im Jahre 1980 , Archiv für Mit-
telrheinische Kirchengeschichte 33 (1981), pp. 45-61, esp. 61 and note 78.
33
Vorderstemann, Die Büchersammlungen , pp. 60-61.
34
Klein, Prozessionsgesänge, p. 16. Also Walther Lipphardt, Die Mainzer Visitatio
sepulchri , in Ursula Hennig & Herbert Kolb (eds.), Mediævalia litteraria: Fest-
schrift für Helmut de Boor zum 80. Geburtstag, München, 1971, pp. 177-91, esp.
177 and 179; idem, Lateinische Osterfeiern und Osterspiele, 9 vols., Berlin 1975-
90, vol. VI, p. 322; and Renate Amstutz, Ludus de decem virginibus: Recovery of
the Sung Liturgical Core of the Thuringian Zehnjungfrauenspiel , Toronto, 2002
(Studies and Texts, 140), p. xxv.
35
Mainz, Stadtbibliothek, Hs. II 74, Mainz Cathedral processional ( Processionale
des Domsängers von Eltz ), early fifteenth century, with musical notation from the
fifteenth, sixteenth-seventeenth, and seventeenth-eighteenth centuries; Hs. II 303,
Mainz Cathedral processional, late fifteenth century, almost identical to Hs. II 74;
Mainz, Martinusbibliothek, Hs. 92, the Sakristeibuch of Mainz Cathedral, includ-
ing the liber ordinarius of the Cathedral; Hs. 110, Mainz Cathedral processional,
1704; Speyer, Bistumsarchiv, Hs. 4 and Hs. 5, Mainz Cathedral processionals,
early eighteenth century; Speyer, Gymnasialbibliothek, no shelfmark, Mainz Ca-
thedral processional, early eighteenth century.
36
E.g. Mainz, Martinusbibliothek, Hs. 110, fols. 55v, 98; Hs. 92, fols. 80, 127;
Mainz, Stadtbibliothek, Hs. II 303, fols. 42, 61.
58
figure in any genuine source of the Cathedral use.37 The Visitatio sep-
ulchri ceremony has the Quem quaeritis dialogue in the older first
form used in Mainz (and numerous other dioceses), but not the rhyth-
mic chant Ad sepulchrum Domini gementes venimus which is a
Mainz speciality.38 Finally, the manuscript has five-line staves, where-
as, as Klein notes,39 medieval Mainz processionals uniformly use a
four-line stave. This book s provenance, and whether it was actually
used in Mainz, are interesting, and at present intractable questions; but
it cannot be regarded as a genuine source of Mainz liturgy.40 This is
important for the localization of one St Gall Passion Play chant, no.
36, Fides etenim (see Chapter V).
There are no printed Mainz processionals. Since Pflanz several
times cites later Mainz books, several have been quoted where rele-
vant.41
37
Felix Moguntinensis populus (not in René-Jean Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium
officii, Roma, 1963-79, 6 vols. (Rerum ecclesiasticarum documenta. Series maior.
Fontes, 7-12) or CANTUS. A Database for Latin Ecclesiastical Chant. URL: http://
publish.uwo.ca/~cantus); Klein, Prozessionsgesänge, pp. 90-91. O Martine : e.g.
Mainz, Martinusbibliothek, Hs. 110, fol. 3v; Mainz, Stadtbibliothek, Hs. II 74, fols.
2, 60v-61; Hs. II 303, fol. 2; cf. Stephan Alexander Würdtwein, Commentatio his-
torico-liturgica de stationibus ecclesiae Moguntinae, ex antiquitatibus ecclesiasti-
cis eruta et addito ecclesiarum Trevirensis et Coloniensis ritu illustrata, Mainz [=
Frankfurt], 1782, p. 101. Melody in Klein, Prozessionsgesänge, pp. 126-28.
38
Mainz, Martinusbibliothek, Hs. 100, fols. 35v-38v, Lipphardt, Lateinische Os-
terfeiern und Osterspiele, no. 257 Mainz8. The chant Ad sepulchrum Domini ,
found in Mainz ceremonies (ibid., nos. 207 Frankfurt, 209 Fritzlar2, 252-56 Mainz3-
7
), is die typisch mainzische Fassung der Botschaftsantiphon (ibid., vol. IX, p.
946).
39
Klein, Prozessionsgesänge, pp. 141-42.
40
The Mainz Martinusbibliothek handlist of manuscripts makes no diocesan attri-
bution.
41
Breviarium Moguntinum [ ], Köln, 1570; Cantus Gregoriano-Moguntinus Bre-
viario Romano accommodatus; Graduale Missali Romano, cantui vero Gregoria-
no-Moguntino accommodatum [ ], Mainz, 1671; Mainz processionals, Speyer,
Bistumsarchiv, Hss. 4 and 5, and Speyer, Gymnasialbibliothek, no shelfmark; Ri-
tuale sive Agenda, Ad usum Archi-Di ceseos Moguntinæ [ ], Mainz, 1696.
59
Diocese of Worms
The Worms liturgy is by far the least well preserved of all three dio-
ceses. Worms was a bishopric since the fourth century, and by the
twelfth one of the most important in Germany. But there were swinge-
ing losses of churches and revenue at the Reformation, and in the sev-
enteenth century, devastation at the hands of both the Swedes and the
French. Changes in secular government meant that the diocese lost ter-
ritory to Mainz in 1802, and ceased to exist altogether in 1806.42 Thus
not only are the diocese s books and archives destroyed or dispersed,
but local diocesan pride, an important motivation for scholars of di-
ocesan history and liturgy, no longer exists either. There is no pub-
lished scholarship on the Worms liturgy.
The few surviving manuscripts are nearly all from the same very
limited period, the middle to later fifteenth century, and their contents
are the same as the early printed breviaries and missals. The historical
dimension is thus particularly lacking in our knowledge of Worms lit-
urgy; however, the analogy of the demonstrably conservative tradi-
tions of Mainz and Speyer suggests that the Worms liturgy of the early
fourteenth century will not have been markedly different from that of
the fifteenth.
42
F. M. Illert, Worms , in Höfer & Rahner (eds.), Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche,
vol. X, cols. 1224-29; H. Gensicke, Worms , in Kurt Galling et al. (eds.), Die Re-
ligion in Geschichte und Gegenwart: Handwörterbuch für Theologie und Reli-
gionswissenschaft, Tübingen, 1957-65 [3rd ed.], 7 vols., vol. VI, col. 1808, both
citing secondary literature, of which see esp. Johann Friedrich Schannat, Historia
Episcopatus Wormatiensis pontificum romanorum bullis, regum, imperatorum dip-
lomatibus [ ] aliisque pluribus documentis authenticis asserta ac illustrata [ ],
Frankfurt am Main, 1734; Hans Meyer, Die Diözese Worms im Mittelalter , Bei-
träge zur hessischen Kirchengeschichte und Altertumskunde, N.F., Ergänzungs-
band 9 (1931), pp. 340-431, citing further sources on pp. 341-42, and idem, To-
pographie der Diözese Worms im Mittelalter , Archiv für hessische Geschichte und
Altertumskunde, N.F. 17 (1932), pp. 1-92, citing further sources on pp. 2-3, and in-
cluding map.
60
The Worms Ordo

The only manuscript Worms liber ordinarius is Vatican, cod. pal. lat.
521 and 522 (fourteenth-fifteenth century, from the Heilig-Geist-
Kirche in Heidelberg; there are two printed annual ordines for 1482-
83 and 1488-89.43
Mass
No manuscript Worms mass books, with or without notation, are
known to survive. Printed missals of 1488 and 1522 are unnotated.44
No copies of an alleged edition of 1572 are known to exist.45
Office
As far as is known, not a single Worms antiphonal or other neumed or
noted source of the Worms office has survived. Eleven manuscript
breviaries are extant. The oldest, Vatican, cod. pal. lat. 518, is a pars
hiemalis dated 1401.46 The others there (cod. pal. lat. 515, 516, 519,
520, 524, 530/531), are from the fifteenth and early sixteenth centu-
43
Cod. pal. lat. 521, 522: Stevenson, Codices Palatini, vol. I, p. 172; Salmon, Ma-nu-
scrits liturgiques, vol. I, no. 177; H. Ehrensburger, Libri liturgici bibliothecae
apostolicae Vaticanae manuscripti, Freiburg, 1897, p. 570. Lipphardt, Lateinische
Osterfeiern und Osterspiele, vol. VI, p. 408, dates it 1445-82. Worms annual ordo,
September 1482-April 1483, (No title), [Straßburg, 1482]; Worms annual ordo,
September 1488-April 1489, (No title), [Speyer, 1488].
44
Worms missal, (No title), [Basel, 1488], two printings, with slightly different
foliation; Missale secundum ritum et obseruantiam Ecclesie & diocesis worma-
tiensis, [Speyer], 1522.
45
William H.J. Weale, Bibliographia liturgica: Catalogus Missalium ritus latini ab
anno 1474 impressorum; [ed.] Hanns Bohatta, London-Leipzig, 1928 [rpt. Stutt-
gart, 1990], no. 1652; Joseph Basile Bernard van Praet, Catalogue des livres im-
primés sur vélin, qui se trouvent dans les bibliothèques tant publiques que particu-
lières [ ], Paris, 1824-28, 4 vols., vol. I, 145, 417.
46
Stevenson, Codices Palatini, p. 171; Salmon, Manuscrits liturgiques, vol. I, no.
288.
61
ries.47 The remaining ones are: London, British Library, MS add.

19415, a very fine complete breviary written in about 1475;48 Worms,
Stadtbibliothek, Lutherbibliothek 3a, a pars aestivalis of about the
same date;49 and Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Ms. lat. 1310, a com-
plete breviary written for Reinhard von Sickingen, bishop of Worms
1445-82.50 All surviving manuscript breviaries are thus of the fifteenth
or early sixteenth century, and contain the same liturgy as the early
printed books (six breviaries and two Lenten diurnals).51 If earlier me-
dieval Worms liturgy differed, there is no longer any way of knowing.
47
Stevenson, Codices Palatini, pp. 170-73; Salmon, Manuscrits liturgiques, vol. I,
nos 285, 286, 289, 290, 292, 298. Gerhard Pietzsch, Zur Musikgeschichte von
Speyer vor der Reformation , Archiv für Mittelrheinische Kirchengeschichte 9
(1957), pp. 51-67, esp. 51, note 2, is almost certainly wrong in pairing cod. pal. lat.
515, a pars hiemalis, with 514, a pars aestivalis from Speyer. Salmon, Manuscrits
liturgiques, vol. I, no. 285, attributes 515 to Worms; also 514 (cf. ibid., no. 284) is
written on paper, 515 on vellum.
48
Vellum, 658 fols., simply illuminated initials. Fol. 2v: calendar and computus; fol.
26: psalter; fol. 98: commune sanctorum; fol. 128: registrum adventus; fol. 141:
proprium de tempore (pars hiemalis); fol. 271: proprium de sanctis (pars hie-
malis); fol. 326: proprium de tempore (pars aestivalis); fol. 461: proprium de sanc-
tis (pars aestivalis). The computus is calculated from 1475 (fol. 15, 18, 18v and
22v). See Catalogue of Additions to the Manuscripts in the British Museum in the
Years MDCCCXLVIII-MDCCCLIII, London, 1868 [rpt. 1965], p. 240.
49
Vellum, 363 fols. Fol. 1: calendar; fol. 6a: Sunday liturgy; fol. 18vb: proprium de
tempore (pars aestivalis); fol. 173a: proprium de sanctis (pars aestivalis); fol. 302a:
dedicatio ecclesiae; fol. 306va: commune sanctorum; fol. 363v: Jacob Hofmann
Meßner, 1615 . The manuscript was unaccountably missing from the Worms
Stadtbibliothek in September 2002.
50
Vellum, XI+367 fols. Fol. 1: psalter; fol. 71: commune sanctorum; fol. 91v: pro-
prium de tempore (pars hiemalis); fol. 163: proprium de sanctis (pars hiemalis);
fol. 198: proprium de tempore (pars aestivalis); fol. 264v: proprium de sanctis
(pars aestivalis); fol. 347v: dedication of church; fol. 350v: hymnary; cf. Biblio-
thèque Nationale, Catalogue général des manuscrits latins, Paris, 1939-83, 12
vols., vol. I, p. 491.
51
Worms breviary (no title), [Marienthal, c. 1475]; Worms breviary (no title),
[Speyer, c. 1483]; Worms breviary (no title), [Straßburg, c. 1490]. Worms breviary
(no title), [Speyer, c. 1495]; only the pars aestivalis of the proprium de tempore
and the proprium sanctorum survives; Breviarium juxta ritum et ordinem Ecclesie
62
Ritual
Complete manuscript rituals attributable to Worms do not exist. Two
relevant fifteenth-century manuscripts in the Bibliotheca Palatina in
the Vatican are of uncertain provenance.52 Other relevant manuscripts
in the same collection are brief ritualis elementa, skeletal references to
ritual material in liturgical books of other kinds.53 These usually con-
tain blessing formulae, but not the important liturgies for the Palm
Sunday procession and the Maundy Thursday Mandatum or foot-
washing, ceremonies whose chants often appear in religious drama.
The printed ritual of about 1500-10 is the only one extant before sev-
eral printed in the eighteenth century.54
Wormatiensis, Mainz, 1516; Breviarium iuxta ritum et ordinem ecclesiae Worma-

tiensis [...], Mainz, 1576; Diurnale quadragesimale secundum ordinem ecclesie
Wormatiensis, [s.l., c. 1490; Diurnale quadragesimale secundum dyocesim wor-
maciensem. vna cum lxx. et quinquagesima de tempore et Sanctis nouiter additis,
[Speyer, c. 1505].
52
Vatican, cod. pal. lat. 484, noted ritual, fifteenth cemtury, including Mandatum
(Stevenson, Codices Palatini, p. 155; Salmon, Manuscrits liturgiques, vol. III, no.
196); cod. pal. lat. 619, miscellany, twelfth-thirteenth century (including ritualis
elementa [Worms or Trier?]) (Stevenson, Codices Palatini, pp. 222-24; Salmon,
Manuscrits liturgiques, vol. III, nos 196, 210).
53
Vatican, cod. pal. lat. 509, Dominican missal, Heidelberg, fourteenth century, fols.
237-38 (Stevenson, Codices Palatini, p. 169; Salmon, Manuscrits liturgiques, vol.
II, no. 323, vol. III, no. 206); cod. pal. lat. 516, Worms breviary, fifteenth century,
fol. 2 (Stevenson, Codices Palatini, p. 170; Salmon, Manuscrits liturgiques, vol. I,
no. 286, vol. III, no. 207); cod. pal. lat. 520, Worms nocturnal, fifteenth century,
fols. 365-67 (Stevenson, Codices Palatini, p. 171; Salmon, Manuscrits liturgiques,
vol. II, no. 290, III, no. 209).
54
Agenda secundum ritum & ordinem ecclesie wormaciensis, [Speyer, c. 1500-10]
(dated c. 1500 by the Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, Leipzig [etc.], 1925-, no.
477, c. 1510 by the Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachbereich erschienenen
Drucke des XVI. Jahrhunderts, Stuttgart, 1983-, no. A771); Agenda pastoralia,
sive Ritualia Archi-Dioecesium Moguntinae, Trevirensis, et Coloniensis, uti et in
Wormatiensi, Spirensi, aliisque dioecesibus [ ], Mainz, 1734; Rituale sive Agen-
da, ad usum dioeceseos Wormatiensis edita, ad normam Ritualis Romani accom-
63
Worms, Stadtarchiv, Abt. 106/1 is a fifteenth-century manual from

the Richardikonvent in Worms, a nunnery founded as a beguinage in
1288, but which became an Augustinian house in 1469. Though main-
ly taken up with monastic rites, it contains liturgy for the Palm Sunday
procession and the Mandatum.55
Processional
No medieval or early modern examples, manuscript or printed, are
known to survive. There is only the Processionale of 1777, much too
late to represent the earlier liturgy.56
Diocese of Speyer
A bishopric since the fourth century, Speyer, with its vast Salian
Kaiserdom , built 1030-1105, was still politically and ecclesiastically
important in 1486, when Wimpfeling praised the cathedral life and lit-
urgy.57 But like Worms, the diocese lost many churches and much
revenue at the Reformation, and was pillaged by the French in the
Pfalzzerstörung of 1689 and again in the aftermath of the Revolution.
Its boundaries and its size changed greatly after the French con-
modata [...], Mannheim, 1740; Compendium Ritualis Moguntini, Wormatiensis,

Spirensis et Trevirensis [ ], Mainz, 1752.
55
Previously Abt. 112/1. Vellum, 2+72 fols. Front endpaper, verso: Diß Manuall ist
der andechtigen geistlichen || schwesteren Jn dem riechen Conuent Jn der kei || ser-
lichen Stat Wormbz hinder Sanct Steffen . Fol. 1: clothing of a novice; fol. 3: pro-
fession of a nun; fol. 7: election of an abbess; fol. 11: communion of a sick nun;
fol. 11v: extreme unction; fol. 12v: penitential psalms; fol. 20: papal absolution; fol.
20v: death of a nun; fol. 38: communion of sick guests and servants; fol. 39: burial;
fol. 40: Candlemas; fol. 42v: Palm Sunday; fol. 49v: Maundy Thursday, including
Mandatum (fols. 52-57v); fol. 57v: Good Friday (excluding procession); fol. 62:
Easter Vigil; fol. 67v: miscellaneous blessings.
56
Processionale ad usum ecclesiarum collegiatarum civitatis Wormatiensis, Fran-
kenthal, 1777.
57
Jakob Wimpfeling, Laudes ecclesiae Spirensis, (ed.) Jodocus Gallus, Basel, 1486,
passim, esp. fol. 3v.
64
cordat of 1801; the modern diocese, founded in 1821, is much smaller

than the medieval one, and has completely different borders.58
The dearth of surviving Speyer liturgical sources is the result of
these vicissitudes, which scattered Speyer manuscripts, and destroyed
most of the Cathedral s liturgical collections.59 A comprehensive bib-
liography of primary and secondary sources on Speyer liturgy is given
by Rolf Bohlender.60
58
L. Litzenburger, Speyer , in Walter Kasper et al. (eds.), Lexikon für Theologie und
Kirche, Freiburg, 1993- [3rd ed.], vol. IX, cols. 961-63; K. Lutz, Speyer , in
Galling et al. (eds.), Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, vol. VI, cols. 241-
42, both citing relevant historical literature; see also Kurt Andermann, Hochstift
Speyer , in Meinrad Schaab and Hansmartin Schwarzmaier (eds.), Handbuch der
baden-württembergischen Geschichte, vol. II: Die Territorien im alten Reich,
Stuttgart, 1995, pp. 481-90.
59
Alois Lamott, Das Speyerer Diözesanrituale von 1512 bis 1932: Seine Geschichte
und seine Ordines zur Sakramentenliturgie, Speyer, 1961 (Quellen und Abhand-
lungen zur mittelrheinischen Kirchengeschichte, 5), § 1; Emil Gugumus, Ein
Speyerer Kalendar des 15. Jh. aus Cod. Pal. 514 der Vatikanischen Bibliothek ,
Archiv für Mittelrheinische Kirchengeschichte 11 (1959), pp. 245-53, esp. 245;
Vorderstemann, Die Büchersammlungen , pp. 50-56.
60
Rolf Bohlender, Dom und Bistum Speyer: Eine Bibliographie, Speyer, 1979 [2nd
ed.], esp. pp. 66-67, 80-81, 85-86, and 121-27. The most important secondary
literature for present purposes is: Hans Ammerich, Das Fürstbistum Speyer im
Zeichen der tridentinischen Erneuerung , Archiv für Mittelrheinische Kirchenge-
schichte 41 (1989), pp. 81-104; Albert Becker, Die Speyerer Palmsonntagspro-
zession , Palatina (1922), pp. 55-56; Hanns Bohatta, Bibliographie der Breviere,
1501-1850, Leipzig, 1937 [rpt. Stuttgart-Nieuwkoop, 1963], no. 259: Breviarium
Spirense; idem, Liturgische Bibliographie des XV. Jahrhunderts mit Ausnahme der
Missale und Livres d heures, Wien, 1911 [rpt. Hildesheim, 1960], no. 2: Agenda
Spirensis; no. 31: Breviarium Spirense; no. 40: Diurnale Spirense; [Anton Doll],
Die Karwoche im Speyerer Dom vor 500 Jahren , Der christliche Pilger 101
(1951), p. 164; Anton Doll, Eine Osterfeier im Dom zu Speyer. Nach einem Zere-
monienbuch des Domsakristans aus dem 16. Jahrhundert , Pfälzische Heimat-
blätter 2 (1954), p. 32; Ludwig Eid, Zur Geschichte der alten Speyerer Dom-
musik , Musica sacra 63 (1933), pp. 234-37; Klaus Finkel, Liturgisches Drama
am Mittelrhein , Kirchenmusikalisches Jahrbuch 57 (1973), pp. 25-28; idem, Mu-
sikalische Aufführungspraxis besonderer Meßstiftungen und Feierlichkeiten im
fürstbischöflichen Dom zu Speyer , Kirchenmusikalisches Jahrbuch 58-59 (1974-
65
What is clear from the surviving sources, however, is that, as in

many of the German dioceses, Speyer tradition was essentially con-
servative, even after the Romanization of the liturgy at Trent. The
printed breviary of 1591 shows no change from the medieval liturgy;
the use of the Roman Breviary and Missal in the diocese was ordered
only by Johann Hugo von Orsbeck, archbishop of Trier and bishop of
Speyer (1675-1711); he had a Speyer Proprium printed in 1707 as a
supplement to the Roman calendar.61
The surviving Speyer manuscripts and even the early printed litur-
gical books are generally described inadequately, and often wrongly,
in the relevant secondary literature. Since there is at present no single
secondary source where a correct detailed description of them all can
be found, such a description of them here is justified.
75), pp. 47-56; idem, Musik in Speyer: Ein Überblick zur Speyerer Musikgeschich-
te bis zur Gegenwart, Speyer, 1975 (Beiträge zur Speyerer Stadtgeschichte, 4);
idem, Die Speyrer Domkantorei; Gugumus, Ein Speyerer Kalendar des 15. Jh. ,
pp. 245-53; idem, Die alte Heidelberger Bibliotheca Palatina: Eine pfälzische For-
schungsaufgabe , Pfälzische Heimatblätter 9 (1961), pp. 19-21; idem, Dedicatio
Spirensis Ecclesie Antiqua: Zur Weihe des frühsalischen Domes im Jahr 1061 , in
Ludwig Stamer (ed.), 900 Jahre Speyerer Dom: Festschrift zum Jahrestag der
Domweihe, Speyer, 1961, pp. 175-87; Franz Haffner, Der Gründonnerstag im al-
ten Speyer , Die Rheinpfalz 19-20.4.1973, p. 15; Fritz Klotz, Zwei Blätter eines
Rituale des 15. Jahrhunderts , Pfälzische Heimat 15 (1964), pp. 103-04; Alois
Lamott, Zur Geschichte der Germansverehrung in der Speyerer Liturgie , in St.
German in Stadt und Bistum Speyer: Festschrift zur Weihe der Kirche des Pries-
terseminars St. German in Speyer, Speyer, 1957, pp. 49-71; idem, Speyerer Diöze-
sanrituale; idem, Codex Vindobonensis 1882: Ein Liber ordinarius des Speyerer
Domes aus dem 13. Jahrhundert , Archiv für Mittelrheinische Kirchengeschichte
13 (1961), pp. 27-48; Gerhard Pietzsch, Gedanken zu einer pfälzischen Mu-
sikgeschichte , Pfälzer Heimat 7 (1956), pp. 1-10; idem, Zur Musikgeschichte von
Speyer vor der Reformation ; Vorderstemann, Die Büchersammlungen .
61
Lamott, Geschichte der Germansverehrung , p. 51, note 36, citing further secon-
dary literature on the gradual displacement of the old Speyer use by the Roman lit-
urgy.
66
The Speyer Ordo

One of the main sources of the Speyer ordo is the Karsthans , the
Sakristeibuch of Speyer Cathedral, now Karlsruhe, Generallande-
sarchiv, 67/452. Begun between 1438 and 1470, it contains detailed
descriptions of the sacristan s duties as well as a calendar, liturgical
references and many historical notes.62
More details on the office ordo are found in Vienna, Österreichi-
sche Nationalbibliothek, Codex Vindobonensis 1882, a mid-thir-
teenth-century liber ordinarius of Speyer Cathedral.63 It contains
mixed temporal and sanctoral liturgy; chant incipits have unheighted
neumes.
The above manuscripts are usefully supplemented by a printed Di-
rectorium of 1522, several annual ordines, and even the officia pro-
pria printed in 1707, which preserves the medieval diocesan calendar
almost unchanged.64
Mass
The medieval mass liturgy is contained in a handful of manuscripts.
Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Codex Vindobonensis
62
Paper, 17+104 fols.; cf. Finkel, Liturgisches Drama am Mittelrhein , esp. pp. 25-
26.
63
Lamott, Codex Vindobonensis 1882 is more convincing than Finkel, Musik in
Speyer, p. 12, who describes it as a Speyer psalter with additions describing Speyer
customs.
64
Directorium horarum canonicarum secundum ritum dioecesis Spirensis dicenda-
rum [...], [s.l.], 1522; Bohlender, Dom und Bistum Speyer, no. 1426; Speyer ordi-
nes: 1483-84: [Speyer, 1483]; 1484-85: [Speyer, 1484]; 1493-94: [Speyer, 1493];
May-November 1494: [Speyer, 1494]; 1498-99: [Speyer, 1498]; 1507: Speyer,
1507; Bohlender, Dom und Bistum Speyer, no. 1424; 1514: Speyer, 1514; Bohlen-
der, Dom und Bistum Speyer, no. 1425; Officia propria sanctorum et patronorum
ecclesiae et dioecesis Spirensis ad formam breviarii Romani redacta [ ], Mainz,
1707; Bohlender, Dom und Bistum Speyer, no. 1410.
67
1845, is a missal probably written for Bamberg in about 1080 but used
in the Abbey of St Germanus in Speyer in the thirteenth century.65
Speyer, Bistumsarchiv, Hs. 1 is a Speyer Cathedral plenary missal
of about 1343, containing proper chants in Gothic notation on four-
line staves with a yellow c-line and a red F-line. It is very complete,
including material for the Palm Sunday procession and the Manda-
tum.66
Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 10076 is a Speyer mis-
sal of the mid-fourteenth century. Probably written by the Speyer
canon Conrad Bethilmann, it contains temporal and sanctoral liturgy
of the pars hiemalis. It was previously held in the Court Library at
Mannheim.67
Darmstadt, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek, Hs. 889, a festal
missal of about 1380, probably came from the Carmelite monastery of
Hirschhorn. It contains only the most important liturgies of the year,
and, though compatible with Speyer use, it has no specifically Speyer
feasts.68
65
Lamott, Germansverehrung , p. 50 and note 19; Lamott, Codex Vindobonensis
1882 , p. 27, note 2.
66
Previously Speyer, Dom- und Diözesanmuseum, D 467. Vellum, 9+320+7 fols.
Fol. 2: calendar; fol. ia: proprium de tempore; fol. ccxiiiva: proprium de sanctis; fol.
cclxxxxvva: commune sanctorum. See Lamott, Germansverehrung , p. 51 and note
28.
67
Fol. 1a: proprium de tempore (pars hiemalis); fol. 140a: proprium de sanctis (St
Andrew to St Ambrose); fol. 179a: votive masses. More detailed inventory in Elisa-
beth Remak-Honnef and Hermann Hauke, Katalog der lateinischen Handschriften
der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek München. Die Handschriften der ehemaligen
Mannheimer Hofbibliothek Clm 10 001-10 930, Wiesbaden, 1991, pp. 51-53.
68
Vellum, fols. 3-177. Main contents: fol. 34a: mixed temporal and sanctoral feasts
from first Sunday in Advent till St Katherine (25 November). Detailed inventory in
Eizenhöfer & Knaus, Die liturgischen Handschriften der Hessischen Landes- und
Hochschulbibliothek Darmstadt, pp. 144-46; cf. Ute Obhof, Zur Geschichte der
Bibliothek des ehemaligen Karmeliterklosters Hirschhorn am Neckar , Bibliothek
und Wissenschaft 27 (1994), pp. 56-148.
68
Karlsruhe, Generallandesarchiv, 65/738 is a fragmentary manu-

script containing sanctoral liturgy of the pars aestivalis for both mass
and office. It is not with absolute certainty a Speyer book, and is too
fragmentary to allow reliable diocesan attribution.69
These scanty manuscript sources are supplemented by the earliest
printed Speyer missals, of 1484, 1487 and 1501; the third was re-
printed in 1509 with appended textual and liturgical comments by Jo-
docus Gallus.70
The completeness of Speyer, Bistumsarchiv, Hs. 2, and its guaran-
teed attribution to Speyer, make it the ideal reference for the Speyer
mass chants.
Office
Few medieval Speyer office books with notation survive. There is one
late manuscript psalter: Sélestat, Bibliothèque Municipale, Ms. 127
(fifteenth century).
It should be noted that the manuscripts in the Speyer Gymnasial-
bibliothek referred to by Finkel as Speyer psalters are in fact Mainz
Cathedral processionals of the eighteenth century.71
Speyer, Gymnasialbibliothek, A.D.3, is a neumed psalter and bre-
viary, containing not only the choral office chants but the lessons and
69
Michael Klein, Die Handschriften 65/1-1200 im Generallandesarchiv Karlsruhe,
Wiesbaden, 1987, p. 262. The attribution to Speyer Cathedral by Finkel, Liturgi-
sches Drama am Mittelrhein , p. 26, note 15, is questionable. He also mistakes the
offices of the Visitation (fols. 1-18v) and Mary Magdalene (fols. 29-38v) for litur-
gical dramas (ibid., pp. 26-27).
70
Speyer missal (no title), Speyer, 1484; Missale secundum ordinem ecclesie spi-
rensis, [Bamberg, 1487]; Speyer missal (no title), Speyer, m. ccccc. primo Idus
Augusti , i.e. 12 August 1500 or 13 August 1501; reprint, with critical comments
of Jodocus Gallus, sig. Ai-Biiv, Speyer, 1509.
71
Finkel, Die Speyrer Domkantorei, pp. 12-13; idem, Musik in Speyer, p. 14, note 32.
69
prayers as well. It dates probably from the late twelfth century.72 Its
main contents (fols. 36vb-163b) are temporal and sanctoral liturgy per
annum, with many gaps and later additions; the sanctoral liturgy of the
pars aestivalis in particular is very incomplete. Whilst the calendar
(fols. 1va-2vb) shows a number of similarities with the definitely
Speyer calendar in Karlsruhe, Generallandesarchiv, 67/452, and the
Speyer proper of 1707, many feasts have been added in a later hand,
and their liturgy does not appear in the breviary. Only one of the
feasts particularly typical of the Speyer calendar is found.73 The book
thus has the distinct appearance of having been adapted for use in
Speyer, and can be used only corroboratively, not as a definite pri-
mary Speyer source.
Speyer, Pfälzische Landesbibliothek, Hs. 2, a fragment from an an-
tiphonal (pars aestivalis), probably written in St Gall or Rheinau, c.
1510-20, is far too small to be a useful liturgical source;74 but its text
and illustrations show the stylistically similar Speyer, Bistumsarchiv,
Hs. 2, a psalter and antiphonal (pars aestivalis), to have been pro-
duced in the same area at a similar date.75
72
Lamott, Germansverehrung , p. 63, note 22, dates it to the mid-thirteenth century;
cf. the conspectus of Speyer calendars (ibid., pp. 50-52, 63-64). Pietzsch, Gedan-
ken zu einer pfälzischen Musikgeschichte , p. 1956, note 17: Antiphonar [ ]
vermutlich aus der Zeit um 1250 ; Finkel, Musik in Speyer, p. 14: Psalterium des
Speyrer Domes (vor 1200) .
73
Lamott, Codex Vindobonensis 1882 , pp. 34-37, identifies Anastasius (22 Janu-
ary); Celsus (27 July); Pope Stephen I (2 August); Zoilus (6 October); Gregory
Dux Maurorum (15 October); Secundinus (15 November). Only Stephen is found
in the calendar of Speyer, Gymnasialbibliothek, A.D.3 (fol. 2).
74
Clemens Jöckle & Jürgen Vorderstemann, Schmuckblatt zum Beginn des Sommer-
teils eines Brevierantiphonales. Hs. 2 Fol. 1 der Pfälzischen Landesbibliothek
Speyer, Speyer, 1980.
75
Previously Speyer, Dom- und Diözesanmuseum, D 469. Jöckle & Vorderstemann,
Schmuckblatt, pp. 3-7; Vorderstemann, Die Büchersammlungen , p. 57, note 64.
Wrongly classed as a breviary by Pietzsch, Zur Musikgeschichte von Speyer vor
der Reformation , p. 51, note 2, and Finkel, Musik in Speyer, p. 14, and as Spey-
erer Missale (Chorbuch, Breviarium) in the handlist of the Speyer Bistumsarchiv
70
Bistumsarchiv 2, which now consists of 315 folios, but originally

had more, was used in Speyer Cathedral at least as late as 1603.76 The
music (as in Pfälzische Landesbibliothek, Hs. 2, fol. 1) is in Gothic
notation on five-line staves, usually ten systems to the page.77
Karlsruhe, Generallandesarchiv, 65/740, is not, as catalogued, a
Hymnarfragment ,78 but a fragment of an antiphonal, containing a
mixture of temporal and sanctoral liturgy for both mass and office
from around Pentecost till the feast of St Verena (1 September). Its
connection with the Speyer diocese is far from certain.
There is thus no known extant medieval Speyer office book con-
taining the complete music for the pars hiemalis of the temporal lit-
urgy, from which the great majority of chants in passion plays are
taken. This of course means that a detailed comparison of most of the
relevant Speyer melodies with those of Mainz cannot be undertaken.
Speyer office books without music include the following: Karls-
ruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, Cod. Bruchsal 10, a Speyer breviary
of the fifteenth century. This manuscript, interestingly, notes several
Worms divergences from the Speyer liturgy.79
(Bestand A: Bücher, Handschriften, Frühdrucke, Drucke; late 1999). Lamott, Ger-

mansverehrung , p. 64, note 29, and Codex Vindobonensis 1882 , p. 47, note 131,
dates it to the late fifteenth century.
76
An accompanying bookbinder s report (1957), and examination of the text, show
that folios are missing between the present fols. 16 and 17, 18 and 19, 64 and 65,
210 and 211, 272 and 273. Note now pasted on inner front cover: Pro D: Sexpræ-
bendarijs: Lateris Præpositi: 1603 .
77
Paper, 315 fols., approx. 395x285 mm. Fol. 1: settings of the invitatory Psalm 94
(95); fol. 17: proprium de tempore (pars aestivalis) including (fols. 42v-57v) pro-
prium de sanctis, Easter to Pentecost; fol. 131: proprium de sanctis from Visitation
(2 July) till Katherine (25 November); fol. 272v: commune sanctorum; fol. 307:
collection of hymns. An inserted gathering in a different hand (fols. 76-84) con-
tains Corpus Christi liturgy.
78
Klein, Die Handschriften 65/1-1200, p. 263.
79
Armin Schlechter & Gerhard Stamm, Die kleinen Provenienzen, Wiesbaden, 2000
(Die Handschriften der Badischen Landesbibliothek in Karlsruhe, 13), pp. 401-03;
Emil Ettinger, Die ursprüngliche Herkunft der Handschriften, die aus Kloster-, bi-
71
Vatican, cod. pal. lat. 514, a Speyer breviary (pars aestivalis) of

the late fifteenth century.80
Printed Speyer office books of the late fifteenth and early sixteenth
centuries are relatively common: six breviaries, a diurnal and two
psalters; there is also a breviary printed in 1591.81
Ritual
No medieval Speyer ritual survives; the earliest source is the printed
Agenda of 1512.82 In a preface, Philipp von Rosenberg (bishop 1504-
13) asserts that the numerous medieval rituals in the diocese were in-
consistent; some were dilapidated and illegible, or erroneous ( partim
inter se discordes: partim caducas et illegibiles: partim etiam minus
emendatas ); the whole diocese should in future follow the use of the
Cathedral.83 Even allowing for the rhetoric of the liturgist exaggerat-
ing the muddle he wishes to reform, it is clear that there may have
schöflichen und Ritterschafts-Bibliotheken nach Karlsruhe gelangt sind, Heidel-

berg, 1901 (Die Handschriften der großherzoglichen badischen Hof- und Landes-
bibliothek in Karlsruhe, Beilage III), p. 61. See Vorderstemann, Die Bücher-
sammlungen , p. 60. Worms divergences: e.g. fols. 19a, 19b, 21a, 40v, and 113v; see
Schlechter & Stamm, Die kleinen Provenienzen, p. 401.
80
Gugumus, Ein Speyerer Kalendar des 15. Jh. ; Salmon, Manuscrits liturgiques,
vol. I, no. 284.
81
Speyer breviary (no title), Speyer, 19 November 1478; Speyer breviary, [Straß-
burg, 1491]. Speyer breviary (pars hiemalis), [Straßburg, c. 1500]; Orarium Spi-
rense, Venezia, 1507-09, 2 vols.: Pars hiemalis (ferial psalter, temporale, sancto-
rale); pars aestivalis (same contents); Diurnale de tempore et de sanctis per totum
annum secundum ordinem Spirensem, [Speyer, c. 1478]; Psalterium ad usum
orandi secundum diocesim Spirensem: ordinatum, [Venice, 1507]; Psalterium
Spirense: ad vsum orandi et cantandi ..., Speyer, 1515. Breviarium Spirense, Köln,
1591. No copies are known of the edition of 1590 (Bohatta, Bibliographie der
Breviere, no. 2750 [not confirmed by Robert Amiet, Missels et bréviaires imprimés
(supplément aux catalogues de Weale et Bohatta): Propres des saints, Paris,
1990]).
82
Agenda Spirensis, [Speyer, 1512].
83
Epistola proemialis , in Agenda Spirensis, Speyer, 1512, first unsigned gathering,
fols. ii-iii (here iir-v).
72
been considerable divergence in the contents of Speyer rituals in the

fourteenth century.
Processional
No Speyer processionals, manuscript or printed, are known to survive.
Other manuscripts
Other Speyer manuscripts include Vienna, Österreichische National-
bibliothek, Cod. Vindobonensis 377 and Cod. Vindobonensis 553,
Speyer passionals, of the eleventh and eleventh-twelfth century re-
spectively.84
In the case of all three dioceses, the surviving books show a great
consistency in liturgy, so chants are in most cases quoted from a few
selected texts in each diocese, close to the date of the St Gall Passion
Play where this is possible. In the case of Worms in general, and of
Mainz sources containing notation, only later texts (usually from the
fifteenth century) are available. The general presumption should be
that the few texts cited represent the consistent liturgical tradition of
the dioceses in question. Only when necessary will the occurrence of
chants in further texts be noted. Sources are cited in a shortened form,
as follows:
Mainz
Mass
Frankfurt, lat. qu. 44 : Frankfurt am Main, Stadt- und Universitatsbi-
bliothek, Ms. lat. qu. 44, gradual, fifteenth century.
Frankfurt, Barth. 107 : Same library, Ms. Barth. 107, missal and
ritual, fourteenth century.
Kassel, 2o theol. 100 : Kassel, Universitätsbibliothek, Landesbi-
bliothek und Murhardsche Bibliothek der Stadt Kassel, 2o Ms. theol.
84
Lamott, Codex Vindobonensis 1882 , p. 27, note 2.
73
100, full Mainz neumed missal, Fritzlar, first third of the thirteenth
century.
Kassel, 2o theol. 122 : Same library, 2o Ms. theol. 122, Mainz
missal (pars aestivalis), Fritzlar, second half of the fourteenth century.
Kassel, 2o theol. 125 : Same library, 2o Ms. theol. 125, Mainz
missal (pars hiemalis), Fritzlar, late fourteenth century.
Würzburg, M. p. th. f. 85 : Würzburg, Universitätsbibliothek, M.
p. th. f. 85 (missal, fourteenth century.)
Missale Maguntinum, 1507 : Missale Maguntinum. denuo exac-
tissima cura recognitum et a prioribus quibusdam mendis operose ac
solecter emaculatum, Mainz, 1507.
Office
Frankfurt, lat. qu. 48 : Frankfurt am Main, Stadt- und Universitatsbi-
bliothek, Ms. lat. qu. 48, antiphonal, pars hiemalis, fifteenth century.
Frankfurt, Barth. 94 : Same library, Ms. Barth. 94, antiphonal,
pars aestivalis, fifteenth century.
Frankfurt, Barth. 150 : Same library, Ms. Barth. 150, breviary,
fourteenth century.
fourteenth century.
fourteenth century.
Enchiridion ecclesie Moguntine, 1509 : Enchiridion seu Breuia-
rium: secundum morem insignis ecclesie Moguntine. necnon totius
diocesis: Nouissime impressum [ ], Mainz, 1509.
Breviarium Moguntinum, 1570 : Breviarium Moguntinum. Iussu
et authoritate [...] D. Danielis S. eiusdem Moguntinæ Sedis Archiepis-
copi, &c. integritati pristinæ fidelißimè restitutum, Köln, 1570.
74
Ritual
Vatican, cod. pal. lat. 488 : Vatican, cod. pal. lat. 488, Mainz ritual,
fifteenth century.
Printed Mainz ritual, 1480 : (no title) [Printed Mainz ritual],
Mainz, 1480 (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no. 468).
Agenda ecclesie Moguntinensis, c. 1492 : Agenda ecclesie Mo-
guntinensis, [Straßburg, c. 1492] (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke,
no. 469).
Agenda Maguntina, 1513 : Agenda Maguntina, Mainz, 1513.
Agenda Ecclesiae Moguntinensis, 1551 : Agenda Ecclesiae Mo-
guntinensis [ ], Mainz, 1551.
Rituale Archi-Di ceseos Moguntinae, 1696 : Rituale sive Agenda,
Ad usum Archi-Di ceseos Moguntinæ edita jussu et auctoritate [...]
D. Lotharii Francisci, S. Sedis Moguntinæ Archi-Episcopi [...], Mainz,
1696.
Worms
Mass
Printed Worms missal, 1488 : (no title) [Printed Worms missal], Ba-
sel, 1488.
Missale Ecclesie wormatiensis, 1522 : Missale secundum ritum et
obseruantiam Ecclesie & diocesis wormatiensis, [Speyer], 1522.
Office
BL, add. 19415 : London, British Library, MS add. 19415, complete
breviary, c. 1475.
Worms, Stadtbibliothek, Lu 3a : Worms, Stadtbibliothek, Luther-
bibliothek 3a, breviary (pars aestivalis), c. 1475.
Vatican, cod. pal. lat. 518 : Vatican, cod. pal. lat. 518, breviary
(pars hiemalis), 1401.
Vatican, cod. pal. lat. 519 : Vatican, cod. pal. lat. 519, breviary
(pars hiemalis), fifteenth century.
75
Printed Worms breviary, c. 1475 : (no title) [Printed Worms bre-

viary], [Marienthal, c. 1475] (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no.
5513).
viary], [Speyer, c. 1483] (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no.
5514).
viary], [Straßburg, c. 1490] (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no.
5515).
Ritual
Worms, Stadtarchiv, Abt. 106/1 : Worms, Archiv der Stadt Worms,
Abt. 106/1, manual, Augustinian nunnery, Worms, fifteenth century.
Agenda ecclesie wormaciensis, 1500-10 : Agenda secundum ritum
et ordinem ecclesie wormaciensis, Speyer, 1500-10 (Gesamtkatalog
der Wiegendrucke, no. 477).
Speyer
Mass
Speyer, Bistumsarchiv, Hs. 1 : Speyer, Archiv des Bistums Speyer,
Hs. 1, noted plenary missal, Speyer Cathedral, c. 1343.
Darmstadt, Hs. 889 : Darmstadt, Universitäts- und Landesbiblio-
thek, Hs. 889, festal Speyer missal (pars hiemalis), c. 1380.
Printed Speyer missal, 1500 : (no title) [Printed Speyer missal],
Speyer, [1500 or 1501].
Office
Speyer, Bistumsarchiv, Hs. 2 : Speyer, Archiv des Bistums Speyer,
Hs. 2, Speyer Cathedral antiphonal (pars aestivalis), c. 1500-10.
Speyer, Gymnasialbibliothek, A.D.3 : Speyer, Gymnasium am
Kaisersdom, A.D.3, psalter and neumed breviary, possibly adapted for
Speyer use, late twelfth century? (Held in Speyer, Pfälzische Landes-
bibliothek).
76
Printed Speyer breviary, 1478 : (no title) [Complete printed

Speyer breviary], Speyer, 1478 (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke,
no. 5464).
Printed Speyer breviary, 1491 : (no title) [Printed Speyer brevia-
ry], [Straßburg, 1491] (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no. 5465).
Orarium Spirense, 1507 : Orarium Spirense (pars hiemalis), Ve-
nezia, 1507.
[Orarium Spirense, 1509] : (no title) (pars aestivalis), Venezia,
1509.
Ritual
Agenda Spirensis, 1512 : Agenda Spirensis, Speyer, 1512.
Other Liturgical Sources

Other liturgical works, largely modern Roman books, are cited in foot-
notes.
77
Chapter III
Approaches
Problems with Pflanz s Approach

ssembling a corpus of suitable liturgical material is only the
first step: one must also have a clear idea of how to decipher,
interpret and apply it, and unfortunately this is not a strength
of Pflanz s study. Ironically, the generally positive reviews of Pflanz
had something important in common with Schützeichel s academic
savaging: they said little about methodology. For Schützeichel the
very attempt at a chant reconstruction was pernicious enough; he had
no interest in how it had been done. What Schützeichel condemned,
the reviewers welcomed, but they too had little to say about the ade-
quacy of Pflanz s approach: Janota s remark that Pflanz tended to ig-
nore sources other than the liturgy was one of the few specific meth-
odological criticisms.1
Yet Pflanz s work reveals several quite serious methodological in-
adequacies. These will be outlined only briefly here; there are dis-
cussions of how they affect the individual St Gall Passion Play chants
in the main body of the study. Ironically, it is the two main foci of
Pflanz s title, Liturgie and Textgrundlagen , which are the key
problematical points in his analysis.
Liturgy
Pflanz s basic unfamiliarity with liturgy, and with the books which
contain it, emerges constantly from his study. Admittedly, his manu-
1
Johannes Janota, [Review of Hermann Manfred Pflanz, Die lateinischen Text-
grundlagen des St. Galler Passionsspieles in der mittelalterlichen Liturgie, Frank-
furt [etc.], 1977] , Germanistik 20 (1979), pp. 148-49.
scripts were not at that time all adequately inventorized or localized.

For though most of the Frankfurt manuscripts he used had been ex-
haustively described by 1974, those in the Mainz Stadtbibliothek are
still being catalogued, in a programme that began only in 1978, and
those in the Mainz Martinusbibliothek are still only summarily treated
in an unpublished handlist.2 However, this does not account for basic
problems of orientation and citation.
Pflanz cites manuscripts not by folio but by page . He seems to
have worked from microfilm, and to have interpreted each frame (i.e.
the verso of one folio on the left, and the recto of the next on the right)
as a single page , to which he gives the number of the relevant recto:
thus S. 45 can refer to fol. 44v or fol. 45r, and the correct foliation
can only be determined by independent inspection of the manuscript.3
Pflanz does not understand the conventional abbreviated ways in
which chants can be written out, and is especially challenged by res-
ponsories. By the fourteenth century, the performance of responsories
had become standardized. First the refrain was sung through. This was
followed by the verse, at the end of which the singers returned to the
refrain but only to the latter part, the repetenda, usually indicated by
a capitalized or rubricated letter (breviaries often give only the first
2
Gerhardt Powitz, Die Handschriften des Dominikanerklosters und des Leonhard-
stifts in Frankfurt am Main, Frankfurt, 1968; Gerhardt Powitz & Herbert Buck, Die
Handschriften des Bartholomaeusstifts und des Karmeliterklosters in Frankfurt am
Main, Frankfurt, 1974; Karin Bredehorn & Gerhardt Powitz, Die mittelalterlichen
Handschriften der Gruppe Manuscripta latina, Frankfurt, 1979 [vols. I-III of Cle-
mens Köttelwesch (ed.), Die Kataloge der Stadt- und Universitätsbibliothek
Frankfurt am Main]; Gerhard List & Gerhardt Powitz (eds.), Die Handschriften
der Stadtbibliothek Mainz, Wiesbaden, 1990-98, vol. I: Hs. I 1 - Hs. I 150; vol. II
(ed. by Gerhard List): Hs. I 151 - Hs. I 250. For a description of the Mainz
Stadtbibliothek cataloguing project, see vol. I, p. 7; the Mainz Martinusbibliothek
handlist is not publicly available.
3
Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, e.g. p. 85, note 1, citing Hs. MF 1 (= Frank-
furt, Barth. 150): Pflanz s S. 231, 233 actually refers to fols. 231 and 232v.
80
III. Approaches
word).4 Pflanz s uncertainty about these conventions leads him to mis-

interpret the text of one responsory.5 Elsewhere his misunderstanding
of manuscript abbreviations leads him to think that there is a longer
and a shorter form of the antiphon Media vita in morte sumus .6
In general, Pflanz s use of liturgical terminology betrays unfamili-
arity. He speaks, confusingly, of chants which are verbally identical
to biblical passages , or Vulgate texts functioning as liturgical
chants .7 He seems to assume the existence of liturgical chants de-
spite the fact that they are not to be found in any liturgical book or in-
dex.8 He is capable of describing three different chants as three ver-
sions of one chant , or a chant employed as a gradual, a verse and a
responsory .9 He tends to use antiphon as a generic term for many
kinds of chant (e.g. on pages 56, 58, and 59). Indeed, it is not clear
that he has grasped the fundamental difference between antiphons and
responsories. Repeatedly, though a direction explicitly identifies a
chant as a responsory or antiphon, he needlessly considers an alterna-
tive; twice he actually identifies the wrong alternative.10 Pflanz often
4
Cf. Andrew Hughes, Medieval Manuscripts for Mass and Office: A Guide to their
Organization and Terminology, Toronto [etc.], 1982, pp. 27-28.
5
Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, pp. 100-01, reading a repetenda incipit as a
repeated earlier chant.
6
Ibid., p. 103, note 2. See René-Jean Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, Roma, 1963-
79, 6 vols. (Rerum ecclesiasticarum documenta, Series maior, Fontes, 7-12), no.
3732.
7
Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, e.g. pp. 136-37: 6, Quis es ; p. 106: 102,
Quia tulerunt Dominum meum , 103, Domine, si tu sustulisti eum, dicito mihi .
8
Ibid., p. 136: Obwohl ich einen mit Quis es beginnenden Gesang in der Liturgie
nicht auffinden konnte, [läßt sich vermuten,] daß der verwendete liturgische Ge-
sang wörtlich mit dem Evangelientext übereinstimmt.
9
Ibid., p. 108: the chants are in fact the antiphon Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium,
no. 2300 and the responsories 6323 and 5232, all of which contain the words Tu-
lerunt Dominum meum . Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, p. 114: Die An-
fangsworte eines in vielen Missalen als Graduale, Versus und Responsorium An-
wendung findenden Gesanges .
10
Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, pp. 51-52, needlessly considers antiphon Ec-
ce agnus dei (8); ibid., pp. 47-48, wrongly chooses responsory rather than anti-
81
simply looks for a particular text string , and is unclear about how
many chants contain it.11 But equally he reads simple verbal variants
as different chants, as with variants of the antiphon beginning Rabbi,
quis peccavit [ ] and Rabbi, quid peccavit [ ] .12
Though Pflanz s method involves distinguishing local diocesan lit-
urgies, he does not have a firm grasp of this difficult discipline. One
of his major methodological errors is to assume that chants are much
more distinctive of local uses than is in fact the case. As this study will
show, the vast majority of the St Gall Passion Play chants are found in
the liturgies of Mainz, Worms and Speyer, and indeed of a great many
German dioceses: Pflanz s claims not to find some items in certain
uses are thus nearly always mistaken. They cannot be examined in de-
tail here, and since many concern Cologne and Trier, dioceses with
which we now know the play had no connection, they need not be.
They often result from unfamiliarity with liturgical sources. Typical is
the claim that the antiphon Cum appropinquaret is not found in
Trier:13 this well-known Palm Sunday processional antiphon14 will in-
deed have been known in Trier, but is unlikely to be recorded in the
missals which Pflanz uses as his sources; it should have been sought
in rituals and processionals. Pflanz does, ironically, include one fif-
teenth-century manuscript Worms breviary as a control text.15 He ex-
phon Qui post me venit (5); pp. 56-59, 164, wrongly chooses antiphon rather than
responsory Ductus est Jesus (14).
11
Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, p. 64, ns 2, 3, reads what are in fact three
chants (the antiphons 1366 and 5357 in Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, and the re-
sponsory 6554), as two; on page 95, note 1, he reads two chants, the responsory
Velum templi (ibid., 7821) and the antiphon Ait latro (ibid., 1316) as one and
fails to note that the antiphon Memento mei, Domine Deus (ibid., 3736) is a dif-
ferent chant, not a simple verbal variant.
12
Ibid., 4571. Chant no. 38; cf. Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, pp. 70-73.
13
14
See Chapter VII, no. 51 below.
15
Worms, Stadtbibliothek, Hs. Lu 3a: Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, p. 44; cf.
Chapter II above, note 49.
82
III. Approaches
cludes it from consideration because it contains matches for only six

of the play s incipits16 but this, of course, is because the breviary is
a pars aestivalis, whereas the vast majority of chants in the play, as in
German drama as a whole, come from the pars hiemalis.
This unfamiliarity with sources is most evident with regard to
Mainz. Lacking a clear overview of the use, Pflanz often cites
Mainz material from monastic, not diocesan, books, or from sources
which present the partially Romanized Mainz rite of the late sixteenth
century, or the much more fully Roman liturgy of nearly a hundred
years later.17 The actual state of the liturgy in the fourteenth century is,
however, fairly readily recognizable from a wide variety of sources of
the right period.
Pflanz is particularly unfamiliar with the sanctoral liturgy, presu-
mably because there is almost no relevant secondary literature on
which he can rely (Reifenberg s work on Mainz, for instance, deals
only with the temporale). Thus he cites a communio from the vigil of
St Andrew only from modern Roman books, though it is found in me-
dieval sources.18 Three items from the office of Mary Magdalene com-
pletely defeat Pflanz: the antiphons 35, Amen dico and 36, Fides et-
enim , and the responsory verse 34, Dimissa sunt ; this failure is par-
ticularly serious because the antiphons prove to be crucial to the local-
ization of the play.19
This fundamental uncertainty about liturgical tradition may explain
the rather odd structure of Pflanz s study. He works through the play
not chant by chant, but in three main sections which identify items
first from printed books (a mixture of early modern Mainz, Cologne
16
Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, p. 151.
17
E.g. ibid., p. 60, note 2 and p. 62, note 1, citing as Mainz breviaries several Car-
thusian books. Ibid., p. 89, note 1, citing Breviarium Moguntinum, 1570. Ibid., p.
117, note 1, citing Rituale Archi-Di ceseos Moguntinae, 1696.
18
Ibid., pp. 15-16, 137-38. The communio, Dixit Andreas Simoni , is found in me-
dieval books: see Chapter VI below, note 91.
19
Ibid., pp. 67-69; 37; 18, 138-39. Cf. Chapter V.
83
and Trier sources and modern Roman books), then from manuscripts
(breviaries first, missals second), and finally from other sources: the
Bible and some other German plays.20 No rationale for this division is
given. Introductory remarks21 suggest that Pflanz began his investiga-
tions using printed material, moving on to manuscripts when he had
exhausted the possibilities of print. This is a legitimate sequence for
scholarly investigation, but as a layout for the completed work it is
pointlessly repetitive, as Pflanz treats the same chant, or related chant
sequences, in widely separated parts of his study.22 In some cases it
actually reflects confusion: in the Quem quaeritis dialogue, a stan-
dard item of the Visitatio sepulchri, Pflanz reconstructs the first two
elements, Quem quaeritis and Iesum Nazarenum crucifixum from
the Visitatio tradition, but deals with the third, Non est hic, quem
queritis , in a different section, wrongly identifying it as a liturgical
antiphon with altered wording.23
Text
A good many of these problems are explained by the other keyword,
Textgrundlagen , in the title of Pflanz s study. What Pflanz sees him-
self as reconstructing are texts, but in fact what he is dealing with are
chants: not spoken texts, nor texts to which music can be fitted if
wished, but combined textual-musical entities which were used and
handed down as such. Yet none of Pflanz s liturgical sources are no-
tated or neumed antiphonals, graduals or rituals: he cites solely text-
only breviaries and missals, unaware, it seems, that these represent a
reduction of the full text-and-music reality of the liturgy. Pflanz is of
20
Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, sections 2.2 (pp. 8-38), 2.3.1 (pp. 39-111),
2.3.2 (pp. 111-31), and 2.4 (pp. 131-50).
21
Ibid., p. 2.
22
E.g. ibid., pp. 136-37: 6, Quis es ; ibid., pp. 48-50: 7, Ego vox clamantis ; ibid.,
pp. 34-35, 100-01: 91, Tollite portas .
23
Ibid., section 2.4, pp. 149-50, cf. p. 172: 98, [Quem quaeritis,] o tremule mulie-
res , and 99, Iesum nazarenum crucifixum ; section 2.3.1, pp. 104-05, cf. p. 173:
100, Non est hic, quem queritis .
84
III. Approaches
course aware that chants were sung, yet he never considers the music
as an integral part, and hence a defining and limiting dimension, of the
chants. This leads him into several erroneous assumptions.
Pflanz seems to assume that chant wording is readily alterable.
Time and again, he proposes alterations to the wording of chants; very
often these are truncations which would have been musically impossi-
ble, involving the omission of important melodic passages or ending
chants on modally unacceptable notes;24 or else would have required
alterations to melodies and cadences, something found only very oc-
casionally in German plays.25 His assumption that the text of the first
Quem quaeritis item would have been inverted to O tremule mulie-
res, quem queritis in hoc tumulo plorantes takes no account of the
textual and melodic stability of this chant, or of the fact that a corres-
ponding shift in the melody would be impossible.26 More than once
Pflanz assumes that the wording from two different chants would have
been combined, which would usually have been melodically, even
modally unfeasible.27
Since Pflanz has little sense of the stability and integrity of the
chant tradition, he constantly tries to establish the wording of the Latin
24
E.g. Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, pp. 46-47, suggesting truncation of 3,
Quid mihi et tibi est, mulier . Ibid., p. 91, truncation of 69, Solvite templum hoc .
Ibid., p. 93, proposing omissions in 71, 72, Ingressus pylatus .
25
E.g. ibid., pp. 48-50, proposing extension of 7, antiphon Vox clamantis to Ego
vox clamantis . On infrequency of adaptation of chants in German plays, see Rai-
ner Gstrein, Anmerkungen zu den Gesängen der Osterspiele des Sterzinger
Debs -Kodex , in Max Siller (ed.), Osterspiele: Texte und Musik. Akten des 2.
(Schlern-Schriften, 293), pp. 91-98, esp. 93-94.
26
Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, p. 150. See discussion in Chapter X below
(no. 98).
27
E.g. ibid., pp. 123-27, suggesting that Peter s Non lavabis (56) and Domine, non
tantum pedes (58) are from Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 1431, Ante diem
festum Paschae , usually in mode 7 or 8, but that Jesus s reply Si non lavero tibi
(57) is from ibid. 2393, Domine, tu mihi lavas pedes , regularly in mode 5. See
Chapter V below.
85
chants on the basis of the German dialogue which follows them. The
relation of spoken dialogue to chant in medieval religious drama is as
yet little examined. Nearly all chants are indeed followed by ver-
nacular dialogue which includes translation, paraphrase or exegesis of
the Latin. But it is not safe to assume that the vernacular version is al-
ways full and accurate. Several St Gall Passion Play chants which can
be reconstructed with certainty are followed by a vernacular passage
which is demonstrably not an exact version;28 Pflanz even concedes
this on occasion.29
There are various possible reasons for this. Constraints of rhyme
and meter may produce vernacular passages which are a loose fit
with the Latin chants. Other mismatches may result from scribal or di-
rectorial alterations to chant or dialogue. Richard Rastall, who has
analysed this phenomenon in English plays, concludes that extensive
editorial change may have gone on which is not easy to determine
from the surviving manuscripts, and that the principle of correspon-
dence between chants and dialogue can only be adopted cautiously
and with the awareness that it admits of exceptions.30 A manuscript
like the St Gall Passion Play, where the history of text, adaptations
and performances is impossible to reconstruct, calls for special care.
But most importantly, chants in plays are not mere Einlagen : they
connect the events of the play with, and thus legitimize them in, the
28
E.g. Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, pp. 10-11, 47-48: 5, Qui post me venit ;
ibid., pp. 19-20, 74-75: 40 Ille homo qui Iesus dicitur ; ibid., pp. 20-21, 75-77: 42,
A seculo non est ; ibid., pp. 79-82: 44, Domine, si hic fuisses . Cf. William Louis
Boletta, The Role of Music in Medieval German Drama: Easter Plays and Passion
Plays (Ph.D. dissertation), Vanderbilt University, 1967, p. 123.
29
E.g. Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, p. 76: 42, A seculo non est ; ibid., p. 79:
44, Domine, si hic fuisses .
30
Richard Rastall, The Heaven Singing: Music in Early English Religious Drama,
Cambridge, 1996, vol. I, p. 83, conjectures a complex history of performance-
changes underlying such chant/dialogue mismatch in the Towneley Ascension
play. On pages 253-56 he discusses an example from the N-Town Mary Play
where chant and vernacular dialogue clearly do not coincide.
86
III. Approaches
transcendent liturgical dimension. As Traub puts it, sie eröffnen einen

Zeit-Raum, in dem sich als eine Schicht der gesprochene Text entfal-
tet. 31 They announce a fullness of reality which cannot be expressed
in speech alone. There is thus no reason why the spoken dialogue
should be simply identical to the sung chant; indeed, every reason
why it should not be. Pflanz, however, constantly invokes the ver-
nacular dialogue as a guide to the Latin; it is this principle that leads
him to suggest some of the melodically impossible alterations to the
wording of chants mentioned above. Though he concedes that the
German demonstrably does not always translate the Latin chant, he
never reassesses the general applicability of his assumption.
Pflanz espouses a narrowly realistic assumption that narrative or
explicatory text such as hoc est or dicit Dominus will not usually
have been sung; this however flies in the face of the demonstrable
general practice of medieval plays.32 Pflanz effectively imposes an
anachronistic representational verismo on a play which is still deeply
rooted in a largely liturgical, sacramental, ceremonial aesthetic; an
aesthetic, indeed, which is seen most clearly in the chant stratum.
To his credit, Pflanz realizes that the sung items of the St Gall Pas-
sion Play are largely liturgical, but he does not often enough consider
31
Andreas Traub, Zwischen Aufgezeichnetem und Nichtaufgezeichnetem: Probleme
bei der Edition der Melodien der Sterzinger Spiele , in Siller (ed.), Osterspiele:
Text und Musik, pp. 211-18, esp. 214.
32
Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, e.g. pp. 121-22, p. 128 (omit Dicit Dominus
in 54, Hoc corpus and 60, Scriptum est enim ); p. 145 (omit Hoc est in 81,
Hely, Hely ). Cf. Hansjürgen Linke, Ist das Tiroler Schauspiel des Mittelalters
Volksschauspiel? , in Egon Kühebacher (ed.), Tiroler Volksschauspiel: Beiträge
zur Theatergeschichte des Alpenraumes, Schriftenreihe des Südtiroler Kulturinsti-
tutes, 3, Bozen, 1976, pp. 88-109, esp. 100; Ulrich Mehler, Dicere und canta-
re : Zur musikalischen Terminologie und Aufführungspraxis des mittelalterlichen
geistlichen Dramas in Deutschland, Regensburg, 1981 (Kölner Beiträge zur Mu-
sikforschung, 120), pp. 147-48. Rastall, The Heaven Singing, vol. I, p. 81: Al-
though this may seem alien to our concept of drama, there is nothing inherently
undramatic about it .
87
that certain chants may have non-liturgical sources. This is a particular

weakness in the Osterspiel sequences, where, as the dramatic tradition
shows, many chants are not directly liturgical, but come from the sung
Passion gospels and from the repertoire of liturgical drama , which is
only partly composed of actual liturgical items, and developed some
specialized chants of its own.33
Pflanz is unfamiliar with the use of sung items in the medieval
dramatic tradition. Even such basic resources as Schuler34 are missing
from his bibliography and have clearly not been consulted. Only very
occasionally does he make comparisons with the use of specific chants
in other plays, and he never recognizes the dramatic tradition as a con-
text within which the chants of the play might be understood. His in-
conclusive attempt35 to identify the chants of the Hortulanus encoun-
ter from liturgical books alone, without reference to the usage of Latin
and vernacular Easter plays, is a good example of this.
In view of all his methodological inadequacies, it is not surprising
that Pflanz s liturgical localization of the Play fails to convince.36 In
the first place, Pflanz considers two wrong dioceses. Then he applies
an extremely simple statistical method: the fact that Mainz books con-
tain the greatest number of chants which correspond to the play s in-
cipits leads to the conclusion that the play was produced in a Mainz li-
turgical tradition.37 The legitimacy of this is debatable: Pflanz does
not, for instance, reflect on the implications of the fact that not all the
chants can be located in Mainz. And in any case the basic statistics are
fatally flawed. Pflanz often fails to find chants in uses where they
33
E.g. Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, pp. 104-05, wrongly suggests liturgical
source for 100, Non est hic, quem queritis .
34
Universität Basel, 1940).
35
36
Ibid., sections 3.1-3.3, pp. 151-61.
37
Ibid., pp. 159, 161.
88
III. Approaches
were demonstrably known. Chants which he claims to find in Mainz

alone include material which is biblical, not liturgical;38 items from
the sanctorale, of which Pflanz has an uncertain grasp;39 chants from
the special liturgies of the Easter triduum, which are not routinely re-
corded in ordinary mass and office books;40 and chants which can in-
deed be found in other dioceses if further sources are consulted.41
Lessons from Pflanz: Towards an Adequate Approach

A more adequate approach to the St Gall Passion Play chants and the
liturgical tradition in which so many of them stand involves avoiding
Pflanz s major errors. A clear and historically informed grasp of the
relevant diocesan uses is essential, as is a familiarity with the different
types of book in which they are handed down. This includes a knowl-
edge of the liturgical placing of different chants, and of the right kind
of book in which to locate them. The complex scribal conventions of
liturgical manuscripts must of course be thoroughly understood.
Above all it must be borne in mind that liturgical chants are pre-
cisely that chants, text and music as a unity. Tight musical con-
straints mean that wording is not readily changeable. The German dia-
logue cannot be assumed to be a definitive guide to the wording of the
sung Latin.
The practical implications of different types of chants, too, must be
considered. The length and difficulty of plainsong items varies im-
mensely, from simple antiphons which almost anyone could have sung
to the often extremely complex responsories, the preserve of trained
38
E.g. ibid., pp. 151 and 152: 7, Ego vox clamantis , and possibly 11, Hic est filius
meus dilectus .
39
E.g. ibid., p. 152: 22, Venite post me (St Andrew).
40
E.g. ibid., pp. 154 and 156: 60, Scriptum est enim and 91, Tollite portas .
41
E.g. ibid., pp. 151-52: 5, Qui post me venit ; 8, Ecce agnus Dei ; 9, Baptiza me,
Iohannis ; 11, Hic est filius meus dilectus ; and 12, Baptizat miles regem . All
found in noted Cologne breviary, fourteenth century, British Library, MS Add.
31913, fols. 106v, 148r-v, 160, 160v, 155, and 162v.
89
singers. Sometimes a long or difficult chant may be an unlikely

choice, especially if it is to be performed by a relatively minor charac-
ter. In such cases a simpler alternative, usually Vulgate material, may
be more probable. A player in a major role, however, may well have
been able to perform a challenging item. Dreimüller42 in fact draws
convincing conclusions about the casting of the Alsfelder Passions-
spiel from a correlation of the roles and the difficulty of their chants,
and Chapter IV suggests that the same can be done for the St Gall
Passion Play.
The possibility must also be considered that particular chants are
not of liturgical origin, either because they are simply Vulgate text set
to a simple reciting tone, or from the textual and musical repertoire of
liturgical drama .
For all these reasons, it is vital to look beyond the individual play
and interrogate the whole tradition of medieval German religious
drama, which, despite chronological and regional diversity, shows
many interesting regularities and trends in its use of chant. In this
study, every chant in the play has been considered against the back-
ground of the entire range of German plays which use the same item.
All this necessitates a thorough critical engagement with Pflanz in
the first place, but also with the other relevant scholarly literature.
There is Bergmann s description of the St Gall Passion Play chants,
incomplete and not particularly detailed, and Mehler s analysis, ex-
tremely sound but not a full-scale study of the play; however the first
scholarly treatment of the play s music, by Boletta, is too brief and
unspecific to need detailed consideration.43 And pre-eminently there is
42
Karl Dreimüller, Die Musik des Alsfelder Passionsspiels: Ein Beitrag zur Ge-
Universität Wien, 1935, vol. I: Abhandlungen, pp. 223-25.
43
Rolf Bergmann, Katalog der deutschsprachigen geistlichen Spiele und Marien-
klagen des Mittelalters, München, 1986, pp. 89-103, 184-235 (cf. pp. 17-18, 26-27,
90
III. Approaches
the work of first recourse, Schuler. This dissertation of 1940 attempted

a full listing of the sung items of the German medieval dramatic reper-
toire. Unfortunately, only the first volume appeared in book form;
Schuler s death meant that the second, transcribing the melodies, was
never published, and is often unmentioned in the bibliographies even
of specialized scholarly works.44 The first volume lists the chants al-
phabetically, identifying each by a number. The wording of the chant
is given first, followed by its biblical and liturgical sources, then by a
list of its occurrences in plays, usually including the wording of the di-
rection and often with a reasonably detailed account of the wording of
the item.
But several factors reduce the usefulness of this ambitious study.
As a pioneering attempt, it has, inevitably, been overtaken by the pas-
sage of half a century: most of the plays cited in it have since been
published with facsimiles or editions of their music. A number of
plays unknown to Schuler have also been discovered: the late Admon-
ter Passionsspiel with its full musical notation is the longest and most
important of this relatively large group.45 Similarly, some key modern
liturgical secondary works postdate Schuler; he could quote office
chants only from unsystematic sources like Marbach, the Paléogra-
38-40, 64-66); Mehler, Dicere und cantare , pp. 185-97; Boletta, The Role of
Music in Medieval German Drama , pp. 121-29.
44
Indeed, even the original manuscript of the second volume was long thought to
have disappeared: see Hans Blosen, Zum Lied der Wächter im Wiener Oster-
spiel : Zugleich Bemerkungen zum Refrain in mittelhochdeutscher Lyrik , Orbis
Litterarum 29 (1974), pp. 183-215, esp. 205, note 76. It has since been traced, and
a small number of copies made.
45
Other plays unknown to Schuler, Die Musik der Osterfeiern, include: Alsfelder Di-
rigierrolle, Brandenburger Osterspielfragment, Feldkircher Osterspiel, Fritzlarer
Passionsspielfragment, Füssener Osterspiel, Göttweiger Dirigierrolle, Marienber-
ger Osterspiel, Nottulner Osterspiel II, Osnabrücker Osterspiel, Prager Abend-
mahlspiel, Saganer Grablegungsspiel, Welser Passionsspielfragment, Zwickauer
Osterspiel. Schuler s account of the Sterzing plays is very incomplete: Rabers Pas-
sion is not cited; musical information on Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel is usually
wrong.
91
phie musicale facsimiles, and modern Roman service books, whereas

nowadays there is the reasonably definitive listing in René-Jean Hes-
bert, Corpus antiphonalium officii, and the extensive and ever-grow-
ing CANTUS database of western liturgical chant.
The manuscripts of some plays were inaccessible to Schuler, leav-
ing him at the mercy of the extant editions. The St Gall Passion Play,
unfortunately, fell into this category. Here Schuler, seemingly un-
aware of Wolter s edition, relied instead on Mone s early and often
unreliable version. On several occasions this led him to follow Mone s
garbled version of the play s incipits, or even to miss out chants alto-
gether (e.g. nos. 20 and 96, Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus ). The work is
marred by numerous other inaccuracies, omissions and over-generali-
zations, some of which will be discussed in detail in this study, and by
the deplorable proof-reading. The limited availability of the second
volume is a further handicap. Scholarship really needs a new Schuler,
produced to the highest standards of accuracy and including all the
material omitted through necessity or inadvertence.
But Schuler s main shortcoming is the fact that his work is not rai-
sonné. It is essentially a list albeit a very large, systematic list which
no one had compiled before but repeatedly, the user will miss dis-
cussion of the lapidary tabulated data. Again and again Schuler lists
biblical, liturgical and other sources without making it entirely clear
which were used in which plays, or exactly how; again and again
readers must consult the plays themselves to find, and often to query
or correct, the results. Discussion is central to the purpose of this
book. Identifying the sung items of a play like the St Gall Passion
Play, and understanding their effect and purpose, is a constant process
of questioning, debating, weighing up. Many can be identified only
within a triangle of error , and only discussion can stake out that tri-
angle and make an informed estimate of its size.
92
Chapter IV
Cantat dicat respondeat
Directions and Performers
Dicere and Cantare : The Directions of the Play

n the St Gall Passion Play, as in other religious plays, the chant
directions use a variety of performance verbs: cantare , dicere ,
clamare , respondere , and others. A detailed understanding of
this terminology is obviously crucial to a full appreciation of the play;
yet Pflanz does not concern himself with the meanings of performance
verbs, beyond assuming at times that dicere could indicate spoken
rather than sung delivery.1 In recent decades, though, increasing schol-
arly attention has been paid to directions. The most detailed study of
the German plays is that of Ulrich Mehler, whose main conclusions
are as follows.
In medieval liturgical books, the verbs dicere and cantare , their
cognates ( canere , dicere cantando , etc.) and their vernacular equi-
valents ( sagen , sprechen , singen , etc.) do not represent the mod-
ern say (meaning perform in a normal speaking voice ; Sprechvor-
trag ) and sing ( perform in a singing voice ; Gesangsvortrag ), as
often assumed.2 In the first place, hardly any of the earlier medieval
1
sionsspieles in der mittelalterlichen Liturgie, Frankfurt [etc.], 1977, passim, e.g. p.
97, assuming 83, Consumatum est , is spoken.
2
E.g. Walther Lipphardt, Liturgische Dramen des Mittelalters , in Friedrich Blume
(ed.), Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 16 vols., Kassel, 1949-79, vol.
VIII, cols 1012-44, esp. 1028 and other scholars, cited by Ulrich Mehler, Dicere
und cantare : Zur musikalischen Terminologie und Aufführungspraxis des mittel-
alterlichen geistlichen Dramas in Deutschland, Regensburg, 1981 (Kölner Bei-
träge zur Musikforschung, 120), p. 2, note 1, and 10, note 12.
liturgy was actually performed in an everyday speaking voice. The an-

tiphons, responsories, hymns, introits, graduals, and so on were melo-
dic, often elaborately so. The prayers, blessings, acclamations and
scriptural readings were not said but almost invariably chanted to
tones , recitative formulae of greater or lesser complexity.3 Later mu-
sical terminology called this recitative material accentus , distin-
guishing it from the melodious chant termed concentus .4 For scrip-
tural texts there were various psalm tones, lection tones for readings at
the office, tones for epistle and gospel at mass, and most importantly
for drama, the special Passion tone for the declamation of the Pas-
sion gospel during Holy Week. Dicere simply does not indicate spo-
ken delivery.
A study of medieval liturgical rubrics, where both dicere and
cantare are applied to liturgical items, suggests that they denote not
two different kinds, but rather two different aspects, of performance.
Dicere is the more ideal term, referring to the overall performance
of a liturgical item, whereas cantare is the more practical or tech-
nical word, referring specifically to its musical articulation.5 The
same terminology is found in the corpus of liturgical drama and in
non-liturgical Latin plays.6
But as Mehler also shows, sensibilities and practices changed. In
the early medieval period, accentus was not understood as melody
or music as such: these terms were reserved for the melodically
more complex concentus , the responsories, graduals and the like
3
Ibid., p. 39, citing also K.G. Fellerer, Kirchenmusikalische Vorschriften im Mit-
telalter , Kirchenmusikalisches Jahrbuch 40 (1956), pp. 1-11.
4
Mehler, Dicere und cantare , p. 253.
5
Ibid., pp. 69-70, esp. p. 70: dicere = Die Ausführung des Gregorianischen Ge-
sanges als Ausdruck des liturgischen Wortes und aller mit ihm verbundenen (in-
neren Gnaden-) Wirkungen ; cantare = Die Ausführung des Chorals als Me-
lodie .
6
Ibid., pp. 98-132 (liturgical plays); pp. 136-42 (Benediktbeurer Emmausspiel, Be-
nediktbeurer Weihnachtsspiel).
94
IV. Cantat dicat respondeat
which were the preserve of trained soloists and choristers rather than
of clerics in general. But the sources show that this had changed by
the early sixteenth century, when the theorist Andreas Ornithoparchus
explicitly treated accentus as part of music.7 Mehler plausibly de-
duces a change in performance practice: that prayers, readings and so
on were increasingly being performed in a speaking voice, and that the
term dicere had begun to be associated with this Sprechvortrag .8
The seed of the modern opposition of the meaning of the two words
was sown.
Mehler also notes historical change in the directions of religious
drama. In earlier plays, such as the (Großes) Benediktbeurer Passions-
spiel (1220-30) and the Frankfurter Dirigierrolle (early fourteenth
century), dicere tends to signify accentus material: scriptural verses
sung to recitative, most often the Passion tone, whereas cantare re-
fers to the more melodious kinds: responsories and non-Gregorian
melodies such as strophic songs, both Latin and vernacular.9 Anti-
phons, which in musical complexity are between the simple accentus
formulae and the elaborate, melismatic responsories, can be referred to
by either term. In earlier plays they tend to have dicere rather than
cantare directions,10 but later plays reflect the changing attitudes to
what was and was not church music : directions apply cantare and
its cognates to an increasingly wide range of material, often including
recitative. Thus in the early-sixteenth-century Alsfelder Passionsspiel,
cantare introduces melodious chants such as responsories, but is
7
Andreas Ornithoparchus, Musice Actiue Micrologus, Leipzig, 1517, sig. Jiv-Kiiv;
Mehler, Dicere und cantare , pp. 71-78.
8
Ibid., pp. 71-78, esp. 72.
9
(Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel (Mehler, Dicere und cantare , pp.
146-75, esp. 175); Frankfurter Dirigierrolle (ibid., pp. 184-87); Frankfurter Pas-
sionsspiel (ibid., pp. 201-03).
10
Thus in liturgical drama and Latin non-liturgical plays: Mehler, Dicere und
cantare , pp. 98-142, 183; (Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel (ibid., pp. 146-
75, esp. 175); cf. summary table, p. 216.
95
also used, alongside the traditional dicere , for the Passion tone; in
the Egerer Passionsspiel (c. 1460) and the late-sixteenth-century Ad-
monter Passionsspiel, cantare is applied to nearly all sung items, in-
cluding the simplest recitative.11
As a product of the early fourteenth century, and one which may
even go back to an earlier original, the St Gall Passion Play could be
expected to show terminology typical of the earlier plays. In this light,
the most striking aspect is the great preponderance of cantare direc-
tions. There are one hundred and four sung items in the play.12 A mere
six have dicere directions.13 Eleven have respondere ;14 sixteen
have no verb at all;15 orare , clamare and dicere cantando each oc-
cur once.16 All the remaining sixty-eight are introduced with cantare .
At first sight this suggests a play particularly rich in the more elabo-
rate kinds of chant, with a distinct tendency to avoid recitative, a
judgement corroborated by Mehler s brief consideration of the play.17
11
Alsfelder Passionsspiel (ibid., pp. 204-10, esp. 208); Egerer Passionsspiel, Admon-
ter Passionsspiel (ibid., pp. 210-13); cf. table, p. 216.
12
The 108 items in the numbering of this study include three instrumental items (21,
25 and 31, dance music for Mary Magdalene) and one incipit which may not in
fact have been a sung item (26, Magister ).
13
30, Nec ego te condempno ; 70, Peccavi tradens sanguinem iustum ; 83, Con-
sumatum est ; 101, Mulier, quid ploras? ; 103, Domine, si tu sustulisti eum,
dicito mihi ; 104, Maria .
14
Respondere : 7, Ego vox clamantis ; 29, Nemo ; 39, Neque hic ; 76, Regem
non habemus ; 77, Crucifige, crucifige eum ; 92, Quis est iste rex glorie? 93,
Dominus virtutum ipse est rex glorie ; 99, Iesum Nazarenum crucifixum ; 100,
Non est hic, quem queritis ; 102, Quia tulerunt Dominum meum ; 107, Sepul-
crum Christi .
15
No performance-verb in: 2, 4, 13, 24, 37, 47, 53, 68, 78 (9 of the 11 instances of
the silence-chant); 38, Rabbi, quis peccavit ; 52, Gloria, laus ; 66, Ave, ave,
rabbi ; 82, Sicio ; 85, Vere ; 86, Sequatur lamentacio Marie ; 108, Scimus
Christum surrexisse .
16
Orans : 64, Pater, si possibile est, transeat . Clament : 74, Ave, rex Iudeorum .
Dicat cantando : 61, Tristis est .
17
Mehler, Dicere und cantare , pp. 188-97, esp. p. 196; cf. Rolf Bergmann, Ka-
talog der deutschsprachigen geistlichen Spiele und Marienklagen des Mittelalters,
96
But this assumption should not be made automatically. Without no-

tation, a sung item can be identified as a liturgical chant only in the
few cases where the direction describes it as an antiphon, hymn, res-
ponsory or similar, or if its incipit shows that its wording is that of a
liturgical item. This is only clear in the case of chants with distinc-
tively liturgical text,18 for the majority of liturgical chants are of
course of scriptural origin. They are based on Latin versions of the
Bible which predate, and differ slightly from, the Vulgate, the stan-
dard medieval scriptural text, and can sometimes be thus identified;19
but incipits are often too short to differentiate a liturgical chant from
the corresponding Vulgate passage.20
What follows here summarizes the results of detailed item-by-item
examination of the St Gall Passion Play chants in Chapters V to X.
Attention has been paid not only to the internal factors which may
identify them, but also to the musical tradition of the German religious
plays. Schuler s work has been extended to include the corpus of cur-
rently known plays, and his results have been critically evaluated and
often revised.21 In many cases, distinct, long-lived musical trends can
be discerned. This has permitted identification of the play chants
within a reasonable margin of error, and this in turn allows a critical
analysis of the play s use of directions.
München, 1986, pp. 77-78; Rolf Steinbach, Die deutschen Oster- und Passions-
spiele des Mittelalters: Versuch einer Darstellung und Wesensbestimmung nebst
einer Bibliographie zum deutschen geistlichen Spiel des Mittelalters, Köln, 1970
(Kölner Germanistische Studien, 4), p. 134.
18
E.g. 12, Baptizat miles regem ; 52, Gloria, laus ; 94, Advenisti [, desiderabilis] ;
97, Media vita .
19
E.g. 27, Si quis sine peccato ; 63, Una hora ; 65, Quem osculatus fuero .
20
E.g. 56, Non lavabis , 57, Si non lavero tibi , 58, Domine, non tantum pedes ;
60, Scriptum est enim ; 61, Tristis est .
21
The corpus of currently known plays, listed in the primary bibliography, is based
on the corpus described in Bergmann, Katalog der deutschsprachigen geistlichen
Spiele.
97
This of course also anticipates the results of chant-by-chant inves-

tigation, and so in one sense is the conclusion of, rather than the intro-
duction to, the study. But one cannot simply identify all the chants
singly, then in a separate operation draw conclusions about the direc-
tions. When deciding whether a particular chant is more likely to be a
liturgical item or a simpler piece of biblical recitative, one important
criterion is its direction, understood within the overall system of the
directions of the play concerned. But an understanding of that overall
system in large part emerges from the decisions about individual
chants. There is a reciprocal, hermeneutical relation between chant-
by-chant investigation and the developing picture of the system that
underlies the play s use of directions. Neither is simply prior to the
other.
In the St Gall Passion Play, forty-eight chants can readily be iden-
tified as liturgical. Only eleven, nearly all in the first third of the play,
are explicitly designated as such.22 Twenty have distinctive liturgical
wording.23 A further seventeen with wording which could also be bib-
22
3, Respondens Iesus cantans antiphonam Quid mihi et tibi est, mulier (l. 28a); 5,
Respondens Iohannis cantet antiphonam Qui post me venit (l. 64a); 8, [Iohannes]
cantet responsorium Ecce agnus Dei (l. 93b); 14, Tunc angeli cantent responso-
rium Ductus est Iesus in desertum [ ] (ll. 123a-b); 19, Respondens Iesus cantet
antiphonam Dominum Deum tuum adorabis (ll. 147a-b); 28, Iesus [ ] cantet an-
tiphonam Nemo te condempnavit (ll. 233a-b); 33, Iesus cantat versum Dimissa
sunt (l. 291b); 44, Domine, si fuisses hic : cf. 45, [Maria] cantet antiphonam
Domine, si hic fuisses ut supra (= 44) (l. 515b); 71, duo angeli cantent responso-
rium Ingressus Pylatus [ ] (ll. 887a-b); 87, Io[seph] [ ] cantans responsorium
Ecce quomodo moritur iustus (ll. 1230a-b). All emphasis supplied.
23
9, Baptiza me, Iohannis (antiphon); 12, Baptizat miles regem (antiphon); 18,
Vade, Satanas, non temptabis (antiphon); 27, Si quis sine peccato (antiphon);
34, Mittens hec mulier (antiphon); 36, Fides etenim (responsory verse); 50, Ex-
pedit vobis (antiphon); 52, Gloria, laus (hymn); 54, Hoc corpus (communio);
63, Una hora (responsory); 65, Quem osculatus fuero (antiphon); 73, Tu dicis,
quia rex sum (responsory); 80, Memento mei, Domine (antiphon); 90, Resur-
rexi (introit); 94, Advenisti (antiphon); 97, Media vita (antiphon); 105, Iesu,
nostra redemptio (hymn); 106, 107, 108, Dic nobis, Maria, quid vidisti in via ,
Sepulcrum Christi , Scimus Christum surrexisse (sequence).
98
lical are, in the light of clear tendencies in the usage of German plays,
almost certainly liturgical.24
Biblical text, by contrast, is a good deal rarer. It can be identified
in seventeen chants, either because there is no corresponding liturgical
item, or from wording which distinguishes a Vulgate verse from a
similar liturgical chant, or in the light of of the consistent practice of
the German dramatic tradition.25 There is a small number of items
from other sources: sixteen, including eleven silence-chants.26
But this still leaves twenty-three chants whose provenance is not
immediately obvious, either because liturgical and biblical wording
are identical, or because the incipit is too short to distinguish them.27
24
20 and 96, Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus (antiphon or Te Deum); 29, Nemo (anti-
phon); 30, Nec ego te condempno (antiphon); 35, Amen dico (antiphon); 43,
Lazarus, amicus noster (antiphon); 48, Colligerunt (antiphon); 49, Quid faci-
mus (antiphon); 55, Mandatum novum (antiphon); 75, Exivit ergo Iesus (res-
ponsory); 84, In manus tuas (responsory); 89, Terra tremuit et quievit (antiphon
or offertorium); 91, Tollite portas (probably antiphon); 95, Venite, benedicti
(antiphon); 101, Mulier, quid ploras (antiphon); 102, Quia tulerunt Dominum
meum (antiphon); 103, Domine, si tu sustulisti eum, dicito mihi (antiphon).
25
No corresponding liturgical item: 6, Quis es ; 66, Ave, ave rabbi ; 70, Peccavi
tradens sanguinem iustum ; 74, Ave, rex Iudeorum ; 82, Sicio ; 85, Vere ; 92,
Quis est iste rex glorie ; 93, Dominus virtutum ipse est rex glorie . Distinctive
Vulgate wording: 7, Ego vox clamantis ; 62 and 64, Pater, si possibile est, tran-
seat ; 77, Crucifige, crucifige eum . Dramatic tradition: 76 and 79, Regem non
habemus ; 81, Hely, Hely ; 83, Consumatum est ; 104, Maria (and also 62 and
64, Pater, si possibile est, transeat ); 66, Ave, ave rabbi ; 70, Peccavi tradens
sanguinem iustum ; 74, Ave, rex Iudeorum ; 77, Crucifige, crucifige eum ; 82,
Sicio ; 85, Vere ; 92, Quis est iste rex glorie ; 93, Dominus virtutum ipse est
rex glorie ).
26
1, 2, 4, 13, 24, 32, 37, 47, 53, 68, 78, silence-chant; 86, Lamentacio Marie ; 88,
Tunc milites vadant ad sepulchrum cantantes aliquid (possibly the Wächterlied);
98-100, Quem quaeritis I dialogue.
27
10, Sine modo sic enim ; 11, Hic est filius meus dilectus ; 15, Si es filius Dei ;
16, Non in solo pane vivit homo ; 17, Angelis suis mandavit ; 22, Venite post
me ; 23, Invenimus Messiam ; 38, Rabbi, quis peccavit ; 39 Neque hic ; 40 and
41, Ille homo qui Iesus dicitur ; 42, A seculo non est ; 46, Lazare, veni foras ;
51, Osanna, benedictus ; 56, Non lavabis , 57, Si non lavero tibi , 58, Domine,
99
These are cases where the German dramatic repertoire is of little help,
because the chants are either unique to the St Gall Passion Play, or
found only in a small corpus of plays. The attempt to decide whether
such material is biblical or liturgical is central to this study. Amongst
the decisive criteria are the directions, but the simple assumption that
cantare always indicates liturgical material needs to be approached
critically.
The predominance of cantare directions hardly means that com-
plex liturgical chants such as responsories predominate in this play,
for this would be a quite untypical repertoire; rather it suggests that
the term applies to a wide range of sung material. This is not incom-
patible with the usage of the earlier Passion plays analysed by Mehler.
They often use cantare for the more elaborate Gregorian items and
dicere for the simpler liturgical chants, such as antiphons, as well as
for biblical recitative.28 However, some do apply cantare to anti-
phons: and the Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, seemingly related to the St
Gall Passion Play, does so frequently.29 The play clearly goes a step
further in this direction. It uses dicere for antiphons only three times:
once for part of Nemo te condemnavit, mulier? and twice in the
Hortulanus encounter between the risen Christ and Mary Magda-
lene.30 Otherwise, thirty-three chants which are definitely or very
probably antiphons have cantare directions.31
non tantum pedes ; 59, Scitis, quid fecerim ; 60, Scriptum est enim ; 61, Tristis
est ; 67, Tamquam ad latronem ; 69, Solvite templum hoc ; 72, Tu es rex Iu-
deorum .
28
(Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel (Mehler, Dicere und cantare , pp.
146-75, esp. 175); Frankfurter Dirigierrolle (ibid., pp. 184-87, esp. 187) and table,
p. 277, note 224.
29
Frankfurter Dirigierrolle (ibid., p. 187 and table, p. 277, note 224): 13 antiphons
with dicere ; ibid., p. 185 and table, pp. 278-79, note 225: 24 antiphons with can-
tare .
30
30, Dicat iterum Iesus Nec ego te condempno ; 101, Mulier, quid ploras ; 103,
Domine, si tu sustulisti eum, dicito mihi .
31
Antiphona in direction: 3, Quid mihi et tibi est, mulier ; 5, Qui post me venit ;
100
Detailed examination of the play s chants identifies fifty-six as

definitely or probably liturgical: nearly all have cantare directions.32
There is indeed a distinct reluctance to associate liturgical material
with any verb but cantare . None of the few exceptions, however, is a
major anomaly. The dicere directions in the Hortulanus antiphons
(101-103) follow the usage of liturgical drama, on which this part of
the play is closely based.33 Sometimes the beginning of a liturgical
item has a cantare direction, with subsequent sections introduced by
another verb, as in the three sections of the antiphon Nemo te con-
dempnavit, mulier? (28-30) :
Tunc Iesus respiciens mulierem cantet antiphonam
Nemo te condempnavit
19, Dominum Deum tuum adorabis ; 28, Nemo te condempnavit ; 44 and 45,
Domine, si hic fuisses . Chants definitely identifiable as antiphons: 9, Baptiza
me, Iohannis ; 12, Baptizat miles regem ; 18, Vade, Satanas, non temptabis ; 27
Si quis sine peccato ; 34, Mittens hec mulier , 50, Expedit vobis ; 80, Memento
mei, Domine ; 91, Tollite portas ; 94, Advenisti ; 97, Media vita . Chants which
are probably antiphons: 10, Sine modo sic enim ; 16, Non in solo pane vivit
homo ; 20 and 96, Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus ; 35, Amen dico ; 40 and 41, Ille
homo qui Iesus dicitur ; 42, A seculo non est ; 43, Lazarus, amicus noster ; 48,
Colligerunt ; 49, Quid facimus ; 51, Osanna, benedictus ; 55, Mandatum no-
vum ; 60, Scriptum est enim ; 65, Quem osculatus fuero ; 89, Terra tremuit et
quievit ; 95, Venite, benedicti .
32
Explicitly liturgical items: see note 22 above. Distinctive liturgical wording: see
note 23. Wording is very probably liturgical: 17, Angelis suis mandavit ; 91, Tol-
lite portas . Dramatic tradition: 20 and 96, Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus ; 22, Venite
post me ; 43, Lazarus, amicus noster ; 48, Colligerunt ; 51, Osanna, benedictus ;
55, Mandatum novum ; 60, Scriptum est enim ; 84, In manus tuas ; 89, Terra
tremuit et quievit ; 95, Venite, benedicti ; 101, Mulier, quid ploras ; 102, Quia
tulerunt Dominum meum ; 103, Domine, si tu sustulisti eum, dicito mihi . Other
criteria: 10, Sine modo, sic enim ; 16, Non in solo pane vivit homo ; 35, Amen
dico ; 40 and 41, Ille homo, qui Iesus dicitur ; 42, A seculo non est ; 59, Scitis,
quid fecerim ; 75, Exivit ergo Iesus .
33
101, Tunc Iesus [ ] dicat [ ] Mulier, quid ploras [ ]; 102, Respondet Maria
Quia tulerunt Dominum meum ; 103, et dicat Domine, si tu sustulisti eum,
dicito mihi (ll. 1331b-c, 1335a-c, emphasis supplied). Mehler, Dicere und
cantare , p. 191, cf. pp. 98-142.
101
Et tunc respondet mulier Nemo

Dicat iterum Iesus Nec ego te condempno . (ll. 233a-d; emphasis supplied)
The same applies to the dialogic exchange from the Easter sequence
Victimae paschali (106-108).34 52, Gloria, laus , a Palm Sunday
processional hymn, has no verb, but arguably the item in the direc-
tion repeats the cantando in the immediately preceding chant, and is
thus effectively a cantare direction.35 The hymn is also clearly identi-
fied by its incipit.
Material which is definitely or probably non-liturgical nearly al-
ways has a direction other than cantare .36 There are ten exceptions,
but only in three, which must be biblical verses, is the cantare direc-
tion unexpected;37 in four it probably reflects the relatively rich mel-
odic setting.38 Cantare introduces the unspecified item the soldiers
sing on the way to guard the tomb: this may well be the traditional
German Wächterlied , which is consistent because cantare is the
standard direction in plays for strophic vernacular song.39 If some
other chant was intended, then cantare is presumably a non-specific
direction for sung material of any kind.
34
106, Dic nobis Maria ( cantet ); 107, Sepulcrum Christi ( respondet ); 108,
Scimus Christum surrexisse (no verb).
35
Occurrant pueri cum palmis cantando Osanna, benedictus et prosternant ves-
timenta sua. Item Gloria, laus et cetera (ll. 568b-d, emphasis supplied).
36
Dicere : 70, Peccavi tradens sanguinem iustum ; 83, Consumatum est ; 104,
Maria . Respondere : 7, Ego vox clamantis ; 39, Neque hic ; 76, Regem non
habemus ; 77, Crucifige, crucifige eum ; 92, Quis est iste rex glorie ; 93, Do-
minus virtutum ipse est rex glorie . Clamare : 74, Ave, rex Iudeorum . No verb:
38, Rabbi, quis peccavit ; 66, Ave, ave rabbi ; 82, Sicio ; 85, Vere .
37
6, Quis es ; 62, Pater, si possibile est, transeat ; 79, Regem non habemus .
38
1, 32, two of the eleven instances of the silence-chant; 81, Hely, Hely ; 98,
[Quem queritis,] o tremule mulieres .
39
88, Tunc milites vadant ad sepulcrum cantantes aliquid (l. 1262a); cf. Mehler,
Dicere und cantare , p. 175.
102
Six cantare incipits cannot definitely be identified as liturgical,

and indeed various considerations suggest that they are not.40 Simi-
larly ambiguous, and again quite possibly not liturgical, is 61, Tristis
est , with the direction dicat cantando , unique in the play. All these
are discussed in detail in Chapters V to X.
Overall, then, there is a relatively tight correlation between the
identity of St Gall Passion Play chants and their directions. Mehler s
conclusion41 that the play shows a clear opposition of dicere for bib-
lical recitative and cantare for plainsong, including antiphons, is thus
confirmed as correct, on the basis of a larger selection of chants exam-
ined in greater detail than in Mehler s study. To state it fully and pre-
cisely: in the St Gall Passion Play, Vulgate material, presumably as
recitative, is associated with dicere , its cognates ( respondere , cla-
mare , orare ), and with verbless directions. With a few exceptions,
many of which can be plausibly explained, cantare denotes liturgical
chants of all kinds, as well as strophic song. There is thus a distinct
maximalist tendency in the use of cantare . It is the almost exclu-
sive direction for antiphons; it introduces non-liturgical items which
have a certain melodic complexity, and is even attached to several
chants which are almost certainly biblical.
The very broad range of reference of cantare , and the clear ten-
dency to use dicere and cognates for biblical material, means that
cantare incipits with wording that matches both liturgical and bibli-
cal items are prima facie likely to be liturgical. Yet this is not auto-
matically guaranteed: in the case of cantare chants whose liturgical
status there may be reason to doubt, other criteria need to be invoked,
and this has been done in the following chapters. One of these criteria
is who performs the chant in question.
40
23, Invenimus Messiam ; 56, Non lavabis ; 57, Si non lavero tibi ; 58, Domine,
non tantum pedes ; 67, Tamquam ad latronem ; 69, Solvite templum hoc .
41
103
Persone : The Performers of the Play

When the individual chants have been identified as accurately as pos-
sible, a distinct and rational pattern emerges in the allocation of items
to the different players. This in turn throws further light on problem-
atical chants, in much the same way as the directions do.
Twenty-seven individuals or groups sing in the play. A tabulation
reveals a clear correlation of the characters and the types of chant they
sing.
Characters and their chants
Jesus (Iesus, Christus)
3 Quid mihi et tibi est, mulier Antiphon
9 Baptiza me, Iohannis Antiphon
10 Sine modo sic enim Antiphon or biblical recitative
16 Non in solo pane vivit homo Antiphon
18 Vade, Satanas, non temptabis Antiphon
19 Dominum Deum tuum adorabis Antiphon
22 Venite post me Antiphon or communio
27 Si quis sine peccato Antiphon
28 Nemo te condempnavit Antiphon
30 Nec ego te condempno Antiphon
33 Dimissa sunt Responsory verse
34 Mittet hec mulier Antiphon
35 Amen dico Antiphon
36 Fides etenim Responsory verse
39 Neque hic Antiphon?
43 Lazarus, amicus noster Antiphon
46 Lazare, veni foras Communio?
54 Hoc corpus Communio
55 Mandatum novum Antiphon
57 Si non lavero tibi Biblical recitative?
59 Scitis, quid fecerim Communio
60 Scriptum est enim Antiphon
61 Tristis est Biblical recitative?
62, 64 Pater, si possibile est, transeat Biblical recitative
63 Una hora Responsory
104
67 Tamquam ad latronem Biblical recitative?

73 Tu dicis, quia rex sum Biblical recitative?
81 Hely, Hely Biblical, special melody
82 Sicio Biblical recitative
83 Consumatum est Biblical recitative
84 In manus tuas Short responsory
90 Resurrexi Introit
91 Tollite portas Antiphon
95 Venite, benedicti Antiphon or introit
101 Mulier, quid ploras Antiphon
104 Maria Visitatio chant
Groups
Angels (Angeli)
(a) Number unspecified
1, 2, 4, 13, 24, 37, 47, 53, 68,
78 Silence-chant Special melody
14 Ductus est Iesus in desertum Responsory
20 Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus Antiphon or Te Deum
(b) Two angels (Duo angeli)
12 Baptizat miles regem Antiphon
71 Ingressus Pylatus Responsory
75 Exivit ergo Iesus Responsory
89 Terra tremuit et quievit Antiphon or communio
(c) Single angel (Angelus)
32 Silence-chant Special melody
48 Colligerunt Antiphon
93 Dominus virtutum ipse est rex glorie Psalm-tone
98 Quem queritis, o tremule mulieres Visitatio chant
100 Non est hic, quem queritis Visitatio chant
Boys (Pueri)
51 Osanna, benedictus Antiphon
52 Gloria, laus Hymn
Good Souls (Adam cum ceteris)
94 Advenisti Antiphon
96 Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus Antiphon or Te Deum
105
Three Maries (Mariae; Maria Magdalena, Maria Iacobi, Maria Salome)

97 Media vita Antiphon
99 Iesum Nazarenum crucifixum Visitatio chant
Soldiers (Milites)
74 Ave, rex Iudeorum Biblical recitative
88 cantantes aliquid Strophic vernacular song
Apostles (Apostoli)
108 Scimus Christum surrexisse Sequence
Jews (Iudei)
76, 79 Regem non habemus Biblical recitative?
77 Crucifige, crucifige eum Biblical recitative
Individual characters
Mary Magdalene (Maria Magdalena, Maria)
45 Domine, si hic fuisses Antiphon
97 Media vita Antiphon
99 Iesum Nazarenum crucifixum Visitatio chant
102 Quia tulerunt Dominum meum Antiphon
103 Domine, si tu sustulisti eum Antiphon
105 Iesu, nostra redemptio Hymn
107 Sepulcrum Christi Sequence
Virgin Mary (Maria)
86 Sequatur lamentacio Marie Unidentified
John the Baptist (Iohannis Baptista, Iohannis)
5 Qui post me venit Antiphon
7 Ego vox clamantis Biblical recitative
8 Ecce agnus Dei Responsory
Devil, Lucifer (Dyabolus, Lucifer)
15 Si es filius Dei Responsory verse
17 Angelis suis mandavit Responsory
92 Quis est iste rex glorie Shouted
Peter (Petrus)
23 Invenimus Messiam Biblical recitative?
38 Rabbi, quis peccavit Biblical recitative?
56 Non lavabis Biblical recitative?
58 Domine, non tantum pedes Biblical recitative?
106 Dic nobis, Maria Sequence
106

God the Father (Persona abscondita voce Patris)
11 Hic est filius meus dilectus Antiphon or biblical recitative
Judas (Iudas)
65 Quem osculatus fuero Antiphon
66 Ave, ave, Rabbi Biblical recitative
70 Peccavi tradens sanguinem iustum Biblical recitative
Blind man (Cecus)
40, 41 Ille homo qui Iesus dicitur Antiphon?
42 A seculo non est Antiphon?
Messenger (Unus nunciorum)
6 Quis es Biblical recitative
Andrew (Andreas)
23 Invenimus Messiam Biblical recitative?
Adultress (Mulier)
29 Nemo Antiphon
Martha (Marta)
44 Domine, si hic fuisses Antiphon
Annas (Annas)
49 Quid facimus Antiphon
Caiaphas (Cayphas)
50 Expedit vobis Antiphon
Rufus (Rufus)
69 Solvite templum hoc Biblical recitative?
Pilate (Pylatus)
72 Tu es rex Iudeorum Biblical recitative or antiphon
Good Thief (Alter Latro)
80 Memento mei, Domine Antiphon
Centurion (Centurio)
85 Vere Biblical
Joseph of Arimathea (Ioseph ab Aremathia)
87 Ecce quomodo moritur iustus Responsory
Instrumental music
21, 25, 31 Dance music for Mary Magdalene Stringed instruments?
107
Jesus
As would be expected, the centrality of Jesus in the play is reflected in
the most extensive, varied and demanding singing part by far. Jesus
has thirty-seven incipits, representing thirty-three separate chants.
Twenty-five are definitely or probably liturgical: most are office anti-
phons, but there is a good sprinkling of more complex communiones
and introits, and even challenging responsory material: one long res-
ponsory (63, Una hora ) and two responsory verses (33, Dimissa
sunt ; 36, Fides etenim [alternative chant]).
Some of Jesus s material is biblical recitative, but this is clearly not
a concession to limited musical ability. Most is found where the Pas-
sion play tradition uses biblical text as standard (62, 64, Pater, si pos-
sibile est, transeat ; 73, Tu dicis, quia rex sum ; 82, Sicio ; 83, Con-
sumatum est ); the biblical Hely, Hely (81), sung to a special part of
the Passion tone, has a melismatic melody more challenging than
many an antiphon. Two items which might be responsories are ones
where the German dramatic tradition has a distinct tendency to avoid
the responsory melodies (61, Tristis est ; 67, Tamquam ad latro-
nem ). The two occasions where it is particularly hard to decide
whether biblical or liturgical material was intended are explicable. The
exchange between Jesus and Peter at the Mandatum (57, Si non lav-
ero tibi ), may well be recitative because the corresponding liturgical
chant Ante diem festum Paschae is one of the most complex in the
plainsong repertoire; and the item is arranged as a sung dialogue with
Peter (56, Non lavabis ; 58, Domine, non tantum pedes ), whose
singing role probably accommodates a not particularly gifted singer
(see below). Another exchange between Jesus and Peter provides the
second example: 38, Rabbi, quis peccavit and 39, Neque hic look
as though they are biblical, not liturgical, material.
Jesus was almost certainly played by a clergyman, probably a
priest, as is regularly the case in religious drama.42
42
Franz Körndle et al., Liturgische Dramen, geistliche Spiele , in Ludwig Finscher
108
Groups of Singers
The Angels
The angels are the second most important musical figures in the play,
marked out by their repertoire as a group of trained singers. They per-
form the silence-chant eleven times (1, 2, 4, 13, 24, 32, 37, 47, 53, 68,
78) and a number of other items, all liturgical or quasi-liturgical, of a
fair degree of difficulty: twenty-one incipits in all, representing nine
distinct chants.
The directions for certain items prescribe an angel soloist, those for
others a duo (see table above). The rest do not specify a group size, so
it is unclear whether the play used only two angels, or a larger
group.43 Nowhere do the logistics of performance actually demand
more than two, and German performance traditions are not well under-
stood. However, the silence-chant probably needed a reasonable vol-
ume to silence a large audience44 and it is notable that it is consistently
given to the unspecified number of angels, never to the duo, and only
once to the soloist at a point where the audience may have been
quiet already, and where the function of the chant was probably more
sacramental than silencing.45 The conjecture that there may have
(ed.), Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Kassel-Stuttgart, 1994- [2nd re-
vised ed.], vol. V, cols 1388-1412, esp. 1389; cf. Karl Dreimüller, Die Musik des
Alsfelder Passionsspiels: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Musik in den geistlichen
Spielen des deutschen Mittelalters. Mit erstmaliger Veröffentlichung der Melodien
aus der Kasseler Handschrift des Alsfelder Spiels (Landes-Bibl. Kassel 2o Mss.
poet. 18) (Doctoral thesis), 3 vols., Wien, 1935, vol. I: Abhandlungen, p. 225. Cf.
Klaus Wolf, Für eine neue Form der Kommentierung geistlicher Spiele: Die
Frankfurter Spiele als Beispiel der Rekonstruktion von Aufführungswirklichkeit ,
in Hans-Joachim Ziegeler (ed.), Ritual und Inszenierung. Geistliches und weltli-
ches Drama des Mittelalters, Tübingen:, 2004, pp. 3-32, esp. 8-9, on three named
priests involved in the Frankfurter Passionsspiel.
43
Rolf Bergmann, F. Interpretation , in Rudolf Schützeichel (ed.), Das Mittelrhei-
nische Passionsspiel der St. Galler Hs. 919, Tübingen, 1978, pp. 217-61, esp. 220,
generalizes from the references to duo angeli that there were only two.
44
See Chapter VI, no. 1.
45
Only four directions explicitly give the silence-chant to the unspecified number of
109
been more than two angels in all is thus not entirely unfounded. A lar-
ger angelic cohort would allow some angels to double other roles (see
Good Souls, below). If there were only two, this would be impossible,
but would of course also mean that a reasonably-sized church choir
would have provided enough choristers to sing the other roles without
doubling.
It is also notable that the three difficult responsory items are per-
formed by either the whole chorus (14, Ductus est Jesus in desertum )
or by the duo (71, Ingressus Pylatus ; 75, Exivit ergo Iesus ) where-
as most of the soloist s numbers are less demanding (93, Dominus
virtutum [ ] ; 98, Quem queritis [ ] ; 100, Non est hic [ ]); but
the fact that the soloist performs 48, Colligerunt [pontifices] , classed
as an antiphon but musically as complex as a responsory, shows that
he too was a highly competent singer. The angels must have been
trained church singers, probably of a reasonably important ecclesias-
tical establishment. Were they adults (clerics or singing-men) or boy
choristers? Neither the music they sing, nor the directions, give any
clues, and German performance-tradition on this point is not well un-
derstood.46
Others
Six other groups of singers figure in the play, though the chants as-
signed to them suggest that they are not all on the same level of musi-
cal expertise. There seems to be a division between the three groups
who would have needed a certain amount of musical training, and the
remaining three whose task was much simpler.
angels (1, 2, 4, 24); but the careful indication of solo or duo performance of other
angel chants (and once of the silence-chant, no. 32) suggests that the whole chorus
normally sang the Silete .
46
Brief summary in Körndle, Liturgische Dramen, geistliche Spiele , col. 1389; cf.
Cambridge, 1996, vol. I, p. 193: in English plays angels are sometimes men, some-
times boys.
110
The Good Souls

The chorus of the Good Souls, including Adam, seem to have had a
certain musical ability. They sing the reasonably challenging Adve-
nisti (94), that is the section Advenisti, desiderabilis from the Easter
antiphon Cum rex gloriae , the so-called Carmen triumphale . Less
difficult is 96, Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus , which is probably either an
office antiphon or a section from the Te Deum, sung on the Good
Souls arrival in Heaven. Since the angel chorus also sing Sanctus,
sanctus, sanctus earlier on in the play (20), the possibility that the
Good Souls are a subset of the angels suggests itself. And indeed this
is logistically possible, since the entire group of angels is not involved
in the action at this point: the duo has sung 89, Terra tremuit et quie-
vit just before the Resurrection (ll. 1262b-c), then a single angel has
conducted the risen Christ to Hell (ll. 1262e-f, 1270a-b). The full an-
gel choir makes its final appearance several hundred lines earlier, to
sing the last silence-chant of the play (78, l. 979c); thereafter only the
duo (89) or the single angel (93, 98, 100) appear, so that there would
have been ample time for some of the angels to change costume and
make-up to double as Good Souls.47 If there were only two angels in
toto, these arrangements would have been unfeasible, but also unnec-
essary.
The Boys (Pueri)
The group of boys ( Pueri ), who have an important but not extensive
musical part, must also have been trained church musicians. During
Jesus s entry into Jerusalem they sing two chants, one a familiar hymn
from the Palm Sunday liturgical procession (51, Gloria, laus ) and the
other (52 Osanna, benedictus ), probably an antiphon from the same
rite.
47
Angels often wore gold face make-up: e.g. Rastall, The Heaven Singing, p. 191.
111
The Maries
The three Maries are another group who cannot have been lacking in
musical ability: they not only perform their part in the Visitatio sepul-
chri (99, Jesum Nazarenum crucifixum ), but process to the empty
tomb singing the long, melismatic antiphon Media vita in morte su-
mus (97). One of them is of course Mary Magdalene, who, as shown
below, must have been played by a singer of no little competence. The
performance-tradition of the earlier German Passion plays is not at all
clear as regards the casting of female singing roles, but the Maries
may well have been played by male actors, possibly by boys.48 This in
turn raises the possibility that the Maries were doubled by the Pueri ,
or could have been if required.
The second set of three groups look to have been much less expert
musicians.
The Soldiers
The unspecified number of soldiers who guard Jesus s tomb have only
two simple items: 74, Ave, rex Iudeorum (biblical recitative) and the
48
The earlier view that women were excluded from performance of German religious
drama (e.g. Wilhelm Breuer, Zur Aufführungspraxis vorreformatorischer Fron-
leichnamsspiele in Deutschland , Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 94 [1975],
Sonderheft: Mittelalterliches deutsches Drama, pp. 50-71, esp. 69) has been rela-
tivized by recent scholarship (e.g. Ursula Hennig, Die Beteiligung von Frauen als
Darstellerinnen an lateinischen Osterfeiern , in Carola L. Gottzmann & Herbert
Kolb (eds.), Geist und Zeit: Wirkungen des Mittelalters in Literatur und Sprache.
Festschrift für Roswitha Wisniewski zu ihrem 65. Geburtstag, Frankfurt am Main,
1991, pp. 211-27; and Barbara Thoran, Frauenrollen und Rolle der Frauen in der
Geschichte der deutschsprachigen Passionsspiele , in Michael Henker (ed.), Hört,
sehet, weint und liebt : Passionsspiele im alpenländischen Raum. Katalogbuch zur
Ausstellung im Ammergauer Haus, Oberammergau, 28. Mai bis 30. September
1990, München, 1990 (Veröffentlichungen zur bayerischen Geschichte und Kultur,
20), pp. 113-19). Yet certain female roles including the Maries were still re-
served to men or boys in some plays of the sixteenth century, well after women
had definitely begun acting in German drama. See Thoran, Frauenrollen , cited by
Körndle, Liturgische Dramen, geistliche Spiele , col. 1389.
112
unidentified chant they sing as they march off to the tomb (88), which
was very likely the Wächterlied , a simple strophic vernacular song.
The Apostles
The Apostles have only one chant, the brief section Scimus Christum
surrexisse (108) from the sequence Victimae paschali , which was
both familiar and melodically undemanding. Of all the Apostles, only
Peter and Andrew are expected to sing anything else in the play, and
even they are evidently of modest musical ability (see below).
The Jews
The group of Jews who sing three items during Jesus s trial seem to
have been given very simple material indeed. The repeated Regem
non habemus [nisi Caesarem] (76, 79) and 77, Crucifige, crucifige
eum are both short and almost certainly set to easy recitative formu-
lae.
Single Characters
The many other characters who sing in the course of the play show a
similar range of musical abilities. As with the groups, there is a mark-
ed difference between the few who clearly needed to be performers of
some ability and the majority who did not.
Mary Magdalene
Dominating the cast of soloists (other than Jesus) in terms of the num-
ber of items, but more especially of their difficulty, is Mary Magda-
lene. All her seven chants are liturgical melodies. None, perhaps, is of
the first order of complexity; yet the role as a whole demands a singer
of confidence and some presence. The solo performance of the hymn
Iesu, nostra redemptio (105) and the lengthy, melismatic antiphon
Media vita in morte sumus (97), even though shared with the other
Maries, would have been challenging, as would the Hortulanus anti-
phons in the important climactic scene with the risen Jesus (102, 103).
113
Mary also has to dance lasciviously three times (21, 25, 31). The mu-
sical demands made on Mary reflect her importance in the action and
the theology of the play, not only in her classic role in the Hortu-
lanus sequence of the Easter play, but also in the numerous episodes
depicting her sinful life and the stages of her conversion; these are de-
veloped particularly strongly in the St Gall Passion Play, which gives
them a striking, quasi-sacramental dignity. Like the other two Maries,
Mary Magdalene may well have been played by a man or boy choris-
ter.
There is an interesting set of five or possibly six figures whose singing
roles are small but involve musically demanding items.
The Virgin Mary

Though by no means an extensive speaking part, and given nothing at
all to sing for most of the play, Mary performs the Lamentacio Marie
(86) after Jesus s death. The text and melody of this are entirely un-
specified; yet the solo performance of even such standard items as
Planctus ante nescia or Flete, fideles animae surely demands a
trained singer, again possibly a man or boy.
Joseph of Arimathea
Joseph also has a small part; but while burying Jesus he sings the long
and melodically elaborate responsory Ecce quomodo moritur iustus
(87), scarcely a chant for an amateur.
Annas, Caiaphas
It looks as though Annas and Caiaphas belong to this group of per-
formers: their items, 49, Quid facimus , and 50, Expedit vobis , are
very likely to be sections of the difficult antiphon Collegerunt pon-
tifices .
114
God the Father

He too sings only once: 11, Hic est filius meus dilectus . It is uncer-
tain whether this is liturgical chant or recitative; if the former, it may
have been a chant of some complexity.
Pilate
It is not clear whether Pilate belongs to this group or not; the evidence
of his single chant suggests not; but this cannot be certain (72, Tu es
rex Iudeorum ; see Chapter VIII).
It is interesting that, if necessary, at least two of these parts could have

been doubled by singers from one of the groups. Since God the Father
remains unseen, he could have been one of the angel chorus, assuming
they numbered more than two. In the baptism scene, the antiphon
Baptizat miles regem (12) which accompanies the baptism (ll. 111a-
d) is sung by the angelic duo. Joseph s appearance is short, and late in
the play (ll. 1198a-1230c), and the logistics which would allow the
chorus of Good Souls to be sung by some of the angels (see above)
would also permit one of the angels to take Joseph s part. Mary might
have been harder to double, though it is possible that the actor who
played her brief non-singing role early in the play (ll. 0a-43, esp. ll.
20a-28) was different from the one who played her singing role much
later (ll. 775b-1183a) and who might have been one of the choirboys.
Other schemes of doubling are possible. The actor playing John the
Baptist, for example, had finished his part by l. 117, and could have
sung Annas or Caiaphas. Various other combinations can be imagined,
but this is necessarily speculative.
John the Baptist

Another figure who plays a small but extremely important part in the
action is John the Baptist. Jesus s baptism is the crucial initiatory ac-
tion in the play, and as such is articulated in fairly elaborate chant.
115
Two of John s items are liturgical, and one is a responsory (8, Ecce
agnus Dei ).
The Devil
Though the world of Hell and the Devil is often associated with ca-
cophony,49 the St Gall Passion Play Devil does seem to be conceived
as a singing role of some difficulty. Two of his chants may be repon-
sories: 15, Si es filius Dei and 17, Angelis suis mandavit ; though it
is possible that his sections were sung to a simple tone.
The rest of the singing roles seem to demand much less in the way of
musical competence.
Peter
Interestingly, Peter, though an important speaking part, has a musical
role that seems tailored to an actor of modest musical ability. At six
items it is quite extensive, but the only definitely liturgical melodies,
106, Dic nobis, Maria and 108, Scimus Christum surrexisse , are
both merely short extracts from the simple, well-known sequence
Victimae paschali . All of Peter s other chants (23, 38, 56, 58) are
probably biblical. Indeed, despite his dramatic and theological impor-
tance, he is scarcely in the first division of the soloists.
The Other Individual Roles

The remaining ten or eleven individual singing roles are very modest
both in extent and in difficulty. Two, Judas and the blind man ( Ce-
cus ), are slightly more demanding. Judas has three items, but only
one seems to be liturgical (65, Quem osculatus fuero , an easy anti-
phon). The other two are the briefest and simplest of recitative lines.
The Blind Man s part is if anything slightly more demanding: he sings
49
E.g. Rastall, The Heaven Singing, p. 208.
116
two chants which are probably antiphons, though again neither is par-
ticularly long or demanding.
The remaining eight or nine (Messenger, Andrew, Adultress, Mar-
tha, Rufus, Good Thief, Centurion, possibly Pilate, and God the Fa-
ther), are for the most part given simple biblical recitative; the few li-
turgical chants involved are short and relatively easy antiphons or ex-
tracts from antiphons.50 Most sing only one item; Andrew sings two,
but neither is a solo (23, Invenimus Messiam , probably biblical reci-
tative, together with Peter; 108, Scimus Christum surrexisse , to-
gether with the rest of the Apostles), so that this actor does not need to
be capable of solo performance at all.
Conclusions
Understanding the nature and distribution of chants in the St Gall Pas-
sion Play allows us to build up quite a detailed picture of the sort of
musical resources necessary to stage the play. They were considerable,
though not excessively ambitious. As well as some instrumentalists,
there were possibly just two groups of trained church singers, perhaps
one of men and one of boys, perhaps both of boys, who provided the
four choruses of Angels, Good Souls, Pueri and Maries. There were
two accomplished soloists singing extensive parts (Jesus and Mary
Magdalene). There were a maximum of six others who had to be com-
petent but sang only one item (Virgin Mary, Joseph of Arimathea,
Annas, Caiaphas, possibly Pilate and God the Father); these could
have been doubled, some perhaps by members of the trained choruses.
There were two others, John the Baptist and the Devil, who did not
need quite the same level of expertise. All the remaining group and
individual parts, even the extensive but simple role of Peter, could
easily be taught to singers of very moderate ability.
50
Andrew: 108, Scimus Christum surrexisse (sequence). Mulier: 29, Nemo (easy
antiphon). Martha: 44, Domine, si hic fuisses (easy antiphon). Good Thief: 80,
Memento mei, Domine (easy antiphon).
117
This is exactly the profile which Dreimüller deduces for the Als-
felder Passionsspiel: einige tüchtige Gesangssolisten für die wichtig-
sten Hauptrollen , and some weniger geschulte stimmbegabte Dar-
steller for the rest.51 And as with Alsfeld, all this suggests the collab-
oration of an ecclesiastical establishment of some kind, of a reason-
able size and with clerics and choristers who could cope with some of
the more elaborate office chants, notably the matins responsories, by
no means familiar to most of the secular clergy. In the case of Alsfeld,
Dreimüller surmises that by the late fifteenth and early sixteenth cen-
tury, only monks would have known this repertoire.52 In the early
fourteenth century it was probably less exclusively monastic; the re-
sources of a cathedral or collegiate church might well have been suffi-
cient, as in Frankfurt, where the clergy of Sankt Bartholomäus were
responsible for the Frankfurter Dirigierrolle.53 This in turn suggests
that the St Gall Passion Play was produced in a centre which had such
an establishment. What this implies for the localization of the play is
explored in the next chapter.
51
Dreimüller, Die Musik des Alsfelder Passionsspiels , vol. I, p. 225.
52
Ibid.
53
Wolf, Für eine neue Form der Kommentierung geistlicher Spiele , pp. 15-19, 67;
cf. ibid., p. 5, conjecturing the involvement of the Dean, Pfarrer and curates, Scho-
laster, choirmaster and schoolboys of the Bartholomäusstift.
118
A note on the transcription and editing
of text and notation
xcept where otherwise stated, the St Gall Passion Play text is

cited from the edition by Rudolf Schützeichel,1 but all proper
names have been capitalized, and mistakes in the directions,
both in the manuscript and in Schützeichel s edition, have been cor-
rected. Such mistakes are always noted and discussed.
Liturgical chants have been transcribed, usually from from the
books in Frankfurt, Stadt- und Universitätsbibliothek, as detailed in
Chapter III: Ms. lat. qu. 48 (antiphonal, pars hiemalis); Ms. Barth. 94
(antiphonal, pars aestivalis); Ms. lat. qu. 44 (gradual). When the rele-
vant chant is not included or adequately given there, other books have
been used; the precise source of all musical examples is cited. For rea-
sons of economy of space I have often given the music not of entire
chants, but only of those sections which would have been sung in the
play.
The approach to transcribing and editing chants is similar to that of
Renate Amstutz in her Ludus de decem virginibus,2 though my edito-
rial touch is somewhat lighter. The original music is transcribed onto a
modern five-line stave. The variable cleffing of the manuscripts,
which can place F and C on any convenient line of the stave, is regu-
larized as the modern treble (G) clef. The pitch is usually that of the
original (written an octave higher than performance pitch), but in a
1
2
Renate Amstutz, Ludus de decem virginibus: Recovery of the Sung Liturgical Core
of the Thuringian Zehnjungfrauenspiel , Toronto, 2002 (Studies and Texts, 140),
pp. 319-23.
few cases the music has been transposed, usually to allow it to fit
more satisfactorily onto the stave, but occasionally for other reasons;
this may involve the use of modern key-signatures. All transpositions
are noted and explained.
The original notation is represented by modern headless notes
which have no intrinsic time-value; they are grouped into the neumes
of the original by slurs, and for the sake of clarity and economy of
space these note-groups are written more closely together than in
modern mensural notation. The only medieval note-form which is
imitated is the liquescent neume, indicating a smooth pitch-glide on
one syllable;3 it is represented by a pair of slurred notes, the second
smaller than the first. Modern notation inevitably loses some perform-
ance nuances of the original neumes; I have accepted this for the sake
of the user-friendliness of familiar present-day forms.4 Readers in
search of a higher degree of authenticity must, I am afraid, consult
original liturgical sources when they will find that the precise
neumes used for the same passage of the same chant vary, often quite
considerably, between different manuscripts.
This is not a specialized musicological study. The sources used are
not of course the original music of the St Gall Passion Play but
simply a convenient repertoire of the chants of the play; and they have
not been subjected to systematic comparative analysis. In editing the
3
Johns Stevens, Words and Music in the Middle Ages: Song, Narrative, Dance and
Drama, 1050-1350, Cambridge, 1986, p. 507.
4
E.g. Andreas Traub, Die geistlichen Spiele des Sterzinger Spielarchivs, vol. VI:2:
Kommentar zur Edition der Melodien, Mittlere Deutsche Literatur in Neu- und
Nachdrucken, 19:2, Bern, 1996, pp. 8-9; idem, Überlegungen zur Edition von
Melodien in geistlichen Spielen an Beispielen aus dem Sterzinger Spielarchiv , in
Anton Schwob (ed.), Editionsberichte zur mittelalterlichen deutschen Literatur:
Beiträge der Bamberger Tagung Methoden und Probleme der Edition mittelalter-
licher deutscher Texte , Göppingen, 1994 (Litterae, 117), pp. 255-59, esp. 256-57;
David Hiley, Western Plainchant: A Handbook, Oxford, 1993, p. 400. Amstutz,
Ludus de decem virginibus, pp. 319-20, similarly accepts the limitations of modern
notation.
120
Note on Transcription and Editing
musical examples, therefore, I have not aimed at, or tried to give the
impression of achieving, a greater degree of accuracy than the sources
permit. Additional editorial signs have been been kept to an absolute
minimum: the very occasional vertical stroke to separate sections of
certain chants; the flat sign to mark the flattened b, often merely im-
plicit in the manuscripts. Mistakes and ambiguities in the manuscripts,
in cleffing, modality, notes or words, have in most cases been silently
corrected, resolved, or interpreted after careful comparison with ana-
logous sources of the chant concerned. Ambiguous word underlay has
been plausibly reconstructed, also with reference to analogues, and
also without discussion.
The play s incipits spell Latin in a distinctively fourteenth-century
way. Given, however, that the reconstruction of the play s melodies
has involved numerous sources, whose Latin spelling is far from uni-
form, I have given complete chants in the standardized orthography of
modern Roman liturgical books, the CANTUS database and the Corpus
antiphonalium officii.5 The incipits are of course cited using the St
Gall Ms 919 manuscript spelling.
Reconstructing chants sung to the Passion tone is problematic. No
Mainz, Worms or Speyer passionals are extant from the fourteenth, or
even the fifteenth century (see Chapter III and the bibliography of lit-
urgical sources). In the late nineteenth century a tone which goes back
to medieval German models was adopted as the official Roman Pas-
sion tone;6 yet it would be historically questionable simply to tran-
scribe extracts from the current Officium maioris hebdomadae. Most
5
See: CANTUS. A Database for Latin Ecclesiastical Chant (URL: http://publish.uwo.
ca/~cantus) and René-Jean Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium officii, Roma, 1963-79,
6 vols. (Rerum ecclesiasticarum documenta, Series maior, Fontes, 7-12).
6
Karlheinz Schlager, Passion A. Die einstimmige Passion , in Ludwig Finscher
(ed.), Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Kassel-Stuttgart, 1994- [2nd re-
vised ed.], vol. VII, cols. 1452-56, esp. 1455. The tone is found, e.g. in Munich,
Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 8814, a sixteenth-century Franciscan passional
from Munich, and resembles German tones of the fourteenth century.
121
other medieval German plays which notate Passion tone settings are
late; many are from areas far from the St Gall Passion Play s home,
and they realize the tone in a variety of slightly different ways, es-
pecially in their choice of final cadences. Given the St Gall Passion
Play s Frankfurt connections and its proximity to the Hessian tradition
in general, I have usually reconstructed Passion tone settings on the
basis of the formulae used in the Alsfelder Passionsspiel, the only
Hessian play to notate such settings. These are similar to those found
in several fifteenth-century German passionals,7 and given liturgical
conservatism will probably not have differed much from those of the
fourteenth century. The footnotes also refer to the corresponding,
often very similar, versions in the Officium maioris hebdomadae. Oc-
casionally there were convincing reasons for citing Passion-tone set-
tings of some items from other plays; these of course are always
noted.
The chant reconstructions in Hartl s edition of the St Gall Passion
Play are nearly always wrong,8 and with very few exceptions are ig-
nored in this study.
7
Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 6107b, Mulier, ecce filius tuus ; 6111b, Ecce mater
tua ; 6159b-e, Hely, Hely [...] ; 6253b, Sicio ; 6267d, Consumatum est ; 6463c,
Vere filius dei erat iste . Transcribed by Horst Brunner in Johannes Janota (ed.),
Die hessische Passionsspielgruppe. Edition im Paralleldruck, 3 vols., Tübingen,
1996-2002, vol. II: Alsfelder Passionsspiel, pp. 711, 717, 733, 735, and 757. Simi-
larities with German Passion tone in such sources as Karlsruhe, Badische Landes-
bibliothek, St. Blasien 15 (Antiphonal, St. Blasien), fols. 54-55v; Munich, Bay-
erische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 7461 (Passional, Indersdorf); St. Florian, Stiftsbi-
bliothek, XI, 150 (St. Florian). See the conspectus of these and other manuscripts
in Bruno Stäblein, Passion. A. Die einstimmige lateinische Passion , in Friedrich
Blume (ed.), Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 16 vols., Kassel, 1949-79,
vol. X, cols. 886-98, esp. 892-94.
8
See Chapter I, note 17.
122
Chapter V
Localizing the Play
inguistic localization of the St Gall Passion Play has distinct

possibilities, but also, as Chapter I explains, definite limita-
tions: the area in which it situates the play is still quite size-
able. Textual comparison of the kind that Wolf undertakes shows con-
nections between the St Gall Passion Play and the Frankfurt dramatic
tradition; yet our play is not simply a clone of a Frankfurt play. It is
the result of developments which took place somewhere other than
Frankfurt. But where? Neither dialectology nor textual scholarship,
then, offers a definitive localization. Can a liturgical approach offer
anything more?
Expectations must not be unrealistically high. As noted in Chapter
III, literary scholars, Pflanz included, tend to overestimate the degree
to which chants are distinctive of local uses. The St Gall Passion Play
chants are in fact nearly all found in all three dioceses of Mainz,
Worms and Speyer, and indeed of a great many German dioceses.
A small number, however, seem to offer some localization evi-
dence. The picture of the play s provenance they yield is not absolute-
ly consistent; a few slightly contradictory details remain, though noth-
ing, as will be argued, that cannot be satisfactorily resolved, especially
if the relative evidential weight of individual items is borne in mind,
and localization is not attempted on Pflanz s simplistic numerical ba-
sis.
Two of the play s chants seem to be unknown in all three diocesan
liturgies. In the first of these Jesus triumphantly rebuts the last tempta-
tion by the Devil in the wilderness:
19
Respondens Iesus cantet antiphonam Dominum
Deum tuum adorabis et dicat:
Daz ist der heilge[n] scrifte gebot.
Gleube aleine an einen Got,
vnd but ime dinst alleine,
so wirt din lon nit cleine. (ll. 147a-51)
The direction clearly calls the chant, found only in the St Gall Pas-
sion Play, an antiphon.1 Bergmann treats this item very vaguely,2 but
Pflanz is undoubtedly correct in identifying this mode 8 antiphon for
the First Sunday in Lent:3, 4
Yet this relatively common chant seems not to have been used in
any of the three relevant dioceses. Apparently more widespread in
southern German dioceses, it is certainly absent from Worms and
1
Universität Basel, 1940), no. 161.
2
Rolf Bergmann, Studien zu Entstehung und Geschichte der deutschen Passions-
spiele des 13. und 14. Jahrhunderts, München, 1972 (Münstersche Mittelalter-
Schriften, 14), p. 209.
3
Hochschulschriften, Reihe 1, 205), p. 62.
4
René-Jean Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium officii, Roma, 1963-79, 6 vols. (Rerum
ecclesiasticarum documenta, Series maior, Fontes, 7-12), no. 2397. Liber usualis
missae et officii pro dominicis et festis cum cantu Gregoriano ex Editione Vaticana
adamussim excerpto, Paris [etc.], 1936 [numerous reprints], p. 538; cf. Antiphonale
monasticum pro diurnis horis juxta vota RR. D. Abbatum congregationum conf -
deratarum Ordinis Sancti Benedicti a Solesmensibus monachis restitutum, Paris
[etc.], 1934, p. 344.
124
V. Localizing the Play
Speyer sources.5 Most of the Mainz breviaries in which Pflanz finds it

are Carthusian, and one fifteenth-century Carmelite book contains it,6
but in diocesan books the antiphon seems to be unknown, and is not
listed by Reifenberg as part of the Mainz office. The second example
is Christ s last Word from the Cross:
84
et cantet In manus tuas et cetera et dicat:
Vatter, ez si dir irkant,
mine sele geben ich in din hant.
Tunc inclinato capite emittet spiritum (ll. 1174a-76a)
There are three verbally distinctive versions of Jesus s last words: (i)
Luke 23:46, Pater, in manus tuas commendo spiritum meum ; (ii)
Psalm 29(30):6, the psalm-verse on which Luke is based: In manus
tuas commendo spiritum meum: redemisti me, Domine Deus verita-
tis ; and (iii) the liturgical version, a short responsory for Sunday
compline throughout the year:
In manus tuas, Domine, commendo spiritum meum. Redemisti nos, Domine
Deus veritatis.7
The play s incipit matches only the psalm and the responsory.
Bergmann does not identify the liturgical form used here.8 In his cur-
sory treatment, Pflanz correctly rejects Luke 23:46, suggested by
5
CANTUS: A Database for Latin Ecclesiastical Chant. URL: http://publish.uwo.ca/
~cantus: twenty-eight sources, fifteen from Austria, Switzerland and southern Ger-
many (Bamberg, Reichenau, Weingarten).
6
Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, p. 62, note 1, quoting three Carthusian brevi-
aries: Mainz, Stadtbibliothek, Hs. I 439 (twelfth-thirteenth century), I 438 (four-
teenth century), I 365 (fifteenth century); plus I 433 (dating and provenance uncer-
tain). Also Mainz, Dom- und Diözesanmuseum, Cod. B, fol. 21 (Carmelite an-
tiphonal, Mainz, 1430s).
7
Liber usualis, pp. 269-70 (not in Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium). Redemisti me
in some manuscripts.
8
Bergmann, Studien, p. 229.
125
Hartl;9 but he seems unaware of the existence of the psalm. Schuler

characteristiccally fails to differentiate between the sources used in the
single plays; he too does not consider the psalm as a possible source.10
Mehler suggests the responsory.11
The seventeen other plays in which this Word from the Cross is
found show a definite consensus. The Lucan verse is rare (Heidelberg,
Wolfenbütteler Marienklage), as is the Psalm version (Bordesholm,
[Kleines] Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel).12 The distinctive responsory
wording is found in the remaining thirteen, the vast majority.13 Apart
from the Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, they use only the first part, ending
at meum .14 But this still leaves a problem. This responsory was not
9
Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, pp. 30-31, 98. Eduard Hartl (ed.), Das Bene-
diktbeurer Passionsspiel: Das St. Galler Passionsspiel, Halle an der Saale, 1952
(Altdeutsche Textbibliothek, 41), ll. 1362-63.
10
Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 297, lists both Luke 23:46 and the responsory,
which he cites only from the feast of the Appearance of the Blessed Virgin at
Lourdes (11 February), introduced only in the late nineteenth century (cf. William
J. McDonald et al., New Catholic Encyclopedia, New York [etc.], 1967-, vol. VIII,
p. 1032).
11
Ulrich Mehler, Dicere und cantare : Zur musikalischen Terminologie und Auf-
führungspraxis des mittelalterlichen geistlichen Dramas in Deutschland, Regens-
burg, 1981 (Kölner Beiträge zur Musikforschung, 120), p. 190.
12
Luke 23:46, Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll. 5565a-d; Wolfenbütteler Marienklage,
l. 159a (l. 155a has only the incipit in manus ). Psalm 29(30):6, Bordesholmer
Marienklage, fol. 16v, no. XIV, ll. 594a-b and Anhang, p. 10, in manus tuas com-
mendo spiritum meum , transcribed by Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, vol. II, p.
177; (Kleines) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, fol. 4v: in manus t[uas] commendo
spiritum m[eum] , not neumed (pl. 7, l. 32).
13
In Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern: Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 6271a-c; Bozner
Passionsspiel 1495, B, ll. 2153a-b; Breslauer Marienklage, ll. 50a-b; Brixener
Passionsspiel, ll. 2799-2800; Egerer Passionsspiel, ll. 6637a-c; Frankfurter Diri-
gierrolle, 236; Frankfurter Passionsspiel, ll. 4148a-b; Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel,
ll. 2119a-b; Sterzinger Passionsspiel 1496/1503, ll. 2391a-b. Not in Schuler: Ad-
monter Passionsspiel, ll. 1087a-88; Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 1072 ( domine miss-
ing); Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, A, l. 2158a; Bozner Passionsspiel 1514, 2. Teil,
fol. 25 (empty stave); Docens Marienklage, ll. 138a-b; Rabers Passion, ll. 1200a-b.
14
Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 236: In manus tuas domine commendo spiritum meum.
126
originally part of compline.15 Even by the later Middle Ages it had es-
tablished itself only in some local liturgies; in the fourteenth century it
seems to have been unknown in Mainz, Worms and Speyer.16 This
may explain why some plays have the responsory wording, but not set
to the proper melody. Of the thirteen, only seven have notation:
three have a simple mode 4 or 6 setting similar, though not identical,
to the common responsory melody in the modern Roman use,17 but
four have a setting with a cadence typical of the Passion tone.18 The
redemisti domine deus veritas (wrongly identified as the Psalm wording by Berg-
mann, Studien, p. 229). Frankfurter Passionsspiel, ll. 4148a-b; manuscript ends at
domine ; Breslauer Marienklage, ll. 50a-b, manuscript ends at commendo .
15
Ludwig Eisenhofer, Handbuch der katholischen Liturgik, 2 vols., Freiburg, 1932-
33), vol. II, pp. 550-51; Joseph Pascher, Das Stundengebet der römischen Kirche,
München, 1954, pp. 246-47.
16
Hermann Reifenberg, Stundengebet und Breviere im Bistum Mainz seit der roma-
nischen Epoche, Münster, 1964 (Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschun-
gen, 40), p. 68, confirms its absence from Mainz; the responsory is missing in all
Worms and Speyer sources consulted; even the late Orarium Spirense (pars hie-
malis), sig. g5vb, has compline in the older form with only the versicle Custodi
nos, Domine, ut pupillam oculi but no short responsory. Cf. CANTUS: only four
Austrian sources and one fifteenth-century Mainz Carmelite antiphonal.
17
Common Roman melody: Liber usualis, p. 269; Alsfelder Passionsspiel, fol. 67v;
cf. Karl Dreimüller, Die Musik des Alsfelder Passionsspiels: Ein Beitrag zur Ge-
Universität Wien, 1935, vol. I: Abhandlungen, p. 97; vol. II: Das musikalische Sze-
narium des Alsfelder Passionsspiels, p. 78; vol. III: Die Melodien des Alsfelder
Passionsspiels. Übertragungen der Melodien aus der Kasseler Handschrift des
Alsfelder Spiels, Beilage 45, p. 59; transcribed by Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern,
vol. II, p. 177 and identically in Hessische Passionsspielgruppe, II, ll. 6271a-b;
Egerer Passionsspiel, transcribed by Schuler, vol. II, p. 177: almost identical to
Alsfeld, written a fourth higher; Rabers Passion. Line-numbers as in note 13. Drei-
müller, Musik des Alsfelder Passionsspiels , vol. I, p. 97, erroneously compares
the Alsfeld melody to the Advent tone of the responsory, a much more compli-
cated, decorated melody (Liber usualis, p. 270).
18
Bordesholmer Marienklage (line-numbers as in note 12); Admonter Passionsspiel
(cf. Mehler, Dicere und cantare , p. 190, note 234); Bozner Passionsspiel
127
cantet direction is not absolute proof that the St Gall Passion Play
used the responsory melody, as Mehler seems to assume;19 nos 6, 23,
62 and 69 are apparently recitative items with a cantare direction.
The play, then, could have used the responsory or the Passion tone: 20
If the chant was the short responsory, then it is unclear how a chant
foreign to all the relevant diocesan liturgies made its way into this
play. Neither possible melody has any clear implications for the local-
ization of the play.
A third chant seems to be part only of the Mainz liturgy. Jesus
counters the Devil s second temptation, to throw himself off the roof
of the Temple and be caught by angels:
18
Respondens Iesus cantet Vade, Satanas, non temptabis
et dicat:
Virfluchter armer Sathan,
von disen reden saltu lan.
Die heilge schrift daz saget wol
daz nieman Got virsuchen sol. (ll. 139a-43)
1495, A, B (cf. Andreas Traub, Die geistlichen Spiele des Sterzinger Spielarchivs,
vol. VI:2: Kommentar zur Edition der Melodien, Mittlere Deutsche Literatur in
Neu- und Nachdrucken, 19:2, Bern, 1996, pp. 162, 169); Pfarrkirchers Passions-
spiel; line-numbers as in note 13.
19
20
[i]: responsory, Liber usualis, pp. 269-70. [ii]: Luke 23:46, Passion tone: cf. Offici-
um majoris hebdomadæ et octavæ Paschæ [ ] cum cantu juxta ordinem Breviarii,
Missalis et Pontificalis Romani. Editio typica Vaticana, Roma, 1922, p. 269.
128
Once again, liturgical type is not specified. Parallels are found only
in Alsfeld and Heidelberg, both seemingly biblical text.21 But the St
Gall Passion Play has both a cantet direction, and wording which
suggests that of a mode 1 antiphon for the first Sunday in Lent: 22
As Bergmann notes, this distinctively liturgical wording conflates two

biblical verses (Matthew 4:10 and 4:7),23 and Pflanz is probably right
in identifying the antiphon.24 Schuler s comments (no. 626) are mis-
leading. His Leittext is Matthew 4:10: a wording found only in Hei-
delberg, not in Alsfeld or the St Gall Passion Play, nor in the anti-
phon, which he also cites.25
21
Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 1185a-b: Vade sathanas et solum uni deo servies , in-
terpreted by Dreimüller, Musik des Alsfelder Passionsspiels , vol. II, p. 23, as an
adaptation of Matthew 4:10. Cf. Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 176; Heidelberger Pas-
sionsspiel, ll. 282a-c: Matthew 4:7; ll. 298a-c: Matthew 4:10.
22
Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 5303. Mainz antiphonal, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 48,
105v.
23
Matthew 4:10, Vade Satanas: Scriptum est enim: Dominum, Deum tuum adorabis,
et illi soli servies . Matthew 4:7, Ait illi Jesus: Rursum scriptum est: Non tentabis
Dominum Deum tuum. See Bergmann, Studien, pp. 209-10.
24
Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, pp. 14, 60-62.
25
Schuler s source: Hartker antiphonal, St Gall, 390, 391 (Pal. mus., II/1, facsimile p.
146). Wording of Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 1185a-b and Heidelberger Passions-
spiel, ll. 282a-c, 298a-c: see note 16.
129
This antiphon is widespread.26 However, though found in Mainz, it

is apparently unknown in Speyer or Worms.27 No. 19 is definitely an
antiphon, and even if not a standard Mainz diocesan item, its presence
in Mainz Carthusian books at least shows it was known within the
diocese. On the evidence of these two chants, the St Gall Passion Play
might seem to belong to Mainz rather than to Speyer or Worms. An-
other set of chants, however, seems to point in a slightly different di-
rection; though the complex problems they present make them ex-
tremely difficult to interpret.
Whilst Jesus washes his disciples feet, Peter and he sing the fol-
lowing exchange:
56, 57, 58
[56] Tunc precingens se linteo et apprehensa pelvi cum aqua
lavet pedes singulorum et cum pervenerit ad Petrum
cantet Petrus Non lavabis et dicat:
Herre, meister, ez sal nit sin,
Daz du waschest die vuze min.
[57] Respondens Iesus cantet Si non lavero tibi
et dicat:
Lezest du dir die vuze nit
waschen hie zu dirre zit,
so inhast du sicherlich
kein deil an mime rich.
[58] Respondens Petrus cantet Domine, non tantum pedes
et dicat:
Herre, die rede sal nit sin.
Wasche nit alleine die vuze min.
26
Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium: ten out of twelve base-manuscripts; CANTUS:
thirty-three sources from all over Europe, fifteen from Germany, the Netherlands,
Austria and Switzerland.
27
Mainz antiphonal, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 48, fol. 105v; Mainz breviaries: Frankfurt,
Barth. 150, fol. 187v; Barth. 160, fol. 316; Barth. 161, fol. 291; many other Mainz
sources cited in Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, p. 61, notes 1 and 2. Missing
from Worms and Speyer sources.
130
Wasche mir daz heubet vnd auch die hant,

e ich so dure worde gepant. (ll. 648a-58)
If this is liturgical text, as the cantet directions suggest, and as Schu-

ler, Bergmann and Pflanz assume,28 then it is from a Mandatum anti-
phon, Ante diem festum Paschae :
Ante diem festum Paschae, sciens Jesus quia eius hora venit ut transeat ex hoc
mundo ad Patrem, et cena facta, surrexit, linteo praecinxit se, misit aquam in
pelvim, coepit lavare pedes discipulorum. Venit ad Petrum. Dicit ei Simon:
Non lavabis mihi pedes in aeternum. Respondit Jesus: Si non lavero tibi, non
habebis partem mecum. Domine, non tantum pedes meos, sed et manus et ca-
put.29
Ante diem festum Paschae , not found in the Roman use, was
widespread in Britain, France and elsewhere; because it was in-
variably followed by the antiphon Venit ad Petrum , the two were of-
ten fused into one.30 Its complex, archaic melody does not conform to
modal conventions.31
If this is the intended chant, then it is a localization crux, for the
Mandatum antiphons show regional variation.32 But as part, strictly
28
Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 26, Bergmann, Studien, pp. 221 and 224, and
29
Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 1431. Speyer missal, Speyer, Bistumsarchiv,
Hs. 1, cira (emphasis supplied). The wording Domine, non tantum pedes [meos]
is found in numerous medieval sources, including Mainz and Speyer books,
rather than the Corpus antiphonalium standard wording Domine, non solum pedes
tantum : e.g. British Library, Harl. 2942, fol. 48; Manchester, John Rylands Li-
brary, lat. 24, fol. 90; Mainz, Martinusbibliothek, Hs. 100, fol. 24; Agenda Spiren-
sis, 1512, LXXXv (= sig. k viiiv) (all these with pedes meos ). Mainz, Marti-
nusbibliothek, Hs. 118, fols. 26v-28 ( Domine, non tantum pedes sed et ).
30
Manfred F. Bukofzer, Caput: A Liturgico-Musical Study , in Manfred F. Bukof-
zer, Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Music, London, 1951, pp. 217-310, esp.
226-56. Venit ad Petrum has no separate Corpus antiphonalium number.
31
Often with finalis G (nominally mode 7 or 8), but also frequently E (nominally
mode 3 or 4); Bukofzer, Caput , pp. 254-56. Of the twelve CANTUS sources whose
modes are known, six are in mode 3/4, three in mode 7/8, three in mode 1.
32
Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, vol. I, nos. 72c, 147; vol. II, nos. 72e, 147b;
131
speaking, of neither mass nor office, they are not routinely included in
graduals, missals, antiphonals or breviaries.33 Their home is in the
ritual; but manuscript rituals are not plentiful, and by no means all
contain them, so it is much harder to establish a clear and stable tradi-
tion for Mandatum antiphons than for mass and office chants.34
Ante diem festum Paschae combined with Venit ad Petrum is
definitely attested in Mainz and Speyer.35 But the only medieval
source of the Worms Mandatum is a fifteenth-century manuscript
manual from the Augustinian nunnery in Worms, whose sequence of
chants diverges considerably from that of Mainz and Speyer. It does
not include Ante diem festum Paschae , but only the shorter, melodi-
cally simpler and differently worded Domine, tu mihi lavas pedes? 36
Bergmann, Studien, p. 221 and note 1795; Thomas Schäfer, Die Fußwaschung im
monastischen Brauchtum und in der lateinischen Liturgie: Liturgiegeschichtliche
Untersuchung, Beuron, 1956 (Texte und Arbeiten der Erzabtei Beuron, I, 47), pas-
sim; Karl Young, The Drama of the Medieval Church, 2 vols., Oxford, 1933, vol. I,
pp. 98-99.
33
Thus Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, vol. II, no. 72e; vol. III, p. 51, note 1, cites
only the Hartker Antiphonal (St Gall, 390/391) as a source of Ante diem festum
Paschae ; CANTUS cites only four antiphonals, three from Germany or Austria;
Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, p. 123, note 1, cites only one (Cologne) mis-
sal.
34
Rituals without Mandatum liturgy include: Mainz ritual, Vatican, cod. pal. lat. 488;
Mainz missal and ritual, Frankfurt, Barth. 107 (Cena Domini (fols. 14-15) begins
after pedilavium); Agenda ecclesie wormaciensis, 1500-10, sig. g iiiir-v.
35
Mainz breviary, psalter, and liber ordinarius, Kassel, 2o theol. 143, 359ra; Mainz
gradual, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 44, fols. 61v-62; Mainz processional, Aschaffenburg,
ms. perg. 32, fols. 37v-38v; processional (Mainz, St Peter), Mainz, Martinusbiblio-
thek, Hs. 118, fols. 26-28; Speyer missal, Speyer, Bistumsarchiv, Hs. 1, fols. cvb-
cira; Agenda Spirensis, 1512, LXXXv (= sig. k viiiv).
36
Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 2393, widely known in the Münster diocese.
See Emil Josef Lengeling, Missale Monasteriense, 1300-1900: Katalog, Texte und
vergleichende Studien, (eds.) Benedikt Kranemann & Klemens Richter, Münster,
1995 (Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen, 76), p. 363. Worms
manual, Worms, Stadtarchiv, Abt. 106/1, fol. 53: Domine tu mihi lavas pedes?
Respondit Jesus et dixit ei: [Et] si non lavero tibi pedes non habebis partem me-
cum. V. Domine non tantum pedes sed et manus et caput. Also in Mainz gradual,
132
If this single manual adequately represents the Worms tradition, and if

the chant in the St Gall Passion Play definitely is the Mandatum anti-
phon, then this would be a significant example of an item localizable
in Mainz and Speyer, but not in Worms.
But the dearth of Worms sources suggests caution. The Mandatum
antiphons varied not only between, but also within dioceses, for ex-
ample Münster and indeed Mainz.37 Ante diem festum Paschae ap-
pears in a fifteenth- to sixteenth-century processional from St Peter in
Mainz, but not in an earlier directory from the same church, though
both contain a seemingly identical, standard Mainz ceremony.38 One
Mainz liber ordinarius suggests why: there, Ante diem festum Pas-
chae is sung during the symbolic meal after the liturgical washing of
feet.39 Its absence from the St Peter directory, along with the two other
meal antiphons, is thus probably because that book restricts itself to
the pedilavium proper; the rubrics are not detailed enough to know. If
this directory were the only surviving Mainz Mandatum, Ante diem
festum Paschae would appear to have been unknown in Mainz. There
is thus no guarantee that the practice of the Worms Augustinian nuns
in the fifteenth century, as found in this single book, is representative
of the whole diocese.
More fundamentally, however, there is no guarantee that this is lit-
urgical material at all. This is one of the numerous St Gall Passion
Play cantare items where it is not clear whether liturgical or biblical
Frankfurt, lat. qu. 44, fol. 62v.

37
Münster: Lengeling, Missale Monasteriense, p. 363, note 1079. Mainz: e.g. the fif-
teenth-century Aschaffenburg processional, Aschaffenburg, Stiftsbibliothek, ms.
perg. 32, fols. 33v-38v, differs from the mid-fourteenth-century liber ordinarius,
Kassel, 2o theol. 143, fol. 359, and the fifteenth-century Frankfurt gradual, Frank-
furt, lat. qu. 44, fols. 60-62v.
38
Mainz, Martinusbibliothek, Hs. 118, fols. 24v-29v (processional, St Peter, fifteenth-
sixteenth century); Hs. 233, fols. XXXIVv-XXXVv (directorium chori, St Peter,
fourteenth-fifteenth century).
39
Kassel, 2o theol. 143, fol. 359.
133
text is involved (see Chapter IV). Cantare can introduce biblical text
in this play (see nos. 6, 23, 62 and 69), and the brief incipits also per-
fectly match the Vulgate:
Dicit ei Petrus: non lavabis mihi pedes in aeternum. Respondit ei Jesus: Si
non lavero te, non habebis partem mecum. Dicit ei Simon Petrus: Domine,
non tantum pedes meos, sed et manus, et caput (John 13:8-9 [emphasis sup-
plied]).
Can the dramatic tradition help to decide whether the play used the
Bible or the liturgy here? A similar exchange is found in another
seven plays, not all listed in Schuler.40 Scholarly opinion is divided.
Schuler implies that Ante diem festum Paschae is used in all the
plays he lists. However, the only play with notation, Admont, un-
known to Schuler, uses the Passion tone, and not the precise liturgical
wording but most of these differences would not be evident from short
incipits:41
40
Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 26: Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 3077g-83b; Bri-
xener Passionsspiel, manuscript, fol. 21. See J.E. Wackernell (ed.), Altdeutsche
Passionsspiele aus Tirol, Graz, 1897 (Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte,
Litteratur und Sprache Österreichs und seiner Kronländer, 1), p. 367, ll. 646a-67a;
Frankfurter Passionsspiel, ll. 2073d-83b; Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll. 3386d-
3402c. Not in Schuler: Admonter Passionsspiel, ll. 184a-201; Alsfelder Dirigier-
rolle, 486-88; Bozner Abendmahlspiel, ll. 693c-711; Prager Abendmahlspiel, ll.
212a-23. Though included by Schuler, Donaueschinger Passionsspiel, ll. 1808a-
24, contains no Latin antiphons for the washing of feet. Ante diem festum Pas-
chae in Sterzinger Passionsspiel der Mischhandschrift, ll. 941b-c, is a choral, not
a dialogic performance.
41
Admonter Passionsspiel, ll. 184a-201, transposed up a fifth to accommodate the
tessitura.
134
Generalizing from Admont, Polheim asserts that recitative was in-

variably used in this scene in German drama, not antiphons.42 This
seems plausible: the Bozner Abendmahlspiel chant is unnotated, but
textually similar to Admont, and its dicit direction in a play of this
date is likely to mean recitative rather than an antiphon.43 In Alsfeld,
where the wording is also unlike that of the antiphon, the direction for
Peter s rebuke is alta voce clamando dicit ; the rest is sung sub ac-
centu , to a reciting-tone.44 The resemblance between all the Hessian
plays treatment of the episode suggests that they all set the exchange
similarly.45 The Prager Abendmahlspiel s directions are mainly dicit
42
Admonter Passionsspiel (Karl Konrad Polheim [ed.], Das Admonter Passionsspiel,
3 vols., München [etc.], 1972-80, vol. III, p. 52-57, esp. 54 and note 73 (critique of
Schuler), and p. 57. Traub, Kommentar, p. 80, assumes that the Sterzing plays
practice was the same as that of Admont).
43
Bozner Abendmahlspiel, ll. 694c-d, 702a-c, 710a-b: Traub, Kommentar, pp. 80-81,
111.
44
Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 3077g-h, 3079a-b, 3083a-b; identical in Alsfelder Di-
rigierrolle, 486, 488, 490.
45
Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 3077g-83b; Frankfurter Passionsspiel, ll. 2073d-83b;
Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll. 3386d-3402c; conspectus in Hessische Passions-
spielgruppe, I, pp. 230-31.
135
cantando , which may point to recitative; the wording is almost identi-

cal to Admont.46 Only Brixen clearly uses an antiphon; not however
Ante diem festum Paschae , but Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no.
2393.47
So far, the weight of evidence in the German plays is against the
use of the antiphon. In the St Gall Passion Play, apart from the can-
tet direction, only one small detail of Jesus s reply to Peter might
point towards a liturgical source. The correct reading of line 650a is
si non lauero tibi .48 This is liturgical, not Vulgate wording,49 and it is
ironic that Schützeichel, unaware of its possible liturgical background,
corrects it to te .50 Yet the small difference between tibi and te
cannot bear much weight: it could easily have been produced by
scribal error. And tibi is not infallibly liturgical: several plays with
what seems to be Vulgate text have si non lavero tibi pedes ;51 and
46
Prager Abendmahlspiel, ll. 212a-23.
47
Brixener Passionsspiel, manuscript, fol. 21, additions of the later sixteenth century
in right-hand margin: Petrus Canit Antiphonam Domine tu michi lauas pedes ,
[etc.]; Wackernell (ed.), Altdeutsche Passionsspiele, p. 368, ll. 649b-59a. Schuler,
Musik der Osterfeiern, vol. I, p. 138, reproduces Wackernell s misreading of An-
[tiphonam] as Ante . Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 2393: see note 36.
48
See the manuscript of the St Gall Passion Play, Sankt Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, 919,
p. 205; cf. Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, pp. 124-25, correctly rejecting
Wolter s te . (See Emil Wolter [ed.], Das St. Galler Spiel vom Leben Jesu: Unter-
suchungen und Text, Breslau, 1912 [rpt. Hildesheim, 1977] (Germanistische Ab-
handlungen, 41), l. 650a.)
49
Si non lavero tibi , the reading of the Vetus Latina version of the Bible, is found in
only a few early Vulgate versions: see John Wordsworth & Henry Julian White
(eds.), Novum Testamentum Domini Nostri Iesu Christi Latine secundum editionem
Sancti Hieronymi, vol. I: Quattuor Evangelia, Oxford, 1889, p. 600; cf. Adolf Jüli-
cher (ed.), Itala: Das Neue Testament in altlateinischer Überlieferung, vol. IV: Jo-
hannes-Evangelium, Berlin, 1963, p. 149.
50
919, Tübingen, 1978, l. 650a and note.
51
Admonter Passionsspiel, l. 192; Alsfelder Passionsspiel, l. 3079b; Alsfelder Diri-
gierrolle, 488; Frankfurter Passionsspiel, l. 2079b; Heidelberger Passionsspiel, l.
3398b.
136
three are Hessian, a tradition with which the St Gall Passion Play has
a great deal in common.
The German plays, then, contain absolutely no musical evidence,
and no clear textual evidence, of the use of Ante diem festum Pas-
chae in the foot-washing dialogue. The only trace of liturgical text
(Brixen) is the shorter and simpler than Hesbert, Corpus antiphonali-
um, no. 2393. There are however textual indications and concrete mu-
sical evidence of Passion tone settings. This is hardly surprising, for
the closing caput melisma of Ante diem festum Paschae is one of
the longest and most florid passages in the plainsong repertoire, and
probably too challenging for the player who acted Peter, who in the St
Gall Passion Play has a rather undemanding musical role (see Chapter
IV). This is no doubt why in one Sterzing play the chorus sings Ante
diem festum Paschae but the protagonists in the foot-washing do not
sing at all.52 A simplified antiphon melody is found in some liturgical
books;53 none seem to be from Mainz, Worms or Speyer, but the exis-
tence of a simpler melody there cannot be absolutely ruled out. None-
theless, it is very far from certain that this exchange was sung to its lit-
urgical melody in the St Gall Passion Play; indeed, the likelihood is
that it was not; and of course with this the status of the item as a local-
ization crux vanishes.
On his purely textual methods, Pflanz concludes that both Peter s
passages came from Ante diem festum Paschae , but Jesus s reply
from Domine, tu mihi lavas pedes? 54 A mixture of two melodically
and modally different antiphons, without a pressing textual reason,
would have been musically improbable.55
52
Sterzinger Passionsspiel der Mischhandschrift, ll. 941a-b.
53
E.g. Moosburger Graduale, fol. 65.
54
Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, pp. 123-27. See Hesbert, Corpus antiphona-
lium, nos. 1431 and 2393.
55
Ibid., 1431 is usually in mode 7 or 8 (cf. note 31); 2393 is regularly in mode 5
(CANTUS). For an instance of textual demands forcing the juxtaposition of modally
different chants, see Chapter X, nos. 101-03.
137
The labour involved in dealing with this chant is daunting; and

whilst many others are a good deal easier to identify, they are often
just as inconclusive for localization. All this seems to bear out only
too clearly Rastall s concerns about getting nowhere . Fortunately,
though, the St Gall Passion Play does present one very strong piece of
liturgical localization evidence.
After Simon the Leper s banquet (ll. 262-315), the penitent Mary
Magdalene wastes precious unguent on anointing Jesus s head. De-
fending her action, Jesus sings a chant. Here the manuscript offers a
choice of item, but the text has proved problematical to decipher.56
None of the play s editors has produced an entirely satisfactory inter-
pretation of this text. Mone reads: Et cantet: mittet haec mulier, vel
amen dico, fides enim etc. 57 He has missed out the second et sym-
bol: enim should read et enim .
Wolter s version brings a great advance in accuracy: Et cantet:
mittet haec mulier , vel amen dico, fides etenim .58 Wolter correct-
ly interprets etenim , and inserts quotation-marks to show the boun-
daries of what he interprets as two chants.
Hartl s very inaccurate Et cantet: Mittet haec mulier, fides
enim 59 is a retrograde step in both respects: vel Amen dico and the
et of etenim have disappeared; where Wolter had realized that
more than one chant was involved, Hartl has produced a single item.
Schützeichel s interpretation is accurate but two details call for
comment:
56
Schützeichel (ed.), Das Mittelrheinische Passionsspiel, ll. 305a-c; St Gall , p. 200,
l. 46.
57
Franz Joseph Mone (ed.), Schauspiele des Mittelalters, Karlsruhe, 1846, vol. I, pp.
49-132, l. 297a.
58
Wolter (ed.), Das St. Galler Spiel vom Leben Jesu, l. 305a.
59
Hartl (ed.), Das Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel: Das St. Galler Passionsspiel, l.
357a.
138
Et cantet Mittet hec mulier

vel Amen dico , Fides et enim
et cetera (ll. 305a-05c)
The manuscript mt3 is correctly read as mittet ; but as Pflanz re-
alizes,60 the chant to which it must refer, an antiphon from Palm Sun-
day matins, in fact begins Mittens : 61
This scribal error needed editorial comment.62 The second, and

more important, detail is the dash in the manuscript between am
dico and fides 7 em : Schützeichel editorially replaces it with a com-
ma, without, however, commenting on the function either of the origi-
nal dash or of his replacement. Mone, Wolter and Hartl also use a
comma, suggesting that they read the dash as a connecting device;
Wolter, indeed, explicitly interprets Amen dico, fides etenim as a
single chant: but no such liturgical item exists, as Pflanz observes.63
Neither Pflanz, Bergmann nor Schuler can offer any suggestion as to
what this chant might have been.64 Mehler suggests Amen dico vobis,
quia vos, qui reliquistis omnia, et secuti estis me, centuplum recipie-
60
61
See Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 3799. Mainz antiphonal, Frankfurt, lat. qu.
48, fol. 140v.
62
Bergmann, Studien, p. 188 and note 1523, fails to recognize the item as liturgical.
63
Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, p. 69, note 2.
64
Ibid, pp. 67-69; Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, following Mone s defective trans-
cription, lists the item as an addendum to no. 148 ( Dimissa sunt ei peccata multa ;
see no. 26); Bergmann, Studien, p. 188 and note 1526, does not mention Amen
dico or Fides etenim , or identify Dimissa sunt as liturgical.
139
tis ,65 but this chant relates thematically not to this scene, but to the
commissioning of the Apostles, where it is found in the Hessian tradi-
tion.66 The suggestion also fails to account for Fides etenim .
Yet the editorially suppressed dash provides an important clue.
Dashes consistently function in the St Gall Passion Play manuscript
not as connectors but as separators: for instance, to divide the two
lines of verse dialogue usually written on each line of the page.67 So
too here: the dash separates the incipits of two distinct liturgical items,
both of which can indeed be identified. The first is almost certainly an
antiphon:
65
Ulrich Mehler, [Review of: Hermann Manfred Pflanz, Die lateinischen Text-
grundlagen des St. Galler Passionsspieles in der mittelalterlichen Liturgie, Frank-
furt (etc.), 1977], Anzeiger für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 91
(1980), pp. 120-24, esp. 122). The chant (see John R. Bryden & David G. Hughes,
An Index of Gregorian Chant, 2 vols., Cambridge, Mass., 1969, vol. I, p. 41; Liber
usualis missae et officii pro dominicis et festis, Paris [etc.], 1936, p. 1206; Gradu-
ale triplex seu Graduale Romanum Pauli PP. VI cura recognitum et rhythmicis sig-
nis a Solesmensibus monachis ornatum, neumis Laudunensibus (Cod. 239) et San-
gallensibus (Codicum Sangallensis 359 et Einsidlensis 121) nunc auctum, Soles-
mes [etc.], 1979, p. 436; not in Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium) is cited by Carl
Marbach, Carmina scripturarum, Strasbourg, 1907 [rpt. Hildesheim, 1963], p. 100,
as an antiphon for the Common of Apostles, but is found in German sources only
as a communio: e.g. Einsiedeln, Stiftsbibliothek, cod. 121 (Pal. mus., 4), p. 278;
Moosburger Graduale, fol. 107; Christian Väterlein (ed.), Graduale Pataviense
(Wien 1511), Kassel [etc.], 1982 (Das Erbe deutscher Musik, 87), fol. 145. Schuler,
Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 643, mistakenly lists Amen dico as the verse of the
responsory Verbum caro factum est (Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, nos. 7838,
7839, or 7840; Karlheinz Schlager (ed.), Antiphonale Pataviense (Wien 1519),
Kassel [etc.], 1985 (Das Erbe deutscher Musik, 88), fol. 13; Liber usualis, pp. 390-
91.
66
Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 1242d-e; Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 192; Frankfurter Diri-
gierrolle, 44; Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll. 361a-b; Schuler, Musik der Oster-
feiern, no. 643b.
67
Noted by Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, p. 68, and Rudolf Schützeichel,
Zum Mittelrheinischen Passionsspiel der St. Galler Handschrift 919 , in Ursula
Hennig & Herbert Kolb (eds.), Mediævalia litteraria: Festschrift für Helmut de
Boor zum 80. Geburtstag, München, 1971, pp. 531-39, esp. 532.
140
68
The second is the verse of a responsory:69

Caelestis medicus aegram, quam sanaverat, per pietatis suae sententiam confirmat
Fides tua, inquiens, te salvam fecit. Vade in pace.
V. Fides etenim salvam eam fecit quae hoc quod postulavit posse se ab eo
percipere non dubitavit. Fides tua, inquiens
The direction of this item thus offers an alternative not of two, but
of three chants, and an accurate editorial reconstruction would be:
[34] Et cantet Mittens hec mulier
68
Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 1382. Speyer antiphonal, Speyer, Bistums-
archiv, Hs. 2, fols. 170v-71. The variant et quod hoc fecit , not recorded in any of
Hesbert s Corpus antiphonalium manuscripts, is found in some sources, e.g. Ora-
rium Spirense (pars aestivalis), sig. H viiva.
69
archiv, Hs. 2, fols. 167v-68 (verse only).
141
[35] vel Amen dico [36] [vel] Fides etenim

et cetera:
Wuzent, daz des wibes glaube groz
hat sie gemaht von sunden bloz.
Maria, du salt han auch minen sein.
Vnd gang in din hus wider hein. (ll. 305a-09)
None of the three alternative chants specified here appears in other

plays. Nos. 34 and 36 are definitely liturgical chants: Mittens hec mu-
lier is distinctively different from Matthew 26:12 ( Mittens enim haec
unguentum hoc in corpus meum ad sepeliendum me fecit ) and Fides
etenim is not directly biblical at all. The antiphon Amen dico (no.
35) is verbally identical to Matthew 26:13, so could in theory have
been a Passion-tone setting of a verse from the Passion Gospel,70 but
all the other music in this episode is liturgical, and Amen dico and
Fides etenim are both incipits of chants from the office of St Mary
Magdalene (22 July), one of the most important feasts of the medieval
Sanctorale. Amen dico is thus almost certainly an antiphon.
No. 34, Mittens hec mulier , is found in nearly every European
diocese and so is useless for localization purposes.71 The two Mary
Magdalene office chants, however, are much more geographically
specific.
No. 35, Amen dico vobis is restricted to the more southerly Ger-
man dioceses.72 Though standard in Worms and Speyer, usually as the
70
Officium majoris hebdomadæ et octavæ Paschæ [ ] cum cantu juxta ordinem
Breviarii, Missalis et Pontificalis Romani. Editio typica Vaticana, Roma, 1922, p.
85 (Matthew 26:13). The incipit Amen dico is also that of Mark 14:9; cf. ibid.,
pp. 200-01.
71
Mainz antiphonal, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 48, fol. 140v; Worms breviary, British Li-
brary, MS add. 19415, fol. 257v; printed Speyer breviary, 1491 (Gesamtkatalog der
Wiegendrucke, Leipzig [etc.], 1925-, no. 5465), sig. k6r-v.
72
Sole source in Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium: thirteenth-century Rheinau Anti-
phonal (Zurich, Zentralbibliothek, Ms. Rh. 28); see Ibid, vol. II, no. 1464b. CAN-
TUS: seven antiphonals, all from southern Germany and Austria. Frank Labhardt,
Das Cantionale des Kartäusers Thomas Kreß. Ein Denkmal der spätmittelalterli-
142
second antiphon in the third nocturn of matins,73 it is not found any-

where in Mainz, where the historia of Mary Magdalene is quite dif-
ferent from the Worms and Speyer versions.
No. 36, Fides etenim , the verse of the responsory Caelestis me-
dicus , is similarly distributed.74 Again it is standard in Worms and
Speyer,75 but absolutely unknown in sources from any part of the
Mainz diocese. Every relevant Mainz service-book listed in the bibli-
ography has been inspected, as have numerous others which have
been checked for this chant alone and do not figure there; these repre-
sent liturgical material from all parts of this huge diocese from the
tenth century to the seventeenth. The complete absence of evidence
of Amen dico and Fides etenim in the very numerous Mainz sour-
ces amounts to evidence of absence of both chants from the Mainz
use.76 Amen dico and Fides etenim thus represent the strongest lo-
chen Musikgeschichte Basels, Bern-Stuttgart, 1978 (Publikationen der Schweiz-

erischen Musikforschenden Gesellschaft, Ser. 2, 20), fol. 114 (p. 193).
73
Worms breviaries: British Library, MS add. 19415, fol. 520; Worms, Stadtbiblio-
thek, Lu 3a, fol. 231; Vatican, cod. pal. lat. 522, fol. 31; printed Worms breviary,
1475 (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no. 5513), fol. 64; Speyer antiphonals:
Speyer, Bistumsarchiv, Hs. 2, fol. 170v-71; Karlsruhe, Generallandesarchiv, 65/
738, fol. 35; Speyer breviary, Vatican, cod. pal. lat. 514, fol. 156rb; Orarium Spi-
rense (pars aestivalis), sig. H viiva.
74
Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 6296.
75
Worms breviaries: British Library, MS add. 19415, fol. 519; Worms, Stadtbiblio-
thek, Lu 3a, fol. 230; Vatican, cod. pal. lat., 292, fol. 135v; cod. pal. lat. 522, fol.
31; printed Worms breviary, 1475 (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no. 5513),
fols. 62v and 63; Speyer antiphonals: Speyer, Bistumsarchiv, Hs. 2, fols. 167v-68;
Karlsruhe, Generallandesarchiv, 65/738, fol. 32r-v; Speyer breviary, Vatican, cod.
pal. lat. 514, fol. 155va; Orarium Spirense (pars aestivalis), sig. H viv; cf. Schlager
(ed.), Antiphonale Pataviense, fol. 174.
76
Mainz, Martinusbibliothek, Hs. 100, a processional containing the responsory (fols.
lviiiv-lixr), is attributed by Theodor Heinrich Klein, Die Prozessionsgesänge der
Mainzer Kirche aus dem 14. bis 18. Jahrhundert, Speyer, 1962 (Quellen und Ab-
handlungen zur mittelrheinischen Kirchengeschichte, 7), p. 70, to Mainz Cathe-
dral; but this is almost certainly mistaken (see Chapter II above). The responsory is
not found in genuine Mainz processionals of any date, e.g. Mainz, Stadtbibliothek,
143
calization criteria in the St Gall Passion Play, and suggest that the
play was situated not within the Mainz liturgical tradition but rather
that of Speyer or Worms. And indeed, the evidence of the preceding
chant, Jesus s response to Mary Magdalene s heartfelt repentance (ll.
276-91), can be read as corroboration:
33
Tunc Iesus cantat versum Dimissa sunt et dicat:
Alle dine sunde sin dir virgeben.
Bezzer vorbaz din leben.
Wan dine minne ist also groz,
daz ich noch nie vant din genoz. (ll. 291b-95)
Neither Bergmann, Pflanz, nor Schuler identifies this item as litur-

gical.77 Pflanz, claiming that no matching item is found in medieval
liturgical manuscripts, proposes an adaptation of Luke 7:47; Schuler
suggests part of a lection from matins of St Mary Magdalene in the
modern Roman use. But the Dimissa sunt incipit differs from Luke
7: 47 ( remittuntur ), and the specified versus indicates liturgical
material: the verse of a mode 5 responsory for matins of Mary Magda-
lene:78,79
Accessit ad pedes Jesu peccatrix mulier Maria. Et osculata est, et lavit lacrimis, et
tersit capillis, et unxit unguento.
V. Dimissa sunt ei peccata multa, quoniam dilexit multum. Et osculata est
Hs. II 74 (Cathedral, early fifteenth century) and II 303 (Cathedral, late fifteenth
century); Mainz, Martinusbibliothek, Hs. 118 (St Peter, fifteenth-sixteenth cen-
tury).
77
Bergmann, Studien, p. 188 and note 1526; Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, pp.
18, 138-39; Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 148.
78
It is also the verse of the responsory Maria ergo unxit pedes Jesu (Hesbert, Cor-
pus antiphonalium, no. 3699), but it is unknown in Mainz and Speyer and found in
only one late Worms source: Worms manual, Worms, Stadtarchiv, Abt. 106/1, fol.
53, as part of the Mandatum.
79
Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 6016. Speyer antiphonal, Speyer, Bistumsar-
chiv, Hs. 2, fol. 167v (verse only).
144
The actor playing Jesus would have been capable of singing the
responsory-verse, melodically richer than a simple antiphon, and
ideally suited to its quasi-sacramental function, prepared and under-
lined by a triple Silete from the angel.80
Accessit , foreign to the Roman use, has not always been recog-
nized as a liturgical item.81 But it is well known in the German local
rites.82 The responsory, or its verse, is used in nine other plays, though
Schuler does not identify it as the source.83 Accessit alone is used in
four.84 Refrain and verse together are found in three.85 Dimissa sunt
80
No. 37, l. 291a. See Johannes Janota, Zur Funktion der Gesänge in der hessischen
1994 (Schlern-Schriften, 293), pp. 109-20, esp. 113 and 115, on the use of Dimis-
sa sunt in the Frankfurter Passionsspiel and Frankfurter Dirigierrolle.
81
Accessit not recorded in Bryden & Hughes, Index of Gregorian Chant; identified
as Matthew 26:7 in (Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, by Young, Drama of
the Medieval Church, vol. I, p. 523, l. 116; included amongst the non-liturgical
pieces newly composed for the play (ibid, p. 534 and note 1). Thomas Binkley,
The Greater Passion Play from Carmina Burana: An Introduction , in Peter Reide-
meister & Veronika Gutmann (eds.), Alte Musik: Praxis und Reflexion, Winterthur,
1982 (Sonderband der Reihe Basler Jahrbuch für historische Musikpraxis, zum 50.
Jubiläum der Schola Cantorum Basiliensis), p. 147: not a well-known antiphon
[sic!].
82
Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, vol. II, no. 1464b: in Rheinau Antiphonal. CAN-
TUS: sixteen sources, all from Germany, Austria or Slovenia. Moosburger Gradua-
le, fol. 78; Schlager (ed.), Antiphonale Pataviense, fol. 172.
83
Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 5.
84
Ibid: (Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, fol. 108, l. 131 (neumed incipit Ac-
cessit ad pedes only); Brixener Passionsspiel, manuscript, fol. 4, late-sixteenth-
century addition: Chorus Canit R[esponsorium] Accessit ad pedes (Wackernell
[ed.], Altdeutsche Passionsspiele aus Tirol, p. 354, ll. 82b-c, omits R[esponso-
145
alone is found in Frankfurt, both in the Dirigierrolle and the Passions-

spiel.86
It is presumably the second person forms in lines 292 to 295 which
lead Pflanz to reconstruct the chant as Dimissa sunt tibi peccata mul-
ta, quoniam dilexisti multum .87 Ironically, Pflanz was probably un-
aware that Eger rewrote the verse in precisely this form; but was
seemingly unique in doing so, as it was in recasting Accessit to be
sung by Mary Magdalene in the first person; a remarkable, and un-
paralleled, affective adaptation of liturgical music.88
Accessit can be found in all three dioceses, but whereas clearly
long standard in Worms and Speyer,89 it may have entered the Mainz
liturgy rather late. Earlier Mainz books often contain only Dimissa
sunt as a versicle at first vespers, but not the responsory Accessit in
rium] ). Not in Schuler: Bozner Abendmahlspiel, ll. 235a-36; Tiroler Passionsspiel,

ll. 96c-e.
85
In Schuler: Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 2760a-b (Chorus: Accessit ); 2826a-b (Dis-
ciples: Dimissa sunt ); Egerer Passionsspiel, ll. 2992i-r ( Accessit ); ll. 3064a-c
( Dimissa sunt ); Erlau IV, ll. 707a-b, marginal addition (Maria: Accessit ); 707c-
d (Jesus: Dimissa ). Not in Schuler: Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 446, 458.
86
Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 136a; Frankfurter Passionsspiel, l. 1363a (not included
in Schuler, no. 148).
87
88
Egerer Passionsspiel: Chorus: Accessit [ ] Maria (ll. 2992i-j); Mary: Et oscu-
lata sum , Et lavi lacrimis , Et tersi capillis , Et unxi unguento (ll. 2992 k-l, m-
n, o-p) as an accompaniment to these gestures. Cf. Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern,
no. 5. Cf. also evidence of a more affective staging of the episode in Bozner
Abendmahlspiel, ll. 235a-36; Erlau IV, ll. 707a-b; Tiroler Passionsspiel, ll. 96c-e,
where Accessit is sung by Mary Magdalene herself, not the chorus.
89
Worms breviaries: British Library, MS add. 19415, fols. 518v-19, 520v; Worms,
Stadtbibliothek, Lu 3a, fol. 230; Vatican, cod. pal. lat. 522, fol. 31; printed Worms
breviary, 1475 (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no. 5513), fols. 63, 64v. Speyer
antiphonals: Karlsruhe, Generallandesarchiv, 65/738, fol. 32; Speyer, Bistumsar-
chiv, Hs. 2, fol. 167v; Speyer breviary, Vatican, cod. pal. lat. 514, fol. 155rb; print-
ed Speyer breviaries: 1478 (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no. 5464), sig. mm
iii; 1491 (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, 5465), sig. Fii; Orarium Spirense
(pars aestivalis), sig. Hviva.
146
matins,90 and this is even true of some later ones.91 Those with the
whole responsory, not just the versicle, are predominantly fifteenth-
century or later.92 One of the three fourteenth-century books which do
contain the responsory is from St Peter in Fritzlar, an outpost of Mainz
liturgy in Fulda territory;93 the chant seems to take longer to make its
way into the books of the part of the diocese closer to the home of
the St Gall Passion Play. This might explain why the whole respon-
sory and its verse are used in the late Alsfelder Passionsspiel, but only
the verse in the fourteenth-century Frankfurter Dirigierrolle and the
St Gall Passion Play.
Since Dimissa sunt is in at least a few fourteenth-century books
from the play s area,94 as well in the Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, it can
only be a corroborative, not an independent localization crux. None-
theless, it is strong corroboration. The same episode in the St Gall
Passion Play uses three chants from the office of St Mary Magdalene:
all are standard in Worms and Speyer, but two (35 and 36) are un-
known in Mainz and one (33) seems to have made a late appearance
there. The two non-Mainz chants and 34, Mittens hec mulier , are
used only in this play and are an important part of the material which
distinguishes its treatment of the episode from the version in the Hes-
90
E.g. Frankfurt, Barth. 150 (early fourteenth century), fol. 397vb; Barth. 160 (earlier
fourteenth century), fol. 442ra; Kassel, 2o theol. 143 (mid-fourteenth century), fol.
377vb.
91
Mainz, Martinusbibliothek, Hs. 233 (fourteenth-fifteenth century), fol. Qiiir; Frank-
furt, Barth. 159 (1449), fol. 150v; printed Mainz breviary, 1474 (Gesamtkatalog
der Wiegendrucke, no. 5394), pp. 273v, 275v.
92
Fifteenth-century or later: Frankfurt, Barth. 44 (1508), fols. 190ra, 190vb; Barth. 83
(1460s), fols. 177va, 178va; Barth. 94 (fifteenth century), fol. 151r-v; MS Leonh. 3,
(1469), fols. 164vb, 165va; Kassel, 2o theol. 99 (first half of the fifteenth century),
fols. 137v, 138; Mainz, Martinusbibliothek, Hs. 118 (fifteenth-sixteenth century),
fols. 98-99v (new numbering); fourteenth-century: Frankfurt, Barth. 131, fol. 368rb;
Kassel, 2o theol. 129 (1344-48), fol. 209.
93
Kassel, 2o theol. 129 (antiphonal), fol. 209.
94
Frankfurt, Barth. 131, fol. 368rb; Barth. 150, fol. 397vb; Barth. 160, fol. 442ra.
147
sian plays.95 Taken together, this is compelling localization evidence.

It is also, unfortunately, the only really strong evidence of this kind in
the play. However, other indications, though vaguer, can be seen as
corroborating it. One chant, for instance, seems not to have been
known in Speyer. It is sung by the cured blind man, who explains
what Jesus did to him:
40, 41
[40] Cecus cantet Ille homo qui Iesus dicitur
et dicat:
Der mensche, der Iesus ist genant,
der leite mir bit siner hant
die speicholter vf die augen min.
Do von wart mir gnade schin,
daz ich gesehen den claren dag,
der mir vor gar virborgen lag. (ll. 355a-61)
The blind man sings and says exactly the same words a second time
shortly afterwards:
[41] Respondens Cecus cantet Ille homo ut supra
et dicat Der mensche ut prius (ll. 369a-69b).
This is another of the play s cantet incipits about which certainty

is impossible. Since a similar item is found only in Heidelberg, there
is no evidence of a German melodic tradition; the Frankfurter Pas-
sionsspiel, with closely similar dialogue, has no chant at all.96 It could
be intoned biblical text from John 9:11:
Ille homo qui dicitur Jesus lutum fecit, et unxit oculos meos, et dixit mihi: Vade
ad natatoria Siloe, et lava. Et abii, et lavi, et video.
95
Cf. Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 2743-2905; Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 130-36a;
Frankfurter Passionsspiel, ll. 1288-1368; Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll. 2737-
2822. See the synoptic edition in Johannes Janota (ed.), Die hessische Passions-
spielgruppe. Edition im Paralleldruck, 3 vols., Tübingen, 1996-2002, vol. I, pp.
162-69.
96
Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll. 1181a-d; Frankfurter Passionsspiel, ll. 929a-35,
esp. l. 929a.
148
But a mode 1 antiphon for Wednesday of the fourth week in Lent

would be musically almost as simple as a reciting-tone, and verbally
more compact than the biblical verse, and hence perhaps an even more
likely choice: 97
This is one of the good many St Gall Passion Play chants which
Bergmann ignores because he does not treat the relevant episodes. The
antiphon, suggested without further argument by both Schuler and
Pflanz,98 though not certain, is plausible. Liturgical chant would be fit-
ting to the quasi-sacramental nature of the moment in the play: indeed
the Mainz rite, at least in later medieval sources, used a similar form
of words as a prayer of thanksgiving after communion.99
The six lines of German which follow are a close translation nei-
ther of the antiphon, nor of the Vulgate. Pflanz notes this, but does not
revise his general assumption that the German dialogue closely re-
flects the Latin chants.100 The word-order Ille homo qui Iesus dicitur
(l. 355 a), diverging from the qui dicitur Jesus of both Vulgate and
antiphon, is probably a scribal error, and Pflanz s assumption that the
97
fol. 131.
98
Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 293a, and Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen,
pp. 19-20, 74-75.
99
Missale Maguntinum, 1507, unsigned gathering (before sig. l), fol. 4v: Lutum fecit
dominus ex sputo et liniuit oculos meos; et abii et laui et vidi et credidi deo ; cf.
Hermann Reifenberg, Messe und Missalien im Bistum Mainz seit dem Zeitalter der
Gotik, Münster, 1960 (Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen, 37), p.
84.
100
149
antiphon would have been changed to read qui Jesus dicitur is un-
likely.101 If Ille homo is liturgical, it is a chant known in Mainz and
Worms,102 but not in Speyer, where it is found only in a twelfth- to
thirteenth-century book, probably one from another use adapted for
Speyer.103
There is more possible corroborative evidence in the play, most of
it chants apparently less familiar in Mainz than in the other dioceses.
One such is Jesus s reply to John the Baptist, reluctant to baptise the
Lord (ll. 101a-03):
10
Tunc Christus cantet Sine modo sic enim et dicat:
La die rede sin, Iohan,
vnd deufe mich, vil heilger man.
So wirt alle gerehtekeit
irfullet. Daz si dir geseit. (103a-07)
The St Gall Passion Play is the sole play with this incipit.104 As
with the preceding no. 9, Baptiza me, Iohannis (see Chapter VI),
Schuler notes this item under no. 168 ( Ecce agnus Dei ), but offers no
identification. Pflanz suggests the second half of the mode 1 antiphon
101
Ibid., p. 75. No deviation from this wording (the only form given in Marbach,
Carmina scripturarum, p. 469) in any manuscript cited by Hesbert, Corpus anti-
phonalium, vol. III, p. 265, or in the thirty-one CANTUS sources; cf. Bryden &
Hughes, Index of Gregorian Chant, vol. I, p. 210; Antiphonale monasticum, pp.
378-79; Liber usualis, p. 1095. The word-order qui dicitur Jesus is consistently
found in Mainz breviaries: Frankfurt, Barth. 150, fol. 211v; Barth. 154, fol. 113v;
Barth. 160, fol. 345.
102
Mainz antiphonal, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 48, fol. 131; Mainz breviary, Barth. 160, fol.
345; Worms breviaries: British Library, MS add. 19415, fol. 248v; Vatican, cod.
pal. lat. 519, fol. 193v ( qui dicitur Jesus ).
103
Speyer psalter and breviary, Speyer, Gymnasialbibliothek, A.D. 3, fol. 96rb. See
Chapter II above.
104
Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll. 218a-c, Sic enim decet nos implere omnem iusti-
ciam , is probably biblical (Matthew 3:15).
150
Joannes quidem clamabat :105

Joannes quidem clamabat, dicens: ego non sum dignus baptizare Dominum. Re-
spondit Jesus et dixit: Sine modo, sic enim decet nos adimplere omnem justi-
tiam.106
Though the wording also fits Vulgate text (Matthew 3:15), the an-
tiphon is the more likely choice in the liturgically inclined St Gall
Passion Play, especially for the musically expert Jesus figure. This
then may have consequences for localization. Though found in all
three dioceses,107 the antiphon is absent from a good many Mainz
books,108 and is not used in any Hessian plays; this again could sug-
gest liturgical material less central to the Mainz use than to that of its
southern neighbours. The antiphon does seem a speciality of the more
southerly German dioceses.109
105
106
Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 3503. Mainz/Fritzlar antiphonal, Kassel, 2o
theol. 117, fol. 44v. The usual Mainz, Worms and Speyer sources do not notate
this antiphon.
107
Mainz breviary, Frankfurt, Barth. 150, fol. 153; Reifenberg, Stundengebet, p. 135,
note 855 (Magnificat antiphon, Octave of the Epiphany); Worms breviaries: Brit-
ish Library, MS add. 19415, fol. 194v; Vatican, cod. pal. lat. 519, fol. 107v (anti-
phon for week of Epiphany Octave); Orarium Spirense, (pars hiemalis), sig. x7va;
printed Speyer breviary, 1491 (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no. 5465), sig.
e6v.
108
E.g. Mainz breviary, Frankfurt, Barth. 161; Mainz antiphonal, Frankfurt, lat. qu.
48.
109
Thirteen of fourteen CANTUS sources are from southern Germany, Switzerland and
Austria. Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium: only in the German Hartker and Rheinau
Antiphonals; not listed in Bryden & Hughes, Index of Gregorian Chant.
151
Another chant which may not be strongly characteristic of Mainz

introduces Jesus s temptation by the Devil in the wilderness:
14, 15
[14] Tunc angeli cantent responsorium Ductus est
Iesus in desertum usque [15] Si es filius Dei
quod accedens Dyabolus cantet et dicat:
Bist du Godes sun alleene,
so sprich, daz dise steine
zu dirre stunt werden brot.
So buzes du des hungers not. (ll. 123a-27)
This incipit is found only in other Hessian plays.110 It is common to

two chants for the first Sunday of Lent, an antiphon and a respon-
sory;111 so it is helpful that the St Gall Passion Play direction precise-
112
ly identifies the responsory and the mode of performance:
Ductus est Jesus in desertum a spiritu ut tentaretur a Diabolo. Et accedens tentator
dixit ei si filius Dei es dic ut lapides isti panes fiant.
V. Et cum jejunasset quadraginta diebus et quadraginta noctibus postea esu-
riit. Et accedens tentator ...
110
Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 1137g-h; Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 167; Frankfurter Di-
rigierrolle, 32a. Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll. 256d-f.
111
Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, nos. 2431 and 6529 respectively.
112
Ibid., 6529. Mainz antiphonal, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 48, fol. 106v (relevant section
only).
152
This responsory was used in all three dioceses;113 but like Accessit , it
may not have been an original part of the Mainz liturgy. Though
found in the diocese in the early thirteenth century in Aschaffen-
burg,114 it is missing from several books contemporary with the St
Gall Passion Play and written in the same approximate area.115 It is
recorded in this rough locality (Frankfurt) by the fifteenth century,
though in one breviary still only as an alternative.116 The evidence of
the plays written in the Mainz diocese is consistent with the liturgical
data. In the fourteenth-century Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, the incipit
has the neumes not of the responsory but of Hesbert, Corpus antipho-
nalium, no. 2431, known early in Mainz.117 For Alsfeld, Dreimüller s
suggestion of the antiphon is convincing:118 the chant precedes the
quasi-liturgical procession of Jesus into the desert, itself accompanied
113
Mainz antiphonal, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 48, fol. 106v; Mainz breviary, Barth. 154, fol.
96v; Worms breviaries: British Library, MS add. 19415, fol. 228; Vatican, cod.
pal. lat. 521, fol. 69v; printed Worms breviary, 1490 (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegen-
drucke, no. 5515), sig. z2vb; Speyer psalter and breviary, Speyer, Gymnasialbi-
bliothek, A.D.3, fol. 86rb; Orarium Spirense (pars hiemalis), sig. 3rb; printed
Speyer breviary, 1491 (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no. 5465), sig. hir.
114
Aschaffenburg, ms. perg. 19, fol. 123, cited by Reifenberg, Stundengebet, p. 119,
note 777.
115
Mainz breviaries: Frankfurt, Barth. 150, Barth. 160, Barth. 161.
116
Mainz antiphonal, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 48, fol. 106v; Mainz breviaries: Frankfurt,
Barth. 154, fol. 96v; Barth. 142, fol. 147v (alternative to Scapulis suis obumbra-
bit ).
117
Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 32a; neumes not mentioned by Klaus Wolf, Kommentar
zur Frankfurter Dirigierrolle und zum Frankfurter Passionsspiel , Tübingen,
2002 [first volume of additions to Johannes Janota (ed.), Die hessische Passions-
spielgruppe: Edition im Paralleldruck, Tübingen, 1996-2002], p. 99. Hesbert,
Corpus antiphonalium, no. 2431 found (e.g.) in Frankfurt, Barth. 142, fol. 148;
Barth. 150, fol. 188; Barth. 161, fol. 292.
118
Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 1137g-h (no music or liturgical indication); cf. Janota
(ed.), Hessische Passionsspielgruppe, vol. II: Alsfelder Passionsspiel. Mit den Pa-
ralleltexten der Frankfurter Dirigierrolle , des Frankfurter Passionsspiels , des
Heidelberger Passionsspiels , des Frankfurter Osterspielfragments ; Edition der
Melodien von Horst Brunner, Tübingen, 2002, p. 167. See also Dreimüller, Die
Musik des Alsfelder Passionsspiels , vol. II, p. 21.
153
by a responsory;119 to add the responsory Corpus antiphonalium, no.

6529 would almost certainly have been too long.
Since the St Gall Passion Play chant clearly is the responsory,
Pflanz s discussions of antiphon versus responsory are superfluous,
and his decision for the antiphon obviously wrong: it contradicts the
direction, and it does not include the words which the Devil is directed
to sing.120
It is ironic that Schuler too found this this chant with its straight-
forward direction problematical.121 He cites the text of the antiphon
rather than of the responsory; hence the Devil s Si filius dei es ... is
listed as a separate chant.122
This is the first of the play s chants to raise a question relevant to
several other items.123 The trained angel choir certainly sings the re-
sponsory, but did the Devil actually sing his Si filius Dei es to the
complex responsory melody? This seems demanding for this role, and
the actor could have used a recitative formula in the right mode, espe-
cially since his words in the responsory are identical to those in Mat-
thew 4:3. However, his next item (17, Angelis suis mandavit [see
Chapter VI]) is almost certainly a responsory or a gradual, so that the
play may well have envisaged the part being filled by a competent
singer.
119
Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 1137i-j: responsory Te sanctum Dominum (Hesbert,
Corpus antiphonalium, no. 7757), not identified by Dreimüller.
120
Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, pp. 13-14, 56-59; pp. 58 and 164 perhaps tac-
itly following Bergmann, Studien, p. 209 and note 1689, who identifies the anti-
phon.
121
122
Ibid., no. 165(a). Misinterpreting the St Gall Passion Play direction (Mone [ed.],
Schauspiele des Mittelalters, vol. I, pp. 49-132, ll. 117a-b), Schuler thinks that the
Devil sings this in German; hence he lists it (no. 10b and vol. I, p. 99) as Bist du
godes sun ... ; cf. Mehler, Dicere und cantare , p. 195.
123
E.g. 49, Quid facimus ; 50, Expedit vobis ; 72, Tu es rex Iudeorum ; 73, Tu
dicis quia rex sum ; 76, Regem non habemus .
154
The blind man cured by Jesus responds to hostile questioning from

Annas by singing that it is unheard-of for anyone other than the Mes-
siah to work such cures:
42
Respondens Cecus cantet A seculo non est et cetera
et dicat:
Daz ist ein wunder vffenbare,
daz ir nit wuzen konnent vor war,
wanne er si bekommen,
[ ]
So sint auch daz gar vromde mer,
daz ein blinde wart gesehen.
Daz wunder ist nit me geschehen.
Die craft er muz von Gode han,
mit der er hat daz wunder gedan. (ll. 421a-33)
This item, as Schuler records, is found only in the St Gall Passion

Play.124 It is in an episode untreated by Bergmann, but both Schuler
and Pflanz assume the following antiphon:125,126
124
Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 293b.
125
Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, pp. 20-21, 75-77.
126
Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 1194. Mainz antiphonal, Frankfurt, lat. qu.
48, fol. 134. Also in: Mainz breviary, Frankfurt, Barth. 142, fol. 187v (as second
antiphon of second nocturn, Passion Sunday); Worms breviaries: British Library,
MS add. 19415, fol. 248v; Vatican, cod. pal. lat. 519, fol. 194; printed Speyer bre-
viary, 1491 (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no. 5465), sig. i7; Orarium
Spirense (pars hiemalis), sig. bb1vb.
155
Pflanz realizes that the German dialogue corresponds not to the anti-
phon but to John 9 (parts of verses 30 and 31, and all of verses 32-33).
But he neither reassesses his general view that the German wording
reflects that of the sung items, nor considers the possibility of biblical
text (John 9:32-33):127
Since this chant and dialogue have no equivalent in the Frankfurter

Passionsspiel, which here shows striking textual parallelism with the
St Gall Passion Play,128 there is no external evidence on which to de-
cide between liturgical and biblical text. The cantet direction, which
suggests the former, does introduce some biblical material in St Gall;
yet as with no. 10, the antiphon, melodically hardly more difficult
than recitative, is not improbable.
If this is a liturgical chant, it too may corroborate the localization.
For in Worms and Speyer, as in most dioceses, this item was the Mag-
nificat antiphon for Wednesday of the fourth week of Lent,129 but in
Mainz the fifth antiphon at matins of Passion Sunday.130 A single
scene would be likely to use liturgical material from the same office;
127
John 9:32-33, Passion tone.
128
St Gall Passion Play ll. 417a-33 would fit between Frankfurter Passionsspiel, ll.
959 and 959a.
129
Worms breviaries: British Library, MS add. 19415, fol. 248v; Vatican, cod. pal.
lat. 519, fol. 194; printed Speyer breviary, 1491 (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegen-
drucke, no. 5465), sig. i7; Orarium Spirense (pars hiemalis), sig. bb1vb. Other dio-
ceses: Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, vol. III, p. 22; all thirteen German, Au-
strian and Swiss CANTUS sources; Schlager (ed.), Antiphonale Pataviense, p. 37.
130
Mainz antiphonal, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 48, fol. 134; Mainz breviary, Frankfurt,
Barth. 142, fol. 187v; Reifenberg, Stundengebet, p. 139, note 66.
156
and that found elsewhere in this scene, including what may be the an-
tiphon Rabbi, quis peccavit (nos. 38, 39; see Chapter VI below), is
from the fourth week of Lent.131
Conclusions
An attempt can now be made to draw all this evidence together. Deci-
sive liturgical localization evidence is provided by the two chants
from the anointing of Jesus: no. 35, Amen dico and no. 36, Fides
etenim , items standard in Worms and Speyer but, it would seem,
completely foreign to the Mainz use.
By contrast, there seems little or no material peculiar to Mainz to
the same degree. Admittedly, no. 18, Vade, Satanas, non temptabis
(probably though not definitely an antiphon), is found in Mainz books,
and not in Worms or Speyer: but this is a well-known, widespread
Lenten chant,132 which could have become familiar in dioceses where
it was not part of the official ordo. Something of the kind must explain
how the antiphon Dominum deum tuum adorabis (19) and the short
responsory In manus tuas (84), both apparently unused in any of the
three dioceses, come to be in the play. In this respect Vade, Satanas
is quite unlike the Worms/Speyer specialities , Amen dico and Fi-
des etenim , which were not at all widespread, even within the Ger-
man territories.
The possible connection of the play with these southerly dioceses
rather than Mainz is supported by the several chants which seem not
to have been known early in Mainz, at least in the area of the diocese
closest to the play s home . Relevant here are nos. 14 and 15, the res-
ponsory Ductus est Jesus , no. 33, Dimissa sunt ei peccata multa ,
the verse of the responsory Accessit ad pedes , and no. 10, Sine mo-
do, sic enim from the antiphon Joannes quidem clamabat . If no. 42,
131
Mainz antiphonal, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 48, fols. 130v-31.
132
See note 26 above.
157
A seculo non est , is an antiphon it seems to be out of liturgical se-

quence for Mainz.
If Mainz can be excluded, then the St Gall Passion Play can be lo-
calized in a tightly drawn area. It would have a clear north-western
boundary: the Mainz/Worms diocesan border, running roughly south-
west from Oppenheim on the Rhine down to the west of Landstuhl.
Significantly, this corroborates Stopp s scholarly instinct that the
Rheingau should be excluded, which he could not prove using linguis-
tic criteria alone.
Liturgical criteria alone, however, cannot fix the southern bounda-
ry, since all the Worms material is also known in Speyer, with only
one possible exception: no. 40, Ille homo qui Iesus dicitur if this is
an antiphon, not biblical recitative. But liturgy very usefully supple-
ments Stopp s dialectology. Stopp identified the p/pf line as the south-
ern boundary of the play s Heimat, but he could not place that line
with great precision. East of the Rhine it was in the Lorsch/ Weinheim
vicinity; to the west of the river merely somewhere south of
Worms .133 Yet as the map shows, even this rough location strongly
suggests that it was within the Worms diocese. And even if the line
was shifting southwards in the fourteenth century, other linguistic fea-
tures of the play manuscript point away from the region of Speyer it-
self. The form sal in the sollen paradigm, initial d and intervocalic
d and ld rather than t and lt, and the almost complete absence of Um-
laut signs, are all untypical of the Schriftdialekt of Speyer.134 These
facts combined make it very unlikely that the manuscript originated
south of the Worms/Speyer boundary; for even if the p/pf line was
somewhat further south than estimated, the manuscript could not have
been produced very far into Speyer diocesan territory without display-
ing more Speyer linguistic features.
133
Stopp in Schützeichel (ed.), Das Mittelrheinische Passionsspiel, pp. 214-15.
134
Ibid., pp. 175-76, 188, 205, and 215.
158
Geographical and demographic considerations point in the same di-

rection. Danger of flooding meant that there was no town of any size
on the Rhine between Worms and Speyer, so if the St Gall Passion
Play was written somewhere on the Rhine, it must have been in
Worms, or Oppenheim, twenty-six kilometres further north. The
Worms/Speyer boundary ran west, then south-west, from Munden-
heim by the river to the area south of Landstuhl through a distinctly
rural region of villages and very small towns, none of which seems a
plausible home for a play of the scale of the play. In the very north of
Speyer diocese, perhaps only Dürkheim is possible; otherwise one
must look considerably further north, well into Worms territory. All
these factors strongly suggest a localization within the Worms dio-
cese.
The liturgical method has thus delivered a well-grounded localiza-
tion in the compact triangle Oppenheim-Mundenheim-Landstuhl
which is a helpful confirmation of Stopp s purely philological results,
and even, pace Schützeichel, goes a step beyond. The lack of archival
records of dramatic production in this area makes it impossible to of-
fer anything but the most tentative suggestions of towns where the
play might have been produced.135 But its scale surely limits the
choice to towns of some size. Though not in the extravagant mould of
the late plays like Alsfeld and Eger, the St Gall Passion Play was no
mean spectacle. It needed a cast of about eighty-five, occupied sixteen
stage loca and made heavy demands on costumes, props and even
stage machinery.136 The analysis of the chants in Chapter IV suggests
135
No relevant archival entries are recorded in Bernd Neumann, Geistliches Schau-
spiel im Zeugnis der Zeit: Zur Aufführung mittelalterlicher religiöser Dramen im
deutschen Sprachgebiet, 2 vols., München-Zürich, 1987 (Münchener Texte und
Untersuchungen zur deutschen Literatur des Mittelalters, 84-85).
136
Eduard Hartl, Untersuchungen zum St. Galler Passionsspiel , in Gerhard Eis, Jo-
hannes Hansel & Richard Kienast (eds.), Festschrift für Wolfgang Stammler zu
seinem 65. Geburtstag dargebracht von Freunden und Schülern, Berlin-Bielefeld,
1953, pp. 109-29, esp. 109-10; cf. Rolf Bergmann, F. Interpretation. I. Der Inhalt
159
that two groups of trained choristers, two excellent soloists and up to

six further competent singers were necessary, as well as a good many
less vocally gifted performers. The personnel, and the musical, organi-
sational and not least financial resources needed to stage it will have
been considerable, and Hartl is clearly right to assume a cultural cen-
tre of some importance.137 There is a limited number of candidates:
Worms itself, Oppenheim, Kaiserslautern or Landstuhl, as the most
important towns in the diocese west of the Rhine. Even slightly
smaller centres like Pfeddersheim or Grünstadt look less likely, and
towns like Dirmstein, Freinsheim or Westhofen, though the centres of
deaneries, would almost certainly not have been large enough.138 Kai-
serslautern and Landstuhl are problematical, however: in the far south-
west of the diocese, in a region whose written documents (in any case
not plentiful) have not been analysed, they may not even lie within the
play s dialectal area. The most likely homes for the play must be
Worms itself and Oppenheim.
This admittedly does not greatly clarify the relationship of the St
Gall Passion Play to the Frankfurt plays, other than to suggest that the
play s textual basis may have been largely in Frankfurt material, but
that its musical stratum was developed in a different diocesan tradi-
tion, probably that of Worms. It is notable that there seems to be no
stratum of distinctively Mainz chant inherited from Frankfurt. The
des Spiels , in Schützeichel (ed.), Das Mittelrheinische Passionsspiel, pp. 219-39.

137
Hartl, Untersuchungen , p. 109: [Was] auf einen Kulturmittelpunkt als Auf-
führungsort schließen läßt.
138
Worms: F.M. Illert, Worms , in Josef Höfer & Karl Rahner (eds.), Lexikon für
Theologie und Kirche, 11 vols., Freiburg, 1957-67 [2nd ed.], vol. X, cols. 1224-
29; H. Gensicke, Worms , in Kurt Galling et al. (eds.), Die Religion in Geschich-
te und Gegenwart: Handwörterbuch für Theologie und Religionswissenschaft, 7
vols., Tübingen, 1957-65 [3rd ed.], vol. VI, col. 1808, both citing secondary lit-
erature. Other towns: Hans Meyer, Topographie der Diözese Worms im Mittel-
alter , Archiv für hessische Geschichte und Altertumskunde, N.F. 17 (1932), pp. 1-
92, esp. 8-9 (Oppenheim), 37-38 (Kaiserslautern), 38 (Landstuhl), 21 (Pfedders-
heim), and 31 (Grünstadt).
160
play has only two exclusively Mainz items: no. 18, Vade, Satanas,
non temptabis is found only in Alsfeld and Heidelberg, not in Frank-
furt; no. 19, Dominum Deum tuum adorabis is exclusive to the St
Gall Passion Play.
And here the question must be left, pending further archival finds
or other evidence. But in the light of all the localization evidence, one
last chant deserves consideration. When Jesus arrives at Bethany after
Lazarus s death, it is sung twice in quick succession, first by Martha,
then by Mary.
44, 45
[44] Quo veniente Marta cantet Domine si fuisses hic :
Herre, weres du gewesen hie,
so were min bruder dot noch nie.
Doch dut Got, waz du noch wilt.
Ich gleube, daz ez in nit bevilt. (ll. 497a-501)
[45] Quo audito [Maria] vadat ad Iesum et procidens ad pedes eius
cantet antiphonam Domine, si hic fuisses ut supra. (ll. 515a-15b)
The identification of an antiphon (l. 515b) is helpful, since the

three other plays with a similar chant neither notate it nor indicate its
liturgical type.139 Though the directions (ll. 497a, 515b) give two dif-
ferent word-orders, ut supra (l. 515b) shows the same chant is in-
tended each time: a mode 1 antiphon for Friday of the fourth week of
Lent: 140
139
Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 326b. Maastrichter (ribuarisches) Passions-
spiel, ll. 1169a-c: sprach ; Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll. 2432a-c; (Großes) Be-
nediktbeurer Passionsspiel, l. 167 (no neumes).
140
48, fol. 131v.
161
The music would have permitted stopping at mortuus , but such a

short chant would probably have been sung in full.
Bergmann and Pflanz identify the antiphon correctly.141 As Pflanz
recognizes, the German dialogue (ll. 498-501) translates not the anti-
phon but the Vulgate (John 11:21-22).
The two word-orders present an intriguing problem. Si fuisses hic
is the Vulgate form (John 11:21 and 32), and perhaps the scribe con-
fused biblical and liturgical wording here, or, as elsewhere, simply
muddled the word order.142 But it is also an alternative wording of the
antiphon.143 And whilst si hic fuisses is the consistent antiphon
wording in medieval Mainz and Speyer,144 si fuisses hic , which was
141
Bergmann, Studien, pp. 185-86; Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, pp. 79-82.
142
Cf. no. 15, Si es filius dei (l. 123b); no. 40, Ille homo qui Iesus dicitur (l. 355
a).
143
Si hic fuisses : Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, vol. III, p. 168; Bryden &
Hughes, Index of Gregorian Chant, vol. I, p. 135; Liber usualis, p. 1096; Antipho-
nale monasticum, p. 380; Schlager (ed.), Antiphonale Pataviense, fol. 37v; Lucca
Antiphonal (Paléographie musicale: Les principaux manuscrits de chant grégo-
rien, ambrosien, mozarabe, gallican, publiés en facsimilés phototypiques, vol. IX:
Antiphonaire monastique (XIIe siècle): codex 601 de la Bibliothèque capitulaire
de Lucques, Solesmes, 1906), p. 165. Si fuisses hic : Breviarium Romanum,
1562, sig. Uviiivb-Xira; melody in Antiphonarii [ ] Pars Hyemalis, 1572, p.
CCCCXX; three out of forty-three CANTUS sources, two French and one German,
ironically a Carmelite antiphonal from Mainz.
144
E.g. Mainz antiphonal, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 48, fol. 131v; Mainz breviaries: Frank-
furt, Barth. 150, fol. 213; Barth. 160, fol. 347; printed Mainz breviary, 1475 (Ge-
162
the medieval Roman wording, is standard in Worms,145 and reaches

Mainz only with the Romanization of the liturgy in the seventeenth
century.146 This chant therefore may display a local liturgical differen-
tia, but it does so in a frustratingly contradictory way. The dramatic
tradition is of no help in determining the right form: both wordings
are found in the three other plays with a similar chant, and it is unclear
whether they are biblical or liturgical text.147
However, scribal inconsistency of this kind could characterize a
liminal area where different diocesan uses were familiar, a situation
which would apply on both the Mainz/Worms and the Worms/Speyer
diocesan boundaries. Given that the play seems to belong comfortably
north of the Worms/Speyer border, this points to the Mainz/Worms
liminal area. This scenario is speculative, for the first si fuisses hic
may be biblical or simply erroneous, but it receives some support from
the presence of no. 18, Vade, Satanas , seemingly a Mainz-only
chant, and of no. 19, Dominum Deum tuum adorabis , demonstrably
known in monastic liturgies in Mainz territory but not recorded in
Worms. These could well be examples of the osmosis of diocesan
uses which would be explicable in a border area.
samtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no. 5394), pp. 157b-58a; ten manuscript and
printed Mainz breviaries, cited Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, p. 81, note 1;
Speyer psalter and breviary, Speyer, Gymnasialbibliothek, A.D. 3, 96vb; printed
Speyer breviary, 1491 (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no. 5465), sig. i8;
Orarium Spirense (pars hiemalis), sig. bb3ra.
145
Worms breviaries: British Library, MS add. 19415, fol. 248v; Vatican, cod. pal.
lat. 519, fol. 195v. Cf. Breviarium Romanum, 1562, sig. Uviiivb-Xira.
146
Cantus Gregoriano-Moguntinus Breviario Romano accommodatus, 2 vols.,
Mainz, 1666-67, vol. I: Pars hiemalis, p. 325; Roman wording sits uncomfortably
on the Mainz melody.
147
Si hic fuisses : Maastrichter (ribuarisches) Passionsspiel, ll. 1169a-c. Si fuisses
hic : Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll. 2432a-c (probably biblical) and (Großes) Be-
nediktbeurer Passionsspiel, l. 167 (wording differs from both antiphon and Vul-
gate; cf. Binkley, The Greater Passion Play from Carmina Burana , p. 148).
163
The obvious town where this might have happened is Oppenheim

on the Rhine, wealthy, populous and important, since 1225 a Free Im-
perial City, with a number of churches and monastic houses. It strad-
dled the two dioceses, with the Altstadt and its church of St Sebas-
tian belonging to Worms, the Neustadt , built in the early thirteenth
century, and its magnificent church of St Katharina to Mainz. There
were other churches and religious commuities, and in general the town
is exactly the kind of centre with the human, material and cultural re-
sources to mount a play like the St Gall Passion Play, and the sense of
its own prestige to require such a spectacle.148 Without further evi-
dence, of course, the Oppenheim localization must remain purely
speculative.
Even if this is the greatest degree of precision that can be attained,
it seems clear that the liturgical approach has important insights to of-
fer in the realm of localization. The risk of getting nowhere may in
general be considerable, as Rastall says, but in the particular case of
the St Gall Passion Play it is possible to reach somewhere distinctly
worthwhile.
148
Meyer, Topographie der Diözese Worms im Mittelalter , pp. 8-9, citing second-
ary literature.
164
Chapter VI
Before the Passion
he rest of the St Gall Passion Play chants can tell us nothing

about the localization of the play, but they do present the
problem of reliable reconstruction: with what degree of cer-
tainty can we say what chant a particular incipit indicates? Using the
approaches discussed in Chapter III, the remaining chapters work
through the play, attempting as accurate a solution as possible for each
chant.
Silete!
1
Omnibus personis decenter ornatis cantent angeli (l. 0b)1
The performance opens with the silence-chant, which the angels sing
eleven times in all in the play. As is standard in religious drama, it is
used to quieten the audience down before important episodes; it thus
has the function of structuring the action.2 The directions use several
different formulae:
1
Cf. 2, 4, 13, 24, 32, 37, 47, 53, 68, 78.
2
Universität Basel, 1940), vol. I, pp. 46-48 and note 580; Renate Amstutz, Ludus de
decem virginibus: Recovery of the Sung Liturgical Core of the Thuringian Zehn-
jungfrauenspiel , Toronto, 2002 (Studies and Texts, 140), p. 107, note 12; Krems-
münsterer (mittelschlesisches) Dorotheenspiel (in Elke Ukena [ed.], Die deutschen
Mirakelspiele des Spätmittelalters: Studien und Texte, 2 vols., Bern-Frankfurt,
1975 (Europäische Hochschulschriften, Reihe 1, 115), pp. 313-57, vol. II, p. 354);
919, Tübingen, 1978, pp. 250-52; Hansjürgen Linke, Bauformen geistlicher Dra-
men des späten Mittelalters , in Karl-Heinz Schirmer & Bernhard Sowinski (eds.),
Omnibus personis decenter ornatis cantent angeli (1, l. 0b);

Iterum angeli (2, l. 16a);
Iterum angeli Silete (4, l. 42a; 24, l. 191a);
Silete (37, l. 315a);
Iterum Silete (13, l. 117a; 47, l. 547a; 53, l. 598c; 68, l. 758b; 78, l. 979c);
Hic cantat angelus ter Silete (32, l. 291a).
The fact that the word Silete is not mentioned in the first two di-
rections (ll. 0b, 16a) has parallels in several other plays.3
A silence-chant is a feature of almost all medieval religious plays
from the fourteenth century on, and it is hardly necessary to list all all
its occurrences here. Schuler s score of examples can be almost dou-
bled, from various kinds of religious drama.4 A melody is recorded in
only six Passion or Easter plays, and in the Trierer Theophilusspiel.5
Zeiten und Formen in Sprache und Dichtung. Festschrift für Fritz Tschirch zum 70.
Geburtstag, Köln-Wien, 1972, pp. 203-25, esp. 204-05; William Louis Boletta,
The Role of Music in Medieval German Drama: Easter Plays and Passion Plays ,
Diss. Vanderbilt University, 1967, pp. 126-29. On the structuring of the St Gall
Passion Play action, see Rolf Bergmann, F. Interpretation , in Schützeichel (ed.),
Das Mittelrheinische Passionsspiel der St. Galler Hs. 919, pp. 217-61 (table, p.
251).
3
E.g. Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 2929a, 4241a, 4279a, 5263f, 6678a; cf. Alsfelder
Dirigierrolle, 470, 802, 814, 888, 1154; Redentiner Osterspiel, l. 232a; Wiener Os-
terspiel, l. 314a.
4
To Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, vol. II, 321-22, no. 580, add: Passion and Eas-
ter plays: Bozner Abendmahlspiel, ll. 0a-1, 86a-87, 234a-35, 417a-18; Bozner
Palmsonntagsspiel, ll. 236d-e; Bozner Verkündigungsspiel, ll. 38a-b; Feldkircher
Osterspiel, l. 6; Füssener Osterspiel, ll. 1-10; Rabers Passion, ll. 2277d-e; Redenti-
ner Osterspiel, l. 228a; Regensburger Osterspiel, ll. 91a-b; Tiroler Passionsspiel,
ll. 96a-b, 265a, 443b. Other religious plays: Hessisches Weihnachtsspiel, ll. 216a,
828a-b; Innsbrucker (thüringisches) Spiel von Mariae Himmelfahrt, ll. 44a, 1609a,
2022b; Kasseler (mittelniederdeutsche) Paradiesspiel-Fragmente, ll. 36a-b;
Kremsmünsterer (mittelschlesisches) Dorotheenspiel, ll. 71a, 97a, 125a, 135a,
172a, 223a, 249a; Moosburger Himmelfahrtsspiel, pp. 485, 486, 487 (five times);
Mühlhäuser (thüringisches) Katharinenspiel, ll. 0i-j, 37a-b, 45a-b, 55a-b, 95a-b,
144a-b, 152a-b, 166a-b, 176a-b, 208a-b, 306a-b, 344a-b, 394a-b, 475a-b, 517a-b,
521b-c, 637b-c; Mühlhäuser (thüringisches) Zehnjungfrauenspiel, ll. 0o-p, 100d-e,
166
VI. Before the Passion
The wording of this request for silence in the play-manuscripts var-

ies hardly at all. Apart from Silete longam horam , unique to the
Mühlhäuser Zehnjungfrauenspiel,6 there is either the single word Si-
lete , as in nine of the eleven instances in the St Gall Passion Play,7 or
the four-word rhyming formula Silete, silete, silentium habete .8 The
116a-b, 140a-b, 176a-b, 228c-d, 383a-b; St. Galler Himmelfahrtsspiel, ll.1-2; Tiro-
ler Weihnachtsspiel, ll. 0b, 344b.
5
Donaueschinger Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 1v, ll. 1-2; Trierer Theophilusspiel, MS,
fol. 1r-v, ll. 1-2; Wiener Osterspiel, MS, fol. 188, ll. 1139-40 (melodies recorded in
Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, vol. II, pp. 331-32). Also Feldkircher Osterspiel, l.
6; Füssener Osterspiel, MS, fol. 137, ll. 1-10; Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel, ll.
2470f-m; Regensburger Osterspiel, ll. 91a-b (melodies not in Schuler). All, except
Trierer Theophilusspiel and Wiener Osterspiel, now authoritatively transcribed in
Amstutz, Ludus de decem virginibus, p. 114, with details of previous transcrip-
tions.
6
Mühlhäuser (thüringisches) Zehnjungfrauenspiel, ll. 100d-e.
7
All instances in: Berliner (rheinisches) Osterspiel, Bozner Palmsonntagsspiel, Boz-
ner Verkündigungsspiel, Egerer Passionsspiel, Frankfurter Passionsspiel, Heidel-
berger Passionsspiel, Hessisches Weihnachtsspiel, Innsbrucker (thüringisches)
Spiel von Mariae Himmelfahrt, Innsbrucker (thüringisches) Osterspiel, Kasseler
(mittelniederdeutsche) Paradiesspielfragmente, Luzerner Passionsspiel (1545,
1571, 1597), Mühlhäuser (thüringisches) Katharinenspiel, Redentiner Osterspiel,
Tiroler Passionsspiel. Some instances in: Alsfelder Passionsspiel (eleven out of
seventeen occurrences), Bozner Abendmahlspiel (three out of four occurrences);
Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, A and B (each two out of three occurrences); Erlau III
(one out of two occurrences); Donaueschinger Passionsspiel (one out of two oc-
currences); Erlau IV (one out of two occurrences); Kremsmünsterer (mittelschle-
sisches) Dorotheenspiel (five out of seven occurrences); Künzelsauer Fronleich-
namsspiel (two out of three occurrences); Luzerner Passionsspiel 1583 (one out of
two occurrences); Moosburger Himmelfahrtsspiel (four out of five occurrences),
Mühlhäuser (thüringisches) Zehnjungfrauenspiel (five out of six occurrences);
Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel (three out of four occurrences); Trierer Theophilus-
spiel (one out of two occurrences); Wiener Ostespiel (two out of four occurrences);
Wiener Passionsspiel (two out of four occurrences).
8
Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, B, l. 2516f; Donaueschinger Passionsspiel, ll. 1-2;
Feldkircher Osterspiel, l. 6; Füssener Osterspiel, ll. 1-2 (plus eight-line sung Ger-
man exhortation); Künzelsauer Fronleichnamsspiel, ll. 0a-b; Pfarrkirchers Pas-
sionsspiel, ll. 2470f-m (additional six-line sung German exhortation); St. Galler
Himmelfahrtsspiel, ll. 1-2; Trierer Theophilusspiel, ll. 1-2; Wiener Passionsspiel,
167
Wiener Osterspiel has four Silete s; otherwise the few minor variants
on the long formula are almost certainly abbreviations or scribal slips.9
Also found are the more ambiguous forms Silete, silete and Silete,
etc. 10
Silete, silete is found in only three manuscripts. The music in the
Regensburger Osterspiel shows the formula to be complete, but this is
a very late play unrepresentative of the medieval tradition.11 The un-
notated Silete, silete in the Frankfurter Dirigierrolle and the Moos-
burger Himmelfahrtsspiel may well not be complete, however, since
these manuscripts contain only short chant-incipits.12 Cases of Silete,
etc. look like incipits of the longer form.13
Is the frequent Silete the whole text used in certain plays, as has
been suggested,14 or a one-word incipit for the longer form? Renate
Amstutz argues for the former interpretation; she bases this on the
chronology of the German plays, noting that the single Silete pre-
dominates in manuscripts of the fourteenth century, Silete, silete, si-
ll. 0a-1.
9
Wiener Osterspiel, ll. 1139-40; Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, A, l. 2522f: Silete, si-
lete, silentium (cf. B, l. 2516f: Silete, silete, silentium habete ; Rabers Passion, l.
2277e: Silete, silencium habete ; Bozner Abendmahlspiel, ll. 234a-35: Silete, si-
lete, etc. ; Wiener Passionsspiel, l. 35a: Pueri cantant Silete cum ricmo .
10
Silete, silete : Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 1a; Moosburger Himmelfahrtsspiel, p.
485; Regensburger Osterspiel, ll. 91a-b. Silete etc. : Kremsmünsterer (mittelschle-
sisches) Dorotheenspiel, ll. 223a, 249a; Erlau III, ll. 942a-b; Erlau IV, ll. 308a-09;
Erlau V, ll. 0a-c: ( Silete etc. ut supra ); ll. 246a-b.
11
Regensburger Osterspiel, ll. 91a-b.
12
Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 1a (there are no other silence-chants in this manuscript);
Moosburger Himmelfahrtsspiel, p. 485.
13
Kremsmünsterer (mittelschlesisches) Dorotheenspiel, ll. 223a, 249a; Erlau III, ll.
942a-b; Erlau IV, ll. 308a-309; Erlau V, ll. 0a-c: ( Silete etc. ut supra ); ll. 246a-b.
14
E.g. Hansjürgen Linke, Zur Auferstehungsszene im Redentiner Osterspiel , Zeit-
schrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 88 (1977), pp. 28-33, esp. 26:
Alleinstehendes Silete ist zu oft belegt, um als unvollständig gelten zu können ;
Peter K. Liebenow (ed.), Das Künzelsauer Fronleichnamsspiel, Berlin, 1969 (Aus-
gaben Deutscher Literatur des XV. bis XVIII. Jahrhunderts, Reihe Drama II), p.
258, note to l. 0a, interprets single Silete as the full formula in some plays.
168
lentium habete appearing only in the fifteenth. The single Silete she
sees as the original, possibly central German form, and the longer
form as a later development associated with southern Germany. She
understands Silete, silete as a variant of the one-word form.15
However, facts which Amstutz herself notes complicate this
straightforward view, and suggest that the evidence should be read
with regard not primarily to chronology but to the presence or absence
of music in the manuscripts. These two aspects are not easy to dissoci-
ate, for the presence of music in play-manuscripts correlates with
chronology: nearly all earlier manuscripts are without music; notation
is found almost exclusively in those of the fifteenth century and after.
But music seems to be the crucial factor in the silence-chants.
For a start, there is not a simple historical transition from the short
to the longer form. The single Silete occurs very frequently in fif-
teenth- and sixteenth-century sources.16 Indeed, both forms are found
together in several plays: they number only seven, but include every
single Passion and Easter play which contains the long form and has
more than one silence-chant. Nearly all are of the late fifteenth cen-
tury.17 The long and short forms of the silence-chant are in fact in a
structurally significant opposition defined by the presence or absence
of musical notation. The single Silete is never recorded with music.
In some cases the relevant manuscript has no music for any items;18
15
Amstutz, Ludus de decem virginibus, p. 106: The [ ] short Silete calls [ ] must
be considered as complete texts and not as incipits ; cf. ibid., microfiche catalogue,
3 C.1-3, pp. F9-F12. Ibid., microfiche catalogue, p. F9, C.1: Simple one or two
word form Silete (silete) .
16
See note 7.
17
Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, A, ll. 2522f, 2816b, 3087c; B, ll. 2516f, 2809b, 3080 c;
Donaueschinger Passionsspiel, ll. 1-2, 1728d-30; Künzelsauer Fronleichnames-
spiel, ll. 0a-b, 684a-c, 2139a-c; Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel, ll. 2470f-m, 2540b,
2770a, 3551a; Trierer Theophilusspiel, ll. 1-2, 819-20; Wiener Osterspiel, ll. 195 a,
314a-b, 1139-40; Wiener Passionsspiel (thirteenth century), ll. 0a-1, 35a, 278a,
506a.
18
Berliner (rheinisches) Osterspiel, Bozner Abendmahlspiel, Bozner Palmsonntags-
169
but even in those which have some, Silete is always unnotated.19

Most of the long formulae, by contrast, are notated;20 the few excep-
tions are nearly all in manuscripts without any music.21 The sole de-
viation from this schema is the notated Silete, silete in the Regens-
burger Osterspiel, a generally unrepresentative example.22 Otherwise,
Silete, etc. and Silete, silete are always unnotated.23 This tight cor-
relation of music and verbal forms strongly suggests that the single
Silete is merely the incipit of the four-word formula, and that this is
why it is invariably found unnotated.
This hypothesis is supported most graphically in the four cases
where the opposition between the two forms works within a single
manuscript: where the the chant is first given as the full-length formu-
la, notated, followed by a non-notated single Silete for its reprises.24
spiel, Bozner Verkündigungsspiel, Frankfurter Passionsspiel, Heidelberger Pas-

sionsspiel, Hessisches Weihnachtsspiel, Künzelsauer Fronleichnamsspiel, Luzerner
Passionsspiel, Redentiner Osterspiel, Wiener Passionsspiel; cf. Amstutz, Ludus de
decem virginibus, p. 106.
19
Alsfelder Passionsspiel, Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, Egerer Passionsspiel, Erlau
III, IV, V, Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel, Tiroler Passionsspiel, Wiener Osterspiel.
20
Wiener Osterspiel, ll. 1139-40; Donaueschinger Passionsspiel, Feldkircher Oster-
spiel, Füssener Osterspiel, Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel, Trierer Theophilusspiel:
line-numbers as in note 8.
21
Manuscripts without any notation: Künzelsauer Fronleichnamsspiel, St. Galler
Himmelfahrtsspiel, Wiener Passionsspiel. Line-numbers as in note 8. Manuscripts
with some music: Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, A, l. 2522f; B, l. 2516f; Rabers Pas-
sion, l. 2277c.
22
See note 11.
23
Kremsmünsterer (mittelschlesisches) Dorotheenspiel, ll. 223a, 249a; Erlau III, ll.
942a-b; Erlau IV, ll. 308a-09; Erlau V, ll. 0a-c, 246a-b; Frankfurter Dirigierrolle,
1a; Moosburger Himmelfahrtsspiel, p. 485.
24
Donaueschinger Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 1v: long form, notated; fol. 36: Silete item
wie das da vor geschriben stat (not notated); cf. Anthonius H. Touber (ed.), Das
Donaueschinger Passionsspiel: Nach der Handschrift mit Einleitung und Kommen-
tar neu herausgegeben, Stuttgart, 1985, ll. 1-2, 1728d-30; Pfarrkirchers Pas-
sionsspiel, ll. 2470g-m (additional 6-line sung German exhortation); ll. 2540b,
2770a, 3551a (single Silete ); Trierer Theophilusspiel, ll. 1-2: long form, notated;
ll. 819-20: Hyr singet men nu Silete alse te voren [ ] ; Wiener Osterspiel, MS,
170
For these must be reprises; the chant will hardly have varied within a
single play, and several plays, indeed, specifically gloss Silete as a
repeat of the long chant.25 The same opposition almost certainly oper-
ates within manuscripts where none of the silence-chants has notation.
This is clearest in Künzelsau, the Bozner Passionsspiel 1495 and the
Wiener Passionsspiel, which give the long formula first where a no-
tated manuscript would usually have included the music and a single
Silete subsequently.26 But it is also visible in plays where most ex-
amples are Silete , but some are slightly longer.27
The manuscript evidence, then, strongly implies that Silete is a
single-word incipit, most likely of Silete, silete, silentium habete , the
only longer form explicitly recorded. This accords well with practical
considerations: the chant s specific purpose was to quieten a large au-
dience,28 yet a single (unamplified) Silete would barely have im-
pinged on a noisy crowd of spectators outdoors. The long formula
found in nearly all the notated examples represents a minimum; in-
deed even this might have needed repetition to make its effect. This is
presumably why the silence-chant is performed by the complete angel
fol. 188, ll. 1139-40: long form, notated separately at end of manuscript; ll. 195a:
Nu singet man: Silete. ; ll. 314a-b: Di engel [ ] singen: Silete.
25
Donaueschinger Passionsspiel, ll. 1728d-30: Silete item wie das da vor geschri-
ben stat ; Künzelsauer Fronleichnamsspiel, ll. 684a-c, 2139a-c: Silete ut supra ;
Trierer Theophilusspiel, ll. 819-20: Silete alse te voren ; Wiener Passionsspiel, l.
35a: Silete cum ricmo .
26
Künzelsauer Fronleichnamsspiel, ll. 0c-d: long form, not notated; ll. 684a-c, 2139
a-c: Silete ut supra ; Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, A, l. 2522f (long form), ll. 2816
b, 3087c (single Silete ); Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, B, l. 2516f (long form), ll.
2809b, 3080c (single Silete ); Wiener Passionsspiel, ll. 0a-1 (long form), l. 35a
( Silete cum ricmo ); ll. 278a, 506a (single Silete ).
27
Bozner Abendmahlspiel, ll. 1, 87, 418: Silete ; l. 235: Silete, silete, etc. ; Erlau
III, ll. 942a-b: Silete etc. ; ll. 680a-d: Silete ; Kremsmünsterer (mittelschlesi-
sches) Dorotheenspiel, ll. 71a, 97a, 125a, 135a, 172a: Silete ; ll. 223a, 249a: Si-
lete etc. .
28
Cf. Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, vol. I, p. 46.
171
chorus, not the duo or (except once) the soloist.29 It may also explain
why plays occasionally use other, longer chants, and even instrumen-
tal music, as quieteners ;30 it may even account for the short formula
in the Regensburger Osterspiel and (possibly) the Moosburger Him-
melfahrtsspiel. These are plays performed in the context of the liturgy,
in an indoor acoustic, before an audience (or rather congregation)
smaller and probably quieter and more recollected than those of the
typical Passion play. And even the Regensburg melody as written
does not end on its finalis F, giving it an open ending which allows it
to be repeated almost endlessly, as the staging might require in some
cases .31
The likelihood, then, is that the St Gall Passion Play will have
used the long silence-chant. The melody must remain conjectural: all
that survive are those of other plays; most are monophonic, but the
Trierer Theophilusspiel has a two-part setting:
29
32, Hic cantat angelus ter Silete (l. 291a): see nos. 31-36 below. On the angels,
see Chapter IV.
30
E.g. Luzerner Passionsspiel 1545, 1571, ll. 2a-b: darnach fahend die Engel an zu
Singen Silete oder Antiphonam de Sancta Trinitate ; Prager Abendmahlspiel, ll.
1a-2, Pro celesti gloria (unidentified); cf. J.H. Kuné, In the Beginning was the
Word Das Prager Abendmahlspiel : The Words Rendered into Actions and
Images , Neophilologus 87 (2003), pp. 79-96, esp. 94; Tiroler Passionsspiel, ll.
265a, 443b: Silete vel cados ; Kaufbeurer Passionsspiel, ll. 0a-d: Nachdem [ ]
soll durch ainen TRUMETER silentium geblasen werden .
31
Amstutz, Ludus de decem virginibus, p. 115.
172
32
32
[i]: Donaueschinger Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 1v, ll. 1-2 (manuscript reads Dilete,
dilete ). [ii]: Feldkircher Osterspiel, l. 6. [iii]: Füssener Osterspiel, MS, fol. 137, ll.
1-10. [iv]: Regensburger Osterspiel, ll. 91a-b (all as transcribed in Amstutz, Ludus
de decem virginibus, p. 114). [v]: Wiener Osterspiel, MS, fol. 188, ll. 1139-40.
[vi]: Trierer Theophilusspiel, MS, fol. 1r-v, ll. 1-2 (both as transcribed in Schuler,
Musik der Osterfeiern, vol. II, pp. 321-22). The mensural melody in Pfarrkirchers
Passionsspiel, ll. 2470f-m, probably untypical of medieval plays, is not reproduced
here.
173
In a detailed melodic analysis of most of these examples, Amstutz

notes a similarity between the first Silete phrase in Donaueschingen
and Feldkirch and recitation tones for short liturgical instructions
(such as Oremus and Levate ), and proposes a similar melody for
what she interprets as the short Silete in the Mühlhäuser (thüring-
isches) Zehnjungfrauenspiel.33 The first phrase in Füssen, the second
phrase in Donaueschingen and Feldkirch, and the whole melody in
Regensburg are also similar to the melismatic passages in the Passion
tone.34 Without being so rash as to propose a reconstruction of the St
Gall Passion Play melody, it is reasonable to assume something along
the lines of Donaueschingen, Feldkirch or Füssen. The quasi-liturgical
solemnity of a chant like this would fit well with the atmosphere of
the play as a whole, and melodic anticipation of the Passion tone
would be tone for the dramatic commemoration of the Passion.
The Miracle at Cana (ll. 16a-42)

The play proper opens with Jesus s first recorded miracle, introduced
by the angels silence-chant: 2, Iterum angeli (l. 16a). Jesus replies to
33
Ibid., pp. 114-24, esp. 116, 118, 120.
34
Cf. 81, Hely, Hely , Chapter VIII.
174
Mary, who has told him that the bridegroom has run out of wine:
3
Respondens Iesus cantans antiphonam Quid mihi et
tibi est, mulier? :
Reines wip vnd mutter min,
waz ruret mich der breste sin.
Wan min zit inkommet nit noch.
Fullent die crvge bit wazer doch.
Vnd heizent zu erste schenken an
vber dische den hohesten man. (ll. 28a-34)
Though this is the sole play to contain this incipit, and though Berg-
mann does not deal with it at all, its identity is not problematical, and
both Schuler and Pflanz correctly identify it.35 The antiphona in the
direction indicates the mode 7 Magnificat antiphon for the Sunday af-
ter the Octave of the Epiphany:
Quid mihi et tibi est, mulier? Nondum venit hora mea. Et convertit aquam in
vinum, et crediderunt in eum discipuli eius. Hoc initium signorum fecit Jesus,
et manifestavit gloriam suam.36
35
Schriften, 14); Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 518, and Hermann Manfred
Pflanz, Die lateinischen Textgrundlagen des St. Galler Passionsspieles in der mit-
telalterlichen Liturgie, Frankfurt [etc.], 1977 (Europäische Hochschulschriften,
Reihe 1, 205), pp. 46-47.
36
René-Jean Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium officii, Rome, 1963-79, 6 vols. (Rerum
ecclesiasticarum documenta. Series maior. Fontes, 7-12), no. 4526. Mainz anti-
phonal, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 48, fol. 82; Mainz breviary, Frankfurt, Barth. 150, fols.
160v-61 (cf. Hermann Reifenberg, Stundengebet und Breviere im Bistum Mainz seit
der romanischen Epoche, Münster, 1964 (Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und
Forschungen, 40), p. 135, note 856); printed Worms breviary, 1490 (Gesamtkata-
log der Wiegendrucke, Leipzig [etc.], 1925-, no. 5515), sig. t2ra; Speyer psalter and
breviary, Speyer, Gymnasialbibliothek, A.D.3, fol. 79vb; printed Speyer breviary,
1491 (ibid., no. 5465), sig. f3v, f5v; Orarium Spirense (pars hiemalis), sig. y7rb; cf.
Karlheinz Schlager (ed.), Antiphonale Pataviense (Wien 1519), Kassel [etc.], 1985
(Das Erbe deutscher Musik, 88), fols. 26v-27.
175
But this chant does introduce a musical problem which dogs the re-
construction of the play s sung items. For Jesus to sing only as far as
hora mea , as Pflanz assumes from the German of line 31, would
make perfect sense textually but not musically, for the melody does
not resolve on to its finalis G until the very end of the antiphon. Yet
even in the aesthetic of medieval drama it would be unthinkable for
Jesus to perform the third-person narrative section et convertit vinum
[ ] et manifestavit gloriam suam . There are only three practical per-
formance strategies, none entirely unproblematical:
(i) Jesus could have sung only as far as mulier , finishing on G.
This is musically impeccable, but gives a decidedly laconic chant; and
the omitted phrase nondum venit hora mea is theologically a signifi-
cant one.
(ii) The music of the chant could have been altered. As mentioned
before, the limited evidence of play-manuscripts suggests that this was
done rarely, involving only minor changes.37 In this case the melody
on venit hora mea is a fifth above the finalis G: so radical an altera-
tion would have been highly unlikely. However,
(iii) The cadence de-e d-d on hora mea could have been judged
acceptable. This may well have been the case, since d is the dominant
of mode 7, and the cadence has melodic integrity:38
37
Rainer Gstrein, Anmerkungen zu den Gesängen der Osterspiele des Sterzinger
Debs -Kodex , in Max Siller (ed.), Osterspiele: Texte und Musik. Akten des 2.
(Schlern-Schriften, 293), pp. 91-98, esp. 93-94; see also St Gall Passion Play
chants nos. 54 and 55 below for melodic changes in Alsfeld, Admont and Eger.
38
fol. 82.
176
The third possibility seems to be the most plausible; but this simple
example gives a good idea of the practical performance questions
raised even by chants which are intrinsically easy to identify.
John the Baptist; the Baptism of Jesus (ll. 42a-117)

This episode is also introduced by the silence-chant: 4, Iterum angeli
Silete (l. 42a). First, John is interrogated by the Jews. Is he the
Christ? He assures them he is not: he is unworthy to unfasten the san-
dals of the one who will come after him:
5
Respondens Iohannis cantet antiphonam Qui post me venit :
Ir vragent, ob ich si Crist.
So sprechen ich, daz die warheit ist,
daz ich wol gerne wolte,
daz ich nach werde solte
inknuppen ime die riemelin,
die vme sine schuhe sin.
Dez bin ich vnwirdig gar.
Wan er weset offenbar,
so nemen ich abe sere.
Des habe er vmer ere. (ll. 64a-74)
Bergmann does not identify this chant,39 but the antiphon specified in
the direction can only be the mode 4 Magnificat antiphon for the sec-
ond week of Advent:40
39
40
fol. 11v. Also in Mainz breviaries: Frankfurt, Barth. 150, fol. 112; Barth. 160, fols.
177
Pflanz commits one of his typical errors.41 Overlooking the specifi-

cation of antiphona , he identifies three chants, two of them responso-
ries.42 He then chooses one of the responsories:
Me enim oportet minui, illum autem crescere. Qui post me venit, ante me factus
est, cuius non sum dignus corrigiam calciamenti solvere.43
He does so because the German die riemelin, || die vme sine schuhe
sin (ll. 69-70), corresponds to the wording of the responsory s corri-
giam calciamenti rather than the calciamenta of the antiphon.
Knowing that the liturgical text intended here is Hesbert s antiphon
4493 shows how misleading the assumption of a close correspondence
between German dialogue and Latin chant can be. For not only the
riemelin , but also the lines wan er weset offenbar, || so nemen ich
abe sere (ll. 72-73) do indeed correspond closely to the wording in
the responsory which Pflanz assumes; yet it is demonstrably not the
chant specified.
The fact that chant and dialogue do not correspond may have been
intentional: John s speech may have been based on biblical rather than
liturgical wording. Or possibly a different chant (perhaps indeed Me
221v, 151 v; Worms breviary, British Library, MS add. 19415, fol. 151v; Speyer
psalter and breviary, Speyer, Gymnasialbibliothek, A.D.3, fol. 51vb; printed Speyer
breviary, 1491 (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no. 5465), sig. a8v.
41
42
Pflanz cites Frankfurt, Barth. 150, fol. 112: antiphon Qui post me venit ; fol. 119v:
responsory Me oportet minui (Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 7137); fol.
139: responsory Ecce agnus Dei (ibid., no. 6575).
43
Ibid., no. 7137.
178
oportet minui ) was used in an earlier version of the play, whereas in

the version recorded in manuscript St Gall MS 919 the chant had been
changed, but not the German dialogue.44
A messenger then asks John directly who he is; John describes
himself as a voice of one crying in the wilderness to prepare the way
for the Lord. These two chants are helpfully considered together.
6, 7
[6] Iterum querat [unus] nunciorum cantans Quis es et dicat:
Sit du nit Elyas bist
noch der ware heilant Crist,
so sage vns, wie du sist genant,
daz wir ez vorbaz dun erkant
den, die vns zu dir hant gesant. (ll. 74a-79)
[7] Respondet Iohannis Ego vox clamantis et dicat:
Ich bin ez, eine stimme, die do rufet
vnd in der wuste get.
Ir sollent bereden Godes wege.
Wer nu mines rades wil plegen,
der sal den dauf inphahen,
wil er zu Gode nahen. (ll. 79a-85)45
Bergmann identifies neither chant. Schuler records the question Quis
es? only in this play, but does not identify it. Pflanz assumes this is a
liturgical chant verbally identical to John 1:22: Quis es ut responsum
demus his qui miserunt nos? ; but he admits he can find no such item,
and indeed none exists.46 This is one of the very few instances where
the St Gall Passion Play s ubiquitous cantare direction demonstrably
applies to biblical material.47
44
Cambridge, 1996, vol. I, pp. 83-93, 253-56, discusses analogous instances in Eng-
lish plays.
45
In the manuscript, unus is missing from the direction. See Schützeichel (ed.), Das
Mittelrheinische Passionsspiel der St. Galler Hs. 919, p. 102, l. 74a.
46
Cf. Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 511b; Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen,
pp. 136-37.
47
Others: 62, Pater, si possibile est, transeat and 79, Regem non habemus . See
179
John s reply, found otherwise only in Künzelsau,48 is identified by

Schuler (no. 511c) as the antiphon Ego vox clamantis in deserto for
the second or third week of Advent. However, this antiphon (Hesbert,
Corpus antiphonalium, no. 2610), which was not at all widespread,
was not used in Mainz, Worms or Speyer; neither was the similar an-
tiphon 1315, which prefixes the words Ait Iohannes , nor indeed was
any liturgical chant beginning with or including the words Ego vox
clamantis .49 The closest matches in these dioceses are the mode 5 an-
tiphon Vox clamantis (no. 5506): Vox clamantis in deserto: parate
viam Domini, rectas facite semitas Dei nostri ,50 and the verbally iden-
tical versicle (no. 8246).
Pflanz assumes the use of Corpus antiphonalium, no. 5506, with a
prefixed ego and ending at viam domini .51 This, unlike many of his
suggested alterations, would in fact be melodically feasible, as the
phrase ends on the finalis F, and the opening F on vox could con-
ceivably have accommodated an added ego ; however, the conserva-
tism of plays as regards chant melodies makes such alterations un-
likely.
Chapter IV.
48
Künzelsauer Fronleichnamsspiel, ll. 2151a-d (not listed in Schuler, 511c).
49
Ego vox clamantis (Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 2610): found in only two
Corpus base manuscripts and five CANTUS (A Database for Latin Ecclesiastical
Chant [http://publish.uwo.ca/~cantus]) sources (France, Italy, Spain); John R. Bry-
den & David G. Hughes, An Index of Gregorian Chant, Cambridge, Mass., 1969,
vol. I: Alphabetical Index, p. 155, cites only the Lucca Antiphonal, p. 16 (Schuler s
source). Ait Johannes: Ego vox clamantis (Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no.
1315): only in one CANTUS source (Italy); not recorded in Bryden & Hughes, Index
of Gregorian Chant.
50
Mainz antiphonal, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 48, fol. 11; cf. Reifenberg, Stundengebet, p.
131, note 843; p. 132, note 844. Also in: Worms breviary, Vatican, cod. pal. lat.
519, fol. 47v; printed Speyer breviary, 1491 (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no.
5465), sig. a8r. Cf. Liber usualis missae et officii pro dominicis et festis cum cantu
Gregoriano ex Editione Vaticana adamussim excerpto, Paris [etc.], 1936, pp. 1082-
83.
51
180
Vox clamantis was probably used, unaltered, in Alsfeld and Hei-

delberg.52 But there the antiphon is a free-standing introductory
chant for John. In the St Gall Passion Play Ego vox clamantis is
closely related to the messengers question Quis es [...]? , a point
Pflanz overlooks, possibly because he deals with the two items in
widely separated parts of his study.53 Question and answer are proba-
bly Vulgate verses (John 1:22, 23) performed as recitative: 54
John sings as Jesus approaches him for baptism:

8
Tunc Christus veniens ad Iohannem
quo veniente cantet responsorium Ecce [agnus Dei] (ll. 93a-93b)
52
Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 463d-e; Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 42; Karl Dreimüller,
Die Musik des Alsfelder Passionsspiels: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Musik in
den geistlichen Spielen des deutschen Mittelalters. Mit erstmaliger Veröffentli-
chung der Melodien aus der Kasseler Handschrift des Alsfelder Spiels (Landes-
Bibl. Kassel 2o Mss. poet. 18) (Doctoral thesis), 3 vols., Universität Wien, 1935,
vol. II, p. 14; Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll. 26a-f; ll. 132a-c are probably biblical
(John 1:23).
53
Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, pp. 136-37 and 48-50 for 6 and 7 respectively.
54
181
In the manuscript the incipit (l. 93b) reads Ecce magus deus ; but
since no such responsory exists, this is clearly wrong and Schützeichel
is right to correct it to Ecce agnus Dei . Bergmann notes that the
chant is marked as a responsory, but does not identify it.55 What was
clearly intended was a mode 7 responsory for the Christmas season:
55
182
V. Hoc est testimonium quod perhibuit Iohannes. Qui post me venit...56

Schuler, Bergmann and Pflanz all identify the chant correctly,57 but
in Pflanz s case for the wrong reasons: despite the explicit direction he
also considers the antiphon Ecce agnus Dei , opting for the respon-
sory only because it corresponds to the German dialogue.58
Chants with this incipit are rare in German plays; they are found
only in Redentin and in the Hessian plays, without music or indication
of liturgical type;59 and despite Schuler s assumptions, it is not clear
that any of these plays used the responsory.60
Jesus now requests baptism from John:
9
Tunc Christus cantet Baptiza me, Iohannis et dicat:
Ile vnd deufe mich zu hant
So gesegen ich dich. (ll. 99a-101)
56
fol. 55v. Also in Mainz breviaries: Frankfurt, Barth. 160, fols. 254v, 255; Barth.
161, fols. 196r-v (both as responsory in Christmas Octave); Worms breviary, British
Library, MS add. 19415, fol. 179v (matins of the day after St Thomas of Canter-
bury); Speyer psalter and breviary, Speyer, Gymnasialbibliothek, A.D.23, fol. 65rb
(Christmas octave); printed Speyer breviary, 1491 (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegen-
drucke, no. 5465), sig. c5r (Christmas matins) and d7r (matins of the Octave of
Christmas); Dreimüller, Musik des Alsfelder Passionsspiels , vol. II, p. 15; Carl
Marbach, Carmina scripturarum, Strasbourg, 1907 [rpt. Hildesheim, 1963], p. 462.
57
Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 168, Bergmann, Studien, p. 206, and Pflanz,
Lateinische Textgrundlagen, pp. 11 and 51-52.
58
Ibid., p. 51, notes 1-2. Cf. Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 2490.
59
Redentiner Osterspiel, ll. 338a-b; Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 490b-c; Alsfelder Di-
rigierrolle, 44; Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 23; Fritzlarer Passionsspielfragment, l.
64d (not listed in Schuler); Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll. 188b-g (John 1:29, 33,
34).
60
Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 168, possibly following Dreimüller, Musik
des Alsfelder Passionsspiels , vol. II, p. 14. The dicit direction in Fritzlarer Pas-
sionsspielfragment, l. 64d, suggests that a simpler kind of chant was also known in
the Hessian tradition. Other possibilities: the antiphon Ecce agnus Dei (Hesbert,
Corpus antiphonalium, no. 2490); end of the antiphon Ecce Maria genuit nobis
Salvatorem (ibid., no. 2523).
183
Hartl and Schützeichel are surely right to conjecture that line 100
should read Ile zu hant vnd deufe mich , to rhyme with line 101.
The St Gall Passion Play is the only German play to contain a
chant with this incipit. Schuler deals unsatisfactorily with this item, re-
ferring to it only under no. 168 ( Ecce agnus Dei ) but not identifying
it; nor is Pflanz s identification clear.61 It is in fact, as Wolter had
seen, part of Super ripam Iordanis , a mode 8 rhyming antiphon for
Epiphany and its octave written in Leonine verses: 62
The antiphon is particularly characteristic of German uses.63

The play manuscript abbreviates John s name (l. 99a) as iohs .
Mone and Wolter expand this to Iohannes , Schützeichel to Iohan-
61
62
fol. 72v. Also in Mainz breviaries: Frankfurt, Barth. 150, fol. 153r-v; Barth. 160, fol.
273v (both read indutus splendore ); Worms breviaries: British Library, MS add.
19415, fol. 194v; Vatican, cod. pal. lat. 519, fol. 107v; printed Speyer breviary,
1491 (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no. 5465), sig. e6v; all as antiphon in the
Octave of the Epiphany; cf. Schlager (ed.), Antiphonale Pataviense, fol. 25r-v. Emil
Wolter (ed.), Das St. Galler Spiel vom Leben Jesu: Untersuchungen und Text,
Breslau, 1912 [rpt. Hildesheim, 1977] (Germanistische Abhandlungen, 41), p. 117;
see Bergmann, Studien, p. 206 and note 1669.
63
Nineteen of the twenty-six CANTUS sources are from Germany, the Netherlands,
Austria, Switzerland, and Slovenia.
184
nis , but Hartl to the vocative Iohanne .64 Pflanz approves Iohannes ,
the form found in the single Mainz source from which he cites the an-
tiphon.65 However, the text of Super ripam Jordanis is in fact sin-
gularly variable. In the third line some sources have Iohanne , which
rhymes with te in line 3 and Iordane in line 4 and so might be
thought of as the correct version; but others have Iohannes;66 even
Iohannes Baptista is found for Iohannes, baptiza 67 and Iordanis
for Iordane .68 The chant is too verbally diverse to help the textual
editor.
Finishing the chant at benedico te , as Pflanz suggests,69 is melo-
dically unfeasible: it must continue to the end to reach the mode 8 fi-
nalis G.
John is reluctant to baptise the Lord, but Jesus urges him to oblige:
10: Sine modo sic enim (ll. 103a-07)
64
Franz Joseph Mone (ed.), Schauspiele des Mittelalters, 2 vols., Karlsruhe, 1846-48,
vol. I, pp. 49-128, l. 93a; Wolter (ed.), Das St. Galler Spiel vom Leben Jesu, l. 99a;
Schützeichel (ed.), Das Mittelrheinische Passionsspiel der St. Galler Hs. 919, l.
99a; Eduard Hartl (ed.), Das Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel: Das St. Galler
Passionsspiel, Halle/Saale, 1952 (Altdeutsche Textbibliothek, 41), pp. 56-131, l.
114.
65
Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, pp. 52-53, citing Mainz breviary, Frankfurt,
Barth. 150, fol. 153r-v; noted approvingly by Hansjürgen Linke, [Review of: Ru-
dolf Schützeichel (ed.), Das Mittelrheinische Passionsspiel der St. Galler Hs. 919,
Tübingen, 1978] , Anzeiger für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 90
(1979), pp. 154-60, esp. 158.
66
Mainz antiphonal, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 48, fol. 72v; Worms breviaries: British Libra-
ry, MS add. 19415, fol. 194v; Vatican, cod. pal. lat. 519, fol. 107v; Speyer psalter
and breviary, Speyer, Gymnasialbibliothek, A.D.3, fol. 68ra; printed Speyer bre-
viaries: 1491 (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no. 5465), sig. e6v; c. 1500 (ibid.,
no. 5466), sig. F3ra.
67
Schlager (ed.), Antiphonale Pataviense, fol. 25r-v.
68
Mainz antiphonal, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 48, fol. 72v; Speyer psalter and breviary,
Speyer, Gymnasialbibliothek, A.D.3, fol. 68ra; printed Speyer breviary, c. 1500
(Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no. 5466), sig. F3ra; Schlager (ed.), Antipho-
nale Pataviense, fol. 25r-v.
69
185
70
This chant, from the antiphon Johannes quidem clamabat or Mat-
thew 3:15, is dealt with in Chapter V.
At the baptism, a dove appears above Jesus s head, and the Father s
voice proclaims Jesus as his own beloved son:
11, 12
[11] Tunc mittatur columba super caput Iesu et cantet
ter aliqua persona abscondita voce Patris
Hic est filius meus dilectus
[12] Et cantent duo angeli Baptizat minister regem (ll. 111a-d)
Bergmann does not identify either of these chants.71 The first cannot
be identified with certainty. Similar sung texts are restricted to Hessia
and the Maastrichter (ribuarisches) Passionsspiel;72 none contains no-
tation.73 All, like the St Gall Passion Play, read hic est filius meus di-
lectus . The direction in Maastricht is sprach ; in the Hessian plays,
apart from Heidelberg with its habitual sprichtt , it is cantare , sug-
gesting, particularly from its use in the earlier plays, liturgical chant
rather than biblical recitative.
Alsfeld and the Frankfurter Dirigierrolle deal with the episode
identically: during the baptism the chorus sings the antiphon Baptista
contremuit ;74 then Maiestas , the voice of God the Father, sings
(once only, it would seem) Hic est filius meus dilectus .75 To the
70
71
Bergmann, Studien, pp. 206-07.
72
73
Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 27; Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll. 224b-d: Hic est fili-
us meus dilectus, in quo mihi complacui ; Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 527d-e; Als-
felder Dirigierrolle, 51; Fritzlarer Passionsspielfragment, ll. 97b-c (not listed in
Schuler); Maastrichter (ribuarisches) Passionsspiel, ll. 651a-b. Cf. Cobie Kuné,
Er taufte mit Wasser: Zur Taufe Christi im deutschen religiösen Drama und in der
bildenden Kunst des späten Mittelalters , Neophilologus 84 (2000), pp. 241-53,
esp. the table on pp. 248-49.
74
75
The manuscript of the Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 26a, has the first three neumes of
the antiphon Baptista contremuit (Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 1552)
186
wording of the Alsfeld manuscript Dreimüller editorially adds in quo

mihi complacui ,76 imported from the Heidelberger Passionsspiel
without any explicit rationale. So whilst the St Gall Passion Play is
superficially close to the Hessian tradition, the Hessian plays show a
different musical treatment, using a different antiphon (St Gall has
Baptizat miles regem ; see no. 12 above), and a single rather than a
threefold divine pronouncement.
There are on the face of it four possible sources:
(i) the end of the refrain of the mode 3 responsory Hodie in Jor-
77
dane :
Hodie in Jordane baptizato Domino aperti sunt caeli et sicut columba super eum
Spiritus mansit et vox Patris intonuit: Hic est filius meus dilectus in quo mihi
complacui[t].
(ii) the end of the refrain of the mode 2 responsory In columbae spe-
78
cie :
above Babtista [sic]. Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 527a-e; cf. Alsfelder Dirigier-
rolle, 50-1.
76
Dreimüller, Musik des Alsfelder Passionsspiels , vol. II, p. 16.
77
fol. 66r-v ( complacui ); this manuscript sets -placui a third too high; corrected
here. Also in Worms breviary, Vatican, cod. pal. lat. 519, fol. 98; Speyer psalter
and breviary, Speyer, Gymnasialbibliothek, A.D.3, fols. 66vb-67ra; printed Speyer
breviary, 1478 (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no. 5464), sig. F2vb. Cf.
Schlager (ed.), Antiphonale Pataviense, fol. 23.
187
In columbae specie Spiritus Sanctus visus est. Paterna vox audita est: Hic est fil-
ius meus dilectus in quo mihi bene complacui[t]. Ipsum audite.
(iii) the end of mode 8 (or 5) antiphon Caeli aperti sunt :79
Caeli aperti sunt super eum, et vox facta est de caelo, dicens: Hic est filius meus
dilectus, in quo mihi complacui[t].
(iv) Vulgate text (Matthew 3:17):80

78
fols. 73v-75, which (as reproduced here) transposes the melody up a fifth. Ipsum
audite omitted in some sources. Also in Mainz breviaries: Frankfurt, Barth. 154,
fol. 64 ( ipsum audite added above line); Barth. 160, fol. 277r-v ( dilectus and ip-
sum audite ); Worms breviary, Vatican, cod. pal. lat. 519, fol. 101; Speyer psalter
and breviary, Speyer, Gymnasialbibliothek, A.D.3, fol. 67vb (including ipsum au-
dite ); Orarium Spirense (pars hiemalis), sig. x6va. Cf. Schlager (ed.), Antiphonale
Pataviense, fol. 25v. Note that the section Hic est filius meus dilectus is melodi-
cally identical with that in the Transfiguration responsory In splendenti nube
(Marbach, Carmina scripturarum, p. 398; no Corpus antiphonalium number)
which Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 263, suggests.
79
fol. 72r; Mainz breviary, Frankfurt, Barth. 150, fol. 153 (including dilectus );
Worms breviary, Vatican, cod. pal. lat. 519, fol. 106v; Speyer psalter and breviary,
Speyer, Gymnasialbibliothek, A.D.3, fol. 68ra; Orarium Spirense (pars hiemalis),
sig. x7va. Cf. Schlager (ed.), Antiphonale Pataviense, fol. 25.
188
Pflanz considers various possibilities (though without naming the

chants he quotes), concluding that it cannot be known which, if any,
was intended.81 In this case, however, considerations of performance
may narrow down the choice. The long, complex passages from the
responsories Hodie in Jordane and In columbae specie need not
have challenged the hidden performer, who could have been one of
the angel chorus; but they do not lend themselves to threefold repeti-
tion, as the play direction specifies; nor, arguably, would the dramatic
impact of so long a chant at this point have been optimal, especially
since the baptism is followed by the long antiphon Baptizat miles re-
gem (see no. 12 above). This strongly suggests the use of the short,
simple extract from the antiphon Caeli aperti sunt , or of biblical re-
citative.
As Pflanz recognizes, the wording of the section Hic est filius
meus in all the liturgical chants is inconsistent. Particularly in text-
only service-books there are confusions as to whether a particular
chant includes dilectus , bene , or ipsum audite , or has complacui
or complacuit (see nos. 54-56 below). The precise form sung in an
actual performance of the St Gall Passion Play might thus have re-
flected the form familiar to the performers.
The baptism is also accompanied by a chant of the angel duo:
[12] Et cantent duo angeli Baptizat minister regem
et unus dicat:
Hie deufet einen herren sin kneth.
Daz ist der demudikeide reth
Der heilge geist in leret,
sin vatter in auch eret.
80
Matthew 3:17, Passion tone.
81
189
Der rufet mit ludem schalle

daz er ime wole gevalle. (ll. 111d-17)
The manuscript reading minister (l. 111d) is a scribal error which es-
caped Schützeichel because of his lack of attention to the liturgical
background. The chant clearly intended82 is the mode 8 antiphon
Baptizat miles regem for the Octave of the Epiphany: 83
As Schuler notes, the St Gall Passion Play is the only German play to
use this chant.
Pflanz s argument that only the three words in the incipit were
sung here is unconvincing.84 Though musically possible ( regem ends
on the mode 8 finalis G), this would have given a very short chant,
82
Ibid., p. 55; Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 40; Bergmann, Studien, p. 207 and
note 1676.
83
fols. 72v-73. Also in: Mainz breviary, Frankfurt, Barth. 160, fol. 273v; Worms bre-
viaries: British Library, MS add. 19415, fol. 194v; Vatican, cod. pal. lat. 519, fol.
107v; printed Speyer breviary, c. 1500 (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no.
5466), sig. F3ra. Cf. Processionale monasticum ad usum Congregationis Gallicae
Ordinis Sancti Benedicti, Solesmes, 1893 [rpt. Paris-Tournai, 1983], p. 44. Vari-
ants: protestabatur and protestata est .
84
Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, pp. 12-13, 55.
190
hardly adequate to the sacramental solemnity of the baptismal action,

perhaps even intrinsically ridiculous.
The Temptation of Jesus in the Desert (ll. 117a-61b)

The important sequence presenting the temptation of Jesus in the de-
sert is introduced by the silence-chant: 13, Iterum Sile[te] (l. 117a).
The episode uses many chants from the liturgy of the First Sunday in
Lent. First, Jesus is led into the wilderness; this is accompanied by the
responsory Ductus est Jesus sung by the two angels (14-15, ll. 123a-
27).85 This chant is dealt with in Chapter V.
Jesus rejects the Devil s first demand, that he should turn stones into
bread:
16
Respondet Iesus et cantet Non in solo
pane vivit homo et dicat:
Die heilge scrift vns dat vorgith,
daz vom brot aleine nith
lige des menschen leben,
daz ime von Gode ist gegeben.
Sin heil baz an deme stat,
daz von Godes munde gat. (ll. 127a-33)
This chant is found elsewhere only in two Hessian plays and in Kün-
zelsau, none of which indicates musical form.86 The Heidelberg
sprichtt direction means little, as this play nearly always has biblical
material; the Alsfeld respondet is unspecific, and little is known
about the general practice in Künzelsau ( dicat ). On this evidence
there is no pressing reason to doubt that the St Gall Passion Play can-
tet direction introduces a liturgical item here, especially in the mouth
85
86
In Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern: Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 1151a-b ( respon-
det ); Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 171; Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll. 264a-c
( sprichtt ). Not in Schuler: Künzelsauer Fronleichnamsspiel, ll. 2541b-d ( dicat ).
191
of a competent singer like Jesus. If so, it will have been one of two an-
tiphons for the First Sunday in Lent:
[i] Non in solo pane vivit homo, sed in omni verbo Dei.
[ii] Non in solo pane vivit homo, sed in omni verbo quod procedit de ore Dei.87
Both antiphons are short and melodically unchallenging, a further rea-

son to doubt that recitative was used.
While Schuler s Leittext (no. 165b) is Corpus antiphonalium, no.
3920, Dreimüller asserts that Alsfeld used the shorter antiphon 3919;88
neither offers a rationale. Pflanz adduces lines 132-33 ( an deme ... ||
daz von godes munde gat ) to identify the St Gall Passion Play chant
as the longer antiphon 3920.89 He recognizes it is rarer in Mainz, but
he underestimates its rarity. His Mainz sources of antiphon 3920 are
largely Carthusian.90 The shorter antiphon 3919 predominates in the
diocesan use, as also in Worms and Speyer.91 Mainz diocesan sources
of antiphon 3920 are often of the fifteenth century.92 Almost certainly,
then, the chant is the shorter antiphon 3919:93
87
Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 3919 (e.g. Mainz antiphonal, Frankfurt, lat.
qu. 48, fol. 108v) and 3920 respectively (e.g. Mainz breviary, Frankfurt, Barth.
142, fols. 148v-49).
88
89
90
Three of the five Mainz sources cited by Pflanz, p. 60, note 2, are Carthusian:
Mainz, Stadtbibliothek, Hs. I 365 (fifteenth century); I 438 (fourteenth century); I
439 (twelfth-thirteenth century).
91
Mainz antiphonal, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 48, fol. 108v; Mainz breviaries: Aschaffen-
burg, Ms. perg. 19, fol. 123; Frankfurt, Barth. 150, fol. 188 (only shorter antiphon);
Barth. 160, fol. 317 (only shorter antiphon); printed Mainz breviaries: 1475 (Ge-
samtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no. 5394), sig. 130; Enchiridion ecclesie Mogunti-
ne, 1509, sig. 192; Mainz processional, Aschaffenburg, Ms. perg. 32, fol. 218v;
Orarium Spirense (pars hiemalis), sig. 4ra (only shorter antiphon); printed Speyer
breviary, 1491 (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no. 5465), sig. h1v-h2r; Worms
breviaries: Vatican, cod. pal. lat. 518, fol. 88; cod. pal. lat. 519, fol. 166; printed
Worms breviary, 1490 (ibid., no. 5515), sig. z3rb (only shorter antiphon).
92
Mainz breviaries: Frankfurt, Barth. 142, fols. 148v-49; Barth. 154, fol. 97v.
93
Mainz antiphonal, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 48, fol. 108v.
192
The Devil then tempts Jesus to throw himself off the roof of the Tem-
ple:
17
Tunc Dyabolus ducat Iesum secum ad pinnaculum templi cantans
Angelis suis mandavit et dicat:
Bist du der ware Godes sun,
sich, so salt du also dun
vnd salt dich dohin nider lan.
Wan wir von dir gelesen han,
daz dich zu hant der engel dreit.
Dar vme geschiht dir nummer leit. (ll. 133a-39)
Schuler records this chant only in Alsfeld, because he follows Mone s

grossly erroneous reading, Tunc Dyabolus ducat Ihesum ad pinnacu-
lum templi cum angelis suis malis , and so does not recognize that the
same chant is used in the St Gall Passion Play. This misreading was
corrected by Wolter and Schützeichel.94
The type of the chant is not given. Liturgical text is suggested by
the combination of the cantans direction and the incipit wording,
since the two corresponding biblical verses preface Angelis suis with
other words: Quoniam angelis suis mandavit de te (Psalm 90
[91]:11) and Scriptum est enim: Quia angelis suis mandavit de te
94
Cf. Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 24; Mone (ed.), Schauspiele des Mittel-
alters, vol. I, pp. 49-128, l. 127a; Wolter (ed.), Das St. Galler Spiel vom Leben
Jesu, l. 133a; Schützeichel (ed.), Das Mittelrheinische Passionsspiel der St. Galler
Hs. 919, l. 133a-b.
193
(Mark 4:6). Admittedly, a play which used either biblical verse could
dispose of the introductory words and begin at Angelis .
There are three liturgical possibilities, all from the First Sunday in
Lent:
(i) a mode 1 responsory from matins:
V. Super aspidem et basiliscum ambulabis et conculabis leonem et draconem.

In manibus portabunt te )
The variant reading Angelis suis Deus mandavit de te seems to be
found only in Mainz, and thus will probably not have been used in this
play.95
95
fol. 106r-v (without deus ). Also in: Mainz antiphonals: Kassel, 2o theol. 117, fol.
64r-v (without deus ); Mainz breviaries: Frankfurt, Barth. 150, fol. 187v (with
deus ), Barth. 154, fol. 96v (without deus ); Barth. 160, fol. 316v (with deus );
194
(ii) the mode 2 gradual for mass:
V. In manibus portabunt te ne umquam offendas ad lapidem pedem tuum.96
Worms breviaries: British Library, MS add. 19415, fols. 227v-228; Vatican, cod.
pal. lat. 518, fol. 87v; cod. pal. lat. 519, fol. 169 (all without deus ); cod. pal. lat.
521, fol. 69v (incipit only); printed Worms breviary, c. 1490 (Gesamtkatalog der
Wiegendrucke, no. 5515), sig. z2va (without deus ); Speyer psalter and breviary,
Speyer, Gymnasialbibliothek, A.D.3, fol. 86ra (without deus ); Orarium Spirense
(pars hiemalis), sig. 3ra-b (without deus ); printed Speyer breviary, 1491 (ibid.,
no. 5465), sig. h1r (without deus ).
96
Mainz gradual, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 44, fol. 25v (final cca cadence wrongly written as
ddc in manuscript). Also in: Mainz missals: Kassel, 2o theol. 100, fol. 39vb (neum-
ed), 2o theol. 125, fol. 36rb (both without deus ); Missale Maguntinum, 1507, sig.
xxiiira (without deus ); printed Mainz gradual, c. 1500 (Gesamtkatalog der Wie-
gendrucke, no. 10985), sig. 23v; printed Worms missal, 1488, sig. XXVvb; Speyer
missal, Speyer, Bistumsarchiv, Hs. 1, fol. xlira-b; printed Speyer missal, 1501, fol.
XXVIra-b (= sig. diira-b) (both without deus ). Without Deus also in St Gall, cod.
339 (Paléographie musicale: Les principaux manuscrits de chant grégorien, am-
brosien, mozarabe, gallican, publiés en facsimilés phototypiques, vol. I: Codex 339
de la Bibliothèque de Saint-Gall (Xe siècle): Antiphonale missarum Sancti Grego-
rii, Solesmes, 1889, p. 35); Einsiedeln, cod. 121 (ibid., vol. IV: Le codex 121 de la
Bibliothèque d Einsiedeln (Xe-XIe siècle): Antiphonale missarum Sancti Gregorii,
195
(iii) a versicle used in first and second vespers: 97
The dramatic tradition is of no help here, since a comparable chant

is found only in Alsfeld, without any melodic indications: Dreimüller
does not identify it at all; Schuler suggests the responsory, but seem-
ingly without having considered the gradual or versicle;98 yet the di-
cere direction in this play suggests simple material, perhaps the ver-
sicle or even recitative scriptural text.99
Pflanz says the St Gall Passion Play chant is the gradual, though
he seems not to have found (or perhaps even looked for) the chant in
Solesmes, 1894, pp. 99-100).

97
fol. 110v (words and music of first three words only). Also in: Mainz breviary,
Frankfurt, Barth. 160, fol. 317; Worms breviaries: British Library, MS add. 19415,
fol. 226; Vatican, cod. pal. lat. 519, fol. 162v; Orarium Spirense (pars hiemalis),
sig. 1rb-va). No complete melodic source found; the melody here is from Liber
usualis, p. 259, based on the incipit notation in Frankfurt, lat. qu. 48, fol. 110v.
98
Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 1159b-c. dicit Sathanas Angelis suis deus mandavit de
te etc. (not in Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 173). Dreimüller, Musik des Alsfelder Pas-
sionsspiels , vol. II, p. 22; Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 24, citing Hartker
and Lucca Antiphonals, Antiphonale monasticum pro diurnis horis juxta vota RR.
D. Abbatum congregationum conf deratarum Ordinis Sancti Benedicti a Soles-
mensibus monachis restitutum, Paris [etc.], 1934, p. 1067, and Processionale mo-
nasticum, p. 193. Johannes Janota, Zur Funktion der Gesänge in der hessischen
1994 (Schlern-Schriften, 293), pp. 109-20, esp. 116, follows Schuler.
99
Cf. Ulrich Mehler, Dicere und cantare : Zur musikalischen Terminologie und
Aufführungspraxis des mittelalterlichen geistlichen Dramas in Deutschland, Re-
gensburg, 1981 (Kölner Beiträge zur Musikforschung, 120), pp. 204-10, esp. 208.
196
the office, since he makes no reference to any office-books.100 It is

however impossible to decide between these alternatives. Since part of
the chant s function was to cover the movement involved in leading
Jesus to the pinnaculum templi , the versicle would probably have
been too short; but either the long responsory (probably without its
verse) or the slightly shorter gradual, both melodically elaborate,
would have been ideal. Elsewhere in the play responsories are used to
cover lengthy stage business; for instance 87, Ecce quomodo moritur
iustus at the burial of Jesus. Since 14, Ductus est Iesus and 15, Si
es filius Dei suggest that in this play Devil had a demanding musical
role (see Chapters IV and V), a responsory or gradual melody seems
thinkable.
Jesus rejects the Devil s temptation to jump off the Temple roof; and
also his third temptation, to worship the Devil in return for earthly
power:
18
Antiphon Vade, Satanas, non temptabis (ll. 139a-43).101
19
Antiphon Dominum Deum tuum adorabis (ll. 147a-51).102
These chants are dealt with in Chapter V.
The Devil, vanquished, retreats, to the sound of a triumphal angelic

chant:
20
Tunc recedente Dyabolo accedant angeli cantantes
Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus [No German dialogue] (ll. 161a-b)
100
Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, pp. 113-14. He does however refer (p. 114) to
the incipit as die Anfangsworte eines in vielen Missalen als Graduale, Versus und
Responsorium Anwendung findenden Gesanges , showing a certain terminologi-
cal confusion.
101
102
Ibid., no. 2397.
197
Towards the end of the play, the same chant is sung by the blessed
souls whom Jesus has led out of Hell into Paradise:
[96]
Tunc deducat eos ad paradysum
Quo cum pervenerint cantent Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus
[No German dialogue] (ll. 1289a-b)
This item is entirely overlooked by Pflanz, though it is included in

Hartl s edition.103 The incipit is found in only a few plays, none of
which notates it.104 Bergmann simply refers to Schuler s list.105
Whilst some plays use Sanctus as an introductory chant, effec-
tively as a substitute for the angels Silete ,106 St Gall, like the Wiener
Passionsspiel,107 uses it to underscore two moments of Christ s tri-
umph over Satan. In two plays (Künzelsau and Eger) the wording
shows that it is part of the Te Deum: 108
103
Hartl (ed.), Das Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel: Das St. Galler Passionsspiel, pp.
56-131, ll. 199a-200, 1529b-30; though Hartl offers no verbal continuation and
thus presumably considers the chant complete.
104
Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 559: Egerer Passionsspiel, ll. 62a-c; Kün-
zelsauer Fronleichnamsspiel, ll. 128a-k; Luzerner Passionsspiel 1545, 1571, ll.
2a-b; Wiener Passionsspiel, ll. 33a-c. Not in Schuler: Hessisches Weihnachtspiel,
ll. 407a-b; Mühlhäuser (thüringisches) Zehnjungfrauenspiel, l. 214b. Cf. discus-
sion in Amstutz, Ludus de decem virginibus, pp. 235-39.
105
Bergmann, Studien, p. 210, note 1696.
106
Egerer Passionsspiel, ll. 62a-c; Luzerner Passionsspiel 1545, 1571, ll. 2a-b: dar-
nach fahend die Engel an zu Singen Silete oder Antiphonam de Sancta Trinitate .
107
Wiener Passionsspiel, ll. 33a-c.
108
Künzelsauer Fronleichnamsspiel, ll. 128a-k; Egerer Passionsspiel, ll. 62a-c. Mel-
ody: Graduale triplex seu Graduale Romanum Pauli PP. VI cura recognitum et
rhythmicis signis a Solesmensibus monachis ornatum, neumis Laudunensibus
(Cod. 239) et Sangallensibus (Codicum Sangallensis 359 et Einsidlensis 121) nunc
auctum, Solesmes [etc.], 1979, p. 838; cf. Liber usualis, p. 1832 (solemn tone).
See also the simple tone in Graduale triplex, p. 841; Liber usualis, p. 1835.
198
In the Wiener Passionsspiel the words are those of a mode 5 Trinity

Sunday antiphon:109
This may also be the chant intended in the Lucerne tradition.110
109
Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 4796. Wiener Passionsspiel, ll. 33a-c. Mel-
ody: Mainz antiphonal, Frankfurt, lat. qu., 48, fol. 81r.
110
Thus listed by Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 559. See Luzerner Osterspiel, I,
ll. 2a-b: darnach fahend die Engel an zu Singen Silete oder Antiphonam de Sanc-
ta Trinitate (1545 and 1571 plays). But this could equally (or more) probably de-
note the Trinity Sunday antiphon Gloria tibi, trinitas (Hesbert, Corpus antipho-
nalium, no. 2948) used in Alsfeld, Eger and the Frankfurter Passionsspiel (Schu-
ler, no. 224), or conceivably even another Trinity Sunday antiphon: Te Deum pa-
trem (Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 5117), Tibi decus et imperium (Ibid.,
no. 5146), or Laus et perennis gloria (Ibid., no. 3601). Marshall Blakemore
Evans, Das Osterspiel von Luzern: Eine historisch-kritische Einleitung , [trans.]
Paul Hagmann, Schweizer Theaterjahrbuch 27 (1961), pp. 1-275, esp. 73, note 7,
is surely wrong to suggest the introit Benedicta sit sancta Trinitas .
199
A third possibility, a stanza from the Corpus Christi hymn Christe

caeli Domine , is only used in Lucerne, and is perhaps an unlikely
choice for the St Gall Passion Play.111 But either the Te Deum or the
office antiphon might equally well have been used. The Te Deum is a
standard part of any diocesan liturgy; the antiphon was familiar in
Mainz, Worms and Speyer, as elsewhere in Germany, as a lauds anti-
phon daily per annum as well as on Trinity Sunday.112 In Mainz and
Speyer it is also found after the Epiphany.113
German plays use the triple Sanctus in both an introductory and
a triumphal function (see nos. 72 and 73), but they show no clear
correlation of the Te Deum and the office antiphon with either func-
tion which might suggest one or the other as more suitable in the St
Gall Passion Play.114 Amstutz, who convincingly reconstructs the
threefold Sanctus in the Mühlhäuser Zehnjungfrauenspiel as the an-
tiphon 4796 in Hesbert s Corpus antiphonalium, notes that the sweep-
ing, bright and jubilant melody is particularly well suited to its trium-
phal function. Her suggestion that it would fit several other plays, in-
111
Luzerner Passionsspiel 1597: Sanctus ut in die Corporis Christi , cited by Schu-
ler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 559; the manuscript source is as yet unverified.
This chant is regarded as unlikely outside Lucerne by Amstutz, Ludus de decem
virginibus, p. 236.
112
Trinity: Mainz antiphonal, Frankfurt, Barth. 94, fol. 47v; Mainz breviary, Barth.
150, fol. 273v; four German and Austrian CANTUS sources; Reifenberg, Stunden-
gebet, p. 143, note 875. Per annum: Worms breviary, British Library, MS add.
19415, fol. 35; printed Speyer breviary, 1491 (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke,
no. 5465), sig. aa7; Psalterium Spirense, 1515, XIII (= sig. B vi); five Austrian
and Slovenian CANTUS sources; Reifenberg, Stundengebet, p. 72, note 497.
113
Mainz antiphonal, lat. qu. 48, fol. 81 (Lauds, First Sunday after the Octave of the
Epiphany); printed Speyer breviary, 1491 (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no.
5465), sig. f3 (Lauds antiphon in the week of the Sunday after Epiphany). Cf.
Zutphen antiphonal, Zutphen, Gemeentelijk Archief, 6, fol. 52 ( De regum ). Cf.
Amstutz, Ludus de decem virginibus, pp. 237-38.
114
Amstutz (p. 235) distinguishes three uses of the Sanctus chant: (i) angelic adora-
tion of the Lord; (ii) in connection with Christ s life on earth; (iii) praise to God
by the redeemed souls. But she too can show no correlation of a particular chant
with a particular function.
200
cluding this one, is certainly very plausible.115 If the Te Deum was

used, it could have been performed to one of the standard plainsong
settings; the solemn tone given above is perhaps the most likely.
Interestingly, whichever chant was used in the St Gall Passion
Play, it was one typical not of the Hessian plays, or of regions close to
the play s homeland, but of much more distant parts (Swabia, Switzer-
land, Austria, Hungary).
Mary Magdalene (ll. 161c-81a; 191a-211a; 239a-43)
To point up Mary s eventual conversion (ll. 243a-315), three glimpses
are given of her previous dissolute Weltleben . In each case this is
expressed in the sexually suggestive motif of dancing with iuvenes :
21
Tunc Maria Magdalena cum una puella et duobus
iuvenibus curizet dicens:
Ich bin [ein] vledig iunges wip
vnd dragen einen stolzen lip.
Ich wil mit freuden vrolich sin.
Zu danzen stet das gemude min.
Weme freude ist swere,
daz ist mir gar vnmere. (ll. 161c-67)
Schützeichel wrongly gives the manuscript ii iuu ib3 as duo iuve-

nibus .116
Mary s second appearance is introduced by the silence-chant 24,
Iterum angeli Sil[ete] (l. 191a). See no. 1 above.
25
Tunc veniat Maria Magdalena secundo [et] dicat tripudians:
Wie stolz ist nu min mut,
Mich dunket der werlete freide gut.
115
Mühlhäuser (thüringisches) Zehnjungfrauenspiel, l. 214b; Amstutz, Ludus de de-
cem virginibus, p. 238 and note 13.
116
Schützeichel (ed.), Das Mittelrheinische Passionsspiel, p. 199, l. 161c; St Gall MS
919, p. 199, l. 8.
201
Wir sollen springen und danzen

vnd auch bit den knappen ranzen.
Der vns nit gerne sehe vro,
der muze virbornen als ein stro. (ll. 191b-197)
31
Tunc terci[o] Maria Magdalena tripudians dicat:
Wir sollen abir vorbaz me
bit freude leben, reht als e.
Vns kummet des suszen megen zit,
die mangen herzen vreude git. (ll. 239a-43)
There is no indication of the melody of Mary Magdalene s dance;

about all that can be said is that the German plays seem to have used
stringed instruments, traditionally associated with lasciviousness, for
similar scenes.117
These instances of Mary s Weltleben are placed in significant
counterpoint with other episodes: the first follows Jesus s routing of
the Devil (ll. 123a-161b) and precedes the calling of Peter and An-
drew (ll. 181b-191). The second follows the summoning of the apos-
tles and precedes the forgiveness of the adultress (ll. 211b-239). The
third follows the adultress episode and precedes Mary s own conver-
sion (ll. 243a-315; see nos. 33-36 below and in Chapter V).
The Summoning of Peter and Andrew (ll. 181b-91)

After baptism and temptation in the wilderness, Jesus s first act is to
call disciples, represented in this play by the pair Peter and Andrew.
Seeing them cleaning their nets, he summons them:
117
Alsfelder Passionsspiel, l. 1789a; cf. Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 215: Et sic vigellator
incipit wigellare et corisant Luciper cum Maria Magdalena et alii demones . In the
Donaueschinger Passionsspiel, Mary s paramours have a lutten (l. 110) and a
gigle (l. 130); cf. ll. 130a-b: Nu fachent sÿ an mit dem / seitten spil ze hoffie-
ren (no notation). No instruments are specified in the Frankfurter Passionsspiel,
but see l. 972: phijf vff and l. 984: ach, meister, lasze vns din phiffen horen .
Cf. Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, vol. I, pp. 48-52: II. B. Die Instrumental-
musik .
202
22
Tunc videns Iesus Petrum et Andream lavantes retia
cantet Venite post me et dicat:
Peter vnd Andreas, komment.
Vnd volgen ir mir sollent.
Stellent nach luden vwer garn.
Vnd lazent daz vischen varn.
Ir sollent der lude vischer wesen,
wie sie zu der selen genesen. (ll. 181a-87)
Bergmann only goes as far as suggesting that the cantet direction

could mean liturgical rather than biblical material (Matthew 4:19); he
suggests no specific chant.118
No fewer than five items from the liturgy of St Andrew could in
principle have been intended.
(i) The mode 1 introit for the vigil mass:119
Dominus secus mare Galileae vidit duos fratres Petrum et Andream et vocavit
eos: venite post me, faciam vos fieri piscatores hominum.
(ii) The mode 8 communio for the feast:120
118
119
Mainz gradual, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 44, fol. 105v. Also in Mainz missals: Frankfurt,
Barth. 118, fol. 104v (with fieri ); Kassel, 2o theol. 100, fol. 223vb; 2o theol. 125,
fol. 113va; Missale Maguntinum, 1507, sig. clxx; printed Worms missal, 1488, sig.
CXXV; Missale Ecclesie wormatiensis, 1522, sig. CCXXVra; Speyer missal,
Speyer, Bistumsarchiv, Hs. 1, fol. ccxiiiva; printed Speyer missal, 1501, sig.
CXLIIIIrb (= sig. B viiirb) (with fieri ).
120
Mainz gradual, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 44, fol. 106. Also in Mainz missals: Frankfurt,
Barth. 118, fol. 106 (for vigil; neumed); Kassel, 2o theol. 100, fol. 225ra (neumed);
printed Worms missal, 1488, sig. CXXVv; Missale Ecclesie wormatiensis, 1522,
203
Venite post me, faciam vos piscatores hominum: at illi, relictis retibus et navi,
secuti sunt Dominum.
(iii) The mode 1 Magnificat antiphon from first vespers:121
Ambulans Jesus juxta mare Galileae, vidit Petrum et Andream fratrem eius, et
ait illis: Venite post me, faciam vos fieri piscatores hominum. At illi, relictis
retibus et navi, secuti sunt eum.
sig. CCXXVIra. Speyer missals: München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm

10076, fol. 141ra; Speyer, Bistumsarchiv, Hs. 1, fol. ccxvvb; printed Speyer missal,
1501, sig. CXLVrb (= sig. C irb). Cf. Christian Väterlein (ed.), Graduale Patavi-
ense (Wien 1511), Kassel [etc.], 1982 (Das Erbe deutscher Musik, 87), fol. 118v;
Liber usualis, p. 1306. The vigil offertorium in some dioceses also begins with
Venite post me , but Mainz, Worms and Speyer sources consistently contain
Gloria et honore coronasti et constituisti eum : Mainz missals: Frankfurt, Barth.
118, fol. 105v; Kassel, 2o theol. 100, fol. 224rb; 2o theol. 125, fol. 114rb; 2o theol.
126, fol. 144vb; Missale Maguntinum, 1507, sig. clxxrb; Missale Ecclesie worma-
tiensis, 1522, sig. CCXXVva; Speyer missals: München, Bayerische Staatsbiblio-
thek, Clm 10076, fol. 140v; Speyer, Bistumsarchiv, Hs. 1, fol. ccxivrb; printed
Speyer missal, 1501, sig. CXLIIIIvb (= sig. B viiivb). Cf. Väterlein (ed.), Graduale
Pataviense, fol. 117v; Liber usualis, p. 1306.
121
48, fol. 164. Also in Mainz breviaries: Frankfurt, Barth. 154, fol. 141 (with fie-
ri ); Barth. 160, fol. 499; Worms breviaries: British Library, MS add. 19415, fol.
271; Vatican, cod. pal. lat. 519, fol. 223 (Magnificat antiphon, feast: faciam vos
fieri piscatores hominum ); printed Worms breviary, c. 1475 (Gesamtkatalog der
Wiegendrucke, no. 5513), fol. 305; Speyer psalter and breviary, Speyer, Gym-
nasialbibliothek, A.D.3, fol. 45vb; printed Speyer breviary, 1491 (Gesamtkatalog
der Wiegendrucke, no. 5465), sig. t4v (Benedictus antiphon, Lauds).
204
(iv) A mode 8 antiphon from matins of the vigil:122
(v) A mode 4 responsory:

Dum deambularet Dominus juxta mare secus litus Galileae vidit Petrum et
Andream retia mittentes in mare. Vocavit eos dicens: Venite post me, faciam
vos piscatores hominum.
V. Erant enim piscatores et vocavit eos. Venite post me ...
122
48, fol. 164v. Also in Mainz breviaries: Frankfurt, Barth. 150, fol. 461v; Barth.
154, fol. 141; Barth. 160, fol. 499; Worms breviaries: British Library, MS add.
19415, fol. 271v; Vatican, cod. pal. lat. 519, fol. 218v (2nd antiphon, 1st nocturn,
vigil; faciam vos fieri piscatores hominum ); printed Worms breviary, c. 1475
(Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no. 5513), fol. 302; Speyer psalter and brevi-
ary, Speyer, Gymnasialbibliothek, A.D.3, fol. 46ra; printed Speyer breviary, 1491
(Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no. 5465), sig. t3r. Cf. Schlager (ed.), Antipho-
nale Pataviense, fol. 81.
205
The precise wording of the beginning of this chant varies: dum is of-
ten replaced by cum ; ambularet and perambularet are found as
well as deambularet .123
Pflanz deals only with office chants, ignoring mass liturgy.124 He
identifies what he thinks are two, but are actually three chants: his
first is both part of the antiphon Ambulans Jesus (Hesbert, Corpus
antiphonalium, no. 1366) and part of the responsory Dum deambula-
ret (no. 6554); his second is the antiphon Venite post me (no.
5357).125
There is no hard evidence on which to choose between these five
equally suitable, verbally similar but musically different chants. Schu-
ler lists only antiphon 5357 and the communio, ignores other chants,
and makes no concrete suggestions as to what may have been used in
individual plays.126
A similar incipit is found only in five other plays. The (Großes)
Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel seems to use the communio, not anti-
phon 6554 as Binkley asserts.127 The evidence of four Hessian plays
123
48, fol. 164v ( Dum perambularet ). Also in Mainz breviaries: Frankfurt, Barth.
150, fols. 461v-62 ( Dum deambularet ; Venite post me faciam vos piscatores
hominum ); Barth. 154, fol. 141v ( Dum deambularet ; Venite post me faciam vos
fieri piscatores hominum ); Barth. 160, fol. 499; Worms breviaries: British Li-
brary, MS add. 19415, fol. 271v; Vatican, cod. pal. lat. 519, fol. 219 ( Dum de-
ambularet ; Venite post me, faciam vos piscatores hominum ); printed Worms
breviary, c. 1475 (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no. 5513), fol. 302 ( Cum
deambularet ); Speyer psalter and breviary, Speyer, Gymnasialbibliothek, A.D.3,
fol. 46ra; printed Speyer breviary, 1491 (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no.
5465), sig. t3r ( Dum ambularet ; faciam vos fieri piscatores hominum ).
124
125
Ibid., p. 64, notes 2 and 3, cites Mainz breviary, Frankfurt, Barth. 154, fol. 141
(Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 1366); fol. 141v (no. 6554), and fol. 141 (no.
5347).
126
127
(Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 107, l. 2; cf. Thomas Binkley,
The Greater Passion Play from Carmina Burana: An Introduction , in Peter
206
may be more helpful than it looks at first sight. The close textual and
structural similarity between all these plays version of the episode128
strongly suggests that the chant was identical in all four, and that the
truncated incipits in the Frankfurter Passionsspiel and Frankfurter Di-
rigierrolle correspond to Venite post me faciam vos fieri piscatores
hominum in Alsfeld and Heidelberg.129 All four plays have a dicere
direction, which could indicate biblical, or the simpler kinds of liturgi-
cal, material. Admittedly, the Gospel text (Matthew 4:19) reads
Venite post me, et faciam vos fieri piscatores hominum , only a small
difference, but surely the fact that none of the five Hessian manu-
scripts contains the word et means that the biblical text was not used.
The plays thus probably used a liturgical chant which included the
words faciam vos fieri piscatores hominum , but which was of a rela-
tively simple melodic form. This effectively reduces the field to the
antiphons Ambulans Jesus and Venite post me (Hesbert, Corpus
antiphonalium, no. 1366 and 5357), with the introit, technically a re-
sponsory but not in fact melodically demanding, as a third possibility.
In both Alsfeld and the Frankfurter Dirigierrolle another chant
from the liturgy of St Andrew is sung after the calling of Peter and
Andrew: both plays suggest Ambulans Jesus as one possibility.130
Perhaps the most likely (though not the only possible) meaning of this
Reidemeister & Veronika Gutmann (eds.), Alte Musik: Praxis und Reflexion, Win-
terthur, 1982 (Sonderband der Reihe Basler Jahrbuch für historische Musikpraxis,
zum 50, Jubiläum der Schola Cantorum Basiliensis), pp. 144-57, esp. 145 and
153. The neumes resemble the communio: cf. Einsiedeln 121, p. 310, reproduced
in Graduale triplex, p. 267, and Paléographie musicale, vol. IV, facs. p. 310. Res-
ponsory melody in Schlager (ed.), Antiphonale Pataviense, fol. 81v.
128
Hessische Passionsspielgruppe, I, pp. 88-89.
129
Frankfurter Passionsspiel, ll. 332a-c (l. 332b): Venite post me faciam vos ;
Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 38: Venite post me fa ; Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll.
1197f-h; cf. Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 142; Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll. 326b-d (l.
326c).
130
Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 1211a-c; Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 144; Frankfurter Di-
rigierrolle, 39.
207
is that Jesus s call to Peter and Andrew had not been taken from that
antiphon.
Dreimüller concludes that, if not a biblical verse, the Alsfeld chant
is from the communio;131 this overlooks the fact that the communio
correctly reads faciam vos piscatores , without fieri . Admittedly,
some text-only Mainz missals do include fieri , though the few extant
graduals and neumed missals which contain the communio presu-
mably in the definitive form do not.132
Whilst certainty about Venite post me in the St Gall Passion Play
is impossible, the play s general closeness to Hessian tradition sug-
gests that the antiphon Venite post me (Hesbert, Corpus antipho-
nalium, no. 5357) or the introit are the most likely choices.
Peter and Andrew now express their faith in Jesus as the expected
Messiah:
23
Tunc Petrus et Andreas cantent simul Invenimus
Messiam et cetera et dicat Andreas:
Peter, wir han bi warheit wol virnommen,
daz Messias nu ist kommen,
Christus, von dem die scrift vns saget.
Ein selig dag hat vns bedaget. (ll. 187a-91)
This chant is found only in the St Gall Passion Play. Schuler, follow-
ing Mone s misreading of the direction, lists Invenimus Messiam not
as a separate item but as part of no. 642, Venite post me .133 Pflanz
131
132
With fieri : Mainz missals: Kassel, 2o theol. 125, fol. 115vb; 2o theol. 126, fol.
146va; Frankfurt, Barth. 31, fol. 186v; Missale Maguntinum, 1507, fol. clxxira.
Without fieri : see note 120 above.
133
Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 642, following Mone (ed.), Schauspiele des
Mittelalters, vol. I, pp. 49-128, l. 181a: Tunc Petrus et Andreas cantent similiter
et Petrus: messiam ; cf. Hartl (ed.), Das Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel: Das St.
Galler Passionsspiel, pp. 56-131, p. 45, note 1, and Pflanz, Lateinische Text-
208
identifies without explicit argument the communio for the vigil of St

Andrew:134,135
Though it is found in medieval sources, Pflanz locates it only in a

modern missal, further evidence of his uncertainty about Sanctorale
material. Here he seems to follow Bergmann s identification of the
chant uncritically.136
Melodically however, this communio is problematical. It is in
mode 8. There is a modally correct ending on the finalis G neither on
Invenimus Messiam (d-a) nor qui dicitur Christus (c-b); and the in-
clusion of the narrative phrase et adduxit eum ad Jesum would be
unlikely in this case. Admittedly, almost nothing is known about the
grundlagen, p. 15.
134
Ibid., pp. 15-16, 137-38.
135
Mainz gradual, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 44, fol. 105v (transposed up one octave to ac-
commodate the low tessitura of the melody). Also in Mainz missals, e.g. Frank-
furt, Barth. 31, fol. 186; Barth. 118, fol. 107; Kassel, 2o theol. 100, fol. 224rb; 2o
theol. 125, fol. 114rb; Missale Maguntinum, 1507, sig. clxxra; printed Worms mis-
sal, 1488, sig. CXXVva; Missale Ecclesie wormatiensis, 1522, sig. CCXXVva-b;
Speyer missal, Speyer, Bistumsarchiv, Hs. 1, fol. ccxivva; printed Speyer missal,
1501, sig. CXLIIIvb (= sig. Bviiivb). Cf. Moosburger Graduale, fol. 117; Väterlein
(ed.), Graduale Pataviense, fol. 118r; Graduale triplex, p. 263.
136
Bergmann, Studien, p. 212 and note 1719, interprets the cantare direction as in-
dicating liturgical material; he cites the communio only from Carl Marbach, Car-
mina scripturarum, Strasbourg, 1907 [rpt. Hildesheim, 1963], and the modern
Missale Romanum.
209
toleration of wrong cadences in medieval drama, or the extent to

which chants might have been altered to avoid them (see the discus-
sion of chant no. 3 above), so the communio cannot simply be ruled
out. Indeed, the section Invenimus Christus alone, without the
rest of the melody to establish its actual mode, might sound accept-
able, almost like a short mode 3 melody: 137
But these musical reservations are interestingly supported by the cast-

ing: as Chapter IV shows, Peter, and even more so Andrew, have de-
cidedly modest singing roles, and recitative seems more probable ma-
terial for them to perform. Both considerations together suggest that
the chant could well have been biblical (John 1:41):138
Invenit hic primum fratrem suum Simonem, et dicit ei: Invenimus Messiam
quod est interpretatum Christus.
The et cetera specified after the incipit makes it almost certain that
the chant included the explanatory quod est interpretatum Christus ,
despite Pflanz s general assumption that such interpretative material
would not have been performed.
137
Central section of communio, Mainz gradual, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 44, fol. 105v,
transposed to give the effect of a mode 3 melody.
138
John 1:41, Passion tone.
210
The item is thus important evidence that the St Gall Passion Play
cantare directions need not always refer to the more melodious
types of liturgical chant.
The Adultress (ll. 211b-39)

A woman caught in the act of adultery is hauled before Jesus.
26
Tunc Iudeis ducentibus mulierem Rufus dicat
unus Magister :
Gib vns dinen rat.
Dise frauwe ir e gebrochen hat.
Moyses e, nach der wir leben,
hat vns solich gebot gegeben,
daz man die huren steine.
Der selben ist sie eine. (ll. 221a-27)
Since all St Gall Passion Play editors treat Magister as part of a

stage-direction, and thus implicitly as a chant-incipit,139 it is unclear
why Schuler, Bergmann and Pflanz ignore the item. The editors are
presumably influenced by the fact that in the manuscript, approxi-
mately a quarter of a line is left blank after the word Magister ; the
next line (l. 222) begins with Gib vns dinen rat .140 In this manuscript,
such incomplete lines usually stop at the end of a direction, including
a chant-incipit.141
As it stands, line 222 is hypometrical. This is unusual in the con-
text both of the play s consistent four-stress metre,142 and of the Hes-
sian plays, whose dialogue is similar:
139
Hartl (ed.), Das Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel: Das St. Galler Passionsspiel, pp.
56-131, l. 265; Mone (ed.), Schauspiele des Mittelalters, vol. I, pp. 49-128, ll.
213a-b; Wolter (ed.), Das St. Galler Spiel vom Leben Jesu, l. 221a.
140
St Gall MS 919, p. 199, ll. 43-44; see Schützeichel (ed.), Das Mittelrheinische
Passionsspiel der St. Galler Hs. 919, p. 108, note 221b and p. 333 (facsimile).
141
E.g. St Gall MS 919, p. 197, ll. 18, 22, 32; p. 198, ll. 21, 29; p. 199, l. 20.
142
Schützeichel (ed.), Das Mittelrheinische Passionsspiel der St. Galler Hs. 919, pp.
211
Adultera adducta M a n n e s dicit Cristo:

Ihesus, gib vns dinen rat,
die frau ir ee gebrochen hat. [ ] (Frankfurter Passionsspiel)
Et sic accipiunt mulierem adulteram et ducunt eam ad Saluatorem
in templum. S i n a g o g a dicit ad Ihesum:
Meynster, gib vns dynen raid viel balde,
wie mer es myt disser frawen solden halden. [ ] (Alsfelder Passionsspiel)
Magister, hec mulier modo deprehenssa est [in] adulterio [ ]
Meister, sich die fraw zcu dieser frist
Als einn ehebrecherische gefangen ist, [ ] (Heidelberger Passionsspiel)143
Line 222 is surely incomplete; but is Magister the missing ele-

ment? There are effectively two possibilities:
(i) Magister is not an incipit, but the first word of line 222. The
wording of the direction is consistent with this interpretation. The verb
is dicat ; no et cetera shows Magister is merely an incipit, no et
dicat marks a transition between sung Latin and spoken German.
Nothing in the direction positively prescribes singing. Against this
there is the fact that this Latin word is unusual in medieval German
plays, which, like the examples above, use the vernacular meister .
Magister could of course be a scribal error for meister , either by
the St Gall MS 919 scribe or a previous one, mistaking part of the
German dialogue for a chant-incipit.
(ii) Scribal confusion of a different kind could mean that, whilst a
word is missing from line 222, magister is not that word (which
could have been meister or Jesus ) but is indeed a chant-incipit.
There is still the objection that no et cetera suggests the continuation
of the chant, all the stronger since there is no tradition of a chant with
this incipit in German drama, so that a one-word incipit would not
72-88, Metrik , esp. 74. Ibid. §1a, p. 73, lists l. 222 as having no anacrusis, but
does not include it amongst his examples of three-stress lines (§2b, p. 74).
143
Frankfurter Passionsspiel, ll. 779a-81 (dialogue continues to l. 785); Alsfelder
Passionsspiel, ll. 2703a-05 (dialogue continues to l. 2711); cf. Alsfelder Diri-
gierrolle, 433; Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll. 2216b-18.
212
immediately suggest a well-known item. If anything was sung here, it

was not liturgical, since no liturgical chant is suitable.144 It would have
had to be biblical (John 8:4-5) as in Heidelberg if the Heidelberg di-
rection does in fact indicate singing, which is by no means certain.
Overall, the balance of probablilities is against this being a sung item.
Jesus s response is to write on the ground, and declare that the first
stone should be cast by someone who is sinless:
27
Tunc Iesus inclinans se in terram scribat et cantet
Si quis sine peccato et cetera et dicat:
Wer ane sunde ist vnd ane meyne,
der werfe an dise fraue einen stein. (ll. 227a-29)
A similar chant is found otherwise only in Heidelberg, where it is bib-

lical: Qui sine peccato est vestrum, primus in illam lapidem mittat
(John 8:7).145 Schuler assumes that St Gall MS 919 used the same ver-
sion;146 Bergmann, who does not deal with this episode in detail, does
not mention the chant. But the cantet direction and, as Pflanz ob-
serves,147 the wording Si quis ... rather than the Vulgate Qui ...
suggest liturgical material from a mode 1 Benedictus antiphon for the
third week of Lent:148,149
144
Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 3657: Magister dicit: tempus meum prope
est ; 3658: Magister, quid faciendo ; 3659: Magister, quod est mandatum ; 3661:
Magister, scimus quia verax es .
145
Heidelberger Passionsspiel, l. 2226b-c.
146
147
Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, pp. 16, 64-65.
148
As assumed by Mehler, Dicere und cantare , p. 195.
149
48, fol. 124. Also in Mainz breviary, Frankfurt, Barth. 160, fol. 339; other Mainz
sources in Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, p. 65, note 1; Worms breviary,
British Library, MS add. 19415, fol. 244; Speyer psalter and breviary, Speyer,
Gymnasialbibliothek, A.D.3, fol. 94rb; printed Speyer breviaries: 1478 (Gesamt-
katalog der Wiegendrucke, no. 5464), sig. K4vb ( Inclinabat se ... ); 1491 (Ibid.,
213
The German text is not an infallible guide to the Latin, but Jesus s
spoken couplet does indeed reflect the wording of the antiphon (with-
out primus ) rather than that of the biblical verse. By contrast, the
German in Heidelberg der werff vff sie denn erstenn steyn corres-
ponds to that play s biblical wording primus in illam lapidem mit-
tat .150 Thus the antiphon seems the more likely choice in the St Gall
Passion Play.
Jesus engages in a brief sung and spoken dialogue with the freed adul-
tress:
28, 29, 30
[28] Tunc Iesus respiciens mulierem cantet antiphonam
Nemo te condempnavit
[29] Et tunc respondet mulier Nemo
[30] Dicat iterum Iesus Nec ego te condempno .
Tunc dicat Iesus:
Vrauwe ist ieman hie, der dich virsteine?
[Mulier]:
Gnade, lieber herre, nein.
[Jesus]:
Vrauwe, auch ich dich nit virsteine,
wie ich doch si der allein,
der keine sunde hat gedan.
Ganc, du salt vorbaz sunde lan. (ll. 233a-39)
no. 5465), sig. i4v ( Inclinabat se ... ). First word also found as Inclinans , but not
in German sources (CANTUS).
150
Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll. 2228, 2226b-c.
214
Schuler notes this item otherwise only in Heidelberg, where it is prob-

ably not an antiphon;151 Bergmann does not deal with it. In the St Gall
Passion Play, as the direction clearly states, this is a dialogic perform-
ance of an antiphon, probably the mode 3 Magnificat antiphon for first
vespers of the fourth Sunday in Lent:152
The direction does not absolutely exclude the identically worded
but melodically different communio for the same Sunday, also techni-
cally an antiphon.153 Here one can only note the tendency, observable
from Schuler s results, for plays to use much more material from the
office than from the mass. The woman s Nemo, Domine in the com-
munio is also slightly more demanding than the very easy passage in
the office antiphon; and the woman seems to have one of the easiest
singing roles in the play.154 Schuler identifies the antiphon, as does
Pflanz, albeit after needlessly considering biblical text.155
The manuscript reading condempno (l. 233d) is erroneous, since
condemnabo is the consistent reading both of the antiphon and of
John 8:11 in the Vulgate.
151
See Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 378a-c. Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll.
2234, 2228d-e: Mulier, vbi sunt, qui te accusabant? Etc.
152
48, fol. 124 (cleffing of noli peccare corrected). Also in Mainz breviary, Frank-
furt, Barth. 160, fol. 339v; Worms breviary, British Library, MS add. 19415, fol.
244v; Speyer psalter and breviary, Speyer, Gymnasialbibliothek, A.D.3, fol. 94rb;
i4v; cf. Liber usualis, p. 558.
153
Mainz missal, Kassel, 2o theol. 100, fol. 62va; Graduale triplex, p. 124 (mode 8).
154
See p. 106.
155
Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, pp. 16-18, 65-66. His view, expressed on
pages 17-18, that dicit (l. 223d) might indicate spoken biblical text is dismissed
by Mehler, Dicere und cantare , pp. 188-89.
215
The Conversion of Mary Magdalene (ll. 239-315)

Mary s repentance is a centrally important scene of the earlier part of
the play. It relates to the ecclesiastical sacrament of confession and
absolution much as the Last Supper relates to the Eucharist, and as
such is generously provided with musical items.
First, Mary is shown dancing with her iuvenes for the third and
last time: 31, Tunc tercio Maria Magdalena tripudians (l. 239a; see
no. 21 above). An earnest conversation with Martha convinces her to
repent and turn to Jesus. At the banquet of Simon Leprosus Mary
makes a long and moving act of repentance (ll. 275a-291). The sol-
emn, quasi-sacramental climax of the scene is preceded by the silence-
chant: 32, Hic cantet angelus ter Silete (l. 291a). This is the only si-
lence-chant explicity given to a single angel rather than to the unspeci-
fied number of angeli (see no. 1 above). This may reflect the fact
that the chant comes not at the start of the scene but in mid-episode,
between Mary s long confession (ll. 275a-291) and Jesus s act of
absolution , chant 33, Dimissa sunt ei peccata multa quoniam dilexit
multum (l. 291b) from the responsory Accessit ad pedes .156 This item
is dealt with in Chapter V.
The palpably sacramental nature of the moment is emphasized by
the solemn melisma of the responsory verse; and Mary s response:
Tunc surgat Maria [et] fundat unguentum super caput eius (l. 295a)
is also solemn and semi-ritualized. At such a moment it is hard to see
the Silete as really necessary to quieten the audience: its function,
surely, was to underscore the sacramentality of the action. The direc-
tion cantat ter Silete (l. 291a) is ambiguous. It might refer to the
threefold occurrence of silete and silentium in the long chant (see
no. 1 above); or it could possibly mean that the whole long formula
was sung three times, which, given the solemnity of the moment, is
not completely unthinkable.
156
216
Jesus then approves Mary s waste of the unguent by singing one

of three alternative chants: 34, Mittens haec mulier (l. 305a); 35,
Amen dico vobis (l. 305b); or 36, Fides etenim salvam eam fecit (l.
305b) from the responsory Caelestis medicus . These chants, all with
relatively elaborate melodies expressive of the solemnity of the mo-
ment, are dealt with in Chapter V.
The Healing of the Blind Man (ll. 315a-449)

This long episode is introduced with the silence-chant: 37, Sil[ete]
(l. 315a; see no. 1). Seeing the blind man, Peter asks Jesus if his
blindness is due to sin:
38, 39
[38] Tunc Petrus ad Christum Rabbi, quis peccavit :
Meister, wie ist diz geschehen,
daz dirre man nit sal gesehen?
Weder ist sin vatter schuldig dar an,
oder hat er selber missedan?
[39] Respondet Iesus Neque hic :
Wuzent, daz des vatter dat
an ime keine schulde hat.
So hat er auch nit gedan,
dar vmme er solle zu buze stan.
Ez geschach dar vmme sunder,
daz Got an ime schufe wunder. (ll. 327a-37)
On page 201 of the play manuscript, a second Neque has been eras-
ed after Neque hic in line 331a.
Bergmann ignores this incipit, because he does not treat this epi-
sode in detail; Schuler and Pflanz both assume a mode 8 antiphon for
Wednesday of the fourth week in Lent:157
157
See Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 49, and Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundla-
gen, p. 19 and 70-73.
217
158
But in fact it is particularly hard to decide whether the St Gall Passion

Play used liturgical chant or biblical recitative here. The incipits are
not distinctively liturgical. Number 38 is too short to contain the
words homo iste , which are peculiar to the antiphon. The incipits are
consistent with the Vulgate wording of John 9:2-3:159
158
48, fols. 130v-31.
159
218
The directions do not specify any type of liturgical chant and interest-
ingly include no kind of cantare performance-verb. As already estab-
lished, the St Gall Passion Play hardly ever associates liturgical mate-
rial with directions other than cantare , and the few exceptions can be
convincingly explained (see Chapter IV). In this case, however, there
is no obvious rationale for the verbless and respondet directions,
which suggests that the item may not in fact be liturgical.
Analogies from other plays are inconclusive, since this is yet an-
other item restricted to St Gall and two Hessian plays: Alsfeld and
Heidelberg, both without notation.160 Alsfeld, though ambiguous,
seems to point to liturgy: Peter s question includes the words homo
iste , specific to the antiphon.161 It has a dicit direction, which in
Alsfeld can indicate biblical recitative and antiphons; Jesus s reply,
which contains no distinctive liturgical wording, has cantat , which
usually introduces more elaborate liturgical items.162 Overall, Drei-
müller s suggestion of Hesbert s antiphon 4571, whilst unprovable,
seems plausible.163 Heidelberg, as usual, almost certainly uses biblical
wording; and in the Frankfurter Passionsspiel, where the dialogue of
the whole episode closely parallels the St Gall Passion Play, neither
Peter nor Jesus sings anything.164 If St Gall s musical stratum here
were similar to that of Frankfurt, this might mean that a liturgical
160
Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll. 1144a-c, 1148a-e (both reconstructed by Milch-
sack as biblical text); Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 1522a-b, 1524a-b; Alsfelder Di-
rigierrolle, 235, 238.
161
Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 1522a-b, 1524a-b.
162
Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 1522a, 1524a; Mehler, Dicere und cantare , pp.
205-08.
163
Dreimüller, Musik des Alsfelder Passionsspiels", vol. II, pp. 27-28.
164
Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll. 1144a-c, 1148a-e; the wording hic aut parentes
eius reflects the Vulgate, but not the antiphon, at least not in the Mainz diocese
where the play was almost certainly written. Frankfurter Passionsspiel, ll. 892-
965a, St Gall Passion Play, ll. 315a-449. The speeches of Peter and Jesus in
Frankfurt, ll. 894-97, 898-903, are almost identical with their counterparts in the
St Gall Passion Play, ll. 328-37. Frankfurter Passionsspiel, l. 893a: Petrus inter-
rogat Saluatorem ; l. 897a: Saluator dicit .
219
chant was not intended. But this cannot be known. This is one of the
places where the St Gall dialogue is closely similar to that of the
Frankfurter Passionsspiel, but these textual similarities seem to refer
to a variant of St Gall differing from that preserved in the surviving
manuscript.165 In that different version of the play the use of chant
could well have been different from that of the play as we know it. For
example, in the next item, 40 and 41, Ille homo qui Iesus dicitur , St
Gall and the Frankfurt dialogue is also virtually identical, yet the St
Gall Passion Play direction clearly specifies a sung, possibly liturgi-
cal, text where Frankfurt has none (see Chapter V). A further consi-
deration, however, is that the first part of the chant is sung by Peter, a
role which in the St Gall Passion Play does not seem to demand much
musical ability. Many of his chants seem to be biblical (see Chapter
IV).
A definite identification here seems impossible; but the directions
and the performer do hint at biblical recitative. If the antiphon 4571
was used, however, it is worth noting that its textual tradition shows
several variants, most significantly quid for quis , and [homo] hic
aut parentes eius for homo iste .166 Pflanz, locating five verbal vari-
ants of the antiphon in seventeen breviaries, wrongly describes them
as different chants.167 He also fails to see that these sources show the
standard wording Rabbi, quis peccavit homo iste to be that consis-
tently found in Mainz. The eight with this wording represent the me-
165
See Chapter I, note 6.
166
For quis peccavit three manuscripts cited in Hesbert s Corpus antiphonalium,
and four out of thirty-nine CANTUS sources read quid peccavit (as in Marbach,
Carmina scripturarum, p. 469); for homo iste three Corpus antiphonalium
manuscripts and eighteen out of thirty-nine CANTUS sources read hic aut parentes
eius ; for quod five Corpus antiphonalium manuscripts read ut ; for natus est
one manuscript reads nasceretur ; in Respondit Jesus et dixit , et is missing in
one source; in illo sometimes reads in eo . See Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium,
vol. III, p. 437, cf. John R. Bryden & David G. Hughes, An Index of Gregorian
Chant, 2 vols., Cambridge, Mass., 1969, vol. I, p. 358.
167
Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, p. 19 and 70-73, esp. 71.
220
dieval Mainz diocesan tradition;168 the five with hic aut parentes eius
do not.169 The wording standard in Mainz is also that found in Worms
and Speyer, and indeed in German sources generally.170
Pflanz however rejects this version in favour of one reading Hic
aut parentes eius , which, he argues, is reflected in Peter s Weder ist
sin vatter schuldig dar an, || oder hat er selber missedan? (ll. 330-
1).171 The weakness of the argument from the German is well demon-
strated in this case: liturgical usage virtually guarantees that if an anti-
phon was used in the play, it will not have read hic aut parentes eius .
The German is a direct translation of John 9:2, not of the antiphon;
and in any case sin vatter does not translate parentes eius .
Reporting his miraculous cure to the Pharisees and High Priests (ll.
343a-439), the blind man twice sings the chant explaining what Jesus
did to him: 40, 41, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 3171: Ille homo, qui
dicitur Jesus (ll. 355a, 369a), or possibly biblical text (John 9:11).
Later he responds to Annas s aggressive questioning with another
168
Ibid., p. 71, note 1, citing Aschaffenburg, Ms. perg. 19 (c. 1200); Ms. perg. 32 (af-
ter 1300); Frankfurt, Barth. 150 (fourteenth century); Barth. 160 (fourteenth cen-
tury); Barth. 154 (mid-fifteenth century); Barth. 142 (late fifteenth century);
printed Mainz breviary, c. 1475 (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no. 5394);
Enchiridion ecclesie Moguntine, 1509. Cf. also Mainz antiphonal, Frankfurt, lat.
qu. 48, fols. 130v-31.
169
Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, p. 71, note 4, citing Mainz, Stadtbibliothek, I
438 (Carthusian, fourteenth century); I 439 (Carthusian, thirteenth to fifteenth cen-
tury); I 365 (Carthusian, probably fifteenth century); I 433 (provenance and dating
uncertain); and Breviarium Moguntinum, 1570, containing the reformierter
Mainz-römischer Ritus of 1570 (see Reifenberg, Stundengebet, pp. 20-21 and
225-52, esp. 225 and 251).
170
Worms breviaries: British Library, MS add. 19415, fol. 248; Vatican, cod. pal. lat.
519, fol. 193v ( homo ille ); Speyer psalter and breviary, Speyer, Gymnasialbi-
bliothek, A.D.3, fol. 96rb; printed Speyer breviary, 1491 (Gesamtkatalog der
Wiegendrucke, no. 5465), sig. i7r; Orarium Spirense (pars hiemalis), sig. bb1va.
CANTUS confirms Rabbi, quis peccavit homo iste as representative of the Ger-
man territories as a whole.
171
221
chant: 42, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 1194: A saeculo non est audi-
tum (l. 421a), or possibly biblical text (John 9:32-33). Both these
chants are dealt with in Chapter V.
The Raising of Lazarus (ll. 449a-547)

Jesus announces to the disciples that Lazarus is dead.
43
Tunc Iesus ad discipulos cantet
Lazarus, amicus noster :
Ich sagen vch an dirre vrist,
daz Lazarus dot ist.
Nu wol of, gen wir dohin
mit ein ander vnd wecken in. (ll. 486a-90)
The direction does not positively identify this as liturgical, but the
cantet direction, and the testimony of the four other plays in which it
is used strongly suggest that it was a mode 1 Benedictus antiphon for
Friday of the fourth week of Lent: 172
Whilst Heidelberg has biblical text as usual (John 11:11), the anti-
phon is clearly indicated by the notation in Alsfeld, the neumes in the
(Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, and the Frankfurter Dirigier-
172
48, fol. 131v. Also in Mainz breviary, Frankfurt, Barth. 160, fol. 347; printed
Mainz breviary, 1475 (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no. 5394), p. 157b;
Worms breviary, British Library, MS add. 19415, fol. 249v; Speyer psalter and
breviary, Speyer, Gymnasialbibliothek, A.D.3, fol. 96rb.
222
rolle direction.173 The identification of the same chant in the St Gall

Passion Play by Schuler, Bergmann and Pflanz is thus almost cer-
tainly correct.174
Pflanz s argument that the plural gen wir dohin in line 489 re-
flects the antiphon s eamus rather than the Vulgate vado is proba-
bly applicable in this instance; though the German dialogue in this
speech generally seems to have been altered: dot (l. 488) was surely
originally entsloffen . The two Hessian plays which contain this dia-
logue in full show the same plural form: Alsfeld, where the antiphon is
sung, and the Frankfurter Passionsspiel, which specifies no chant, but
where the earlier Frankfurt tradition, witnessed by the Dirigierrolle,
used the antiphon.175 By contrast, in Heidelberg, with the biblical
wording ( sed vado ), the following German is cast in the first-
176
person singular.
Mary Magdalene and Martha both tell Jesus that he has arrived too
late: Lazarus is already buried: 44, 45, Corpus antiphonalium, no.
2383: Domine, si hic fuisses (ll. 497a, 515a-b). This chant is dealt
with in Chapter V.
173
Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll. 2382a-c; Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 2222a-d; cf.
Dreimüller, Musik des Alsfelder Passionsspiels , vol. II, p. 35 and Beilage 4;
Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 346; (Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, ll. 166a-67;
cf. Binkley, The Greater Passion Play from Carmina Burana , pp. 148 and 154;
Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 102: Statimque Ihesus cantabit antiphonam. Lazarus
amicus noster dormit .
174
Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 326a, Bergmann, Studien, p. 185, and Pflanz,
Lateinische Textgrundlagen, pp. 21, 77-78.
175
Alsfelder Passionsspiel, l. 2222c; Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 346; Frankfurter Pas-
sionsspiel, ll. 1481-84. Klaus Wolf, Kommentar zur Frankfurter Dirigierrolle
und zum Frankfurter Passionsspiel , Tübingen, 2002 [first volume of additions to
Johannes Janota (ed.), Die hessische Passionsspielgruppe: Edition im Parallel-
druck, Tübingen, 1996-2002], p. 139, note 233.
176
Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll. 2382a-86.
223
Jesus has the stone removed from Lazarus s grave, prays to the Father
and commands Lazarus to rise from the dead:
46
Deinde cantet Iesus Lazare, veni foras et dicat:
Vil lieber vront min, Lazare,
stant vf, vnd lebe also e. (ll. 533a-35)
Line 535 on page 204 of the play manuscript reads labe .

Of the nine other plays which include this call to the dead Laza-
rus,177 only the (Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel specifies how
it was sung: as part of the mode 1 communio Videns Dominus for
Friday of the fourth week of Lent:178
Videns Dominus flentes sorores Lazari ad monumentum lacrimatus est coram
Judaeis et clamabat: Lazare, veni foras. Et prodiit ligatis manibus et pedibus qui
fuerat quatriduanus mortuus.179
The melody of Lazare, veni foras in this communio is short, simple,

but undoubtedly affecting: 180
177
In Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 654: Alsfelder Passionsspiel, l. 2280a;
(Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, ll. 169-71; Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 117;
Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll. 2468a-b; Maastrichter (ribuarisches) Passions-
spiel, ll. 1207a-b. Not in Schuler: Bozner Palmsonntagsspiel, ll. 1052a-b; Bozner
Passionsspiel 1514, 1. Teil, MS, fol. 44v; Sterzinger Passionsspiel der Mischhand-
schrift, ll. 946a-b; Tiroler Dramatisierung des Johannes-Evangeliums, II, ll.
1979a-81.
178
(Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, fol. 108v, ll. 169-71. Neumation only of
Lazare, veni foras , discussed by Binkley, The Greater Passion Play from Car-
mina Burana , p. 148. The neumes resemble those of Einsiedeln 121, p. 161, given
in Graduale triplex, p. 124; cf. Processionale monasticum, p. 348 (as antiphon,
same melody).
179
Mainz gradual, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 44, fol. 44. Also in printed Worms missal, 1488,
fol. XLVII; Speyer missals: Speyer, Bistumsarchiv, Hs. 1, fol. lxxiiva; Bayerische
Staatsbibliothek, Clm 10076, fol. 85ra.
180
Mainz gradual, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 44, fol. 44.
224
Scholars have perhaps been rather uncritically ready to generalize

from this one instance and to assume that Videns Dominus was the
source of Lazare, veni foras in all the other cases.181 The undoubted
power of the simple melodic phrase may have exercized a certain se-
duction. Schuler certainly makes this assumption: even his division of
no. 654 into three parts (a, b, c) describes the Benediktbeuern arrange-
ment, where Jesus s call to Lazarus (b) is sandwiched between the
two choral sections (a, c).182 Yet this is the only play in which Lazare,
veni foras is demonstrably performed in this way. The clamare di-
rections in most of the others183 are compatible with sung perform-
ance, as with the Jews Crucifige, crucifige eum ,184 though they sug-
gest a simpler and rougher melody than the communio. Nonetheless,
Dreimüller assumes the communio in Alsfeld, Bergmann in the St Gall
Passion Play; and Traub, reconstructing the Sterzing music, prints the
communio, then comments in a way that recognizes that this may not
have been the melody used.185
181
Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 654a-c; Bergmann, Studien, pp. 185-86 and
nos. 1507 and 1508.
182
(Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, fol. 108v, ll. 169 ( Videns dominus ),
170 ( Lazare, veni foras ), 171 ( Et prodiit ). Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern,
vol. I, p. 73, even lists Videns dominus flentes in the Heidelberger Passions-
spiel, although these words do not appear in the play at all.
183
Alsfelder Passionsspiel, l. 2280a, and Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 365 ( clamat );
Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 117 ( clamabit ); Bozner Palmsonntagsspiel, ll. 1052 a-
b, Bozner Passionsspiel 1514, 1. Teil, fol. 44v, Sterzinger Passionsspiel der
Mischhandschrift, ll. 946a-b (all clamat alta voce ); Tiroler Dramatisierung des
Johannes-Evangeliums, II, ll. 1979a-81 ( Da schreit JHESUS laut ); Heidelberger
Passionsspiel, ll. 2468a-b ( rufft ). Exception: Maastrichter (ribuarisches) Pas-
sionsspiel, ll. 1207a-b (no verb).
184
See no. 77, Chapter VIII.
185
Dreimüller, Musik des Alsfelder Passionsspiels , vol. II, p. 36; Bergmann, Stu-
225
For the St Gall Passion Play, the communio, though not as cer-
tain as Pflanz assumes,186 is plausible. Liturgical material is strongly
suggested by the cantet direction, which contrasts interestingly with
the clamare of most of the dramatic tradition and is entirely consis-
tent with the play s marked tendency to use liturgical chant. A liturgi-
cal item, as with the other chants in this scene, would have been emi-
nently suited to the sacramental quality of the events depicted. Vi-
dens Dominus was the only liturgical source of Jesus s exhortation in
Mainz, Worms and Speyer.187 And the setting of the three words in the
communio, as simple as a reciting-tone, will have presented no diffi-
culty for the actor playing Jesus.
dien, p. 185 and nos. 1507 and 1508; Andreas Traub, Die geistlichen Spiele des
Sterzinger Spielarchivs, vol. VI:2: Kommentar zur Edition der Melodien, Mittlere
Deutsche Literatur in Neu- und Nachdrucken, 19:2, Bern, 1996, p. 74: Dies trifft
weniger den Vortrag im Spiel selber, doch wird diese liturgisch geprägte Formu-
lierung des Rufes den Spielern, die im Choral lebten , gegenwärtig gewesen sein.
Damit ist allerdings die Grenze eines Kommentars zu den Spielen überschritten.
Cf. idem, Zwischen Aufgezeichnetem und Nichtaufgezeichnetem: Probleme bei
der Edition der Melodien der Sterzinger Spiele , in Max Siller (ed.), Osterspiele:
Text und Musik, Innsbruck, 1994 (Schlern-Schriften, 293), pp. 211-18, esp. 212;
idem, Überlegungen zur Edition von Melodien in geistlichen Spielen an Bei-
spielen aus dem Sterzinger Spielarchiv , in Anton Schwob (ed.), Editionsberichte
zur mittelalterlichen deutschen Literatur: Beiträge der Bamberger Tagung Me-
thoden und Probleme der Edition mittelalterlicher deutscher Texte , Göppingen,
1994 (Litterae, 117), pp. 255-59, esp. 259.
186
187
See note 178. The antiphons Ad monumentum Lazari (Hesbert, Corpus antipho-
nalium, no. 1248) and Clamabat Dominus Jesus (no. 1818) and the verse of the
responsory Occurrerunt Maria et Martha (no. 7309) are not used in the three dio-
ceses.
226
Chapter VII
The Passion (1)
The Plotting of the Authorities (ll. 547a-68)

he council of the Chief Priests is introduced by silence-chant
47: Iterum Sil[ete] (l. 547a). See no. 1 above. There follow
three chants which must be considered together.
48, 49, 50
[48] Et cantet angelus Colligerunt
[49] Quo finito Annas cantet Quid facimus et cetera:
Radent, ir herren, wie sollen wir dun?
Ir sehent wol, Marien sun
dut groze zeichen also vil.
Beiden wir it langer zil,
daz volg gleubet an in gar.
Werdent die romer daz gewar,
si virdribent vns von dem land.
Do von werden wir gesant.
[50] Respondens Cayphas cantet Expedit nobis [et] dicat:
Ir herren, horent minen rat,
daz beide nuz vnd warheit hat.
Ez ist weger, einer sterbe,
dan alle die werlet virderbe. (ll. 554a-66)
For chants with these incipits, German dramas never use Vulgate text
(John 11:47-53) but always the antiphon Collegerunt pontifices
(Hesbert s Corpus antiphonalium, no. 1852), the most frequently used
of the Palm Sunday processional antiphons.1 The chant, probably Gal-
1
Schriften, 14), pp. 218-20 and note 1768; Ernst August Schuler, Die Musik der
lican in origin, is similar to a responsory in form and elaboration.2

Collegerunt pontifices et Pharisaei concilium et dicebant: Quid facimus, quia hic
homo multa signa facit? Si dimittimus eum sic, omnes credent in eum. Ne forte
veniant Romani et tollant nostrum locum et gentem.
V. Unus autem ex ipsis Caiaphas nomine cum esset pontifex anni illius
prophetavit dicens: Expedit vobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non
tota gens pereat. Ab illo ergo die cogitaverunt interficere eum dicentes: Ne
forte venient Romani ... 3
Pflanz s treatment of this item is seriously defective. Because lines

556-57, Marien sun | dut groze zeichen also vil diverges from the
hic homo multa signa facit of the antiphon, he argues that the play
Osterfeiern, Osterspiele und Passionen des Mittelalters, Kassel-Basel, 1951 (vol.

II: Melodienband , only as doctoral thesis, Universität Basel, 1940), no. 62.
Schuler, vol. I, p. 150, prints the section Unus autem (no. 62c) with wrong word-
ing, drawn from the antiphon Unus autem ex illis (cf. René-Jean Hesbert, Corpus
antiphonalium officii, Rome, 1963-79, 6 vols. (Rerum ecclesiasticarum documenta.
Series maior. Fontes, 7-12), no. 5276); correct reading in vol. II, p. 30. Clyde W.
Brockett, Osanna! New Light on the Palm Sunday Processional Antiphon Series ,
Plainsong and Medieval Music 9 (2000), pp. 95-129, esp. 105, table 3, and p. 117
on frequency of use of Collegerunt .
2
Brockett, Osanna! , pp. 117-19. Philippe Bernard, Le cantique des trois enfants
(Dan. III, 52-90) , Musica e storia 1 (1993), pp. 231-72, esp. 263, also cited by
Kenneth J. Levy, A New Look at Old Roman Chant - II , Early Music History 20
(2001), pp. 173-97, esp. 190-192, who reads the scrolling torculi on Romani et
tollant nostrum locum as a Frankish parody of Roman chant style. Brockett,
Osanna! , p. 117: Collegerunt as an antiphon with added verses and repetenda
sections. It is classed as a responsory in Liber usualis missae et officii pro domini-
cis et festis cum cantu Gregoriano ex Editione Vaticana adamussim excerpto, Paris
[etc.], 1936, pp. 579-80 and implicitly (as gradual, Saturday, week 5 of Lent) in
Graduale triplex seu Graduale Romanum Pauli PP. VI cura recognitum et rhyth-
micis signis a Solesmensibus monachis ornatum, neumis Laudunensibus (Cod. 239)
et Sangallensibus (Codicum Sangallensis 359 et Einsidlensis 121) nunc auctum,
Solesmes [etc.], 1979, pp. 135-36. Cf. Hermann Reifenberg, Sakramente, Sakra-
mentalien und Ritualien im Bistum Mainz seit dem Spätmittelalter, Münster, 1971-
72 (Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen, 53-54), pp. 642-58.
3
Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 1852. Mainz gradual, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 44,
fols. 49v-50. Cf. Speyer missal, Speyer, Bistumsarchiv, Hs. 1, fol. lxxxira-b.
228
VII. The Passion (I)
used a slightly different Latin wording, including the formulation

quia hic homo signa magna facit and other slight alterations. This
version he mistakenly calls a different chant rather than a variant; and,
since he can locate it only in the Mainz ritual of 1696, he concludes
that the play follows Mainz liturgical tradition.4 Nothing could be fur-
ther from the truth. The 1696 ritual presents a partially Romanized
Mainz liturgy;5 earlier Mainz books invariably read multa signa .6
Speyer has the same wording; the only Worms source shows the mi-
nor variant et forte venient romani et tollent nostrum locum et gen-
tem .7
The liturgical text reads expedit vobis ;8 the St Gall Passion
Play s expedit nobis (l. 562a) is probably scribal error and not, as
4
Hochschulschriften, Reihe 1, 205), p. 117, note 1, citing the Rituale sive Agenda,
Ad usum Archi-Di ceseos Moguntinæ edita jussu et auctoritate [...] D. Lotharii
Francisci, S. Sedis Moguntinæ Archi-Episcopi [...], Mainz, 1696, pp. 324-25.
5
Reifenberg, Sakramente, vol. II, pp. 1-5; idem, Vom Missale Moguntinum des
Jahres 1602 zum Missale Romano-Moguntinum von 1698 , Archiv für Mittelrhei-
nische Kirchengeschichte 13 (1961), pp. 432-39,esp. 433, note 8.
6
Mainz gradual, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 44, fols. 49v-50; Mainz missals: Frankfurt, Barth.
31, fol. 82; Darmstadt, Hs. 3183, fol. 68r-v; Würzburg, M.p.th.f. 85, fol. 61; Mainz
missal and ritual, Frankfurt, Barth. 107, fol. 10; Missale Maguntinum, 1507, fol.
lxixra-b; Mainz processional, Aschaffenburg, Ms. perg. 32, fols. 22v-24r; Mainz
rituals: Agenda ecclesie Moguntinensis, 1492, fol. xxxivr; Agenda Maguntina,
1513, fol. LVIIv-LVIIIr; Agenda Ecclesiae Moguntinensis, 1551, fol. XCIXr-v. This
wording also in numerous other sources, e.g.: St Gall, cod. 339 (Paléographie mu-
sicale: Les principaux manuscrits de chant grégorien, ambrosien, mozarabe, galli-
can, publiés en facsimilés phototypiques, vol. I: Codex 339 de la Bibliothèque de
Saint-Gall (Xe siècle): Antiphonale missarum Sancti Gregorii, Solesmes, 1889, vol.
I, facsimile, p. 64); Einsiedeln, 121 (Ibid., vol. IV, facsimile, pp. 378-79); Stras-
bourg antiphonal, thirteenth century, British Library, MS add. 23922, fol. 25r-v.
7
Speyer missals: Speyer, Bistumsarchiv, Hs. 1, fol. lxxxira-b; Bayerische Staats-
bibliothek, Clm 10076, fol. 96ra; Agenda Spirensis, 1512, fol. LXVIr (= sig. iiir).
Worms manual, Worms, Stadtarchiv, Abt. 106/1, fols. 43v-44r, emphasis supplied.
8
Nobis in two of Hesbert s Corpus antiphonalium manuscripts (vol. III, p. 103);
but vobis seems uniform in Mainz, Worms and Speyer sources.
229
Pflanz suggests,9 intentional, since vobis is also uniformly found in

the numerous plays which use all or part of Collegerunt .10
The antiphon, mode 2 in modern books, is set it in mode 8 in many
medieval sources, giving a very different melodic effect.11
A detailed consideration of Collegerunt in drama would go be-
yond the bounds of this study. The chant makes an ideal accompani-
ment to the beginning of the High Priests council, and nearly all the
9
10
Cf. Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 62. Schuler mentions: Alsfelder Passions-
spiel, ll. 2424c-l, 2460a-b; (Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, ll. 206-209;
Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, B, ll. 74a-b, 218a-g, 276a; Egerer Passionsspiel, ll.
3452a-q; Erlau V, ll. 20a-d; Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 122a; Frankfurter Pas-
sionsspiel, ll. 1571a-c, 1618a-b; Haller Passion, ll. 143a, 227a-b; Heidelberger
Passionsspiel, ll. 3016c-g ( Quid faciamus ), ll. 3088a-c ( Expedit vobis );
Maastrichter (ribuarisches) Passionsspiel, ll. 1281a-b ( Quid faciamus only);
Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel, ll. 74a-b, 218a-c, 276a-b; Sterzinger Passionsspiel
1496/1503, ll. 73a-b, 217a-b ( Unus autem ), 275a ( Expedit vobis ); Sterzinger
Passionsspiel der Mischhandschrift (Maundy Thursday), ll. 280a, 474a-b. Not in
Schuler: Admonter Passionsspiel, ll. 84a-85 ( Expedit vobis pereat only); Als-
felder Dirigierrolle, 380-84, Bozner Abendmahlspiel, ll. 31a-32, 87a-88, 142a-43;
Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, A, ll. 74a-b, 218a-c, 276a; Bozner Passionsspiel 1514,
1. Teil, MS, fols. 4 and 7; music fol. 26; Osnabrücker Passionsspielfragment, l.
51a ( [Quid] facimus ), l. 73a ( Cayphas: Expedit vobis ); Rabers Passion, ll. 0g-h,
58a-b, 64a-b, 1897a-c; Tiroler Passionsspiel, ll. 0a-b, 46a-b, 72a-c. Apart from Er-
lau V, Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, Haller Passion and Maastrichter (ribuarisches)
Passionsspiel, whose manuscripts do not contain the phrase, all read expedit vo-
bis .
11
Mode 8: Egerer Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 55 (clef in last phrase probably wrong:
melody ends on b instead of G); Karlheinz Schlager (ed.), Antiphonale Pataviense
(Wien 1519), Kassel [etc.], 1985 (Das Erbe deutscher Musik, 88), fol. 58r-v; Moos-
burger Graduale, fols. 56v-57; Worcester Antiphonal (Paléographie musicale, vol.
XII, facsimile fol. 105); Mode 2: Admonter Passionsspiel, MS, fols. 5v-6, ll. 84a-
85; Mainz gradual, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 44, fols. 49v-50; Speyer missal, Speyer, Bis-
tumsarchiv, Hs. 1, fol. lxxxira-b; Graduale triplex, pp. 135-36, Liber usualis, p. 579.
Cf. Brockett, Osanna! , pp. 118, 119 (ex. 5): Collegerunt , like other mode 2 an-
tiphons, is often written out transposed up a fifth from D to a. CANTUS: A Database
for Latin Ecclesiastical Chant (http://publish.uwo.ca/~cantus) also records two
mode 1 settings.
230
plays use it, similarly to the responsory Ingressus Pilatus (see no. 71
below) to cover their procession into the acting area.12 But whilst
some plays do not use it as a processional antiphon,13 a completely
non-dialogic exploitation of the antiphon seems to be restricted to Er-
lau V and the Frankfurter Dirigierrolle;14 in almost every other play
some at least of the dialogic sections are found.
In its choice of sections, the St Gall Passion Play shows affinity
with the Hessian group. Its avoidance of both the narrative sections,
Unus autem ex ipsis and Ab illo ergo die , fits the broad Hes-
sian pattern. Both sections are used relatively rarely in drama, mainly
in Sterzing and other south German plays.15 They are found in Alsfeld,
but not in the other Hessian plays.16
Pflanz suggests that the angel s part is not from Collegerunt , but
that Annas s and Cayphas s is.17 The precise opposite is the more like-
ly default assumption, since the angel is a trained singer, whereas
12
Rabers Passion, ll. 1897a-c, uses Collegerunt for a second procession of the Jew-
ish council after the Crucifixion.
13
Admonter Passionsspiel; Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 122a (later addition): the anti-
phon is sung after the council (119-22); Frankfurter Passionsspiel; Heidelberger
Passionsspiel; Maastrichter (ribuarisches) Passionsspiel; Osnabrücker Passions-
spielfragmente (but text incomplete). The second use in Rabers Passion, ll. 1897a-
c, is during a procession of priests after the crucifixion.
14
Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 122a; Erlau V, ll. 20a-d.
15
Unus autem : Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 2424g-h; Bozner Passionsspiel 1495,
A, l. 218a; B, ll. 218a-d; Bozner Passionsspiel 1514, 1. Teil, MS, fol. 7; Egerer
Passionsspiel, ll. 3452f-h; Haller Passion, ll. 227a-b; Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel,
ll. 218a-c; Sterzinger Passionsspiel 1493/1503, ll. 217a-c; Sterzinger Passionsspiel
der Mischhandschrift, l. 474a.
Ab illo ergo die : Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 2424k-l; (Großes) Benediktbeurer
Passionsspiel, l. 209; Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, A, l. 276a; B, l. 276a; Egerer
Passionsspiel, ll. 3452m-q; Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel, l. 276a; Sterzinger Pas-
sionsspiel 1496/1503, l. 275a.
16
Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 2424g-h, k-l.
17
Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, p. 82, note 1, suggesting the verse College-
runt ergo pontifices of the Maundy Thursday responsory Seniores populi (Hes-
bert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 7636); Ibid., pp. 115-17.
231
the expertise of the actors playing Annas and Caiaphas is not certain:
they sing nothing else in the play (see Chapter IV). Were they expect-
ed to perform the complex antiphon melody, or use simple recitative
formulae? Interestingly, the evidence of German drama points firmly
in the liturgical direction. The wording of 49, Quid facimus , is al-
most identical in the antiphon and the Vulgate (John 11:47), and only
two of the eight plays which contain this section have music yet
both have the liturgical melody.18 For 50, Expedit vobis , all the four-
teen relevant plays have the antiphon wording, which does differ from
the Vulgate (John 11:50: Vos nescitis quidquam, nec cogitatis quia
expedit vobis ). All plays with notation have the antiphon melo-
dy.19 German plays thus show no evidence at all of the use of Vulgate
text or recitative in these sections, which means that in the plays
where Annas and Caiaphas sing them, the relevant actors must have
been musically competent. This probably explains why not many
plays give Annas a singing part here; in nearly all, Quid facimus is
sung by a chorus of Jews. Of the five exceptions two are Hessian:
Heidelberg and the Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, which both give the
question almost certainly spoken rather than sung to a (differently
named) individual.20 The St Gall Passion Play s unusual setting of
Quid facimus as a solo by Annas may thus be a Hessian feature.
18
(Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 109, l. 207; Egerer Passionsspiel,
MS, fol. 54v, ll. 3452c-d (not dialogic here); transcription in Schuler, Musik der
Osterfeiern, vol. II, p. 30.
19
Admonter Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 5v, ll. 84a-85; (Großes) Benediktbeurer Pas-
sionsspiel, MS, fol. 109, l. 208; Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, B, ll. 218a-g; Bozner
Passionsspiel 1514, 1. Teil, MS, fol. 26; Egerer Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 54v, ll.
3452i-k; transcription in Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, vol. II, p. 30.
20
Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 119: Sandir , no chant-incipit; Heidelberger Passions-
spiel, ll. 3016c-g: Selem , probably spoken biblical verse. Cf. Egerer Passions-
spiel, ll. 3452i-k: Cayphas; Rabers Passion, ll. 58a-b: Archisinagogus ; Maas-
trichter (ribuarisches) Passionsspiel, ll. 1281a-b: Ein phariseus .
232
By contrast, Caiaphas has a solo role somewhere in the antiphon in the

vast majority of plays.21
Annas and Caiaphas thus take their place in that interesting cat-
egory of St Gall Passion Play actors who sing only one chant, but a
complex one (The Virgin Mary, Joseph of Arimathea, John the Bap-
tist, the Devil, possibly God the Father). Stage logistics would proba-
bly not, however, have allowed them to be doubled from the ranks of
the angels, as in the case of Joseph. The possibility that John the Bap-
tist doubled the role of Annas or Caiaphas is discussed in Chapter IV,
but certainty is of course impossible.
The play s directions leave open a few questions as to exactly how
the antiphon was sung; and the evidence of other plays, only five with
music,22 is not conclusive. Does Quo finito (l. 554b) mean that the
angel finished at et dicebant , with Annas continuing from Quid
facimus (49), as Schuler interprets it, and as in Alsfeld, Eger and the
(Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel?23 The Sterzing plays, which
use Collegerunt as a choral item to cover the assembly of the Jews,
will probably have needed to sing beyond et dicebant to accommo-
date the processional movement and to reach a musical and textual
conclusion; thus in the two which later have the dialogic section Quid
facimus , this section would have been repeated.24 The St Gall Pas-
sion Play might have done this; though the fact that the beginning of
Collegerunt is sung by a single angel rather than the chorus could
21
Of the plays in note 10, Caiaphas does not sing in a dialogic setting of Collegerunt
pontifices only in the Haller Passion and Maastrichter (ribuarisches) Passions-
spiel.
22
Admonter Passionsspiel, ll. 84a-85; (Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, ll.
206-09; Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, B, ll. 218a-g; Bozner Passionsspiel 1514, 1.
Teil, MS, fol. 26; Egerer Passionsspiel, ll. 3452a-q.
23
Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, vol. I, p. 151; Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 2424 c-f;
Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 380-81; Egerer Passionsspiel, ll. 3452c-e; (Großes) Bene-
diktbeurer Passionsspiel, ll. 206-07, all with Collegerunt sung by the chorus;
Quid facimus is sung by the whole council in Alsfeld, Benediktbeuern and Eger.
24
Bozner Abendmahlspiel, ll. 31a-32, 87a-b; Tiroler Passionsspiel, ll. 0a-b, 46a-b.
233
imply that only a short part of the antiphon was used, as a brief nar-
rative introduction rather than as a long processional chant.
Did Annas s Quid facimus (49) include the repetenda Ne forte
veniant Romani , as in liturgical performance? The German dia-
logue (ll. 560-62) corresponds to this phrase, but this may not be deci-
sive. Here, perhaps, the dramatic tradition is helpful: not one of the
plays in which Quid facimus is a separate dialogic section (rather
than part of a choral performance of the beginning of Collegerunt ),
explicitly includes the Ne forte clause,25 and the two plays with
notation explicitly leave it out.26 Thus Annas s part could have ended
at credent in eum as in Benediktbeuern and Eger,27 or even as early
as multa signa facit .
A likely form for the musical settings in the St Gall Passion Play,
then, is given on the next page.
25
Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 2424e-f; Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 381; (Großes) Bene-
diktbeurer Passionsspiel, l. 207; Bozner Abendmahlspiel, ll. 87a-b; Frankfurter
Passionsspiel, ll. 1571a-c; Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll. 3016c-g; Maastrichter
(ribuarisches) Passionsspiel, ll. 1281a-b; Tiroler Passionsspiel, ll. 46a-b. Anoma-
lously, Rabers Passion, ll. 58a-b, includes Ne forte veniant but not Quid
facimus .
26
(Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, l. 207; Egerer Passionsspiel, ll. 3452c-e;
both plays add Ne forte veniant Romani only at the end of the Ab ipso ergo
die section: (Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, l. 209; Egerer Passions-
spiel, ll. 3452n-q.
27
(Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, l. 207; Egerer Passionsspiel, ll. 3452c-e.
234
Christ s entry into Jerusalem (ll. 568a-75)

Christ s ceremonial entry into the city is accompanied by two songs of
welcome by the pueri :
235
51, 52
[51] Post hoc ascendat [Iesus] asinum
Quo veniente occurrant pueri cum palmis cantando
Osanna, benedictus et prosternant vestimenta sua.
[52] Item Gloria, laus et cetera (ll. 568a-d)
The first item is problematic. The cantare direction suggests liturgi-

cal text, and several antiphons from the Palm Sunday procession al-
lude to the Hebrew children welcoming Christ as he entered Jerusa-
lem, and contain words similar to the incipit. Most, however, do not
match the incipit precisely:28
Hosanna Filio David: benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini.
Hosanna Filio David: benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini, Rex Israel: Ho-
sanna in excelsis.
Ante sex dies solemnis Paschae, quando venit Dominus in civitatem Jerusalem,
occurrerunt ei pueri et in manibus portabant ramos palmarum, et clamabant voce
magna dicentes: Hosanna in excelsis. Benedictus qui venisti in multitudine miseri-
cordiae. Hosanna in excelsis.
Turba multa quae convenerat ad diem festum clamabat Domino benedictus qui
venit in nomine Domini, hosanna in excelsis.
Pueri Hebraeorum tollentes ramos olivarum obviaverunt Domino clamantes et
dicentes Hosanna in excelsis.
Pueri Hebraeorum vestimenta prosternebant in via, et clamabant dicentes: Ho-
sanna Filio David; benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini.29
The only one which exactly fits the incipit Osanna, benedictus is the
last section of the long mode 7 processional antiphon Cum [or dum]
appropinquaret :
Cum [dum] appropinquaret Dominus Hierosolimam [ ] Alii expandebant vesti-
menta sua in via, alii ramos de arboribus prosternebant et qui sequebantur clama-
28
fols. 49v-50, transposed up a fifth to accommodate the tessitura.
29
The antiphons quoted here have the following numbers in Hesbert, Corpus an-
tiphonalium, nos. 3141, 3142, 1437, 5266, 4415 and 4416.
236
bant: Hosanna, benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini, benedictum regnum patris
nostri David, hosanna in excelsis; miserere nobis, fili David.30
The identification of this chant by Bergmann and Pflanz cannot be

certain.31 It receives no support from dramatic tradition: the St Gall
Passion Play would in fact be unusual in using an extract from Hes-
bert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 1976 for the children s welcome to
Jesus. The Hessian plays use all or part of that antiphon, but before the
disciples go off to find a donkey for Jesus, not during the entry into
the city.32 The only other play to include it at all is the (Großes) Bene-
diktbeurer Passionsspiel, at the beginning of Jesus s triumphal entry.33
Most plays use other Palm Sunday processional antiphons, typically
Hic est qui venturus est , from Cum audisset populus (Corpus an-
tiphonalium, no. 1983), Pueri Hebraeorum vestimenta prosternebant
(no. 4416), Pueri Hebraeorum tollentes ramos (no. 4415), and Oc-
30
Cf. Ibid., no. 1976. This wording in Speyer, Bistumsarchiv, Hs. 1, fol. lxxxivra-va
(mode 7); Christian Väterlein (ed.), Graduale Pataviense (Wien 1511), Kassel
[etc.], 1982 (Das Erbe deutscher Musik, 87), fols. 58v-59v (mode 8). Also Mainz
gradual, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 44, fols. 50v-51; Mainz missals: Frankfurt, Barth. 31,
fol. 83v; Würzburg, M.p.th.f. 85, fol. 62; Missale Maguntinum, 1507, fol. lxxvb;
Agenda ecclesie Moguntinensis, c. 1492 (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, Leip-
zig [etc.], 1925-, no. 469), fols. xxxiii-xxxivv; Agenda Maguntina, 1513, fol. LXIv;
Agenda Ecclesiae Moguntinensis, 1551, fols. XCVIIv-XCVIIIv; Agenda ecclesie
wormaciensis, 1500-10, sig. g ir; Worms manual, Worms, Stadtarchiv, Abt. 106/1,
fols. 47v-48; Speyer missals: Speyer, Bistumsarchiv, Hs. 1, fol. lxxxivra-va; Bayeri-
sche Staatsbibliothek, Clm 10076, fol. 100ra; Agenda Spirensis, 1512, sig. k iir.
31
Bergmann, Studien, p. 206; Pflantz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, pp. 118-19.
32
Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 126; Frankfurter Passionsspiel, ll. 1796a-b; Heidelber-
ger Passionsspiel, ll. 2672c-g; Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 2511a-e, 2531a-f; Als-
felder Dirigierrolle, 395-396, 399-400.
33
(Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, l. 11, followed (l. 12) by the antiphon
Cum audisset populus (Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 1983); cf. Thomas
Binkley, The Greater Passion Play from Carmina Burana: An Introduction , in Pe-
ter Reidemeister & Veronika Gutmann (eds.), Alte Musik: Praxis und Reflexion,
Basler Jahrbuch für historische Musikpraxis, Sonderband zum 50. Jubiläum der
Schola Cantorum Basiliensis, Winterthur, 1982, pp. 146 and 153, and Bergmann,
Studien, p. 216.
237
currunt turbae (no. 4107).34 Plays using chants which actually begin
with Hosanna or Benedictus are quite rare, and show no consisten-
cy in choice of sources. Donaueschingen uses Benedictus Mariae fil-
ius .35 The Lucerne plays, and possibly the Frankfurter Dirigierrolle,
use the Sanctus from the Mass.36 The Heidelberg wording would fit
Corpus antiphonalium nos. 3141, 3142 or 4416 as well as the Vulgate
text of Matthew 21:9.37
Gospel text from either Mark or John would precisely fit the inci-
pit:
Et qui praeibant et qui sequebantur clamabant, dicentes: Hosanna! Benedictus qui
venit in nomine Domini; benedictum quod venit regnum patris nostri David. Ho-
sanna in excelsis. (Mark 11:9-10.)
34
See Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, nos. 493 and 494. (Großes) Benediktbeurer
Passionsspiel, ll. 13-14 (Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, nos. 4415 and 4416; or-
der uncertain); Egerer Passionsspiel, ll. 3358a-3396d (antiphons 1983, 4415, and
4416, and the responsory Ingrediente Domino [no. 6961]); Frankfurter Pas-
sionsspiel, ll. 1812a-55 and Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 127a-e (antiphons 1983,
4416, 4415, and 4107).
35
Donaueschinger Passionsspiel, ll. 431-33, melody p. 253; cf. Schuler, Musik der
Osterfeiern, no. 494. Chant as yet unidentified.
36
Luzerner Passionsspiel, ll. 6416b-c (Latin); cf. Hans Wyss (ed.), Das Luzerner Os-
terspiel. Gestützt auf die Textabschrift von M. Blakemore Evans und unter Ver-
wendung seiner Vorarbeiten zu einer kritischen Edition nach den Handschriften
herausgegeben. I. Text des ersten Tags. II. Text des zweiten Tags. III. Textteile
1597, 1616. Anmerkungen, Quellen, Glossar, Bern, 1967, 3 vols. (Schriften her-
ausgegeben unter dem Patronat der Schweizerischen Geisteswissenschaftlichen
Gesellschaft, 7), vol. III, p. 212 (German). Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 127b. Klaus
Wolf, Kommentar zur Frankfurter Dirigierrolle und zum Frankfurter Passions-
spiel , Tübingen, 2002 [first volume of additions to Johannes Janota (ed.), Die
hessische Passionsspielgruppe: Edition im Paralleldruck, Tübingen, 1996-2002],
p. 147, suggests Cum appropinquaret (Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 6251)
or Turba multa (no. 7978).
37
Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll. 2708b-d: Osanna filio Dauid. Benedictus, qui
venit .
238
Acceperunt ramos palmarum, et processerunt obviam ei, et clamabant: Hosanna,

benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini, rex Israel. (John 12:13.)38
This, however, is also unknown elsewhere in drama, and seems an un-

likely choice for the procession given that the correct processional
chants, and the personnel to perform them, were readily available. For
here as elsewhere (e.g. 52, Gloria, laus ), liturgy informs and inter-
penetrates the dramatic. It is liturgical texts which speak of boys or
children welcoming Jesus.39 The pueri of the play (l. 568b) play a
part in a mimesis that is heavily influenced by liturgy; and they are
also the pueri cantores , the choirboys who would have been used to
singing in the Palm Sunday procession, where some of the hymns and
antiphons were their special responsibility.40 The section from Hes-
bert s Corpus antiphonalium, no. 1976, then, may indeed have been
used, since its relatively complicated melody would have presented no
problem to the performers.41
38
Rolf Steinbach, Die deutschen Oster- und Passionsspiele des Mittelalters: Versuch
einer Darstellung und Wesensbestimmung nebst einer Bibliographie zum deutschen
geistlichen Spiel des Mittelalters, Köln, 1970 (Kölner Germanistische Studien, 4),
p. 138, note 44, thinks Mark 11:9-10 more probable, since the St Gall Passion
Play s version of the Last Supper is basically Marcan.
39
Emil Wolter (ed.), Das St. Galler Spiel vom Leben Jesu: Untersuchungen und Text,
Breslau, 1912 [rpt. Hildesheim, 1977] (Germanistische Abhandlungen, 41), p. 109.
Cf. Steinbach, Deutsche Oster- und Passionsspiele, p. 138, note 43, points out
Matthew 21:15: [ ] pueros clamantes in templo et dicentes: Hosanna filio
David .
40
Cf. Wolf, Kommentar, p. 71, on the same phenomenon in the Frankfurter Diri-
gierrolle, 1a and 127b-c.
41
fols. 50v-51r.
239
Pflanz seems to assume that the whole passage given here was used.42
This would in fact have been musically necessary to reach the mode 7
finalis G.
Another possibility, of course, is that there is scribal error in the di-
rection and that Osanna, benedictus is a truncated version of the
wording Hosanna Filio David: benedictus qui venit in nomine Domi-
ni found in one of the other antiphons listed above: Corpus antipho-
nalium, nos. 3141, 3142, or perhaps most likely no. 4416, Pueri
Hebraeorum vestimenta prosternebant , a mainstay of the dramatic tra-
dition, particularly in Hessia:43
Pueri Hebraeorum vestimenta prosternebant in via, et clamabant dicentes: Ho-
sanna Filio David; benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini.
42
Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, pp. 118-19, p. 167.
43
fols. 52v-53.
240
On the current state of the evidence this question seems unlikely to be

resolved. By contrast, there is no doubt whatever about the next item:
52
Item Gloria, laus et cetera et dicant:
Iesus, du wunderere,
wir sagen dir lob vnd ere.
Du maht der Iuden kunig sin wol,
der Israel irlosen sol.
Vns ist die warheit wol irkant,
daz dich Got selbe hat her gesant.
Du bist der werlete heilant. (ll. 568a-75)
This is the mode 1 hymn Gloria, laus et honor by Theodulf, the

nineth-century bishop of Orleans,44 another staple of the Palm Sunday
procession in Germany and elsewhere:
44
Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 8310; Clemens Blume & Guido M. Dreves
(eds.), Analecta Hymnica medii aevi, 55 vols., Leipzig, 1886-1922 [rpt. Frankfurt,
1961]; Register, ed. by M. Lütolf, 2 vols. in 3 parts, Bern-München, 1978, vol. L,
no. 117; Ulysse Chevalier, Repertorium Hymnologicum: Catalogue des chants,
hymnes, proses, séquences, tropes en usage dans l église latine depuis les origines
jusqu à nos jours, 6 vols., Louvain-Bruxelles, 1892-1921 (Subsidia hagiographica,
4), no. 7282; Hermann Adalbert Daniel, Thesaurus hymnologicus sive hymnorum
canticorum sequentiarum collectio amplissima, 5 vols., Leipzig, 1855-56, vol. I,
pp. 215-17 (no. 186); vol. IV, pp. 153-57; John Julian (ed.), A Dictionary of Hym-
nology Setting Forth the Origin and History of Christian Hymns of All Ages and
Nations, London, 1908 [rev. ed.], p. 426; Graduale triplex, pp. 141-42; Officium
majoris hebdomadæ et octavæ Paschæ [ ] cum cantu juxta ordinem Breviarii,
Missalis et Pontificalis Romani. Editio typica Vaticana, Rome, 1922, pp. 74-76;
Liber usualis, pp. 588-89; Herman A.P. Schmidt, Hebdomada sancta. I. Contem-
poranei textus liturgici, documenta Piana et bibliographica. II. Fontes historici.
Commentarius historicus, 2 vols. in 3 parts, Roma-Freiburg-Barcelona, 1956-57,
vol. II, pp. 656 and 696.
241
Verses:
2. Coetus in excelsis te laudat caelicus omnis,
Et mortalis homo et cuncta creata simul. (Refrain)
3. Plebs Hebraea tibi cum palmis obvia venit:
Cum prece, voto, hymnis adsumus ecce tibi. (Refrain)
4. Hii tibi passuro solvebant munia laudis;
Nos tibi regnanti pangimus ecce melos. (Refrain)
5. Hi placuere tibi, placeat devotio nostra,
Rex bone, rex clemens, cui bona cuncta placent. (Refrain).45
The verbless direction is unusual for liturgical chants in the St Gall

Passion Play, but in this case the item (l. 568d) can be seen as refer-
ring to the cantando in the previous chant (l. 568b; see Chapter IV).
45
Mainz gradual, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 44, fol. 52v. There are thirty-four further verses
in Blume & Dreves (eds.), Analecta Hymnica, vol. L, no. 117.
242
The hymn is identified by Bergmann, Pflanz, and Schuler, though

Schuler s discussion of it under two numbers is slightly misleading.46
It is sung in eleven other plays, not all listed by Schuler.47 But what of
the exact length and form in which the hymn might have been per-
formed in this play? Pflanz s argument, on pages 119-20, that the
German dialogue indicates the first two verses is vulnerable to the
standard objections. It also overlooks the generally loose fit between
the German dialogue and the Latin of the hymn: lines 573-75 seem-
ingly correspond to none of the hymn wording. And it ignores two
other important determinants: the length and elaboration of the stage
procession which it accompanied, and liturgical performance-practice
in the Palm Sunday procession.
Few German plays have detailed directions for Gloria, laus et ho-
nor .48 Some specifics of dramatic performance probably derived from
46
Bergmann, Studien, p. 215 and note 1746; Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, pp.
119-20; and Schuler, Musik der Osterfeieren, nos. 222 and 223
47
In Schuler: Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 2615a-b, 2625a-b; Alsfelder Dirigierrolle,
415, 417; (Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, l. 15; Frankfurter Passionsspiel,
ll. 1824-1842; Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll. 2698b-c; Luzerner Passionsspiel, ll.
6416d-j, cf. Das Luzerner Osterspiel, vol. III, p. 213; Luzerner Passionsspiel. Mu-
siktafeln, pl. 12; Luzerner Passionsspiel-Regiematerialien 1583, 2. Teil, fol. 108v;
Maastrichter (ribuarisches) Passionsspiel, ll. 1243a-b. Not in Schuler: Alsfelder
Dirigierrolle, 310, 311; Bozner Passionsspiel 1514, 1. Teil, MS, fol. 51r-v; Bozner
Palmsonntagsspiel, ll. 1396a-1416d; Sterzinger Passionsspiel der Mischhand-
schrift (Palm Sunday), ll. 1236a-56d; Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 127d, written
partly over an erasure: It[em] pueri. Gl[ori]a r. (or more probably ). Read by
Richard Froning (ed.), Das Drama des Mittelalters, 3 vols., Stuttgart, 1891-92
(Deutsche National-Litteratur, 14:1-3) [repr. Darmstadt, 1964], vol. II, p. 351, l.
160, as Gloria laus ; by Janota (ed.), Hessische Passionsspielgruppe, vol. I, p. 16,
l. 176, as Gloria rex .
48
Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 2615a-b, 2625a-b; Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 415, 417;
(Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, l. 15; Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 127d; Hei-
delberger Passionsspiel, ll. 2698b-c; Luzerner Passionsspiel, ll. 6416d-j; cf. Das
Luzerner Osterspiel, vol. III, p. 213; Luzerner Passionsspiel. Musiktafeln, Tafel 12,
see the illustration in Gustave O. Arlt, 4. Musik. B. Die Judengesänge , in
Marshall Blakemore Evans, Das Osterspiel von Luzern. Eine historisch-kritische
243
liturgical practice: Gloria, laus represents the historical event within

the drama, but is itself from the procession which commemorates and
liturgically stylizes that event. The hymn describes the original entry
as having happened in the past. As with the Osanna chants, the pue-
ri are simultaneously the pueri Hebraeorum of the dramatic mimesis
and the pueri cantores of the choir. Liturgical details familiar to
church musicians did not of course need to be included in the play
manuscripts.
Liturgical performance began with the full refrain Gloria, laus et
honor hosanna pium , sung by the whole choir; there followed the
verses, sung alternately by the two sides of the choir. Each verse, in-
cluding the last one sung, was followed by a refrain. This is a pattern
which takes time to establish itself; liturgical books usually stipulate
five or six verses of the total of thirty-nine.49 It is also longer than
stage practicalities would have required. An absolute minimum, to es-
tablish the alternating pattern, would be the opening and closing re-
frain, with one verse sung by each side, plus the refrain between them,
lasting a minimum of one and a half minutes. But two verses from
each side would make the pattern clearer and more satisfying; this
would take at least about two and a half minutes. Even the shorter
form would have been more than ample to cover the stage movement
in the St Gall Passion Play: some of the procession had already been
accompanied by 51, Osanna, benedictus .
Einleitung , [trans.] Paul Hagmann, Schweizer Theaterjahrbuch 27 (1961), pp. 75-

83 (p. 79 and ills. 11 and 12); cf. Luzerner Passionsspiel-Regiematerialien 1583, 2.
Teil, MS, fol. 108v (with notation); Maastrichter (ribuarisches) Passionsspiel, ll.
1243a-b.
49
Julian (ed.), Dictionary of Hymnology, p. 426. The Palm Sunday procession is de-
scribed in numerous missals and rituals: e.g. Agenda ecclesie Moguntinensis, c.
1492, fols. xxxiii-xxxix; cf. Brockett, Osanna! .
244
The three Sterzing plays with detailed directions nonetheless imi-

tate the liturgical procession precisely.50 They prescribe five verses,
plus refrains, and making the whole episode even longer than its li-
turgical model five spoken vernacular quatrains, translating the
Latin verses. This would have taken at least about four minutes, a
length dictated surely not by the exigencies of performance but by the
need to give the procession a fitting degree of prominence and solem-
nity. Whilst this cannot be automatically supposed for the whole of the
German dramatic tradition, there is at least a strong precedent for it.
These Sterzing plays illustrate a further practical performance de-
tail: the refrain. The whole refrain Gloria, laus ... hosanna pium fol-
lows each verse in the modern Latin rite,51 but not in all medieval and
early modern sources: in some the refrain is always Gloria, laus ...
pium ; in others, it is alternately Gloria, laus ... and Cui puerile de-
cus , the two halves of the whole refrain; others do not make this
52
clear. Stage practice very likely followed local diocesan use. For the
St Gall Passion Play, however, absolute certainty is impossible. In
50
Bozner Palmsonntagsspiel, ll. 1396a-1416d; Bozner Passionsspiel 1514, 1. Teil,
MS, fol. 51r-v; Sterzinger Passionsspiel der Mischhandschrift (Palm Sunday), ll.
1236a-56d.
51
Liber usualis, pp. 588-89; Graduale triplex, pp. 141-42; Officium majoris heb-
domadæ, pp. 74-76.
52
Binkley, The Greater Passion Play from Carmina Burana , p. 146, seems to as-
sume that the alternating refrain was standard in medieval German uses. Alter-
nating refrain: Budapest, National Széchényi Library, Cod. lat. m. ae. 330 (ritual,
Biburg, Bavaria, late twelfth century), fols. 62v-63; edition by Walter von Arx, Das
Klosterrituale von Biburg, Fribourg, 1970 (Spicilegium Friburgense, 14), p. 194;
Moosburger Graduale, fol. 57v; Schlager (ed.), Antiphonale Pataviense, fol. 61r-v;
Rituale Trevirense (1767), pp. cxxvi-cxxvij. Refrain always Gloria, laus :
Augsburg: Obsequiale sive benedictionale secundum ecclesiam Augustensem,
Augsburg, 1499, sig. biiijr; Ritus ecclesiastici Augustensis episcopatus, Dillingen,
1580, pp. 499-502. Sarum: Processionale ad Usum Sarum, London, 1502, fol. 46r-
v
, cf. Julian (ed.), Dictionary of Hymnology, p. 426; Daniel, Thesaurus, vol. I, no.
186. Unclear: Einsiedeln, 121 (Paléographie musicale, vol. IV, facsimile, pp. 381-
82); St Gall, cod. 339 (Ibid., vol. I, facsimile, pp. 64-65).
245
general, Mainz seems to have had alternating refrains, and Speyer al-
ways to have used Gloria, laus ... .53 The very sparse evidence for
Worms, however, contains one example of each. One manuscript
manual has Gloria, laus albeit added by a later hand; the printed
ritual of c. 1500, however, records the alternating refrain, and this may
reflect the more general diocesan tradition.54 Since the St Gall Passion
Play is probably from Worms, the alternating refrain, known and pos-
sibly even predominant there, seems the more probable choice.
The Last Supper

I: The Eucharist (ll. 575a-638)
As Jesus enters Jerusalem, he instructs the disciples to prepare the
Passover in the house of a man carrying a water jar whom they will
meet (ll. 575a-98; cf. Mark 14:12-16, Luke 22:7-13). The Supper itself
is preceded by the silence-chant: 53, Iterum Silete (l. 598c). See no.
1 above. At the end of the meal, Jesus blesses the bread and wine:
54, 54a
[54] Tunc Iesus accipiens panem cantans Hoc corpus
et dans eis dicat:
Daz ist min lip, der nu wirt gegeben
in den dot durch vwer leben.
[54a] Similiter calicem dicens:
53
Alternating refrain: Mainz gradual, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 44, fol. 52v; Mainz missals:
Frankfurt, Barth. 31, fol. 84, Missale Maguntinum, 1507, fol. lxxirb; Agenda eccle-
sie Moguntinensis, c. 1492, fols. xxxiiir-xxxixv; Agenda Maguntina, 1513, fol.
LXIIr-v; Agenda Ecclesiae Moguntinensis, 1551, fol. CVIv. Theodor Heinrich
Klein, Die Prozessionsgesänge der Mainzer Kirche aus dem 14. bis 18. Jahrhun-
dert, Speyer, 1962 (Quellen und Abhandlungen zur mittelrheinischen Kirchenge-
schichte, 7), p. 132: comparative table of Mainz melodies. Refrain always Gloria,
laus : Speyer missals: Speyer, Bistumsarchiv, Hs. 1, fol. lxxxvra-b; Bayerische
Staatsbibliothek, Clm 10076, fol. 110va; Agenda Spirensis, 1512, fol. LXXVr-v (=
sig. k iiir-v).
54
Worms manual, Worms, Stadtarchiv, Abt. 106/1, fol. 49 ( g¬a and g added by
later hand); Agenda ecclesie wormaciensis, 1500-10, sig. g iir.
246
Drinkent alle, diz ist min blut.

Daz ist vor vwer sunde gut.
Ir dunt minen dot do bide irkant,
swo ir dis ammet hie nach begant.55 (ll. 632b-38)
Mone, Hartl, Bergmann, and disappointingly also Schützeichel, as-

sume that 54 is a Gospel quotation: Hoc est corpus meum, quo pro
vobis datur [ ] (Luke 22:19) and interpolate an est .56 Only Wolter
correctly transcribes the incipit as hoc corpus , which, as realises, is
that of a mode 7 communio: not however for Palm Sunday, as he
states, but the preceding Passion Sunday.57 Pflanz58 correctly identi-
fies the chant and notes its full wording:59
55
See St Gall MS 919, p. 205.
56
Wolter (ed.), Das St. Galler Spiel vom Leben Jesu, l. 632b; Franz Joseph Mone
(ed.), Schauspiele des Mittelalters, 2 vols., Karlsruhe, 1846-48, vol. I, pp. 49-128,
l. 625b; Eduard Hartl (ed.), Das Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel: Das St. Galler Pas-
sionsspiel, Halle/Saale, 1952 (Altdeutsche Textbibliothek, 41), pp. 56-131, ll. 746b-
c; Rudolf Schützeichel (ed.), Das Mittelrheinische Passionsspiel der St. Galler Hs.
919, Tübingen, 1978, l. 632b. Cf. Bergmann, Studien, p. 224 and note 1824.
57
See Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 271a, b. Mainz gradual, Frankfurt, lat. qu.
44, fol. 46; Mainz missal, Mainz, Stadtbibliothek, II 163, fol. 16v; Speyer missals:
Speyer, Bistumsarchiv, Hs. 1, fol. lxxivvb; Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 10076,
fols. 87ra-87va; printed Speyer missal, 1501, fol. XLIXva (= sig. g iva) ( noui testa-
menti est ; dicit dominus ). In Worms used also on Good Friday: printed Worms
missal, 1488, fol. XLVIIIva; Missale Ecclesie wormatiensis, 1522, fol. LXVv.
58
59
Mainz gradual, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 44, fol. 46. Variants include: novum testa-
mentum est ; dixit Dominus .
247
The plays with similar incipits at the Communion are few. Most use
different chants. Common choices are the Corpus Christi responsory
Homo quidam , as well as other chants and biblical text.60 The com-
60
Homo quidam as antiphon: Antiphonale monasticum pro diurnis horis juxta vota
RR. D. Abbatum congregationum conf deratarum Ordinis Sancti Benedicti a So-
lesmensibus monachis restitutum, Paris [etc.], 1934, p. 557; Carl Marbach, Carmi-
na scripturarum, Strasbourg, 1907 [rpt. Hildesheim, 1963], p. 451; Hesbert, Cor-
pus antiphonalium, no. 4536 ( Quidam homo ). As responsory: Schlager (ed.), An-
tiphonale Pataviense, fol. 126; Processionale monasticum ad usum Congregationis
Gallicae Ordinis Sancti Benedicti, Solesmes, 1893 [rpt. Paris-Tournai, 1983], p.
105; Marbach, Carmina scripturarum, p. 451; not in Hesbert s Corpus antiphonali-
um. Used in: Admonter Passionsspiel, ll. 174a-84; Bozner Himmelfahrtsspiel, ll.
674a-f; Egerer Passionsspiel, ll. 4102a-08e; Haller Passion, ll. 539a-b, 543a-b;
Sterzinger Passionsspiel 1496/1503, ll. 275c-d. Other chants: Calicem salutaris
(antiphon 1754): Bozner Abendmahlspiel, ll. 730-39 (alternative chant). Cenan-
tibus il-lis (either Corpus antiphonalium, no. 1781, or Corpus Christi responsory;
Marbach, Carmina scripturarum, p. 407; John R. Bryden & David G. Hughes, An
Index of Gregorian Chant, Cambridge, Mass., 1969, vol. I, p. 87; not in Hesbert s
Corpus antiphonalium): Prager Abendmahlspiel, l. 121. Discubuit Jesus (respon-
sory, CANTUS, gra0637): Freiburger Fronleichnamspiel, B, ll. 104a-c. Biblical
text: Accipite et comedite [ ] and Bibite ex hoc omnes [ ] (Matthew 26:26-
28): Bozner Abendmahlspiel, ll. 730-39; Sterzinger Passionsspiel der Mischhand-
248
munio is found only in Hessia, and only Alsfeld definitely uses it.61
The Frankfurt evidence is ambiguous. The first incipit in the Dirigier-
rolle, Hoc est corpus , sounds biblical (Luke 22:19), but the second,
Hic calix noui testamenti , distinctively liturgical; possibly the com-
munio was intended for both parts, and the intrusive est is a scribal
error.62 The Passionsspiel has Hoc est corpus meum , but specifies no
chant before the distribution of the cup.63
The ambiguous directions in the St Gall Passion Play make it im-
possible to know precisely how the chant might have been performed.
Only for the bread are the directions given in full. Jesus takes it ( ac-
cipiens ), singing the chant; and distributes it ( dans eis ), speaking the
German dialogue. He must also take and distribute the cup. The direc-
tion Similiter calicem [ ] (l. 634a) could very well be an elliptical
way of indicating the same sequence of music, words and actions as
for the bread; an arrangement as dramatically effective as it is faithful
to the Gospel accounts of Jesus speaking a separate blessing over each
element (Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20). Such
split performance is extremely common in plays.64 The communio
schrift, ll. 1001a-05b; Tiroler Passionsspiel, ll. 641d-f, 647a-c. Hoc est corpus
meum [ ] (Luke 22:19) and Hic est sanguis meus [ ] (Matthew 26:28): Hei-
delberger Passionsspiel, ll. 3372b, 3376c-g.
61
Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 3087a-95; Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 143, 144; Frank-
furter Passionsspiel, ll. 1967a-b. However, Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll. 3372a-
c, 3376a-c, is probably biblical: Luke 22:19: Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vo-
bis datur .
62
Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 143, 144 (Janota editorially inserts est in Hic calix
noui testamenti ). Bergmann, Studien, pp. 224-25, suggests the communio as the
basis. Cf. Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 271.
63
Frankfurter Passionsspiel, ll. 1967a-b.
64
E.g. Admonter Passionsspiel, ll. 174a-79a, 179a-84a; Augsburger Passionsspiel, ll.
386a-90, 390a-98; Bozner Abendmahlspiel, ll. 728a-29a, 730-39; Brixener Pas-
sionsspiel, ll. 749a-53a, 753b-63; Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 143, 144; Frankfurter
Passionsspiel, ll. 1967a-71, 1971a-75; Freiburger Fronleichnamsspiel, A, ll. 738a-
42, 742a-49; B, ll. 104a-12, 112a-18a; Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll. 3372a-76a,
249
could readily have been performed in two sections, as tradetur ends

on its mode 7 finalis G. Alternatively, though, Similiter calicem di-
cens (l. 634a) might simply be a close reflection of the New Testa-
ment narrative: Similiter et calicem, dicens: Hic calix novum testa-
mentum est in meo sanguine [ ] (1 Cor. 11:25; cf. Luke 22:20): this
would imply that the whole communio was sung before the distribu-
tion of the bread.
Performance tradition for this chant is extremely thin. Pflanz s
view that the St Gall Passion Play will have omitted the words dicit
Dominus need not be accepted automatically.65 However, it is inter-
esting that Alsfeld, the only play to include the communio with nota-
tion, does indeed truncate it. Distributing the bread, Jesus sings Hoc
corpus quod pro vobis tradetur , to the conventional melody, ending
on the finalis G; this is followed by German dialogue. As he takes the
chalice, he sings Hic calix novum testamentum est , and again ad-
dresses the disciples.66 The music in the manuscript shows that the
communio has been melodically adapted to end at the end of this
phrase, on the final G:67
3376a-86a; Luzerner Passionsspiel, ll. 6948a-52, 6952a-62; Tiroler Passionsspiel,

ll. 641a-47, 647a-51.
65
66
Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 3087c-91b; Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 493, 495. The mel-
ody given in Hessische Passionsspielgruppe, vol. II, l. 3087e, wrongly ends on a.
67
Alsfelder Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 35r, l. 3091b, as correctly transcribed by Karl
Dreimüller, Die Musik des Alsfelder Passionsspiels: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte
der Musik in den geistlichen Spielen des deutschen Mittelalters. Mit erstmaliger
Veröffentlichung der Melodien aus der Kasseler Handschrift des Alsfelder Spiels
(Landes-Bibl. Kassel 2o Mss. poet. 18) (Doctoral thesis), 3 vols., Universität
Wien, 1935, vol. III, p. 17, and Hessische Passionsspielgruppe, vol. II, p. 461.
250
instead of on a as in the received form transcribed above. The Alsfeld

music thus specifically avoids prolonging the chant, either to the end
of the phrase dicit Dominus or to the end of the chant, the only
points where the melody again concludes acceptably on its finalis. The
German dialogue actually paraphrases the part of the communio which
was not sung. The omission in the St Gall Passion Play of the phrase
dicit [dixit] Dominus and of the concluding part of the chant cannot
simply be assumed, but has an interesting precedent in a play which is
fairly closely related, though from a later period when such alteration
may have been more widespread. If the St Gall Passion Play did trun-
cate the chant, some such melodic adjustment would have been need-
ed.
The Mandatum (ll. 644b-87)

Immediately after the Eucharist, there is a brief interlude when Judas
leaves the upper room to negotiate a reward for betraying Jesus (ll.
638a-44a); then the Mandatum part of the Supper begins. Jesus sings
of his new commandment of love:
55
Post hoc Iesus cantet Mandatum novum et dicat:
Ich wil vch geben ein nuwe gebot,
daz ir nit brechent dorch keine not.
Ir sollent ein ander lieb han,
rehte als ich vch han gedan. (ll. 644b-648)
Whilst this item could plausibly be either a biblical verse (John 13:
34), the cantet direction suggests the antiphon based on it:68
68
fol. 60v. Also in processional (Mainz, St Peter), Mainz, Martinusbibliothek, Hs.
118, fol. 28; registrum chori (Mainz, St Peter), Mainz, Martinusbibliothek, Hs.
233, fol. XXVv; Worms manual, Worms, Stadtarchiv, Abt. 106/1, fol. 52v; Agenda
Spirensis, 1512, fol. LXXXr-v (= sig. k viiir-v).
251
Mandatum novum was a staple of the series of antiphons sung

during the Maundy Thursday ceremony of the Mandatum or Pedila-
vium, when parish priests and monastic superiors washed the feet of
their parishioners or brothers in religion in memory of Christ.69 Schu-
ler, Bergmann and Pflanz all identify the chant as the antiphon; though
Pflanz on the dubious criterion of the German dialogue.70
The chant is found in over a dozen other plays.71 Only Admont and
Eger have notation, but in the case of such a well-known item, the ab-
sence of notation can almost be taken to indicate the liturgical chant;
and indeed, the few plays where the music is recorded or can be relia-
bly deduced do use the antiphon. The Frankfurter Dirigierrolle per-
69
Thomas Schäfer, Die Fußwaschung im monastischen Brauchtum und in der latei-
nischen Liturgie: Liturgiegeschichtliche Untersuchung, Beuron, 1956 (Texte und
Arbeiten der Erzabtei Beuron, I, 47); Schmidt, Hebdomada Sancta, vol. I, pp. 766-
76; Franz Haffner, Der Gründonnerstag im alten Speyer , Die Rheinpfalz 19/
20.4.1973, p. 15; cf. Emil Josef Lengeling, Missale Monasteriense, 1300-1900:
Katalog, Texte und vergleichende Studien, (eds.) Benedikt Kranemann & Klemens
Richter, Münster, 1995 (Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen, 76),
pp. 350-65, esp. 363.
70
Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 333, Bergmann, Studien, p. 224, and Pflanz,
Lateinische Textgrundlagen, p. 23, pp. 122-23.
71
In Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern: Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 3297a-c; Bozner
Passionsspiel 1495, B, ll. 358a-b; Brixener Passionsspiel, l. 646c (later addition);
Egerer Passionsspiel, ll. 4004a-d; Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 151a-e; Frankfurter
Passionsspiel, ll. 2073a-c; Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel, ll. 358a-b; Sterzinger Pas-
sionsspiel 1496/1503, ll. 357a-b, 379a; Sterzinger Passionsspiel der Mischhand-
schrift, ll. 947a-b. Not in Schuler: Admonter Passionsspiel, ll. 242b-43; Alsfelder
Dirigierrolle, 578; Bozner Abendmahlspiel, ll. 688b-89; Bozner Passionsspiel
1495, A, ll. 358a-b; Bozner Passionsspiel 1514, 1. Teil, MS, fol. 13v; Prager
Abendmahlspiel, ll. 211a-12.
252
forms it almost exactly as in the Mandatum ceremony: sung three

times with its versicle Beati immaculati in via (Psalm 118:1) and a
doxology; two further Mandatum antiphons follow.72 The directions in
plays where no other chants are prescribed for the foot-washing also
suggest a similar performance.73
It is interesting that both Eger and Admont, the only two plays with
notation, adapt the text and melody to end before dicit Dominus .74
How widespread such textual and melodic alteration of Mandatum
novum was is impossible to say on the limited evidence from these
two late plays, which have a greater tendency to write out their music
for a secular clergy increasingly unfamiliar with the plainsong cor-
pus.75 It is unknown, and probably now unknowable, whether earlier
plays like the St Gall Passion Play adapted melodies in this way.
To the disciples surprise, Jesus begins to wash their feet. Peter ini-
tially refuses, but is persuaded to allow it: 56, 57, 58 (ll. 648c, 650a,
654a), possibly sections from the antiphon Ante diem festum Pas-
chae (Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 1431), but more probably
biblical verses to the Passion tone:76
72
Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 151a-e. There follow Diligamus nos invicem (Hesbert,
Corpus antiphonalium, no. 2231) and In hoc cognoscent omnes (Ibid., no. 3239)
(151f-g).
73
Bozner Passionsspiel 1514, 1. Teil, MS, fol. 13v: lauat pedes incipiens a iuda can-
tans mandatum nouum ; Prager Abendmahlspiel, ll. 211a-12: Item lauantur pedes
discipulorum et etiam cantatur Mandatum nouum do vobis .
74
Egerer Passionsspiel, ll. 4004c-d, ends sicut dilexi vos set to a rewritten version
of the melody of sicut dilexi vos, dicit Dominus giving a satisfactory ending in
the mode (3) of the antiphon. Admonter Passionsspiel, l. 243, stops at invicem ,
on an a-G cadence which gives the impression of a modally complete piece in
mode 7.
75
Ulrich Mehler, Dicere und cantare : Zur musikalischen Terminologie und
gensburg, 1981 (Kölner Beiträge zur Musikforschung, 120), p. 256.
76
John 13:8-9, Passion tone. A Gospel tone setting, as in the Alsfelder Passionsspiel,
is also possible: see Chapter V, note 43.
253
These chants are dealt with in detail in Chapter V.

Afterwards Jesus asks the disciples if they understand the signifi-
cance of what he has just done:
59
Post locionem resedeant
[Iesus] cantet Scitis, quid fecerim :
Ir sprechent herre und meister zu mir.
Dar an nit vbel redet ir.
Sit ich vwer vuze gewaschen han,
daz han ich dar vme gedan,
daz ir nit vorbaz sollent lan,
ir wesent inander vnderdan.
Diz zeichen sollent ir von mir han. (ll. 658a-65)
Though Schuler records this incipit otherwise only in Heidelberg, it is

also found in the Bozner Abendmahlspiel, an example which has also
escaped Traub.77 Schuler and Bergmann78 list only biblical text (John
77
Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 562. Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll. 3412 b-g:
biblical wording (John 13:12-15). Bozner Abendmahlspiel, ll. 720a-b: Deinde se-
dit JHESUS ad locum cene, cantans: Scitis quid fecerim . The chant is not listed in
the indexes in Andreas Traub, Die geistlichen Spiele des Sterzinger Spielarchivs,
vol. VI:2: Kommentar zur Edition der Melodien, Mittlere Deutsche Literatur in
Neu- und Nachdrucken, 19:2, Bern, 1996, pp. 15-129, 131-38, 139-56.
254
13:12b-14) as a source; however, a mode 2 Maundy Thursday commu-

nio, also used as an office or Mandatum antiphon (Hesbert, Corpus
antiphonalium, no. 2413), is consistent with the cantet direction and
entirely fitting for the quasi-liturgical solemnity of the foot-washing
scene. It is also much more compact than the biblical text, which is
lengthy and not easily shortened.79,80
Dominus Jesus postquam coenavit cum discipulis suis, lavit pedes eorum et ait il-
lis: Scitis quid fecerim vobis, ego Dominus et Magister? Exemplum dedi vobis ut
et vos ita faciatis.
Pflanz recognizes the communio as a possible source, but mistakenly

describes the modern Roman version as too short to fit the German
dialogue; it is in fact identical to that in the medieval missals which
Pflanz quotes in preference.81
78
Bergmann, Studien, p. 221 and note 1793.
79
John 13:12b-14: Scitis quid fecerim vobis? Vos vocatis me Magister et Domine, et
bene dicitis, sum etenim. Si ergo ego lavi pedes vestros, Dominus et Magister, et
vos debetis alter alterius lavare pedes .
80
fol. 59r-v. Also in Mainz missal, Würzburg, M.p.th.f. 85, fol. 75v; Missale Ecclesie
wormatiensis, 1522, fol. LXXXVIrb; Speyer missals: Speyer, Bistumsarchiv, Hs. 1,
fol. cra; Darmstadt, Hs. 889, fol. 78vb; printed Speyer missal, 1501, fol. LXIIIIva (=
sig. h viiiva); cf. Väterlein (ed.), Graduale Pataviense, fol. 68; Marbach, Carmina
scripturarum, p. 473; Liber usualis, p. 657.
81
Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, pp. 23-24; cf. p. 127.
255
Jesus then sings and speaks of how his own death, and the disper-
sal of the disciples, have been foretold:
60
Postea cantet Iesus Scriptum est enim :
Ir werdent alle dirre nath
von mir flihende bit math.
Wan ir hant gehoret wol sagen,
so der hirte wirt geslagen,
so werdent die schefelin viriaget.
Doch si vch vor gesaget,
ich zu galylea vor vch gen,
so ich von dem dode ersten. (ll. 665a-73)
This chant could be either another mode 8 antiphon from the Palm
Sunday procession:82
82
fol. 59r-v. Also in: Missale Maguntinum, 1507, fol. lxxiva; Agenda Maguntina,
1513, fol. LXIIIr; Agenda ecclesie wormaciensis, 1500-10, fols. giiv-giiir; Speyer
missal, Speyer, Bistumsarchiv, Hs. 1, fol. lxxxvrb; Speyer psalter and breviary,
Speyer, Gymnasialbibliothek, A.D.3, fol. 101vb; Agenda Spirensis, 1512, fols.
LXXVv-LXXVIr (= sig. k iiiv-k iiiir); Liber usualis, p. 602.
256
or else the biblical passage (Matthew 26:31-32) on which the antiphon

is based:
Tunc dicit illis Jesus: Omnes vos scandalum patiemini in me ista nocte. Scrip-
tum est enim: Percutiam pastorem, et dispergentur oves gregis. Postquam au-
tem resurrexero, praecedam vos in Galilaeam.83
Bergmann does not deal with the episode or the chant. The evidence
of a mere three other German plays is limited.84 Heidelberg has Mar-
can biblical text; Admont and Eger both use the antiphon.85 Pflanz
chooses the antiphon on the grounds of the St Gall Passion Play s
general tendency to use liturgical chant;86 a partly circular argument,
based on many other instances when he has assumed the use of litur-
gical material on inadequate evidence (and ignoring the fact that the
dialogue here does not translate the ibi me videbitis [ ] of the anti-
phon). However, systematic evaluation does suggest that St Gall Pas-
sion Play cantet chants are predominantly liturgical, and the anti-
phon is not melodically challenging, making it a highly plausible
choice, especially for the competent singer playing Jesus (see Chapter
IV). Pflanz is however probably wrong to assume that the concluding
dicit Dominus was omitted. Musically, it is feasible to stop only at
gregis , as in Admont,87 Galileam , or at the very end of the anti-
phon, as in Eger.88 An ending on Galileam would be thinkable: in-
deed, on Pflanz s (generally dubious) criterion of the German dia-
logue, might even be plausible: nothing in the German corresponds to
Ibi me videbitis in the antiphon.
83
The synoptic parallel, Mark 14:27-28, has Quia scriptum est .
84
85
Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll. 3702a-e; Admonter Passionsspiel, ll. 305b-06;
Egerer Passionsspiel, ll. 3406a-g.
86
87
Admonter Passionsspiel, ll. 305b-306 (C-clef wrongly entered in manuscript, fol.
24); ll. 315-16 translate the unsung part of the antiphon.
88
Egerer Passionsspiel, ll. 3406a-g.
257
The Agony in the Garden (ll. 687a-758)

Jesus and the disciples go to the Mount of Olives (l. 687a), a move-
ment, it would seem, unaccompanied by any chant. Meanwhile, Judas
has slipped away again to discuss the betrayal of Jesus (ll. 687b-89).
Jesus takes Peter, James and John with him. To them he confesses his
overwhelming sadness:
61
Tunc dicat Iesus cantando Tristis est et dicat:
Ir dri, ich clagen vch mine not.
Mine sele ist drurig biz an den dot.
Nu sollent ir beden vnd wachen,
wollent ir dem diuel widersachen. (ll. 691a-95)
This incipit matches a mode 8 Maundy Thursday responsory:

Tristis est anima mea usque ad mortem. Sustinete hic et vigilate mecum. Nunc
videbitis turbam quae circumdabit me. Vos fugiam capietis et ego vadam immo-
lari pro vobis.
89
V. Vigilate et orate, dicit Dominus. Nunc videbitis turbam
Bergmann does not mention this chant. Schuler groups all the instan-
ces of this incipit under the responsory; Pflanz assumes that this is the
St Gall Passion Play chant, and this is also Mehler s conclusion.90 For
once, however, there are good reasons to believe that the responsory
may not have been used in this instance.
First there is the evidence of the play itself. The direction does not
specify any kind of liturgical chant. The dicat cantando direction is
89
Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 7780. Mainz: see Hermann Reifenberg, Stun-
dengebet und Breviere im Bistum Mainz seit der romanischen Epoche, Münster,
1964 (Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen, 40), p. 120, note 787
(2nd responsory, Maundy Thursday); Worms breviary, British Library, MS add.
19415, fol. 261v; Speyer psalter and breviary, Speyer, Gymnasialbibliothek, A.D.3,
fol. 103vb; cf. Liber usualis, p. 630. The similarly worded antiphon 5187 is not
found in Mainz, Worms or Speyer.
90
Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 613; Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, pp.
24-25, 82-84; Mehler, Dicere und cantare , pp. 192-94.
258
the only instance of this verb in the play, making firm conclusions
about its meaning impossible. It is plausible, however, that it signifed
a kind of chant less elaborate than a responsory, for which cantare is
unambiguously the standard play s verb.91 Pflanz s argument that lines
694-695 reflect the Vigilate et orate of the responsory verse is
open both to the general critique of this argumentation, and to the spe-
cific objection that wollent ir dem diuel widersachen does not corre-
spond closely to the Latin of the verse.92
Then there are the eleven other plays with the same incipit.93 In one
where it is a choral item, it presumably will have been the respon-
sory.94 But in the rest, where Jesus sings the chant, the evidence points
very distinctly towards the use of the Passion tone. Of the four plays
with notation, three use a reciting tone.95 In nearly all the others, the
abbreviated wording could be either liturgical or biblical (Matthew
91
Cantare direction in all St Gall Passion Play chants which are definitely or
probably responsories: 8, Ecce agnus Dei ; 14, Ductus est Iesus in desertum ; 17,
Angelis suis mandavit ; 48, Colligerunt ; 63, Una hora ; 71, Ingressus Pylatus ;
84, In manus tuas ; 87, Ecce quomodo moritur iustus ; and in the responsory
verses: 33, Dimissa sunt ; 36, Fides etenim . See also Chapter IV.
92
93
In Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern: Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 3307a-c; (Großes)
Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, l. 185; Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, B, ll. 559a-c;
Egerer Passionsspiel, ll. 4227b, 4243b, 4251b; Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll.
3756a-d; Sterzinger Passionsspiel 1496/1503, ll. 756b-d; Sterzinger Passionsspiel
der Mischhandschrift, ll. 1197b-c. Not in Schuler: Admonter Passionsspiel, ll.
349a-50; Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 582; Bozner Abendmahlspiel, ll. 813b-14; Bozner
Passionsspiel 1495, A, ll. 559a-c; Bozner Passionsspiel 1514, 1. Teil, MS, fol. 17;
Tiroler Passionsspiel, ll. 701g-i. Schuler (no. 613) lists Frankfurter Dirigierrolle,
153; but this prescribes only the incipit Sustinete h[ic et] o[rate] , and may not
have included Tristis est ; Wolf, Kommentar, p. 171 and note 344 is indecisive.
94
Bozner Passionsspiel 1514, 1. Teil, MS, fol. 17; yet in the earlier Bozen tradition
Jesus sang this chant: Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, A, ll. 559a-c; B, ll. 559a-c.
95
Admonter Passionsspiel; Egerer Passionsspiel, transcribed in Dreimüller, Musik
des Alsfelder Passionsspiels , vol. II, p. 151 and Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern,
vol. II, p. 335 (in both plays stops at mortem ); Tiroler Passionsspiel (with dis-
tinctively biblical wording, Matthew 26:38, 41). Line numbers as in note 93.
259
26:38, Mark 14:34), but nothing in wording or directions positively

prescribes the responsory. The dicat direction in several plays sug-
gests biblical text, and the cantat in the late Alsfelder Passionsspiel
can denote recitative.96 Dreimüller s reconstruction of Alsfeld here is
uncharacteristically vague and non-committal; as Mehler recognizes,
the play could have used either the responsory or biblical text.97
So far, this reasonably large and varied corpus offers no explicit
signs that the responsory melody was used, and a good many implicit
ones that it was not. There remains the (Großes) Benediktbeurer Pas-
sionsspiel, which Mehler cites as possible evidence for the use of the
responsory in St Gall.98 But Benediktbeuern is a very problematical
case. Its dicere direction is hardly ever associated with responsories,
either in this or in any other play.99 The wording, Tristis est anima
mea usque ad mortem. Sustine [sic] hic et orate ne intretis in tempta-
tionem , is not precisely that of the responsory. It could be part of the
refrain ( Sustinete hic et vigilate mecum ) conflated with the verse in
certain local uses: Vigilate et orate, dicit Dominus, ut non intretis in
tentationem ;100 but it is more probably biblical (Matthew 26:38,
26:41 or Mark 14:34, 14:38). The chant carries the responsory
neumes, but only as far as Sustine , after which they stop completely.
Whilst this manuscript evidence is extremely hard to interpret, it
almost certainly does not mean that the chant was performed in a hy-
brid form, beginning with the responsory melody and continuing with
96
Dicat : Bozner Abendmahlspiel; Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, A, B; Heidelberger
Passionsspiel; Sterzinger Passionsspiel 1496/1503. Line numbers as in note 93.
Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 3307a-c; Mehler, Dicere und cantare , pp. 208-09.
97
Dreimüller, Musik des Alsfelder Passionsspiels , vol. II, pp. 50-51, 151; Mehler,
Dicere und cantare , pp. 211-12.
98
(Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 108v, l. 185; Mehler, Dicere
und cantare , pp. 160, 169, 193.
99
Ibid., pp. 150-75, esp. 169 and 175, and 193.
100
Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, vol. IV, p. 437. However Binkley, The Greater
Passion Play from Carmina Burana , pp. 149-50, is over-optimistic in thinking this
might be a distinctive local variant which could help to localize the play.
260
a reciting-tone; for if the performer was capable of singing the diffi-

cult responsory, why abandon it halfway through? And even if this
had been done, the responsory melody would have had to end on the
finalis G on mortem , not in mid-phrase on sustine . Binkley ingen-
iously suggests that Sustine[te] hic et orate may have been erro-
neously copied from the verse of a different responsory, adjacent in an
antiphonal.101 But just as plausibly the dicat direction, the non-
liturgical wording and the strangely truncated neumation could indi-
cate that a responsory had not originally been intended here, and that
scribal error was involved. This would fit well with Bischoff s thesis
that this part of the Carmina Burana manuscript was written not by a
monk but in a non-monastic milieu, possibly at an ecclesiastical digni-
tary s court, where there was not the same intimate familiarity with lit-
urgical chant.102 In this situation a scribe could very well have been
misled by the incipit and begun entering the responsory neumes, real-
izing his mistake only at Sustine , where the wording diverged from
that of the liturgical text; then he might simply have stopped writing in
the neumes, without however deleting or altering what he had already
entered. This scenario is given added credibility by a striking parallel
later in the same play: the chant Tamquam ad latronem , which fol-
lows biblical, not liturgical wording, begins with responsory neumes
but continues with a simple syllabic setting.
And so the one piece of prima facie evidence for the use of the re-
sponsory Tristis est in German drama emerges as problematical and
ambiguous. The St Gall Passion Play may very well have used a Pas-
sion tone setting here rather than the responsory. There is no way of
knowing whether it was from Matthew or Mark, or whether it stopped
101
Binkley, The Greater Passion Play from Carmina Burana , p. 149, suggests In
monte Oliveti or Una hora .
102
Otto Schumann & Bernhard Bischoff (eds.), Carmina Burana: Mit Benutzung der
Vorarbeiten Wilhelm Meyers kritisch herausgegeben von Alfons Hilka und Otto
Schumann, vol. I,3: Die Trink- und Spielerlieder. Die geistlichen Dramen. Nach-
träge, Heidelberg, 1970, p. 15.
261
at mortem as in Admont and Eger, or continued to the end of the sec-

tion traditional in the Passion tone setting:103
This also casts doubt on the deduction of Mehler on the basis of

this chant, that the performance-verb dicere cantando in the St Gall
Passion Play denotes complex melodic chant such as responsories.104
On the contrary, the term may more plausibly refer to recitative.
Jesus goes off alone to pray to the Father to be relieved of the cup of
suffering:
62, 64
[62] Iterum Iesus cantet Pater, si possibile est,
transeat et dicat:
Herre, vatter vnd Got,
ist ez nit wider din gebot,
so vberhebe mich dirre pin.
103
[i]: Matthew 26:38a, Passion tone; based on Officium majoris hebdomadæ, p. 89.
[ii]: Matthew 26:38, Passion tone; cf. Officium majoris hebdomadæ, p. 89. [iii]:
Mark 14:34, Passion tone; cf. Officium majoris hebdomadæ, p. 205. Cf. also the
plays in note 95.
104
262
Yedoch irge der wille din.

Des wil ich gehorsam sin. (ll. 695a-700)
[ ]
[64] Deinde vadat ad priorem locum orans: Et pater et cetera
et dicat ut prius Herre, vatter et cetera. (ll. 708a-b)
This chant is sung twice, with different performance-verbs in each di-

rection: cantare the first time, orare the second. The et before pa-
ter in the second direction (l. 708a) is presumably a scribal error.105
Bergmann does not deal with this item. Schuler s presentation of
the plays which use a similar chant is particularly confused. In no. 298
he subsumes all his eleven instances under the Maundy Thursday re-
sponsory In monte Oliveti (Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no.
6916); but he lists certain plays again under no. 461 (Matthew 26:39)
and/or no. 462 (Matthew 26:42).106 For the St Gall Passion Play, he
records the two occurrences of what is clearly the same chant under
both 298 and 462.
A detailed critique of Schuler s listings is impossible here, but the
facts can be summarized thus: Whilst In monte Oliveti is sung in
several plays, it is the source of Jesus s plea to the Father only in
three: Admont and the (Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, which
have the responsory music; and Alsfeld, which like them has the dis-
tinctive responsory wording Pater, si fieri potest, transeat a me calix
iste ,107 not found in the Vulgate. In all the other plays, whether or not
105
The direction perhaps originally read vadat ad priorem locum et orat Pater
et cetera : cf. Alsfelder Passionsspiel, l. 3227a; Frankfurter Passionsspiel, l.
2227a; Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, A, l. 563a.
106
E.g. in Frankfurter Passionsspiel, ll. 2215a-d (Matthew 26:39) is listed under no.
298 ( In monte Oliveti ); ll. 2227a-b (Matthew 26:42) is listed under no. 461
(Matthew 26:39); ll. 2231a-c (Matthew 26:42, repeated) is listed under no. 462
(Matthew 26:42).
107
Admonter Passionsspiel, ll. 356a-60; (Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, ll.
186, 188; cf. Binkley, The Greater Passion Play from Carmina Burana , pp. 150,
155; Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 3311a-c ( orat cantando ), 3327a-b ( cantat ),
3335a-b ( cantat ); cf. Dreimüller, Musik des Alsfelder Passionsspiels , vol. II, p.
263
they use the responsory elsewhere, it is not the source of the prayer,
which has the slightly different biblical wordings. In the Frankfurter
Dirigierrolle, for instance, a choral performance of In monte Oliveti
covers the movement to the Mount of Olives;108 but Jesus s prayer be-
gins Abba pater (Mark 14:36).109 Several plays use Matthew 26:42:
Pater mi, si non potest hic calix transire nisi bibam illum, fiat volun-
tas tua ; one, the Tiroler Passionsspiel, explicitly prescribes the Pas-
sion tone.110 But the most common source is Matthew 26:39: Pater
mi, si possibile est, transeat a me calix iste. Verumtamen non sicut ego
volo, sed sicut tu. 111 There are minor differences in the amount of the
verse sung in different plays; several change the biblical Pater mi, si
to Mi pater, si or to Pater, si , the form used in St Gall.112
In all these cases, even though notation is lacking, Vulgate, not li-
turgical text, frequently combined with orare or dicere directions,
51; Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 583, 587, 592 (performance-verbs as in Alsfelder Pas-

sionsspiel).
108
Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 153. Janota s (implicit) interpretation (see Janota [ed.],
Hessische Passionsspielgruppe, vol. I, p. 44) of the marginal direction p(er)s(o-
ne) cantabu(n)t in monte as a local reference ( on the mountain ), rather than as
the incipit of In monte Oliveti (accepted by Wolf, Kommentar, p. 171), is proba-
bly mistaken.
109
Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 157; Abba vater also in Haller Passion, l. 673.
110
Bozner Abendmahlspiel, ll. 845a-46; Frankfurter Passionsspiel, ll. 2227a-b, 2231
a-c; Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll. 3774a-c; Tiroler Passionsspiel, ll. 705a-d.
111
Bozner Abendmahlspiel, ll. 818a-21 (wording of Matthew 26:42 used for the re-
peat, ll. 845a-46); Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, A, ll. 563a-c, 575a-b, 585a; B, ll.
563a-c, 575a-b, 585a; Bozner Passionsspiel 1514, 1. Teil, MS, fol. 17v (addition);
Frankfurter Passionsspiel, l. 2215a-d; Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll. 3760a-d;
Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel, ll. 563a-c, 575a-b, 587a-b; Rabers Passion, ll. 110d-
f; Sterzinger Passionsspiel 1496/1503, ll. 760a-c, 772a-b, 784a; Sterzinger Pas-
sionsspiel der Mischhandschrift (Maundy Thursday), ll. 1201a-c.
112
Mi pater, si in: Bozner Abendmahlspiel, Heidelberger Passionsspiel, Bozner
Passionsspiel 1495, A and B, Bozner Passionsspiel 1514, 1. Teil, Pfarrkirchers
Passionsspiel, Sterzinger Passionsspiel 1496/1503, Sterzinger Passionsspiel der
Mischhandschrift. Pater, si in Frankfurter Passionsspiel. Line numbers as in
note 111.
264
virtually guarantees the use of biblical recitative. The biblical wording

in the St Gall Passion Play strongly suggests the same. Its cantet di-
rection is thus unexpected; but this is surely a case where the clearly
biblical wording found in no liturgical chant is stronger evidence
than the individual performance verb. This is one of the very few in-
stances in the play where a cantare direction demonstrably intro-
duces biblical material.113,114
Pflanz is indecisive.115 He is correct in assuming that the chant is

biblical (but he does not consider In monte Oliveti ). However, un-
aware that the incipits Pater, si and Mi pater, si are common
variants of the biblical Pater mi, si in the dramatic repertoire, he
seems to suggest as an alternative a Palm Sunday communio, which he
cites from the modern Roman use, as a better match for the play s in-
cipit Pater, si .116 This communio, however, follows the wording
of Matthew 26:42 ( Pater, si non potest hic calix transire ), which
is clearly not the verse intended in this play. From his list of changes
to Hartl s reconstructions Pflanz appears finally to opt for Matthew
26:39 without the biblical mi , arriving by default at what is probably
113
See Chapter IV, note 37.
114
Matthew 26:39, Passion tone, based on Officium majoris hebdomadæ, p. 90, and
the setting of Matthew 26:42 in Tiroler Passionsspiel, ll. 705a-d.
115
116
Ibid., p. 140. Cf. Liber usualis, p. 601. This communio seems to be used for the
repeat of the prayer in (Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, l. 190; cf. Binkley,
The Greater Passion Play from Carmina Burana , p. 150.
265
the right wording.117 He does not, of course, consider musical form at

all.
Returning to the disciples, who have fallen asleep, Jesus reproaches

them:
63
Tunc veniat ad discipulos et inveniat eos dormientes.
Cantet Una hora et dicat:
Mohtent ir nit wachen eine stunt
bit mir? Nu sprach doch vwer munt,
ir wollent liden dorch mich not,
ob ez wer der grimme dot.
Nu slafent ir vil suze.
So hat Iudas vnmuze,
wie er mich gebe der Iudesheit.
Nu slafent. Mir nahet min arbeit. (ll. 700a-08)
This is sung between the two instances of the chant Mi pater (nos. 62
and 64).
Whilst the direction specifies no kind of liturgical chant, the incipit
Una hora corresponds, as Pflanz notes,118 to neither biblical version
of Jesus s reproach: Sic non potuistis una hora vigilare mecum?
(Matthew 26:40); Simon, dormis? Non potuisti una hora vigilare?
(Mark 14:37), but to the Maundy Thursday responsory Una hora .119
In identifying the responsory, Pflanz agrees with Schuler and Mehler.
Bergmann is probably wrong to see the item as biblical (Matthew
26:40).120
117
Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, p. 169. Mehler, Dicere und cantare , p.
196, note 244, agrees.
118
119
120
See Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 619; Mehler, Dicere und cantare , p.
195; Bergmann, Studien, p. 92 and note 778.
266
That Schuler makes this responsory his Leittext is misleading: most

of the plays he lists do not include the responsory incipit, and in fact
use biblical text.121 The incipit Una hora is found in only two other
plays: the (Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, with the responsory
neumes, and the Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, with the distinctively litur-
gical wording.122 It is notable that both are relatively early; later plays,
even in the Hessian tradition, do not use the responsory, but biblical
wording.123 The use of Una hora in the St Gall Passion Play may be
a feature which demonstrates the play s connections with the early
Frankfurt tradition.
The responsory is associated with two different verses:
Dormite jam et requiescite. Ecce appropinqua[bi]t qui me traditurus est [in
manus peccatorum].
Quid dormitis? Surgite et orate, ne intretis in tentationem.124
The first of these is that found in the Mainz, Worms and Speyer tradi-
tions.125 However, this long responsory may well have been performed
121
Alsfelder Passionsspiel, l. 3319c (Mark 14:37); cf. Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 585;
(Kleines) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, l. 11 (Matthew 26:46); Egerer Passions-
spiel, ll. 4215a-b (John 14:31); 4239a-d (Matthew 26:40-41); 4325a-d (Matthew
26:46); Frankfurter Passionsspiel, l. 2223c (Matthew 26:40). Cf. Heidelberger
Passionsspiel, ll. 3766a-f (Mark 14:37); Tiroler Passionsspiel, ll. 719a-d (melody,
MS, fol. 15, not transcribed by Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern. In fact, he de-
scribes this item as biblical recitative: see vol. I, p. 35, note 36).
122
(Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, l. 191; cf. Binkley, The Greater Passion
Play from Carmina Burana , pp. 150, 155. Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 158; Janota
(ed.), Hessische Passionsspielgruppe, vol. I, pp. 18, 45, expands the manuscript s
po to potestis , found in neither scriptural nor liturgical text. Wolf, Kommentar,
p. 176 and note 359, considers the responsory, but does not see that the incipit
guarantees that it is the chant intended; he does not comment on Janota s reading.
123
Alsfelder Passionsspiel, cf. Alsfelder Dirigierrolle; Egerer Passionsspiel, Frank-
furter Passionsspiel; Heidelberger Passionsspiel; Tiroler Passionsspiel. Line
numbers as in note 122.
124
Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 7807 (vol. IV, p. 444). Variants of the second
form include Qui dormitis, surgite and ut non intretis in tentationem .
267
in drama without its verse.126 Its melody is relatively stable, as is its

mode (predominantly 7), as in Mainz and Speyer sources:
127
125
Mainz antiphonal, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 48, fol. 152r-v; Mainz breviaries: Frankfurt,
Barth. 150, fol. 229; Barth. 154, fol. 126; Barth. 160, fols. 366v-67; other Mainz
sources in Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, p. 85, note 1; Worms breviary,
British Library, MS add. 19415, fol. 262v; printed Worms breviary, 1490 (Ge-
samtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no. 5515), sig. dd6vb; printed Speyer breviary,
1491 (Ibid., no. 5465), sig. l 2r; Orarium Spirense (pars hiemalis), sig. cc8va (in all
cases 6th responsory of matins, Maundy Thursday).
126
(Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 109, l. 191, sets only the refrain
to the responsory neumes; additional wording is biblical (Matthew 26:46) under
recitative neumes. Cf. Mehler, Dicere und cantare , pp. 161, 195; Binkley,
The Greater Passion Play from Carmina Burana , p. 149.
127
48, fol. 152r-v. Mode 7 in Lucca Antiphonal (Paléographie musicale, vol. IX, fac-
268
Judas tells the armed guards with him that he will identify Jesus with a
kiss:
65
Tunc Iudas ad choortem sibi traditam cantet Quem
osculatus fuero et cetera et dicat:
Nu horent mich, ir stolzen knaben,
den [ich] kussen, den sullent ir haben.
Vnd vurent in sicherliche,
daz er vch it intwiche. (ll. 708c-12)
In line 708c, choortem is the manuscript reading.

Bergmann does not deal with this chant; Pflanz128 suggests that it is
the second section of Traditor autem , the mode 1 Benedictus anti-
phon at Maundy Thursday lauds:129
simile pp. 192-93); Worcester Antiphonal (Paléographie musicale, vol. XII, fac-
simile p. 119); Liber usualis, p. 645; thirty-eight out of the forty-one CANTUS
sources whose modality is known (two sources with unknown modality). Mode 1:
Schlager (ed.), Antiphonale Pataviense, fol. 43.
128
129
48, fol. 154. Also in Mainz breviaries: Frankfurt, Barth. 150, fol. 230; Barth. 160,
fol. 368; cf. other Mainz sources cited in Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, p.
86, note 1; Worms breviaries: British Library, MS add. 19415, fol. 63v; Worms,
Stadtbibliothek, Lu 3a, fol. 4; Speyer psalter and breviary, Speyer, Gymnasial-
bibliothek, A.D.3, fol. 104vb; printed Speyer breviary, 1491 (Gesamtkatalog der
Wiegendrucke, no. 5465), sig. l 2v; Orarium Spirense (pars hiemalis), sig. dd1vb;
Schlager (ed.), Antiphonale Pataviense, fols. 44v-45. Usually Benedictus antiphon,
Maundy Thursday.
269
This is also the chant which Schuler130 assumes for all the German
plays; but his list is particularly error-ridden and unreliable.131 Closer
inspection suggests the consistent use of Vulgate text for this chant.
The relevant verses are Mark 14:44: Dederat autem traditor eius sig-
num eis, dicens: Quemcumque osculatus fuero, ipse est, tenete eum et
ducite caute , and the shorter version in Matthew 26:48: Qui autem
tradidit eum dedit illis signum, dicens: Quemcumque osculatus fuero,
ipse est; tenete eum. The latter is in fact identical in wording with the
antiphon, with the sole exception of quemcumque rather than
quem .
In the dramatic repertoire, the chant regularly begins with the Vul-
gate Quemcumque , rather than the liturgical Quem . Insofar as in-
cipits can show, the verse from Matthew is more frequent. Mark 14:44
is definitely found only in the Tiroler Passionsspiel;132 several plays
have incipits too short to distinguish between Matthew 26:48 and
Mark 14:44;133 some definitely or probably use the version from Mat-
thew.134 The four with music use the Passion tone:135
130
131
Ibid., vol. I, pp. 280-81. E.g. (Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel wording
wrongly transcribed; first word in Heidelberger Passionsspiel given as Quem ,
not Quemcumque ; several incipits not given at all.
132
Tiroler Passionsspiel, ll. 779a-b, with notation.
133
Bozner Abendmahlspiel, ll. 901a-02; Bozner Passionsspiel 1514, 1. Teil, MS, fol.
18v (but cf. Bozner Passionsspiel 1495: see note 134); Frankfurter Passionsspiel,
ll. 2292a-b; Haller Passion, l. 744a; Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll. 3796b-d (in-
cipit only to ipse est , but reconstructed by Gustav Milchsack (ed.), Heidelberger
Passionsspiel, Tübingen, 1880 (Bibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins Stuttgart,
150) as Mark 14:44); Rabers Passion, ll. 102a-b; Sterzinger Passionsspiel der
Mischhandschrift, ll. 1297a-b.
134
Admonter Passionsspiel, ll. 403a-04; (Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, l.
183; Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, B, ll. 615a-d, see Traub, Kommentar, pp. 94-95;
(cf. A, ll. 615a-b, without music); Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel, ll. 617a-b; Sterz-
inger Passionsspiel 1496/1503, ll. 814b-c; Tiroler Passionsspiel, ll. 779a-b.
270
However, it is noteworthy that the two exceptions to the general use of

Vulgate text are in the Hessian group. Both Heidelberg and the Frank-
furter Passionsspiel have biblical text; but Traditor autem is used in
both the Frankfurter Dirigierrolle (sung by the chorus, not, as in the
rest of the group, by Judas) and Alsfeld.136
Two details in the St Gall Passion Play seem to indicate liturgical
origin: the cantet direction and the initial quem rather than quem-
cumque . Neither is absolutely conclusive. Cantet introduces a reci-
tative setting not only in several late plays, but also in the early
(Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, and in several other items in
135
Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, B, ll. 615a-d; cf. Admonter Passionsspiel, ll. 403a-04;
(Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, l. 183; Tiroler Passionsspiel, ll. 779a-b.
Cf. similar, simpler setting in Officium majoris hebdomadæ, p. 91.
136
Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 156a; cf. Wolf, Kommentar, p. 173. Alsfelder Pas-
sionsspiel, MS, fol. 37, ll. 3235a-b. The first word is represented by a non-
standard abbreviation, which does however seem to be an ornamented abbre-
viation of quem , not of quemcumque : cf. quem in Adriano Cappelli, Lexicon
Abbreviaturarum: Dizionario di abbreviature latine ed italiane [ ], Milano,
1929, p. 303, and Auguste Pelzer, Abréviations latines médiévales: Supplément au
Dizionario di abbreviature latine ed italiane de Adriano Cappelli, Bruxelles, 1966
[rpt. 1982], p. 67; and quemcumque in Cappelli, Lexicon, pp. 303, 306. Both
Richard Froning (ed.), Das Drama des Mittelalters, 3 vols., Stuttgart, 1891-92
[rpt. Darmstadt, 1964] (Deutsche National-Litteratur, 14:1-3), vol. III, p. 685, and
Janota (ed.), Hessische Passionsspielgruppe, vol. II, p. 479, read quem ; neither
comments on the manuscript reading. Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 566, which closely
parallels the play here, definitely reads quem . Dreimüller, Musik des Alsfelder
Passionsspiels , vol. II, p. 49, assumes the antiphon, but gives no rationale. The
dicit direction applies to antiphons in Alsfeld: cf. Mehler, Dicere und can-
tare , pp. 208-09.
271
the St Gall Passion Play itself.137 The biblical verses and the antiphon
are verbally nearly identical, and the St Gall copyist could easily have
miscopied an abbreviated quemcumque in his original, or have been
influenced by the memory of the antiphon, as may have been the case
with a similar minor difference in chant, 57, Si non lavero tibi (see
Chapter V). The opposite mistake the biblical quemcumque in the
antiphon occurs in some liturgical manuscripts.138
Interestingly, the German dialogue (ll. 709-12) contains a fairly
close translation not of the antiphon or of Matthew 26:48, but of Mark
14:44, Quemcumque osculatus fuero, ipse est, tenete eum et ducite
caute :
den [ich] kussen, den sullent ir haben.
Vnd vurent in sicherliche (ll. 710-11; emphasis supplied)
Pflanz ignores this, even though he usually uses the German dialogue
as strong evidence for he preceding Latin chant. In this case, however,
the Marcan wording in the German has little evidential value for the
preceding Latin, for a German couplet translating the Marcan ducite
caute is routinely found in plays, even those which demonstrably use
a chant based on the verse in Matthew.139
To sum up: the German dramatic tradition, including the early
(Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, strongly favours biblical reci-
137
Haller Passion, l. 744a. Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, B, Admonter Passionsspiel,
Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel, Sterzinger Passionsspiel 1496/1503, Tiroler Pas-
sionsspiel, (Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel (line numbers as in note 136);
St Gall Passion Play, 6, Quis es ; 62, Pater, si possibile est, transeat ; 79, Re-
gem non habemus . See Chapter IV.
138
E.g. fourteenth-century Cologne Dominican breviary, Cologne, Historisches Stad-
tarchiv, W.f. 104, fol. 121, and the fourteenth-century Trier breviary, Trier,
Stadtbibliothek, Ms. 469/1904, fol. 139r, cited in Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundla-
gen, p. 86, note 1.
139
Admonter Passionsspiel, ll. 409-10; Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, A, ll. 620-21; B,
ll. 620-21; Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel, ll. 622-623; Sterzinger Passionsspiel
1496/1503, ll. 819-820.
272
tative (Matthew 26:48 or Mark 14:44), but the internal evidence in the
St Gall Passion Play may well suggest the use of Traditor autem ,
and the antiphon was certainly used in Hessia. Melodically, this makes
only a small difference, since the antiphon melody in many medieval
German sources is less elaborate than the modern Roman form.140
Going up to Jesus, Judas greets him reverently:

66
Et Iudas veniat ad Christum Ave, ave, rabbi :
Meister vnd herre, Got gruze dich.
But mir dinen munt, vnd kusse mich. (ll. 712a-14)
Bergmann does not deal with this item. Pflanz is probably right in as-
suming that the three words in the manuscript represent the whole
text.141 Since he does not refer to any liturgical source, he presumably
interprets this as part of Matthew 26:49 or Mark 14: 45, sung to a
tone. This conclusion, shared by Schuler and Mehler is almost cer-
tainly correct.142 The direction has no performance verb; no liturgical
chant includes the words. Nowhere does the dramatic tradition suggest
any other treatment. Some plays notate or prescribe a tone.143 The di-
rection for this chant varies considerably, with dicere , cantare ,
140
E.g. Frankfurt, lat. qu. 48, fol. 154 and Speyer, Gymnasialbibliothek, A.D.3, fol.
104vb (similar in Schlager [ed.], Antiphonale Pataviense, fols. 44v-45r): the
neumes of tenete eum (D-F-FE D-D) are even simpler than the modern form
(Liber usualis, p. 652).
141
142
Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 36(a), and Mehler, Dicere und cantare ,
p. 194.
143
Notation in: Admonter Passionsspiel, ll. 427a-28; (Großes) Benediktbeurer Pas-
sionsspiel, l. 199; Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, B, ll. 627d-e; Egerer Passionsspiel,
l. 4329b; Tiroler Passionsspiel, ll. 807c-d. Direction in: Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll.
3383a-c; Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 611 (both dicit sub accentu ).
273
clamare and verbless forms all represented;144 but plays with nota-
tion always have a recitative setting, regardless of verb.145
Noteworthy is the St Gall Passion Play s twofold Ave , found
elsewhere only in Heidelberg, and there in spoken dialogue, after the
actual chant Aue, rabbj : Ave is repeated for metrical reasons:
Aue, aue, rabbj!
Gegrussett alzeytt mein meister sey!146
In a sung form, however, the double ave could have an unbalancing

effect on the extremely simple melodic structures typically found. The
doubling of ave in the St Gall Passion Play manuscript may indeed
be a scribal error. A likely form for this chant is:147
144
Dicere : (Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, l. 199; Bozner Abendmahlspiel,
l. 941c; Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 165; Frankfurter Passionsspiel, ll. 2350a-b;
Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll. 3838a-b; Künzelsauer Fronleichnamsspiel, ll.
3263a-c; Tiroler Passionsspiel, ll. 807c-d. Dicere sub accentu : Alsfelder Pas-
sionsspiel, ll. 3383a-b; Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 611. Cantare : Admonter Pas-
sionsspiel, MS, fol. 33v, ll. 427a-28; Haller Passion, ll. 750f-g; Rabers Passion, ll.
142a-b; Sterzinger Passionsspiel der Mischhandschrift, ll. 1325a-b. Clamare :
(Kleines) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, l. 12; Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, A, ll.
627d-e; B, ll. 627d-e; Egerer Passionsspiel, l. 4329b; Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel,
ll. 629c-d; Sterzinger Passionsspiel 1496/1503, ll. 826c-d. Verbless: Bozner
Abendmahlspiel, ll. 941a-b.
145
Dicere : (Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, Tiroler Passionsspiel. Cantare :
Admonter Passionsspiel. Clamare : Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, B, Egerer Pas-
sionsspiel. Line numbers as in note 145.
146
Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll. 3839-40.
147
Matthew 26:49 / Mark 14:45, Passion tone. Based on Officium majoris hebdo-
madæ, pp. 92, 207, in the light of Admonter Passionsspiel, Bozner Passionsspiel
1495, B, Egerer Passionsspiel, Tiroler Passionsspiel (line numbers as in note
145).
274
The disciples now run off, leaving Jesus to reproach the soldiers for
arresting him like a criminal:
67
Tunc discipuli fugiunt
Et Iesus cantet Tamquam ad latronem :
Ir komment zu mir gewapent sere,
rehte als ich ein morder wer.
Doch brediget ich vch vffenbere
in dem tempel mange lere. (ll. 752a-56)
Though the direction does not explicitly designate this as liturgical,

Pflanz148 assumes that it was the Good Friday responsory Tamquam
ad latronem ;149 this agrees with Schuler;150 Bergmann does not deal
with this chant. However, as with Tristis est anima mea (no. 61
above), the assumption is open to question.
The wording of the responsory is based on Mark 14:48-49 (cf.
Matthew 26:55), though it is not identical with either verse. In the
modern Roman use, the refrain reads:
Tamquam ad latronem existis cum gladiis et fustibus comprehendere me:
Quotidie apud vos eram in templo docens, et non me tenuistis: et ecce flagel-
latum ducitis ad crucifigendam.151
However, in the medieval period, the chant is nearly always found in a

shorter form, reading ... existis cum gladiis comprehendere me ... ,
without the et fustibus of Matthew 26:55. The difference is highly
significant. The two forms are not simply common variants: the short-
er one dominates everywhere,152 not only in the German-speaking area
148
Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, p. 25, pp. 87-89.
149
150
151
Liber usualis, pp. 679-80 (4th responsory of matins, Good Friday). This is the
only wording given in Marbach, Carmina scripturarum, p. 410.
152
Shorter form cited as standard in Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 7748 (vol.
IV, p. 429): longer form found in only one of Hesbert s twelve manuscripts: the
275
but throughout Europe, even in the distinctive English local uses of

Sarum and York.153 Exceptions are found in the pre-Tridentine Roman
use and occasionally in other dioceses.154 Given that the responsory
set the last syllable of gladiis to a long melisma, which could have
accommodated the addition of et fustibus , the conservatism of the
tradition is remarkable. Only the post-Tridentine Romanization of the
liturgy brought the longer wording into the European local uses; the
shorter wording is consistently found in the medieval liturgy of
Mainz, Worms and Speyer.155 Pflanz however fails to realize that the
twelfth-century monastic antiphonal of St-Maur-les-Fossés, Paris, Bibliothèque

Nationale, fonds lat., 12584.
153
E.g. Gottschalk Antiphonal, Yale, Beinecke Library, MS 481.51, fol. 11; Lucca
Antiphonal (Paléographie musicale, vol. IX, facsimile, p. 196); Schlager (ed.),
Antiphonale Pataviense, fol. 47r-v; printed Coutances breviary, Rouen, 1499
(Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no. 5327), sig. Ovra-b; printed Dominican bre-
viary, Basel, 1492 (Ibid., no. 5224), sig. o iijva; Essômes: Breviarii [ ] prima
pars [ ] ad vsum insignis ecclesie Sosmensis, Paris, 1548, sig. Uviiira; anti-
phonal, Mariengarten (near Göttingen): Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek,
Cod. Guelf. 309 Novi, fol. 63; Reims: Breuiarium secundum ecclesie Remensis,
pars hyemalis, Paris, 1543, sig. o viiivb; printed Utrecht breviary, Paris, 1498
(Ibid., no. 5491), sig. L6v; Sarum: Portiforium seu Breuiarium, ad insignis Saris-
buriensis, ecclesie vsum, London, 1556, sig. Lviiiva; York: Breviarium ad usum
insignis ecclesie Eboracensis (S.W. Lawley [ed.], Breviarium ad usum insignis
ecclesie Eboracensis, 2 vols., Durham [etc.], 1880-83 (Publications of the Surtees
Society, 71 & 75), vol. I, col. 391).
154
E.g. Breviarium Romanum optime recognitum [ ], Venice, 1564, sig. Xviivb;
printed Rouen breviary, 1480 (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no. 5437), sig.
Gxiiva.
155
Mainz antiphonal, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 48, fols. 156v-57; Mainz breviaries: Frank-
furt, Barth. 150, fol. 231v; Barth. 154, fol. 128r-v; Barth. 160, fol. 369v; Barth. 161,
fol. 356v; other Mainz sources cited by Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, p. 89,
note 1; printed Mainz breviary, 1474 (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no.
5392), sig. m iiiv; Worms breviary, British Library, MS add. 19415, fol. 264v;
printed Worms breviaries: 1475 (Ibid., no. 5513), fol. 289v; c. 1490 (Ibid., no.
5515), sig. ee1rb; Speyer psalter and breviary, Speyer, Gymnasialbibliothek,
A.D.3, fol. 105va; printed Speyer breviary, 1491 (Ibid., no. 5465), sig. l iiiv. Un-
typically, Orarium Spirense (pars hiemalis), sig. dd3ra, has the longer form.
276
shorter form was standard in Mainz, and that the two Mainz books
with the longer form are untypical of the medieval diocesan liturgy.156
A chant with this incipit is found in seven other plays, a not in-
significantly small corpus; and with remarkable consistency they show
the longer wording typical of the biblical, not the liturgical text.157 The
directions also point away from the responsory. Cantare is found in
late plays, which tend to use the term for recitative as well as for the
melodically more complex chants; the dicere direction in several
other late plays almost certainly denotes a tone, not something as elab-
orate as a responsory.158 The sole example of an early play with a
cantat direction is the St Gall Passion Play itself; and as other exam-
ples have shown, cantare directions in this play need not invariably
indicate liturgical melodies.159
Consistent with this is the evidence of the four plays with notation:
three set the biblical words to a tone.160 The sole apparent exception is
also the earliest play to contain the chant, the (Großes) Benediktbeurer
Passionsspiel. It has the long, biblical wording; it has a dicat direc-
tion which in this play usually denotes accentus material or simple
156
Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, p. 89, note 1: fourteenth-century Carthusian
breviary, Mainz, Stadtbibliothek, Hs. I 438, fol. 82; Breviarium Moguntinum,
1570, p. 350; cf. Reifenberg, Stundengebet, pp. 20-21, 225-52.
157
In Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 597: (Großes) Benediktbeurer Passions-
spiel, ll. 204a-05; Egerer Passionsspiel, ll. 4373b-e; Frankfurter Passionsspiel, ll.
2403c-d; Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll. 3870b-e. Not in Schuler: Admonter Pas-
sionsspiel, ll. 450a-52; Bozner Abendmahlspiel, ll. 952a-53 (ends at cum
gladys ); Tiroler Passionsspiel, ll. 839a-e.
158
Cantare : Admonter Passionsspiel; Egerer Passionsspiel; Tiroler Passionsspiel.
Mehler, Dicere und cantare , pp. 209-10. Dicere : Heidelberger Passions-
spiel, Frankfurter Passionsspiel (cf. Mehler, Dicere und cantare , pp. 198-
200, 203); Bozner Abendmahlspiel. All line numbers as in note 159.
159
6, Quis es ; 62, Pater, si possibile est, transeat ; 79, Regem non habemus .
160
Admonter Passionsspiel, ll. 450a-52 (modified biblical wording, with some verbal
influence from the responsory), cf. Traub, Kommentar, p. 116; Egerer Passionss-
piel, ll. 4373b-e. dicit et canit = 4373b; Tiroler Passionsspiel, ll. 839a-e. Cf. Of-
ficium majoris hebdomadæ, p. 93 (Matthew 26:55); p. 208 (Mark 14:48-49).
277
chants such as antiphons;161 and there is curious hybrid neumation,

presenting the same problems as Tristis est anima mea in the same
manuscript.162 From the start to gladiis there are the responsory
neumes; but from et fustibus on, there are only virgas, a simple syl-
labic setting diverging completely from the responsory s lengthy mel-
isma. The neumation here is even more schizoid than that of Tristis
est ; the neumes over gladiis peter out in a melodically senseless
way that defies performance. Again mistaken neumation seems very
likely: the (possibly non-monastic) neumator misled by the incipit into
assuming that the responsory was intended, perhaps realizing his error
only at the precise point ( et fustibus ) when the words first diverged
from the responsory text.163 The evidence for the use of the responsory
in this play is by no means conclusive.
Not only is there no unambiguous evidence of the responsory mel-
ody of Tamquam ad latronem in German religious drama; the data,
as in the case of 61, Tristis est , in fact suggest a consistent tendency
to use the biblical wording and recitative, or if using the responsory
wording, to set it to a non-liturgical melody. In the light of this very
definite general tendency, and of the evidence (see nos. 6, 62, and 79)
that cantare in the St Gall Passion Play may not invariably have
meant the more elaborate kinds of plainsong, the likelihood that it too
used a tone is distinct. All the plays with this item use the version
161
Mehler, Dicere und cantare , pp. 169, 175.
162
(Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, l. 205: Tamquam ad latronem existis
cum gladiis et fustibus comprehendere me &c ; cf. no. 61 above. Binkley, The
Greater Passion Play from Carmina Burana , p. 156, wrongly envisages the possi-
bility of text derived directly from another play, with the music supplied from
both the liturgy and Gospel .
163
Schumann & Bischoff (eds.), Carmina Burana, vol. I:3, p. 171, note to l. 205;
Binkley, The Greater Passion Play from Carmina Burana , pp. 150, 155-56; and
Mehler, Dicere und cantare , pp. 161, 169, disregarding the problematic
neumation, conclude the chant was the responsory.
278
from Matthew, with the distinctive fustibus ; the corresponding word

in Mark (14.48) is lignis .164,165
61, Tristis est anima mea and 67, Tamquam ad latronem illus-
trate an interesting tendency of German religious drama: the distinct
preference, in the case of certain items, for a reciting-tone setting even
though suitable liturgical chants existed. Plausible explanation is diffi-
cult. Might musical competence have been a consideration? Though a
medieval stage Jesus would normally have been musically skilled and
experienced, both Tristis est and Tamquam are of above-average
length and complexity, especially for a solo performer. Responsories,
which began as largely the province of solo cantors, had by the four-
teenth century long been predominantly choral items.166 There may
have been a consensus, perhaps the fruit of practical experience, that
ones as difficult as these were slightly too challenging.
Possibly there is another reason. By their very nature responsories
are long, aesthetically developed chants which do not accompany any
164
Cf. note 159.
165
Matthew 26:55, Passion tone. Cf. Officium majoris hebdomadæ, p. 93.
166
David Hiley, Western Plainchant: A Handbook, Oxford, 1993, p. 73; Helmut
Hucke, Responsorium , in Friedrich Blume (ed.), Die Musik in Geschichte und
Gegenwart, 16 vols., Kassel, 1949-79, vol. XI, cols. 313-25, esp. 316-18; David
Hiley, Responsorium , in Ludwig Finscher (ed.), Die Musik in Geschichte und
Gegenwart, Kassel-Stuttgart, 1994- [2nd rev. ed.], vol. VIII, cols. 176-200, esp.
179-81.
279
liturgical action but are designed primarily to be listened to.167 Possi-

bly such lengthy, reflective items were felt to be less than ideal in a
phase of the play which is arguably less sacramental in its emphasis
than others, and mainly devoted to advancing the relatively tense ac-
tion leading up to Jesus s arrest. Whilst this is a consideration not evi-
dent elsewhere in the St Gall Passion Play, or in German plays in
general, it does seem to characterize the entire Agony in the Garden
sequence. In this substantial section (ll. 688-758; chants 61-67), St
Gall, usually so profligate of liturgical chants, seemingly uses only
two. One, Quem osculatus fuero (65), is a short and simple section
of an antiphon, not dissimilar to the Passion-tone setting used in other
plays.168 The other, the responsory Una hora (63), is the only chant
of any length or complexity; and even it is something of an exception
in German drama, which invariably uses the corresponding Vulgate
material both for Jesus s question here and throughout the Agony se-
quence. The remarkable consistency with which plays produced over
several centuries almost everywhere in the German territories tend to
avoid liturgical chant in the Agony sequence suggests that different
ways of receiving, understanding and reacting to the different epi-
sodes, phases and sequences of religious drama may have been re-
flected in approaches to performance, including the choice of chants.
This is a problem which cannot be addressed adequately here, or on
our present knowledge of medieval religious drama; but it suggests di-
rections which future scholarship might profitably take.
167
Bruno Stäblein, Psalm. B: Lateinischer Psalmengesang im Mittelalter , in Frie-
drich Blume (ed.), Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 16 vols., Kassel,
1949-79, vol. X, cols. 1676-90, esp. 1685; cf. Amstutz, Ludus de decem virgini-
bus, p. 54.
168
See notes 136 and 141.
280
Chapter VIII
The Passion (2)
Jesus before Annas, Pilate and Herod (ll. 758a-1075)

esus is arrested and brought before Annas (l. 758a). The interro-
gation is introduced by the silence-chant: 68, Iterum Sile[te] (l.
758b). See nr. 1 above. In the course of the interrogation, Rufus
accuses Jesus of having said that, if the Temple were destroyed, he
could restore it again in three days:
69
Respondet Rufus:
Ich wil bezugen hie vorwar,
daz er geredet hat vffenbar.
Et cantet Solvite templum hoc et dicat:
Ich wil bezugen hie vorwar,
daz er geredet hat vffenbar,
daz man den tempel breche nider.
So wolt er in machen wider
in drin dagen ganz als e.
Noch danne sprach er rede me.
Er sprach, er were Godes sun.
Nu wartent, waz wollent ir herzu dun? (ll. 807a-17)
Bergmann does not consider this chant.1 Pflanz assumes it is from the
mode 5 Magnificat antiphon for the fourth week of Lent:2
1
Schriften, 14).
2
Hochschulschriften, Reihe 1, 205), pp. 26-27, 90-91.
The St Gall Passion Plays
Schuler cites the same antiphon.3 However, using this antiphon might
well have been problematical. The gospels contain two references to
these words of Jesus. In John 2:19 and 2:21 they are Jesus s direct
speech, plus a narrative comment on it:
Respondit Jesus, et dixit eis: Solvite templum hoc, et in tribus diebus excitabo
illud [...] Ille autem dicebat de templo corporis sui.
In Matthew 26:60-61 the words are quoted by false witnesses to in-

criminate Jesus:
Novissime autem venerunt duo falsi testes, et dixerunt: Hic dicit: Possum de-
struere templum Dei, et post triduum reaedificare illud.
The antiphon is based on the Johannine text, technically wrong for the
St Gall Passion Play, which depicts the situation described by Mat-
thew. More importantly, with the evangelist s comment and the inter-
3
ecclesiasticarum documenta. Series maior. Fontes, 7-12), no. 4982. Mainz anti-
phonal, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 48, fol. 130v. Also in Mainz breviary, Frankfurt, Barth.
160, fol. 343v; Barth. 161, fol. 325; Worms breviary, British Library, MS add.
19415, fol. 247r-v; Speyer psalter and breviary, Speyer, Gymnasialbibliothek,
A.D.3, fol. 95vb. Ernst August Schuler, Die Musik der Osterfeiern, Osterspiele und
Passionen des Mittelalters, Kassel-Basel, 1951 (vol. II: Melodienband , only as
doctoral thesis, Universität Basel, 1940), no. 262. Schuler s Leittext, Hic dixit:
Solvite templum hoc, et post triduum reedificabo illud! , fits the (Großes) Bene-
diktbeurer Passionsspiel, but possibly no other play.
282
VIII. The Passion (II)
polated dicit Dominus , the antiphon shows a sympathy and an ex-

plicitly Christian theological insight quite unsuited to the hostile
Rufus. Pflanz correctly notes this,4 but his solution of ending the chant
at illud would mean an unsatisfactory cadence on a: only at the very
end does the melody resolve to its finalis F. This conflict of logical,
theological and melodic constraints makes the antiphon in its usual
musical shape unsuitable for this situation.
These words are given to one of the hostile witnesses only in two
of the Carmina Burana plays. By using Matthew 26:61 the (Kleines)
Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel avoids the need for the witnesses to say
dicit Dominus ; there are no musical indications.5 The treatment in
the (Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel is very interesting. The
wording, dicunt iudei Hic dixit. Soluite templum hoc et post triduum
reedificabo illud 6 is basically that of the antiphon, but without either
the dicit Dominus or the theological comment hoc autem dicebat de
templo corporis sui , precisely the elements which present logical and
theological problems. And the neumes, virgas and two puncta, are not
those of the antiphon but of simple recitative. This might actually re-
present an attempt to circumvent the problems with using this anti-
phon identified above.7
Alsfeld and Heidelberg use the ambiguous dicens and sprichtt
respectively, and include no music. The words are spoken directly by
Jesus, not quoted by a hostile third party, so the use of the antiphon is
4
5
(Kleines) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, l. 14: Hic dixit. Possum destruere tem-
plum dei et post triduum reedificare illud .
6
(Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, l. 210.
7
Thomas Binkley, The Greater Passion Play from Carmina Burana: An Introduc-
tion , in Peter Reidemeister & Veronika Gutmann (eds.), Alte Musik: Praxis und
Reflexion, Basler Jahrbuch für historische Musikpraxis, Sonderband zum 50. Jubi-
läum der Schola Cantorum Basiliensis, Winterthur, 1982, pp. 150-51, 156, assumes
this as the reason.
283
not a problem.8 The Alsfeld incipit is so short that it might represent

the antiphon, or a biblical verse (John 2:19).9 In Heidelberg it is
clearly John 2:19.10
The evidence for use of a liturgical chant is less than compelling.
Vulgate text avoids the problems of perspective discussed above, and
is suited to the capacity of a fairly minor actor; this is Rufus s only
sung item, since his nr. 26, Magister , is almost certainly not sung
(see Chapter VI). Recitative is a distinctly probable choice here:11
As Jesus is taken to Pilate (l. 851a), Judas confesses to Annas and

Caiaphas that he has sinned in betraying Jesus:
70
Veniat ergo Iudas ad eos dicens Peccavi tradens
sanguinem iustum :
Ich han gesundet ane wan,
8
Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 4361a-c: the accusatory verse, spoken by Sawel, is
Hic dixit: Possum destruere templum Dei et post triduum reedificare illud ; cf.
Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 829.
9
Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 2665a-b; Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 426 ( dicit ); Karl
Dreimüller, Die Musik des Alsfelder Passionsspiels: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte
der Musik in den geistlichen Spielen des deutschen Mittelalters. Mit erstmaliger
Veröffentlichung der Melodien aus der Kasseler Handschrift des Alsfelder Spiels
(Landes-Bibl. Kassel 2o Mss. poet. 18) (Doctoral thesis), 3 vols., Universität
Wien, 1935, vol. II, p. 42.
10
Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll. 2716a-c: Soluite templum hoc, et in tribus diebus
&c. (spoken by Jesus on arriving at the Temple).
11
John 2:19, Passion tone, based on Officium majoris hebdomadæ et octavæ Paschæ
[ ] cum cantu juxta ordinem Breviarii, Missalis et Pontificalis Romani. Editio
typica Vaticana, Roma, 1922, p. 94 (Matthew 26:61), p. 209 (Mark 14:58).
284
daz ich Iesum virraden han.

Vnschuldig ist sin blut. (ll. 851c-54)
This is yet another chant not dealt with by Bergmann. Since no litur-
gical chant contains these words of Judas (Matthew 27:4), this must be
biblical text, as Schuler and Mehler conclude.12 Pflanz also correctly
identifies a biblical verse, albeit on roundabout criteria including the
dicens direction, which he thinks could indicate spoken delivery.13
The plays which notate the chant have a Passion tone setting.14,15
The long sequence of Jesus s interrogation by Pilate and Herod in-

volves exchanges between the protagonists whose musical identity is
problematic. For the sake of clarity, several separate chants are con-
sidered here together.
Pilate takes Jesus into the Praetorium, to the accompaniment of a
responsory. He asks him if he is king of the Jews: Jesus replies that he
is:
12
Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 464a, and Ulrich Mehler, Dicere und can-
tare : Zur musikalischen Terminologie und Aufführungspraxis des mittelalterli-
chen geistlichen Dramas in Deutschland, Regensburg, 1981 (Kölner Beiträge zur
Musikforschung, 120), p. 189.
13
Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, pp. 141-42, esp. 142.
14
Recitative notation in: Admonter Passionsspiel, ll. 647c-48; Bozner Passionsspiel
1495, B, ll. 1347d-f; Rabers Passion, ll. 253a-b. Item also in: Alsfelder Passions-
spiel, ll. 3605a-b; Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 662; Bozner Abendmahlspiel, ll. 974c-75;
Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, A, ll. 1348c-d; Bozner Passionsspiel 1514, 2. Teil, MS,
fol. 8; Frankfurter Passionsspiel, l. 2633b; Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll. 4534b-
d; Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel, ll. 1355c-d; Sterzinger Passionsspiel 1496/ 1503, ll.
1850c-d.
15
Matthew 27:4; Passion tone setting based on Admonter Passionsspiel, in the light
of Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, B and Rabers Passion (line numbers as in note 15).
The setting in Officium majoris hebdomadæ, p. 97, differs from those in German
plays.
285
71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 77, 79

[71] Tunc Pylatus apprehendens eum ducat ad pretorium et duo
angeli cantent responsorium Ingressus Pylatus usque
[72] Tu es rex Iudeorum quod cantet Pylatus
[73] Iterum cantet Iesus Tu dicis, quia rex sum
Et dicat Pylatus:
Bist du der Iuden kunig vorwar,
des viriehe mir offenbar.
Iesus:
Io, du salt wuszen sicherlich,
daz ich han ein kunigrich.
Stunde daz nach der werlete reth,
so hede ich mine kneth,
daz du min hedes keine gewalt.
Doch hat er sunden manigvalt,
der mich hat gegeben dir,
Pylate, des geleube mir. (ll. 887a-97)
Pilate then has Jesus flogged; the soldiers crown him with thorns and
mock him (ll. 897a-919; see nr. 74, below).
Pilate brings Jesus out again. The Jews declare that they have no
king but Caesar, and demand Jesus s crucifixion:
[75] Tunc Pylatus ducat [eum] foras et cantent duo angeli
Exivit ergo Iesus et cetera
Tunc dicat Pilatus:
Nu sehent vwern kunig an.
Den vinden ich kein schult han.
So ist er auch gar sere geslagen.
Dar vmme mohtent ir wol gedagen.
[76] Respondeant Iudei Regem non habemus
Et dicat Rufus:
Dem keiser biden wir ere.
Keines kunges viriehen [wir] mere.
Iterum Pylatus:
Waz dun wir danne disme man,
der nie keine sunde hat gedan?
[77] Respondeant Iudei Crucifige, crucifige eum
Et dicat Rufus:
286
Du salt in cruzigen alzu hant.

Wan er hat diz groze lant
virirret von Galylea biz her.
Sicherlich, daz arnet er. (ll. 919-31)
Jesus is taken to Herod, who sends him back to Pilate (ll. 939a-79a). A
dialogue between Pilate and the Jews is introduced by the silence-
chant: 78, Iterum Sil[ete] (l. 979c). See nr. 1 above. Once again the
Jews deny that Jesus is their king:
[79] Iudei cantent Regem non habemus (l. 1050a)
Pflanz is unquestionably right in identifying the responsory mentioned

in the first direction (l. 887a) as Ingressus Pilatus :16
Ingressus Pilatus cum Jesu in praetorium tunc ait illi: Tu es rex Judaeorum? Re-
spondit: Tu dicis, quia rex sum. Exivit ergo Jesus de praetorio portans coronam
et vestem purpuream. Et cum indutus fuisset exclamaverunt omnes: Crucifiga-
tur, quia filium Dei se fecit.
V. Tunc ait illis Pilatus: Regem vestrum crucifigam? Responderunt: Regem
non habemus nisi Caesarem. Et cum indutus fuisset ... 17
This responsory, seemingly restricted to the area of present-day south-

ern Germany, Switzerland, Austria, and northern Italy,18 is found in
the Holy Week liturgy of the three relevant dioceses.19 However, the
16
17
fol. 148r-v.
18
Stephen K. Wright, The Ingressus Pilatus Chant in Medieval German Drama ,
Comparative Drama 28 (1994), pp. 348-66, esp. 350, citing CANTUS: A Database
for Latin Ecclesiastical Chant (http://publish.uwo.ca/~cantus); Hesbert, Corpus an-
tiphonalium, vol. I, pp. 166, 173 (nos. 71b, 73a), vol. II, p. 290 (no. 67c), vol. IV,
p. 242, records responsory 6966 only in manuscripts from Bamberg, Ivrea, and
Rheinau. It is not listed in John R. Bryden & David G. Hughes, An Index of Gre-
gorian Chant, 2 vols., Cambridge, Mass., 1969, which is based on Roman, French,
Italian, and English sources. Several melodic variants are recorded.
19
Mainz antiphonal, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 48, fol. 148r-v; Mainz breviary, Frankfurt,
Barth. 160, fol. 364 (both responsory 3, Matins of Wednesday in Holy Week);
Worms breviary, British Library, MS add. 19415, fol. 256; printed Worms bre-
287
details of the way the chant was used in the St Gall Passion Play are
not self-evident; specifically, the question of whether the dialogues
between Pilate and Christ, and between Pilate and the Jews, use the
responsory wording or music.
Schuler lists the various sung elements found here under different
numbers: Ingressus Pilatus ... : 304; Tu es rex Iudaeorum? and Tu
dicis, quia rex sum : 305; Exivit ergo Jesus ... : 306; Crucifigatur
: 307; Regem vestrum crucifigam? : 308; Regem non habemus
... : 309. This atomized treatment, together with the complex and
fragmentary evidence of the plays, makes it hard to gain an overview
of how the various chants are used. Bergmann does not deal with the
separate parts of the responsory and how they are used in drama.20
Ingressus Pilatus is found in both Easter and Passion plays.21 In
addition, the exchanges between Pilate and Jesus ( Tu es rex Iudaeo-
rum? Tu dicis quia rex sum ), and between Pilate and the Jews
( Crucifigatur, quia filium Dei se fecit Regem vestrum crucifi-
gam? Regem non habemus nisi Caesarem ) are found in several
viary, 1490 (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, Leipzig [etc.], 1925-, no. 5515),
sig. cc 8rb; Speyer psalter and breviary, Speyer, Gymnasialbibliothek, A.D.3, fols.
103v-04 (later marginal addition: probably Wednesday of Holy Week or Maundy
Thursday); Orarium Spirense (pars hiemalis), sig. cc 3rb, cc 7va (either Palm Sun-
day or Maundy Thursday); printed Speyer breviary, 1491 (Gesamtkatalog der
Wiegendrucke, no. 5465), sig. k vir; Karlheinz Schlager (ed.), Antiphonale Patavi-
ense (Wien 1519), Kassel [etc.], 1985 (Das Erbe deutscher Musik, 88), fols. 39v-40
(all Palm Sunday). Frank Labhardt, Das Cantionale des Kartäusers Thomas Kreß.
Ein Denkmal der spätmittelalterlichen Musikgeschichte Basels, Bern-Stuttgart,
1978 (Publikationen der Schweizerischen Musikforschenden Gesellschaft, Ser. 2,
20), p. 99, fol. 55 (Wednesday of Holy Week). This variation in days of use noted
in Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, vol. IV, p. 242.
20
21
Easter plays: Benediktbeurer Osterspiel, Erlau V, Göttweiger Dirigierrolle, Inns-
brucker thüringisches Osterspiel, Klosterneuburger Osterspiel. Passion plays: Ad-
monter Passionsspiel, Alsfelder Passionsspiel, (Großes) Benediktbeurer Passions-
spiel, Egerer Passionsspiel, Rabers Passion. Line-numbers in subsequent foot-
notes.
288
other plays, though, as will be seen, they are not always taken from
the responsory.
The use of the responsory in drama has recently been examined by
Stephen Wright.22 Because the Easter plays by definition begin after
the Crucifixion, and hence after the Pilate-Christ confrontation which
Ingressus Pilatus records, the question-and-answer dialogues which
Pilate conducts both with Jesus and the Jews do not take place.23 In-
deed, scholars have repeatedly suggested that Ingressus Pilatus is so
irrelevant to the content of the Easter plays that they used a different
chant derived from the Gospel of Nicodemus.24 Wright, however, con-
22
Wright, The Ingressus Pilatus Chant , is unaware of the use of the chant in the
Göttweiger Dirigierrolle and Rabers Passion.
23
Benediktbeurer Osterspiel, ll. 0a-1; Erlau V, ll. 0d-g; Göttweiger Dirigierrolle, fol.
1, ll. 2-3; Innsbrucker (thüringisches) Osterspiel, l. 40a; Klosterneuburger Oster-
spiel, ll. 1-4.
24
Post haec ingressus Pilatus templum Iudaeorum congregavit omnes principes sa-
cerdotum et grammaticos et scribas et legis doctores, et ingressus est cum eis in
sacrarium templi , in Descensus Christi ad inferos, A, cap. XIII, in Evangelia
Apocrypha (edited by L.F.C. von Tischendorf [ed.], Evangelia apocrypha, adhi-
bitis plurimis codicibus Graecis et Latinis maximam partem nunc primum consultis
atque ineditorum copia insignibus, Leipzig, 1876 [rpt. Hildesheim, 1966], p. 388).
Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 304; Edélestand Du Méril, Origines latines du
théâtre moderne, Paris, 1849, pp. 126-27, note 11; Gustav Milchsack, Die Oster-
und Passionsspiele: Literarhistorische Untersuchungen über den Ursprung dersel-
ben bis zum 17. Jahrhundert, vornehmlich in Deutschland, Wolfenbüttel, 1880, p.
105; Karl Young, The Drama of the Medieval Church, 2 vols., Oxford, 1933, vol.
I, p. 421, n. 2 (on Klosterneuburger Osterspiel). Incipit reconstructed thus in Inns-
brucker (thüringisches) Osterspiel, (edited by Eduard Hartl [ed.], Das Drama des
Mittelalters, 3 vols., Leipzig, 1937-42 [rpt. Darmstadt, 1964-69], vol. II, p. 137, ll.
40a-46 (cf. note on p. 302) and Klosterneuburger Osterspiel (edited by Ibid [ed.],
vol. II, p. 32, ll. 0a-6 (cf. note on pp. 294-95). Most recently Bergmann, Studien, p.
28, questioning propriety of Ingressus Pilatus in (Großes) Benediktbeurer Pas-
sionsspiel (edited by Young, Drama of the Medieval Church, vol. I, p. 518);
Walther Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern und Osterspiele, 9 vols., Berlin-
New York, 1975-90 (Ausgaben deutscher Literatur des XV. bis XVIII. Jahrhun-
derts, Reihe Drama, 5), vol. IX, p. 1104, same objection in Klosterneuburger Os-
terspiel. Cf. Wright, The Ingressus Pilatus Chant , passim and Andreas Traub,
Die geistlichen Spiele des Sterzinger Spielarchivs, vol. VI:2: Kommentar zur Edi-
289
vincingly rebuts this; the responsory is indeed used in the Easter

plays, on account not of its narrative appropriateness , but of its aes-
thetic appropriateness to the non-mimetic moment of the opening
parodos (the ritual procession of principal characters into the arena)
that precedes the play. This use is not expository but ceremonial ,
pointing up the closeness of the Easter plays to a liturgical aesthetic.25
The use of the responsory Collegerunt pontifices (48, above) as an
entrance-chant for Annas, Caiaphas and the Jews in several Passion
plays is analogous.
The Passion plays make a more complex use of the responsory.
Like St Gall several use all or part as a processional chant to cover Pi-
late s entry into the acting area.26 But the question of whether the dia-
logic exchanges between Pilate and Christ, and Pilate and the Jews,
come from the responsory is less easy to answer.
71, Ingressus Pylatus
Pflanz s suggestion that the narrative sections tunc ait illi and res-
pondit will have been left out in performance is unconvincing.27
Tunc ait illi is an important narrative, syntactic and melodic bridge.
The St Gall Passion Play direction (ll. 887c-d) does not explicitly pre-
scribe that the angels sing the single word respondit , but this does
not absolutely exclude the possibility: in Eger, where the performance
tion der Melodien, Mittlere Deutsche Literatur in Neu- und Nachdrucken, 19:2,
Bern, 1996, p. 67.
25
Wright, The Ingressus Pilatus Chant , pp. 357-58 (cf. pp. 355-57). Dronke s
comment on Ingressus Pilatus in the (Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel im-
plies that he is reading the chant as a narrative premonition of the confrontation of
Christ and Pilate (See Peter Dronke [transl. and ed.], Nine Medieval Latin Plays,
Cambridge, 1994 (Cambridge Medieval Classics, 1), pp. 185-237, esp. 186).
26
Admonter Passionsspiel, ll. 709a-12; Alsfelder Passionspiel, ll. 3717a-c, 3783 a-c;
Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 680, 696; (Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, l. 1;
Egerer Passionsspiel, ll. 5117a-e; Rabers Passion, ll. 0c-d, 1877c-d (both wrongly
written as Jncipit Pilatus : see Traub, Kommentar, p. 67).
27
290
of the responsory looks in some respects similar to that in St Gall, the

chorus sings both these brief narrative items.28
72, Tu es rex Iudeorum , and 73, Tu dicis, quia rex sum
Pflanz assumes that the dialogues between Pilate and Jesus, and be-
tween Pilate and the Jews, come from the responsory. He does not, of
course, make the important distinction between the text and the music
of the chant. Yet the exchange between Pilate and Jesus was taken en-
tirely and directly from the responsory only in Eger.29 Nearly all the
other plays lack music, but their wording diverges from that of the res-
ponsory ( Tu es Rex Iudaeorum? Tu dicis quia rex sum ).30 The
only two which have the liturgical wording do not use the responsory
melody but a simple recitative setting.31 This could have been done to
accommodate the actor playing Pilate, who might not have been musi-
cally particularly expert.
The evidence as to whether the St Gall Passion Play envisaged a
musically competent Pilate capable of singing this section from the
relatively difficult responsory melody is extremely ambiguous. Tu es
rex Iudeorum is his only chant; yet several of the play s characters
such as John the Baptist and Joseph of Arimathea sing only once, but
perform complex material (see Chapter IV above). On the other hand,
28
Egerer Passionsspiel, ll. 5117a-e, 5139b, 5141b-c; transcribed by Schuler, Musik
der Osterfeiern, vol. II, p. 179.
29
Egerer Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 82v, ll. 5139a-b, 5141a-c; transcribed by Schuler,
Musik der Osterfeiern, vol. II, p. 179. Milchsack s error in giving Jesus s reply as
Tu dicis, quia rex sum ego is noted by Dreimüller, Musik des Alsfelder Pas-
sionsspiels , vol. II, p. 156.
30
Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 3997a-b, 3999a-b: Ergo rex es tu? Tu dixisti, quia rex
ego sum ; identical in Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 753, 754; Frankfurter Dirigierrolle,
181: Tu dixisti, quia filius dei ego sum ; Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll. 4606b-c:
Tu es rex Iudeorum? (John 18:33); ll. 4612a-c: A temetipso hoc dicis [ ]?
(John 18:34).
31
Admonter Passionsspiel, ll. 712a-13 (Passion tone); (Großes) Benediktbeurer Pas-
sionsspiel, ll. 219-20 (simple cadential settings).
291
Pilate is not given the chant Regem vestrum crucifigam? , a fairly

standard item, found in a dozen plays,32 let alone any other common
Pilate chants (e.g. Ecce homo 33). This implies a wish to shorten and
simplify his part, and strongly suggests a Passion-tone setting for his
question. Perhaps the precise circumstances of particular performances
decided: if a good singer was available, he could have sung the res-
ponsory neumes; otherwise, he could have used recitative.
Would Jesus have answered with the responsory melody even if Pi-
late had questioned him in recitative? There is no absolute reason why
he should not have done, and several reasons why he might well have:
the actor playing Jesus was musically competent, and this section of
the responsory is not challenging; there is no verbally identical bibli-
cal text.34
75, Exivit ergo Iesus
There is little doubt that this was sung to the responsory melody, and
performance by the duo of angels, clearly trained singers, effectively
guarantees this. Exactly how long this section was is uncertain. Ves-
tem purpuream and se fecit both give a satisfactory cadence, and
though singing the whole verse to Regem non habemus nisi Cae-
sarem cannot be excluded, it does seem unlikely. There are no clear
parallels in German drama which might help to decide.
76, 79, Regem non habemus
The evidence for the last exchange between Pilate and the Jews is
more mixed. In most plays Pilate puts the question Regem vestrum
32
To the nine plays listed in Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 308, add Admonter
Passionsspiel, Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, Bozner Passionsspiel 1514, 2. Teil, Rabers
Passion.
33
34
John 18:33, the reply to Pilate s Tu es rex Judaeorum? is A temetipso hoc dicis,
an alii dixerunt tibi de me? John 18:37, Tu dicis, quia rex sum ego [...] , replies to
Pilate s later Ergo rex es tu?
292
crucifigam? The St Gall Passion Play probably omits this to simplify

the musical task of the actor playing Pilate, as suggested above. The
same consideration may account for the recitative settings of the ques-
tion in a good many plays, probably including the Hessian group,
which have dicere directions.35 The responsory melody is found only
in three late south German plays.36
The Jews reply Regem non habemus nisi Caesarem also shows a
wide range of evidence, and Pflanz s assumption that it came from the
responsory cannot be made automatically. Plays consistently use the
responsory wording, Regem non habemus rather than the Vulgate
Non habemus regem (John 19:15). In Bozen, and the Sterzing
plays which resemble it, the Jews do not sing their riposte at all.37 The
words are set to the responsory melody in Admont, Eger and Rabers
Passion, and also in the (Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel,
though not as part of the Regem vestrum crucifigam? dialogue.38 But
they are probably recitative in the (Kleines) Benediktbeurer Pas-
sionsspiel and, significantly, in the Hessian plays where dicere or a
35
(Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, l. 239; Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, B, ll.
1555a-b (cf. A, ll. 1558a); Bozner Passionsspiel 1514, 2. Teil, MS, fol. 11v. Cf.
Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel, ll. 1565a-b; Sterzinger Passionsspiel 1496/1503, l.
1791a: no music, but identical dialogue to Bozen. (Kleines) Benediktbeurer Pas-
sionsspiel, l. 24: respondet direction, probably recitative. Hessia: Alsfelder Pas-
sionsspiel, ll. 4375a-b; Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 832; Frankfurter Passionsspiel, ll.
3529a-b; Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll. 4930a-b.
36
Admonter Passionsspiel, ll. 909a-10; Egerer Passionsspiel, ll. 5585a-b, transcribed
by Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, vol. II, p. 180; Rabers Passion, ll. 794a-b,
800a-b.
37
Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, B, ll. 1560-63 (cf. A, ll. 1562a-66); Bozner Pas-
sionsspiel 1514, 2. Teil, MS, fol. 11v; Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel, ll. 1569a-73;
Sterzinger Passionsspiel 1496/1503, ll. 1795a-99.
38
Admonter Passionsspiel, ll. 912a-13; Egerer Passionsspiel, ll. 5591a-b ( Cayphas
cantat ); transcribed by Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, vol. II, p. 180; Rabers Pas-
sion, ll. 800a-b; (Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, l. 246, cf. Binkley, The
Greater Passion Play from Carmina Burana , pp. 151, 156.
293
similar verb is found.39 Indeed, the extreme simplicity of the Jews

only other chant in the St Gall Passion Play, 77, Crucifige, crucifige
eum , suggests they were not a group of expert singers (see Chapter
IV above), and the likelihood is rather that they sang the Passion tone
setting here.
77, Crucifige, crucifige eum
Though Schuler lists the Jews demand for Christ s execution along
with the other sections of Ingressus Pilatus ,40 it never in fact comes
from the responsory. This is seen from the few plays with music,
where a reciting-tone is found,41 or much more frequently from the
wording, which is nearly always the biblical Crucifige, crucifige
eum (Luke 23:21, John 19:6, cf. Mark 15: 13), not the Crucifigatur,
quia filium Dei se fecit of the responsory.42 Only once, in the (Gro-
ßes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, is the wording of the responsory
found but not its melody, merely a simple cadential tone.43 The three
39
(Kleines) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, l. 25; Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 4411a-b;
Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 838; Frankfurter Passionsspiel, ll. 3531a-b; Heidelberger
Passionsspiel, ll. 4936a-b.
40
41
Admonter Passionsspiel, ll. 849, 857; (Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, ll.
225, 230, 239. Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, A, ll. 1450a-b, B, ll. 1449a-b; Egerer
Passionsspiel, ll. 5177a-b, 5203a-b, 5453a-b, transcribed by Schuler, Musik der
Osterfeiern, vol. II, p. 179.
42
Admonter Passionsspiel, ll. 848a-49, 856a-57, 880a-81; Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll.
4187a-b, 4225a-b, 4229a-b; Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 787, 796, 799; (Großes) Be-
nediktbeurer Passionsspiel, l. 230; (Kleines) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, l. 21;
Bozner Abendmahlspiel, ll. 1050a-51; Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, A, ll. 1450a-b,
B, ll. 1449a-b; Bozner Passionsspiel 1514, 2. Teil, MS, fol. 10; Egerer Passionss-
piel, ll. 5177a-b, 5203a-b, 5453a-b; Frankfurter Passionsspiel, l. 3525b; Heidel-
berger Passionsspiel, ll. 4928a-b, 5086a-b; Künzelsauer Fronleichnamsspiel, ll.
3433a, 3643a; Luzerner Passionsspiel, l. 8438a (in German); Pfarrkirchers Pas-
sionsspiel, l. 1457a; Rabers Passion, ll. 720a-b; Sterzinger Passionsspiel 1496/
1503, l. 1683a. Cf. Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 307a.
43
(Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, l. 239; cf. Schlager (ed.), Antiphonale
Pataviense, fols. 39v-40r.
294
other plays with notation also use settings similar to the Passion
tone.44 No other play specifies any music, though others in the Sterz-
ing group probably used the Bozen melody. Again the simple melo-
dies probably accommodate the limited musical ability of the actors
playing the Iudaei . The frequency of clamare or rufen directions
for this item45 does not absolutely exclude a simple musical setting (cf.
46, Lazare, veni foras ). Admont and the Bozner Passionsspiel 1495,
both with this direction, have a melody.
A likely model for the music of the sections above, then, is given
on the next page.46
In the middle of Pilate s interrogation, the soldiers flog Jesus, mock-

ingly addressing him as king of the Jews:
74
Tunc exuant eum milites et ligant eum ad statuam
et flagellant
Postea vestient eum purpura et imponent ei coronam spineam
et flexis genibus clament Ave, rex Iudeorum
44
Admonter Passionsspiel, ll. 848a-49, 856a-57, 880a-81; Bozner Passionsspiel
1495, B, ll. 1449a-b, cf. Traub, Kommentar, p. 38; Egerer Passionsspiel, ll. 5177
a-b; transcribed by Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, vol. II, p. 179.
45
E.g. Admonter Passionsspiel, ll. 848a, 856a: Schreyen , l. 880a: Schreit ; Alsfel-
der Passionsspiel: clamant ; (Kleines) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel: clamando ...
dicant ; Bozner Abendmahlspiel: clamant ; Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, B clam-
ant ; Egerer Passionsspiel, clamant ; Frankfurter Passionsspiel: clamat ; Heidel-
berger Passionsspiel: rueffenn ; Luzerner Passionsspiel: schryend ; Pfarrkir-
chers Passionsspiel: clamant ; Rabers Passion: clamant ; Sterzinger Passions-
spiel 1496/1503: clamant . Line numbers as in note 43.
46
Responsory sections (71, 73, 75): Mainz antiphonal, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 48, fol.
148r-v. 72: Matthew 27:11, Mark 15:2, Luke 23:3 or John 18:33, Passion tone; Ad-
monter Passionsspiel, l. 713; cf. Officium majoris hebdomadæ, p. 99 (Matthew), p.
212 (Mark), p. 262 (Luke), p. 404 (John). 76: responsory wording (cf. John 19:15),
Passion tone; cf. Officium majoris hebdomadæ, p. 404. 77, 79: Luke 23:21 or John
19:6 (cf. Mark 15:14), Passion tone: cf. Officium majoris hebdomadæ, p. 265
(Luke), p. 407 (John), p. 214 (Mark), transposed to the a-c interval typical of me-
dieval plays.
295
Et percucient caput eius arundine et dicant:

Der Iuden kunig gegruzet si.
Dem wanet swache ere bi. (ll. 917a-19)
Bergmann does not consider this item; but as Pflanz47 recognizes, no

liturgical chant contains these biblical words from Matthew 27: 29,
Mark 15:18 or John 19:3.48 Of the plays where the words occur, the
three with music (Benediktbeuern, Bozen 1495, Eger) have a reciting
tone, despite a consistent canere direction in Bozen and the whole
Sterzing group;49 the setting in other Sterzing plays will presumably
have been similar.50 The other plays have a dicere direction,51 also
suggesting a tone; so such a setting seems probable for the St Gall
Passion Play. On the evidence of the few plays which notate it, it may
have differed from the modern Roman setting:52
47
48
Cf. Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 37.
49
(Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, l. 227; Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, B, ll.
1641c-d; cf. Traub, Kommentar, p. 29; cf. A, ll. 1644c; Egerer Passionsspiel, ll.
5385a-b, 6423a-b, transcribed by Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, vol. II, p. 19.
50
Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, A, l. 1644c; Bozner Passionsspiel 1514, 2. Teil, MS,
fol. 13; Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel, l. 1651c; Rabers Passion, ll. 704b-c; Sterzin-
ger Passionsspiel 1496/1503, l. 1877c; Sterzinger Passionsspiel der Mischhand-
schrift, ll. 1651a-b; cf. Traub, Kommentar, p. 29.
51
Brixener Passionsspiel, l. 1883a ( spricht ); Frankfurter Passionsspiel, l. 3513c
( dicit ); Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll. 4954b-c ( sprichtt ).
52
Matthew 27:29, Mark 15:18 or John 19:3, Passion tone setting based on Egerer
Passionsspiel, ll. 5385a-b and Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, B, ll. 1641c-d. The Eger
and Bozen settings, based on a falling c-a interval, differ from the modern Roman
setting, based on a rising d-f: Officium majoris hebdomadæ, p. 102 (Matthew), p.
215 (Mark), p. 406 (John).
297
The Crucifixion (ll. 1075a-1183)

The soldiers load the Cross onto Jesus and march him and the two
thieves to the place of execution (ll. 1083a-b), a movement unaccom-
panied by music. The process of crucifixion is not described in dia-
logue or directions, but must be complete before the soldiers begin to
dice for Jesus s robe (ll. 1090a-1107).
One of the two crucified thieves mocks Jesus (ll. 1122a-24), but
the other recognizes him as guiltless and begs him to remember him:
80
Deinde idem cantet Memento mei, Domine et dicat:
Herre, irbarme dich vber mich,
so du kummest in dines vatter rich. (ll. 1130a-32)
Pflanz is probably right to opt for liturgical text here,53 since the corre-
sponding biblical verse (Luke 23:42) reads Domine, memento mei
cum veneris in regnum tuum . The wording of the incipit, Memento
mei, Domine ... is that found in three liturgical chants for Good Fri-
day based on this verse:
(i) Part of the refrain of the responsory Velum templi , from matins:
Velum templi scissum est, et omnis terra tremuit; latro de cruce clamabat,
dicens: Memento mei, Domine, dum veneris in regnum tuum.
54
53
54
fols. 155v-56. Also in: Mainz breviaries: Frankfurt, Barth. 150, fol. 231; Barth.
160, fol. 369; Barth. 161, fol. 355v; Worms breviary, British Library, MS add.
19415, fol. 264r-v; printed Worms breviary, c. 1490 (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegen-
drucke, no. 5515), sig. dd 8vb; Speyer psalter and breviary, Speyer, Gymnasialbi-
298
(ii) Part of Ait latro , usually the third antiphon at lauds:55

Ait latro ad latronem: Nos quidem digna factis recipimus, hic autem quod fecit?
Memento mei, Domine, dum veneris in regnum tuum.
(iii) Memento mei, Domine Deus , usually the fifth lauds antiphon:56
Pflanz cites these chants confusedly from many liturgical sources.

He seems to assume he is dealing with two, rather than three, chants,
and fails to grasp that the wording Memento mei, Domine, dum vene-
ris is common to Velum templi and Ait latro , and that the form
bliothek, A.D.3, fol. 105rb; printed Speyer breviary, 1491 (Gesamtkatalog der
Wiegendrucke, no. 5465), sig. l3.
55
fol. 159. Also in: Mainz breviaries: Frankfurt, Barth. 150, fol. 232v; Barth. 160, fol.
371; Barth. 161, fol. 358v; Worms breviary, British Library, MS add. 19415, fol.
265v; printed Worms breviaries: 1475 (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no.
5513), fol. 291v; c. 1490 (ibid., no. 5515), sig. ee2va; Speyer psalter and breviary,
Speyer, Gymnasialbibliothek, A.D.3, fol. 106rb; printed Speyer breviary, 1491 (Ge-
samtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no. 5465), fol. l 4 (2nd antiphon).
56
fol. 159. Also in: Mainz breviaries: Frankfurt, Barth. 150, fol. 232v; Barth. 160, fol.
371; Barth. 161, fol. 358v; Worms breviary, British Library, add. 19415, fol. 266;
Speyer psalter and breviary, Speyer, Gymnasialbibliothek, A.D.3, fol. 106rb; print-
ed Speyer breviary, 1491 (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no. 5465), sig. l 4v.
299
Memento mei, Domine Deus, dum veneris is not a variant, but the
distinctive wording of the antiphon Memento mei .57 His argument
that Herre, irbarme dich vber mich (l. 1131) translates a Latin origi-
nal reading Domine , not Domine Deus , is pedantic, given how
loosely irbarme dich vber mich translates memento mei .58
Of the three possible chants the least likely seems Velum templi ,
an elaborately melismatic responsory, probably beyond a minor ac-
tor s capacity; significantly, it is used only in Alsfeld as a choral
item.59 Either of the two antiphons, however, would be suitable. The
limited evidence of the five other German plays containing a compa-
rable item is reasonably consistent, though this fact is obscured by
Schuler s perfunctory treatment.60 Apart from Heidelberg (biblical
verse), all use liturgical wording.61 The three with notation all set the
Good Thief s plea to the second part of Ait latro ,62 and not to Me-
mento mei or Velum templi ,63 the only two chants which Schuler
suggests. Indeed, Schuler s Leittext, Memento mei, Domine Deus
64
is precisely the form not used in any play. All plays which take
the thief s words from Ait latro also use the beginning of the anti-
phon, sung either by the chorus or by the thief himself. The Frank-
57
Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, p. 95, note 1. Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium,
vol. III, pp. 36, 332, records no variation between Domine and Domine Deus in
the wording of his 1316 or 3736.
58
Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, p. 96. Closer translations in Frankfurter Pas-
sionsspiel, l. 4118: A, herre, gedenck auch an mich ; Heidelberger Passionsspiel,
l. 5491: O here, wollest auch gedencken mein ; Egerer Passionsspiel, l. 6534: So
gedenck, herr, an mich .
59
Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 6656d-f; cf. Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 628;
Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 1150.
60
61
Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll. 5490a-c.
62
Admonter Passionsspiel, ll. 1052a-1061; Egerer Passionsspiel, ll. 6523a-c, 6531a-
c, transcribed by Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, vol. II, p. 203 (no. 344). Rabers
Passion, ll. 1152a-b, 1164a-b.
63
Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, nos. 3736 and 7821.
64
Ibid., no. 3736.
300
furter Passionsspiel has no music, and does not use the beginning of
Ait latro , but the wording ( Memento mei, domine, dum veneris in
regnum tuum ) matches only Ait latro and Velum templi .65 Assum-
ing that Velum templi is probably too complicated, it is likely that
Frankfurt also used Ait latro .66
This small corpus shows a clear consensus for Ait latro as the
source of the thief s prayer. For the St Gall Passion Play, Memento
mei cannot be definitely excluded, but the play would have been
unique in using it.
The Words of Jesus from the Cross (ll. 1164a-83)

Jesus sings four of the Last Words recorded in the Gospels in quick
succession. They are: Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani (Matthew 27:46;
Mark 15:34), Sitio (John 19:28), Consummatum est (John 19:30)
and In manus tuas, Domine, commendo spiritum meum (cf. Luke 23:
46).
81
Tunc cantet Iesus Hely, Hely et cetera
Et tunc dicat Rufus Iudeus:
Warta, wie er wafet
vnd Helya rufet.
Nu nement allesamt war,
ob er zu ime komme dar. (ll. 1164a-68)
Schuler67 incorrectly classes this item, which he records in twenty

plays, as part of the Good Friday responsory Tenebrae factae sunt ,68
65
Frankfurter Passionsspiel, l. 4117b.
66
Klaus Wolf, Kommentar zur Frankfurter Dirigierrolle und zum Frankfurter Pas-
sionsspiel , Tübingen, 2002, p. 826 and note 890, only mentions Ait latro , as well
as Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 3736, as a possible chant in the Frankfurter
Passionsspiel.
67
68
301
a chant used only in the Bordesholmer Marienklage.69 Bergmann and

Pflanz correctly identify biblical text (Matthew 27:46 or Mark 15:
34).70 However, since Pflanz considers neither musical form nor the
evidence of other plays, he effectively goes no further, stating no ex-
plicit conclusions and not recording his reconstruction in his list of
emendations to Hartl s edition.71 Presumably he believes that the
chant took the form of the whole of one of the verses, but that it is im-
possible to know which.
The dramatic tradition, however, is clear: in the examples cited by
Schuler, all manuscripts with notation have the same melismatic set-
ting, not from a liturgical chant but from the German Passion tone.72
This affecting melismatischer Höhepunkt aller Passionstöne 73 is used
in numerous plays over a wide historical and geographical range, with
only slight variants in notes and wording.74 The Alsfeld version is the
69
Bordesholmer Marienklage, nos. XVIII and XIX, and Anhang, p. 9; transcribed by
Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, vol. II, pp. 330-31.
70
Bergmann, Studien, p. 226 and note 1848, and Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen,
pp. 144-45.
71
72
Robert Haas, Handbuch der Musikwissenschaft, vol. III: Aufführungspraxis der
Musik, Wildpark-Potsdam, 1932, p. 66, with example from the Missale Pataviense,
1512. The modern Roman setting is simpler: Officium majoris hebdomadæ, p. 105
(Matthew 27:46) and 217 (Mark 15:34).
73
Karl Konrad Polheim, Das Admonter Passionsspiel, vol. III: Untersuchungen zur
Passionshandlung, Aufführung und Eigenart. Nebst Studien zu Hans Sachs und ei-
ner kritischen Ausgabe seines Passionsspieles, München-Paderborn-Wien, 1980, p.
146, note 220. Dreimüller, Musik des Alsfelder Passionsspiels , vol. I, pp. 94-96,
citing further literature on pp. 121-23, and Beilage 34 (vol. III, p. 49); cf. Mehler,
Dicere und cantare , p. 194.
74
In Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern: Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 6159a-c, 6196b-e;
(Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, l. 277; (Kleines) Benediktbeurer Passions-
spiel, l. 27; Bordesholmer Marienklage, IX, ll. 512a-c and Anhang, p. 9, tran-
scribed by Schuler, vol. II, pp. 331-33; cited by Dreimüller, Musik des Alsfelder
Passionsspiels , vol. I, p. 95; Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, B, ll. 2095a-d; cf. Traub,
Kommentar, p. 161; Brixener Passionsspiel, ll. 2748a-b; Docens Marienklage, ll.
19a-c; Egerer Passionsspiel, ll. 6541a-c; Erlau VI, addition after l. 115; Frank-
furter Dirigierrolle, 233; Frankfurter Passionsspiel, ll. 4123a-24; Freiburger
302
example closest geographically to the St Gall Passion Play region. In

the manuscript it is written in the G mode, but here it is transposed
down into F, the mode in which it almost always appears:
75
Fronleichnamsspiel, A, ll. 1434a-b; B, ll. 1745a-b; Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll.

5522a-b; Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel, ll. 2065 a-c; Sterzinger Passionsspiel 1495/
1503, ll. 2337a-c; Trierer Marienklage, ll. 203a-05, 227a, 261a; Wolfenbütteler
Marienklage, ll. 116a, 134a (l. 134a: heli wrongly given by Otto Schönemann
[ed.], Der Sündenfall und Marienklage. Zwei niederdeutsche Schauspiele aus den
Handschriften der Wolfenbütteler Bibliothek, Hanover, 1855, as hoh! ). Not in
Schuler: Admonter Passionsspiel, ll. 1072b-73; Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 1043, 1053;
Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, A, ll. 2097a-d; Bozner Passionsspiel 1514, 2. Teil, MS,
fol. 23; Rabers Passion, ll. 1084a-c; Villinger Passionsspiel, ll. 4954-55. Five
melodies transcribed by Schuler, vol. II, pp. 331-33. Despite inclusion by Schuler,
Luzerner Passionsspiel 1616, 2. Teil, ll. 9179-80, is part of a German couplet, not
the Latin chant.
75
Alsfelder Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 66, ll. 6159b-e (written out again twice, fol. 66v);
transcription by myself. A bis in the manuscript indicates that Deus meus is re-
peated; there is a second, clearly erroneous, me before dereliquisti . The tran-
scriptions in Dreimüller, Musik des Alsfelder Passionsspiels , vol. III, Beilage 34,
p. 49, and Hessische Passionsspielgruppe, vol. II, ll. 6159b-e, both give the Deus
meus repeat; that in Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, vol. II, pp. 331-33, omits it.
All keep the superfluous me , though Dreimüller editorially brackets it. Andreas
Traub, Der Debs-Codex als musikalische Quelle , in Elrich Mehler & Anton H.
Touber (eds.), Mittelalterliches Schauspiel: Festschrift für Hansjürgen Linke zum
303
In fifteen out of twenty-one plays, notation, or a cantare direc-

tion, or both, mark the Heli-Ruf as sung.76 Five categorize it as spo-
ken ( sprechen ) or shouted ( clamare or dicere clamando ).77 In-
terestingly, no play with a sprechen or clamare direction contains
music, and with one verbless exception no play with music has any-
thing other than cantare , canere or singen .78 Might this suggest
that the plays with a clamare direction did not use the Passion-tone
setting? Almost certainly not. The cantare plays are, apart from Do-
cens Marienklage, uniformly late texts which apply the verb to a wide
range of sung items;79 earlier plays, which tend to reserve cantare for
complex concentus material, are in the group of those with a clamare
direction.80 In addition, the clamare plays are almost all in manu-
scripts which contain no music at all.81 This throws light on the manu-
65. Geburtstag, Amsterdam-Atlanta, 1994 (Amsterdamer Beitrage zur älteren

Germanistik, 38-39), p. 341, notes that chants written in the F and G modes (modes
5 and 6, 7 and 8) were often performed identically.
76
Notation in: Alsfelder Passionsspiel, Bordesholmer Marienklage, Bozner Passions-
spiel 1495, Bozner Passionsspiel 1514, 2. Teil (empty staves); Egerer Passions-
spiel, Freiburger Fronleichnamsspiel A and B, Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel, Rabers
Passion, Sterzinger Passionsspiel 1496/1503. Performance verb cantare or simi-
lar: Alsfelder Passionsspiel, Bordesholmer Marienklage, Bozner Passionsspiel
1495, Bozner Passionsspiel 1514, 2. Teil, Brixener Passionsspiel, Docens Marien-
klage, Egerer Passionsspiel, Erlau VI, St Gall Passion Play, Pfarrkirchers Pas-
sionsspiel, Rabers Passion, Sterzinger Passionsspiel 1496/1503, Trierer Marien-
klage, Wolfenbütteler Marienklage. Line numbers as in note 75.
77
(Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel: dicit clamando ; (Kleines) Benediktbeurer
Passionsspiel: alta voce clamat ; Frankfurter Dirigierrolle: clamabit ; Frankfur-
ter Passionsspiel: clamabat ; Heidelberger Passionsspiel: sprichtt . Line numbers
as in note 75.
78
Exception: Freiburger Fronleichnamsspiel, A, ll. 1434a-b; B, ll. 1745a-b.
79
See note 75.
80
See note 78. Clamare in two late plays is explicable: the Frankfurter Passions-
spiel probably follows earlier Frankfurt tradition (Dirigierrolle); the Heidelberger
Passionsspiel s use of chant in general is anomalous.
81
Of the clamare plays listed in note 78, only the (Großes) Benediktbeurer Pas-
sionsspiel is consistently neumed; the Frankfurter Dirigierrolle has only a very
few neumed items. The remaining three have no music whatever.
304
script of the (Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel. The direction is

dicit clamando . Ely, ely is spaced out on the page, with red lines
added, suggesting that the neumator was meant to write in the mel-
isma; but no neumes have been added.82 Did the clamando direction
in fact signal the intention not to use the melisma, and were the words
set out for neumation by mistake?83 The evidence above strongly sug-
gests that the melisma was intended, and that this is simply one of the
several pieces of inexplicably missing neumation in this manuscript
(cf. 61, Tristis est , and 67, Tamquam ad latronem , above). In the St
Gall Passion Play, the cantet direction both illustrates the relatively
wide scope of cantare in this play, and probably also reflects the me-
lodic elaboration of the Passion-tone setting of this passage.
The most significant variant in this chant is in the melismata after
hoc est : these are sometimes set to the words Deus meus, Deus
meus (exactly as in Matthew 27:46)84 and sometimes to Deus, Deus
meus .85 Occasionally, even, there is only a single Deus meus ,
82
(Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 111, l. 277. Mehler, Dicere
und cantare , vol. I, p. 148, note 178, dismisses misinterpretations by Hartl and
Knudsen of the red lines as representing the dying Christ s laboured breathing.
83
Binkley, The Greater Passion Play from Carmina Burana , p. 152, does not ad-
dress this question. Mehler, Dicere und cantare , pp. 152-54, considers Bi-
schoff s suggestion that this part of the manuscript was written by a non-monastic
scribe unfamiliar with the melodies.
84
Alsfelder Passionsspiel, Admonter Passionsspiel; Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, B;
Egerer Passionsspiel; Villinger Passionsspiel (no music). Line numbers as in note
75.
85
(Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 111; Binkley, The Greater Pas-
sion Play from Carmina Burana , p. 152, misinterprets the first deus as omitted
through carelessness . Otto Schumann & Bernhard Bischoff (eds.), Carmina Bu-
rana: Mit Benutzung der Vorarbeiten Wilhelm Meyers kritisch herausgegeben von
Alfons Hilka und Otto Schumann, vol. I.3: Die Trink- und Spielerlieder. Die geistli-
chen Dramen. Nachträge, Heidelberg, 1970, l. 277, has Deus meus, Deus meus
without editorial explanation. Correct transcription in (Großes) Benediktbeurer
Passionsspiel (Eduard Hartl [ed.], Das Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel: Das St. Gal-
ler Passionsspiel, Halle an der Saale, 1952 (Altdeutsche Textbibliothek, 41), pp.
12-44, l. 465; Dronke [transl. and ed.], Nine Medieval Latin Plays, l. 298. (Kleines)
305
though this surely would have produced a less balanced melody, and
may even be a mistake.86 Variation within the Sterzing group suggests
that the chant was not absolutely standardized, even in local tradi-
tion.87
Pflanz asserts that the explanatory hoc est ... or quod est inter-
pretatum ... would be omitted.88 Also, he argues, an explicit interpre-
tation of Eloi or Eli in the chant would make nonsense of Rufus s
confusion of Eli with Elias . For once he relativizes these objections
in the light of the (Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, where the
chant, which includes the hoc est clause, is followed by one of the
Jews remarking: Elyam vocat iste .89 However, he draws no fur-
ther conclusions about the general applicability of this aesthetic argu-
ment, which he uses so frequently in his study. The evidence of the
Heli chants in the play-manuscripts, however, is unequivocal: not a
single one which gives the full wording omits hoc est .90
Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, pl. 7: Schumann & Bischoff (eds.), Carmina Bu-

rana, l. 27, editorially add meus to the first Deus . Bozner Passionsspiel 1495,
A; Bozner Passionsspiel 1514, 2. Teil, Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel; Sterzinger Pas-
sionsspiel 1496/ 1503. Line numbers as in note 75.
86
Brixener Passionsspiel, Docens Marienklage, Rabers Passion, Trierer Osterspiel.
Line numbers as in note 75.
87
Deus, Deus meus : Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, A, ll. 2097a-d, Bozner Passions-
spiel 1514, 2. Teil, MS, fol. 23; Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel, ll. 2065a-c; Sterzinger
Passionsspiel 1495/1503, ll. 2337a-c. Deus meus, Deus meus : Bozner Passions-
spiel 1495, B, ll. 2095a-d. Deus meus : Rabers Passion, ll. 1084a-c; it is possible
that melisma was to be sung twice, but that this was not indicated in the manuscript
(as Alsfelder Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 66r-v, ll. 6159b-e, does).
88
89
(Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, l. 282. Binkley, The Greater Passion Play
from Carmina Burana , p. 152, assumes the inclusion of hoc est is a mistake.
90
Text and notation of Freiburger Fronleichnamsspiel A and B end at lama saba-
thami [sic]. Schumann & Bischoff (eds.), Carmina Burana, p. 170, note on the
(Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, l. 277, misinterprets hoc est as a rubric;
Hansjürgen Linke, Ist das Tiroler Schauspiel des Mittelalters Volksschauspiel? ,
in Egon Kühebacher (ed.), Tiroler Volksschauspiel: Beiträge zur Theaterge-
schichte des Alpenraumes, Schriftenreihe des Südtiroler Kulturinstitutes, 3, Bozen,
306
82
Tunc Iesus Sicio et dicat
Ach hude vnd vmer mere,

wie durstet mich so sere. (ll. 1168a-70)
Bergmann simply identifies this as biblical wording (John 19:28).

Pflanz correctly notes that it is not from any liturgical chant.91 It too is
widespread, being found in thirteen German plays apart from the St
Gall Passion Play, most of which specify it as a sung item.92 Those
with neumes or notation use simple settings related to the Passion
tone, nearly all showing the form:
or a slight variant (or misrepresentation).93 Slightly divergent versions

are found in two Sterzing plays.94 If the item was sung in the St Gall
1976, p. 100, and Mehler, Dicere und cantare , pp. 147-48, comment on how
often such interpretative comment is sung in the dramatic repertoire.
91
See Bergmann, Studien, p. 226 and note 1849, and Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrund-
lagen, pp. 146-47.
92
See Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 582a. In Schuler,: Alsfelder Passionsspiel,
ll. 6253a-b; (Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, l. 273; Bozner Passionsspiel
1495*, B, ll. 2139a-b; Brixener Passionsspiel*, l. 2766a; Egerer Passionsspiel*, ll.
6551 a-b; Erlau VI*, l. 123, marginal addition; Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 234;
Frankfurter Passionsspiel; ll. 4132a-b; Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll. 5527a-b;
Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel*, ll. 2105a-b; Sterzinger Passionsspiel 1496/1503*, ll.
2377a-b; Trierer Marienklage*, ll. 379a-80. Not in Schuler: Admonter Passions-
spiel*, ll. 1077a-78; Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 1066; Bozner Passionsspiel 1495*, A,
ll. 2144a-b; Rabers Passion*, ll. 1174a-b. Asterisked plays have a canit or can-
tat direction; (Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel: dicat direction, but the
word is neumed.
93
This is the suggested reading by Traub, Kommentar, p. 169, of Bozner Passions-
spiel 1495, B, ll. 2139a-b; it corresponds to, or gives a plausible reading of, the set-
tings in: Admonter Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 84; Alsfelder Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 67
(unheighted neumes; differently reconstructed by Dreimüller, Musik des Alsfelder
Passionsspiels , vol. III, Beilage 43, p. 58, and in Hessische Passionsspielgruppe,
II, ll. 6253a-b); (Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 111; Egerer Pas-
307
Passion Play, as it was in the vast bulk of the plays which used it, then
it was probably to a similar setting.
83, 84
[83] Quod cum Iesus gustasset dicat Consumatum est
[84] et cantet In manus tuas et cetera et dicat:
Vatter, ez si dir irkant,
mine sele geben ich in din hant.
Tunc inclinato capite emittet spiritum (ll. 1174a-76a)
83, Consumatum est

Bergmann merely identifies the wording as biblical (John 19: 30).95
Pflanz misinterprets the dicat direction as indicating a spoken item.96
The fact that he finds the words Consummatum est in the Good Fri-
day antiphon Cum accepisset acetum 97 is in his own terms effec-
tively irrelevant, since the two words are identical in the antiphon and
the Bible. But when considering the item melodically, it is important.
Consummatum est is found in almost the same corpus of plays as
Sicio , again designated as a sung item in the vast majority.98 None
sionsspiel; Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel; Sterzinger Passionsspiel 1496/ 1503 (line

numbers as in note 93; transcribed Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, vol. II, p. 322);
Officium majoris hebdomadæ, p. 412.
94
Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, A, ll. 2144a-b (see Traub, Kommentar, p. 169); Rabers
Passion, ll. 1174a-b. Bozner Passionsspiel 1514, 2. Teil, MS, fol. 25, has an empty
stave.
95
Bergmann, Studien, p. 226 and note 1850.
96
97
98
See Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 582b. In Schuler: Alsfelder Passionsspiel*,
ll. 6267c-d; (Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, l. 274; (Kleines) Bene-
diktbeurer Passionsspiel, l. 31; Bordesholmer Marienklage*, no. XIII, ll. 592a-b
and Anhang, p. 10, transcribed by Schuler, vol. II, p. 322; Bozner Passionsspiel
1495*, B, ll. 2149a-b; Brixener Passionsspiel*, l. 2796a; Egerer Passionsspiel, ll.
6571a-b, transcribed by Schuler, vol. II, p. 322; Erlau VI*, l. 123, marginal addi-
tion; Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 235; Frankfurter Passionsspiel, ll. 4146a-b; Hei-
delberger Passionsspiel, ll. 5543a-b; Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel*, ll. 2115a-c;
Sterzinger Passionsspiel 1496/1503*, ll. 2387a-b; Trierer Marienklage, l. 385;
308
has the antiphon melody, but a Passion-tone setting:99
This will almost certainly have been the St Gall Passion Play setting,
as Mehler recognizes.100
84 (l. 1174a): Short responsory In manus tuas, Domine
This chant is dealt with in Chapter V.
85: Tunc Centurio Vere
After Jesus dies, the centurion recognizes him as the Son of God:
85
Tunc Centurio Vere :
Ich han groz wunder hude gesehen.
Bi dem wunder kan ich speh[en],
daz er vorwar was Godes sun.
Do die sunne ist vndergangen,
Wolfenbütteler Marienklage*, l. 161a. Not in Schuler: Admonter Passionsspiel*, ll.

1084a-1085; Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 1070; Bozner Passionsspiel 1495*, A, ll.
2154a-b; Bozner Passionsspiel 1514*, 2. Teil, MS, fol. 25; Rabers Passion*, ll.
1196a-b. Directions in asterisked plays are canit , cantat , or (Admont, Brixen)
singt ; (Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel: no direction but the word is
neumed.
99
This is the suggested reading by Traub, Kommentar, p. 162, of Bozner Passions-
spiel 1495, A, ll 2154a-b (cf. B, ll. 2149a-b; Traub, Kommentar, p. 169). It cor-
responds to, or gives a plausible reading of, the settings in: Admonter Passions-
spiel, MS, fol. 84v; Alsfelder Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 67 (unheighted neumes as in-
terpreted in Hessische Passionsspielgruppe, II, ll. 6267 c-d; differently recon-
structed by Dreimüller, Musik des Alsfelder Passionsspiels , vol. III, p. 58, Bei-
lage 44); (Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 111; Bordesholmer Ma-
rienklage, MS, fol. 16v; Egerer Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 107r-v; Pfarrkirchers Pas-
sionsspiel; Rabers Passion; Sterzinger Passionsspiel 1496/1503 (line numbers as
in note 99; transcribed by Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, vol. II, p. 322); Officium
majoris hebdomadæ, p. 412.
100
Mehler, Dicere und cantare , pp. 189-90.
309
so kummet der doden manger,

die lange sint gelegen dot
vnd Iesum hant dar vor, er were Got. (ll. 1176b-83)
Bergmann does not deal with this item. Schuler does not include St
Gall amongst the plays which contain it because Mone and, uncharac-
teristically, Wolter both wrongly transcribe it as Tunc centurio ve-
nit .101
Without considering the evidence of other plays, Pflanz is at a loss
to know whether the incipit corresponds to Matthew 27:54, Vere fili-
us Dei erat iste , Mark 15:39, Vere hic homo filius Dei erat , or Luke
23:47, Vere hic homo justus erat .102 He correctly notes that the cen-
turion s speech does not correspond closely to the Latin: it refers to
the earthquake and resurrection of the dead which Matthew says in-
spired the centurion and his companions to faith in Christ (Matthew
27:51-53). There is no indication that these events were staged in St
Gall, as they were in some plays.103 Rather the remark is the centu-
rion s direct response of faith in the crucified Christ, as in the majority
of plays.104
101
See Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 644. Franz Joseph Mone (ed.), Schau-
spiele des Mittelalters, 2 vols., Karlsruhe, 1846-48, vol. I, pp. 49-128, l. 1169b;
Emil Wolter (ed.), Das St. Galler Spiel vom Leben Jesu: Untersuchungen und
Text, Breslau, 1912 [rpt. Hildesheim, 1977] (Germanistische Abhandlungen, 41),
l. 1176b. See Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, p. 146.
102
103
E.g. Alsfelder Passionsspiel, l. 6463b; Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 1108; Augsburger
Passionsspiel, ll. 1788a-b; Heidelberger Passionspiel, ll. 5575a-c; Villinger Pas-
sionsspiel, ll. 4997a-c.
104
See Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 644. In Schuler: Alsfelder Passionsspiel,
ll. 6463b-c; (Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, l. 278; Bozner Passionsspiel
1495, B, ll. 2270a-c; Brixener Passionsspiel, l. 2834a ( spricht ); Egerer Pas-
sionsspiel, l. 6689c; Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 237; Frankfurter Passionsspiel, l.
4158c; Freiburger Fronleichnamsspiel, A, ll. 1502c-d; B, ll. 1819c-e; Heidelber-
ger Passionspiel, ll. 5575c-d; Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel, ll. 2133a-b, 2227a-b;
Sterzinger Passionsspiel 1496/1503, ll. 2405a-b, 2509 a-b. Not in Schuler:
Admonter Passionsspiel, ll. 1095a-96; Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 1108; Bozner Grab-
310
The German in the St Gall Passion Play is useless as an indication

of the form the Latin may have taken, but German plays consistently
have the wording of Matthew 27:54, Vere filius Dei erat iste ; some-
times with a second vere .105 In five plays, music is lacking and direc-
tions either have no performance-verb or use dicere or clamare .106
But ten include a cantat direction and notation, invariably a simple
Passion-tone-like melody, slightly different from the modern Roman
setting, and varying a little from play to play, but always well within
the musical competence of a minor actor.107
Neither the number of vere s nor the precise melody seems to
have been absolutely standardized, even within local traditions. Four
Sterzing manuscripts, for instance, record the same basic melody, but
each with a different cadence on the final erat iste .108 The Bozner
Passionsspiel 1514 and Rabers Passion have a repeated vere , the
others a single one. As with the other Words from the Cross (see
legungsspiel II, ll. 324a-c; Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, A, ll. 2275a-c; Bozner
Passionsspiel 1514, 2. Teil, MS, fol. 25v; Rabers Passion, ll. 1410i-j; Welser Pas-
sionsspielfragment, ll. 101a-02.
105
Vere, vere : Admonter Passionsspiel, Bozner Passionsspiel 1514, 2. Teil (empty
stave), Egerer Passionsspiel, Freiburger Fronleichnamsspiel, A and B, Rabers
Passion, Welser Passionsspielfragment. Line numbers as in note 105.
106
Brixener Passionsspiel: spricht ; Frankfurter Dirigierrolle: clamabit ; Frankfur-
ter Passionsspiel: dicens ; Freiburger Fronleichnamsspiel, A: no verb; B;
spricht ; Heidelberger Passionsspiel: no verb. Line numbers as in note 105.
107
Admonter Passionsspiel, Alsfelder Passionsspiel, (Großes) Benediktbeurer Pas-
sionsspiel, Bozner Grablegungsspiel, Bozner Passionsspiel 1495 A and B, Bozner
Passionsspiel 1514, 2. Teil (empty stave), Egerer Passionsspiel, Pfarrkirchers
Passionsspiel, Rabers Passion, Welser Passionsspielfragment. Line numbers as in
note 105. Melodies of Bozner Passionsspiel 1495 A and Egerer Passionsspiel
transcribed by Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, vol. II, p. 349. Cf. Officium majoris
hebdomadæ, p. 106.
108
Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel, ll. 2133a-b, 2227a-b; Rabers Passion, ll. 1410i-j;
Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, A, ll. 2275b-c; B, ll. 2270b-c (cf. Traub, Kommentar,
p. 169).
311
above), there was clearly a certain room for variation. The double
vere does however seem to feature only in later plays.109
The wording of the item in the St Gall Passion Play, therefore, is
beyond serious doubt; and the lack of performance-verb by no means
excludes sung delivery, broadly attested in the dramatic corpus. In the
light of the arguments of Mehler and others that the spoken passages
of German dialogue in the plays were probably delivered in a kind of
recitative, it is all the more likely that a chant of some kind would
have been used:110
The Lament of Mary (l. 1183a)

A lapidary direction introduces the most problematical chant of the
entire play:
86
Sequatur lamentacio Marie (l. 1183a)
We simply can have no certainty as to what this Marienklage might

have been. There was a wide range of such laments,111 and German
plays often wrote them out in full; without even so much as a textual
incipit the text remains here a mystery. The words, though not the mu-
109
See note 106.
110
Matthew 27:54, Passion tone setting based on plays in note 108, particularly the
unheighted neumes of Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 6463b-c; cf. Bozner Pas-
sionsspiel 1495, A, ll. 2275a-c.
111
Rolf Bergmann, Katalog der deutschsprachigen geistlichen Spiele und Marien-
klagen des Mittelalters, München, 1986, passim; Ulrich Mehler, Marienklagen im
spätmittelalterlichen und frühneuzeitlichen Deutschland: Textversikel und Melo-
dietypen, Amsterdam-Atlanta, 1997 (Amsterdamer Publikationen zur Sprache und
Literatur, 128-129), passim. Reference to over thirty entries in Kurt Ruh et al.,
Die deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters: Verfasserlexikon, Berlin-New York,
1978- [2nd ed.], vol. VI, col. 10.
312
sic, of the Frankfurt lament Uwe mir armen, vwe mir, we! are
known,112 but as has already been seen, St Gall s relation to Frankfurt,
especially as regards its music, is unclear: the play s brief and under-
stated crucifixion scene bears no resemblance whatever to Frankfurt
models.113 There may have been a particular Marienklage associated
with the play, and it may have been preserved in another manuscript,
not obtained by Kemli and now lost. Another possibility is that the
play used one of the two well-known Marienklage sequences, Flete,
fideles animae or Planctus ante nescia . Hartl imports Flete, fideles
animae into his St Gall Passion Play edition (ll. 1373a-1402), and for
this he is criticized by Steinbach;114 but it is the lack of editorial com-
ment and rationale that is the problem: the item itself is a likely
choice, as is the other widely known sequence, the longer Planctus
ante nescia . The St Gall Passion Play direction might have been brief
precisely because it referred to such well-known standard material:115
112
Frankfurter Passionsspiel, ll. 4229a-88; Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 242; cf. Hei-
delberger Passionsspiel, ll. 5653a-79. Synopsis in Janota (ed.), Hessische Pas-
sionsspielgruppe, I, pp. 408-410.
113
St Gall Passion Play, ll. 1083-1183; Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 223-41; Frank-
furter Passionsspiel, ll. 3616a-3886.
114
Rolf Steinbach, Die deutschen Oster- und Passionsspiele des Mittelalters: Ver-
such einer Darstellung und Wesensbestimmung nebst einer Bibliographie zum
deutschen geistlichen Spiel des Mittelalters, Köln, 1970 (Kölner Germanistische
Studien, 4), p. 138, note 44.
115
Anonymous, probably French. Version in (Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel,
ll. 265/1a-5a; melody in Michael Korth (ed.), Carmina Burana. Lateinisch-
deutsch. Gesamtausgabe der mittelalterlichen Melodien mit den dazugehörigen
Texten. Übertragen, kommentiert und erprobt von René Clemencic. Textkom-
mentar von Ulrich Müller. Übersetzung von René Clemencic und Michael Korth,
München, 1979, pp. 154-56. Further verses in Schumann & Bischoff (eds.), Car-
mina Burana, pp. 114-15 [CB 4*] and Clemens Blume & Guido M. Dreves (eds.),
Analecta Hymnica medii aevi, 55 vols., Leipzig, 1886-1922 [rpt. Frankfurt, 1961],
vol. XX, pp. 155-56. Young, Drama of the Medieval Church, vol. I, pp. 496, 498-
99, 507-13, 535 and pl. XII; Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, vol. I, pp. 25-26, 197-
98, 240-41; Schumann & Bischoff (eds.), Carmina Burana, pp. 115-16.
313
314
315
116
The Burial of Jesus (ll. 1183b-1230c)

Joseph of Arimathea asks Pilate for Jesus s body and takes the Lord
down from the Cross (ll. 1198a-1210a). After the Virgin and Mary
Magdalene grieve over Jesus, Joseph buries him:
87
Tunc Io[seph] sepeliat Iesum cant[a]ns responsorium
Ecce quomodo mor[i]tur iustus
Tunc recedant omnes (ll. 1230a-c)
The direction is particularly full of scribal error. For cantans (l.
1230a), the manuscript reads cantens ; for moritur (l. 1230b), mo-
retur . The character who buries Jesus is given as John ( Iohannis )
rather than Joseph [of Arimathea], who invariably performs this task,
as in the Gospel account, usually together with Nicodemus.117
116
Written by Godefroy of St. Victor (1125 or 1130 c. 1194). Version in Fragmenta
Burana, IV, edited by Schumann & Bischoff (eds.), Carmina Burana, pp. 129-31
[CB 14*]; melody in Korth, Carmina Burana, pp. 160-63. Further verses in Blume
& Dreves (eds.), Analecta Hymnica, vol. XX, pp. 156-58; cf. Schumann & Bi-
schoff (eds.), Carmina Burana, pp. 129-31. Young, Drama of the Medieval
Church, vol. I, pp. 496-98, 503, 506, 514-17, 535, 538, 699-701; Schuler, Musik
der Osterfeiern, vol. I, pp. 25, 271 (no. 473); Schumann & Bischoff (eds.), Car-
mina Burana, pp. 131-33.
117
Joseph and Nicodemus: e.g. Admonter Passionsspiel, ll. 1212d-15; Augsburger
Passionsspiel, ll. 1996a-b; Bozner Grablegungsspiel II, ll. 470a-76b; Frankfurter
Passionsspiel, l. 4408a; Freiburger Fronleichnamsspiel, A, ll. 1764-73; Heidel-
316
118
berger Passionsspiel, ll. 5919a-25c; Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel, ll. 2396a-c.

118
Bergmann, Studien, pp. 27, 231 and note 1905, and Pflanz, Lateinische Text-
grundlagen, pp. 98-99.
317
This chant, given on the previous page, is clearly specified;119 both

Bergmann and Pflanz correctly identify it as the mode 4 responsory
(usually the sixth) of Holy Saturday matins in nearly all European
dioceses.
Numerous German plays include Ecce quomodo , usually to cover
the burial of Jesus, and in two cases that of John the Baptist.120 Three
use it at a point before the burial.121 The responsory was also a stan-
dard item in the Good Friday Depositio ceremony.122 However, in the
Mainz-Worms-Speyer area, the ceremonies in which it appears are
mostly late, the earliest from the early fifteenth century, many from
119
48, fol. 161r-v. Also in: Mainz breviary, Frankfurt, Barth. 160, fol. 372; Worms
breviary, British Library, MS add. 19415, fol. 267; Speyer psalter and breviary,
Speyer, Gymnasialbibliothek, A.D.3, fol. 107ra; Agenda Spirensis, 1512, fols.
XCIv-XCIIr (= sig. m iiiv-ivr); cf. Liber usualis missae et officii pro dominicis et
festis cum cantu Gregoriano ex Editione Vaticana adamussim excerpto, Paris
[etc.], 1936, p. 728. On the history of this chant see L. Brou, OSB, Le répons
Ecce quomodo moritur dans les traditions romaine et espagnole , Revue Béné-
dictine 51 (1939), pp. 144-68.
120
Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 174. In Schuler: Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll.
6792a-e; Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, B, ll. 2458a-c; Donaueschinger Passions-
spiel, ll. 3698-99 (verse In pace factus est only; music transcribed p. 254);
Egerer Passionsspiel, ll. 6933a-e; Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 76a (John the Bap-
tist), 246a (Jesus); Heidelberger Passionsspiel, ll. 914a-e (John); ll. 5925a-b (Je-
sus; one of the few Heidelberg items explicitly marked as sung); Pfarrkirchers
Passionsspiel, ll. 2396a-c; Sterzinger Passionsspiel 1496/ 1503, ll. 2701a-c. Not in
Schuler: Admonter Passionsspiel, ll. 1213-15 (sung by angels); Alsfelder Diri-
gierrolle, 1167; Bozner Himmelfahrtsspiel, ll. 257a-g; Bozner Passionsspiel 1495,
A, ll. 2463a-c; Bozner Passionsspiel 1514, 2. Teil, MS, fol. 31; Bozner Marien-
klage (I), ll. 337a-c; Bozner Marienklage (II), ll. 312a-c; Rabers Passion, ll.
1492a-c; Saganer Grablegungsspiel, ll. 50 e-f; Welser Passionsspielfragment, ll.
51a-c. See Hansjürgen Linke, Beobachtungen zu den geistlichen Spielen im
Codex Buranus , Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum 128 (1999), pp. 185-93, esp.
191-93.
121
Egerer Passionsspiel, ll. 6933a-e: while Jesus is still hanging on the cross; Rabers
Passion, ll. 1492a-c; Welser Passionsspielfragment, ll. 51a-c.
122
Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern und Osterspiele, vol. IX, p. 889, index,
lists over fifty ceremonies from Germany, Poland and Bohemia.
318
the sixteenth century or after,123 and it is interesting that the St Gall

Passion Play and the Frankfurter Dirigierrolle are the only pre-
fifteenth-century plays to include it, another of their many similarities.
Liturgical influence of the Depositio is seen in plays where Joseph of
Arimathea, Nicodemus and helpers wear alb and stole, or bring the
embalming spices in a thurible, reflecting the incensation of cross or
host common in the ceremony.124
The verse of this responsory in most medieval uses is not Tam-
quam agnus ad occisionem as in the modern Roman rite, but In pace
factus est as given above and by Schuler.125 Not all modern editors
have realized this.126
123
Mainz: Ibid., nos. 251: Mainz2, fifteenth century; 254: Mainz5, c. 1400; 257:
Mainz8, before 1500; 258: Mainz9, c. 1500; 260: Mainz11, c. 1547; 261: Mainz12/
Würzburg, 1671; 262: Mainz13/Liebfrauen, 1762; 263: Mainz14, Cathedral (in fact
probably Mariengraden). Not in Lipphardt: Kassel, 2o Ms. theol. 131, Mainz mis-
sal, early fifteenth century, probably from the Heilig-Geist-Hospital, Fritzlar, fols.
93vb-94ra. Cf. Hermann Reifenberg, Sakramente, Sakramentalien und Ritualien im
Bistum Mainz seit dem Spätmittelalter, 2 vols., Münster, 1971-72, (Liturgiewis-
senschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen, 53-54), vol. I, pp. 711-17 and nos. 4062,
4077. Worms: Lipphardt, no. 369: Worms6, c. 1500. Not in Lipphardt: printed
Worms missal, 1488, fol. LXIXva; Missale Ecclesie wormatiensis, 1522, fol.
XCIIIva (= sig. m vva). Speyer: Lipphardt, nos. 340: Speyer2, 1512; 340a: Speyer3,
c. 1500 (during procession to sepulchre).
124
Alb and stole: Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 264a. Thurible: Rabers Passion, ll. 1492
d-e. Incensation in most Lipphardt ceremonies: thirteen examples from the four-
teenth century or earlier include: Lipphardt, nrs 212a: Fulda3, 274: Münster1, 349:
Trier3, 372: Würzburg2, 500: Aschaffenburg1, 536: Breslau3, 595: Klosterneu-
burg4, 743b: Seckau7.
125
Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 174. Tamquam agnus : Liber usualis, p. 728;
Antiphonale Romanum secundum liturgiam horarum [ ] dispositum, vol. I: Liber
hymnarius cum invitatoriis & aliquibus responsoriis, Paris-Tournai, 1983, p. 499.
In pace : eleven out of twelve Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium manuscripts (vol.
IV, p. 155); twenty-nine out of thirty-seven CANTUS manuscripts, including all
Dutch/German/Austrian/Swiss sources; all Mainz, Worms and Speyer sources in
note 120, as well as: processional, Mainz, Martinusbibliothek, Hs. 100, fol. 29;
Speyer missal, Speyer, Bistumsarchiv, Hs. 1, fol. cviiiva; Schlager (ed.), Antipho-
nale Pataviense, fols. 81v-82r; Theodor Heinrich Klein, Die Prozessionsgesänge
319
The amount of the responsory performed would probably have

been determined mainly by the time taken to carry out the burial, and
this could be considerable, even when, as in the St Gall Passion Play,
Jesus s body had already been taken down from the cross.127 Despite
the direction (l. 1230a) Joseph could not have managed the whole
complicated process entirely alone (many plays specify a group of
characters who help him).128 But liturgical considerations the way
the chant was performed in the Depositio ceremony may also have
played a part. In practice there may have been little conflict between
these two different constraints, for a complete liturgical performance,
including the verse, might well have been needed to cover the neces-
sarily lengthy action. Thus the verse, which Pflanz does not include in
his transcription of the responsory,129 might have been performed. Re-
frain, verse and repetenda would have lasted about two and a half to
three minutes; repeating the refrain would give four minutes or more.
der Mainzer Kirche aus dem 14. bis 18. Jahrhundert, Speyer, 1962 (Quellen und
Abhandlungen zur mittelrheinischen Kirchengeschichte, 7), pp. 98-100, 114. Cf.
Linke, Beobachtungen , p. 192.
126
Dreimüller, Musik des Alsfelder Passionsspiels , vol. II, p. 84, wrongly recon-
structs the melody of Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 6792a-e, with Tamquam agnus .
Donaueschinger Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 78v, ll. 3698-99, In pace , melody p. 254
(with notation of the verse from Ecce quomodo ), is unclearly identified by
Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 300. Wolf, Kommentar, p. 227 and note 499,
cites Ecce quomodo with verse Tamquam .
127
Direction, l. 1210a: Et cum [Joseph] deponit eum [ ] .
128
E.g. Joseph and Nicodemus: see note 117. Joseph, Nicodemus and helpers: Frank-
furter Dirigierrolle, 246a. Joseph, Nicodemus, Centurion and Longinus: Donau-
eschinger Passionsspiel, ll. 3691a-d. Joseph, Nicodemus, John, James the Less,
Angels: Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 6792a-e. Joseph, Nicodemus, die weiber,
Joannes und die zwei Heiden : Freiburger Fronleichnamsspiel, B, ll. 1989a-c.
129
320
Chapter IX
The Resurrection and the Harrowing of Hell
The Resurrection (ll. 1230d-62d)

aiaphas asks Pilate to have Jesus s tomb well guarded, to
prevent the theft of the body and the fraudulent allegation of
a resurrection (ll. 1230d-42). Pilate orders his soldiers ac-
cordingly, and the men march off in high spirits:
88
Tunc milites vadant ad sepulcrum cantantes aliquid. (l. 1263a)
The manuscript gives no clue to the choice of song; but a very likely
choice must be the German Wächterlied preserved in sixteen Ger-
man plays1 with more or less identical wording:
Mer woln zu dem grabe gan, | Ihesus der wel vff stan.
Ist das wore, ist das wore, | So sint gulden unszer hore.2
1
Cf. Ernst August Schuler, Die Musik der Osterfeiern, Osterspiele und Passionen
des Mittelalters, Kassel-Basel, 1951 (vol. II: Melodienband , only as doctoral the-
sis, Universität Basel, 1940), no. 345.
2
Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 6912a-e; cf. Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 1185. The song is
also found in the following plays: In Schuler: Augsburger Passionsspiel, ll. 2100a-
2104; Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, A, ll. 2700a-04; B, ll. 2693a-97; Brixener Pas-
sionsspiel, ll. 3454a-b (J. E. Wackernell [ed.], Altdeutsche Passionsspiele aus Ti-
rol, Graz, 1897 (Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte, Litteratur und Sprache
Österreichs und seiner Kronländer, 1), p. 420); Erlau V, ll. 351a-59 (on the second
visit; the first time, ll. 277-87, they sing a different song); Innsbrucker (thüringi-
sches) Osterspiel, ll. 185a-89; Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel, ll. 190a-94; Wiener Os-
terspiel, ll. 166a-71. Not in Schuler: Bozner Osterspiel I, 1. Teil, ll. 260a-64;
Bozner Osterspiel III, ll. 0a-4a; Bozner Passionsspiel 1514, 2. Teil, MS, fol. 45v;
Friedberger Dirigierrolle, p. 197; Göttweiger Dirigierrolle, MS, fol. 1v, l. 1; Ti-
roler Osterspiel, ll. 142a-j (cf. Andreas Traub, Die geistlichen Spiele des Ster-
This song has been studied by Barbara Thoran and Hans Blosen.3
The Frankfurter Dirigierrolle is the first German source in which the
movement of the Wächter to the grave is accompanied by choral
chant, the responsory Sepulto Domino ; the St Gall Passion Play is
the first play in which the Wächter themselves sing; the Innsbrucker
(thüringisches) Osterspiel is the first to contain a full verse of the
Wächterlied .4 The same song is used in plays from a wide geograph-
ical spread, showing great textual consistency: it is clearly a Wander-
text .5 The song s familiarity is probably reflected in the fact that it is
notated only in the Wiener Osterspiel and Alsfelder Passionsspiel; yet
the two melodies are different, and the Alsfeld melody probably did
not originally go with these words.6,7
zinger Spielarchivs, vol. VI:2: Kommentar zur Edition der Melodien, Mittlere
Deutsche Literatur in Neu- und Nachdrucken, 19:2, Bern, 1996, p. 129); Villinger
Passionsspiel, ll. 5753-56.
3
Das Lied der Wächter auf dem Weg zum Grab Jesu in österlichen Spielen des 14.
und 15. Jahrhunderts , in Dorothee Lindemann, Berndt Volkmann & Klaus-Peter
Wegera (eds.), bickelwort und wildiu maere: Festschrift für Eberhard Nellmann
zum 65. Geburtstag, Göppingen, 1995 (Göppinger Arbeiten zur Germanistik, 618),
pp. 398-407; Hans Blosen, Zum Lied der Wächter im Wiener Osterspiel . Zu-
gleich Bemerkungen zum Refrain in mittelhochdeutscher Lyrik , Orbis Litterarum
29 (1974), pp. 183-215.
4
Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 250a; cf. Klaus Wolf, Kommentar zur Frankfurter Di-
rigierrolle und zum Frankfurter Passionsspiel , Tübingen, 2002 [first volume of
additions to Johannes Janota (ed.), Die hessische Passionsspielgruppe: Edition im
Paralleldruck, Tübingen, 1996-2002], p. 228; St Gall Passion Play, l. 1263a;
Innsbrucker (thüringisches) Osterspiel, ll. 185a-89; cf. Thoran, Das Lied der
Wächter , pp. 401-02.
5
See plays in note 2; Thoran, Das Lied der Wächter , p. 399.
6
Wiener Osterspiel, MS, fol. 188, transcribed by Hans Blosen (ed.), Das Wiener Os-
terspiel: Abdruck der Handschrift und Leseausgabe, Berlin, 1979 (Texte des Mit-
telalters und der Frühen Neuzeit, 33), p. 127. The manuscript notates the last line
too high: correct transcription in Blosen s edition, in idem, Zum Lied der Wäch-
ter , p. 206, and Karl Dreimüller, Die Musik des Alsfelder Passionsspiels: Ein
Beitrag zur Geschichte der Musik in den geistlichen Spielen des deutschen Mittel-
alters. Mit erstmaliger Veröffentlichung der Melodien aus der Kasseler Handschrift
des Alsfelder Spiels (Landes-Bibl. Kassel 2o Mss. poet. 18) (Doctoral thesis), 3
322
IX. The Resurrection and the Harrowing of Hell
vols., Universität Wien, 1935, vol. I: Abhandlungen, p. 167; incorrect in Schuler,

Musik der Osterfeiern, vol. II, pp. 203-04. The play s notation is mensural; cf.
Helmuth Osthoff, Deutsche Liedweisen und Wechselgesänge im mittelalterlichen
Drama , Archiv für Musikforschung 7 (1942), pp. 65-81, esp. 67. Osthoff s tran-
scription is given in Blosen (ed.), Wiener Osterspiel, pp. 126-27.
7
Alsfelder Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 74, mensural interpretation based on the sugges-
tion of Dreimüller, Musik des Alsfelder Passionsspiels , vol. III, p. 69, Beilage
53b; cf. I, pp. 163-169. Plain transcription of Alsfeld MS in Dreimüller, Musik
des Alsfelder Passionsspiels , vol. III, Beilage 53a, p. 69, Schuler, Musik der Os-
terfeiern, vol. II, pp. 203-04 and Janota (ed.), Hessische Passionsspielgruppe, II, ll.
6912a-e. Blosen, Zum Lied der Wächter , p. 208: nicht ursprünglich zu diesem
Text gehörige und nicht nach der Textstruktur konzipierte Melodie .
323
Blosen s study of analogous songs from all over western Europe con-
cludes that the Wächterlied is a typical carole or dancing song. This
is supported by the Wiener Osterspiel direction Dy ritter tanczin
czum grabe , and in three other plays by the interesting variant Wir
wellen umb das grab gan .8 Blosen envisages performance in carole
style, with the verse (ll. 1-2) sung by a single Vorsänger and the rest
of the soldiers joining in with the refrain (ll. 3-4).9
The aliquid in the St Gall Passion Play direction implies a choice
of songs, and the existence of alternatives. Since this is the first play
to include a watchmen s song, and since it predates by as much as half
a century the first appearance of the Wächterlied in the Innsbrucker
(thüringisches) Osterspiel of 1391, it is even possible that the Wäch-
terlied did not yet exist. But no other possible songs have survived,
and the ubiquity of the Wächterlied must make it a likely choice. In
the last line, wird or werden is found in south German plays, but
sind in those from central Germany, and thus presumably in the St
Gall Passion Play.10
The soldiers, however, are immediately attacked by angels brandish-

ing swords:
89
Tunc duo angeli gladiis percucient eos cantantes
Terra tremuit et quievit (ll. 1262b-c)
As Schuler and Bergmann note,11 this incipit matches two liturgical

chants. One is a mode 8 Maundy Thursday office antiphon:12
8
Wiener Osterspiel, l. 166a; Bozner Osterspiel I, 1. Teil, l. 261; Bozner Osterspiel
III, l. 1; Göttweiger Dirigierrolle, fol. 1v, l. 1: Wir schullen vmb etc. . Blosen,
Zum Lied der Wächter , passim; Thoran, Das Lied der Wächter , pp. 404-06.
9
Blosen, Zum Lied der Wächter , passim, esp. pp. 205-08.
10
Thoran, Das Lied der Wächter , pp. 403-405.
11
Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 605, and Rolf Bergmann, Studien zu Entste-
hung und Geschichte der deutschen Passionsspiele des 13. und 14. Jahrhunderts,
324
The antiphon wording varies slightly: cum exsurgeret dum exsurge-

ret are occasionally found.13 Dum resurgeret is clearly standard in
Mainz, Worms and Speyer.14
The second is a mode 4 offertorium for Easter Day:15
München, 1972 (Münstersche Mittelalter-Schriften, 14), p. 27 and nos. 146 and

147.
12
ecclesiasticarum documenta. Series maior. Fontes, 7-12), no. 5139. Mainz an-
tiphonal, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 48, fol. 152v.
13
Schriften, 14), p. 27 and nos. 146 and 147, wrongly gives dum resurgeret as the
consistent wording of the offertorium and dum exsurgeret of the antiphon.
14
Dum resurgeret in iudicio in: Mainz antiphonal, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 48, fol. 152v;
Mainz breviary, Frankfurt, Barth. 160, fol. 367 (references to other Mainz sources
in Hermann Manfred Pflanz, Die lateinischen Textgrundlagen des St. Galler Pas-
Hochschulschriften, Reihe 1, 205), p. 100, note 1); Worms breviary, Vatican, cod.
pal. lat. 519, fol. 215; Speyer psalter and breviary, Speyer, Gymnasialbibliothek,
A.D.3, fol. 104rb; printed Speyer breviary, 1491 (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegen-
drucke, Leipzig [etc.], 1925-, no. 5465), sig. l 2; Orarium Spirense (pars hiemalis),
sig. dd 1ra; cf. Liber usualis missae et officii pro dominicis et festis cum cantu
Gregoriano ex Editione Vaticana adamussim excerpto, Paris [etc.], 1936, p. 641.
15
Mainz gradual, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 44, fols. 74v-75. Also in: Mainz missal, Frank-
furt, Barth. 31, fol. 131v; Mainz missal and ritual, Frankfurt, Barth. 107, fol. 62v;
printed Worms missal, 1488, fol. LXXIIIrb (sig. kirb); Speyer missals: Speyer, Bis-
tumsarchiv, Hs. 1, fol. cxixvb; Darmstadt, Hs. 889, fol. 93rb; printed Speyer missal,
1501, fol. LXXIIIra (= sig. kira) ( dum resurgeret in iudicio ); cf. Graduale triplex
seu Graduale Romanum Pauli PP. VI cura recognitum et rhythmicis signis a
Solesmensibus monachis ornatum, neumis Laudunensibus (Cod. 239) et Sangallen-
sibus (Codicum Sangallensis 359 et Einsidlensis 121) nunc auctum, Solesmes
325
Pflanz identifies the St Gall Passion Play chant as the antiphon,

Bergmann as the offertorium.16 Neither offers detailed argument; nei-
ther considers Psalm 75(76):8-9 on which both chants are based.
Either chant would seem suitable. The antiphon is simpler, but St
Gall angels would assuredly have been competent to perform the of-
fertorium, which, more melismatic and with its additional Alleluia ,
might seem even more suitable to accompany this theologically sig-
nificant and dramatically effective episode, performed in some plays
by an angel with a fiery sword.17
The dramatic tradition, though inconclusive, is suggestive. Four-
teen other plays have a chant with this wording. None uses the psalm-
verse; the five which notate it use the office antiphon.18 Because the
[etc.], 1979, p. 199; Liber usualis, p. 781.

16
See Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, pp. 99-100, and Bergmann, Studien, p.
197 and note 1593.
17
Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, A, ll. 2817b-c; B, ll. 2809c; Egerer Passionsspiel, ll.
7397a-c; Erlau VI, l. 299a; Rabers Passion, l. 2766a; Tiroler Osterspiel, l. 182b.
18
Admonter Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 97, ll. 1527g-28; Brixener Passionsspiel, MS,
fol. 107, ll. 3591b-e; Egerer Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 121v, ll. 7397d-e; Rabers Pas-
326
wording of the offertory differs only in its final Alleluia from that of
the antiphon, the short incipits in the other plays do not distinguish the
chant used.19 Not even the Alleluia is an infallible guide: in the only
play in which it is found (Brixen), it is added to the antiphon mel-
ody.20
Only the antiphon, then, is positively attested in the dramatic tradi-
tion; yet this is only in late south German sources (Admont, Eger, the
Tyrol). There is no way of identifying the chant in plays chronologi-
cally or geographically closer to the St Gall Passion Play; indeed,
with the exception of the Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, such an item,
whatever its liturgical form, seems foreign to the Hessian tradition.21
The chant is not part of the Osterfeier repertoire.22 The antiphon can
be cautiously suggested as the St Gall chant.
The triumphant moment of resurrection arrives. The soldiers watch,

terrified, as Christ rises from the tomb:
90
Quibus territis cantans dominus surgat Resurrexi et cetera (l. 1262d)
Even the one-word incipit is enough to identify the mode 4 Easter
sion, ll. 2766a-c, 2785a-b; Tiroler Osterspiel, ll. 182b-c ( dum resurgeret in novis-
simo deus ).
19
Bozner Marienklage I, ll. 109a-b; Bozner Marienklage II, ll. 106a-b; Bozner Oster-
spiel I, 1. Teil, ll. 390a-c; Bozner Osterspiel III, ll. 94a-b; Bozner Passionsspiel
1495, A, ll. 2817b-d; B, ll. 2809c-e; Bozner Passionsspiel 1514, II, MS, fol. 47;
Erlau VI, ll. 299a-c; Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 255a; Göttweiger Dirigierrolle,
MS, fol. 1v, l. 28.
20
Brixener Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 107, ll. 3591b-e.
21
Bergmann, Studien, p. 198 and note 1599, asserts without evidence that the Frank-
furter Dirigierrolle, 255a, uses the offertorium.
22
The chant (possibly, but not definitely, Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 5139)
is found only in Walther Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern und Osterspiele,
9 vols., Berlin-New York, 1975-90 (Ausgaben deutscher Literatur des XV. bis
XVIII. Jahrhunderts, Reihe Drama, no. 5767: Zurich1, a thirteenth-century Eleva-
tio.
327
morning introit:23
The introit is correctly identified by Bergmann and Pflanz.24 More

difficult to decide is exactly how much of this long chant Jesus would
have sung; beyond the et cetera the direction gives no indication.
The dramatic tradition attests various modes of performance. In lit-
urgical drama in Germany, Resurrexi is almost always the liturgical
introit to the Easter morning mass after the Elevatio or Visitatio Sepul-
chri, and so will have been performed in full, though not strictly as
part of the ceremony or play itself.25 In the case of the Passion plays,
23
Mainz gradual, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 44, fol. 74. Also in: Mainz missals: Frankfurt,
Barth. 31, fol. 130; printed Worms missal, 1488, fol. LXXIIvb (sig. i8vb); Speyer
missals: Speyer, Bistumsarchiv, Hs. 1, fol. cxviiiva; Darmstadt, Hs. 889, fol. 91va;
cf. Graduale triplex, p. 196; Liber usualis, p. 778.
24
Bergmann, Studien, p. 198, and Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, pp. 129-30.
25
Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern und Osterspiele, nos. 549: Diessen3 (fif-
teenth century); 686: Regensburg5 (fifteenth century); 728: St Lambrecht1 (thir-
teenth century); 744: Seckau8 (late thirteenth century). An exception in Meißen:
Resurrexi opens the Elevatio as a processional antiphon: Lipphardt, nos. 612:
Meißen1 (fifteenth century); 614: Meißen3 (1520).
328
Mone perceptively notes a connection with the liturgy: in singing

Resurrexi , Christ himself is as it were celebrating the Easter Mass of
the Resurrection.26 The St Gall Passion Play makes this kind of con-
nection between the play and the liturgy elsewhere: for instance when
Augustinus speaks of Jesus singing his first mass at the Last Sup-
per.27 This does not guarantee, however, that the plays simply repli-
cated liturgical usage, an assumption implied in Schottmann s recon-
struction of the single-word incipit in the Redentiner Osterspiel using
the complete introit.28
The Passion and Easter plays show a variety of modes of perform-
ance which Schuler attempts to differentiate.29 Most elaborate are the
late, large-scale plays such as Alsfeld, where, in a spectacular Resur-
rection sequence, all three sections of the introit are performed, alter-
nating with extensive blocks of German dialogue, by Jesus and two
angels; two Eastertide office antiphons complete the sequence; Eger is
only slightly less grandiose.30 Other plays probably had simpler ar-
rangements, but manuscripts often offer too little evidence to show
how much was performed. Seven have only the single word Resur-
26
Franz Joseph Mone (ed.), Schauspiele des Mittelalters, 2 vols., Karlsruhe, 1846-48,
vol. II, p. 10; cf. Brigitta Schottmann (ed.), Das Redentiner Osterspiel: Mittel-
niederdeutsch und neuhochdeutsch, Stuttgart, 1975, p. 184, note to line 250b. Cf.
Andreas Traub, Zwischen Aufgezeichnetem und Nichtaufgezeichnetem: Probleme
bei der Edition der Melodien der Sterzinger Spiele , in Max Siller (ed.), Oster-
spiele: Text und Musik, Innsbruck, 1994 (Schlern-Schriften, 293), pp. 211-18, esp.
214.
27
St Gall Passion Play, ll. 611-12: Des selben dages er sang | sin erste messe. Dez
habe er dang.
28
Schottmann (ed.), Redentiner Osterspiel, ll. 250b-e.
29
30
Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 7026a-76; there follow the antiphons Et ecce terre mo-
tus (Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 2699) and Data est mihi omnis potestas
(Ibid., no. 2099): Dreimüller, Musik des Alsfelder Passionsspiels , vol. II, pp. 87-
88; cf. Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 1206-19; Egerer Passionsspiel, ll. 7411a-39.
329
rexi ; slightly longer incipits in a further seven are almost as unhelp-

ful.31
One possible limiting factor is musical. Cadences on the mode 4
finalis E occur only on the first and third alleluia s of the refrain, so,
without melodic alterations, Jesus must either have sung the entire re-
frain, or else stopped at tecum sum, alleluia . Steinbach s suggestion
of continuing to manum tuam is thus not absolutely compelling;32
Pflanz s proposed end at tecum sum is more feasible.33 There is
some manuscript evidence for the latter practice. In several plays
where one or more angels also sing parts of this introit, Jesus sings
only the first section, the angel(s) the second, and the third, if it is per-
formed.34 Though there is no analogous evidence in plays without an-
31
Resurrexi in: Augsburger Passionsspiel, l. 2144a; Bozner Osterspiel I, 1. Teil, ll.
424a-b; Innsbrucker thüringisches Osterspiel, ll. 213a-14a; Redentiner Osterspiel,
l. 250b; Tiroler Himmelfahrtsspiel aus Cafless (Cavalese), l. 124a; Tiroler Oster-
spiel, ll. 204a-b; Wiener Osterspiel, l. 175a. Longer incipits in: Berliner (rheini-
sches) Osterspiel, ll. 30a-c: Resurrexi et ad huc tecum sum etc. ; Bozner Oster-
spiel III, ll. 121a-c: Resurrexi et adhuc sum alleluia ( ) ; ll. 570a-b ditto (manu-
script: suum ); Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, A, l. 3281a: Resurrexi et aduc [sic]
sum tecum , B, ll. 3277a-b ( tecum sum ) (both sung after the Christ/Mary Magda-
lene encounter); Bozner Passionsspiel 1514, 2. Teil, MS, fol. 59r: Resurrexi et ad-
huc tecum sum ; Osnabrücker Passionsspielfragmente, ll. 135b: resurre ; l. 135c:
posuisti ; Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel, l. 3170a: Resurrexit [sic] et aduc [sic] ;
Rabers Passion, ll. 2809a-b: Resurrexi et adhuc tecum etc. .
32
Rolf Steinbach, Die deutschen Oster- und Passionsspiele des Mittelalters: Versuch
einer Darstellung und Wesensbestimmung nebst einer Bibliographie zum deutschen
geistlichen Spiel des Mittelalters, Köln, 1970 (Kölner Germanistische Studien, 4),
p. 138, note 44, citing Alsfelder Passionsspiel, MS, fols. 75v-76, ll. 7060a-b, which
however explicitly uses the entire introit; and Egerer Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 122v,
ll. 7435a-b, which may end at manum tuam, alleluia with altered melody on alle-
luia ; cf. transcription in Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, vol. II, p. 306.
33
34
Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 7042a-60b; Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 1210-14; Egerer
Passionsspiel, ll. 7411a-39; Erlau V, ll. 380a-d. Probably also Göttweiger Diri-
gierrolle, MS, fol. 2, l. 2, reading as amended by Dieter Trauden, in Hansjürgen
Linke et al., Kollation zu Rolf Bergmann: Die Göttweiger Dirigierrolle eines Os-
terspiels (unpublished typescript, University of Cologne, Institut für Deutsche
330
gel performers, this may indicate that the first phrase of the introit was
regarded as Jesus s particular part. Why this should have been the case
is unclear. Nothing in the Christological exegesis of Psalm 138, the
source of the introit, suggests such a division of voices;35 nor does it
directly imitate liturgical performance, where a cantor intoned Resur-
rexi , the choir joining in for the rest of the chant.
The precise details of the performance of Resurrexi in the St Gall
Passion Play and many other plays may never be known with cer-
tainty, but the hints in the dramatic tradition that the introit may not
always have been sung in full should be taken seriously.
The Harrowing of Hell (ll. 1262e-89b)

Jesus, carrying the Cross, now proceeds to Hell to free the imprisoned
Good Souls.
91, 92, 93
[91] Deinde vadat ad infernum portans crucem cantans
Tollite portas et dicat:
Ir hellen vursten, dunt of die dur.
Vnd gebent mir mine knethe hervor.
[92] Respondet Lucifer Quis est iste rex glorie :
Wer ist der, der do bozet
vnd an die dore stozet?
Ich bin gewesen v[un]f dusent iar
in dirre helle vurste vorwar,
daz ich gehorte keinen stoz
an dise dore so rehte groz.
[93] Respondet angelus qui precedet Iesum Dominus
virtutum ipse est rex glorie :
Sprache und Literatur, [s.d.]), p. 3: cantans: Resurrexi; angelus: posuisti super me

etc. .
35
Biblia Sacra cum glossa ordinaria, 6 vols., Douai-Antwerpen, 1617, vol. III, cols.
1505-16; cf. Augustinus, Enarratio in Psalmum CXXXVIII, in J.-P. Migne (ed.),
Patrologiae cursus completus [ ] Series Latina, 221 vols., Paris, 1844-90, vol.
XXXVI-XXXVII, cols. 1784-1803, esp. cols 1788, 1796.
331
Dunt vf, der herre ist kommen,

von dem vch wirt benommen
vwer manigveltige gewalt
der ist gewesen alzu alt.
[ ]
Tunc Christus pede trudat ianuam et apperiatur (ll. 1262e-74, 1279a)
Bergmann identifies these as chants from the Elevatio ceremony,

though he does not discuss the precise form which they may have
taken.36 Pflanz s separate treatment of the several closely related items
in different sections of his study is unhelpful. On pages 34-35 he iden-
tifies several (inapplicable) chants with the incipit Tollite portas .37
On pages 100-101, however, he cites only an unidentified versus : it
is in fact from an Advent responsory, and is cited in the standard ab-
breviated form, which Pflanz misinterprets.38 On pages 147-148 he
turns to Quis est iste rex gloriae? and Dominus virtutum ... , saying
only that they are drawn from Psalm 23(24):8 and 10. His whole dis-
cussion resolves almost nothing about the text or liturgical provenance
of any of these chants; and as always he ignores the melodic aspect.
Nowhere does he consider the use of these chants in liturgical drama
or the Easter plays; though as will be seen these traditions offer clues
to the way the St Gall Passion Play may have used them.
This dialogue uses verses from Psalm 23(24):7-10, from the liturgy
of the dedication of a church, a ceremony which included a symbolic
attempt to enter the church in the name of Christ against diabolical re-
36
Bergmann, Studien, p. 196 and nos. 1580, 1582.
37
Gradual, Ember Wednesday in Advent (Liber usualis, pp. 1269-70); offertorium,
Christmas vigil (Liber usualis, p. 362); verse of the responsory Ave Maria , first
Sunday in Advent (Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 6157).
38
Mainz breviary, Frankfurt, Barth. 150, fol. 105: verse of the responsory Ave
Maria (Ibid., no. 6157). The verse is written as: Tollite portas principes vestras
[ ] et introibit. Filius. , the convention indicating that the repetenda, beginning at
Filius Dei , follows straight after et introibit . Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundla-
gen, p. 101, mistakenly reading Filius as the repeat of an earlier chant, assumes
that rex gloriae might have been added after introibit .
332
sistance.39 The inspiration was the Descensus Christi ad Inferos in

the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus, where this dialogue presents the
confrontation of Christ and the Devil at the Harrowing of Hell.40 Both
the Tollite portas dialogue and the chant Cum rex gloriae (see 94,
Advenisti desiderabilis , below) were staples of the Elevatio ceremo-
ny, when the celebrant knocked at the doors of the church, or entered
the sanctuary.41 They were also used in the the Harrowing of Hell se-
quences in the Passion plays, staged in the later and longer examples
with considerable spectacle. Exhaustive consideration of the wide
range of possibilities of arranging the chants and dialogue of this epi-
sode would go far beyond the scope of this study, as would a discus-
sion of the complex and by no means certain interrelationships of De-
positio and Elevatio, the Gospel of Nicodemus and the liturgy for the
dedication of a church; or of the development of the Elevatio ceremo-
nies and the religious drama.42
Twenty-three known Elevatio ceremonies, from twelve centres,
contain this dialogue in some form; the vast majority (twenty ceremo-
39
Earliest known example of the rite in this form in Metz, ninth century: Karl Young,
The Drama of the Medieval Church, 2 vols., Oxford, 1933, vol. I, p. 103; idem,
The Harrowing of Hell in Liturgical Drama , Transactions of the Wisconsin Acad-
emy of Sciences, Arts and Letters 16 (1909), II, pp. 889-947, esp. 894.
40
Gospel of Nicodemus, in J.K. Elliott (ed. and trans.), The Apocryphal New Testa-
ment: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation,
Oxford, 1993, pp. 185-205; Young, Drama of the Medieval Church, vol. I, pp. 149-
50.
41
Description in ibid., vol. I, pp. 103-04. Cum rex gloriae and Tollite portas are
used together in Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern und Osterspiele, nos.
212d: Fulda6, 231: Gerresheim1, 238b: Köln15, 251: Mainz2, 262: Mainz13, 340a:
Speyer3, 357a: Trier12, 369: Worms6, 376: Würzburg6, 377: Würzburg7, 522: Augs-
burg22; 526: Augsburg26, 530: Bamberg10, 683a: Rasdorf2, 788: Hersfeld.
42
Young, Drama of the Medieval Church, vol. I, pp. 149-77, esp. 151. See the dis-
cussion in Luis Schuldes, Die Teufelsszenen im deutschen geistlichen Drama des
Mittelalters: Versuch einer literarhistorischen Betrachtung unter besonderer Be-
rücksichtigung der geistesgeschichtlichen Gesichtspunkte, Göppingen, 1974, (Göp-
pinger Arbeiten zur Germanistik, 116), pp. 48-79.
333
nies, from eleven centres) are from the German territories.43 In these
dialogic ceremonies, the command Tollite portas, principes, ves-
tras, et elevamini, portae aeternales (which is sometimes extended to
include et introibit rex gloriae ) is followed at the very least by the
question Quis est iste rex gloriae? (Psalm 23(24):8a) in nine centres;
and slightly less often, in six centres, by an answer, either Dominus
fortis et potens, Dominus potens in praelio (Psalm 23(24):8b), in five
centres, or Dominus virtutum, iste est rex gloriae (Psalm 23(24):
10b) in two centres). In all these ceremonies, except those from Würz-
burg, this sequence of command, question and (where applicable) ans-
wer is performed three times. Only the Augsburg tradition, however,
appears consistently to follow the sequence of the psalm (cf. Psalm
23(24):7-10), answering the question Quis est iste rex gloriae? the
first and second times with Dominus fortis et potens ... and the last
time with Dominus virtutum ... .44 Otherwise the ceremonies use
Dominus fortis et potens ... all three times,45 or leave the question
unanswered the first two times, answering it the third time either with
Dominus fortis et potens ... or with Dominus virtutum ... .46 This
43
German ceremonies: Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern und Osterspiele, nos.
212d: Fulda6 (1615); 213: Gerresheim1 (fifteenth century); 223c: Innichen3 (1617);
224: Kleve (fifteenth century); 262: Mainz13, Liebfrauen (1762); 340a: Speyer3
(1438-70); 357a: Trier12 (1576); 357c: Trier14 (1767); 369: Worms6 (1500); 376:
Würzburg6 (1482); 377: Würzburg7 (1564); 522: Augsburg22 (1487); 523: Augs-
burg23 (1499); 524: Augsburg24 (1547); 526: Augsburg26 (1580); 527: Augsburg27
(1612); 528: Augsburg28 (1656); 529: Augsburg29 (1764); 530: Bamberg10 (1587).
Elevatio from St Quintin, Mainz (1585), Mainz, Stadtarchiv, Hs. HBA I 50, pp. 78-
79 (not in Lipphardt). Non-German ceremonies: Lipphardt, 397: Dublin1, 772:
Dublin2, 772a: Dublin3 (all fourteenth century).
44
Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern und Osterspiele, nos. 522-24; 526-29
(Augsburg22-24, 26-29); Mainz, St Quintin (1585), Mainz, Stadtarchiv, Hs. HBA I 50,
p. 78 (not in Lipphardt), uses Dominus fortis et potens the first time, and Do-
minus virtutum the third time.
45
Lipphardt, nos. 262: Mainz13; 530: Bamberg10.
46
Lipphardt, nos. 224: Kleve ( Dominus fortis et potens ... ); 357c: Trier12 ( Dominus
virtutum ... ).
334
may reflect the slightly different sequences in three versions of the

Gospel of Nicodemus.47
The Elevatio tradition, however, is uninformative on the melodies
for this dialogue. No dialogic German Elevatio before the early fif-
teenth century is preserved; none before 1487 has any notation.48 Fif-
teenth-century texts contain too little information to identify the mel-
ody used for Tollite portas .49 The musical traditions of only three
centres can thus be seen: Augsburg, Bamberg and Trier; and only the
Augsburg sources can be followed through, as Bamberg and Trier are
each represented by only one noted source.50
In eight of the twenty German Elevatio ceremonies which contain
this dialogue the music to which it was performed is not certain.51
Four predominantly late ceremonies use psalm or lection tones.52 In
47
Elliott (ed.), Apocryphal New Testament, pp. 187-88, 193, 202.
48
Surviving pre-fifteenth-century German Elevatio ceremonies are all non-dialogic :
Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern und Osterspiele, nos. 190a: Bamberg5 (late
twelfth century), 266: Metz1 (eleventh century), 274: Münster1 (thirteenth century),
505: Augsburg3 (twelfth century), 694: Salzburg1 (c. 1160) and 728: St. Lam-
brecht1 (c. 1200). The earliest notated German Elevatio is Lipphardt no. 522, in
Obsequiale Augustense, Augsburg: E. Ratdolt, 1487, fols. XXXV-XXXVIII.
49
Lipphardt, nos. 213: Gerresheim1; 224: Kleve; 340a: Speyer3; 376: Würzburg6.
50
Augsburg: Lipphardt, nos. 522: Obsequiale Augustense (1487), fols. XXXV-
XXXVIII; 523: Augsburg23, Obsequiale secundum Ecclesiam Augustensem (1499),
fols. XXXI-XXXIIv; 524: Agenda Diocesis Augustensis (1547), fols. 44-47v; 526:
Ritus ecclesiastici Augustensis episcopatus (1580), pp. 582-93; 527: Liber Ritualis
(1612), pp. 110-21; 528: Rituale Augustanum (1656), pp. 418-28; 529: Rituale Au-
gustanum (1764), pp. 441-53. Bamberg: Lipphardt, no. 530: Bamberg10, Agenda
Bambergensis (1587), pp. 585-97. Trier: Lipphardt, no. 357c: Trier14, Rituale Tre-
virense (1767), pp. cxxxi-cxxxiij.
51
Lipphardt, nos. 212d: Fulda6 (1615); 213: Gerresheim1 (fifteenth century); 224:
Kleve (fifteenth century); 340a: Speyer3 (1438-70); 357a: Trier12; 369: Worms6 (c.
1500); 376: Würzburg6 (1482); 377: Würzburg7 (1564).
52
Elevatio from Mainz, St Quintin, 1585, Mainz, Stadtarchiv, Hs. HBA I 50, pp. 78-
79, esp. 78 (not in Lipphardt) (psalm-tone); Lipphardt, nos. 262: Mainz13 (1762)
(psalm-tone); 223b: Innichen3 (lection tone for Tollite portas ; but rest of dia-
logue is non-standard); 357c: Trier14, Rituale Trevirense (1767), vol. II, p. cxxxiij
335
only eight do rubrics or notation clearly identify Tollite portas as the

mode 3 antiphon over Psalm 23(24) at matins of the dedication of a
church:53
These are all from two centres, Augsburg and Bamberg; the seven
from Augsburg are predominantly late, though the earliest records fif-
teenth-century practice, and hence probably that of earlier times. Thus
only two German centres clearly witness to a tradition of using the an-
tiphon as part of the Tollite portas dialogue. By contrast, it figures in
four non-dialogic ceremonies from as many different German cen-
tres.54
In the few German ceremonies where this antiphon begins the dia-
logue, the other verses (8b and 10b) are sung to the matching third
psalm-tone:55
(melody like psalm-tone, but not authentic).

53
Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 5159. Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern
und Osterspiele, no. 522: fol. XXXVI. Also in Lipphardt, nos. 523: fol. XXXIr-v;
524: fols. 44v-46; 526: p. 587; 527: p. 116; 528: p. 423; 529: p. 445; 530: p. 593.
54
Lipphardt, nos. 238b: Cologne15 (1664); 251: Mainz2 (fifteenth century); 683a:
Rasdorf/Rhön1 (1587); 788: Hersfeld (fifteenth century; = Hersfelder Osterspiel, l.
23). Used also in one non-German ceremony: Lipphardt, no. 770: Barking (1363-
76).
55
Lipphardt, no. 522: fol. XXXVIv: Dominus virtutum is not notated, but di-
rected to be sung sub priori melodia . Also in: Lipphardt, no. 523: fol. XXXIr-v;
526: pp. 587-88; 527: pp. 116-17; 528: pp. 423-25; 529: pp. 445-46; 530: p. 593.
Sources as in note 50.
336
The antiphon Tollite portas sets only part of Psalm 23(24):7, and
makes no reference to any King of Glory. To follow it with the ques-
tion Quis est iste rex gloriae? thus offends against verismo, but this
was clearly not a priority in the Elevatio ceremonies. Only four cen-
tres unambiguously show the antiphon melody being extended to in-
clude et introibit rex gloriae , and this predominantly in very late ex-
amples; the earliest, from Augsburg, are of the late fifteenth century.56
Augsburg and Bamberg set this clause to the same third psalm-tone as
was used for the psalm-verses:57
There are, equally, ceremonies where Quis est iste rex gloriae? fol-
lows on even though there is no positive indication of the Tollite por-
tas chant having been extended.58
56
Augsburg: Lipphardt, nos. 522, 523, 524, 526, 527, 528, 529. Bamberg: Lipphardt,
no. 530 (1587). Fulda: Lipphardt, no. 212d (1615; not notated). Trier: Lipphardt,
nos. 357a (1576), 357c (1767; psalm-tone-like melody: see note 52). Sources as in
note 50.
57
Augsburg: Lipphardt, no. 522: fol. XXXVIv. Also in: Lipphardt, no. 523: fol.
XXXI; 524: fol. 45; 526: p. 587; 527: p. 116; 528: p. 423; 529: p. 445. Bamberg:
Lipphardt, no. 530: pp. 593-94. Sources as in note 50.
58
Lipphardt, nos. 213: Gerresheim1; 224: Kleve; 262: Mainz13; 340a: Speyer3; 376:
Würzburg6; 377: Würzburg7. Elevatio, Mainz, St Quintin, 1585, Mainz, Stadtar-
chiv, Hs. HBA I 50, pp. 78-79, esp. 78.
337
In the Easter and Passion plays, directly influenced by the Gospel

of Nicodemus, this dialogue, predictably enough, is routinely found.
Not all the relevant plays are listed by Schuler.59 The evidence of the
relatively few which notate this episode is very consistent: with the
exception of the Osnabrücker Osterspiel, which sets the entire dia-
logue to unique melodies,60 Tollite portas is always Hesbert s anti-
phon 5159.61
Evidence of Passion and Easter plays extending the melody of this
antiphon to include the phrase et introibit rex gloriae is very limited
59
7122a-60; Augsburger Passionsspiel, ll. 2402a-16a; Berliner (rheinisches) Os-
terspiel, ll. 134a-236; *Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, B, ll. 2830d-2992d; *Brixener
Passionsspiel, 108-12v, Wackernell (ed.), Altdeutsche Passionsspiele aus Tirol, pp.
201-09; *Donaueschinger Passionsspiel, ll. 3908-10; *Egerer Passionsspiel, ll.
7439g-85c; Erlau V, ll. 395d-409; Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 251a-55; Innsbrucker
(thüringisches) Osterspiel, ll. 268a-302a; *Klosterneuburger Osterspiel, ll. 188-
200; *Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel, ll. 2792c-2952d; Redentiner Osterspiel, ll.
512a-80a. Not in Schuler: Admonter Passionsspiel, ll. 1275a-93a; Alsfelder Di-
rigierrolle, 1230-56; Bozner Osterspiel I, 1. Teil, ll. 434b-54a; *Bozner Passions-
spiel 1495, A, ll. 2837c-2999d; Bozner Passionsspiel 1514, 2. Teil, MS, fols. 47v-
50; Göttweiger Dirigierrolle, MS, fol. 2, ll. 5-10; Künzelsauer Fronleichnamsspiel,
ll. 3731a-45e; Luzerner Osterspiel 1545, ll. 9837a-53 (in German); *Münchener
Osterspiel, ll. 34a-260a; *Osnabrücker Osterspiel, ll. 64a-86; Osnabrücker Pas-
sionsspielfragmente, l. 147a (incipit tollite only); *Rabers Passion, ll. 2819d-53c;
Villinger Passionsspiel, ll. 6083-6188; Wiener Osterspiel, ll. 209a-50a (uncertain if
Latin chants used). Asterisked plays contain notation.
60
Osnabrücker Osterspiel, ll. 64a-76b. The melodies (not transcribed by Schuler,
Musik der Osterfeiern) seem to be mode 3, some transposed. Hans-Hermann
Breuer (ed.), Das mittelniederdeutsche Osnabrücker Osterspiel: Der Ursprung des
Osterspiels und die Prozession Untersuchungen, Einleitung und Ausgabe, Os-
nabrück, 1939 (Beiträge zur Geschichte und Kulturgeschichte des Bistums Osna-
brück, 1), p. 87, nos. 4-8, does not discuss the music.
61
Admonter Passionsspiel, l. 1276; Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, A, l. 2837d; B, l.
2830d; Brixener Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 108 (Wackernell [ed.], Altdeutsche Pas-
sionsspiele aus Tirol, p. 201; Donaueschinger Passionsspiel, ll. 3908-09; Egerer
Passionsspiel, ll. 7439g-h; Klosterneuburger Osterspiel, ll. 193-94; Münchener
Osterspiel, ll. 34a-36, 242a-44 (German wording); Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel, l.
2792d; Rabers Passion, l. 2819f.
338
indeed. Only two late plays, Donaueschingen and Admont, unambigu-

ously do so.62 In the rest of the corpus, two plays whose notation
seems to be complete (Brixen and Eger) use the antiphon melody un-
extended.63 The rest contain too little music or text to show how much
was sung. The longest (Künzelsau) stops at portae aeternales ; most
are considerably shorter.64 Some write or notate as far as Tollite por-
tas, principes, vestras ;65 almost as many have even shorter incipits.66
Significantly, not a single one of these manuscripts includes even the
words et introibit rex gloriae , let alone any music for them.
Klosterneuburg is problematical: the text is written out, seemingly
for neumation, as far as r[ex] gl[ori]e , but neumes are written only
over the initial Tollite , and these seem to be those of about half the
entire antiphon.67 As it stands, this manuscript does not guarantee that
62
Donaueschinger Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 82v, ll. 3908-10; melody transcribed by
Anthonius H. Touber (ed.), Das Donaueschinger Passionsspiel: Nach der Hand-
schrift mit Einleitung und Kommentar neu herausgegeben, Stuttgart, 1985, p. 255,
and Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, vol. II, p. 335; the melody of Hesbert, Corpus
antiphonalium, no. 5159, is continued to cover et introibit rex gloriae , though in
the manuscript text and notation break off at introibit . Admonter Passionsspiel,
MS, fols. 99v-100 (l. 1276): the melody of Atollite [sic] portas is repeated for et
Eleuamini portae aeternales , leaving the proper melody of the second clause for
et introibit rex gloriae . Traub, Kommentar, pp. 120-21.
63
Brixener Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 108 (Wackernell [ed.], Altdeutsche Passionsspiele
aus Tirol, p. 201, note to ll. 328a-d); Egerer Passionsspiel, MS, fols. 122v-23, ll.
7439g-h.
64
Künzelsauer Fronleichnamsspiel, ll. 3731a-d.
65
Alsfelder Passionsspiel, l. 7122b; Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 1230; Bozner Osterspiel
I, 1. Teil, l. 434e; Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, A, l. 2837d; B, ll. 2830c-d; Bozner
Passionsspiel 1514, 2. Teil, MS, fol. 47v; Innsbrucker (thüringisches) Osterspiel, ll.
268a, 280a, 284a; Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel, l. 2792d; Rabers Passion, l. 2819f.
66
For instance: t : Göttweiger Dirigierrolle, MS, fol. 2, l. 6 (reading of Linke et al.,
Kollation zu Rolf Bergmann: Die Göttweiger Dirigierrolle eines Osterspiels , p.
4); Toll : Göttweiger Dirigierrolle, MS, fol. 2, l. 9; Tollite : Redentiner Oster-
spiel, ll. 526b, 532b; Tollite etc. : Augsburger Passionsspiel, l. 2402a; Tollite
portas, principes : Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 251a; Tollite portas, principes, etc. :
Berliner (rheinisches) Osterspiel, l. 134a.
67
Klosterneuburger Osterspiel, MS, fol. 143v, ll. 193-94. The neumes could possibly
339
et introibit rex gloriae was intended to be sung; this could be one of

the frequent occasions where a scribe has mistakenly set out for the
neumator text which was never intended to be neumed.
The Münchener Osterspiel interestingly corroborates the general
impression of reluctance to extend the antiphon melody. In this late
text, the chants have all been translated into German. The German
wording Jr fursten Thund ewre thor abkeren || so mag ein geen der
kunig der Eern does indeed verbally cover the Latin et introibit rex
gloriae ; but it is fitted into the unextended antiphon melody.68 Refer-
ences to the King of Glory in the German dialogue of plays are by no
means evidence of the antiphon having been extended: they are fre-
quent in plays where the chant was definitely, or probably, not length-
ened.69 The allusion to rex gloriae is in effect supposed as present in
the audience s awareness or memory without being expressed in per-
formance.
In the light of this evidence, then, editors should show caution in
their approach to the Tollite portas incipits in plays, especially ear-
lier ones: the reconstructions in the Innsbrucker Osterspiel by Meier,
and in the Redentiner Osterspiel by Schottmann, to include et in-
troibit rex gloriae are not necessarily right.70
Music for the rest of the dialogue is given in only four plays, all
late. The Osnabrücker Osterspiel is melodically unusual; Brixen sets
be those of Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 5159, as far as et ele- .

68
Münchener Osterspiel, ll. 34a-36, 242a-44.
69
E.g. Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 7123-24, 7133-34; Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, A,
ll. 2838-39; B, ll. 2831-32; Bozner Passionsspiel 1514, 2. Teil, MS, fol. 49v; Brix-
ener Passionsspiel (Wackernell [ed.], Altdeutsche Passionsspiele aus Tirol, p.
201); Egerer Passionsspiel, l. 7444; Innsbrucker (thüringisches) Osterspiel, ll.
275-76; Künzelsauer Fronleichnamsspiel, ll. 3732-35; Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel,
ll. 2793-94; Rabers Passion, ll. 2819d-23; Redentiner Osterspiel, ll. 513-14.
70
Innsbrucker (thüringisches) Osterspiel, ll. 269-71, 281-83, 285-87; Schottmann
(ed.), Redentiner Osterspiel, ll. 512d-e, 526b-c, 532b-c. Neither edition offers an
explicit rationale for this reconstruction.
340
Dominus fortis et potens in prelio to the melody of Jesum Nazare-

num crucifixum querimus from the Quem quaeritis dialogue.71 Ad-
mont and Eger have a psalm-tone setting.72 Here the Passion play tra-
dition shows its relation to the liturgical drama; in several Sterzing
plays, the liturgical practice of singing the Tollite portas higher
each time is found.73
Consistently absent from the Passion play manuscripts, however, is
music for the devils question Quis est iste rex gloriae? This reflects
the general association of music with heaven, and the devils corres-
ponding aversion to it. It also reflects the description of the devils
crying out this question in the Gospel of Nicodemus.74 Even in the
German Elevatio tradition this convention can be observed. In three
ceremonies it is unclear exactly how the dialogue was performed and
whether the diabolical question was sung or not.75 Only in five is it
definitely sung; and these are predominantly late sources, representing
only three different centres.76 By contrast, those where the question is
definitely or probably said are both more numerous (ten), more wide-
71
Osnabrücker Osterspiel, MS, fol. 132v, ll. 66a-76b; Brixener Passionsspiel, MS,
fol. 109v, Wackernell (ed.), Altdeutsche Passionsspiele aus Tirol, p. 203; cf. man-
uscript, fol. 118v.
72
Admonter Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 100v, ll. 1281a-82 (similar to tone 3); Egerer
Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 123v, ll. 7467a-c (tone 3).
73
Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, A, ll. 2982a, 2999a; B, ll. 2974a, 2992a; Bozner Pas-
sionsspiel 1514, 2. Teil, MS, fol. 50; Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel, ll. 2792c-52d.
74
Cambridge, 1996, vol. I, p. 208. Gospel of Nicodemus, Latin B version: Elliott
(ed.), Apocryphal New Testament, p. 202.
75
Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern und Osterspiele, nos. 357a: Trier12 (1576),
369: Worms6 (1500), 376: Würzburg6 (1482).
76
Lipphardt, nos. 213: Gerresheim (fifteenth century); 357c: Trier14 (1767); 527:
Augsburg27 (1612); 528: Augsburg28 (1656); 529: Augsburg29 (1764). The question
Quis est iste rex gloriae? was sung in the Regensburg Cathedral Elevatio (Lipp-
hardt, nos. 684a: Regensburg3 [1491], and 689: Regensburg8 [1570]), but not as
part of a mimetic Tollite portas dialogue; it was set to the Psalm-tone, referred to
as Versus in Lipphardt, no. 689 (vol. IV, p. 1249, ll. 33-36).
341
spread (seven centres), and on average somewhat earlier.77 The neces-

sarily tentative conclusion that the shouting of the question tends to be
the earlier practice in liturgical drama is supported by the Augsburg
evidence. Here it is the later sources (1612, 1656, 1764) where the
diabolical question is sung,78 whereas in the two earliest, from 1487
and 1580, it is shouted coarsely.79 In Klosterneuburg, the only Latin
Osterspiel with this dialogue, the text has been set out for neumation,
but not neumed, inconclusive evidence which might mean that it was
not in fact intended to be sung.80 In the vernacular Passion and Easter
plays the devils are clearly directed to yell, not sing, their question.81
The melodically unique Osnabrücker Osterspiel seems to be the sole
exception.82
Whilst none of this proves exactly how the St Gall Passion Play
may have treated these chants, it does at least suggest likely ap-
proaches:
77
Lipphardt, nos. 212d: Fulda6 (1615); 224: Kleve (fifteenth century); 262: Mainz13
(1762); 340a: Speyer3 (1438-70); 357a: Trier12 (1576); 522: Augsburg22 (1487);
523: Augsburg23 (1499), 524: Augsburg24 (1547); 526: Augsburg26 (1580); 530:
Bamberg10 (1587).
78
Lipphardt, nos. 527: Augsburg27 (1612); 528: Augsburg28 (1656); 529: Augsburg29
(1764).
79
Lipphardt, no. 522: Augsburg22 (1487), ll. 32-33: Levita Junior vel Alius in Figura
Diaboli grossa voce querat ; the same in Lipphardt, no. 523: Augsburg23, fol.
XXXIr-v; 526: Augsburg26 (1580), ll. 46-47: Aliquis [ ] Diaboli responsum si-
mulans, intus crasse ita respondet . Similarly Lipphardt, no. 530: Bamberg10, p.
594.
80
Klosterneuburger Osterspiel, MS, fol. 143v, ll. 195-96.
81
Schreien : Admonter Passionsspiel, l. 1278a; Augsburger Passionsspiel, l. 2408a;
Brixener Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 109v (Wackernell [ed.], Altdeutsche Passions-
spiele aus Tirol, p. 203. Clamare : Brixener Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 112 (Ibid., p.
208); Egerer Passionsspiel, ll. 7459d-e, 7483a-b; Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 254;
Innsbrucker (thüringisches) Osterspiel, l. 271a; Rabers Passion, ll. 2823a. Dicere
alta voce : Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel, l. 2938a. Respondere cum strepitu : Als-
felder Passionsspiel, ll. 7124a-b; cf. Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 1232-33.
82
Osnabrücker Osterspiel, ll. 66a-b.
342
91 Tollite portas ...

The play gives no indication of how long this chant continues, and as
Pflanz recognizes, the German Ir hellen vursten, dunt of die dur. ||
Vnd gebent mir mine knethe hervor , which does not directly cor-
respond to the Latin wording, is of no help in this respect.83 The evi-
dence of the German Passion plays suggests that extending Hesbert s
antiphon 5159 is rare, and more typical of later plays.
92 Quis est iste rex gloriae?
Though the Devil does sing in the temptation of Jesus in the St Gall
Passion Play,84 in the case of this dialogue the consistent practice in
Passion plays, and the almost uniform practice in the Easter plays and
ceremonies, particularly in the earlier period, is cacophonous shout-
ing.
93 Dominus virtutum, iste est rex gloriae
The angel s response, by contrast, will almost certainly have been
sung, most probably to the third Psalm-tone or a simple melody re-
lated to it.
An unextended antiphon for 91, a question shouted by the Devil
for 92 and a chanted angelic response for 93 corresponds to the ar-
rangement in both Eger and Brixen.85
This dialogue, then, is one of the sung parts of the St Gall Passion
Play about which final certainty is impossible. From the directions,
however, it would seem that this is one of the simpler performances of
these chants in the dramatic repertoire, as befits a relatively early play
83
84
15, Si es filius Dei (see Chapter V above), and 17, Angelis suis mandavit (see
Chapter VI above).
85
Egerer Passionsspiel, ll. 7439g-85c; Brixener Passionsspiel, MS, fols. 108-112v
(Wackernell [ed.], Altdeutsche Passionsspiele aus Tirol, pp. 201-09).
343
whose manuscript seems to imply less elaborate staging than in the

latest and largest-scale examples. The likely format is:86
After the Tollite portas dialogue, Christ breaks down the door of
Hell, and is greeted by Adam and the patriarchs, who sing of their de-
light in his coming after so many millennia:
94
Tunc Christus pede trudat ianuam et apperiatur
Et Adam cum ceteris cantent Advenisti et dicat:
Herre, du bist kommen her.
Wir din gebeident han bit ger
in dirre vinstere mange stunt.
Nu ist vns dine helfe worden kunt,
des wir binne wol vunfdusent iar
vil gemerlichen waren. (ll. 1279a-85)
Bergmann and Pflanz correctly identify this item, though Pflanz s des-
cription of it is scanty.87 Advenisti, desiderabilis is part of the anti-
86
Tollite portas : Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 5159, from Psalterium Spi-
rense (1515), sig. c viir. Dominus virtutum : Psalm-tone 3, based on sources in
note 55; cf. Psalterium Spirense (1515), sig. c viir; Liber usualis, p. 114.
87
Bergmann, Studien, p. 196, and Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, pp. 148-49.
344
phon Cum rex gloriae , also known as the Canticum triumphale .88 It
is verbally similar to the Justorum ad Christum obsecratio in Pseudo-
Augustine s Sermo 160 for Easter.89 As a processional antiphon for
Easter Sunday it is found in numerous liturgical sources, showing mi-
nor melodic variants.90 Its text and melody were frequently adapted by
post-Reformation hymn-writers.91
Cum rex gloriae is a staple of Visitatio Sepulchri and Elevatio
ceremonies; one hundred and thirty, from about fifty centres, are re-
corded in Lipphardt s Lateinische Osterfeiern und Osterspiele, of
which nearly all are from the German territories, Bohemia, Moravia
and central Poland.92
88
Not in Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium. Carl Marbach, Carmina scripturarum,
Strasbourg, 1907 [rpt. Hildesheim, 1963], pp. 540-41; Hermann Adalbert Daniel,
Thesaurus hymnologicus sive hymnorum canticorum sequentiarum collectio am-
plissima, 5 vols., Leipzig, 1855-56, vol. II, p. 315; Young, Drama of the Medieval
Church, vol. I, pp. 151-52; Frieder Schulz, Singen wir heut mit einem Mund ,
Jahrbuch für Liturgik und Hymnologie 32 (1989), pp. 29-71, esp. 41-43.
89
Also known as Sermo 137 de tempore: Migne (ed.), Patrologia Latina, vol.
XXXIX, cols. 2059-61, esp. 2061. The possibility that Cum rex gloriae is the
source of Pseudo-Augustine, rather than the other way round, as usually supposed,
is discussed by Emil Lengeling, cited in Schulz, Singen wir heut , p. 42, note 61.
90
Conspectus of sources in Tadeusz Miazga, Die Gesänge zur Osterprozession in den
handschriftlichen Überlieferungen vom 10. bis zum 19. Jahrhundert, Graz, 1979,
pp. 250-57; cf. Schulz, Singen wir heut , pp. 41-45; Christian Väterlein (ed.),
Graduale Pataviense (Wien 1511), Kassel [etc.], 1982 (Das Erbe deutscher Musik,
87), fol. 81r-v.
91
Schulz, Singen wir heut , passim.
92
Listed by geographical centre, with Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern und
Osterspiele nos.: (i) present-day German-speaking countries: Admont (485a,
485b); Augsburg (522, 526-529); Bamberg (190a, 190b, 195, 195a, 530); Berlin
(532, 533); Diessen (549); Eichstätt (550, 550a, 551-555, 557-560); Essen (564);
Fulda (212a, 212d); Gandersheim (785); Gernrode (786); Gerresheim (213-215);
Halle (585); Innichen (223a, 591); Kleve (224); Köln (238b, 238c); Magdeburg
(608); Mainz (251-254, 256, 257, 260, 262, 263); Meißen (612, 614); Münster
(274, 293, 296); Neuenherse (624); Neuß (625a); Paderborn (308); Prüfening
(311); Rasdorf (683a); Regensburg (325, 326, 686); Reichersberg (692); St Gallen
(330, 331); St Lambrecht (728, 730); Seckau (744, 745); Seligenstadt (335);
345
Cum rex gloriae is attested copiously in Mainz: here it frequently

figures after the Elevatio and as the antiphon for the Easter Sunday
procession, often explicitly linked with a preceding Visitatio Sepul-
chri.93 The antiphon was also used at the aspersion on the Sunday after
Easter.94 Speyer sources are much less plentiful, but do record the an-
tiphon in the Elevatio ceremony.95 The dearth of Worms books, espe-
cially the complete absence of graduals and processionals, means that
it cannot be adequately documented there; but its use in the Elevatio in
the Worms ritual printed about 1500 shows it was known in that dio-
cese also.96
Cum rex gloriae Christus infernum debellaturus intraret, et chorus angelicus
ante faciem ejus portas principum tolli praeciperet, sanctorum populus, qui
97
tenebatur in morte captivus voce lachrimabili clamaverat:
Speyer (339, 340a); Strasbourg (341); Trier (355, 357a); Wöltingerrode (766);
Worms (369); Würzburg (372, 373, 376, 377); Zurich (767); (ii) Bohemia,
Moravia, Poland: Glatz (K odzko) (383); Gnesen (Gniezno) (576, 576f, h, i);
Krakau (Cracow) (431, 431b-e); Olmütz (Olomouc) (385a, 386); P ock (432c);
Prague (388, 389, 661-65, 668-73, 675, 676, 678, 678a, 679, 680); Warschau
(Warsaw) (432d); Breslau (Wroc aw) (536e, h, n, q, r, x, x1, x2). This list, whilst
fuller and more accurate than the seriously inadequate list in Lipphardt (ed.), La-
teinische Osterfeiern und Osterspiele, vol. IX, p. 905, may not be exhaustive.
93
After Elevatio: Lipphardt, nos. 251: Mainz2, 256: Mainz7, 260: Mainz11, 262:
Mainz13, 263: Mainz14; Mainz Cathedral processionals: Speyer, Bistumsarchiv, Hs.
4, fols. 78v-80v; Speyer, Bistumsarchiv, Hs. 5, fols. 65v-68. Easter Sunday, con-
nected with Visitatio: Lipphardt, nos. 252: Mainz3, 253: Mainz4, 254: Mainz5;
Mainz Cathedral processionals: Speyer, Bistumsarchiv, Hs. 4, fol. 80v; Speyer, Bis-
tumsarchiv, Hs. 5, fol. 68 (mentioning the collegiate churches procession to Lieb-
frauen).
94
Theodor Heinrich Klein, Die Prozessionsgesänge der Mainzer Kirche aus dem 14.
bis 18. Jahrhundert, Speyer, 1962 (Quellen und Abhandlungen zur mittelrheini-
schen Kirchengeschichte, 7), pp. 50-51.
95
Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Cod. Vindob. 1882, fol. 41v (= Lipp-
hardt, no. 339); Karlsruhe, Generallandesarchiv, 67/452, fol. 26 (= Lipphardt, no.
340a); both at the Elevatio, before Matins and Visitatio Sepulchri.
96
Lipphardt, no. 369: Worms6, in Agenda ecclesie wormaciensis, 1500-10, fol. 70
(sig. i vir).
97
Mainz gradual, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 44, fol. 74.
346
347
The antiphon is found in numerous plays, not all listed by Schuler.98

The great majority also perform the first section of the antiphon, be-
ginning at Cum rex gloriae . The St Gall Passion Play is one of a
mere six to contain only Advenisti ; it may be significant that three of
this small group are Hessian.99 The almost invariable lack of notation
for this chant in these plays, even in those whose manuscripts contain
much music, is a sign of familiar and easily accessible liturgical mate-
rial.100
Whilst Pflanz does not address the question of how much of this
long chant would have been sung in St Gall, he does not expressly
98
Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, nos. 72, 73, 74, 75. In Schuler: Alsfelder Pas-
sionsspiel, ll. 7076a-7160d; Berliner (rheinisches) Osterspiel, ll. 268a-c; Bozner
Passionsspiel 1495, B, ll. 2830a-c, 3006a; Brixener Passionsspiel, MS, fols. 108,
113-16 (Wackernell [ed.], Altdeutsche Passionsspiele aus Tirol, pp. 201, 210, 214;
Donaueschinger Passionsspiel, ll. 3941-48; Egerer Passionsspiel, ll. 7439a-f,
7501a-c; Erlau V, ll. 395a-c, 421a-b; Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 255; Innsbrucker
(thüringisches) Osterspiel, ll. 250a-65; Klosterneuburger Osterspiel, ll. 188-89,
200-01; Luzerner Osterspiel 1545, marginal addition after l. 9865; Pfarrkirchers
Passionsspiel, ll. 2792a-b, 2966a-c; Redentiner Osterspiel, ll. 506a-i, 604a-e; Wie-
ner Osterspiel, ll. 199a-b. Not in Schuler: Admonter Passionsspiel, ll. 1272a-75,
1293a-94; Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, ll. 1220-56; Bozner Osterspiel I, 1. Teil, ll. 434
b-c, 454a-c; Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, A, ll. 2837a-b, 3013a; Bozner Passions-
spiel 1514, 2. Teil, MS, fol. 47v; Göttweiger Dirigierrolle, MS, fol. 2, l. 6; Hersfel-
der Osterspiel, ll. 19-22; Münchener Osterspiel, ll. 294b-97; Osnabrücker Oster-
spiel, ll. 58a-e, 88a-c; Rabers Passion, ll. 2819b-c, 2855a-b; Tiroler Osterspiel, ll.
204a-c.
99
St Gall Passion Play, Berliner (rheinisches) Osterspiel, Frankfurter Dirigierrolle;
also Donaueschinger Passionsspiel, Luzerner Osterspiel 1545, Münchener Oster-
spiel, line numbers as in note 98. Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 72, lists St.
Gallen VI (= Lipphardt, Lateinische Osterfeiern und Osterspiele, no. 330), St.
Gallen VII (= Lipphardt, no. 331), Tiroler Osterspiel and Wiener Osterspiel as
having Cum rex gloriae without Advenisti . Lipphardt, no. 331, does, however,
include Advenisti .
100
Melodies given only in Admonter Passionsspiel, Donaueschinger Passionsspiel,
Egerer Passionsspiel, Klosterneuburger Osterspiel and Pfarrkirchers Passions-
spiel (line numbers as in note 98). Klosterneuburg, MS, fol. 143v (l. 201), neu-
mates only the words Cum rex gloriae Christus .
348
disagree with Hartl s edition, which prints the entire text, though with-
out the final Alleluia . The evidence of other surviving texts is far
from helpful. The Elevatio ceremonies offer only an indirect parallel
to the Passion and Easter plays: they almost invariably use the anti-
phon to accompany the procession of the cross or the Blessed Sacra-
ment raised from the Easter Sepulchre, which often involves circling
the church or churchyard three times, so that the whole chant is need-
ed as an accompaniment.101
The Passion and Easter plays contain nothing analogous to the Ele-
vatio procession, and few give enough information to show how much
of the antiphon is to be performed. Exceptions tend to be the later,
longer and more spectacular examples such as Alsfeld, where Christ,
the angels, and the good souls sing the entire chant in a complicated
se-quence, alternating with the Tollite portas dialogue (no. 67,
above), an arrangement similar to Admont and with interesting paral-
lels in some German Elevatio ceremonies.102 Yet the few which do
show where the chant ended display a consistency. Five specify fin-
ishing at de claustris ; Admont stops even earlier, at in tenebris .103
101
Of the eighty-four German ceremonies listed in note 92, thirty-five definitely and
thirty probably use the whole antiphon.
102
Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 7076a-7160d; cf. Dreimüller, Musik des Alsfelder
Passionsspiels , vol. II, pp. 88-92; Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, ll. 1220-56. Cf. Admon-
ter Passionsspiel, ll. 1273-94. Cum rex gloriae as a processional antiphon is in-
terrupted by the Tollite portas dialogue in ceremonies from Augsburg (Lipp-
hardt, Lateinische Osterfeiern und Osterspiele, no. 522: Augsburg22; 526: Augs-
burg26), Bamberg (Lipphardt, no. 530: Bamberg10), and possibly Gerresheim (Lip-
phardt, no. 231: Gerresheim1); also in Osnabrücker Osterspiel, ll. 58a-88c. Cum
rex gloriae is followed by Tollite portas (though without such interruption) in
Hersfelder Osterspiel, ll. 18-23, and in Lipphardt, nos. 212d: Fulda6, 238b:
Köln15, 251: Mainz2, 262: Mainz13, 340a: Speyer3, 357a: Trier12, 369: Worms6,
376: Würzburg6, 377: Würzburg7, 683a: Rasdorf2.
103
Brixener Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 108; Wackernell (ed.), Altdeutsche Passions-
spiele aus Tirol, p. 210 (Wackernell misreads usque ad hunc v[er]su[m] Te nos-
tra as usque ad hunc Jesu spe nostra ); Donaueschinger Passionsspiel, MS,
fol. 83v, ll. 3941-48; Egerer Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 124, ll. 7501a-c; Frankfurter
349
There is evidence in some plays for the singing of the rest of the anti-
phon, from Te nostra vocabant suspiria , as the Altväter proceed to
Heaven.104 The evidence of these few, but spatially and chronologi-
cally diverse plays, suggesting that de claustris was felt to mark a
significant division in the chant, is supported by the music: from Te
nostra vocabant suspiria the melody becomes more melismatic and its
tessitura is on average higher. De claustris seems a likely point for
the chant to end.
Jesus takes Adam s hand, and sings his invitation to the Blessed Souls
to come to his kingdom:
95
Tunc Iesus apprehende[n]s Adam manu cantet Venite,
benedicti :
Wol vf, ir sollent ane swere
vorbaz leben vmer mere
bi mir vnd bi dem vatter min.
Do sollent ir bit vreuden sin.
Tunc deducat eos ad paradysum (ll. 1285a-89a)
Disagreeing with Hartl, who reconstructed this item as Matthew 25:34

( Venite, benedicti patris mei, possidete paratum vobis regnum a con-
Dirigierrolle, l. 255 ( usque extra given without comment by Johannes Janota

[ed.], Die hessische Passionsspielgruppe: Edition im Paralleldruck, vol. I: Frank-
furter Dirigierrolle. Frankfurter Passionsspiel. Mit den Paralleltexten der Frank-
furter Dirigierrolle , des Alsfelder Passionsspiels , des Heidelberger Passions-
spiels , des Frankfurter Osterspielfragments und des Fritzlarer Passionsspiel-
fragments , Tübingen, 1996, and Richard Froning [ed.], Das Drama des Mittelal-
ters, 3 vols., Stuttgart, 1891-92 [rpt. Darmstadt, 1964] (Deutsche National-Littera-
tur, 14:1-3), vol. II, p. 364) and dubiously interpreted by Wolf, Kommentar, p.
233, as meaning bis nach erfolgtem Auszug ). Münchener Osterspiel, ll. 294b-97;
Admonter Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 101r-v, ll. 1293a-94.
104
E.g. Brixener Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 116, Wackernell (ed.), Altdeutsche Passions-
spiele aus Tirol, p. 214; Redentiner Osterspiel, ll. 682a-b ( Magna consolatio ).
350
stitutione mundi ), Bergmann and Pflanz,105 propose a Magnificat an-

tiphon for Monday of the first week of Lent:
106
Pflanz and Bergmann however overlook another liturgical possibility:

the introit for Wednesday of Easter Week: 107
105
Bergmann, Studien, p. 196 and note 1582, and Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrund-
lagen, pp. 35-36, 101-02.
106
48, fol. 109v. Also in: Mainz breviary, Frankfurt, Barth. 160, fol. 318v (see other
Mainz breviaries in Pflanz, p. 102, note 1); Worms breviary, British Library, MS
add. 19415, fol. 229v (also as Benedictus antiphon, Tuesday, Week 1 of Lent);
printed Worms breviary, 1490 (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no. 5515), sig.
z 4vb; Speyer psalter and breviary, Speyer, Gymnasialbibliothek, A.D.3, fol. 87ra;
h2r; Orarium Spirense (pars hiemalis), sig. 4vb; cf. Antiphonale monasticum pro
diurnis horis juxta vota RR. D. Abbatum congregationum conf deratarum Ordinis
Sancti Benedicti a Solesmensibus monachis restitutum, Paris [etc.], 1934, p. 346;
Karlheinz Schlager (ed.), Antiphonale Pataviense (Wien 1519), Kassel [etc.], 1985
(Das Erbe deutscher Musik, 88), fol. 32v.
107
Mainz gradual, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 44, fol. 77. Also in: Mainz missal, Frankfurt,
Barth. 118, fol. 6; printed Worms missal, 1488, fol. LXXIVv (= sig. kiiv); Speyer
missal, Speyer, Bistumsarchiv, Hs. 1, fol. cxxiiva (introit, Wednesday of Easter
Week); printed Speyer missal, 1501, fol. LXXIIIIvb (= sig. k iivb); Väterlein (ed.),
Graduale Pataviense, fol. 85v; Graduale triplex, pp. 205-06; Liber usualis, pp.
792-93.
351
The dramatic tradition does not greatly help to decide which chant
the St Gall Passion Play may have used. A similar item is found in
sixteen other plays, not all listed in Schuler; seven manuscripts in-
clude music.108 The antiphon was definitely used in five plays, and
probably in the Bozner Passionsspiel 1514.109 The introit, however,
108
7248a-b; Berliner (rheinisches) Osterspiel, ll. 262a-c; Bozner Passionsspiel 1495,
B, ll. 3002a-b; see Traub, Kommentar, p. 170; Brixener Passionsspiel, MS, fol.
113, Wackernell (ed.), Altdeutsche Passionsspiele aus Tirol, p. 210; Donau-
eschinger Passionsspiel, ll. 3931-34; *Egerer Passionsspiel, ll. 7553a-c; Erlau V,
ll. 445a-c; Innsbrucker (thüringisches) Osterspiel, l. 337; *Pfarrkirchers Pas-
sionsspiel, ll. 2962a-b; Redentiner Osterspiel, ll. 586n-p. Not in Schuler: Admon-
ter Passionsspiel, ll. 1300a-01; Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 1270; Bozner Osterspiel I,
1. Teil, ll. 492d-e; Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, A, ll. 3009a-b; Bozner Passions-
spiel 1514, 2. Teil, MS, fol. 50; Göttweiger Dirigierrolle, MS, fol. 2, l. 24; Kün-
zelsauer Fronleichnamsspiel, l. 3750, marginal addition; Rabers Passion, ll.
2897c-d. Those asterisked contain notation.
109
Admonter Passionsspiel, Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, A, B (cf. Traub, Kommentar,
p. 170), Egerer Passionsspiel, Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel, Rabers Passion; line-
numbers as in note 108; some melodies transcribed by Schuler, Musik der Oster-
feiern, vol. II, p. 343. Bozner Passionsspiel 1514, 2. Teil, MS, fol. 50: Saluator
canit: Venite benedicti , short empty stave.
352
appeared in Erlau V, and possibly in the Berliner (rheinisches) Oster-

spiel.110 Two late plays are unusual: Brixen has the untypical wording
Venite Benedicti patris mei et possidetis regnum coelorum below an
empty stave; in Donaueschingen neither the words nor the melismatic
melody come from either antiphon or introit.111 In the rest, brief incip-
its or imprecise directions leave the identity of the chant uncertain.112
Missing completely, however, is any positive evidence of the use of
the biblical wording Venite, benedicti patris mei, possidete paratum
vobis regnum a constitutione mundi (Matthew 25:34) of Schuler s
Leittext.113 Schottmann s reconstruction of the Redentin incipit using
this wording is thus probably incorrect; Dreimüller s completion of
the unnotated Alsfeld incipit using the antiphon wording and the Eger
melody is more plausible.114
The dramatic tradition thus gives no clear indication of the melody
used in plays close in time or space to the St Gall Passion Play. Both
110
Erlau V, 445a-c: ut patet in introitu . In Berliner (rheinisches) Osterspiel, ll.
262a-c, the incipit Venite, benedicti patris mei, Alleluia might be a shortened (or
inaccurate) version of the introit, but could perhaps indicate the antiphon with an
added Alleluia as in Eger.
111
Brixener Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 113v, Wackernell (ed.), Altdeutsche Passions-
spiele aus Tirol, p. 210; Donaueschinger Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 83, ll. 3931-34:
Venite, benedicti patris mei in regnum celorum quod paratum est vobis ; music
transcribed by Touber (ed.), Donaueschinger Passionsspiel, p. 255, and in Schu-
ler, Musik der Osterfeiern, vol. II, p. 343; cf. Anthonius H. Touber, Das Oster-
spiel im Donaueschinger Passionsspiel: Text und Musik , in Max Siller (ed.), Os-
terspiele: Text und Musik, Innsbruck, 1994 (Schlern-Schriften, 293), pp. 203-09,
esp. 206.
112
Incipits: Venite, benedicti : Bozner Osterspiel I, Teil 1, Bozner Passionsspiel
1514, 2. Teil, Redentiner Osterspiel; Venite, benedicti patris : Göttweiger Diri-
gierrolle; Venite, benedicti patris mei : Alsfelder Passionsspiel, Innsbrucker (thü-
ringisches) Osterspiel; Kom[t] ir ausirweltin : Wiener Osterspiel, l. 262a. line-
113
114
Schottmann (ed.), Redentiner Osterspiel, ll. 586n-p; Schottmann s note (p. 211)
offers no rationale for this reconstruction. Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 7248b-c; cf.
Dreimüller, Musik des Alsfelder Passionsspiels , vol. II, pp. 93, 165.
353
antiphon and introit would have been possible choices. The general
tendency in St Gall, as in many German plays, to use office chants,
may make the former the more likely choice.
Jesus leads the Blessed Souls to Heaven:

96
Tunc deducat eos ad paradysum
Quo cum pervenerint cantent Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus (ll. 1289a-b)
This chant is discussed under no. 20 in Chapter VI above. Taken liter-

ally, the direction to sing the item after arriving in Heaven ( Quo cum
pervenerint , l. 1289b) suggests that the procession itself has no musi-
cal accompaniment. Whilst there are some unaccompanied movements
in the St Gall Passion Play,115 a large-scale, theologically important
movement of this kind in silence seems both theatrically and liturgi-
cally weak, and using the second part of Advenisti, desiderabilis to
cover the procession, as in Brixen and Redentin, certainly suggests it-
self.116 All the more interesting, then, that a silent procession to
Heaven is in fact comparatively common in German plays. In some,
spoken dialogue covers the movement;117 but a good many do indeed
seem to envisage a silent procession.118 This seems a South German
tendency, however; the two relevant Hessian plays do accompany the
115
E.g. l. 687a: Tunc Iesus vadat ad Montem Oliveti ; l. 939a: Tunc veniunt ad He-
rodem ; l. 979a: Tunc induatur alba et ducatur ad Pylatum ; ll. 1083a-b: Tunc
milites [ ] ducent [Christum] ad locum ubi debet crucifigi .
116
See note 104.
117
E.g. Berliner (rheinisches) Osterspiel, ll. 406a-22; Egerer Passionsspiel, ll. 7557
a-91a; Innsbrucker (thüringisches) Osterspiel, ll. 337-506; Wiener Osterspiel, ll.
262a-314.
118
E.g. Admonter Passionsspiel, ll. 1300-03; Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, A, ll. 3073
a-b; B, ll. 3066a-b; Bozner Passionsspiel 1514, 2. Teil, MS, fol. 51; Donau-
eschinger Passionsspiel, ll. 4034a-d; Künzelsauer Fronleichnamsspiel, ll. 3749a-
c; Luzerner Passionsspiel, l. 10013a; Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel, l. 3026a; Ra-
bers Passion, l. 2903a; (Ibid., ll. 2903b-c: Salve, festa dies is sung after arrival
in heaven).
354
procession with chant.119 Nonetheless, the lack of musical accompani-

ment in the St Gall Passion Play may not be a simple gap or error, but
may reflect general tendencies in the staging of German religious
drama.
119
Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 7274a-c: Jesu, nostra redemptio ; ll. 7290a-b: Gloria
tibi, Domine ; Frankfurter Dirigierrrolle, 255a: Et cantantes sequentur eum .
355
Chapter X
The Empty Tomb
he final part of the play is the most intensively melodic, with

twelve musical incipits in under sixty lines of dialogue. Here,
even more so than elsewhere, music is no mere Einlage but
the primary vehicle of the play s meaning. The action is close to its
liturgical roots in the Visitatio ceremony.
The Visitatio Sepulchri (ll. 1289c-1331)

The Visitatio sequence begins with the processional movement of the
three Maries to the tomb:
97
Tunc procedant cantantes Media vita (l. 1309a)
This incipit is highly distinctive, and Schuler, Bergmann and Pflanz1

unproblematically identify the mode 1 antiphon Media vita in morte
sumus , legendarily ascribed to Notker Balbulus but in fact probably
written in the mid-eleventh century, a product of the Gorze monastic
re-form.2 Media vita was strongly characteristic of the German terri-
1
Universität Basel, 1940), no. 343), Rolf Bergmann, Studien zu Entstehung und Ge-
schichte der deutschen Passionsspiele des 13. und 14. Jahrhunderts, München,
1972 (Münstersche Mittelalter-Schriften, 14), p. 197 and note 1585, Hermann
Manfred Pflanz, Die lateinischen Textgrundlagen des St. Galler Passionsspieles in
der mittelalterlichen Liturgie, Frankfurt [etc.], 1977 (Europäische Hochschul-
schriften, Reihe 1, 205), p. 37, pp. 102-03.
2
ecclesiasticarum documenta. Series maior. Fontes, 7-12), no. 3732. Clemens
Blume & Guido M. Dreves (eds.), Analecta Hymnica medii aevi, 55 vols., Leipzig,
1886-1922 [rpt. Frankfurt, 1961]; Register, ed. by M. Lütolf, 2 vols. in 3 parts,
Bern-München, 1978, vol. XLIX, pp. 386-89 (nos. 784-86); Ulysse Chevalier, Re-
pertorium Hymnologicum: Catalogue des chants, hymnes, proses, séquences,
tories.3 By the mid-thirteenth century it had gained immense popu-

larity there as a song of lament and supplication; hymn versions were
produced till the beginning of the seventeenth century.4 The antiphon,
credited with apotropaic powers, was frequently associated with the
Crucifixion.
tropes en usage dans l église latine depuis les origines jusqu à nos jours, 6 vols.,
Louvain-Bruxelles, 1892-1921 (Subsidia hagiographica, 4), no. 11419; Hermann
Adalbert Daniel, Thesaurus hymnologicus sive hymnorum canticorum sequentia-
rum collectio amplissima, 5 vols., Leipzig, 1855-56, vol. II, pp. 329-31; Proces-
sionale monasticum ad usum Congregationis Gallicae Ordinis Sancti Benedicti,
Solesmes, 1893 [rpt. Paris-Tournai, 1983], pp. 45-46; John Julian (ed.), A Dic-
tionary of Hymnology Setting Forth the Origin and History of Christian Hymns of
All Ages and Nations, London, 1908 [rev. ed.], pp. 720-21; Josef Höfer & Karl
Rahner (eds.), Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, 11 vols., Freiburg, 1957-67 [2nd
ed.], vol. VII, col. 230; Walther Lipphardt, Mitten wir im Leben sind : Zur
Geschichte des Liedes und seiner Weise , Jahrbuch für Liturgik und Hymnologie 8
(1963), pp. 99-118, esp. 100-06 (p. 103); idem, Media vita in morte sumus , in
Kurt Ruh et al., Die deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters: Verfasserlexikon, Berlin-
New York, 1978- [2nd ed.], vol. VI, cols 271-75, citing further literature; Johannes
Janota, Studien zu Funktion und Typus des deutschen geistlichen Liedes im Mit-
telalter, München, 1968 (Münchener Texte und Untersuchungen zur deutschen Li-
teratur des Mittelalters, 23), pp. 232-33. On Gorze see William J. McDonald et al.,
New Catholic Encyclopedia, New York [etc.], 1967-, vol. VI, pp. 634-35; Walter
Kasper et al. (eds.), Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, Freiburg, 1993- [3rd ed.],
vol. IV, cols 1061-62.
3
Lipphardt, Mitten wir im Leben sind , p. 102. The antiphon is found in only two
of the twelve Corpus antiphonalium manuscripts, but in twenty-six CANTUS
sources, seventeen from Germany, Austria, Slovenia, Belgium and the Nether-
lands.
4
Julian (ed.), Dictionary of Hymnology, pp. 720-21; Adolph Franz, Die Messe im
deutschen Mittelalter. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Liturgie und des religiösen
Volkslebens, Freiburg, 1902 [rpt. Darmstadt, 1963], pp. 99, 208; Wilhelm Bäum-
ker, Das katholische deutsche Kirchenlied in seinen Singweisen von den frühesten
Zeiten bis gegen Ende des siebzehnten Jahrhunderts, 4 vols., Freiburg, 1886-1911
[rpt. Hildesheim, 1962], vol. I, pp. 583-84, 592-93; Karl Eduard Philipp Wacker-
nagel (ed.), Das deutsche Kirchenlied von der ältesten Zeit bis zu Anfang des XVII.
Jahrhunderts, 5 vols., Leipzig, 1864-77 [repr. Hildesheim, 1964], vol. II, nos. 991-
99 and III, no. 12 (ten versions from the fifteenth century to 1605). Cf. Lipphardt
Media vita in morte sumus , cols 273-74.
358
X. The Empty Tomb
5,6
The chant, the Nunc dimittis antiphon at compline during Lent,

seems in the thirteenth century to have shifted generally to mid-Lent.7
In sources from the fourteenth century and later, it is found in Mainz
5
Daniel, Thesaurus hymnologicus, vol. II, p. 331; e.g. the German version under a
woodcut of the Crucifixion in Postille maiores [...] in Epistolas et Euangelia [...],
Basel: A. Petri, 1514, verso of titlepage, printed in Wackernagel (ed.), Das deut-
sche Kirchenlied, vol. II, no. 992.
6
Mainz antiphonal, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 48, fols. 102v-03. Here, as in all German
sources, the melismata on sancte rise to c, higher than in Roman books (e.g. Pro-
cessionale monasticum, pp. 45-46); see Lipphardt, Mitten wir im Leben sind , p.
103; cf. examples in Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, vol. II, pp. 315-18 (Braunsch-
weiger Osterspiel, Brixener Passionsspiel, Egerer Passionsspiel, Engelberger Os-
terspiel II, Erlau III, Nottulner Osterspiel I, Trierer Osterspiel, Wolfenbütteler Os-
terspiel), plus: Admonter Passionsspiel; Feldkircher Osterspiel; Füssener Oster-
spiel; Münchener Hortulanusszene; Osnabrücker Osterspiel; Tiroler Osterspiel;
Zwickauer Osterspiel I, II, III. Line numbers: see note 11 below.
7
Lipphardt, Mitten wir im Leben sind , p. 102.
359
on the first Sunday and on Saturdays, in Worms and Speyer predomi-

nantly in mid-Lent.8 The haunting melismata of Sancte Deus, sancte
fortis, sancte et misericors Salvator seem not originally to have
been part of the antiphon, but to have been taken over, by about the
twelfth century, from the Tris[h]agion, a Good Friday chant of By-
zantine origin, with the refrain Sancte Deus, sancte fortis, sancte et
immortalis, miserere nobis .9 Pflanz s claim to find a short form of
Media vita without the Sancte Deus section in late-medieval Mainz
sources is mistaken.10
8
Mainz: Hermann Reifenberg, Stundengebet und Breviere im Bistum Mainz seit der
romanischen Epoche, Münster, 1964 (Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und For-
schungen, 40), p. 137, note 861: Saturdays in Lent; Franz Falk (ed.), Die pfarramt-
lichen Aufzeichnungen (Liber consuetudinum) des Florentius Diel zu St. Christoph
in Mainz, 1491-1518, Freiburg, 1904 (Erläuterungen und Ergänzungen zu Janssens
Geschichte des deutschen Volkes, Band 4, Heft 3), p. 8: also Ash Wednesday.
Mainz antiphonal, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 48, fols. 102v-103; Mainz breviaries: Frank-
furt, Barth. 150, fol. 185v; Barth. 160, fol. 314v (both first Sunday in Lent). Mid-
Lent placing in: Worms: Worms breviaries: British Library, MS add. 19415, fol.
244v; Vatican, cod. pal. lat. 519, fol. 188; printed Worms breviary, 1490 (Gesamt-
katalog der Wiegendrucke, Leipzig [etc.], 1925-, no. 5515), sig. bb 4ra; Speyer:
printed Speyer breviaries: 1478 (Ibid., no. 5464), sig. K5ra; 1491 (Ibid., no. 5465),
sig. i4v; Orarium Spirense (pars hiemalis), sig. aa5rb-va; Cf. Karlheinz Schlager
(ed.), Antiphonale Pataviense (Wien 1519), Kassel [etc.], 1985 (Das Erbe deut-
scher Musik, 88), fol. 35r-v (Saturday of week two of Lent).
9
Kenneth J. Levy, Trisagion , in Stanley Sadie (ed.), The New Grove Dictionary of
Music and Musicians, 29 vols., London, 2001 [2nd ed.], vol. XXV, pp. 745-46;
Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, nos. 556, 557, 558a (melodies transcribed in vol.
II, pp. 315-18) and vol. I, p. 15; Dietrich Schmidtke, Ursula Hennig & Walther
Lipphardt, Füssener Osterspiel und Füssener Marienklage , Beiträge zur Ge-
schichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (Tübingen), 98 (1976), pp. 231-88,
395-423, esp. 408-10; cf. Lipphardt, Mitten wir im Leben sind , pp. 104-06.
Previously, Heinrich Sievers, Die lateinischen liturgischen Osterspiele der Stifts-
kirche St. Blasien zu Braunschweig, Wolfenbüttel, 1936 (Veröffentlichungen der
niedersächsischen Musikgesellschaft, 2), p. 44, assumed that the Trisagion was
developed from Media vita .
10
Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, p. 37, pp. 102-03, and p. 103, nos. 1 and 2,
misinterprets sources such as the mid-fifteenth-century breviary, Frankfurt, Barth.
154, fol. 95, and the printed Mainz breviary, 1475 (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegen-
360
X. The Empty Tomb
The Trisagion was long established as the standard chant in the

Visitatio.11 Indeed, the melody of the Trisagion Sancte Deus
taken over by Media vita is not that of the Good Friday liturgical
chant but one developed in the Easter plays and ceremonies.12 This is
probably why the otherwise ubiquitous Media vita is unknown in
drama apart from the St Gall Passion Play.13 But the popularity of
Media vita no doubt explains why its wording of Sancte Deus
occasionally influenced or replaced that of the Trisagion in plays.14 In
various German uses, including Mainz, Media vita was associated
with Rogationtide and All Souls processions, which might have sug-
gested its use as a processional chant in the St Gall Passion Play.15
drucke, no. 5394), p. 126b, which set out the sections Sancte Deus , Sancte fortis
and Sancte et misericors Deus separately after each verse.
11
To the examples in Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, nos. 556, 557, 558a (melodies
transcribed in vol. II, pp. 315-18) add: Admonter Passionsspiel, ll. 1353-68; Bozner
Osterspiel I, 2. Teil, ll. 401a-42; Bozner Osterspiel II, ll. 192a-231; Bozner Oster-
spiel III, ll. 473a-500; Bozner Passionsspiel 1514, 2. Teil, MS, fol. 58r-v; Branden-
burger Osterspielfragment, ll. 565a-80; Chiemseer Osterspiel, ll. 87-90; Feldkir-
cher Osterspiel, ll. 193-95; Füssener Osterspiel, ll. 131a-34; Hersfelder Osterspiel,
ll. 60-70; Münchener Hortulanusszene, l. 23; Nottulner Osterspiel II, no. 19; Osna-
brücker Osterspiel, ll. 230-42; Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel, ll. 3140 a-f (has nota-
tion); Tiroler Osterspiel, ll. 426a-b; Zwickauer Osterspiel I, ll. 71, 76, 81;
Zwickauer Osterspiel II, ll. 243, 256, 269; Zwickauer Osterspiel III, ll. 145, 156,
167. Walther Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern und Osterspiele, 9 vols.,
Berlin-New York, 1975-90 (Ausgaben deutscher Literatur des XV. bis XVIII.
Jahrhunderts, Reihe Drama, 5), nos. 779a, Augsburg30; 792, Medingen. Cf. Lipp-
hardt, Mitten wir im Leben sind , p. 106.
12
Lipphardt, Mitten wir im Leben sind , pp. 104-106; idem, Media vita in morte
sumus , col. 272.
13
Apart from the St Gall Passion Play it is found only in two ceremonies, in neither
case integral to the dialogue: Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern, no. 308,
Paderborn3, 1480 (before Mass of the Presanctified, Good Friday); no. 673,
Prague18, late fourteenth century (recessional antiphon after compline in Lent).
14
Egerer Passionsspiel, l. 8052b: sancte et misericors salvator, miserere mei .
Media vita wording in Feldkircher Osterspiel, ll. 193-195; Füssener Osterspiel,
ll. 132-34; Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern, no. 779a, Augsburg30.
15
Lipphardt, Mitten wir im Leben sind , pp. 101, 102-03, citing e.g. a Mainz
361
The antiphon is sometimes associated with verses,16 but on its own

would almost certainly have covered any processional movement ne-
cessary in this play.
As they approach the tomb, the Maries worry about how they will
lift off the stone covering it (ll. 1309a-17). But to their surprise, it has
already been removed: an angel asks them who they are looking for:
98, 99, 100
[98] Tunc cantet angelus O tremule mulieres :
Ir drurigen vrauwen, sagent mir
In disme grabe, wen suchent ir?
[99] Tunc respondentes Iesum nazarenum crucifixum
Et dicat Maria Magdalena:
Wir suchen hie in dirre vrist
Iesum, der do gecruziget ist.
[100] Respondet angelus Non est hic, quem queritis
[et] dicat:
Den ir suchen, der ist hie nit,
als vwer augen selbe sehint.
Gent, vnd sagent den iungern sin,
daz sie gen hin
zu Galylea alzu stunt.
Do wirt er in allen kunt. (ll. 1321a-31)
This is undoubtedly the Quem quaeritis dialogue, the basis of the

whole Visitatio tradition. The words o tremule mulieres unambigu-
ously indicate the second, later, German form of the dialogue, Quem
quaeritis II :17
processional, c. 1400 (Munich, St Anna, Zentralbibliothek der bayrischen Fran-

ziskanerprovinz, MS. 12o Cmm 82, fol. 38).
16
Frankfurt, lat. qu. 48, fols. 102v-03, has verses: 1. Ne proicias nos in tempore se-
nectutis dum defecerit virtus nostra: ne derelinquas nos, Domine. 2. Diu cog-
noscis omnia occulta cordis; parce peccatis nostris. 3. Noli claudere aurem tuam
ad preces nostras. These differ from those in modern Roman books, e.g. Proces-
sionale monasticum, pp. 45-46.
17
Kassel, 2o theol. 129, antiphonal, St Peter, Fritzlar, 1344-48, fol. 111. Lipphardt
(ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern, vol. IX, p. 952, Vis., IIb, IIc, IId; cf. Ibid., vol. VII,
362
X. The Empty Tomb
Quem quaeritis II originated in the eleventh to twelfth century

amongst the Augustinian Canons in south-western Germany, probably
pp. 388-90, 468; Helmut de Boor, Die Textgeschichte der lateinischen Osterfeiern,
Tübingen, 1967 (Hermaea, Germanistische Forschungen, n.s., 22), pp. 38, 50-51,
132-58; William L. Smoldon, The Music of the Medieval Church Dramas, (ed.)
Cynthia Bourgeault, London [etc.], 1980, p. 79, plate VI and chart 3. The variant
in hoc tumulo gementes is geographically restricted to parts of Austria; the more
widespread plorantes is possibly the original form: see De Boor, Textgeschichte,
pp. 138-41. The Visitatio ceremonies from the St Gall Passion Play s area which
use Quem quaeritis II have plorantes : see Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Oster-
feiern, nos. 207, Frankfurt; 209, Fritzlar2.
363
in Augsburg; and was spread through Germany, Central Europe and

northern Italy by one of the reform movements of the twelfth centu-
ry.18 This seminal Visitatio chant is found in nearly four hundred plays
and ceremonies; a complete list is unnecessary here.19
A slight complication is that the manuscript omits the first two
words of the angels question. Bergmann does not discuss this, but
Pflanz deduces from the incipit and the German of lines 1322-23 that
the play inverted the usual word order to O tremulae mulieres, quem
quaeritis in hoc tumulo plorantes? 20 This is almost certainly wrong.
Textually and melodically, Quem quaeritis II is very stable. None of
the hundreds of plays and ceremonies inverts the text of Quem quae-
ritis plorantes ; that the St Gall Passion Play might be the sole sur-
viving exception is utterly improbable. And a textual change would
also demand melodic inversion. The first phrase, Quem quaeritis ,
18
Michael Norton, The Type II Visitatio Sepulchri: A Repertorial Study , Diss.
Ohio State University, 1983, David Hiley, Western Plainchant: A Handbook,
Oxford, 1993, pp. 261-63. Earliest extant source: Einsiedeln, Stiftsbibliothek, Ms.
366, p. 55 (Lipphardt [ed.], Lateinische Osterfeiern, vol. VII, pp. 394-95, no. 563,
Einsiedeln1); Cf. De Boor, Textgeschichte, pp. 18-19, 133; Timothy J. McGee,
The Liturgical Origins and Early History of the Quem quaeritis Dialogue , Diss.,
University of Pittsburgh, 1974, passim.
19
To Schuler s nearly fifty examples (Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 502), add: Ad-
monter Passionsspiel, ll. 1309a-21; Bozner Osterspiel I, 2. Teil, ll. 43a-59; Bozner
Osterspiel III, ll. 210a-25; Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, A, ll. 3172a-80b; Bozner
Passionsspiel 1514, 2. Teil, MS, fol. 56; Feldkircher Osterspiel, ll. 112a-34;
Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 284-88; Frankfurter Osterspielfragment, p. 603, ll. 1-3;
Füssener Osterspiel, ll. 42a-58; Münchener Osterspiel, ll. 676-708 (in German);
Nottulner Osterspiel II, nos. 6-8; Osnabrücker Osterspiel, ll. 162a-76; Rabers
Passion, ll. 3380a-94; Regensburger Osterspiel, ll. 141-55; Tiroler Osterspiel, ll.
398a-414; Zwickauer Osterspiel I, ll. 30a-36; Zwickauer Osterspiel II, ll. 93a-104;
Zwickauer Osterspiel III, ll. 56a-70 (including German version). Note that Pfarr-
kirchers Passionsspiel, ll. 3102a-14 has notation. Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Os-
terfeiern, index (Ibid., vol. IX, pp. 953-54), records approximately 330 instances;
cf. Smoldon, Music of the Medieval Church Dramas, pp. 120-21 and comparative
melody chart, pp. 432-33.
20
Cf. Bergmann, Studien, p. 197, and Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, pp. 149-
50.
364
X. The Empty Tomb
hovers round the finalis (usually E); the second, o tremulae mulieres ,
rises, centring a minor third higher, then redescends to the finalis; the
last, in hoc tumulo gementes [plorantes] centres on the finalis. To in-
vert this simple but primal musical structure of home tone, departure
from it, and return, would be unthinkable.
Pflanz s argument is further undermined by the Frankfurter Diri-
gierrolle, which also uses Quem quaeritis II 21 with dialogue striking-
ly similar to St Gall:
dicant angeli: Quem queritis?
Ir vrouwin alle, sagit mir.22
Rhyme and sense guarantee that the next line must be in diseme gra-
be wen suchent ir? or something very similar: chant and dialogue al-
most identical to that in St Gall.
There seems no reason to assume that the St Gall Passion Play
used the Quem quaeritis dialogue in anything other than its standard
form. The incipit o tremule mulieres is probably a scribal slip,
deriving from a concern to record the crucial words o tremule mulie-
res , which differentiate Quem quaeritis II from the other, older form
of the dialogue:
Quem quaeritis in sepulchro, [o] Christicolae?
Jesum Nazarenum crucifixum, o caelicolae
21
Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 284-88. Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, no. 500,
wrongly lists this as Quem quaeritis I , and Klaus Wolf, Kommentar zur Frank-
furter Dirigierrolle und zum Frankfurter Passionsspiel , Tübingen, 2002 [first
volume of additions to Johannes Janota (ed.), Die hessische Passionsspielgruppe:
Edition im Paralleldruck, Tübingen, 1996-2002], p. 250, includes Quem quaeritis
I as a possibility. But Quem quaeritis II is seen in the angels Non est hic quem
queritis (l. 288), and confirmed by the fragmentary dialogue in the closely related
Frankfurter Osterspielfragment, p. 603, ll. 1-3, which notates et Petro quia
surrexit Ihesus , from the end of Quem quaeritis II .
22
Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 285. The similarity with the St Gall Passion Play here is
noted by Wolf, Kommentar, p. 250.
365
Non est hic , resurrexit sicut praedixerat. Ite, nuntiate quia surrexit de
sepulchro. 23
For the textual incipits of both versions (italicized) are identical. The
St Gall MS 919 scribe, or a predecessor, seems to have been so intent
on including the verbal differentia as to omit the opening words of the
chant. This slip may be less bizarre than it appears. The Visitatio cere-
monies of the Mainz, Worms and Speyer dioceses consistently use
Quem quaeritis I ,24 and the St Gall Passion Play scribe may have
been taking particular care to make it clear that his play like several
others produced in this area25 was using Quem quaeritis II even
though the local liturgical tradition favoured the older first form.
The Hortulanus Encounter (ll. 1331a-47e)

Two of the Maries leave, but Mary Magdalene stays, and encounters
the risen Christ in the appearance of a gardener:
101, 102, 103
Tunc aliis euntibus remaneat Maria Magdalena plorans
[101] Tunc Iesus in specie ortulani dicat ad eam
Mulier, quid ploras et dicat:
Sage mir, vrauwe, mere,
waz weines du so sere?
Wen suches du zu dirre stunt?
Daz salt du mir machen kunt.
[102] Respondet Maria Quia tulerunt dominum meum
23
Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern, vol. IX, p. 945, Vis. Ib, Ic, Id; Hesbert,
Corpus antiphonalium, no. 8455; De Boor, Textgeschichte, pp. 28-80.
24
Mainz: Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern, nos. 76, 252-56, 261, probably no.
260; Worms: nos. 365-66, 370, probably no. 367; Speyer: no. 339. Some mixture
of forms in nos. 207, Frankfurt, 1483; 209, Fritzlar2, fourteenth century ( Quem
quaeritis II but also the typically Mainz chant Ad sepulchrum Domini venimus
gementes ). See vol. IX, pp. 946-47 and 953-54 on the geographical distribution of
Quem quaeritis I and II.
25
Berliner (rheinisches) Osterspiel, ll. 1028a-36d; Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 284-88;
Frankfurter Osterspielfragment, p. 603, ll. 1-3.
366
X. The Empty Tomb
[103] et dicat Domine, si tu sustulisti eum, dicito mihi

et dicat:
Ich inweiz, war min herre ist kommen
vnd wo er lit in disen stunden.
Daz salt du mir nu sagen,
so wil ich in dannen dragen. (ll. 1331a-39)
The chants of the play s Hortulanusszene , the encounter between the

risen Christ and Mary Magdalene, cannot be identified with complete
certainty. Partly this is because the overall repertoire of Hortulanus
chants is still poorly researched: no systematic, large-scale study of
the melodies, as opposed to the texts, yet exists. Only a few melodies
are transcribed by Schuler; Lipphardt does not identify the chants used
in individual ceremonies, and Susan Rankin s study of eighteen
sources is restricted to Latin ceremonies and deals with only ten Ger-
man examples.26
John s gospel records a dialogue of Mary with angels at the empty
tomb (John 20:11-13):
Dicunt ei illi: Mulier, quid ploras? Dicit eis: Quia tulerunt Dominum meum, et
nescio ubi posuerunt eum. (John 20:13)
and another shortly after (verses 14-17) with the risen Lord in the
guise of a gardener:
Dicit ei Jesus: Mulier, quid ploras? Quem quaeris? Illa [ ] autem dicit ei:
Domine, si tu sustulisti eum, dicito mihi ubi posuisti eum, et ego eum tollam.
(John 20:15)
26
Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, vol. II, pp. 108-15, 189-91, 215-16, 337-39; Lipp-
hardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern, vol. IX, pp. 958, 1023; Susan K. Rankin, The
Mary Magdalene Scene in the Visitatio Sepulchri Ceremonies , Early Music
History 1 (1981), pp. 227-55, examines only the following German texts: Braun-
schweiger Osterspiel, Chiemseer Osterspiel, Einsiedler Osterspiel, Engelberger
Osterspiel II, Klosterneuburger Osterspiel, Maastrichter Osterspiel, Nottulner Os-
terspiel I, Rheinauer Osterspiel, Zwickauer Osterspiel I, Ia, II, III, MS B (wrongly
ascribed to Joachimsthal), and Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern, no. 786,
Gernrode1.
367
These two distinct, but similar, exchanges each generate office chants,
used both for Easter Sunday and Easter Week, and for the feast of St.
Mary Magdalene.27
Pflanz treats the episode without reference to other plays, looking
only for verbally suitable liturgical chants;28 he does not consider the
possibility that the play s chants could be adapted or specially com-
posed. For Mulier, quem quaeris he suggests antiphon 2300.29 In the
search for a single chant to cover both Quia tulerunt and Domine, si
tu he cites, without clearly distinguishing individual chants, Corpus
antiphonalium nos. 2300, 6323 and 7797,30 and even no. 5232, though
this antiphon was not used in Mainz.31 Since, however, no chant con-
tains the quia or the Domine specified in the directions (ll. 1331a-
b), he concludes that Mary s reply was Vulgate text, perhaps spoken
rather than sung.32
More light is shed on these three St Gall Passion Play chants by
the other German plays and Visitatio ceremonies containing some or
all of them. There are over forty, fewer than half listed by Schuler.33
27
John 20:13, antiphons: Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 2210, Dicunt ei illi:
Mulier, quid ploras? ; no. 3824, Mulier, quid ploras? ; nos. 5230-32, (all
Tulerunt Dominum meum ); responsories: nos. 7796-97 (both Tulerunt
Dominum meum ); no. 7885, Vidit Maria duos angelos ; versicle: no. 8228,
Tulerunt Dominum meum . John 20:15, antiphons: no. 2198, Dicit ei Jesus:
Mulier, quid ploras? ; no. 2300, Dixit Jesus: Mulier, quid ploras? ; res-
ponsory: no. 7722, Super lapidem monumenti . John 20:13 and 15: responsory
no. 6323, Congratulamini mihi , with verse Tulerunt Dominum meum .
28
29
Ibid., p. 105.
30
Ibid., p. 107.
31
Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 5232, Tulerunt Dominum meum ; Pflanz,
Lateinische Textgrundlagen, p. 108 and note 1, cites as Mainz books two Carthu-
sian breviaries and one of uncertain use (Mainz, Stadtbibliothek, Hss. I 365, I 438,
I 433).
32
Ibid., pp. 106-07 (misinterpreting the dicat direction, l. 1331b), 108.
33
In Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, nos. 374, 618, 157 (melodies in vol. II, pp. 215-
16, 337-39, 108-15): Berliner (rheinisches) Osterspiel, ll. 1126a-28; Bozner Pas-
368
X. The Empty Tomb
They show a distinct tendency to conflate Mary s two encounters with

the angels and Jesus, and this affects the number, order and attribution
of chants. The great majority omit the angels question Mulier, quid
ploras? , include only the longer question Mulier, quid ploras? Quem
quaeris? asked by Jesus, and have Mary answer [Domine,] si tu sus-
tulisti eum, dicito mihi . The reply [Quia] tulerunt Dominum me-
um is much rarer.34 There are, however, exceptions, and rather
sionsspiel 1495, B, ll. 3200a-05b; Braunschweiger Osterspiel, ll. 75-80; Brixener

Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 121v (J.E. Wackernell [ed.], Altdeutsche Passionsspiele aus
Tirol, Graz, 1897 (Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte, Litteratur und Spra-
che Österreichs und seiner Kronländer, 1), pp. 223-24; Egerer Passionsspiel, ll.
7978a-8004c; Einsiedler Osterspiel, ll. 60-66; Engelberger Osterspiel II, p. 22;
Erlau III, ll. 1076a-82d; Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 296-98; Innsbrucker (thüringi-
sches) Osterspiel, ll. 1138a-43; Klosterneuburger Osterspiel, ll. 168-77; Mün-
chener Hortulanusszene, ll. 13-19; Nottulner Osterspiel I, ll. 29-35; Pfarrkirchers
Passionsspiel, ll. 3118j-k, 3122a-c, 3132c; Rheinauer Osterspiel, ll. 75-82; Trierer
Osterspiel, ll. 82a-89; Wolfenbütteler Osterspiel, ll. 158a-60b. Not in Schuler:
Admonter Passionsspiel, ll. 1340a-44; Bozner Osterspiel I, 2. Teil, ll. 106a-07, 121
a-b; Bozner Osterspiel II, ll. 162a-63, 167a-68 (cf. Andreas Traub, Die geistlichen
Spiele des Sterzinger Spielarchivs, vol. VI:2: Kommentar zur Edition der Melo-
dien, Mittlere Deutsche Literatur in Neu- und Nachdrucken, 19:2, Bern, 1996, p.
142); Bozner Osterspiel III, ll. 277a-78, 298a-99; Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, A, ll.
3202a-08 (Ibid., p. 165), Bozner Passionsspiel 1514, 2. Teil, MS, fol. 57; Branden-
burger Osterspielfragment, ll. 550a-51; Breslauer Osterspielfragment, ll. 152a-57;
Chiemseer Osterspiel, ll. 60-67; Feldkircher Osterspiel, ll. 170-79; Füssener Os-
terspiel, ll. 113a-18; Havelberger Osterspiel, ll. 41-44; Hersfelder Osterspiel, ll.
52-53; Marienberger Osterspiel, ll. 44-52; Nottulner Osterspiel II, nos. 12, 13;
Osnabrücker Osterspiel, ll. 202a-06b, 216a-20c; Rabers Passion, ll. 3452a-58c;
Tiroler Osterspiel, ll. 422a-b, 426a-b; Tiroler Osterspiel, separate Visitatio, ll. 98a-
102c; Zwickauer Osterspiel I, ll. 60a-64; Zwickauer Osterspiel Ia, l. 1; Zwickauer
Osterspiel II, ll. 212a-20; Zwickauer Osterspiel III, ll. 123a-32 (incl. German ver-
sion); Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern, nos. 779a, Augsburg30; 786, Gern-
rode1; 786a, Gernrode2; 790, Klagenfurt; 792, Medingen; 796, Regensburg10; 807,
Erlau2 (Eger). Also Egmonter Osterspiel, ll. 82-91; Maastrichter Osterspiel, ll. 45-
54; but Rankin, The Mary Magdalene Scene , pp. 235, 240-41, shows that Maas-
tricht follows French melodic models and cannot in effect be regarded as a Ger-
man play. Egmont, which Rankin does not deal with, is almost identical to Maas-
tricht.
34
Rankin, The Mary Magdalene Scene , p. 235.
369
more in the vernacular Passion and Easter plays than Schuler records,
or than Rankin s study of Latin ceremonies might suggest. The ques-
tion is indeed hardly ever given to the angels.35 But the reply [Quia]
tulerunt Dominum meum is found in thirteen cases, a by no means
insignificant proportion.36 The initial quia is characteristic of France
and Italy,37 and German plays tend to omit it; but it is not entirely un-
known.38
However, though the individual elements of the St Gall Passion
Play scene are found in the German tradition, the play s precise com-
bination of them is very unusual. To find Mulier, quid ploras ? ,
[Quia] tulerunt Dominum meum and Domine, si tu sustulisti
eum together is rare in itself (nine texts, with only Eger and the
Osnabrücker Osterspiel amongst the vernacular plays).39 But St Gall s
precise disposition of chants is effectively unique. In several plays,
[Quia] tulerunt and Domine, si tu both occur because the
35
Osnabrücker Osterspiel, ll. 202a-b; Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern, no.
779a, Augsburg30, from Saints Ulrich and Afra: cf. Ibid., commentary, vol. VIII, p.
712: the angel dialogue is evidence of the great age of the ceremony.
36
Brandenburger Osterspielfragment, ll. 550a-51; Egerer Passionsspiel, ll. 7990 a-c;
Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 298; Füssener Osterspiel, ll. 117-18; Klosterneuburger
Osterspiel, ll. 170-72; Marienberger Osterspiel, ll. 44-46; Nottulner Osterspiel I,
ll. 31-35; Nottulner Osterspiel II, no. 13; Osnabrücker Osterspiel, ll. 206a-b;
Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern, nos. 779a, Augsburg30 (1431); 786 and
786a, Gernrode1-2 (both c. 1500); 790, Klagenfurt (thirteenth century). Cf. Rankin,
The Mary Magdalene Scene , pp. 235, 248. Rankin s selection includes only three
German ceremonies with this chant.
37
Ibid., pp. 238-39. Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern, nos. 771, Coutances;
773-74, Mont-St.-Michel1,2; 775-78, Rouen2-5; 779, St Lhomer1/Blois; 781, Civi-
dale2; 824, Tours3; 825, Origny4; 811, Palermo2; also no. 770, Barking.
38
Füssener Osterspiel, ll. 117-18; Klosterneuburger Osterspiel, l. 171; Lipphardt
(ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern, no. 779a, Augsburg30, l. 70; no. 790, Klagenfurt, l.
17.
39
Egerer Passionsspiel; Klosterneuburger Osterspiel; Marienberger Osterspiel; Not-
tulner Osterspiel I, II; Osnabrücker Osterspiel; Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Oster-
feiern, nos. 779a, Augsburg30; 786, Gernrode1; 786a, Gernrode2. Line numbers as
in note 33.
370
X. The Empty Tomb
question Mulier, quid ploras ? is asked more than once,40 or be-

cause Tulerunt precedes the question.41 Only the Nottuln and
Gernrode plays combine [Quia] tulerunt and [Domine], si tu sustu-
listi eum as the answer to a single question, as St Gall does.42 But
they come from distant regions (Westphalia, the Harz), or have un-
usual melodies,43 and probably represent a different strand of tradition.
The closest match of St Gall is not a German source at all, but a
fourteenth-century Visitatio from Cividale, in a region of northern
Italy which was part of the German church.44
The incipit Mulier, quid ploras (l. 1331c) could represent either
the whole of the angels question (John 20:13) or Jesus s longer Mu-
lier, quid ploras, quem quaeris? (John 20:15). The longer question is
used in the vast majority of German sources, as is seen from the texts,
and in most cases the melodies too.45 Unfortunately, the very few
which do not clearly indicate the form used include the two plays geo-
graphically closest to the St Gall Passion Play, the Berliner (rheini-
sches) Osterspiel and the Frankfurter Dirigierrolle.46 Elsewhere, the
German tendency to centre the scene on Jesus makes its effect felt
both on the arrangement of dialogue and the choice of melody. Even
40
Egerer Passionsspiel; Klosterneuburger Osterspiel; Marienberger Osterspiel; Os-
nabrücker Osterspiel; Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern, no. 779a, Augs-
burg30. Line numbers as in note 33.
41
Marienberger Osterspiel, ll. 46-52.
42
Nottulner Osterspiel I, ll. 29-35; Nottulner Osterspiel II, nos. 12-13; Lipphardt
(ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern, nos. 786, Gernrode1, ll. 51-59; 786a, Gernrode2, ll.
51-59.
43
Nottulner Osterspiel I, MS, fol. 65, pl. VI; Nottulner Osterspiel II, nos. 12-13.
44
Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern, no. 781, Cividale2, ll. 68-73 (Cividale,
Museo Archeologico Nazionale, MS 101, fols. 77-79v (esp. 78v); cf. De Boor,
Textgeschichte, pp. 18-19.
45
E.g. melodies transcribed in Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, vol. II, pp. 215; other
melodies in locations in note 33.
46
Berliner (rheinisches) Osterspiel; Frankfurter Dirigierrolle; Havelberger Oster-
spiel; Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern, nos. 786, Gernrode1; 786a, Gern-
rode2; 796, Regensburg10. Line numbers as in note 33.
371
in the thirteen which include Mary s [Quia] tulerunt Dominum me-

um , which is properly the answer to the angels question, the angels
are the speakers only in two which preserve the double dialogue.47
And even in plays with the two dialogues, it is most unusual to give
the angels their proper shorter question (John 20:13) and Jesus the
longer one (John 20:15): this is done only in Osnabrück, a play whose
melodic and structural particularities set it outside the mainstream.48
Elsewhere the angels sing the longer chant proper to Jesus.49 The op-
posite arrangement of giving Jesus the angels shorter question is all
but unknown, apart from Klosterneuburg, and, interestingly, the Civi-
dale Visitatio which resembles the St Gall Passion Play.50
None of this, however, identifies with certainty the melodic form
of the St Gall Passion Play chants. No play from the same geographi-
cal area notates the exchange; indeed the two closest (Berliner (rheini-
sches) Osterspiel, Frankfurter Dirigierrolle) do not even make the
precise verbal form clear.51 What trends can be seen in the whole cor-
pus of relevant German plays and ceremonies?
For Mulier, quid ploras, quem quaeris? the German plays show a
distinct preference not for Corpus antiphonalium, no. 2300, as Pflanz
suggests, but for a section from no. 2198, from the office of Mary
Magdalene:52
47
Osnabrücker Osterspiel, ll. 202a-b; Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern, 779,
Augsburg30.
48
Osnabrücker Osterspiel, ll. 202a-b (angels), 216a-b (Jesus). On this play s a-
typicality see De Boor, Textgeschichte, pp. 295-99 (esp. 298).
49
Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern, no. 779, Augsburg30, ll. 47, 54, 61.
50
Klosterneuburger Osterspiel, ll. 168-69 (first time); Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische
Osterfeiern, no. 781, Cividale2, l. 69.
51
Cf. note 46.
52
archiv, Hs. 2, fol. 174r.
372
X. The Empty Tomb
Traub notes the similarity of this antiphon to the Hodie antiphons,

particularly Hodie Maria virgo .53 Of the thirty-four plays with nota-
tion, twenty-five use this chant, or what looks like a variant.54 But
there is a noticeable difference between the majority, in which Mary
answers with [Domine], si tu sustulisti eum , and the small group
which, like the St Gall Passion Play, includes [Quia] tulerunt Domi-
num meum . Whereas nearly all plays in the former group use
Corpus antiphonalium, no. 2198,55 the minority group is less uniform.
53
Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 3105. Andreas Traub, Der Debs-Codex als
musikalische Quelle , in Ulrich Mehler & Anton H. Touber (eds.), Mittelalterliches
Schauspiel: Festschrift für Hansjürgen Linke zum 65. Geburtstag, Amsterdam-
Atlanta, 1994 (Amsterdamer Beitrage zur älteren Germanistik, 38-39), pp. 339-47,
esp. 340-41, citing Antiphonale Pataviense, fol. 197, and Liber usualis missae et
officii pro dominicis et festis cum cantu Gregoriano ex Editione Vaticana adamus-
sim excerpto, Paris [etc.], 1936 [numerous reprints], p. 1607.
54
Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 2198: Admonter Passionsspiel; Bozner Oster-
spiel I, 2. Teil; Bozner Osterspiel II; Bozner Osterspiel III; Bozner Passionsspiel
1495, A, B; Bozner Passionsspiel 1514, 2. Teil; Braunschweiger Osterspiel; Bres-
lauer Osterspielfragment; Erlau III; Münchener Hortulanusszene; Pfarrkirchers
Passionsspiel; Rabers Passion; Tiroler Osterspiel, separate Visitatio; Trierer Os-
terspiel; Wolfenbütteler Osterspiel; Zwickauer Osterspiel I; Zwickauer Osterspiel
Ia; Zwickauer Osterspiel II; Zwickauer Osterspiel III (Mehler, in Hansjürgen Linke
& Ulrich Mehler (eds.), Die österlichen Spiele aus der Ratsschulbibliothek Zwick-
au. Kritischer Text und Faksimilia der Handschriften, Tübingen, 1990 (Altdeutsche
Textbibliothek, 103), p. 111, suggests Corpus antiphonalium, no. 3824). Variant of
antiphon 2198: Chiemseer Osterspiel, l. 61; Egerer Passionsspiel; Engelberger Os-
terspiel II; Feldkircher Osterspiel, Füssener Osterspiel. Line numbers as in note
33.
55
Exceptions: Brixener Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 121v (Wackernell [ed.], Altdeutsche
Passionsspiele aus Tirol, pp. 223); Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern, no.
807, Erlau2, ll. 22-23.
373
Five contain no music.56 Only Eger and Füssen use 2198;57 the re-
maining six show considerable diversity. Nottuln uses what seems to
be an ornamented form of 2300.58 Marienberg and Osnabrück have the
same melody, which is like that found in Prague.59 Klosterneuburg has
an elaborate melismatic melody, unlike any liturgical model, Klagen-
furt a similar but simpler version.60 No clear consensus or obvious
regional melodic trends can be seen.
The melodies of Mary s [Quia] tulerunt Dominum meum are
61
similarly diverse. Three of the thirteen texts lack notation. Gernrode,
Marienberg and Osnabrück use part of Corpus antiphonalium, no.
2300 (again found in Prague).62 The melismatic Nottuln chant is
unique.63 Eger uses 5232; Klagenfurt has a similar melody.64 Füssen is
broadly similar to 2210; Klosterneuburg follows it till meum ; Civi-
dale uses a slightly variant form of the same antiphon.65 Again,
56
Brandenburger Osterspielfragment; Frankfurter Dirigierrolle; Lipphardt (ed.), La-
teinische Osterfeiern, nos. 779a, Augsburg30; 786-86a, Gernrode1-2.
57
Egerer Passionsspiel, l. 7978c; Füssener Osterspiel, ll. 113a-14.
58
Nottulner Osterspiel I, ll. 29-30; Nottulner Osterspiel II, no. 12.
59
Marienberger Osterspiel, l. 48; Osnabrücker Osterspiel, ll. 202a-b. Rankin, The
Mary Magdalene Scene , cites Prague, Knihovna Narodnia Universitní, MS VI. G.
10a (processional, Prague, thirteenth century), fols. 149-53v (= Lipphardt (ed.), La-
teinische Osterfeiern, no. 799, Prague29); cf. other Prague ceremonies transcribed
in Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, vol. II, pp. 215-16.
60
Klosterneuburger Osterspiel, ll. 169, 174; Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern,
no. 790, Klagenfurt, l. 15 (unheighted neumes in both cases).
61
Brandenburger Osterspielfragment; Frankfurter Dirigierrolle; Lipphardt (ed.), La-
teinische Osterfeiern, no. 779a, Augsburg30.
62
Ibid., no. 786, Gernrode1, ll. 55-56; no. 786a, Gernrode2, ll. 55-56; Marienberger
Osterspiel, ll. 45-46; Osnabrücker Osterspiel, ll. 206a-b; Lipphardt (ed.), Lateini-
sche Osterfeiern, no. 799, Prague29, ll. 34-35.
63
Nottulner Osterspiel I, ll. 32-33; Nottulner Osterspiel II, no. 13; Rankin, The
Mary Magdalene Scene , p. 240, mistakenly classes Nottuln as similar to Gernrode
and Prague.
64
Egerer Passionsspiel, ll. 7990b-c; Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern, no.
790, Klagenfurt, ll. 17-18.
65
Füssener Osterspiel, ll. 116a-18; Klosterneuburger Osterspiel, ll. 170-72; Lipp-
hardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern, no. 781, Cividale2, l. 71; Rankin, The Mary
374
X. The Empty Tomb
sources geographically close to the St Gall Passion Play are without

notation; again, no clear regional melodic traditions can be discerned.
Similarly, with [Domine,] si tu sustulisti eum , the melodic di-
versity which Rankin notes in her small selection66 applies to the
whole corpus. In the thirty with decipherable melodies, several quite
different settings are found. The largest group, nine predominantly
south German plays, uses Corpus antiphonalium, no. 2198.67 The
Sterzing melody, also found in Admont and Brixen, resembles it but is
not identical.68 Eger and Erlau have a not dissimilar one.69 Corpus
antiphonalium, no. 5232 appears in Gernrode, transposed to continue
from no. 2300 used for Tulerunt Dominum meum .70 An unidentified
melody is found in Braunschweig, Trier and Wolfenbüttel; Engelberg
is similar.71 Nottuln s unidentified melody is based on the setting of
Mulier, quid ploras .72 The unusual melody in Marienberg and Osna-
Magdalene Scene , pp. 238, 240.

66
Ibid., p. 240.
67
Chiemseer Osterspiel, ll. 65-67; Einsiedler Osterspiel, ll. 63-66; Feldkircher Os-
terspiel, ll. 178-79; Klosterneuburger Osterspiel, ll. 176-77; Münchener Hortula-
nusszene, ll. 15-16; Rheinauer Osterspiel, ll. 79-82; Zwickauer Osterspiel I, ll. 61a-
64; Zwickauer Osterspiel II, ll. 217a-20; Zwickauer Osterspiel III, ll. 125a-28
(Mehler, in Linke & Mehler (eds.) Die österlichen Spiele, p. 113, suggests Corpus
antiphonalium, no. 5232).
68
Bozner Osterspiel I, 2. Teil, ll. 121a-b; Bozner Osterspiel III, ll. 298a-99; Bozner
Passionsspiel 1495, A, ll. 3207a-08; B, ll. 3205a-06; Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel,
ll. 3122a-b; Rabers Passion, ll. 3458a-b; Tiroler Osterspiel, separate Visitatio, ll.
102a-c. Admonter Passionsspiel, l. 1344; Brixener Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 121v,
(Wackernell [ed.], Altdeutsche Passionsspiele aus Tirol, p. 224).
69
Egerer Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 134, ll. 8004a-c; Erlau III, ll. 1082a-d.
70
Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern, no. 786, Gernrode1, ll. 57-58; no. 786a,
Gernrode2, ll. 57-58. Chant not identified by Rankin, The Mary Magdalene
Scene . Cf. Walther Lipphardt, Die Visitatio sepulchri (III. Stufe) von Gernrode ,
Daphnis 1 (1972), pp. 1-14, esp. 12-13.
71
Braunschweiger Osterspiel, ll. 78-80; Trierer Osterspiel, ll. 87a-89; Wolfenbütteler
Osterspiel, ll. 160a-b; Engelberger Osterspiel II, p. 22.
72
Nottulner Osterspiel I, ll. 34-35; Nottulner Osterspiel II, no. 13; Rankin, The
Mary Magdalene Scene , p. 240.
375
brück is again similar to Prague.73 Apart from the broad association of

Corpus antiphonalium, no. 2198 with southern Germany, and a clear
Sterzing tradition shared by Admont and Brixen, regional trends and
tendencies cannot be made out here either.
What can be observed, however, is a very consistent correlation of
melody and wording. Plays whose melodies are definitely liturgical
never adapt chants verbally, but use those which contain the precise
wording. Thus plays which read Quia tulerunt Dominum meum
use Corpus antiphonalium, no. 2210, which contains the quia .74
Those with Tulerunt Dominum meum use chants which do not
75
(2300 or 5232). Similarly, those which read Domine, si tu sustulisti
eum use Corpus antiphonalium, no. 2198, which contains Domi-
76
ne . The two Gernrode plays, with Si tu sustulisti eum , have no.
5232, in which the initial Domine is not included.77
In the light of these patterns, and given the St Gall Passion Play s
basic tendency to use liturgical material, a not unlikely choice for the
73
Marienberger Osterspiel, ll. 50-52; Osnabrücker Osterspiel, ll. 220a-c; Lipphardt
(ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern, no. 799, Prague29, ll. 37-39; Rankin, The Mary
Magdalene Scene , pp. 243, 245.
74
Füssener Osterspiel, Klosterneuburger Osterspiel (cf. Lipphardt [ed.], Lateinische
Osterfeiern, no. 781, Cividale2). Line numbers as in note 65.
75
Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 2300: Marienberger Osterspiel, Osnabrücker
Osterspiel, Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern, nos. 786, Gernrode1; 786a,
Gernrode2 (line numbers as in note 62). Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 5232:
Egerer Passionsspiel, Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern, no. 790, Klagenfurt
(line numbers as in note 64).
76
Chiemseer Osterspiel, Einsiedler Osterspiel, Feldkircher Osterspiel, Klosterneu-
burger Osterspiel, Münchener Hortulanusszene, Rheinauer Osterspiel, Zwickauer
Osterspiel I, Zwickauer Osterspiel II, Zwickauer Osterspiel III, (cf. Lipphardt [ed.],
Lateinische Osterfeiern, no. 781, Cividale2). Line numbers as in note 67. Cf. the
related melodies in Admonter Passionsspiel, Bozner Osterspiel I, 2. Teil, Bozner
Osterspiel III, Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, A, B, Brixener Passionsspiel, Pfarr-
kirchers Passionsspiel, Rabers Passion, Tiroler Osterspiel (line numbers as in note
68) and Egerer Passionsspiel, Erlau III (line numbers as in note 69).
77
Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern, nos. 786, Gernrode1; 786a, Gernrode2.
Line numbers as in note 70.
376
X. The Empty Tomb
three incipits would be:

101: Corpus antiphonalium, no. 2198, effectively the standard German chant
for Mulier, quid ploras, quem quaeris? ;
102: Corpus antiphonalium, no. 2210, matching the distinctive Quia tulerunt
Dominum meum wording;
103: Corpus antiphonalium, no. 2198, matching the distinctive Domine, si tu
sustulisti eum .
This is necessarily one of the more tentative chant identifications in
the play. It is particularly noticeable that nos. 2198 and 2210 are not in
the same mode, and so do not go ideally together. Yet the same juxta-
position is seen in Füssen,78 and the chants can at least be sung so that
the two different finales are at the same actual pitch, a technique seen
for instance in Gernrode.
79
78
Füssener Osterspiel: see notes 54 and 65.
79
Gernrode: see note 70. Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 2198: Speyer antipho-
377
Corpus antiphonalium, no. 2198, interestingly, is unknown in the

Mainz office of Mary Magdalene, though familiar in Worms and
Speyer.80 This may explain its absence from Alsfeld (apart from the
Frankfurter Dirigierrolle the only Hessian play with a Hortulanus
scene). But the chant, though associated with more southerly dioceses,
probably has no direct implications for the localization of the St Gall
Passion Play. It is used both in the Frankfurter Dirigierrolle and the
Berliner (rheinisches) Osterspiel. Its presence there, and in about fif-
teen other plays and ceremonies from more northerly parts,81 is proba-
bly explained by the borrowing of complete Hortulanus sequences
rather than by familiarity with a particular liturgical chant.
Jesus now reveals himself by calling Mary by name:

104, 105
[104] Tunc Iesus dicat Maria
[105] Quo audito procidens ad pedes eius cantet
Iesu, nostra redemptio (ll. 1339a-c)
Pflanz, perhaps understanding the dicat direction as meaning that

Maria is simply spoken, does not list the incipit. Yet this moving cli-
max of the Hortulanus encounter was invariably sung, and the vast
majority of the over forty relevant German plays and ceremonies
nal, Speyer, Bistumsarchiv, Hs. 2, fol. 174. Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no.
2210: Speyer antiphonal, Speyer, Bistumsarchiv, Hs. 2, fol. 173v (transposed).
80
Worms breviaries: British Library, MS add. 19415, fol. 521; Vatican, cod. pal. lat.
522, fol. 31; Worms, Lu 3a, fol. 231; printed Worms breviary, c. 1475 (Gesamtka-
talog der Wiegendrucke, no. 5513), fol. 64v. Speyer antiphonal, Speyer, Bistums-
archiv, Hs. 2, fol. 174; printed Speyer breviaries: 1478 (ibid., no. 5464), sig. mm5v;
1491 (ibid., no. 5465), sig. F3v. Not found in Mainz.
81
Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 296-98; Berliner (rheinisches) Osterspiel, ll. 1126a-28;
Brandenburger Osterspielfragment; Braunschweiger Osterspiel; Breslauer Oster-
spielfragment; Havelberger Osterspiel; Hersfelder Osterspiel; Marienberger Os-
terspiel; Nottulner Osterspiel I & II; Osnabrücker Osterspiel; Trierer Osterspiel;
Wolfenbütteler Osterspiel; Zwickauer Osterspiel; Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Os-
terfeiern, nos. 786 and 786a, Gernrode1,2; 792, Medingen. Line numbers as in note
33.
378
X. The Empty Tomb
notate the exchange.82 In nearly every case, Mary answers Rabboni!

or Rabb[on]i, quod dicitur magister .83 In lacking this response, the St
Gall Passion Play is so unusual as to suggest scribal error.84 Yet the
direction shows no obvious discontinuities; any error involved could
have been in an earlier draft of the play.
82
In Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern (no. 336; melodies in vol. II, pp. 189-91): Ber-
liner (rheinisches) Osterspiel, ll. 1167a-b, 1173a-b; Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, B,
ll. 3231a-33; Braunschweiger Osterspiel, ll. 81-84; Brixener Passionsspiel, MS,
fol. 122v (Wackernell [ed.], Altdeutsche Passionsspiele aus Tirol, p. 226); Egerer
Passionsspiel, ll. 8018a-b, 8020c-d, 8020h-i; Einsiedler Osterspiel, ll. 67-72;
Engelberger Osterspiel II, p. 23; Erlau III, ll. 1145j-m; Frankfurter Dirigierrolle,
300-01; Innsbrucker (thüringisches) Osterspiel, ll. 1185a-87; Klosterneuburger
Osterspiel, ll. 179-81; Münchener Hortulanusszene, ll. 18-19; Nottulner Osterspiel
I, ll. 36-43; Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel, ll. 3136a-d; Rheinauer Osterspiel, ll. 83-
86; Trierer Osterspiel, ll. 109a-13; Wolfenbütteler Osterspiel, ll. 164a-66b. Not in
Schuler: Admonter Passionsspiel, ll. 1348b-50; Bozner Osterspiel I, 2. Teil, ll.
387a-89; Bozner Osterspiel II, ll. 180a-82 (cf. Traub, Kommentar, p. 152); Bozner
Osterspiel III, ll. 455a-457 (ibid., p. 149); Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, A, ll. 3237
a-d; Bozner Passionsspiel 1514, 2. Teil, MS, fol. 57v (empty staves); Brandenbur-
ger Osterspielfragment, ll. 559a-61; Chiemseer Osterspiel, ll. 68-72; Feldkircher
Osterspiel, ll. 189-90; Füssener Osterspiel, ll. 123a-25; Havelberger Osterspiel, ll.
45-48; Hersfelder Osterspiel, ll. 54-57; Marienberger Osterspiel, ll. 53-56; Not-
tulner Osterspiel II, nos. 16, 17; Osnabrücker Osterspiel, ll. 224 a-b; Rabers Pas-
sion, ll. 3568a-70b; Tiroler Osterspiel, ll. 422a-b; Zwickauer Osterspiel I, ll. 65-66;
Zwickauer Osterspiel Ia, l. 2; Zwickauer Osterspiel II, ll. 225, 230; Zwickauer
Osterspiel III, ll. 133-34; Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern, nos. 790, Kla-
genfurt; 792, Medingen; 796, Regensburg10. Correction to Schuler: Pfarrkirchers
Passionsspiel, ll. 3136a-d has notation.
83
Ibid., no. 336 (b); Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern, vol. IX, p. 959, Vis.
IIId1, IIId2.
84
In Feldkircher Osterspiel, ll. 193-95 and Tiroler Osterspiel, ll. 426a-b, Mary re-
plies with the Trisagion; in Berliner (rheinisches) Osterspiel, ll. 1169a-d, she
replies Heu redempcio Israhel , but sings Raboni shortly after (ll. 1173a-b);
cf. Ulrich Mehler, Dicere und cantare : Zur musikalischen Terminologie und
gensburg, 1981 (Kölner Beiträge zur Musikforschung, 120), pp. 190-91, who sug-
gests other gaps in this section. Rab[on]i is also missing from Breslauer Oster-
spielfragment and Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern, nos. 786-86a, Gern-
rode1,2, owing to textual incompleteness.
379
The melody of Maria! , which does not come from a liturgical

chant, varies somewhat even within the German corpus. There is evi-
dence of a distinctive Sterzing group melody.85 A very simple six-note
ascending and descending melody is found in two north German
plays, but also in Trier.86 Several other plays have a variety of dif-
ferent settings.87 But a score of plays from a wide geographical spread
have a melody with a descending melisma:88
The rising cadence on the last two syllables of Maria found in

most of these plays is Gallican rather than Roman.89 In the few which
85
Bozner Osterspiel I, 2. Teil, ll. 388, 389; Bozner Osterspiel II, ll. 181, 182; Bozner
Osterspiel III, ll. 456, 457; Rabers Passion, ll. 3568b, 3570b; Tiroler Osterspiel, l.
422b; similar in Egerer Passionsspiel, l. 8018b. Cf. Rankin, The Mary Magdalene
scene , pp. 246-47.
86
Brandenburger Osterspielfragment, l. 560; Trierer Osterspiel, l. 110; Lipphardt
(ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern, no. 792, Medingen, ll. 57-58.
87
Admonter Passionsspiel, ll. 1349-50; Erlau III, ll. 1145j-m; Klosterneuburger Os-
terspiel, ll. 178-79; Nottulner Osterspiel II, no. 14.
88
Typical example from Braunschweiger Osterspiel, l. 82. Also in plays transcribed
in Rankin, The Mary Magdalene Scene , pp. 246-47: Chiemseer Osterspiel, l. 69;
Einsiedler Osterspiel, ll. 68-70; Engelberger Osterspiel II, p. 23; Nottulner Oster-
spiel I, ll. 36-37; Rheinauer Osterspiel, l. 84; Zwickauer Osterspiel I, l. 65; Zwick-
auer Osterspiel Ia, l. 2; Zwickauer Osterspiel II, l. 225; Zwickauer Osterspiel III,
ll. 133. Not considered by Rankin: Brixener Passionsspiel, MS, fol. 122v (Wacker-
nell [ed.], Altdeutsche Passionsspiele aus Tirol, p. 226); Feldkircher Osterspiel, l.
190; Marienberger Osterspiel, ll. 53-54; Nottulner Osterspiel II, no. 16; Osna-
brücker Osterspiel, l. 224a; Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel, l. 3136b; Wolfenbütteler
Osterspiel, l. 164b. Also probably Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, A, l. 3237b; cf. B, l.
3232 (notation in both manuscripts is slightly ambiguous); Lipphardt (ed.), Latei-
nische Osterfeiern, no. 790, Klagenfurt. Similar in Füssener Osterspiel, l. 124.
89
Transcribed in Rankin, The Mary Magdalene Scene , pp. 246-47: Braunschweiger
Osterspiel, Chiemseer Osterspiel, Einsiedler Osterspiel, Engelberger Osterspiel II,
Nottulner Osterspiel I, Rheinauer Osterspiel, Zwickauer Osterspiel I, Ia, II, III.
Add: Brixener Passionsspiel, Erlau III, Feldkircher Osterspiel, Marienberger
Osterspiel, Nottulner Osterspiel II, nos. 14, 16; Osnabrücker Osterspiel, Pfarrkir-
380
X. The Empty Tomb
have a falling cadence, a simple shift in underlay places the descend-

ing notes, usually four or more, on the second syllable of Maria
rather than on the first.90
There is thus at least a reasonable certainty about the likely me-
lodic shape of Maria in the St Gall Passion Play.
105
Quo audito procidens ad pedes eius cantet
Iesu, nostra redemptio (ll. 1339b-c)
Schuler, Bergmann, Mehler and Pflanz correctly identify this as the

mode 4 hymn Iesu, nostra redemptio .91 However, Pflanz s treatment
is summary; he finds this universally known item only in a Cologne
source.92
This hymn, probably of seventh- or eighth-century origin, was ex-
tremely widespread in Europe. In the modern Roman rite it is associat-
ed with both the Ascension and Corpus Christi, in medieval books
more exclusively with the former.93 It made its way into the Easter
chers Passionsspiel. Also probably Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, A and B. Line

90
Brandenburger Osterspielfragment, Füssener Osterspiel, Klosterneuburger Os-
terspiel, Trierer Osterspiel, Wolfenbütteler Osterspiel, Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische
Osterfeiern, nos. 790, Klagenfurt; 792, Medingen. Line numbers as in note 82;
Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern, no. 781, Cividale2, l. 75.
91
Hesbert, Corpus antiphonalium, no. 8331; Blume & Dreves (eds.), Analecta Hym-
nica, vol. LI, no. 58, pp. 95-96; Chevalier, Repertorium Hymnologicum, no. 9582;
Daniel, Thesaurus hymnologicus, vol. I, no. 56; Julian (ed.), Dictionary of Hymno-
logy, pp. 592-93. Cf. Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, nos. 286, 287, Bergmann,
Studien, p. 197, Mehler, Dicere und cantare , p. 191, and Pflanz, Lateinische
Textgrundlagen, pp. 108-09.
92
Ibid., p. 109, note 2.
93
Ascension: Antiphonale monasticum pro diurnis horis juxta vota RR. D. Abbatum
congregationum conf deratarum Ordinis Sancti Benedicti a Solesmensibus mo-
nachis restitutum, Paris [etc.], 1934, pp. 506-07; Antiphonale Romanum secundum
liturgiam horarum [ ] dispositum, vol. I: Liber hymnarius cum invitatoriis & ali-
quibus responsoriis, Paris-Tournai, 1983, pp. 88-89; Breviarium Romanum, 1562-
64, sig. BBiiira; Mainz psalter, Mainz, Martinusbibliothek, Hs. 11, fol. 143v; Mainz
381
plays and ceremonies in the twelfth century.94 Schuler s list of Ger-

man plays which use the hymn can be supplemented.95
Interestingly, ceremonies and plays are anything but consistent in
placing the hymn. The main variants are: at the start of the Visitatio;96
hymnary and sequentiary, fifteenth century, Frankfurt, Barth. 49, fol. 15v; Worms
breviary, Vatican, cod. pal. lat. 522, fol. 8; Speyer antiphonal, Speyer, Bistumsar-
chiv, Hs. 2, fol. 310; Speyer breviary, Vatican, cod. pal. lat. 514, fol. 30va. Corpus
Christi: Graduale triplex seu Graduale Romanum Pauli PP. VI cura recognitum et
rhythmicis signis a Solesmensibus monachis ornatum, neumis Laudunensibus (Cod.
239) et Sangallensibus (Codicum Sangallensis 359 et Einsidlensis 121) nunc auc-
tum, Solesmes [etc.], 1979, pp. 854-55; Processionale monasticum, p. 85.
94
Schmidtke, Hennig & Lipphardt, Füssener Osterspiel , p. 399; first recorded in
Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern, no. 824, Tours3, thirteenth century.
95
In Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, nos. 286, 287: Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 2746
a-c, 7274a-c (1 verse); Benediktbeurer Emmausspiel, l. 23; Berliner (rheinisches)
Osterspiel, ll. 1048a-52b; Brixener Passionsspiel, ll. 4008a-c (1 verse); Donau-
eschinger Passionsspiel, l. 4090e; Egerer Passionsspiel, ll. 7955 a-f; Erlau III, ll.
1040a-d; Erlau IV, ll. 713a-b; Innsbrucker (thüringisches) Osterspiel, ll. 1110a-14;
Klosterneuburger Osterspiel, ll. 213-14; Luzerner Osterspiel 1545, l. 10471b;
Rheinauer Osterspiel, ll. 128-32; Trierer Osterspiel, ll. 69a-71a; Wolfenbütteler
Osterspiel, ll. 100a-f. Not in Schuler: Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, 444, 1278; Bozner
Osterspiel I, 2. Teil, ll. 96a-99; Bozner Osterspiel III, ll. 266a-b; (cf. Traub, Debs-
Codex , p. 341); Bozner Passionsspiel 1514, 2. Teil, MS, fol. 61v (1 verse; empty
staves); Brandenburger Osterspielfragment, ll. 510a-12; Chiemseer Osterspiel, ll.
96-116; Erlau III, ll. 1282a-c; Füssener Osterspiel, ll. 10a-36; Hersfelder Oster-
spiel, Visitatio, ll. 26-33; Moosburger Himmelfahrtsspiel, p. 487; Rabers Passion,
ll. 3428a-c; Tiroler Osterspiel, separate Visitatio, ll. 94a-c; Zwickauer Osterspiel I,
ll. 2a-14; Zwickauer Osterspiel II, ll. 132a-148 (and vernacular version, ll. 149-74);
Zwickauer Osterspiel III, ll. 6a-18 (vernacular only). Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische
Osterfeiern, nos. 213, Gerresheim1; 238b, Köln15; 590, Indersdorf; 785, Ganders-
heim; 792, Medingen; 828, Delft.
96
Füssener Osterspiel, Luzerner Passionsspiel, ll. 10471a-b; cf. Luzerner Osterspiel
(Hans Wyss (ed.), Das Luzerner Osterspiel. Gestützt auf die Textabschrift von M.
Blakemore Evans und unter Verwendung seiner Vorarbeiten zu einer kritischen
Edition nach den Handschriften herausgegeben, 3 vols., Bern, 1967 (Schriften her-
ausgegeben unter dem Patronat der Schweizerischen Geisteswissenschaftlichen
Gesellschaft, 7), vol III: Textteile 1597, 1616. Anmerkungen, Quellen, Glossar, p.
235, note to vor v. 10472 (after apothecary scene). Zwickauer Osterspiel I, III;
Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern, nos. 213, Gerresheim1; 590, Indersdorf;
382
X. The Empty Tomb
between the Visitatio and the Hortulanus scene;97 when the news of
the Resurrection is passed on to the apostles.98 Other locations are also
found.99 The hymn frequently began the Emmaus or Peregrinus
plays, though these are almost exclusively French or Italian.100 The
placing of the hymn in the St Gall Passion Play is thus most unusual
with reference to the overall tradition.101
Plays with notation show the standard hymn tune:
828, Delft (in apothecary scene). Line numbers as in note 95.

97
Berliner (rheinisches) Osterspiel, Bozner Osterspiel I, 2. Teil, Bozner Osterspiel
III, Brandenburger Osterspielfragment, Egerer Passionsspiel, Erlau III, l. 1040a-d,
Hersfelder Osterspiel, Innsbrucker (thüringisches) Osterspiel, Rabers Passion, Ti-
roler Osterspiel, Trierer Osterspiel, Wolfenbütteler Osterspiel, Zwickauer Oster-
spiel II, Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern, nos. 785, Gandersheim (a rather
non-mimetic ceremony); 792, Medingen. Line numbers as in note 95.
98
Bozner Passionsspiel 1514, 2. Teil; Chiemseer Osterspiel; Erlau III, ll. 1280a-d;
Klosterneuburger Osterspiel; Rheinauer Osterspiel. Line numbers as in note 95.
99
Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 2746b-c (after Mary Magdalene s repentance); ll. 7274
a-c (sung by good souls released from Hell on way to Heaven); Donaueschinger
Passionsspiel, l. 4090e (before visit to apothecary); Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische
Osterfeiern, no. 238b, Köln15 (1664) (end of Elevatio).
100
Benediktbeurer Emmausspiel, l. 23; Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern, nos.
808, Beauvais; 811, Palermo; 812-15, Rouen6-9; 817, St-Lhomer2, Blois; 819, Sy-
racuse4; Smoldon, The Music of the Medieval Church Dramas, pp. 189-94. De
Boor, Textgeschichte, pp. 290-91, sees the Peregrinus play or ceremony as the
original context of the hymn in drama.
101
Mehler, Dicere und cantare , p. 191, note 235; Schuler, Musik der Oster-
feiern, no. 286; vol. I, tables between pp. 16 and 17; conspectus, p. 112.
383
2. Quae te vicit clementia, Ut ferres nostra crimina,

Crudelem mortem patiens, Ut nos a morte tolleres?
3. Inferni claustra penetrans, Tuos captivos redimens,
Victor triumpho nobili Ad dextram Patris residens.
4. Ipsa te cogit pietas, Ut mala nostra superes,
Parcendo et voti compotes Nos tuo vultu saties.102
Pflanz s assumption that only the first verse was used, because the
others transcend the context of a Passion play, is belied by the dra-
matic tradition: whilst some plays do restrict themselves to a single
verse, others do not.103 The use of the hymn at the start of Easter plays
and ceremonies, and between the Visitatio and the Hortulanus epi-
sodes, is not in the least inhibited by the fact that, especially in verses
3-5, it expresses a factual and theological view of Christ s death and
resurrection which the protagonists could not have had at the time.
Indeed, some plays seem deliberately to contrast the expansive joy of
the hymn with a return to Mary s almost claustrophobic anxiety before
the Hortulanus encounter,104 and in others the hymn is associated
102
Speyer antiphonal, Speyer, Bistumsarchiv, Hs. 2, fol. 310. A fifth verse (doxo-
logy), recorded in Blume & Dreves (eds.), Analecta Hymnica, vol. LI, p. 96, An-
tiphonale monasticum, pp. 506-07, and Processionale monasticum, p. 95 is not
found in Mainz, Worms or Speyer sources (see note 93). Melody in: Benedikt-
beurer Emmausspiel, Bozner Osterspiel I, 2. Teil, Brixener Passionsspiel, Chiem-
seer Osterspiel, Egerer Passionsspiel, Erlau IV, Füssener Osterspiel, Rabers Pas-
sion, Rheinauer Osterspiel, Tiroler Osterspiel, Wolfenbütteler Osterspiel, Zwick-
auer Osterspiel I, II, III. Line numbers as in note 95. Melodic decorations in
Füssener Osterspiel, ll. 11-14, 19-22, 29-32, are highly unusual: cf. Schmidtke,
Hennig & Lipphardt, Füssener Osterspiel , p. 399.
103
Cf. Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen, p.109. Single verse: Alsfelder Passions-
spiel, Bozner Osterspiel I, 2. Teil, Brixener Passionsspiel, Rabers Passion, Tiroler
Osterspiel. More than one verse: Klosterneuburger Osterspiel (precise number un-
certain); Chiemseer Osterspiel (four verses plus doxology); Hersfelder Osterspiel
(two verses plus doxology); Rheinauer Osterspiel (three verses); Wolfenbütteler
Osterspiel (two verses); Zwickauer Osterspiel I, II, III: (three verses, plus doxolo-
gy in II). Line numbers as in note 95.
104
E.g. Berliner (rheinisches) Osterspiel, ll. 1048a-78; Innsbrucker (thüringisches)
Osterspiel, ll. 1110a-38; Tiroler Osterspiel, separate Visitatio, ll. 94a-c.
384
X. The Empty Tomb
with mourning Jesus s death.105 The number of verses will hardly have
been limited by psychological considerations, but rather by how much
time the director, or the audience, would have been prepared to con-
cede to a sung item which was not accompanying any other action:
Jesus simply stands in front of Mary as she sings. But a modern sensi-
bility is not normative: a fourteenth-century audience might well have
found the hymn theologically and aesthetically worthy of extended
performance (it would in any case take only about twenty seconds per
verse). In the St Gall Passion Play, from the Harrowing of Hell to the
end the proportion of sung to spoken or mimetic material is very high.
In the Visitatio it is at its maximum; music takes up a third or more of
the total performance time.106 In a section which presents itself as
largely musical, it cannot be assumed that every second of superflu-
ous music will have been trimmed away.
The other two Maries have told the apostles of Christ s resurrection
(ll. 1343a-47). Peter now asks Mary Magdalene to tell him what she
has seen at the tomb:
106, 107, 108
[106] Tunc veniens Maria Magdalena cantet Petrus
Dic nobis, Maria, quid vidisti in via
[107] Respondet Maria Sepulcrum Christi
[108] Tunc Apostoli Scimus Christum surrexisse
Iesus vadat ad paradysum (ll. 1347a-e)
105
Klosterneuburger Osterspiel, l. 213: Apostoli sine cessatione murmurant Hym-
num istum plangentes Dominum ; Zwickauer Osterspiel I, ll. 2a-14.
106
Approximate estimated timings: music ( Media vita ; Quem quaeritis dialogue;
Christ/Mary Magdalene dialogue; Jesu, nostra redemptio ; Victimae paschali
extracts): 4-4.5 minutes (assuming one verse each of Media vita and Jesu, nos-
tra redemptio ); spoken dialogue: 6-6.5 minutes; movement not simultaneous with
sung items: probably less than two minutes (l. 1131a: Maria Jacobi and Maria
Salome leave the tomb; l. 1342a: Maria Jacobi and Maria Salome go to the dis-
ciples (may both be a single movement); l. 1347a: Mary Magdalene goes to the
disciples).
385
The identity of the play s final chants is not in doubt; they are from
the very well-known mode 1 sequence Victimae paschali :
Victimae paschali laudes immolent Christiani.
Agnus redemit oves; Christus innocens Patri reconciliavit peccatores.
Mors et vita duello conflixere mirando; dux vitae mortuus regnat vivus.
Dic nobis, Maria, quid vidisti in via?
Sepulchrum Christi viventis, et gloriam vidi resurgentis;
Angelicos testes, sudarium et vestes.
Surrexit Christus spes mea; praecedet suos in Galilaea(m).
Credendum est magis soli Mariae veraci quam Iudaeorum turbae fallaci.
Scimus Christum surrexisse de mortuis vere;
Tu nobis victor rex miserere.107
This sequence, in the medieval liturgy often associated with Easter

Week rather than Easter Sunday as in the modern Roman rite,108 is a
staple both of Easter ceremonies and drama: it appears relatively often
in the German Type II Visitatio.109 Schuler lists nearly thirty German
plays, and there are a good many more.110 A full treatment of the use
of this sequence in drama is clearly impossible here.
107
Analecta Hymnica, vol LIV, no. 7; Daniel, Thesaurus hymnologicus, vol. II, pp.
95-97 (no. CXX); vol. V, p. 58 (no. 50); Liber usualis, p. 780.
108
Mainz gradual, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 44, fol. 170v (Tuesday of Easter Week); Mainz
missal and ritual, Frankfurt, Barth. 107, fols. 61v-62; Mainz missal, Barth. 118,
fol. 2 (both Easter Day); Missale Maguntinum, 1507, sig. n iir, iiiv, ivr, etc.; printed
Worms missal, 1488, fols. LXXIIIva, LXXIVva, LXXVra, LXXVIvb, LXXVIIvb (=
sig. k iva, iiva, iiira, ivvb, vvb) (Easter Monday and all of Easter Week); Speyer
missal, Speyer, Bistumsarchiv, Hs. 1, fols. cxxivb-cxxiira, cxxxiiira; printed Speyer
missal, 1501, fols. LXXIIIIrb-va, LXXVra (= sig. k iirb-va, k iiira) (Tuesday and Wed-
nesday of Easter Week). Cf. Christian Väterlein (ed.), Graduale Pataviense (Wien
1511), Kassel [etc.], 1982 (Das Erbe deutscher Musik, 87), fol. 204 (Wednesday
or Thursday of Easter Week); Liber usualis, p. 780 (Easter Sunday).
109
Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern, index (vol. IX, pp. 1066-67) records the
whole sequence in forty-eight ceremonies from twenty-eight German centres
(Germany, the Netherlands, Poland and Bohemia), and the Dic nobis, Maria
dialogue in 113 ceremonies from twenty-seven German centres. Cf. De Boor,
Textgeschichte, pp. 101, 179-91.
110
In Schuler, Musik der Osterfeiern, nos. 651, 652: Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll.
386
X. The Empty Tomb
The dialogic section, from Dic nobis, Maria , had of course con-
siderable dramatic potential which its various users were not slow to
realize. Repeating the question and having it answered by the three
sections Sepulchrum Christi viventis , Angelicos testes and
Surrexit Christus spes mea might disturb the melodic structure
and flow of the sequence, but its dramatic power was clearly felt to
make up for this, and this threefold repetition is found even in rela-
tively early liturgical sources.111 The repeated question becomes a
very frequent feature of ceremonies, especially from southern Ger-
many; most are fifteenth-century or later, but there are some earlier
examples.112 The heightened dramatic feeling is perhaps seen in the
7763a-79b; Berliner (rheinisches) Osterspiel, ll. 1229a-f; Bozner Passionsspiel

1495, B, ll. 3333b-65; Braunschweiger Osterspiel, ll. 89-108; Brixener Passions-
spiel, MS, fols. 128-129v (Wackernell [ed.], Altdeutsche Passionsspiele aus Tirol,
pp. 235-37); cf. ll. 4254-55 (p. 424); Egerer Passionsspiel, ll. 8070a-8106d; Ein-
siedler Osterspiel, ll. 56-58, 105-12; Engelberger Osterspiel II, p. 26; Erlau III, ll.
1202a-42d; Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 311-15; Innsbrucker (thüringisches) Oster-
spiel, ll. 1246a-80; Klosterneuburger Osterspiel, ll. 215-30; Nottulner Osterspiel
I, pl. VI; Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel, ll. 3220a-34a; Rheinauer Osterspiel, ll. 117-
27, 148-53; Trierer Osterspiel, ll. 179a (not dialogic); Wiener Osterspiel, l. 1023a;
Wolfenbütteler Osterspiel, ll. 230a-81a. Not in Schuler: Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, ll.
1345-51; Admonter Passionsspiel, fols. 108-110v, ll. 1369-97; Bozner Osterspiel I,
2. Teil, ll. 509b-22b; Bozner Osterspiel III, ll. 583a-623; Bozner Passionsspiel
1495, A, ll. 3337b-59, Bozner Passionsspiel 1514, 2. Teil, MS, fols. 60v-61v;
Chiemseer Osterspiel, ll. 118-34; Füssener Osterspiel, ll. 138a-73; Havelberger
Osterspiel, ll. 67-84; Hersfelder Osterspiel, ll. 73-86; Marienberger Osterspiel, ll.
67-87; Osnabrücker Osterspiel, ll. 244a-54a, 280a-84b (from Dic nobis, Maria
on); Zwickauer Osterspiel I, ll. 89a-124; Zwickauer Osterspiel II, ll. 301a-42;
Zwickauer Osterspiel III, ll. 186a-252. Cf. Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Oster-
feiern, items in note 109.
111
Daniel, Thesaurus hymnologicus, vol. II, p. 96, citing Munich and Vatican lit-
urgical manuscripts. Traub, Kommentar, p. 42: Durch die Wiederholung der
Frage Dic nobis Maria wird zwar der Bau der Sequenzversikel gestört, aber eine
formale Intensivierung des Dialogs erreicht.
112
De Boor, Textgeschichte, pp. 101-02. Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern,
records the question as sung three times in about fifty ceremonies, and twice in
six, in both cases predominantly from southern Germany; cf. ibid., vol. IX, index,
p. 1067 (not a complete list). Early ceremonies: ibid., nos. 350, Trier4; 550, Eich-
387
fact that numerous Visitatio ceremonies give the question not to the
chorus but to figures identified as apostles.113 The Passion and Easter
plays make frequent use of the repeated question and answer.114
The St Gall Passion Play does not repeat the question, but it is not
specified whether Mary s Sepulcrum Christi (107) ended at resur-
gentis , or included the next phrase Angelicos testes vestes , or
even the following one, Surrexit Christus spes mea in Galilae-
a(m) . All the phrases cadence on the finalis D, and give a satisfactory
melodic transition to Scimus Christum surrexisse . In the Visitatio
ceremonies where the Dic nobis is asked only once, the practice
of answering it with all three sections is widespread. Sometimes these
are sung by three different clerics (who may be identified with the
three Maries),115 but just as often a single figure, called or representing
Mary Magdalene, sings all three sections together.116 Indeed, the cere-
monies where the length of Mary s reply is uncertain are very few.117
stätt1; 621, Moosburg1; 635, Passau5 (all fourteenth century).

113
Apostoli : Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern, nos. 238b, Köln15; 621-21a,
Moosburg1, 2; 642-43, Passau13, 14; 723-25, St Florian5, 6, 7; 740, St Pölten5. Peter
and John: 625, Neumarkt; 627, Neustift2. John: 619, Mindelheim. Also Angeli :
316, Rheinau4. Cf. De Boor, Textgeschichte, p. 182.
114
Twice: e.g. Berliner (rheinisches) Osterspiel, Brixener Passionsspiel, Egerer Pas-
sionsspiel, Marienberger Osterspiel. Three times: e.g. Admonter Passionsspiel,
Bozner Passionsspiel 1495, A and B, Bozner Passionsspiel 1514, 2. Teil, Braun-
schweiger Osterspiel, Erlau III, Füssener Osterspiel, Havelberger Osterspiel,
Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel, Zwickauer Osterspiel I, II, III, Lipphardt (ed.), La-
teinische Osterfeiern, no. 792, Medingen (line numbers as in note 110).
115
Found in approximately twenty ceremonies from eight German centres: Lipphardt
(ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern, nos. 190a-b, 192, 195a, Bamberg5, 6, 8, 12; 260,
Mainz11; 349, 352, Trier3, 6; 486, Ansbach; 533, Berlin2; 585, Halle; 627, Neu-
stift2; 728-732, 734-735a, St Lambrecht1-4, 6, 8-10.
116
Found in approximately thirty ceremonies from eight German centres: Lipphardt
(ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern, nos. 585, Halle; 615, 618, Melk3, 7; 619, Mindel-
heim; 632-34, 637, 639-39a, 641-43, Passau2-4, 7, 9, 10, 12-14 (and in numerous other
Passau ceremonies); 682, Ranshofen; 719-20, St Florian1, 2; 756, Vorau1; 761-63,
Wien1-3.
117
Ibid., nos. 374, Würzburg4; 617, Melk6; 738, St Pölten3.
388
X. The Empty Tomb
In Passion and Easter plays, the arrangement with Mary Magdalene

singing all three sections is found in earlier examples, including the
Frankfurter Dirigierrolle.118 Later in Hessia, in Alsfeld, the directions
are not so clear.119 In this light, it looks likely that Mary Magdalene
did sing right through to praecedet suos in Galilaeam .
The section Credendum est magis was not included in St Gall,
testimony to its general downplaying of the antisemitism so common
in the German Passion plays.
The melody of the sequence in medieval German sources differs
slightly from the modern Roman melody in the cadences (see the
chant on the next page).
The play s last direction is Iesus vadat ad Paradysum (l. 1347e).
This might have been one of the play s unaccompanied movements
(see the discussion of chant no. 96 in Chapter IX). Another possible
interpretation of the direction is that the Victimae Paschali dialogue
was intended to cover Jesus s movement to Heaven, and this it would
most fittingly and effectively have done.
118
Chiemseer Osterspiel, Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, Innsbrucker (thüringisches) Os-
terspiel (may have stopped at resurgentis ), Klosterneuburger Osterspiel, Not-
tulner Osterspiel I, Nottulner Osterspiel II (all line numbers as in note 110).
119
Alsfelder Passionsspiel, ll. 7768a-b: Sepulcrum Christi [ ] , 7775a-b: Angeli-
cos testes (may have stopped at vestes ).
389
120
120
Mainz gradual, Frankfurt, lat. qu. 44, fol. 170v. Also in medieval and early modern
sources in note 108. Cf. modern Roman melody in Liber usualis, p. 780.
390
Chapter XI
Conclusions
hat, very briefly, can be learned from this detailed ex-

amination of the musical stratum of the St Gall Passion
Play?
Liturgy and localization

A central insight, applicable to Pflanz s only partially successful work
and its critics, is that liturgical approach definitely can help to localize
plays, provided it is applied to the right plays in a methodically correct
way. Pflanz s mistakes show what is necessary if the method is to suc-
ceed. One must have a detailed knowledge of the liturgical tradition of
the relevant diocese(s) based on familiarity with a broad range of pri-
mary sources. In the case of some uses which have not been inten-
sively studied, this may involve primary research to locate, identify
and analyse extant sources; and as with the diocese of Worms, there
are uses whose medieval sources turn out to be extremely rare. One
must be aware of variations in a single use both over time and between
different areas within one diocese. One must recognize that the
method will not always yield simple, unambivalent results, and that it
will not be applicable at all to temporale chants which are not diocese-
specific, so that it will not work with every play. These are significant
restrictions, and scholars must beware of undue optimism. In a recent
article on the Innsbrucker Spiel von Mariae Himmelfahrt, for instance,
Neumann expresses hopes of liturgical localization of the play which
may prove unwarranted.1 The play s liturgical chants are, as he recog-
1
Bernd Neumann, Das Innsbrucker Spiel von Mariae Himmelfahrt : Gedanken zu
einer Neuedition , Neue Beiträge zur Germanistik (=Doitsu Bungaku) 109 (2002),
pp. 191-206, esp. 203-04.
nizes, mostly from the feast of the Assumption;2 and this was one
which did not exhibit many local variants, certainly not by the stan-
dards of the liturgies of locally venerated saints. Within the under-
stood limits, however, it is a viable approach. In the particular case of
the St Gall Passion Play it has proved its worth, and a number of other
German plays might respond to a similar investigation.
Chants as Reconstructible
The St Gall Passion Play chants have proved reconstructible within a
fairly small triangle of error . One reason for this is the fact that the
German dramatic tradition as a whole shows remarkable consistency
in the corpus of its melodies, a consistency which emerges more clear-
ly from a detailed, discursive, comparative treatment of the evidence
than from the necessarily rather lapidary presentation in Schuler.
There are variations, there are questions to which (at least in the pre-
sent state of our knowledge) we have no ready answers, but in general
German drama does operate with a stable corpus of chants which en-
tirely belies Schützeichel s pessimistic image of chant-incipits as hazy
clues to a barely recuperable musical archaeology. Renate Amstutz s
success in reconstructing the music of the Mühlhäuser (thüringisches)
Zehnjungfrauenspiel, and the positive results of the present investiga-
tion, strongly suggest the feasibility of recovering the musical stratum
of a good many plays transmitted in incipit-only manuscripts. A sys-
tematic investigation of a number of such plays would be a sensible
next step. An obvious candidate would be the Frankfurter Dirigierrol-
le. The manuscript, though almost entirely devoid of musical signs
and information, is a strongly performance-oriented document which
meticulously records stage directions and chant incipits. The play is
localized in a known and well documented liturgical tradition, the
Frankfurt variant of the Mainz rite. The very few items of notation
suggest a careful concern for musical precision. The five neumes over
2
Ibid., pp. 197, 203.
392
XI. Conclusions
the incipit Ductus est Jesus , for instance, may seem sparse and ran-
dom, but are in fact precisely enough to identify the chant as the anti-
phon rather than the similarly worded responsory.3 A chant recon-
struction would give a much more rounded picture of this sophisticat-
ed large-scale spectacle, whose liturgico-musical stratum is particu-
larly rich; this would complement the detailed text-philological work
done in Janota s recent edition and Wolf s Kommentarband.4 In its
turn, this might offer important clues to the music of the later Frank-
furter Passionsspiel, and indeed of the other Hessian group plays; sig-
nificant insights into the totality of that regional performance tradition
could be gained as a result.5
The Meaning of Music

The detailed consideration of the music of the St Gall Passion Play
and of other German plays confirms very strongly that the music of
medieval drama is no mere Einlage but is profoundly constitutive of
the play s nature, structure and effects. The most obvious aspect is the
quasi-sacramentality produced by many of the sung liturgical items.
Perhaps the most interesting example of this is in the Mary Magdalene
3
ecclesiasticarum documenta. Series maior. Fontes, 7-12), nos. 2413 and 6529 res-
pectively. Frankfurter Dirigierrolle, 32a. See chapter 5, note 117.
4
Hansjürgen Linke, [Review of Johannes Janota (ed.), Die hessische Passions-
spielgruppe. Edition im Paralleldruck, vol. I: Frankfurter Dirigierrolle. Frankfur-
ter Passionsspiel. Mit den Paralleltexten der Frankfurter Dirigierrolle , des Als-
felder Passionsspiels , des Heidelberger Passionsspiels , des Frankfurter Oster-
spielfragments und des Fritzlarer Passionsspielfragments , Tübingen, 1996], Bei-
träge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (Tübingen) 121 (1999),
pp. 156-62, esp. 159.
5
Hansjürgen Linke, [Review of Johannes Janota (ed.), Die hessische Passionsspiel-
gruppe. Edition im Paralleldruck, vol. II: Alsfelder Passionsspiel. Mit den Paral-
leltexten der Frankfurter Dirigierrolle , des Frankfurter Passionsspiels , des
Heidelberger Passionsspiels , des Frankfurter Osterspielfragments . Edition der
Melodien von Horst Brunner, Tübingen, 2002], Beiträge zur Geschichte der deut-
schen Sprache und Literatur (Tübingen) 126 (2004), pp. 359-66, esp. 364-66.
393
scenes, with their relationship to the sacrament of penance; but the li-
turgischer Grundton of the play is indeed pervasive, as Hartl says.
The sheer preponderance of music in the triumphal closing sequences
(Visitatio Sepulchri, Hortulanus) is remarkable. The liturgical element
has been present throughout the play, though always only as one stra-
tum amongst others. Now it becomes dense and dominant; the play, as
it were shifts gear. The Paschal mystery is not so much mimetically
represented as quasi-liturgically enacted, proclaimed and welcomed;
the audience less watching a performance than assisting at a sacra-
mental act.
Trends and Traditions

Detailed examination of the German dramatic tradition reveals a con-
siderable number of items the use of which is dictated by definite,
strong trends. There is for example distinct evidence for the avoidance
of liturgical chant for certain items, even at moments when a liturgical
item would be fitting and might even be expected. Examples are
Tristis est anima mea and Tamquam ad latronem in the Agony in
the Garden sequence, where a range of plays provide convincing evi-
dence that the expected responsories were not in fact used.6 The pat-
tern of some movements being unexpectedly unaccompanied (for ex-
ample when Jesus leads the Good Souls to Heaven) suggests perform-
ance traditions of German drama as yet not fully understood.7 We will
be in a position to understand them only when a reasonably sized cor-
pus of plays has been comparatively assessed in detail.
Casting
A clear idea of the actual music used in the St Gall Passion Play, and
of its varying degrees of difficulty, allows a relatively detailed recon-
struction of the forces needed to perform the play (see Chapter 4).
6
See the discussion of St Gall Passion Play chants nos. 61 and 67 in chapter 7.
7
Ibid., chant no. 96 in chapter 9.
394
XI. Conclusions
Even if this cannot be done to the last detail, it is clear that the chants,
and the performers who sing them, are matched in a systematic way,
with regard to musical ability and the availability of forces. A plausi-
ble picture can be gained of the kind of centre which could have sup-
ported a play of this type, and this makes its own contribution to the
localization of the play (see Chapter 5). Analyses of other plays might
show whether this model of casting is generally applicable. Specifical-
ly, notice would have to be taken of several plays where the casting is
known, since these tend to select their players on criteria of social
precedence. In the Bozner Passionsspiel of 1495, for example, the ac-
tors were almost exclusively merchants, skilled artisans and municipal
officials.8 How if at all was this hierarchical model of casting rec-
onciled with the need to consider the musical competence of the play-
ers? Is hierarchical casting a later medieval approach which super-
sedes the more liturgically based distribution which seems to operate
in the St Gall Passion Play? Can it be seen to correlate with a reduc-
tion or simplification of the musical material which the lay characters
were expected to perform? There is scope here for well designed in-
terdisciplinary research.
The successful musical reconstruction of this play also suggests ar-
eas where further progress could readily be made.
Performance
Resolving most of the musical questions, and presenting the chants in
a manner that is performable, will facilitate and stimulate performance
of the play, and perhaps of medieval German theatre in general, en-
couraging German scholarship to engage with this aspect. Medieval
religious theatre is a performance genre, and will only ever be ade-
8
Hannes Obermair, The Social Stages of the City: Vigil Raber and Performance
Direction in Bozen/Bolzano (Northern Italy): A Socio-historical Outline , Conci-
lium medii aevi 7 (2004), pp. 193-208, esp. 197-203 (http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/
edoc/p/cma/7-04/obermair.pdf).
395
quately apprehended and understood in performance, as Young him-

self recognized.9 Here the more pragmatically theaterfreudig Anglo-
Saxon approach may have something to give the Germanic tradition.
Who can say what further insights may emerge from a vigorous tradi-
tion of performance of the German corpus?
Possible Further Developments

A great deal more work is needed: detailed examinations of the musi-
cal scenario of other plays would help to answer some of the ques-
tions thrown up by the St Gall Passion Play but which it has not been
possible to resolve here. Even in the case of plays where localization
is not a problem, comparison of how their musical material relates to
their known local liturgical tradition is potentially fruitful. To what
extent is melodic material and ritual action taken over directly or indi-
rectly in the play in question? Does this vary regionally, chronologi-
cally, or both? To what extent can details of dramatic performance
practice be derived from liturgical practice? Here too the Frankfurt
plays, which can be assessed against a known local liturgical tradition,
would be an obvious place to start, but many other German plays
would no doubt respond to treatment.
As is almost invariably the case in medieval literature, the com-
parative dimension is unavoidable. Investigating the St Gall Passion
Play adequately has required engaging with an entire dramatic tradi-
tion. Similarly, the answers to many of the questions thrown up by
this one play will emerge only from a thorough study of the whole
genre; but in turn they will make a powerful contribution to the under-
standing of that genre as a whole.
9
Karl Young, The Drama of the Medieval Church, 2 vols., Oxford, 1933, vol. I, pp.
xiii-xiv.
396
Chapter XII
Bibliography
Plays and other primary sources
Information on the plays is set out as follows:

the title of the play used in this book, usually following Kurt Ruh [et al.],
Die deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters: Verfasserlexikon, Berlin-New
York, 1978- [2nd ed.].
where applicable the siglum and number from Rolf Bergmann, Katalog
der deutschsprachigen geistlichen Spiele und Marienklagen des Mittelal-
ters, München, 1986.
where applicable other title(s) by which the play has been or is known
the manuscript source(s) of the play, with date
the edition or facsimile from which the play is cited in this book
other editions.
Not all editions and facsimiles of every play are listed; for full details, for
secondary literature, and for complete descriptions of the manuscripts,
readers are referred to Bergmann, Katalog, and Ruh [et al.], Verfasser-
lexikon.
The St Gall Passion Play:

St. Galler Passionsspiel; GP; 54; St. Galler Mittelrheinisches Passionsspiel,
Mittelrheinisches Passionsspiel, St. Galler Spiel vom Leben Jesu; Sankt
Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, cod. 919, pp. 197-218 (a paper booklet bound into
the manuscript); Rudolf Schützeichel (ed.), Das Mittelrheinische Passions-
spiel der St. Galler Hs. 919, Tübingen, 1978, pp. 99-157 (text); pp. 331-51
(facsimile); Leben Jesu, in Franz Joseph Mone (ed.), Schauspiele des Mittel-
alters:, 2 vols., Karlsruhe, 1846-48, vol. I, pp. 49-128; Emil Wolter (ed.),
Das St. Galler Spiel vom Leben Jesu: Untersuchungen und Text, Germanisti-
sche Abhandlungen, 41, Breslau, 1912 [rpt. Hildesheim, 1977]; Eduard Hartl
(ed.), Das Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel: Das St. Galler Passionsspiel, Alt-
deutsche Textbibliothek, 41, Halle/Saale, 1952, pp. 56-131.
Other plays:
Admonter Passionsspiel; AdP; 3; Admont, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 812, fols. 1-
124, 1560-90; Karl Konrad Polheim (ed.), Das Admonter Passionsspiel, 3
vols., München [etc.], 1972-80, vol. I: Textausgabe. Faksimileausgabe; vol.
2: Untersuchungen zur Überlieferung, Sprache und Osterhandlung; vol. 3:
Untersuchungen zur Passionshandlung, Aufführung und Eigenart. Nebst Stu-
dien zu Hans Sachs und einer kritischen Ausgabe seines Passionsspieles.
Alsfelder Dirigierrolle; AD; 7; Alsfeld, Museum der Stadt, Verschiedenes,
IV, fols. 1-42, beginning of sixteenth century; Johannes Janota (ed.), Die
hessische Passionsspielgruppe. Edition im Paralleldruck, 2 vols., Tübingen,
1996-2002, vol. II, pp. 149-90; Christoph Treutwein (ed.), Das Alsfelder
Passionsspiel: Untersuchungen zu Überlieferung und Sprache; Edition der
Alsfelder Dirigierrolle, Germanistische Bibliothek, 4, Heidelberg, 1987.
Alsfelder Passionsspiel; AP; 70; Kassel, Universitätsbibliothek, Landesbi-
bliothek und Murhardsche Bibliothek der Stadt Kassel, 2o Ms. poet. et ro-
man. 18, fols. 1-81v, fifteenth century, with additions up to 1517; Janota
(ed.), Hessische Passionsspielgruppe, vol. II, pp. 191-905; Richard Froning
(ed.), Das Drama des Mittelalters, Stuttgart, 1891-92 [rpt. Darmstadt, 1964],
vol. II, p. 547-, vol. III, p. 864.
Augsburger Osterspiel, see: Feldkircher Osterspiel.
Augsburger Passionsspiel; AuP; 116; Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek,
Cgm 4370, fols. 1-65v, fifteenth century; August Hartmann (ed.), Das Ober-
ammergauer Passionsspiel in seiner ältesten Gestalt, Leipzig, 1880.
Benediktbeurer Emmausspiel; Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm
4660a, fols. VIIr-v, first half thirteenth century; Wilhelm Meyer (ed.), Frag-
menta Burana , in Festschrift zur Feier des hundertfünfzigjährigen Bestehens
der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Abhand-
lungen der philologisch-historischen Klasse, Berlin, 1901, pp. 136-37 (text),
plates 12-13 (facsimile); Otto Schumann & Bernhard Bischoff (eds.), Carmi-
na Burana: Mit Benutzung der Vorarbeiten Wilhelm Meyers kritisch heraus-
gegeben von Alfons Hilka und Otto Schumann, vol. I:3, Die Trink- und Spie-
lerlieder. Die geistlichen Dramen. Nachträge, Heidelberg, 1970, pp. 184-86
(CB 26*); Karl Young, The Drama of the Medieval Church, Oxford, 1933,
vol. I, pp. 463-56; Walther Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern und
Osterspiele, Berlin-New York, 1975-90, vol. V, pp. 1656-58 (no. 820).
398
XII. Bibliography
Benediktbeurer Osterspiel; Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 4660

a, fols. V-VIv, first half thirteenth century; Meyer (ed.), Fragmenta Burana ,
pp. 126-30 (text), plates 8-11 (facsimile); Schumann & Bischoff (eds.), Car-
mina Burana, vol. I:3, pp. 134-49 (CB 15*); Young, Drama of the Medieval
Church, vol. I, pp. 432-37; Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern und Os-
terspiele, vol. V, pp. 1711-18 (no. 830).
(Großes) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel; BP; 119; Benediktbeurer Passions-
spiel; Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm 4660, fols. 107-112v, 1220-
30; Schumann & Bischoff (eds.), Carmina Burana, vol. I:3, pp. 149-172 (CB
16*); Hartl (ed.), Das Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel, pp. 12-44; Peter Dronke
(transl. and ed.), Nine Medieval Latin Plays, Cambridge Medieval Classics,
1, Cambridge, 1994, pp. 185-237; Benedikt Konrad Vollmann (ed.), Carmi-
na Burana: Texte und Übersetzungen, Bibliothek des Mittelalters, 13, Frank-
furt am Main, 1987, pp. 816-59; facsimile: Bernhard Bischoff (ed.), Carmina
Burana. Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, clm 4660 + 4660a, München,
1967 [rpt. 1970].
(Kleines) Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel; Munich, Bayerische Staatsbiblio-
thek, Clm 4660a, fols. IIIv-IVv, second half or end thirteenth century; Meyer
(ed.), Fragmenta Burana , pp. 123-24 (text), plates 5-7 (facsimile); Schu-
mann & Bischoff (eds.), Carmina Burana, vol. I:3, pp. 127-29 (CB 13*).
Benediktbeurer Weihnachtspiel; Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm
4660, fols. 99-105, early thirteenth century; Schumann & Bischoff (eds.),
Carmina Burana, vol. I:3, pp. 86-111 (CB 227, 228).
Berliner (rheinisches) Osterspiel; BeO; 20; Rheinisches Osterspiel; Berlin,
Staatsbibliothek Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Ms. germ. 2o 1219, fols. 2-28,
1460; Hans Rueff (ed.), Das Rheinische Osterspiel der Berliner Handschrift
Ms. germ. fol. 1219. Mit Untersuchungen zur Textgeschichte des deutschen
Osterspiels, Abhandlungen der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttin-
gen, philologisch-historische Klasse, N.F. 18:I, Berlin, 1925, pp. 136-206.
Bordesholmer Marienklage; M 69; Kiel, Universitätsbibliothek, Cod. Ms.
Bord. 53, fols. 1-23v, c. 1475; Gustav Kühl (ed.), Die Bordesholmer Marien-
klage , Niederdeutsches Jahrbuch 24 (1898), pp. 40-66 (text) and Anhang ,
1-14 (melodies).
Bozner Abendmahlspiel; BzAb; 137/XV; Bozner Gründonnerstagsspiel;
Sterzing, Stadtarchiv, Hs. IV ( Debs-Codex ), fols. 107v-118, fifteenth cen-
tury; Walther Lipphardt & Hans-Gert Roloff (eds.), Die geistlichen Spiele
399
des Sterzinger Spielarchivs, Mittlere Deutsche Literatur in Neu- und Nach-

drucken, 14-19, Bern, 1980-, vol. I, pp. 373-426.
Bozner Fronleichnamsspiel; BzF; 113; Meran, private collection of Dr Carl
von Braitenberg, no shelfmark, pp. 1-34, 1543; Anton Dörrer (ed.), Tiroler
Umgangsspiele: Ordnungen und Sprechtexte der Bozner Fronleichnamsspie-
le und verwandter Figuralprozessionen vom Ausgang des Mittelalters bis
zum Abstieg des Aufgeklärten Absolutismus gesammelt, eingeleitet und mit
besonderer Unterstützung der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft ediert,
Schlern-Schriften, 160, Innsbruck, 1957, pp. 193-206; Carl von Braitenberg
(ed.), Der Bozner Umgang und das Georgispiel vom Jahre 1543 , Der
Schlern 52 (1978), pp. 508-15.
Bozner Grablegungsspiel I; BzGr I; 137/II; Bozner Grablegungsspiel, Boz-
ner Kreuzabnahmespiel I; Sterzing, Stadtarchiv, Hs. IV ( Debs-Codex ), fols.
12-17v, fifteenth century; Lipphardt & Roloff (eds.), Geistliche Spiele des
Sterzinger Spielarchivs, vol. I, pp. 51-71.
Bozner Grablegungsspiel II; BzGr II; 137/XIV; Bozner Kreuzabnahmespiel
II; Sterzing, Stadtarchiv, Hs. IV ( Debs-Codex ), fols. 102-07, fifteenth
century; Lipphardt & Roloff (eds.), Geistliche Spiele des Sterzinger Spielar-
chivs, vol. I, pp. 347-71.
Bozner HimmelfahrtspieI; BzH; 137/I; Sterzing, Stadtarchiv, Hs. IV ( Debs-
Codex ), fols. 1-11, fifteenth century; Lipphardt & Roloff (eds.), Geistliche
Spiele des Sterzinger Spielarchivs, vol. I, pp. 15-49.
Bozner Marienklage I; M 124 (=137) I; Sterzing, Stadtarchiv, Hs. IV ( Debs-
Codex ), fols. 63-75v, fifteenth century; Lipphardt & Roloff (eds.), Geistliche
Spiele des Sterzinger Spielarchivs, vol. I, pp. 213-49.
Bozner Marienklage II; M 124 (=137) II; Sterzing, Stadtarchiv, Hs. IV
( Debs-Codex ), fols. 91-98v, fifteenth century; Lipphardt & Roloff (eds.),
Geistliche Spiele des Sterzinger Spielarchivs, vol. I, pp. 305-33.
Bozner Osterspiel I, 1. Teil; BzO I, 1. Teil; 137/III; Bozner Osterspiel (I);
Sterzing, Stadtarchiv, Hs. IV ( Debs-Codex ), fols. 18-26v, fifteenth century;
Lipphardt & Roloff (eds.), Geistliche Spiele des Sterzinger Spielarchivs, vol.
I, pp. 73-106.
Bozner Osterspiel I, 2. Teil; BzO I, 2. Teil; 137/V; Bozner Osterspiel (II);
Sterzing, Stadtarchiv, Hs. IV ( Debs-Codex ), fols. 34v-42, fifteenth century;
400
XII. Bibliography
I, pp. 137-69.
Bozner Osterspiel II; BzO II; 137/VIII; Bozner Osterspiel (III)-Fragmente;
Sterzing, Stadtarchiv, Hs. IV ( Debs-Codex ), fols. 56-62v, fifteenth century;
I, pp. 189-212.
Bozner Osterspiel III; BzO III; 137/VIII; Bozner Osterspiel (IV); Sterzing,
Stadtarchiv, Hs. IV ( Debs-Codex ), fols. 79-87, fifteenth century; Lipphardt
& Roloff (eds.), Geistliche Spiele des Sterzinger Spielarchivs, vol. I, pp. 251-
86.
Bozner Palmsonntagsspiel; BzPa; 138; Sterzing, Stadtarchiv, Hs. V, fols. 1-
73, beginning of the sixteenth century; Lipphardt & Roloff (eds.), Geistliche
Spiele des Sterzinger Spielarchivs, vol. IV, pp. 7-95.
Bozner Passionsspiel; BzP; 1495 [Manuscript A: Ithaca, NY: Cornell Uni-
versity, Ms. F. 6 (Amerikaner Passion [68]); Manuscript B: Bozen, Franzis-
kanerkloster, Ms. I 51 (23)]; Bruno Klammer (ed.), Bozner Passion 1495:
Die Spielhandschriften A und B, Mittlere Deutsche Literatur in Neu- und
Nachdrucken, 20, Bern [etc.], 1986.*
Bozner Passionsspiel 1514, 1. Teil; BzP (1514), 1. Teil; 111; Meran, private
collection of Dr Carl von Braitenberg, no shelfmark, fols. 1-26 (Maundy
Thursday play), fols. 28-59v (Palm Sunday play), 1514; no edition. Cited
from the photocopy of the manuscript in the library of the Institut für Deut-
sche Sprache und Literatur, University of Cologne.
Bozner Passionsspiel 1514, 2. Teil; BzP (1514), 2. Teil; 112; Meran, private
collection of Dr Carl von Braitenberg, no shelfmark, fols. 1-34 (Good Friday
play), fols. 43-76 (Osterspiel), 1514; no edition. Cited from the photocopy of
the manuscript in the library of the Institut für Deutsche Sprache und Litera-
tur, University of Cologne.
Bozner Verkündigungsspiel; BzVk; 137/XIII; Sterzing, Stadtarchiv, Hs. IV
( Debs-Codex ), fols. 99-101v, fifteenth century; Lipphardt & Roloff (eds.),
Geistliche Spiele des Sterzinger Spielarchivs, vol. I, pp. 335-46.
*
The standard nomenclature of these two manuscripts, given above, is reversed in
Klammer s edition, which refers to the Cornell manuscript as B , the Bozen manu-
script as A . In this book, the play is quoted from Klammer s edition, using his
manuscript sigla.
401
Brandenburger Osterspielfragment; BdOf; 24; Brandenburg, Domstifts-

bibliothek, Ms. K 466 (manuscript fragments from incunable K 466), end of
the fourteenth century; Renate Schipke & Franzjosef Pensel (eds.), Das
Brandenburger Osterspiel: Fragmente eines neuentdeckten mittelalterlichen
geistlichen Osterspiels aus dem Domarchiv in Brandenburg/Havel, Beiträge
aus der Deutschen Staatsbibliothek, 4, Berlin, 1986.
Braunschweiger Osterspiel; Wolfenbüttel, Landeshauptarchiv, ms. VII B
203, fols. 23-27v (lectionary, Braunschweig, St Blasius), second half four-
teenth century; Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern und Osterspiele, vol.
V, pp. 1498-1504 (no. 780); Heinrich Sievers (ed.), Die lateinischen liturgi-
schen Osterspiele der Stiftskirche St. Blasien zu Braunschweig, Veröffentli-
chungen der niedersächsischen Musikgesellschaft, 2, Wolfenbüttel, 1936, pp.
23-57.
Breslauer Marienklage I; M 31; Wroc ł aw, Archiwum Pánstwowe we
Wroc awiu (State Archives), Ms G I, 2 (lost), first half fourteenth century; J.
Klapper (ed.), Das mittelalterliche Volksschauspiel in Schlesien , Mitteilun-
gen der schlesischen Gesellschaft für Volkskunde 29 (1928), pp. 168-216,
esp. 205-08; Alwin Schultz (ed.), Bruchstücke eines Passionsspiels ,
Germania 16 (1871), pp. 57-60.
Breslauer Osterspielfragment; BrOf; 27; Wroc aw, Bibliotheka Uniwer-
sytecka, Mss I Q 226 A, IV Q 161, ff. I, IV, and I Q 370, ff. II, III, end of the
fourteenth or beginning of the fifteenth century; Klapper (ed.), Das mittelal-
terliche Volksschauspiel in Schlesien , pp. 208-14 (with facsimile).
Brixener Passionsspiel; BiP; 66; Innsbruck, Tiroler Landesmuseum Ferdi-
nandeum, Hs FB 575, fols. 1v-137v, 1551; J. E. Wackernell (ed.), Altdeutsche
Passionsspiele aus Tirol, Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte, Littera-
tur und Sprache Österreichs und seiner Kronländer, 1, Graz, 1897, pp. 353-
431; also pp. 3-74, 77-177, 181-253.*
Chiemseer Osterspiel; Nürnberger Osterspiel; Nuremberg, Germanisches
Nationalmuseum, Hs. 22 923, fols. 105v-107v, thirteenth century; Lipphardt
(ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern und Osterspiele, vol. V, pp. 1507-12 (no. 782);
Young, Drama of the Medieval Church, vol. I, pp. 632-34.
*
Wackernell s editorial method means that certain line-numbers cannot be known ac-
curately. In these cases, reference is made to the relevant page of Wackernell s edi-
tion.
402
XII. Bibliography
Docens Marienklage; M 100; Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm

19614, fols. 444-447v, late fourteenth century; edition of part 1 (ll. 1-74):
Philipp Wackernagel (ed.), Das deutsche Kirchenlied von der ältesten Zeit
bis zum Anfang des XVII. Jahrhunderts, 5 vols., Leipzig, 1864-70 [rpt. Hil-
desheim, 1964], vol. II, pp. 369-71; edition of part 2 (ll. 75-157b): Karin
Schneider (ed.), Docens Marienklage , Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum
106 (1977), pp. 138-45.
Donaueschinger Passionsspiel; DP; 35; Villinger Passionsspiel I; Karlsruhe,
Badische Landesbibliothek, Hs Donaueschingen 137, fols. 1-88v, 1470-1500;
Anthonius H. Touber (ed.), Das Donaueschinger Passionsspiel: Nach der
Handschrift mit Einleitung und Kommentar neu herausgegeben, Stuttgart,
1985; Hartl (ed.), Drama des Mittelalters, vol. IV, pp. 5-287.
Egerer Passionsspiel; EP; 122; Egerer Fronleichmamsspiel; Nuremberg,
Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Hs. 7060, fols. 1-140v, c. 1460; Gustav
Milchsack (ed.), Egerer Fronleichnamsspiel, Bibliothek des Litterarischen
Vereins Stuttgart, 156, Tübingen, 1881; important corrections to Milchsack s
edition in Hansjürgen Linke, Zum Text des Egerer Fronleichnamspiels ,
Euphorion 78 (1984), pp. 275-79.
Egmonter Osterspiel; The Hague, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, Cod. 71 J 70,
fols. 163v-170 (Hymnal, Benedictine abbey of St Adalbertus, Egmont), fif-
teenth century; Joseph Smits van Waesberghe (ed.), A Dutch Easter Play ,
Musica disciplina 7 (1953), pp. 15-37 (version B); Lipphardt (ed.), Lateini-
sche Osterfeiern und Osterspiele, vol. V, pp. 1696-1701 (no. 827).
Einsiedler Osterspiel; Einsiedeln, Stiftsbibliothek, Ms. 300, pp. 93-94,
twelfth-thirteenth century; Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern und Os-
terspiele, vol. V, pp. 1513-1517 (no. 783); Young, Drama of the Medieval
Church, vol. I, pp. 390-92.
Engelberger Osterspiel I; Engelberg, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 103, fol. 123v
(from Disdibodenberg Abbey), beginning of the thirteenth century; P.
Ephrem Omlin (ed.), Das ältere Engelberger Osterspiel und der Codex 103
der Stiftsbibliothek Engelberg , in Alfred A. Schmid (ed.), Corolla Heremi-
tana: Festschrift für Linus Birchler, Olten-Freiburg im Breisgau, 1964, pp.
101-26; Hartl (ed.), Drama des Mittelalters, vol. I, pp. 244-45; Lipphardt
(ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern und Osterspiele, vol. II, pp. 250-51 (no. 199).
Engelberger Osterspiel II; Engelberg, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. 314, fols. 75v-
78v, (1372); Paul-Roman Hofer (ed.), Das jüngere Engelberger Osterspiel ,
403
unpublished licentiate dissertation, Richard-Strauß-Konservatorium der Stadt

München, 1970; Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern und Osterspiele,
vol. V, pp. 1517-21 (no. 784).
Erlau plays; 40; Erlau (Eger, Hungary), Föegyházmegi Könyvtár (Archdio-
cesan Library), Cod. B.V.6., fols. 105-28, 1400-40; Wolfgang Suppan (ed.),
Texte und Melodien der Erlauer Spiele; herausgegeben [ ] auf Grund einer
Textübertragung von Johannes Janota, Musikethnologische Sammelbände,
11, Tutzing, 1990; Karl Ferdinand Kummer (ed.), Erlauer Spiele, Wien,
1882 [rpt. Hildesheim-New York, 1977]:
Erlau I; ErW I; Erlauer Weihnachtsspiel I; fols. 105r-v (Suppan [ed.], Texte
und Melodien, pp. 17-23)
Erlau II; ErW II; Erlauer Weihnachtsspiel II; fols. 105v-07 (ibid., pp. 25-
41)
Erlau III; ErO; Erlauer Osterspiel; fols. 107-16 (ibid., pp. 43-115)
Erlau IV; ErM; Erlauer Magdalenenspiel; fols. 116-21 (ibid., pp. 117-151)
Erlau V; ErWä; Erlauer Wächterspiel; fols. 121-24 (ibid., pp. 153-177)
Erlauer Marienklage; M 44; fols. 124v-28 (ibid., pp. 179-211)
Feldkircher Osterspiel; FeO; 41; Augsburger Osterspiel; Feldkirch, Biblio-
thek des Kapuzinerklosters, Ms. Liturg. 1 retr.m, fols. 74-92, between 1560
and 1598; Walther Lipphardt (ed.), Das lateinisch-deutsche Augsburger Os-
terspiel und das Passionslied des Mönchs von Salzburg. In Abbildung aus
dem Ms. Liturg. 1 rtr des Kapuzinerklosters Feldkirch, Litterae, 55, Göppin-
gen, 1978; Walther Lipphardt, Ein lateinisch-deutsches Osterspiel aus Augs-
burg (16. Jh.) , Jahrbuch des Vorarlberger Landesmuseumsvereins (1972
[1975]), pp. 17-29 (text and facsimiles).
Frankfurter Dirigierrolle; FD; 43; Frankfurt am Main, Stadt- und Universi-
tätsbibliothek, Ms. Barth. 178 (Ausstellung 29), 1315-45; Janota (ed.), Hes-
sische Passionsspielgruppe, vol. I, pp. 7-33 (diplomatic transcription), 35-52
(critical edition). Froning (ed.), Drama des Mittelalters, vol. II, pp. 340-74.
References in this study are to the numbered sections of the text.
Frankfurter Osterspielfragment, Fof; 43a; Frankfurt am Main, Stadt- und
Universitätsbibliothek, Fragm.germ. III 6, first half fourteenth century; Ja-
nota (ed.), Hessische Passionsspielgruppe, vol. I, pp. 422-26; Hermann Lom-
nitzer (ed.), Ein Textfund zur Frankfurter Dirigierrolle , in Volker Hone-
mann & Nigel Palmer (eds.), Deutsche Handschriften 1100-1400: Oxforder
Kolloquium 1985, Tübingen, 1988, pp. 590-608 (text: pp. 601-04; facsimile:
pp. 605-08).
404
XII. Bibliography
Frankfurter Passionsspiel; FP; 42; Frankfurt am Main, Stadtarchiv, Barth.

Bücher VI 63, fols. 1-81, written in 1493; Janota (ed.), Hessische Passions-
spielgruppe, vol. I, pp. 55-421; Froning (ed.), Drama des Mittelalters, vol. II,
pp. 375-534.
Freiburger Fronleichnamsspiel, Hs. A; FbF (A); 44; Freiburg im Breisgau,
Stadtarchiv, B I (H) No. 12, fols. 1-61v, 1599; Ernst Martin (ed.), Freiburger
Passionsspiele des XVI. Jahrhunderts , Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Beför-
derung der Geschichts-, Altertums- und Volkskunde von Freiburg, der Breis-
gau und den angrenzenden Gebieten 3 (1874), pp. 1-206 (esp. 3-95).
Freiburger Fronleichnamsspiel, Hs. B; FbF (B); 45; Freiburg im Breisgau,
Stadtarchiv, B I (H) No. 13, 1601; Martin (ed.), Freiburger Passionsspiele ,
pp. 96-194.
Friedberger Dirigierrolle; FdD; 52; manuscript, now lost, previously in the
collection of Karl Weigand, probably fifteenth century; Ernst Wilhelm Zim-
mermann (ed.), Das Alsfelder Passionsspiel und die Wetterauer Spielgrup-
pe , Archiv für hessische Geschichte und Altertumskunde, N.F. 6 (1909), pp.
172-203 (reconstruction).
Fritzlarer Passionsspielfragment; FrPf; 53; Fritzlar, Dombibliothek, Ms.
125/30, fols. 1-4v, c. 1460; Karl Brethauer (ed.), Bruchstücke eines hessi-
schen Passionsspiels aus Fritzlar , Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum 68
(1931), 17-31 (text 18-26).
Füssener Osterspiel; HaO; 11; Harburger Osterspiel, also M 3: Harburger
(Füssener) Marienklage I; Augsburg, Universitätsbibliothek, Cod. II, 1, 4o,
62, fols. 137-41 (Osterspiel); 143-48 (Marienklage), late fourteenth century;
Dietrich Schmidtke, Ursula Hennig & Walther Lipphardt (eds.), Füssener
Osterspiel und Füssener Marienklage , Beiträge zur Geschichte der deut-
schen Sprache und Literatur (Tübingen) 98 (1976), pp. 231-88, 395-423; D.
Schmidtke (ed.), Das Füssener Osterspiel und die Füssener Marienklage.
Universitätsbibliothek Augsburg (ehemals: Harburg), Cod. II, 1, 4o, 62; in
Abbildung herausgegeben. Mit einer literaturwissenschaftlichen Einführung
von Ursula Hennig, Litterae, 69, Göppingen, 1983.
St. Galler Himmelfahrtsspiel; GH; 56; St Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, cod. 1006,
pp. 33-44, manuscript dated 1516-26; Mone (ed.), Schauspiele des Mittel-
alters, vol. I, pp. 251-64.
405
Göttweiger Dirigierrolle; GD; 58; Göttweiger Osterspielfragment; Biblio-

thek des Stiftes Göttweig, Fragm. 354, fifteenth century; Rolf Bergmann
(ed.), Die Göttweiger Dirigierrolle eines Osterspiels , in Werner Besch [et
al.] (eds.), Festschrift für Siegfried Grosse zum 60. Geburtstag, Göppinger
Arbeiten zur Germanistik, 423, Göppingen, 1984, pp. 325-35.
Haller Passionsspiel; HlP; 145; Haller Passion; Sterzing, Stadtarchiv, Hs.
XI, 24, 1514; Lipphardt & Roloff (eds.), Geistliche Spiele des Sterzinger
Spielarchivs, vol. III, pp. 163-248.
Harburger Osterspiel, see: Füssener Osterspiel
Havelberger Osterspiel; Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek, Ms. Aug.
84. 2o, fols. 23r-v (Liber ordinarius from Havelberg), fifteenth century; Lipp-
hardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern und Osterspiele, vol. V, pp. 1530-33 (no.
787); Young, Drama of the Medieval Church, vol. I, pp. 668-69.
Heidelberger Passionsspiel; HP; 62; Heidelberg, Universitätsbibliothek,
Cod. Pal. Germ. 402, fols. 1-166v, written in 1514; Gustav Milchsack (ed.),
Heidelberger Passionsspiel, Bibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins Stuttgart,
Hersfelder Osterspiel; St Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, Ms. 448, p. 106 (copy of a
ritual from the Benedictine abbey of Hersfeld), fifteenth century; Lipphardt
(ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern und Osterspiele, vol. V, pp. 1534-40 (no. 788);
Hessisches Weihnachtsspiel; HeW; 71; Kassel, Universitätsbibliothek, Lan-
desbibliothek und Murhardsche Bibliothek der Stadt Kassel, 2o Ms. poet. et
roman. 19, fifteenth century; Froning (ed.), Drama des Mittelalters, vol. III,
pp. 902-39.
Innsbrucker (thüringisches) Spiel von Mariae Himmelfahrt; IHM; 67; Inns-
bruck, Universitätsbibliothek, cod. 960, fols. 1-34v, 1391; Mone, Altteutsche
Schauspiele, pp. 19-106 (text), 165-75 (apparatus); facsimile: Eugen Thurn-
her & Walter Neuhauser (eds.), Die Neustifter-Innsbrucker Spielhandschrift
Hansjürgen Linke, Bernd Neumann, Dieter Trauden & Margot Westlinning, Kol-
lation zu Rolf Bergmann: Die Göttweiger Dirigierrolle eines Osterspiels (unpub-
lished typescript, University of Cologne, Institut für Deutsche Sprache und Litera-
tur, undated) offers important corrections to Bergmann s reading of the manuscript.
406
XII. Bibliography
von 1391 (Cod. 960 der Universitätsbibliothek Innsbruck), Litterae, 40, Göp-
pingen, 1975.
Innsbrucker (thüringisches) Osterspiel; IO; 67; Innsbruck, Universitätsbi-
bliothek, Cod. 960, fols. 35v-50, 1391; Rudolf Meier (ed.), Das Innsbrucker
Osterspiel. Das Osterspiel von Muri. Mittelhochdeutsch und neuhoch-
deutsch; herausgegeben, übersetzt, mit Anmerkungen und einem Nachwort
versehen, Stuttgart, 1962; facsimile: Thurnher & Neuhauser (eds.), Die Neu-
stifter-Innsbrucker Spielhandschrift von 1391; Hartl (ed.), Drama des Mit-
telalters, vol. II, pp. 136-89.
Kasseler (mittelniederdeutsche) Paradiesspiel-Fragmente; Kassel, Gesamt-
hochschulbibliothek, Landesbibliothek und Murhardsche Bibliothek der
Stadt Kassel, 4o Ms. chem. 5 Fragm. 1, second half fourteenth century; Hart-
mut Broszinski & Hansjürgen Linke (eds.), Kasseler (mnd.) Paradiesspiel-
Fragmente , Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum 116 (1987), pp. 36-52.
Kaufbeurer Passionsspiel; Ms A: Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbiblio-
thek, Cod. poet. et phil. 4o 133, 1562; Ms B: Augsburg, Universitätsbiblio-
thek, Cod. III, 2, 4o, 5; Anne Metzler (ed.), Das Kaufbeurer Passionsspiel.
Das Kaufbeurer Osterspiel. Zwei Werke des reformatorischen Gemeinde-
geistlichen in Kaufbeuren und Augsburger Bürgers Michael Lucius aus dem
Jahr 1562, Textausgabe und Spielerbiographien (Unpublished dissertation,
Augsburg, 1996), pp. 56-223.
Klosterneuburger Osterspiel; Klosterneuburg, Stiftsbibliothek, Hs. 574, fols.
142v-44v, twelfth-thirteenth century; Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern
und Osterspiele, vol. V, pp. 1703-11 (no. 829); Young, Drama of the Medie-
val Church, vol. I, pp. 421-29; Schumann & Bischoff (eds.), Carmina Bura-
na, pp. 134-49; Hartl (ed.), Drama des Mittelalters, vol. II, pp. 32-44.
Kremsmünsterer (mittelschlesisches) Dorotheenspiel; KmDof; 74; Krems-
münsterer Dorotheenspielfragment; Kremsmünster, Stiftsbibliothek, CC 81,
fols. 86v-88v, mid-fourteenth century; Elke Ukena (ed.), Die deutschen Mira-
kelspiele des Spätmittelalters: Studien und Texte, 2 vols., Europäische Hoch-
schulschriften, Reihe 1, 115, Bern-Frankfurt, 1975, pp. 313-57.
Künzelsauer Fronleichnamsspiel; KF; 128; Schwäbisch Hall, Stadtarchiv F
89, fols. 10-118v, 1479; Peter K. Liebenow (ed.), Das Künzelsauer Fron-
leichnamsspiel, Ausgaben Deutscher Literatur des XV. bis XVIII. Jahrhun-
derts, Reihe Drama II, Berlin, 1969.
407
Luzerner Passionsspiel 1545; LuP (1545); 79; Luzerner Osterspiel; Lucerne,

Zentralbibliothek, Ms 167 II fol., fols. 1-75; Hans Wyss (ed.), Das Luzerner
Osterspiel. Gestützt auf die Textabschrift von M. Blakemore Evans und unter
Verwendung seiner Vorarbeiten zu einer kritischen Edition nach den Hand-
schriften, 3 vols., Schriften herausgegeben unter dem Patronat der Schwei-
zerischen Geisteswissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft, 7, Bern, 1967, vol. II, pp.
9-294.
Luzerner Passionsspiel 1571; LuP (1571); 85; Luzerner Osterspiel; Lucerne,
Zentralbibliothek, Ms 171 fol., fols. 1-110; Wyss (ed.), Das Luzerner Oster-
spiel, vol. I, pp. 73-362.
Luzerner Passionsspiel 1583 I; LuP (1583) I; 93; Luzerner Osterspiel; Lu-
cerne, Zentralbibliothek, Ms 172 VIII fol., fols. 1-4v; Wyss (ed.), Das Luzer-
ner Osterspiel, vol. I, pp. 73-83.
Luzerner Passionsspiel 1583 II; LuP (1583) II; 94; Luzerner Osterspiel; Lu-
cerne, Zentralbibliothek, Ms 172 IX fol., fols. 1-48v; Wyss (ed.), Das Luzer-
ner Osterspiel, vol. I, pp. 73-208.
Luzerner Passionsspiel-Regiematerialien 1583, 2. Teil; LuPRm (1583), 2.
Teil; 88; Lucerne, Zentralbibliothek, Ms 172 III, IV fol.; Wyss (ed.), Das
Luzerner Osterspiel, vol. III, pp. 196-301 (footnotes).
Luzerner Passionsspiel-Regiematerialien 1583 und 1597, 2. Teil; LuPRm
(1583-1597), 2. Teil; 90; Lucerne, Zentralbibliothek, Ms 172 V fol.; Wyss
(ed.), Das Luzerner Osterspiel, vol. III, pp. 170-73, 181-82, 241.
Luzerner Passionsspiel 1597; LuP (1597); 104; Luzerner Osterspiel; Lu-
cerne, Zentralbibliothek, Ms 179 V fol., fols. 1-136; Wyss (ed.), Das Lu-
zerner Osterspiel, vol. I, pp. 267-362; vol. II, pp. 9-241; vol. III, pp. 46-47,
63, 68, 71-74, 78-79.
Luzerner Passionsspiel. Musiktafeln; LuPMu; 105; Lucerne, Zentralbiblio-
thek, Ms 181 fol.; no edition. Facsimile: Marshall Blakemore Evans, The
Passion Play of Lucerne. An Historical and Critical Introduction, Modern
Language Association of America Monograph Series, 14, New York, 1943,
after p. 68; translated as: Marshall Blakemore Evans, Das Osterspiel von
Luzern: Eine historisch-kritische Einleitung ; [trans.] Paul Hagmann, Schwei-
zer Theaterjahrbuch 27 (1961), pp. 1-275, esp. section 4, Musik , pp. 69-83
and ills. 6-12.
408
XII. Bibliography
Luzerner Passionsspiel 1616, 1. Teil; LuP (1616), 1. Teil; 106; Lucerne, Zen-
tralbibliothek, Ms 185 I fol., fols. 1-91, Wyss (ed.), Das Luzerner Osterspiel,
vol. I, pp. 38-44.
Luzerner Passionsspiel 1616, 2. Teil; LuP (1616), 2. Teil; 107; Lucerne,
Zentralbibliothek, Ms 185 II fol., fols. 1-80v; Wyss (ed.), Das Luzerner Os-
terspiel, vol. II, pp. 35-241; vol. III, pp. 57-62, 64-67, 69-74, 78-79, 80-81,
82-84.
Luzerner Passionsspiel 1616, 3. Teil; LuP (1616), 3. Teil; 108; Lucerne, Zen-
tralbibliothek, Ms 185 III fol., fols. 1-45v; Wyss (ed.), Das Luzerner Oster-
spiel, vol. II, pp. 241-94, vol. III, pp. 85-94, 95-158.
Maastrichter Osterspiel; The Hague, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, Cod. 76 F 3,
fols. 3, 14 (Evangeliary, Maastricht), c. 1200; Smits van Waesberghe (ed.),
A Dutch Easter Play , (version A); Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern
und Osterspiele, vol. V, pp. 1692-96 (no. 826).
Maastrichter (ribuarisches) Passionsspiel; MP; 60; Mittelniederländisches
Osterspiel, Maastrichter Osterspiel; The Hague, Koninklijke Bibliotheek,
Cod. 70 E 5, fols. 233v-47v, fourteenth century; Julius Zacher (ed.), Mittel-
niederländisches Osterspiel , Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum 2 (1842), pp.
302-50; H.E. Moltzer (ed.), De middelnederlandsche dramatische poëzie,
Groningen, 1875, pp. 496-538.
Marienberger Osterspiel; Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek, Cod.
Guelf. 309 Novi, fols. 63-64v (Antiphonal, nunnery of Mariengarten near
Göttingen), thirteenth century; Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern und
Osterspiele, vol. V, pp. 1548-51 (no. 791).
Moosburger Himmelfahrtsspiel; Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm
9469, fols. 72v-73v, fourteenth century, before 1362; Young, Drama of the
Medieval Church, vol. I, pp. 484-88; Neil Brooks (ed.), Eine liturgisch-dra-
matische Himmelfahrtsfeier , Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum 62 (1925),
pp. 91-96.
Mühlhäuser (thüringisches) Katharinenspiel; MhKa; 114; Mühlhausen (Thü-
ringen), Stadtarchiv, Ms. 87/20, pp. 89a-94b, mid-fourteenth century; Otto
Beckers (ed.), Das Spiel von den zehn Jungfrauen und das Katharinenspiel,
Germanistische Abhandlungen, 24, Breslau, 1905, pp. 125-57.
Neither edition has line-numbers.
409
Mühlhäuser (thüringisches) Zehnjungfrauenspiel; MhZ; 114; Mühlhausen

(Thüringen), Stadtarchiv, Ms. 87/20, pp. 94b-100a, mid-fourteenth century;
Karin Schneider (ed.), Das Eisenacher Zehnjungfrauenspiel, Texte des spä-
ten Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit, 17, Berlin, 1964; melodies recon-
structed by Renate Amstutz, Ludus de decem virginibus: Recovery of the
Sung Liturgical Core of the Thuringian Zehnjungfrauenspiel , Studies and
Texts, 140, Toronto, 2002.
Münchener Hortulanusszene; MüHo; 118; Munich, Bayerische Staatsbiblio-
thek, Cgm 5249/57 (fragment of a ritual), fourteenth century; Meyer (ed.),
Fragmenta Burana , p. 144 (text) and plates 14-15 (facsimile).
Münchener Osterspiel; MüO; 115; Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek,
Cgm 147, fols. 1-27, first half sixteenth century; Barbara Thoran (ed.), Das
Münchener Osterspiel (Cgm 147 der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek Mün-
chen); mit einer Einführung in Abbildung herausgegeben, Litterae, 43, Göp-
pingen, 1977.
Nottulner Osterspiel I; Gradual of the Augustinian nunnery of Nottuln near
Münster, previously in the private collection of Otto Ursprung, fols. 64v-65v,
now lost, 1420; Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern und Osterspiele, vol.
V, pp. 1561-64 (no. 794); facsimile of fols. 65r-v in Otto Ursprung, Die ka-
tholische Kirchenmusik, Handbuch der Musikwissenschaft, 8, Potsdam,
1931, pl. VI.
Nottulner Osterspiel II; Antiphonal of the Augustinian nunnery of Nottuln
near Münster; Münster, Archiv und Bibliothek des Bistums Münster, Ms.
Depositum Pfarrarchiv Nottuln 2, fols. 112-13v, second half fifteenth cen-
tury; Karl Gustav Fellerer (ed.), Die Nottulner Osterfeier , Westfalia Sacra 2
(1950), pp. 215-49; Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern und Osterspiele,
vol. V, pp. 1564-69 (no. 795).
Nürnberger Osterspiel, see: Chiemseer Osterspiel
Osnabrücker Osterspiel; OO; 124; Osnabrück, Archiv des bischöflichen Ge-
neralvikariats, Hs. Gertrudenberg 1, fols. 130-56v, c. 1500; Hans-Hermann
Breuer (ed.), Das mittelniederdeutsche Osnabrücker Osterspiel: Der Ur-
sprung des Osterspiels und die Prozession: Untersuchungen, Einleitung und
Ausgabe, Beiträge zur Geschichte und Kulturgeschichte des Bistums Osna-
brück, 1, Osnabrück, 1939.
Osnabrücker Passionsspielfragmente; Opf; 125; Osnabrück, Niedersächsi-
sches Staatsarchiv, Erw. A 16 No. 130, late fourteenth century; K. Dürre
410
XII. Bibliography
(ed.), Das Osnabrücker Osterspiel , Niedersachsen 24 (1918-19), pp. 301-

06; L. Wolff (ed.), Das Osnabrücker Passionsspiel , Niederdeutsches Jahr-
buch 82 (1959), pp. 87-98.
Pfarrkirchers Passionsspiel; StPfP; 148; Sterzinger Passionsspiel von a.
1486; Sterzing, Stadtarchiv, Hs. XVI, fols. 1-88v, 1486; Lipphardt & Roloff
(eds.), Geistliche Spiele des Sterzinger Spielarchivs, vol. II, pp. 7-205;
Wackernell, Altdeutsche Passionsspiele, pp. 3-276, 475-80.
Prager Abendmahlspiel; PrAb; 126; Prague, Národní Knihovna, XXIII F 128
(Lobk. 490), fols. 53-55v, fifteenth century; Cobie Kuné (ed.), Das Prager
Abendmahlspiel , Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum 128 (1999), pp. 414-24
(with facsimile).
Rabers Passion; BzPVR; 136; Bozner Passionsspiel von a. 1514 (Vigil-
Raber-Passion), Sterzinger Passionsspiel von a. 1514; Sterzing, Stadtarchiv,
Hs. III. 1514; Lipphardt & Roloff (eds.), Geistliche Spiele des Sterzinger
Spielarchivs, vol. III, pp. 7-161.
Redentiner Osterspiel; ReO; 69; Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, K
369, fols. 1v-12v, 1464; Brigitta Schottmann (ed.), Das Redentiner Oster-
spiel: Mittelniederdeutsch und neuhochdeutsch, Stuttgart, 1975.
Regensburger Osterspiel; RO; 127; Regensburg, Bischöfliche Zentralbiblio-
thek, CH 1* (Proskesche Musikbibliothek), fols. 22-29v, 1620; Eduard Hartl
(ed.), Das Regensburger Osterspiel und seine Beziehungen zum Freiburger
Fronleichnamsspiel , Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum 78 (1941), pp. 125-
32; Joseph Poll (ed.), Ein Osterspiel enthalten in einem Prozessionale der
Alten Kapelle in Regensburg , Kirchenmusikalisches Jahrbuch 34 (1950),
pp. 36-40 (text), 108 (melodies).
Rheinauer Osterspiel; Zurich, Zentralbibliothek, Ms. Rh. 18, pp. 282-83,
thirteenth-century addition to a twelfth-century manuscript; Lipphardt (ed.),
Lateinische Osterfeiern und Osterspiele, vol. V, pp. 1573-78 (no. 797);
Rheinisches Osterspiel, see: Berliner (rheinisches) Osterspiel
Saganer Grablegungspiel; SPf; 28; Saganer Passionsspielfragment, Saganer
Marienklage; Wroc aw, Bibliotheka Uniwersytecka, Akc 1955/156, fifteenth
century; Klapper (ed.), Das mittelalterliche Volksschauspiel in Schlesien ,
pp. 214-16.
411
Sterzinger Passionsspiel 1496/1503; StP; 135; Sterzing, Stadtarchiv, Hs. II,

fols. 1-19 (Maundy Thursday play), 22-48v (Good Friday play), 1496-1503;
II, pp. 207-331; Wackernell (ed.), Altdeutsche Passionsspiele, pp. 9-176.
Sterzinger Passionsspiel der Mischhandschrift; StPMi; 147; Sterzing, Stadt-
archiv, XIII, fols. 1-43 (Palm Sunday play), 50-85v (Maundy Thursday play),
1530-50; Lipphardt & Roloff (eds.), Geistliche Spiele des Sterzinger Spielar-
chivs, vol. IV, pp. 97-180 (Palm Sunday play), 181-255 (Maundy Thursday
play).
Thüringisches Zehnjungfrauenspiel, see: Mühlhäuser (thüringisches) Zehn-
jungfrauenspiel
Tiroler Dramatisierung des Johannes-Evangeliums I; TiDrJo I; 146; Ster-
zing, Stadtarchiv, Hs. XII, fols. 1-68v, first half sixteenth century; Lipphardt
& Roloff (eds.), Geistliche Spiele des Sterzinger Spielarchivs, vol. V, pp. 3-
112, 283-90.
Tiroler Dramatisierung des Johannes-Evangeliums II; TiDrJo II; 141; Ster-
zing, Stadtarchiv, Hs. VIII, fols. 1-41v, 1526; Lipphardt & Roloff (eds.),
Geistliche Spiele des Sterzinger Spielarchivs, vol. V, pp. 113-90.
Tiroler Himmelfahrtsspiel aus Cafless (Cavalese); TiH; 139; Sterzing, Stadt-
archiv, Hs. VI, fols. 1-25v, 1514 or 1517; Lipphardt & Roloff (eds.), Geist-
liche Spiele des Sterzinger Spielarchivs, vol. IV, pp. 257-300.
Tiroler Osterspiel; TiO; 140; Sterzing, Stadtarchiv, Hs. VII, fols. 1-16v,
1520; Lipphardt & Roloff (eds.), Geistliche Spiele des Sterzinger Spielar-
chivs, vol. III, pp. 299-332.
Tiroler Passionsspiel; TiP; 143; Sterzing, Stadtarchiv, Hs. X, fols. 1-21, first
half sixteenth century; Lipphardt & Roloff (eds.), Geistliche Spiele des Ster-
zinger Spielarchivs, vol. III, pp. 249-97.
Tiroler Weihnachtsspiel; TiW; 149; Sterzing, Stadtarchiv, Hs. XVII, pp. 1-
59, written in 1511; Lipphardt & Roloff (eds.), Geistliche Spiele des Sterzin-
ger Spielarchivs, vol. III, pp. 359-400.
Trierer Osterspiel; TO; 158; Trier, Stadtbibliothek, Cod. 1973/63 4o, pp. 19-
30, mid-fifteenth century; Ursula Hennig and Andreas Traub (eds.), Trierer
Marienklage und Osterspiel. Codex 1973/63 der Stadtbibliothek Trier, Litte-
rae, 91, Göppingen, 1990.
412
XII. Bibliography
Trierer Theophilusspiel; TT; 157; Trier, Stadtbibliothek, Hs. 1120/128 4o,

Fragm, fols. 1-12v, 1440-60; Robert Petsch (ed.), Theophilus: Mittelnieder-
deutsches Drama in drei Fassungen herausgegeben, Germanische Biblio-
thek, 2. Abt., 2, Heidelberg, 1908; melodies: P. Bohn (ed.), Marienklage:
Handschrift der trierischen Stadtbibliothek aus dem 15. Jahrhundert , Mo-
natshefte für Musik-Geschichte 9 (1877), pp. 24-25.
Villinger Passionsspiel; VP; 36; Villinger Passionsspiel II; Karlsruhe, Badi-
sche Landesbibliothek, Donaueschingen 138 A, 1-133, and 138 B, 1-109, c.
1599; Antje Knorr (ed.), Villinger Passion. Literarhistorische Einordnung
und erstmalige Herausgabe des Urtexts und der Überarbeitungen, Göppin-
ger Arbeiten zur Germanistik, 187, Göppingen, 1976.
Vorauer Osterspiel; VoO; 159; Vorau, Stiftsbibliothek, Ms. 90, fols. 180v-81
(Passau breviary, pars hiemalis), text written in margins in the fourteenth
century; Walter Lipphardt (ed.), Hymnologische Quellen aus der Steiermark
und ihre Erforschung: Aufgaben und Wege der Hymnologie als theologi-
scher Wissenschaft sowie Ansprachen anläßlich der Ehrenpromotion zum
Doktor der Theologie am 4.12.1973, Grazer Universitätsreden, 13, Graz,
1974, pp. 65-66.
Welser Passionsspielfragment; WePf; 161; Wels, Stadtarchiv, Historisches
Archiv, Akten, Sch. No. 1227, late fifteenth-early sixteenth century; Ludwig
Kaff (ed.), Das Welser Passionsspiel , in Festschrift des Bundesrealgymna-
siums Wels, Wels, 1951, pp. 31-50.
Wiener Osterspiel; WO; 162; Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek,
Cod. 3007 (Nov. 297), fols. 163v-88, 1472; Hans Blosen (ed.), Das Wiener
Osterspiel: Abdruck der Handschrift und Leseausgabe, Texte des Mittelalters
und der Frühen Neuzeit, 33, Berlin, 1979.
Wiener Passionsspiel; WP; 167; Wiener Passionsspielfragment; Vienna, Ös-
terreichische Nationalbibliothek, Cod. 12887 (Suppl. 561), fols. 1-8v, thir-
teenth century; Ursula Hennig (ed.), Das Wiener Passionsspiel. Cod. 12887
(Suppl. 561) der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek zu Wien. Mit Einlei-
tung und Textabdruck in Abbildung herausgegeben, Litterae, 92, Göppingen,
1986; Froning (ed.), Drama des Mittelalters, vol. I, pp. 302-24.
Wolfenbüttler Osterspiel; WoO; 172; Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Biblio-
thek, Cod. Guelf. 965 Helmst., fols. 181-92v, probably c. 1425; Otto Schöne-
mann (ed.), Der Sündenfall und Marienklage: Zwei niederdeutsche Schau-
spiele aus den Handschriften der Wolfenbütteler Bibliothek, Hannover, 1855.
413
Zwickauer Osterspiel I; ZwO I; 193; Zwickau, Ratsschulbibliothek, Ms.

Zwick. XXXVI, I,24, fols. 1-5, between 1484 and 1519-20; Hansjürgen Lin-
ke & Ulrich Mehler (eds.), Die österlichen Spiele aus der Ratsschulbiblio-
thek Zwickau. Kritischer Text und Faksimilia der Handschriften, Altdeutsche
Textbibliothek, 103, Tübingen, 1990, pp. 29-44; Lipphardt (ed.), Lateinische
Osterfeiern und Osterspiele, vol. V, pp. 1540-46 (no. 789; wrongly ascribed
to Joachimsthal).
Zwickauer Osterspiel Ia; ZwO Ia; 193; The Salvatorrolle of Zwickauer
Osterspiel I; Zwickau, Ratsschulbibliothek, Ms. Zwick. XXXVI, I,24, fols.
5-6, between 1484 and 1519-20; Linke & Mehler (eds.), Die österlichen
Spiele aus der Ratsschulbibliothek Zwickau, pp. 45-46.
Zwickauer Osterspiel II; ZwO II; 193; Ms A: Zwickau, Ratsschulbibliothek,
Ms. Zwick. I, XV,3, fols. 56-65v, between 1484 and c. 1500; Ms B: Zwickau,
Ratsschulbibliothek, Ms. Zwick. XXXVI, I,24, fols. 7-10v, c. 1500; ibid., pp.
47-73.
Zwickauer Osterspiel III; ZwO III; 193; Ms A: Zwickau, Ratsschulbiblio-
thek, Ms. Zwick. I, XV,3, fols. 66-77v, between 1484 and c. 1500; Ms B:
Zwickau, Ratsschulbibliothek, Ms. Zwick. XXXVI, I,24, fols. 10v-16, c.
1500; ibid., pp. 74-108.
Liturgical sources
DIOCESE OF MAINZ
The following is not a complete bibliography of Mainz sources, merely a list
of those consulted for this study.
Antiphonal, manuscripts
Aschaffenburg, Stiftsbibliothek
Ms. Perg. 1 (pars aestivalis), Aschaffenburg, c. 1536.
Ms. Perg. 2 (pars hiemalis), probably Mainz, fifteenth century.
Ms. Perg. 12 (pars aestivalis), Aschaffenburg, late fifteenth century.
Frankfurt am Main, Stadt- und Universitätsbibliothek
Ms. Barth. 94 (pars aestivalis), St Bartholomaeus, Frankfurt, late fifteenth
century.
Ms. lat. qu. 48 (pars hiemalis), St Bartholomaeus, Frankfurt, late fifteenth
century.
414
XII. Bibliography
Kassel, Universitätsbibliothek, Landesbibliothek und Murhardsche Biblio-

thek der Stadt Kassel
2o Ms. theol. 117, collegiate church of St Peter, Fritzlar, 1344-48.
Antiphonal, printed book
Cantus Gregoriano-Moguntinus Breviario Romano accommodatus, 2 vols.,
Mainz, 1666-67, vol. I: Pars hiemalis; vol. II: Pars aestiva.
Breviary, manuscripts
Ms. Barth. 44, St Bartholomaeus, Frankfurt, c. 1508.
Ms. Barth. 83 (pars aestivalis), St Bartholomaeus, Frankfurt, 1468.
Ms. Barth. 131, nocturnal (pars aestivalis), St Martin, Mainz, first third of
the fourteenth century.
Ms. Barth. 142 (pars hiemalis), Rhine/Main area, third quarter fourteenth
century.
Ms. Barth. 150, collegiate church, Mainz, probably written in the Liège
diocese, beginning of the fourteenth century; used in Frankfurt since early
fifteenth century.
Ms. Barth. 154 (pars hiemalis), possibly Frankfurt, mid-fifteenth century.
Ms. Barth. 159 (pars aestivalis), lower Main region, 1449.
Ms. Barth. 160, Frankfurt, first half fourteenth century, with additions of
the later fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.
Ms. Barth. 161 (pars hiemalis), probably Rhine/Main area, first half four-
teenth century.
Ms. Leonh. 3 (pars aestivalis), Mainz diocese, for Frankfurt, 1469.
2o Ms. theol. 119, Fritzlar, 1342.
2o Ms. theol. 127, Diocese of Mainz, end of the fourteenth century.
2o Ms. theol. 136 (pars aestivalis), Fritzlar, late fourteenth century.
2o Ms. theol. 146 (pars aestivalis), Fritzlar, mid-fourteenth century.
2o Ms. theol. 159 (pars aestivalis), Fritzlar, 1420.
Breviary, printed books
[Marienthal, Fratres vitae communis, 1474 or 1476]; Gesamtkatalog der
Wiegendrucke, Leipzig [etc.], 1925-, no. 5392; Walter Arthur Copinger,
Supplement to Hain s Repertorium bibliographicum, 3 vols., London,
415
1895-1902, no. 3862; Hanns Bohatta, Liturgische Bibliographie des XV.

Jahrhunderts mit Ausnahme der Missale und Livres d heures, Wien, 1911
[rpt. Hildesheim, 1960], no. 299 References are to the pagination of the
copy in London, British Library, IB 9703.
[Marienthal, Fratres vitae communis, c. 1475]; Gesamtkatalog der Wiegen-
drucke, no. 5393; Bohatta, Liturgische Bibliographie, no. 295 (= 297).
[Marienthal, Fratres vitae communis, c. 1475]; Gesamtkatalog der Wiegen-
drucke, no. 5394.
Enchiridion seu Breuiarium: secundum morem insignis ecclesie Mogunti-
ne, necnon totius diocesis: Nouissime impressum: emendatum ac plurimis
luculentissimis additamentis congestum et absolutum Feliciter incipit,
Mainz, 1509; Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachbereich erschienenen
Drucke des XVI. Jahrhunderts, [ed.] Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek, Mün-
chen & Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenbüttel, Stuttgart, 1983-, no.
B8170; Hanns Bohatta, Bibliographie der Breviere, 1501-1850, Leipzig,
1937 [rpt. Stuttgart-Nieuwkoop, 1963], no. 2449.
Enchiridion seu Breuiarium: secundum morem insignis ecclesie Mogun-
tine, necnon totius diocesis. Nouissime impressum: emendatum: ac pluri-
mis luculentissimis additamentis congestum et absolutum [ ], Mainz,
1517; Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachbereich erschienenen Drucke
des XVI. Jahrhunderts, no. B8175; Bohatta, Bibliographie der Breviere, no.
2454.
Second printing of the previous item: Bohatta, Bibliographie der Breviere,
no. 2455, not listed in Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachbereich erschie-
nenen Drucke des XVI. Jahrhunderts.
Breviarium Moguntinum. Iussu et authoritate [...] D. Danielis S. eiusdem
Moguntinæ Sedis Archiepiscopi, &c. integritati pristinæ fidelißime restitu-
tum, Cologne, 1570; Bohatta, Bibliographie der Breviere, no. 2456; Robert
Amiet, Missels et bréviaires imprimés (Supplément aux catalogues de
Weale et Bohatta): Propres des saints, Paris, 1990, no. 2456.
Breviarium Moguntinum. Authoritate [...] Dn. Ioannis Suicardi, S. eiusdem
Moguntinæ Sedis Archiepiscopi [...] denuò recognitum et editum, Mainz,
1611; Bohatta, Bibliographie der Breviere, no. 2457; Amiet, Missels et bré-
viaires imprimés, no. 2457.
Hebdomadarium et commune sanctorum, Mainz, 1696.
Gradual, manuscripts
416
XII. Bibliography
Ms. lat. qu. 44, St Bartholomaeus, Frankfurt, second quarter fifteenth

century.
Kiedrich, Bibliothek des Chorstiftes
Ms. A, Cathedral, Mainz, late fourteenth century.
Gradual, printed books
[Graduale], Speyer, 3 June 1500]; Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no.
10985; Ludwig Friedrich Theodor Hain, Repertorium bibliographicum, in
quo libri omnes ab arte typographica inventa usque ad annum MD. typis
expressi ordine alphabetico vel simpliciter enumerantur vel adcuratius re-
censentur, 2 vols., Stuttgart, 1826-38 [rpt. Milan, 1948], no. 14897; Copin-
ger, Supplement to Hain s Repertorium bibliographicum, no. 4165.
Graduale Missali Romano, cantui vero Gregoriano-Moguntino accommo-
datum [ ], Mainz, 1671.
Liber Ordinarius / Ordo / Directory, manuscripts
2o Ms. theol. 99, liber ordinarius and collectar of the collegiate church of St
Peter, Fritzlar, first half fifteenth century.
2o Ms. theol. 138, collegiate church of St Peter, Fritzlar, early thirteenth
century.
2o Ms. theol. 143, Mainz breviary, psalter, and liber ordinarius, Mainz,
mid-fourteenth century.
Mainz, Martinusbibliothek (Bischöfliches Priesterseminar)
Hs. 3, Fundationes et consuetudines, Cathedral, Mainz, 1362-1511.
Hs. 92, Registrum praesentiarum secundum chorum eccl. Magunt., Sa-
kristeibuch , Cathedral, Mainz; 1544, with additions of the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries.
Hs. 233, Registrum chori, St Peter, Mainz, fourteenth-fifteenth century.
Liber Ordinarius / Ordo / Directory, printed books
[Ordo, 1484-1485 (Mainz, 1484)]; Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no.
8466.
[Ordo, 1485-1486 or 1496-1497 (Mainz, 1485 or 1496)]; ibid., no. 8467.
[Ordo, 1488-1489 or 1494-1495 (Mainz, 1488 or 1494)]; ibid., no. 8468.
Directorium Misse, Mainz, 1506; Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachbe-
reich erschienenen Drucke des XVI. Jahrhunderts, no. D2015.
Directorium Misse, Mainz, 1508; ibid., no. D2016.
417
Directorium Misse de nouo perspectum & emendatum. secundum frequen-

tiorem cursum diocesis Maguntinensis, Mainz, 1509; ibid., no. D2017.
Missal, manuscripts
Darmstadt, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek
Hs. 3183, festal and votive missal and ritual for a parish church, Mainz, c.
1175.
Ms. Barth. 31, Rorbach-Missale , Rhine/Main area, c. 1460.
Ms. Barth. 107, missal and ritual, first half fourteenth century.
Ms. Barth. 118, neumed missal (pars aestivalis), central Rhineland, mid-
eleventh century.
Kassel, Universitätsbibliothek, Landesbibliothek und Murhardsche
Bibliothek der Stadt Kassel
2o Ms. theol. 100, full neumed missal, Fritzlar, first third thirteenth century.
2o Ms. theol. 122 (pars aestivalis), Fritzlar, second half fourteenth century.
2o Ms. theol. 125 (pars hiemalis), Fritzlar, late fourteenth century.
Mainz, Stadtbibliothek
Hs. II 163, dating uncertain.
Würzburg, Universitätsbibliothek
M.p.th.f. 85, mid-fourteenth century.
Missal, printed books
Missale Maguntinum. denuo exactissima cura recognitum et a prioribus
quibusdam mendis operose ac solecter emaculatum, Mainz: 1 September
1507; William Henry James Weale, Bibliographia liturgica: Catalogus
Missalium ritus latini ab anno 1474 impressorum; ed. Hanns Bohatta,
London-Leipzig, 1928 [rpt. Stuttgart, 1990], no. 631; Amiet, Missels et
bréviaires imprimés, no. 631; Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachbereich
erschienenen Drucke des XVI. Jahrhunderts, no. M5591.
Missalis Moguntiaci. hoc presens et luculentum profecto et divinum opus
[ ] uberrime castigatum, [Speyer, 30 April 1520]; Weale, Bibliographia
liturgica; [ed.] Bohatta, no. 635; Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprach-
bereich erschienenen Drucke des XVI. Jahrhunderts, no. M5596.
Missale Moguntinum Compluribus in locis, tum ex manuscriptis eisdemque
vetustissimis exemplaribus. Tum ex Romano emendatum. Et ad pristinam
normam ac ordinem Breuiarij restitutum, Mainz, 1602; Weale, Biblio-
418
XII. Bibliography
graphia liturgica; [ed.] Bohatta, no. 637; Amiet, Missels et bréviaires

imprimés, no. 637.
Missale Romano-Moguntinum, Mainz, 1698; Weale, Bibliographia liturgi-
ca; [ed.] Bohatta, no. 638.
Processional, manuscripts
Ms. Perg. 32, Aschaffenburg, fifteenth century.
Hs. 100, undated (fifteenth-sixteenth century?), may have been used in
Mainz.
Hs. 110, Processionale Sumptibus Joannis Kleij Metropolitanae Ecclesiae
Vicarij conscriptum. Anno 1704, Cathedral, Mainz, 1704.
Hs. 118, St Peter, Mainz, fifteenth-sixteenth century.
Hs. 121, Liebfrauen, Mainz, 1762 (without musical notation).
Hs. 142, probably Liebfrauen, Mainz, eighteenth century.
Hs. II 74, Cathedral, Mainz, early fifteenth century, also containing
notation from the 16th-17th and 17th-18th centuries.
Hs. II 303, Cathedral, Mainz, late fifteenth century.
Munich, St. Anna, Zentralbibliothek der bayerischen Franziskanerprovinz
ms. 12o Cmm 82, Mainz, c. 1400.
Speyer, Archiv des Bistums Speyer
Hs. 4, Cathedral, Mainz, eighteenth century.
Hs. 5, Cathedral, Mainz, eighteenth century.
Speyer, Gymnasium am Kaisersdom (Gymnasialbibliothek)
(No shelfmark), Cathedral, Mainz, eighteenth century.
Psalter, manuscripts
Ms. Perg. 9, Mainz, after 1400.
Kassel, Universitätsbibliothek, Landesbibliothek und Murhardsche
Bibliothek der Stadt Kassel
2o Ms. theol. 143, breviary, psalter, and liber ordinarius, Mainz, mid-
fourteenth century.
Hs. 11, St Peter, Mainz, twelfth century.
419
Hs. I 357a, Mainz, after 1300.
Psalter, printed books
[Psalterium], Mainz: J. Fust & P. Schöffer, 1457.
[Psalterium], Mainz: P. Schöffer, 1502.
Ritual, manuscripts
Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana
cod. pal. lat. 488, noted ritual, fifteenth century (Salmon, Pierre, Les manu-
scrits liturgiques de la Bibliothèque Vaticane, 5 vols., Studi e Testi, 251-
270, Vaticano, 1968-72, vol. III, no. 198, and vol. II, no. 313).
cod. pal. lat. 490, ritual and processional, Lorsch, fourteenth century (Sal-
mon, Les manuscrits liturgiques, vol. III, no. 199).
Ms. Barth. 107, missal and ritual, first half fourteenth century.
Ritual, printed books
[Rituale], Mainz: [J. Numeister], 1480 (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke,
no. 468; Hain, Repertorium bibliographicum, no. 369; Hermann Josef Spi-
tal, Bibliographie der Ritualien , in Idem, Der Taufritus in den Ritualien
von den ersten Drucken bis zur Einführung des Rituale Romanum, Litur-
giewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen, 47, Münster, 1968, pp.
212-84, no. 191).
Agenda ecclesie Moguntinensis, [Strasbourg: J. Prüß, c. 1492] (Gesamtka-
talog der Wiegendrucke, no. 469; Copinger, Supplement to Hain s Reper-
torium bibliographicum, no. 130; Spital, Bibliographie der Ritualien , no.
192).
Agenda Maguntina cum vtilissimis scituque dignissimis (prioribus tamen
non insertis) quibusdam notabilibus: iam nouiter ac diligenter jmpressa,
Mainz: J. Schöffer, 1513 (Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachbereich er-
schienenen Drucke des XVI. Jahrhunderts, no. A717; Spital, Bibliographie
der Ritualien , no. 194).
Agenda Maguntina [ ], Mainz: J. Schöffer, 1513, 7 September (Verzeich-
nis der im deutschen Sprachbereich erschienenen Drucke des XVI. Jahr-
hunderts, no. A718; Spital, Bibliographie der Ritualien , no. 194); second
printing of the previous item.
Agenda Ecclesiae Moguntinensis [...] Per reverendissimum [...] Dominum
[...] Sebastianum, Archiepiscopum Moguntinum [...] denuo Typis euulgata,
Mainz: F. Behem, 1551 (Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachbereich er-
420
XII. Bibliography
schienenen Drucke des XVI. Jahrhunderts, no. A 719; Spital, Biblio-

graphie der Ritualien , no. 195).
Agenda Ecclesiae Moguntinensis. Per reverendissimum [...] Dominum [...]
VVolfgangum, Archiepiscopum Moguntinum [...] denuò typis euulgata,
Mainz: B. Lippius, 1599 (Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachbereich er-
schienenen Drucke des XVI. Jahrhunderts, no. A 720; Spital, Biblio-
graphie der Ritualien , no. 196).
Rituale sive Agenda ad usum Ecclesiarum Metropolitanæ Moguntinæ, et
Cathedralium Herbipolensis et Wormatiensis, edita Jussu et Authoritate
[...] D. Ioannis Philippi S. Sedis Moguntinæ Archiepiscopi [...], Würzburg:
E.M. Zinck, 1671 (Spital, Bibliographie der Ritualien , no. 197).
Rituale sive Agenda, ad usum Ecclesiae Metropolitanae Moguntinae [ ],
Mainz: J. Mayer, 1695 (Spital, Bibliographie der Ritualien , no. 198; Jean-
Baptiste Molin & Annick Aussedat-Minvielle, Répertoire des rituels et
processionaux imprimés conservés en France, Paris, 1984, no. 2773).
Rituale sive Agenda, Ad usum Archi-Di ceseos Moguntinæ edita jussu et
auctoritate [...] D. Lotharii Francisci, S. Sedis Moguntinæ Archi-Episcopi
[...], Mainz: J. Mayer, 1696.
Others, manuscripts
Ms. Barth. 49, hymnary and sequentiary, Frankfurt, mid-fifteenth century.
London, British Library
Ms add. 19768, noted cantatorium, twelfth century.
Mainz, Stadtarchiv
Hs. HBA I 50, pp. 78-79, Elevatio and Visitatio Sepulchri ceremonies from
the Kirchenordnung of St Quintin, Mainz, 1585 (transcript of 1771).
Hs. I 44, legendary (pars aestivalis), second quarter fifteenth century.
Hs. I 123, manual for a hebdomadarius in the Carthusian order, fourteenth-
fifteenth century.
Hs. I 433, manual, dating uncertain.
cod. pal. lat. 485, sacramentary from the monastery of Lorsch, nineth-tenth
century (Salmon, Les manuscrits liturgiques, vol. II, no. 20).
cod. pal. lat. 495, sacramentary from the monastery of Lorsch, c. 980, (Sal-
mon, Les manuscrits liturgiques, vol. II, no. 23).
421
cod. pal. lat. 496, sacramentary, Würzburg, twelfth century (Salmon, Les
manuscrits liturgiques, vol. II, no. 24).
cod. pal. lat. 499, sacramentary from the monastery of Lorsch, mid-
eleventh century (Salmon, Les manuscrits liturgiques, vol. II, no. 25).
Others, printed books
Manuale Ecclesiasticum Pro Archidi cesi Moguntina, Jussu et auctoritate
[ ] D. Lotharii Francisci [ ] editum [ ], Mainz: J. Mayer, 1701.
Responsoria Moguntina, Mainz: Peter Schöffer the Younger, [c. 1515]
(Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachbereich erschienenen Drucke des
XVI. Jahrhunderts, no. R1196).
DIOCESE OF WORMS
In the case of Worms and Speyer, the lists are complete lists of the two dio-
ceses liturgical sources to the late sixteenth century, with selected items
from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
Antiphonal, mauscripts and printed books

None extant.
Ms add. 19415, complete breviary, c. 1475.
Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale
Ms. lat. 1310, Cathedral, Worms, 1472.
cod. pal. lat. 515 (temporale, pars hiemalis), fifteenth century (Salmon, Les
manuscrits liturgiques, vol. I, no. 285).
cod. pal. lat. 516 (pars aestivalis), fifteenth century (ibid., vol. I, no. 286).
cod. pal. lat. 518 (pars hiemalis), 1401 (ibid., vol. I, no. 288).
cod. pal. lat. 519 (pars hiemalis), fifteenth century (ibid., vol. I, no. 289).
cod. pal. lat. 520, complete nocturnal, fifteenth century (ibid., vol. I, no.
290).
cod. pal. lat. 524 (pars hiemalis), 1452 (ibid., vol. I, no. 292).
cod. pal. lat. 530 and 531, diurnal (pars hiemalis and pars aestivalis),
1514-15 (ibid., vol. I, no. 298).
Worms, Stadtbibliothek
422
XII. Bibliography
Lutherbibliothek, 3a (pars aestivalis), c. 1475 (missing from the library,

September 2002).
[Breviarium], [Marienthal: Fratres vitae communis, c. 1475] (Gesamtkata-
log der Wiegendrucke, no. 5513; Copinger, Supplement to Hain s Reperto-
rium bibliographicum, no. 3953; Bohatta, Liturgische Bibliographie, no.
553).
[Breviarium], [Speyer: P. Drach, c. 1483] (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegen-
drucke, no. 5514; Reichling, Appendices ad Hainii-Copingeri, no. 94; Bo-
hatta, Liturgische Bibliographie, no. 554).
[Breviarium], [Strasbourg: J. Grüninger, c. 1490] (Gesamtkatalog der Wie-
gendrucke, no. 5515; Reichling, Appendices ad Hainii-Copingeri, no. 95;
Bohatta, Liturgische Bibliographie, no. 552).
Diurnale quadragesimale secundum ordinem ecclesie Wormatiensis, [Co-
logne or upper Rhine?, c. 1490] (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no.
8564; Bohatta, Liturgische Bibliographie, no. 650).
[Breviarium], [Speyer: P. Drach, c. 1495] (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegen-
drucke, no. 5516); only the pars aestivalis of the proprium de tempore and
proprium sanctorum survives.
Diurnale quadragesimale secundum dyocesim wormaciensem. vna cum lxx.
et quinquagesima de tempore et Sanctis nouiter additis, [Speyer: P. Drach
III, c. 1505] (Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachbereich erschienenen
Drucke des XVI. Jahrhunderts, no. B8203).
Breviarium juxta ritum et ordinem Ecclesie Wormatiensis, Mainz: [J.
Schöffer], 1516 (Bohatta, Bibliographie der Breviere, no. 2886; Amiet,
Missels et bréviaires imprimés, no. 2886).
Breviarium iuxta ritum et ordinem ecclesiae Wormatiensis. Iussu et autho-
ritate [...] D. Theodorici eiusdem ecclesiae [...] Episcopi, studiose recog-
nitum & emendatum, Mainz: C. Behem, 1576 (Bohatta, Bibliographie der
Breviere, no. 2887; Amiet, Missels et bréviaires imprimés, no. 2887; Ver-
zeichnis der im deutschen Sprachbereich erschienenen Drucke des XVI.
Jahrhunderts, no. B8205).
Gradual, manuscripts and printed books
None extant.
Liber Ordinarius / Ordo / Directory, manuscript
423
cod. pal. lat. 521 and 522, complete ordo breviarii, fourteenth-fifteenth
century (Salmon, Les manuscrits liturgiques, vol. I, no. 177).
Liber Ordinarius, Ordo, Directory, printed books
[Ordo, September 1482-April 1483], [Strasbourg, J. Prüß, 1482] (Gesamt-
katalog der Wiegendrucke, no. 8474).
[Ordo, September 1488-April 1489], [Speyer: J. & K. Hist, 1488] (Gesamt-
Missal, manuscript
Vatican, Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana
cod. pal. lat. 524, fols. 364-74v, a mass for the Presentation in a Worms
breviary (Salmon, Les manuscrits liturgiques, vol. II, no. 324).
[Missale], fol 9: Liber missalis secundum ordinem ecclesie Wormatiensis,
[Basel: M. Wenssler, 1488] (Weale, Bibliographia liturgica; [ed.] Bohatta,
no. 1649; Amiet, Missels et bréviaires imprimés, no. 1649).
As previous item, a second printing with slightly different foliation (Weale,
Bibliographia liturgica; [ed.] Bohatta, no. 1650; Amiet, Missels et bréviai-
res imprimés, no. 1650).
Missale secundum ritum et obseruantiam Ecclesie & diocesis wormatien-
sis, [Speyer: P. Drach III], 1522 (Weale, Bibliographia liturgica; [ed.] Bo-
hatta, no. 1651; Amiet, Missels et bréviaires imprimés, no. 1651; Ver-
zeichnis der im deutschen Sprachbereich erschienenen Drucke des XVI.
Jahrhunderts, no. M5638).
Officia Propria, manuscripts
None extant.
Officia Propria, printed book
Officia Propria Sanctorum Et Patronorum Ecclesiae Et Dioecesis Worma-
tiensis. Ad Formam Breviarii Romani Redacta [ ], Mainz: J. Mayer, 1716.
None extant.
Processional, printed book
Processionale ad usum ecclesiarum collegiatarum civitatis Wormatiensis,
Frankenthal: Gegel, 1777.
Psalter, manuscript
424
XII. Bibliography
cod. pal. lat. 39, St Michael s monastery near Heidelberg, eleventh century,
with late-thirteenth-century additions for Corpus Christi (Salmon, Les ma-
nuscrits liturgiques, vol. I, no. 35).
Psalter, printed books
None extant.
Ritual, manuscripts
None extant.
Agenda secundum ritum & ordinem ecclesie wormaciensis, [Speyer: P.
Drach, c. 1500-10] (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no. 477; Verzeich-
nis der im deutschen Sprachbereich erschienenen Drucke des XVI. Jahr-
hunderts, no. A771; Spital, Bibliographie der Ritualien , no. 366; Reich-
ling, Appendices ad Hainii-Copingeri, no. 369).
Agenda pastoralia, sive Ritualia Archi-Dioecesium Moguntinae, Treviren-
sis, et Coloniensis, uti et in Wormatiensi, Spirensi, aliisque dioecesibus: in
compendium redacta ad usum Sacerdotum, Mainz: J. Mayer, 1734.
Rituale sive Agenda, ad usum dioeceseos Wormatiensis edita, ad normam
Ritualis Romani accommodata. Jussu et auctoritate [...] D. Francisci
Georgii [...] S. Sedis Trevirensis Archi-episcopi, [...] et Episcopi Worma-
tiensis, Mannheim: J. Mayer, 1740. (Spital, Bibliographie der Ritualien ,
no. 367).
Compendium Ritualis Moguntini, Wormatiensis, Spirensis et Trevirensis
per Ildephonsum Viadanum, Mainz: Ockel, 1752.
Others, manuscripts
cod. pal. lat. 477, legendary, fifteenth century (Salmon, Les manuscrits li-
turgiques, vol. IV, no. 72).
cod. pal. lat. 478, legendary (pars aestivalis), fifteenth century (ibid., vol.
IV, no. 73).
cod. Vat. lat. 10644, 72-79, fragment of a collectar, fourteenth century
(ibid., vol. I, no. 168).
Worms, Stadtarchiv
Abt. 106/1 (previously Abt. 112/1), manual from an Augustinian nunnery
(commonly known as the Richardikonvent ), Worms, fifteenth century.
Others, printed books
None extant.
425
DIOCESE OF SPEYER
Antiphonal, manuscripts
Aachen, Suermondt-Museum
Fragment (4 fols) of a Speyer Cathedral antiphonal, c. 1478-79.
Karlsruhe, Generallandesarchiv
65/738, fragment (38 folios) of a Speyer mass and office antiphonal, fif-
teenth century.
65/740, fragment of an antiphonal, diocese unidentified.
Hs. 2, Cathedral, Speyer (pars aestivalis), c. 1500-10.
Antiphonal, printed books
None extant.
Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek
cod. Bruchsal 10 (pars hiemalis), c. 1458.
Speyer, Gymnasium am Kaisersdom (Gymnasialbibliothek)
A.D. 3, psalter and neumed breviary, possibly adapted for Speyer use (late
twelfth century?) (held in Speyer, Pfälzische Landesbibliothek).
cod. pal. lat. 514 (pars aestivalis), fifteenth century (Salmon, Les manu-
scrits liturgiques, vol. I, no. 284).
[Breviarium], Speyer, P. Drach, 19 November 1478 (Gesamtkatalog der
Wiegendrucke, no. 5464; Reichling, Appendices ad Hainii-Copingeri, no.
3940; Bohatta, Liturgische Bibliographie, no. 502).
[Diurnale], [Speyer: P. Drach, c. 1478] (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke,
no. 8559; Bohatta, Liturgische Bibliographie, no. 644 [= 646]).
[Breviarium], [Strasbourg: J. Grüninger, 1491] (Gesamtkatalog der Wie-
gendrucke, no. 5465; Copinger, Supplement to Hain s Repertorium biblio-
graphicum, no. 1316; Bohatta, Liturgische Bibliographie, no. 500).
Breuiarium Spirense. Pars Hyemalis, [Strasbourg: J. Prüß?, c. 1500] (Ge-
samtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no. 5466).
Orarium Spirense (pars hiemalis), Venezia: Julianus de Castello & Johann
Hertzog, 1507. Ferial psalter, temporale and sanctorale of the pars hiema-
426
XII. Bibliography
lis (Bohatta, Bibliographie der Breviere, no. 2748; Amiet, Missels et bré-
viaires imprimés, no. 2748).
[Orarium Spirense] (pars aestivalis), Venezia: Julianus de Castello & Jo-
hann Hertzog, 1509. Ferial psalter, temporale and sanctorale of the pars
aestivalis (Bohatta, Bibliographie der Breviere, no. 2749; Amiet, Missels et
bréviaires imprimés, no. 2749).
Breviarium Spirense [ ] iussu Eberhardi episc. Editum, [s.l.], 1590 (Bo-
hatta, Bibliographie der Breviere, no. 2750); no copies known.
Breviarium Spirense, Cologne: G. Calenius & heirs of J. Quentell, 1591
(Bohatta, Bibliographie der Breviere, no. 2751; Amiet, Missels et bré-
viaires imprimés, no. 2751).
Gradual, manuscripts / printed books
None extant.
Liber ordinarius / Ordo / Directory, manuscripts
Karlsruhe, Generallandesarchiv
67/452, Registrum camerariorum sive regulae campanatoris, liber ordina-
rius, Cathedral, Speyer, known as Karsthans , begun between 1438 and
1470.
Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek
Cod. Vindob. 1882, liber ordinarius, Cathedral, Speyer, thirteenth century.
Liber ordinarius / Ordo / Directory, printed books
[Ordo, 1483-84], [Speyer: P. Drach, 1483] (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegen-
drucke, no. 8469).
[Ordo, 1484-85], [Speyer: P. Drach, 1484] (ibid., no. 8470).
[Ordo, 1493-94], [Speyer: P. Drach, 1493] (ibid., no. 8471).
[Ordo, May-November 1494], [Speyer: P. Drach, 1494]. (ibid., no. 8472).
[Ordo, 1498-99], [Speyer: K. Hist, 1498] (ibid., no. 8473).
[Ordo, 1507], Speyer: [s.n.], 1507 (Rolf Bohlender, Dom und Bistum
Speyer: Eine Bibliographie, Speyer, 1979, no. 1424).
[Ordo, 1514], Speyer: [s.n.], 1514 (Bohlender 1425).
Directorium horarum canonicarum secundum ritum dioecesis Spirensis di-
cendarum cum novo kalendario iussu et mandato [ ] D. Georgii [ ]
episcopi Spirensis, [s.l.: s.n.], 1522) (Bohlender 1426).
Missal, manuscripts
Darmstadt, Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek
427
Hs. 889, festal missal (pars hiemalis), from the Carmelite monastery of
Hirschhorn, c. 1380.
Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek
Clm 10076 (pars hiemalis), mid-fourteenth century (before 1352).
Hs. 1, noted plenary missal, Cathedral, Speyer, c. 1343.
Cod. Vindob. 1845, c. 1080, probably written for Bamberg but used in the
Abbey of St. Germanus in Speyer in the thirteenth century.
[Missale], Speyer: P. Drach, 1484 (Weale, Bibliographia liturgica; [ed.]
Bohatta, no. 1481*; Hain, Repertorium bibliographicum, no. 11426).
Missale secundum ordinem ecclesie spirensis, [Bamberg: J. Sensenschmidt
& H. Petzensteiner, 1487] (Weale, Bibliographia liturgica; [ed.] Bohatta,
no. 1482; Amiet, Missels et bréviaires imprimés, no. 1482; Copinger,
Supplement to Hain s Repertorium bibliographicum, no. 11427).
[Missale], Speyer, P. Drach, 13 August 1500 or 12 August 1501 (Copinger,
Supplement to Hain s Repertorium bibliographicum, vol. II, no. 4233;
Weale, Bibliographia liturgica; [ed.] Bohatta, no. 1484, 1485; Amiet, Mis-
sels et bréviaires imprimés, no. 1484, 1485; Verzeichnis der im deutschen
Sprachbereich erschienenen Drucke des XVI. Jahrhunderts, no. M5624).
[Missale], Speyer: P. Drach, 1509; as previous item, with critical comments
of Jodocus Gallus, sig. Ai-Biiv.
Missæ et collectæ propriæ Sanctorum civitatis et dioecesis Spirensis, Emi-
nentissimi et Reverendissimi Domini, D. Joannis Hugonis, Archi-Episcopi
& Principis Electoris Trevirensis, quà Episcopi Spirensis, &c. jussu et auc-
toritate recognitæ, atque ad normam Missalis Romani [...] accommodatæ,
Mainz: J. Mayer, 1707.
Officia propria, manuscripts
None extant.
Officia propria, printed books
Officia propria sanctorum et patronorum ecclesiae et dioecesis Spirensis
ad formam breviarii Romani redacta et jussu [ ] Joannis Hugonis [ ]
edita, Mainz: J. Mayer, 1707 (Bohlender, no. 1410).
428
XII. Bibliography
Proprium Spirense in festis sanctorum ecclesiae et dioecesis Spirensis,

Bruchsal: N.C. Mannhardt, 1762 9Amiet, Missels et bréviaires imprimés,
no. P 2038; Bohlender, no. 1411).
Proprium diocesis Spirensis continens festa propria una cum annexis festis
novioribus, Bruchsal: N.C. Mannhardt, [1789] (ibid., no. 1412).
None extant.
Processional, printed book
Processionale dominicale et festivale pro choro ecclesiae cathedralis
Spirensis. Auctoritate rev. et illustr. capituli eiusdem cathedralis Spirensis
editum, Mainz: Häffner, 1755.
Psalter, manuscript
Sélestat, Bibliothèque Municipale
Ms. 127, fifteenth century.
Psalter, printed book
Psalterium Spirense: ad vsum orandi et cantandi, Speyer: P. Drach, 1515.
Ritual, manuscripts
None extant.
Agenda Spirensis, [Speyer: P. Drach III, 1512] (Verzeichnis der im deut-
schen Sprachbereich erschienenen Drucke des XVI. Jahrhunderts, no. A
760; Spital, Bibliographie der Ritualien , no. 324; Alois Lamott, Das
Speyerer Diözesanrituale von 1512 bis 1932: Seine Geschichte und seine
Ordines zur Sakramentenliturgie, Quellen und Abhandlungen zur mittel-
rheinischen Kirchengeschichte, 5, Speyer, 1961, pp. 43-51).
Agenda pastoralia sive ritualia archidioecesium Moguntinae et Trevirensis
in compendium redacta. Ad usum sacerdotum in praefatis archidioecesi-
bus, uti et in dioecesibus Wormatiensi, Spirensi aliisque curam animarum
habentium, Mainz: J. Mayer, 1703.
Rituale Spirense sive Agenda Pastoralia Ecclesiae et Diocesis Spirensis ad
Ritualis Romani usum accommodata, Rastatt: F.G. Tusch, 1719 (Spital,
Bibliographie der Ritualien , no. 325; Lamott, Das Speyerer Diözesanritu-
ale, pp. 72-76).
Rituale Spirense, authoritate Francisci Christophori episcopi Spirensis
[ ] in gratiam & usum di cesis Spirensis editum, Bruchsal: A.G. Gode-
schall, 1748 (Spital, Bibliographie der Ritualien , no. 326; Molin & Aus-
429
sedat-Minvielle, Répertoire, no. 2787; Lamott, Das Speyerer Diözesanritu-

ale, pp. 81-86).
Other manuscripts
cod. Bruchsal 1, evangeliary, Bruchsal, thirteenth century.
cod. Bruchsal 2, evangeliary for sanctoral feasts, Bruchsal, thirteenth cen-
tury.
Speyer, Pfälzische Landesbibliothek
Hs. 2, fragments of various liturgical books (antiphonal, gradual, etc.), pro-
bably 1500-10.
Stuttgart, Württembergische Landesbibliothek
cod. Brev. 144, Evangelia secundum ordinem Ecclesiae Spirensis, four-
teenth century.
Vatican, Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana
cod. pal. lat. 9, epistolary and evangeliary, Hospital of Jerusalem, Speyer,
1345 (Salmon, Les manuscrits liturgiques, vol. II, no. 93).
Cod. Vindob. 377, passional, eleventh century.
Cod. Vindob. 553, passional, eleventh-twelfth century.
OTHER DIOCESES AND PROVENANCES

Manuscripts, attribution uncertain
cod. St. Blasien 15, antiphonal, south-western Germany, first half fifteenth
century.
cod. pal. lat. 619, miscellany including ritualis elementa, Worms or Trier,
twelfth-thirteenth century (Salmon, Les manuscrits liturgiques, vol. III, no.
210).
Augsburg manuscript
Clm 7461, passional (all four Gospels), Indersdorf, fifteenth century.
Augsburg printed books
Liber Ritualis Episcopatus Augustensis, Dillingen: J. Mayer, 1612.
430
XII. Bibliography
[Obsequiale Augustense], Augsburg: E. Ratdolt, 1487 (Hain, Repertorium

bibliographicum, no. 11925).
Obsequiale sive Benedictionale secundum eclesiam Augustensem, [Augs-
burg]: E. Ratdolt, 1499.
Agenda: seu liber obsequiorum, iuxta ritum, & consuetudinem Di cesis
Augustensis, Ingolstadt: A. Weissenhorn, 1547.
Ritus ecclesiastici Augustensis episcopatus, Dillingen: J. Mayer, 1580.
Rituale Augustanum Ad Normam Ritualis Romani à glor. mem. Benedicto
XIV. anno 1752. Romae correctiùs editi, nec non conformiter ad laudabiles
Germaniae Consuetudines denuo recognitum, Augsburg: Widow of J.A.
Labhart, 1764.
Ritus ecclesiastici Augustensis episcopatus, tribus partibus siue libris com-
prehensi, nuncque primùm recogniti, editi atque promulgati. Auctoritate
[...] D. Marquardi Episcopi Augustensis, Dillingen: J. Mayer, 1580.
Bamberg printed book
Agenda Bambergensis Hoc est, Rituum Ecclesiasticorum, secundum usum
imperialis ecclesiae et episcopatus Bambergensis solida & accurata des-
criptio, Ingolstadt: D. Sartorius, 1587.
Cologne manuscript
Ms add. 31913, noted breviary (temporale only), fourteenth century.
Coutances printed book
[Breviarium], Aira: [ ] incipit breuiarium secundum vsum ecclesie con-
stantiensis, Rouen: Jean le Bourgeois for Pierre Regnault, 1499, 13 August
(Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no. 5327).
Essômes printed book
Breuarij totius anni prima pars/ ab Aduentu vsq[ue] ad Trinitatem/ ad
vsum insignis ecclesie Sosmensis, Paris: Regnault & Claude Chaudière,
1548 (Bohatta, Bibliographie der Breviere, no. 2747).
Moosburg manuscript
München, Universitätsbibliothek
2o Cod. ms. 156, Graduale (David Hiley [ed.], Moosburger Graduale, 2o
Cod. ms. 156. Faksimile mit einer Einleitung und Registern, Veröffentli-
chungen der Gesellschaft für Bayerische Musikgeschichte, Tutzing, 1996).
431
Passau manuscript
Gottschalk Antiphonary, originally Abbey of Lambach, twelfth century,
fragments now dispersed (Lisa Fagin Davis, The Gottschalk Antiphonary:
Music and Liturgy in Twelfth-Century Lambach, Cambridge, 2000).
Passau printed books
Antiphonale Pataviense (Karlheinz Schlager [ed.], Antiphonale Pataviense,
(Wien, 1519), Das Erbe deutscher Musik, 88, Kassel [etc.], 1985).
Graduale Pataviense (Christian Väterlein [ed.], Graduale Pataviense
(Wien 1511), Das Erbe deutscher Musik, 87, Kassel [etc.], 1982).
Regensburg printed book
Obsequiale siue benedictionale secundum consuetudinem ecclesie et
dyocesis Ratisponensis, Nuremberg: J. Stuchs, 1491 (Hain, Repertorium bi-
bliographicum, no. 11931).
Reims printed book
Breuiarium secundum vsum insignis ac metropolis ecclesie Remensis [ ]
Pars hyemalis, Paris: T. Vivien, 1543 (Bohatta, Bibliographie der Breviere,
no. 2611).
Roman use printed books
Antiphonale monasticum pro diurnis horis juxta vota RR. D. Abbatum con-
gregationum conf deratarum Ordinis Sancti Benedicti a Solesmensibus
monachis restitutum, Paris [etc.], 1934.
Antiphonarii, Iuxta Breuiarium Romanum restitutum, Pars Hyemalis, Ant-
werp: Christophe Plantijn, 1572.
Antiphonarii, Iuxta Breuiarium Romanum restitutum, Pars Aestiualis, Ant-
werp: Christophe Plantijn, 1573.
Antiphonale sacrosanctae Romanae Ecclesiae pro diurnis horis a Pio Papa
X. restitutum et editum, Paris [etc.], 1949.
Antiphonale Romanum secundum liturgiam horarum ordinemque cantus
officii dispositum a Solesmensibus monachis praeparatum, vol. II: Liber
hymnarius cum invitatoriis et aliquibus responsoriis, Solesmes, 1983.
Breviarium Romanum optime recognitum, Venezia: Heirs of Luca Antonio
Giunta I, 1564 (Bohatta, Bibliographie der Breviere, no. 254; Amiet, Mis-
sels et bréviaires imprimés, no. 254).
Graduale triplex seu Graduale Romanum Pauli PP. VI cura recognitum et
rhythmicis signis a Solesmensibus monachis ornatum, Solesmes [etc.],
1979.
432
XII. Bibliography
Liber antiphonarius pro diurnis horis juxta ritum monasticum kalendario

generali ordinis Sancti Benedicti accommodatus, cum supplemento pro
aliquibus locis, Solesmes, 1897 [2nd ed.].
Liber cantualis, Solesmes, 1983.
Liber responsorialis juxta ritum monasticum, Solesmes, 1895.
Liber usualis missae et officii pro dominicis et festis, Paris [etc.], 1936.
Officium majoris hebdomadæ et octavæ Paschæ [ ] cum cantu juxta ordi-
nem Breviarii, Missalis et Pontificalis Romani. Editio typica Vaticana, Ro-
ma, 1922.
Psalterium cum canticis Novi et Veteris Testamenti iuxta regulam S.P.N.
Benedicti et alia schemata liturgiæ horarum monasticæ cantu Gregoriano
cura et studio monachorum Solesmensium, Solesmes [etc.], 1981.
Rouen printed book
[Breviarium], [Paris: Louis Martineau (?)], 25 May 1480 (Gesamtkatalog
der Wiegendrucke, no. 5437).
Salzburg printed book
[Breviarium], pars aestivalis, p. aira: Incipit psalterium secundum vsum ec-
clesie saltzburgensis , Venezia: [Johannes Hamann for] Johann Oswalt,
1502, 13 August (Bohatta, Bibliographie der Breviere, no. 2660; Amiet,
Missels et bréviaires imprimés, no. 2660).
Sarum (Salisbury) printed books
Portiforium seu Breuiarium, ad insignis Sarisburiensis, ecclesie vsum,
London: J. Kingston & H. Sutton, 1556 (Bohatta, Bibliographie der Bre-
viere, no. 2708; Amiet, Missels et bréviaires imprimés, no. 2708).
Processionale ad Usum Sarum, London: R. Pynson, 1502.
Trier manuscript
Trier, Stadtbibliothek
Ms. 469/1904, Trier breviary, fourteenth century.
Trier printed books
Libri officialis sive agendae S. ecclesiae Treverensis pars prior, Trier: J.
Rotaeus, 1574.
Liber officialis seu agendorum pastoralium S. Trevirensis ecclesiæ ad Ri-
tualis Romani usum passim accommodatus, Mainz: C. Küchler, 1697.
Rituale Trevirense, autoritate [...] D. Joannis Philippi [...] Archiepiscopi
Trevirensis [...] editum, 2 vols., Luxemburg: Heirs of A. Chevalier, 1767.
433
Utrecht printed book

[Breviarium insignis ecclesie Traiectensis], title in colophon, Paris: J. Phi-
lippe for J. W. Doliatoris, 1498 (Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, no.
5491).
York printed book
[Breviarium] (S.W. Lawley [ed.[, Breviarium ad usum insignis ecclesie
Eboracensis, 2 vols., Publications of the Surtees Society, 71 & 75, Durham
[etc.], 1880-83.
MONASTIC USES
Benedictine printed book
Breviarium monasticum Pauli V. P.M. authoritate recognitum, Paris: Soci-
etas Typographica Librorum Ecclesiasticorum ordinis D. Benedicti, 1613.
Carthusian manuscripts
Hs. I 365, breviary, Mainz, fifteenth century.
Hs. I 438, breviary, Mainz, fourteenth century.
Hs. I 439, breviary, Mainz, twelfth-thirteenth century.
Dominican manuscript
Cologne, Historisches Archiv der Stadt Köln
W.f. 104, breviary, Cologne, fourteenth century.
Dominican printed book
[Breviarium], Basel: Jakob Wolff for Jakob von Kirchen, 1492 (Gesamt-
Franciscan manuscript
Clm 8814, noted passional (all four Gospels), Munich, sixteenth century.
Secondary sources: Library and archive catalogues,

Reference works and studies
Antiphonale monasticum pro diurnis horis juxta vota RR. D. Abbatum con-
gregationum conf deratarum Ordinis Sancti Benedicti a Solesmensibus
monachis restitutum, Paris [etc.], 1934.
434
XII. Bibliography
Antiphonale Romanum secundum liturgiam horarum [ ] dispositum, vol. I:

Liber hymnarius cum invitatoriis & aliquibus responsoriis, Paris-Tournai,
1983.
Biblia sacra cum glossa ordinaria, [...] opera et studio Theologorum Dua-
censium diligentissime emendatis, 6 vols., Douai: Balthazar Bellère & Ant-
werp: Jan Keerberghen, 1617.
CANTUS: A Database for Latin Ecclesiastical Chant. URL: http://publish.
uwo.ca/~cantus
Catalog der Lyceumsbibliothek zu Speier. Erste abtheilung, Speyer, 1866.
Catalog der k. Lycealbibliothek in Speier. Zweite Abtheilung, Speyer, 1873.
Catalogue of Additions to the Manuscripts in the British Museum in the
Years MDCCCXLVIII-MDCCCLIII, London, 1868 [rpt. 1965].
Catalogue général des manuscrits latins [de la] Bibliothèque Nationale, 12
vols., Paris, 1939-83.
Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke, Leipzig [etc.], 1925-.
Graduale Missali Romano, cantui vero Gregoriano-Moguntino accommoda-
tum [ ], Mainz, 1671.
Graduale triplex seu Graduale Romanum Pauli PP. VI cura recognitum et
rhythmicis signis a Solesmensibus monachis ornatum, neumis Laudunensi-
bus (Cod. 239) et Sangallensibus (Codicum Sangallensis 359 et Einsidlen-
sis 121) nunc auctum, Solesmes [etc.], 1979.
Die Handschriften der Badischen Landesbibliothek in Karlsruhe, vol. X: Die
Handschriften von St. Peter im Schwarzwald, part 1: Klaus Niebler, Die
Papierhandschriften, part 2: Felix Heinzer & Gerhard Stamm, Die Perga-
menthandschriften, vol. XII: Peter Höhler & Gerhard Stamm, Die Hand-
schriften von St. Blasien, vol. XIII: Armin Schlechter & Gerhard Stamm,
Die kleinen Provenienzen, Wiesbaden, 1979-2000.
Die Handschriften der Stadtbibliothek Mainz, vol. I: Gerhard List & Ger-
hardt Powitz, Hs. I 1 - Hs. I 150, vol. II: Gerhard List, Hs. I 151 - Hs. I
250, Wiesbaden, 1990-98.
Liber usualis missae et officii pro dominicis et festis cum cantu Gregoriano
ex Editione Vaticana adamussim excerpto, Paris [etc.], 1936 [numerous re-
prints].
Officium majoris hebdomadæ et octavæ Paschæ [ ] cum cantu juxta ordi-
nem Breviarii, Missalis et Pontificalis Romani. Editio typica Vaticana,
Roma, 1922.
Paléographie musicale: Les principaux manuscrits de chant grégorien, am-
brosien, mozarabe, gallican, publiés en facsimilés phototypiques, Soles-
mes, 1889-, First series, no. 1: Codex 339 de la Bibliothèque de Saint-Gall
435
(Xe siècle): antiphonale missarum Sancti Gregorii; no. 4: Le codex 121 de

la Bibliothèque d Einsiedeln (Xe-XIe siècle): antiphonale missarum Sancti
Gregorii; no. 9: Antiphonaire monastique (XIIe siècle): codex 601 de la Bi-
bliothèque capitulaire de Lucques; no. 12: Antiphonaire monastique (XIIIe
siècle): codex F. 160 de la Bibliothèque de la Cathédrale de Worcester; no.
19: Le manuscrit 807 Universitätsbibliothek Graz (XIIe siècle): graduel de
Klosterneuburg, Second series, no. 1: Antiphonaire de l office monastique
transcrit par Hartker: MSS. Saint-Gall 390-391 (980-1011) [2nd ed. 1970];
no. 2: Cantatorium (IXe siècle): no. 359 de la Bibliothèque de Saint-Gall.
Processionale monasticum ad usum Congregationis Gallicae Ordinis Sancti
Benedicti, Solesmes, 1893 [rpt. Paris-Tournai, 1983].
Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachbereich erschienenen Drucke des XVI.
Jahrhunderts, Stuttgart, 1983-.
Amiet, Robert, Missels et bréviaires imprimés (supplément aux catalogues de

Weale et Bohatta): Propres des saints, Paris, 1990.
Ammerich, Hans, Das Fürstbistum Speyer im Zeichen der tridentinischen
Erneuerung , Archiv für Mittelrheinische Kirchengeschichte 41 (1989), pp.
81-104.
Amstutz, Renate, The Latin Substratum of the Thuringian Ludus de decem
virginibus: Its Liturgical Roots and its Dramatic Relevance for the Mixed-
Language Music Drama , PhD thesis, University of Toronto, 1991.
-----, Ludus de decem virginibus: Recovery of the Sung Liturgical Core of the
Thuringian Zehnjungfrauenspiel , Studies and Texts, 140, Toronto, 2002.
Andermann, Kurt, Hochstift Speyer , in Meinrad Schaab & Hansmartin
Schwarzmaier (eds.), Handbuch der baden-württembergischen Geschichte,
vol. II: Die Territorien im alten Reich, Stuttgart, 1995, pp. 481-90.
Arlt, Gustave O., Musik. B. Die Judengesänge , in Evans, Osterspiel von
Luzern , pp. 75-83.
Arx, Walter von, Das Klosterrituale von Biburg, Spicilegium Friburgense,
14, Fribourg, 1970.
Bäumer OSB, Dom Suitbert, Geschichte des Breviers, Freiburg, 1895.
-----, Histoire du bréviaire, trans. and adapted by Dom Réginald Biron, Paris,
1905 [rpt. Roma, 1957].
Bäumker, Wilhelm, Das katholische deutsche Kirchenlied in seinen Singwei-
sen von den frühesten Zeiten bis gegen Ende des siebzehnten Jahrhunderts,
4 vols., Freiburg, 1886-1911 [rpt. Hildesheim, 1962].
Becker, Albert, Die Speyerer Palmsonntagsprozession , Palatina (1922), pp.
55-56.
436
XII. Bibliography
-----, Prozessionen in der alten Pfalz , Bayerischer Heimatschutz 31 (1935),

pp. 84-85.
Bergmann, Rolf, Studien zu Entstehung und Geschichte der deutschen Pas-
sionsspiele des 13. und 14. Jahrhunderts, Münstersche Mittelalter-Schrif-
ten, 14, München, 1972.
-----, Zur Überlieferung der mittelalterlichen geistlichen Spiele , in Edith
Ennen, Günter Wiegelmann [et al.] (ed.), Festschrift Matthias Zender.
Studien zu Volkskultur, Sprache und Landesgeschichte, 2 vols., Bonn,
1972, vol. II, pp. 900-09.
-----, Aufführungstext und Lesetext. Zur Funktion der Überlieferung des
mittelalterlichen geistlichen deutschen Dramas , in Herman Braet, Johan
Nowé & Gilbert Tournoy (eds.), The Theatre in the Middle Ages, Medie-
valia Lovaniensia, Series I, Studia, 13, Leuven, 1985, pp. 314-51.
-----, Katalog der deutschsprachigen geistlichen Spiele und Marienklagen
des Mittelalters, München, 1986.
-----, St. Galler (mittelrheinisches) Passionsspiel , in Ruh [et al.], Die deut-
sche Literatur des Mittelalters: Verfasserlexikon, vol. II, cols 1042-44.
Bernard, Philippe, Le cantique des trois enfants (Dan. III, 52-90) , Musica e
storia 1 (1993), pp. 231-72.
[Berry, Mary] Mother Thomas More, The Performance of Plainsong in the
Later Middle Ages and the Sixteenth Century , Proceedings of the Royal
Musical Association 92 (1965-66), pp. 121-34.
Bevington, David, The Staging of Twelfth-Century Liturgical Drama in the
Fleury Playbook , in Campbell & Davidson (eds.), Fleury Playbook, pp.
62-81.
Binkley, Thomas, The Greater Passion Play from Carmina Burana: An In-
troduction , in Peter Reidemeister & Veronika Gutmann (eds.), Alte Musik:
Praxis und Reflexion, Basler Jahrbuch für historische Musikpraxis, Sonder-
band zum 50. Jubiläum der Schola Cantorum Basiliensis, Winterthur, 1982,
pp. 144-57.
----- (dir.), [Recording of] The Greater Passion Play, Reconstructed from the
Thirteenth-Century Manuscript Carmina Burana , Focus, 831, Singers
and instrumentalists of the Early Music Institute, Indiana University School
of Music, 1983.
----- (dir.), [Recording of] Das große Passionsspiel Carmina Burana (13.
Jh.), Deutsche Harmonia Mundi, IC 2LP 165, Mittelalterensemble der
Schola Cantorum Basiliensis, 1984.
437
Blosen, Hans, Zum Lied der Wächter im Wiener Osterspiel : Zugleich Be-
merkungen zum Refrain in mittelhochdeutscher Lyrik , Orbis Litterarum
29 (1974), pp. 183-215.
Blume, Clemens, Der Cursus S. Benedicti Nursini und die liturgischen Hym-
nen des 6.-9. Jahrhunderts in ihrer Beziehung zu den Sonntags- und Ferial-
hymnen unseres Breviers: Eine hymnologisch-liturgische Studie auf Grund
handschriftlichen Quellenmaterials, Hymnologische Beiträge, 3, Leipzig,
1908.
----- & Guido M. Dreves (eds.), Analecta Hymnica medii aevi, 55 vols.,
Leipzig, 1886-1922 [rpt. Frankfurt, 1961]; Register, ed. by M. Lütolf, 2
vols. in 3 parts, Bern-München, 1978.
Blume, Friedrich, Handbuch der Musikwissenschaft, vol. V: Die evangeli-
sche Kirchenmusik, Wildpark-Potsdam, 1931.
----- (ed.), Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 16 vols., Kassel, 1949-
79.
Bohatta, Hanns, Bibliographie der Breviere 1501-1850, Leipzig, 1937 [rpt.
Stuttgart-Nieuwkoop, 1963].
-----, Liturgische Bibliographie des XV. Jahrhunderts mit Ausnahme der Mis-
sale und Livres d heures, Wien, 1911 [rpt. Hildesheim, 1960].
Bohlender, Rolf, Dom und Bistum Speyer: Eine Bibliographie, Speyer, 1979
[2nd ed.].
Bohn, Peter, Das liturgische Rezitativ und dessen Bezeichnung in den li-
turgischen Büchern des Mittelalters , Monatshefte für Musikgeschichte 19
(1887), pp. 29-36, 45-52, 61-68, 78-80.
Boletta, William Louis, The Role of Music in Medieval German Drama:
Easter Plays and Passion Plays , Diss. Vanderbilt University, 1967.
Boor, Helmut de, Die lateinische Grundlage der deutschen Osterspiele ,
Hessische Blätter für Volkskunde 41 (1950), pp. 45-66.
-----, Die Textgeschichte der lateinischen Osterfeiern, Hermaea, Germanisti-
sche Forschungen, n.s., 22, Tübingen, 1967.
Bourgeault, Cynthia, Liturgical Dramaturgy and Modern Production , in
Campbell & Davidson (eds.), Fleury Playbook, pp. 144-60.
Bowles, Edmund A., The Role of Musical Instruments in Medieval Sacred
Drama , Musical Quarterly 45 (1959), pp. 67-84.
-----, Were Musical Instruments used in the Liturgical Service during the
Middle Ages? , Galpin Society Journal 10 (1957), pp. 40-56; 12 (1959),
pp. 89-92.
438
XII. Bibliography
Breuer, Wilhelm, Zur Aufführungspraxis vorreformatorischer Fronleich-

namsspiele in Deutschland , Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 94 (1975),
Sonderheft: Mittelalterliches deutsches Drama, pp. 50-71.
Brockett, Clyde W., Osanna! New Light on the Palm Sunday Processional
Antiphon Series , Plainsong and Medieval Music 9 (2000), pp. 95-129.
Brou OSB, L., Le répons Ecce quomodo moritur dans les traditions ro-
maine et espagnole , Revue Bénédictine 51 (1939), pp. 144-68.
Brück, Anton, Mainz , in Höfer & Rahner (eds.), Lexikon für Theologie und
Kirche, vol. VI, cols. 1300-05.
-----, Mainz , in Galling [et al.] (eds.), Religion in Geschichte und Gegen-
wart, vol. IV, cols. 614-17.
Bryden, John R. & Hughes, David G., An Index of Gregorian Chant, 2 vols.,
vol. I: Alphabetical Index, vol. II: Thematic Index, Cambridge, Mass.,
1969.
Bukofzer, Manfred F., Caput: a Liturgico-Musical Study , in Bukofzer,
Manfred F., Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Music; London, 1951,
pp. 217-310.
Campbell, Thomas P. & Clifford Davidson (eds.), The Fleury Playbook: Es-
says and Studies, Early Drama, Art, and Music Monograph Series, 7,
Kalamazoo, MI, 1985.
Cappelli, Adriano, Lexicon Abbreviaturarum: Dizionario di abbreviature
latine ed italiane [ ], Milan, 1929.
Chevalier, Ulysse, Repertorium Hymnologicum: Catalogue des chants, hym-
nes, proses, séquences, tropes en usage dans l église latine depuis les
origines jusqu à nos jours, 6 vols., Subsidia hagiographica, 4, Louvain-
Bruxelles, 1892-1921.
Clemm, L., Zur Topographie der Diözese Worms im Mittelalter , Beiträge
zur hessischen Kirchengeschichte und Altertumskunde, N.F., Ergänzungs-
band 9, Darmstadt, 1931, pp. 437-70.
Copinger, Walter Arthur, Supplement to Hain s Repertorium bibliographi-
cum, 3 vols., London, 1895-1902.
Crocker, Richard L., An Introduction to Gregorian Chant, New Haven, CT,
2000.
Daniel, Hermann Adalbert, Thesaurus hymnologicus sive hymnorum cantico-
rum sequentiarum collectio amplissima, 5 vols., Leipzig, 1855-56.
Davis, Lisa Fagin, The Gottschalk Antiphonary: Music and Liturgy in
Twelfth-Century Lambach, Cambridge, 2000.
439
Demandt, Karl E., Das Chorherrenstift St. Peter zu Fritzlar: Quellen und
Studien zu seiner mittelalterlichen Gestalt und Geschichte, Veröffentli-
chungen der Historischen Kommission für Hessen, 49, Marburg, 1985.
Dörrer, Anton, Baldemar von Peterweil , in Wolfgang Stammler & Karl
Langosch (eds.), Die deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters: Verfasserlexikon,
Berlin-Leipzig, 1933-55, vol. I, cols. 155-58.
Doll, Anton, Die Karwoche im Speyerer Dom vor 500 Jahren , Der christ-
liche Pilger. Bistumsblatt für die Diözese Speyer 101 (1951), p. 164.
-----, Eine Osterfeier im Dom zu Speyer: Nach einem Zeremonienbuch des
Domsakristans aus dem 16. Jahrhundert , Pfälzische Heimatblätter 2
(1954), p. 32.
Dreimüller, Karl, Die Musik des Alsfelder Passionsspiels: Ein Beitrag zur
Geschichte der Musik in den geistlichen Spielen des deutschen Mittelalters.
Mit erstmaliger Veröffentlichung der Melodien aus der Kasseler Hand-
schrift des Alsfelder Spiels (Landes-Bibl. Kassel 2o Mss. poet. 18) , 3
vols., Doctoral thesis Universität Wien, 1935, vol. I: Abhandlungen; vol. II:
Das musikalische Szenarium des Alsfelder Passionsspiels. Mit Ergänzung
und Bestimmung der liturgischen Texte und einem Anhang von 45 Melo-
dien zu lateinischen Textparallelen im Egerer Fronleichnamsspiel, aus der
Handschrift Ludus de creacione mundi no 7060 des Germanischen Na-
tionalmuseums in Nürnberg; vol. III: Die Melodien des Alsfelder Passions-
spiels. Übertragungen der Melodien aus der Kasseler Handschrift des Als-
felder Spiels.
-----, Die Musik in den mittelalterlichen Spielen des Rheinlandes , Rheini-
sche Blätter 15 (1939), pp. 383-88.
-----, Die Alsfelder Marienklage , Zeitschrift für Kirchenmusik 69 (1949),
pp. 35-38.
-----, Die Musik im geistlichen Spiel des späten deutschen Mittelalters: Dar-
gestellt am Alsfelder Passionsspiel , Kirchenmusikalisches Jahrbuch 34
(1950), pp. 27-34.
Du Méril, Edélestand, Origines latines du théâtre moderne, Paris, 1849.
Dutka, JoAnna, Music in the English Mystery Plays, Early Drama, Art, and
Music Reference Series, 2, Kalamazoo, MI, 1980.
Eid, Ludwig, Zur Geschichte der alten Speyerer Dommusik , Musica sacra
63 (1933), pp. 234-37.
Eisenhofer, Ludwig, Handbuch der katholischen Liturgik, 2 vols., Freiburg,
1932-33.
Eizenhöfer, Leo & Hermann Knaus, Die Handschriften der Hessischen Lan-
des- und Hochschulbibliothek Darmstadt, vol. II: Die liturgischen Hand-
440
XII. Bibliography
schriften der Hessischen Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek Darmstadt,

Wiesbaden, 1968.
Elliott, John R., Playing God, Toronto, 1990.
Elliott, J. K. (trans. & ed.), The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of
Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation, Oxford, 1993.
Ettlinger, Emil, Die Handschriften der Großherzoglichen Badischen Hof-
und Landesbibliothek in Karlsruhe, Beilage III: Die ursprüngliche Her-
kunft der Handschriften die aus Kloster-, bischöflichen und Ritterschafts-
Bibliotheken nach Karlsruhe gelangt sind, Heidelberg, 1901.
Evans, Marshall Blakemore, The Passion Play of Lucerne, New York-Ox-
ford, 1943.
-----, Das Osterspiel von Luzern. Eine historisch-kritische Einleitung ,
[trans.] Paul Hagmann, Schweizer Theaterjahrbuch 27 (1961), pp. 1-275.
Falk, Franz (ed.), Die pfarramtlichen Aufzeichnungen (Liber consuetudinum)
des Florentius Diel zu St. Christoph in Mainz, 1491-1518, Erläuterungen
und Ergänzungen zu Janssens Geschichte des deutschen Volkes, Band 4,
Heft 3, Freiburg, 1904.
Fellerer, Karl Gustav, Kirchenmusikalische Vorschriften im Mittelalter ,
Kirchenmusikalisches Jahrbuch 40 (1956), pp. 1-11.
Finkel, Klaus, Liturgisches Drama am Mittelrhein , Kirchenmusikalisches
Jahrbuch 57 (1973), pp. 25-28.
-----, Musikalische Aufführungspraxis besonderer Meßstiftungen und Feier-
lichkeiten im fürstbischöflichen Dom zu Speyer , Kirchenmusikalisches
Jahrbuch 58-59 (1974-75), pp. 47-56.
-----, Die Speyrer Domkantorei im Mittelalter, Schriften des Diözesanarchivs
Speyer, 1, Speyer, 1975.
-----, Musik in Speyer: Ein Überblick zur Speyerer Musikgeschichte bis zur
Gegenwart, Beiträge zur Speyerer Stadtgeschichte, 4, Speyer, 1975.
Finscher, Ludwig (ed.), Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Kassel-
Stuttgart, 1994- [2nd rev. ed.].
Flanigan, C. Clifford, Medieval Latin Music-Drama , in Simon (ed.), Thea-
tre of Medieval Europe, pp. 21-41.
Franz, Adolph, Die Messe im deutschen Mittelalter: Beiträge zur Geschichte
der Liturgie und des religiösen Volkslebens, Freiburg, 1902 [rpt. Darm-
stadt, 1963].
Froning, Richard (ed.), Das Drama des Mittelalters, Deutsche National-
Litteratur, 14:1-3, 3 vols., Stuttgart, 1891-92 [rpt. Darmstadt, 1964].
441
Galling, Kurt [et al.] (eds.), Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart:
Handwörterbuch für Theologie und Religionswissenschaft, 7 vols., Tübin-
gen, 1957-65 [3rd ed.].
Gensicke, H., Worms , in Galling [et al.] (eds.), Religion in Geschichte und
Gegenwart, vol. VI, col. 1808.
Gottron, Adam, Tausend Jahre Musik in Mainz, Mainz: Geschichte und Kul-
tur einer Stadt, 2, Mainz-Berlin, 1964 [2nd revised ed.].
-----, Mainz , in Blume (ed.), Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, vol. VIII,
cols. 1522-29.
Gräf, Christine, Inkunabeln und Frühdrucke des Diözesan-Archivs Würz-
burg, Würzburg, 1992.
Gstrein, Rainer, Anmerkungen zu den Gesängen der Osterspiele des Sterzin-
ger Debs -Kodex , in Siller (ed.), Osterspiele, pp. 91-98.
Gugumus, Johannes Emil, Ein Speyerer Kalendar des 15. Jh. aus Cod. Pal.
514 der Vatikanischen Bibliothek , Archiv für Mittelrheinische Kirchenge-
schichte 11 (1959), pp. 245-53.
-----, Die alte Heidelberger Bibliotheca Palatina: Eine pfälzische For-
schungsaufgabe , Pfälzische Heimatblätter 9 (1961), pp. 19-21.
-----, Dedicatio Spirensis Ecclesiae Antiqua. Zur Weihe des frühsalischen
Domes im Jahr 1061 , in Ludwig Stamer (ed.), 900 Jahre Speyerer Dom:
Festschrift zum Jahrestag der Domweihe, Speyer, 1961, pp. 175-87.
Haas, Robert, Zu Walther s Choralpassion nach Matthäus , Archiv für Mu-
sikwissenschaft 4 (1922), pp. 24-47.
-----, Handbuch der Musikwissenschaft, vol. III: Aufführungspraxis der Mu-
sik, Wildpark-Potsdam, 1931.
Haffner, Franz, Der Gründonnerstag im alten Speyer , Die Rheinpfalz 19-20
April 1973, p. 15.
Hain, Ludwig Friedrich Theodor, Repertorium bibliographicum, in quo libri
omnes ab arte typographica inventa usque ad annum MD. typis expressi
ordine alphabetico vel simpliciter enumerantur vel adcuratius recensentur,
2 vols., Stuttgart, 1826-38 [rpt. Milan, 1948].
Hammerstein, Reinhold, Die Musik der Engel: Untersuchungen zur Musik-
anschauung des Mittelalters, Bern-München, 1962.
Harper, John, The Forms and Orders of Western Liturgy from the Tenth to
the Eighteenth Century: A Historical Introduction and Guide for Students
and Musicians, Oxford, 1991.
Hartl, Eduard, Untersuchungen zum St. Galler Passionsspiel , in Gerhard
Eis, Johannes Hansel & Richard Kienast (eds.), Festschrift für Wolfgang
442
XII. Bibliography
Stammler zu seinem 65. Geburtstag dargebracht von Freunden und Schü-

lern, Berlin-Bielefeld, 1953, pp. 109-29.
----- (ed.), Das Drama des Mittelalters, 3 vols., Leipzig, 1937-42 [rpt.
Darmstadt, 1964-69].
----- (ed.), Das Benediktbeurer Passionsspiel: Das St. Galler Passionsspiel,
Altdeutsche Textbibliothek, 41, Halle/Saale, 1952, pp. 56-131.
Heinemeyer, Karl, Mainz I , TRE, 21, pp. 710-17.
Hennig, Ursula, [Review of Schützeichel (ed.), Das Mittelrheinische Pas-
sionsspiel der St. Galler Hs. 919] , Daphnis 8 (1979), pp. 351-55.
-----, Die Beteiligung von Frauen als Darstellerinnen an lateinischen Oster-
feiern , in Carola L. Gottzmann & Herbert Kolb (eds.), Geist und Zeit: Wir-
kungen des Mittelalters in Literatur und Sprache: Festschrift für Roswitha
Wisniewski zu ihrem 65. Geburtstag, Frankfurt am Main, 1991, pp. 211-27.
-----, Die lateinische Sequenz Planctus ante nescia und die deutschen Ma-
rienklagen , in Nikolaus Henkel & Nigel F. Palmer (eds.), Latein und
Volkssprache im deutschen Mittelalter 1100-1500: Regensburger Kollo-
quium 1988, Tübingen, 1992, pp. 164-77.
-----, Der Descensus Jesu ad Inferos in den Spielen des 16. Jahrhunderts , in
Mehler & Touber (eds.), Mittelalterliches Schauspiel, pp. 199-212.
Hesbert, René-Jean, Corpus antiphonalium officii, 6 vols., Rerum ecclesias-
ticarum documenta, Series maior, Fontes, 7-12, Roma, 1963-79.
Hiley, David, Western Plainchant: A Handbook, Oxford, 1993.
-----, Responsorium , in Finscher (ed.), Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart,
vol. VIII, cols. 176-200.
----- [ed.], Moosburger Graduale, 2o Cod. ms. 156: Faksimile mit einer Ein-
leitung und Registern, Veröffentlichungen der Gesellschaft für Bayerische
Musikgeschichte, Tutzing, 1996.
Höfer, Josef & Rahner, Karl (eds.), Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, 11
vols., Freiburg, 1957-67 [2nd ed.].
Hofmann, Josef, Dom und Bistum Speyer. Literatur-Nachweis anläßlich des
900jährigen Domjubiläums, Mitteilungen der Pfälzischen Landesbiblio-
thek, Jahrgang 1930, 1, Speyer, 1930.
----- & Hermann Hauke, Die Handschriften der Stiftsbibliothek und der
Stiftskirche zu Aschaffenburg, Veröffentlichungen des Geschichts- und
Kunstvereins Aschaffenburg e.V., 16, Aschaffenburg, 1978.
Hucke, Helmut, Responsorium , in Blume (ed.), Musik in Geschichte und
Gegenwart, vol. XI, cols. 313-25.
-----, Zur Situation der musikalischen Mittelalterforschung in Deutschland ,
Die Musikforschung 37 (1984), pp. 257-59.
443
Hürlimann, Gebhard, Das Rheinauer Rituale (Zürich Rh 114, Anfang 12.

Jh.), Spicilegium Friburgense, 5, Freiburg, 1959.
Hughes, Andrew, Medieval Manuscripts for Mass and Office: A Guide to
their Organization and Terminology, Toronto [etc.], 1982.
-----, Liturgical Drama: Falling between the Disciplines , in Simon (ed.),
Theatre of Medieval Europe, pp. 42-62.
Huglo, Michel, Liturgische Gesangbücher , in Finscher (ed.), Musik in Ge-
schichte und Gegenwart, vol. V, cols. 1412-37.
Illert, F.M., Worms , in Höfer & Rahner (eds.), Lexikon für Theologie und
Kirche, vol. X, cols. 1224-29.
Janota, Johannes, Studien zu Funktion und Typus des deutschen geistlichen
Liedes im Mittelalter, Münchener Texte und Untersuchungen zur deutschen
Literatur des Mittelalters, 23, München, 1968.
-----, Auf der Suche nach gattungsadäquaten Editionsformen bei der Her-
ausgabe mittelalterlicher Spiele , in Kühebacher (ed.), Tiroler Volksschau-
spiel, pp. 74-87.
-----, [Review of Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen] , Germanistik 20
(1979), pp. 148-49.
-----, Zur Funktion der Gesänge in der hessischen Passionsspielgruppe , in
Siller (ed.), Osterspiele, pp. 109-20.
----- (ed.), Die hessische Passionsspielgruppe. Edition im Paralleldruck, vol.
I: Frankfurter Dirigierrolle. Frankfurter Passionsspiel. Mit den Parallel-
texten der Frankfurter Dirigierrolle , des Alsfelder Passionsspiels , des
Heidelberger Passionsspiels , des Frankfurter Osterspielfragments und
des Fritzlarer Passionsspielfragments ; vol. II: Alsfelder Passionsspiel.
Mit den Paralleltexten der Frankfurter Dirigierrolle , des Frankfurter
Passionsspiels , des Heidelberger Passionsspiels , des Frankfurter Os-
terspielfragments ; Edition der Melodien von Horst Brunner, Tübingen,
1996-2002.
----- (ed.), see also: Wolf.
Jöckle, Clemens & Jürgen Vorderstemann, Schmuckblatt zum Beginn des
Sommerteils eines Brevierantiphonales: Hs. 2 Fol. 1 der Pfälzischen Lan-
desbibliothek Speyer, Speyer, 1980.
Johner, Dominicus, Die Sonn- und Festtagslieder des vatikanischen Gradu-
ale, nach Text und Melodien erklärt, Regensburg, 1928.
Jülicher, Adolf (ed.), Itala: Das Neue Testament in altlateinischer Überliefe-
rung, vol. IV: Johannes-Evangelium, Berlin, 1963.
444
XII. Bibliography
Julian, John (ed.), A Dictionary of Hymnology Setting Forth the Origin and
History of Christian Hymns of All Ages and Nations, London, 1908 [rev.
ed.].
Kahlfuß, Hans-Jürgen (ed.), Die Handschriften der Gesamthochschulbiblio-
thek Kassel Landesbibliothek und Murhardsche Bibliothek der Stadt Kassel
(since 2002: Die Handschriften der Universitätsbibliothek Kassel Landes-
bibliothek und Murhardsche Bibliothek der Stadt Kassel, vol. I, part 1:
Konrad Wiedemann, Manuscripta theologica. Die Handschriften in Folio;
vol. I, part 3: Idem, Manuscripta theologica. Die Handschriften in Oktav:
vol. IV, part 2: Birgitt Hilberg, Manuscripta poetica et romanensia. Ma-
nuscripta theatralia, Wiesbaden, 1993-2002.
Kantorowicz, Hermann, Einführung in die Textkritik, Leipzig, 1921.
Kasper, Walter [et al.] (eds.), Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, Freiburg,
1993- [3rd ed.].
King, Archdale A., Liturgies of the Religious Orders, London, 1955.
-----, Liturgies of the Primatial Sees, London, 1957.
-----, Liturgy of the Roman Church, London, 1957.
-----, Liturgies of the Past, London, 1959.
Klein, Michael, Die Handschriften der Staatsarchive Baden-Württembergs,
vol. II: Die Handschriften 65/1-1200 im Generallandesarchiv Karlsruhe;
herausgegeben von der Landesarchivdirektion Baden-Württemberg, Wies-
baden, 1987.
Klein, Theodor Heinrich, Die Prozessionsgesänge der Mainzer Kirche aus
dem 14. bis 18. Jahrhundert, Quellen und Abhandlungen zur mittelrheini-
schen Kirchengeschichte, 7, Speyer, 1962.
Klotz, Fritz, Zwei Blätter eines Rituale des 15. Jahrhunderts , Pfälzische
Heimat 15 (1964), pp. 103-04.
Köllner, Georg Paul, Der Accentus Moguntinus. Ein Beitrag zur Frage des
Mainzer Chorals , Diss. Johannes Gutenberg Universität Mainz, 1950.
-----, Die Bedeutung des Johann Philipp von Schönborn für die Reform des
liturgischen Kirchengesangs , Kirchenmusikalisches Jahrbuch 39 (1955),
pp. 55-70.
-----, Der Accentus Moguntinus nach den Schönborn-Drucken , Kirchen-
musikalisches Jahrbuch 40 (1956), pp. 44-62.
-----, Zur Tradition des Accentus Moguntinus , Kirchenmusikalisches Jahr-
buch 42 (1958), pp. 39-46.
Körndle, Franz [et al.], Liturgische Dramen, geistliche Spiele , in Finscher
(ed.), Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, vol. V, cols 1388-1412.
445
Köttelwesch, Clemens (ed.), Die Kataloge der Stadt- und Universitätsbiblio-

thek Frankfurt am Main, vol. I: Gerhardt Powitz, Die Handschriften des
Dominikanerklosters und des Leonhardstifts in Frankfurt am Main, vol. II:
Gerhardt Powitz & Herbert Buck, Die Handschriften des Bartholomaeus-
stifts und des Karmeliterklosters in Frankfurt am Main, vol. III: Karin
Bredehorn & Gerhardt Powitz, Die mittelalterlichen Handschriften der
Gruppe Manuscripta latina, Frankfurt, 1968-79.
Korth, Michael (ed.), Carmina Burana: Lateinisch-deutsch. Gesamtausgabe
der mittelalterlichen Melodien mit den dazugehörigen Texten; übertragen,
kommentiert und erprobt von René Clemencic; Textkommentar von Ulrich
Müller; Übersetzung von René Clemencic und Michael Korth, München,
1979.
Kroos, Renate, Drei niedersächsische Bildhandschriften, Abhandlungen der
Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-historische Klas-
se, 3. Folge, 56, Göttingen, 1973.
Kühebacher, Egon (ed.), Tiroler Volksschauspiel. Beiträge zur Theaterge-
schichte des Alpenraumes, Schriftenreihe des Südtiroler Kulturinstitutes, 3,
Bozen, 1976.
Kuné, Cobie, Er taufte mit Wasser: Zur Taufe Christi im deutschen religiö-
sen Drama und in der bildenden Kunst des späten Mittelalters , Neophilolo-
gus 84 (2000), pp. 241-53.
Kuné, J. H., In the Beginning was the Word : Das Prager Abendmahl-
spiel : The Words Rendered into Actions and Images , Neophilologus 87
(2003), pp. 79-96.
Kurras, Lotte, Kataloge des Germanischen Nationalmuseums Nürnberg, vol.
I, part 1: Die deutschen mittelalterlichen Handschriften. Erster Teil: Die li-
terarischen und religiösen Handschriften, Wiesbaden, 1974.
Labhardt, Frank, Das Cantionale des Kartäusers Thomas Kreß. Ein Denkmal
der spätmittelalterlichen Musikgeschichte Basels, Publikationen der
Schweizerischen Musikforschenden Gesellschaft, Ser. 2, 20, Bern-Stutt-
gart, 1978.
Lamott, Alois, Zur Geschichte der Germansverehrung in der Speyerer Litur-
gie , in St. German in Stadt und Bistum Speyer: Festschrift zur Weihe der
Kirche des Priesterseminars St. German in Speyer, Speyer, 1957, pp. 49-
71.
-----, Codex Vindobonensis 1882: Ein Liber ordinarius des Speyerer Domes
aus dem 13. Jahrhundert , Archiv für Mittelrheinische Kirchengeschichte
13 (1961), pp. 27-48.
446
XII. Bibliography
-----, Das Speyerer Diözesanrituale von 1512 bis 1932: Seine Geschichte und
seine Ordines zur Sakramentenliturgie, Quellen und Abhandlungen zur
mittelrheinischen Kirchengeschichte, 5, Speyer, 1961.
Lehnen, Brigitte, Das Egerer Passionsspiel, Europäische Hochschulschrif-
ten, Reihe 1, 1034, Frankfurt, 1988.
Lengeling, Emil Josef, Missale Monasteriense, 1300-1900: Katalog, Texte
und vergleichende Studien, (eds.) Benedikt Kranemann & Klemens Rich-
ter, Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen, 76, Münster,
1995.
Levy, Kenneth J., A New Look at Old Roman Chant - II , Early Music His-
tory 20 (2001), pp. 173-97.
-----, Trisagion , in Sadie (ed.), New Grove, vol. XXV, pp. 745-46.
Linke, Hansjürgen, [Review of Liebenow (ed.), Das Künzelsauer Fronleich-
namsspiel] , Anzeiger für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 81
(1970), pp. 69-72.
-----, Bauformen geistlicher Dramen des späten Mittelalters , in Karl-Heinz
Schirmer & Bernhard Sowinski (eds.), Zeiten und Formen in Sprache und
Dichtung: Festschrift für Fritz Tschirch zum 70. Geburtstag, Köln-Wien,
1972, pp. 203-25.
-----, Ist das Tiroler Schauspiel des Mittelalters Volksschauspiel? , in Kühe-
bacher (ed.), Tiroler Volksschauspiel, pp. 88-109.
-----, Das volkssprachige Drama und Theater im deutschen und niederländi-
schen Sprachbereich , in Willi Erzgräber (ed.), Neues Handbuch der Lite-
raturwissenschaft, vol. VIII: Europäisches Spätmittelalter, Wiesbaden,
1977, pp. 733-63.
-----, [Review of Schützeichel (ed.), Das Mittelrheinische Passionsspiel der
St. Galler Hs. 919] , Anzeiger für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Litera-
tur 90 (1979), pp. 154-60.
-----, Drama und Theater des Mittelalters als Feld interdisziplinärer For-
schung , Euphorion 79 (1985), pp. 43-65.
-----, Versuch über deutsche Handschriften mittelalterlicher Spiele , in Vol-
ker Honemann & Nigel F. Palmer (eds.), Deutsche Handschriften 1100-
1400: Oxforder Kolloquium 1985, Tübingen, 1988, pp. 527-89.
-----, A Survey of Medieval Drama and Theatre in Germany , Comparative
Drama 27 (1993), pp. 17-53.
-----, Germany and German-speaking Central Europe , in Simon (ed.), Thea-
tre of Medieval Europe, pp. 207-24.
-----, Beobachtungen zu den geistlichen Spielen im Codex Buranus , Zeit-
schrift für deutsches Altertum 128 (1999), pp. 185-93.
447
-----, [Review of Janota (ed.), Hessische Passionsspielgruppe, vol. I] , Bei-

träge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (Tübingen) 121
(1999), pp. 156-62.
-----, [Review of Janota (ed.), Hessische Passionsspielgruppe, vol. II] ,
Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (Tübingen)
126 (2004), pp. 359-66.
-----, Bernd Neumann, Dieter Trauden & Margot Westlinning, Kollation zu
Rolf Bergmann: Die Göttweiger Dirigierrolle eines Osterspiels , unpub-
lished typescript, University of Cologne, Institut für Deutsche Sprache und
Literatur, [s.d.].
Lipphardt, Walther, Liturgische Dramen , in Finscher (ed.), Musik in Ge-
schichte und Gegenwart, vol. VIII, cols. 1010-51.
-----, Mitten wir im Leben sind : Zur Geschichte des Liedes und seiner
Weise , Jahrbuch für Liturgik und Hymnologie 8 (1963), pp. 99-118.
-----, Die Mainzer Visitatio Sepulchri , in Ursula Hennig & Herbert Kolb
(eds.), Mediævalia litteraria: Festschrift für Helmut de Boor zum 80. Ge-
burtstag, München, 1971, pp. 177-91.
-----, Die Visitatio Sepulchri (III. Stufe) von Gernrode , Daphnis 1 (1972),
pp. 1-14.
-----, Die Visitatio Sepulchri in Zisterzienserinnenklöstern der Lüneburger
Heide , Daphnis 1 (1972), pp. 119-28.
-----, Die lateinischen Osterspiele im Alpenraum und ihr Zusammenhang , in
Kühebacher (ed.), Tiroler Volksschauspiel, pp. 110-26.
-----, Musik in den spätmittelalterlichen Passionsspielen und Osterspielen
von Bozen, Sterzing und Brixen , in ibid., pp. 127-66.
----- (ed.), Lateinische Osterfeiern und Osterspiele, 9 vols., Ausgaben deut-
scher Literatur des XV. bis XVIII. Jahrhunderts, Reihe Drama, 5, Berlin-
New York, 1975-90.
----- & Roloff, Hans-Gert (eds.), Die geistlichen Spiele des Sterzinger Spiel-
archivs, Mittlere Deutsche Literatur in Neu- und Nachdrucken, 14-19,
Bern, 1980-.
List, Gerhard, Die Handschriften der Dombibliothek Fritzlar, Wiesbaden,
1984.
Litzenburger, L., Speyer , in Kasper [et al.] (eds.), Lexikon für Theologie
und Kirche, vol. IX, cols. 961-63.
Lutz, K., Speyer , in Galling [et al.] (eds.), Religion in Geschichte und Ge-
genwart, vol. VI, cols. 241-42.
Macardle, Peter, Die Gesänge des St. Galler Mittelrheinischen Passions-
spiels : Ein Beitrag zu Rekonstruktion und Lokalisierung , in T. Jackson,
448
XII. Bibliography
N. Palmer & A. Suerbaum (eds.), Die Vermittlung geistlicher Inhalte im

Mittelalter, Tübingen, 1997, pp. 255-70.
McDonald, William J. [et al.], New Catholic Encyclopedia, New York [etc.],
1967-.
McGee, Timothy J., The Liturgical Origins and Early History of the Quem
Quaeritis Dialogue , Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1974.
-----, The Role of the Quem quaeritis Dialogue in the History of Western
Drama , Renaissance Drama, n.s. 7 (1976), pp. 177-91.
-----, Drama, Liturgical , in Strayer (ed.), Dictionary of the Middle Ages,
vol. IV, pp. 272-77.
-----, The Sound of Medieval Song: Ornamentation and Vocal Style accord-
ing to the Treatises, Oxford, 1998.
Mantello, Frank Anthony Carl & A.G. Rigg (eds.), Medieval Latin: An Intro-
duction and Bibliographical Guide, Washington, D.C., 1996.
Marbach, Carl, Carmina scripturarum, Strasbourg, 1907 [rpt. Hildesheim,
1963].
Mehler, Ulrich, [Review of Pflanz, Lateinische Textgrundlagen] , Anzeiger
für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 91 (1980), pp. 120-24.
-----, Dicere und cantare : Zur musikalischen Terminologie und Auffüh-
rungspraxis des mittelalterlichen geistlichen Dramas in Deutschland,
Kölner Beiträge zur Musikforschung, 120, Regensburg, 1981.
-----, Marienklagen im spätmittelalterlichen und frühneuzeitlichen Deutsch-
land: Textversikel und Melodietypen, Amsterdamer Publikationen zur Spra-
che und Literatur, 128-129, Amsterdam-Atlanta, 1997.
----- & Anton H. Touber (eds.), Mittelalterliches Schauspiel: Festschrift für
Hansjürgen Linke zum 65. Geburtstag, Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren
Germanistik, 38-39, Amsterdam-Atlanta, 1994.
Meier, Adolf & Fritz Reuter, Worms , in Blume (ed.), Musik in Geschichte
und Gegenwart, vol. XIV, cols 864-74.
Meredith, Peter & John E. Tailby (eds.), The Staging of Religious Drama in
Europe in the Later Middle Ages: Texts and Documents in English Transla-
tion, Early Drama, Art, and Music Monograph Series, 4, Kalamazoo, MI,
1983).
Meyer, Hans, Die Diözese Worms im Mittelalter , Beiträge zur hessischen
Kirchengeschichte und Altertumskunde, N.F., Ergänzungsband 9 (1931),
pp. 340-431.
-----, Topographie der Diözese Worms im Mittelalter , Archiv für hessische
Geschichte und Altertumskunde, N.F. 17 (1932), pp. 1-92.
449
Meyer, Wilhelm (ed.), Fragmenta Burana , in Festschrift zur Feier des hun-
dertfünfzigjährigen Bestehens der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissen-
schaften zu Göttingen, Abhandlungen der philologisch-historischen Klasse,
Berlin, 1901, pp. 1-190, and 15 pls.
Miazga, Tadeusz, Die Gesänge zur Osterprozession in den handschriftlichen
Überlieferungen vom 10. bis zum 19. Jahrhundert, Graz, 1979.
Migne, J.-P. (ed.), Patrologiae cursus completus [ ] Series Latina, 221
vols., Paris, 1844-90.
Milchsack, Gustav, Die Oster- und Passionsspiele: Literarhistorische Unter-
suchungen über den Ursprung derselben bis zum 17. Jahrhundert, vor-
nehmlich in Deutschland, Wolfenbüttel, 1880.
Möller, Eberhard, Liturgische Osterspiele im vorreformatorischen Zwickau ,
Kirchenmusikalisches Jahrbuch 79 (1995), pp. 7-19.
Molin, Jean-Baptiste & Annick Aussedat-Minvielle, Répertoire des rituels et
processionaux imprimés conservés en France, Paris, 1984.
Mone, Franz Joseph (ed.), Altteutsche Schauspiele, Bibliothek der gesamm-
ten deutschen National-Literatur von der ältesten bis auf die neuere Zeit,
21, Quedlinburg-Leipzig, 1841.
----- (ed.), Schauspiele des Mittelalters:, 2 vols., Karlsruhe, 1846-48.
Moore, John Robert, The Tradition of Angelic Singing in English Drama ,
Journal of English and Germanic Philology 22 (1923), pp. 89-99.
Muir, Lynette R., The Biblical Drama of Medieval Europe, Cambridge,
1995.
Neumann, Bernd, [Review of Schützeichel (ed.), Das Mittelrheinische Pas-
sionsspiel der St. Galler Hs. 919] , Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen
Sprache und Literatur (Tübingen), 104 (1982), 318-23.
-----, Geistliches Schauspiel im Zeugnis der Zeit: Zur Aufführung mittelalter-
licher religiöser Dramen im deutschen Sprachgebiet, 2 vols., Münchener
Texte und Untersuchungen zur deutschen Literatur des Mittelalters, 84-85,
München-Zürich, 1987.
-----, Das Innsbrucker Spiel von Mariae Himmelfahrt : Gedanken zu einer
Neuedition , Neue Beiträge zur Germanistik (=Doitsu Bungaku) 109
(2002), pp. 191-206.
Norton, Michael, The Type II Visitatio Sepulchri: A Repertorial Study ,
Diss. Ohio State University, 1983.
-----, Of Stages and Types in Visitatio Sepulchri , Comparative Drama
21 (1987), pp. 34-61, 127-44.
Nowé, Johan, Dramaturgische Technik und thematische Demonstration: Das
Regieverfahren im Alsfelder Passionsspiel , in Luc Lamberechts & Johan
450
XII. Bibliography
Nowé (eds.), Bild-Sprache: Texte zwischen Dichten und Denken. Fest-

schrift für Ludo Verbeeck, Symbolae facultatis litterarum et philosophiae
Lovaniensis, Series D, Litteraria, 5, Leuven, 1990, pp. 159-75.
-----, Die Regie als symbolstiftende Instanz des Alsfelder Passionsspiels ,
Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift 45 (1995), pp. 3-23.
Obermair, Hannes, The Social Stages of the City: Vigil Raber and Perform-
ance Direction in Bozen/Bolzano (Northern Italy) a Socio-historical Out-
line , Concilium medii aevi 7 (2004), pp. 193-208 (internet publication).
Obhof, Ute, Zur Geschichte der Bibliothek des ehemaligen Karmeliterklos-
ters Hirschhorn am Neckar , Bibliothek und Wissenschaft 27 (1994), pp.
56-148.
Ornithoparchus, Andreas, Musice Actiue Micrologus, Leipzig: V. Schur-
mann, 1517 [rpt. in Ornithoparchus/Dowland, A Compendium of Musical
Practice [ ], (eds.) Gustave Reese & Steven Ledbetter, New York, 1973,
pp. 3-109.
Osthoff, Helmuth, Deutsche Liedweisen und Wechselgesänge im mittelal-
terlichen Drama , Archiv für Musikforschung 7 (1942), pp. 65-81.
-----, Die Musik im Drama des deutschen Mittelalters: Quellen und For-
schungsziele , Deutsche Musikkultur 8 (1943), pp. 29-40.
Overgaauw, Eef A., Saints in Medieval Calendars from the Diocese of
Utrecht as Clues for the Localization of Manuscripts , Codices Manuscripti
16 (1992), pp. 81-97.
Pascher, Joseph, Das Stundengebet der römischen Kirche, München, 1954.
Pelzer, Auguste, Abréviations latines médiévales: Supplément au Dizionario
di abbreviature latine ed italiane de Adriano Cappelli, Bruxelles, 1966
[rpt. 1982].
Pflanz, Hermann Manfred, Die lateinischen Textgrundlagen des St. Galler
Passionsspieles in der mittelalterlichen Liturgie, Europäische Hochschul-
schriften, Reihe 1, 205, Frankfurt [etc.], 1977.
Pietzsch, Gerhard, Zur Geschichte der Musik in Worms bis zur Mitte des 16.
Jahrhunderts , Der Wormsgau 3 (1956), pp. 249-82.
-----, Gedanken zu einer pfälzischen Musikgeschichte , Pfälzer Heimat 7
(1956), pp. 1-10.
-----, Zur Musikgeschichte von Speyer vor der Reformation , Archiv für Mit-
telrheinische Kirchengeschichte 9 (1957), pp. 51-67.
Polheim, Karl Konrad, [Review of Liebenow (ed.), Das Künzelsauer Fron-
leichnamsspiel] , Zeitschrift für Volkskunde 67 (1971), pp. 286-88.
451
Praet, Joseph Basile Bernard van, Catalogue des livres imprimés sur vélin,
qui se trouvent dans les bibliothèques tant publiques que particulières [ ],
Paris, 1824-28, 4 vols.
Ranke, Friedrich, Von der ritterlichen zur bürgerlichen Dichtung, 1230-
1430 , in Heinz Otto Burger (ed.), Annalen der deutschen Literatur, Stutt-
gart, 1971 [2nd revised ed.], pp. 179-253.
Rankin, Susan K., The Mary Magdalene Scene in the Visitatio Sepulchri
Ceremonies , Early Music History 1 (1981), pp. 227-55.
-----, From Memory to Record: Musical Notations in Manuscripts from
Exeter , Anglo-Saxon England 13 (1984), pp. 97-112.
-----, Musical and Ritual Aspects of Quem queritis , Münchener Beiträge
zur Mediävistik und Renaissanceforschung 36 (1985), pp. 181-92.
-----, [Review of Thomas Binkley (dir.), Recordings of (Großes) Benedikt-
beurer Passionsspiel] , Early Music 14 (1986), pp. 443-46.
-----, The Music of the Medieval Liturgical Drama in France and England, 2
vols., Outstanding Dissertations in Music from British Universities, New
York-London, 1989.
Rastall, Richard, The Heaven Singing: Music in Early English Religious
Drama, Cambridge, 1996, vol. I.
Rau, Johannes, Tropus und Sequenz im Mainzer Cantatorium Cod. Lond.
Add. 19768 , Unpub. Diss., University of Heidelberg, 1959.
Reichling, Dietrich, Appendices ad Hainii-Copingeri Repertorium bibliogra-
phicum: Additiones et emendationes. Supplement, Monasterii, 1914.
Reifenberg, Hermann, Der Ordo Missae Moguntinus seit dem 14. Jahrhun-
dert , Unpub. Diss., University of Mainz, 1952.
-----, Messe und Missalien im Bistum Mainz seit dem Zeitalter der Gotik,
Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen, 37, Münster, 1960.
-----, Das Diurnale Moguntinum von 1612 , Gutenberg-Jahrbuch 36 (1961),
pp. 172-76.
-----, Vom Missale Moguntinum des Jahres 1602 zum Missale Romano-Mo-
guntinum von 1698 , Archiv für Mittelrheinische Kirchengeschichte 13
(1961), pp. 432-39.
-----, Das Mainzer Schöffer-Brevier von 1517 , Mainzer Almanach (1962),
pp. 107-12.
-----, Eine Sonderausfertigung des Breviarium Moguntinum von 1509 , Ar-
chiv für Mittelrheinische Kirchengeschichte 14 (1962), pp. 459-66.
-----, Stundengebet und Breviere im Bistum Mainz seit der romanischen
Epoche, Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen, 40, Münster-
Aschaffendorff, 1964.
452
XII. Bibliography
-----, Sakramente, Sakramentalien und Ritualien im Bistum Mainz seit dem

Spätmittelalter, 2 vols., Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschun-
gen, 53-54, Münster, 1971-72.
-----, Mainzer Liturgie vor dem Hintergrund des Mainzer Chorals , Archiv
für Mittelrheinische Kirchengeschichte 27 (1975), pp. 9-17.
-----, Gottesdienst in den Kirchen des deutschen Sprachgebietes: Bestand
und Wünsche wissenschaftlicher Bemühungen um die teilkirchliche Litur-
gie im Laufe eines Jahrhunderts , Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft 22
(1981), pp. 30-92.
Remak-Honnef, Elisabeth & Hermann Hauke, Katalog der lateinischen
Handschriften der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek München. Die Handschrif-
ten der ehemaligen Mannheimer Hofbibliothek Clm 10 001-10 930, Catalo-
gus codicum manu scriptorum Bibliothecae Monacensis, Tomus IV, Series
nova, Pars 1, Wiesbaden, 1991.
Robinson, John W., Studies in Fifteenth-Century Stagecraft, Early Drama,
Art, and Music Monograph Series, 14, Kalamazoo, MI, 1991.
Rudick, Michael, Theme, Structure and Sacred Context in the Benediktbeu-
ern Passion Play , Speculum 49 (1974), pp. 267-86.
Rueff, Hans, [Review of Wolter (ed.), Das St. Galler Spiel vom Leben Je-
su] , Anzeiger für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 38 (1919), 66-
70.
Ruh, Kurt [et al.], Die deutsche Literatur des Mittelalters: Verfasserlexikon,
Berlin-New York, 1978- [2nd ed.].
Sadie, Stanley (ed.), The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 29
vols., London, 2001 [2nd ed.].
Salmon, Pierre, Les manuscrits liturgiques de la Bibliothèque Vaticane, 5
vols., Studi e Testi, 251-270, Vaticano, 1968-72, vol. I: Psautiers, antipho-
naires, hymnaires, collectaires, bréviaire; vol. II: Sacramentaires, épisto-
liers, évangéliaires, graduels, missels; vol. III: Ordines Romani, pontifi-
caux, rituels, cérémoniaux; vol. V: Liste complémentaire; tables générales.
Saulnier, Dom Daniel, La résurrection de Lazare , Etudes grégoriennes 25
(1997), pp. 7-11.
Schäfer, Thomas, Die Fußwaschung im monastischen Brauchtum und in der
lateinischen Liturgie: Liturgiegeschichtliche Untersuchung, Texte und Ar-
beiten der Erzabtei Beuron, I, 47, Beuron, 1956.
Schannat, Johann Friedrich, Historia Episcopatus Wormatiensis pontificum
romanorum bullis, regum, imperatorum diplomatibus [ ] aliisque pluri-
bus documentis authenticis asserta ac illustrata [ ], Frankfurt am Main,
1734.
453
Scheel, Katja (ed.), Et respondeat : Studien zum deutschen Theater des Mit-
telalters. Festschrift für Prof. Dr. Johan Nowé anlässlich seiner Emeritie-
rung, Medievalia Lovaniensia, Series I, Studia, 32, Leuven, 2002.
Schlager, Karlheinz, Passion A. Die einstimmige Passion , in Finscher (ed.),
Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, vol. VII, cols 1452-56.
-----, Über den Choralgesang in Mainz , Archiv für Mittelrheinische Kir-
chengeschichte 27 (1975), pp. 19-26.
----- (ed.), Antiphonale Pataviense (Wien 1519), Das Erbe deutscher Musik,
88, Kassel [etc.], 1985.
Schmidt, Herman A. P., Hebdomada sancta. I. Contemporanei textus liturgi-
ci, documenta Piana et bibliographica. II. Fontes historici. Commentarius
historicus, 2 vols. in 3 parts, Rome-Freiburg-Barcelona, 1956-57.
Schützeichel, Rudolf, Zum Mittelrheinischen Passionsspiel der St. Galler
Handschrift 919 , in Hennig & Kolb (eds.), Mediævalia litteraria, pp. 531-
39.
-----, Das Mittelrheinische Passionsspiel. Paläographie und Edition , in
Idem, Textgebundenheit: Kleinere Schriften zur mittelalterlichen deutschen
Literatur, Tübingen, 1981, pp. 164-72.
----- (ed.), Das Mittelrheinische Passionsspiel der St. Galler Hs. 919, Tübin-
gen, 1978.
Schuldes, Luis, Die Teufelsszenen im deutschen geistlichen Drama des Mit-
telalters: Versuch einer literarhistorischen Betrachtung unter besonderer
Berücksichtigung der geistesgeschichtlichen Gesichtspunkte, Göppinger
Arbeiten zur Germanistik, 116, Göppingen, 1974.
Schuler, Ernst August, Die Musik der Osterfeiern, Osterspiele und Passionen
des Mittelalters, Kassel-Basel, 1951 [Vol. II: Melodienband , only as doc-
toral thesis, Universität Basel, 1940].
Schulz, Frieder, Singen wir heut mit einem Mund , Jahrbuch für Liturgik
und Hymnologie 32 (1989), pp. 29-71.
Schulze, Ursula, Schmerz und Heiligkeit: Zur Performanz von Passio und
Compassio in ausgewählten Passionsspieltexten (Mittelrheinisches, Frank-
furter, Donaueschinger Spiel) , in Horst Brunner & Werner Williams-
Krapp (eds.), Forschungen zur deutschen Literatur des Spätmittelalters:
Festschrift für Johannes Janota, Tübingen, 2003, pp. 211-32.
Schumann, Otto & Bernhard Bischoff (eds.), Carmina Burana: Mit Benut-
zung der Vorarbeiten Wilhelm Meyers kritisch herausgegeben von Alfons
Hilka und Otto Schumann, vol. I:3, Die Trink- und Spielerlieder. Die geist-
lichen Dramen. Nachträge, Heidelberg, 1970.
454
XII. Bibliography
Sheerin, Daniel, The Liturgy , in Mantello & Rigg (eds.), Medieval Latin,
pp. 157-82.
Siebert, Hermann, Die alten Speyerer Agenden , Der Katholik 92 (1912),
pp. 182-93.
Sievers, Heinrich, Die lateinischen liturgischen Osterspiele der Stiftskirche
St. Blasien zu Braunschweig, Veröffentlichungen der niedersächsischen
Musikgesellschaft, 2, Wolfenbüttel, 1936.
Siller, Max (ed.), Osterspiele: Text und Musik: Akten des 2. Symposiums der
Sterzinger Osterspiele (12.-16. April 1992), Schlern-Schriften, 293, Inns-
bruck, 1994.
Simon, Eckehard, [Review of Schützeichel (ed.), Das Mittelrheinische Pas-
sionsspiel der St. Galler Hs. 919] , Speculum 54 (1979), pp. 627-28.
-----, Drama, German , in Strayer (ed.), Dictionary of the Middle Ages, vol.
IV, pp. 266-72.
----- (ed.), The Theatre of Medieval Europe: New Research in Early Drama,
Cambridge, 1991.
-----, Das Egerer Fronleichnamspiel in den Stadtrechnungen , in Mehler &
Touber (eds.), Mittelalterliches Schauspiel, pp. 299-311.
Smoldon, William L., Liturgical Drama , in Dom Anselm Hughes (ed.), The
New Oxford History of Music, vol. II: Early Medieval Music up to 1300,
London [etc.], 1954, pp. 175-219.
-----, The Melodies of the Medieval Church-Dramas and their Significance ,
Comparative Drama 2 (1968), pp. 185-89.
-----, The Music of the Medieval Church Dramas, (ed.) Cynthia Bourgeault,
London [etc.], 1980.
Spital, Hermann Josef, Bibliographie der Ritualien , in Idem, Der Taufritus
in den Ritualien von den ersten Drucken bis zur Einführung des Rituale Ro-
manum, Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen, 47, Münster,
1968, pp. 212-84.
Stäblein, Bruno, Deutschland B , in Blume (ed.), Musik in Geschichte und
Gegenwart, vol. III, cols. 272-86.
-----, Lektionston , in ibid., vol. VIII, cols. 595-96.
-----, Passion. A. Die einstimmige lateinische Passion , in ibid., vol. X, cols.
886-98.
-----, Psalm. B: Lateinischer Psalmengesang im Mittelalter , in ibid., vol. X,
cols. 1676-90.
Stammler, Wolfgang & Karl Langosch (eds.), Die deutsche Literatur des
Mittelalters. Verfasserlexikon, 5 vols., Berlin-Leipzig, 1933-55.
Stapper, Richard, Die älteste Agende des Bistums Münster, Münster, 1906.
455
Staub, Kurt Hans, Geschichte der Dominikanerbibliothek in Wimpfen am

Neckar (ca. 1460-1803): Untersuchungen an Hand der in der Hessischen
Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek Darmstadt erhaltenen Bestände, Studien
zur Bibliotheksgeschichte, 3, Graz, 1980.
Steer, Georg, Carmina Burana in Südtirol: Zur Herkunft des Clm 4660 ,
Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 112 (1983), pp. 1-
27.
Steinbach, Rolf, Die deutschen Oster- und Passionsspiele des Mittelalters:
Versuch einer Darstellung und Wesensbestimmung nebst einer Bibliogra-
phie zum deutschen geistlichen Spiel des Mittelalters, Kölner Germanisti-
sche Studien, 4, Köln, 1970.
Stemmler, Theo, Liturgische Feiern und geistliche Spiele: Studien zur Er-
scheinungsformen des Dramatischen im Mittelalter, Buchreihe der Anglia,
Zeitschrift für englische Philologie, 15, Tübingen, 1970.
Stevens, John, Music in Mediaeval Drama , Proceedings of the Royal Musi-
cal Association 84 (1957-58), pp. 81-95.
-----, Words and Music in the Middle Ages: Song, Narrative, Dance and
Drama, 1050-1350, Cambridge Studies in Music, Cambridge, 1986.
-----, Richard Rastall & Jack Sage, Medieval Drama , in Sadie (ed.), New
Grove, vol. XVI, pp. 227-67.
Stevenson Jr., Henricus, Codices Palatini latini, vol. I: Codd. 1-921, Biblio-
thecae Apostolicae Vaticanae codices manu scripti recensiti, Roma, 1886.
Stopp, Hugo, Untersuchungen zum St. Galler Passionsspiel , Diss. Univer-
sity of Saarbrücken, 1959.
Strayer, Joseph R. (ed.), Dictionary of the Middle Ages, 13 vols., New York,
1982-89.
Suppan, Wolfgang, Zur Musik der Erlauer Spiele , Studia musicologica
Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 11 (1969), pp. 409-21.
Tailby, John, Schwierigkeiten der Dramenedition , in Anton Schwob (ed.),
Editionsberichte zur mittelalterlichen deutschen Literatur: Beiträge der
Bamberger Tagung Methoden und Probleme der Edition mittelalterlicher
deutscher Texte , 26.-29. Juli 1991, Litterae, 117, Göppingen, 1994, pp.
251-54.
-----, Drama and Community in South Tyrol , in Hindley, Alan (ed.), Drama
and Community: People and Plays in Medieval Europe, Medieval Texts
and Cultures of Northern Europe, 1, Turnhout, 1999, pp. 554-66.
Thoran, Barbara, Frauenrollen und Rolle der Frauen in der Geschichte der
deutschsprachigen Passionsspiele , in Michael Henker (ed.), Hört, sehet,
weint und liebt : Passionsspiele im alpenländischen Raum. Katalogbuch
456
XII. Bibliography
zur Ausstellung im Ammergauer Haus, Oberammergau, 28. Mai bis 30.

September 1990, Veröffentlichungen zur bayerischen Geschichte und Kul-
tur, 20, München, 1990, pp. 113-19.
-----, Das Lied der Wächter auf dem Weg zum Grab Jesu in österlichen
Spielen des 14. und 15. Jahrhunderts , in Dorothee Lindemann, Berndt
Volkmann & Klaus-Peter Wegera (eds.), bickelwort und wildiu maere:
Festschrift für Eberhard Nellmann zum 65. Geburtstag, Göppinger Ar-
beiten zur Germanistik, 618, Göppingen, 1995, pp. 398-407.
Thurn, Hans, Die Handschriften der Universitätsbibliothek Würzburg, vol.
II: Handschriften aus benediktinischen Provenienzen, I; vol. IV: Die Hand-
schriften der kleinen Provenienzen und Fragmente, Wiesbaden, 1973-95.
Tischendorf, L. F. C von (ed.), Evangelia apocrypha, adhibitis plurimis codi-
cibus Graecis et Latinis maximam partem nunc primum consultis atque
ineditorum copia insignibus, Leipzig, 1876 [rpt. Hildesheim, 1966].
Touber, Anthonius H., Schreibfehler in mittelalterlichen Spielhandschriften
am Beispiel des Donaueschinger Passionsspiels , editio 6 (1992), pp.
123-30.
-----, Das Osterspiel im Donaueschinger Passionsspiel: Text und Musik , in
Siller (ed.), Osterspiele, pp. 203-09.
Traub, Andreas, Zur Musik der Trierer Marienklage und des Trierer Oster-
spiels , Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (Tü-
bingen) 110 (1988), pp. 78-100.
-----, [Review of Linke & Mehler (eds.), Die österlichen Spiele aus der
Ratsschulbibliothek Zwickau] , Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 27 (1992), pp.
258-60.
-----, Zwischen Aufgezeichnetem und Nichtaufgezeichnetem: Probleme bei
der Edition der Melodien der Sterzinger Spiele , in Siller (ed.), Osterspiele,
pp. 211-18.
-----, Überlegungen zur Edition von Melodien in geistlichen Spielen an Bei-
spielen aus dem Sterzinger Spielarchiv , in Anton Schwob (ed.), Editions-
berichte zur mittelalterlichen deutschen Literatur: Beiträge der Bamberger
Tagung Methoden und Probleme der Edition mittelalterlicher deutscher
Texte , Litterae, 117, Göppingen, 1994, pp. 255-59.
-----, Der Debs-Codex als musikalische Quelle , in Mehler & Touber (eds.),
Mittelalterliches Schauspiel, pp. 339-47.
-----, Die geistlichen Spiele des Sterzinger Spielarchivs, vol. VI:2: Kommen-
tar zur Edition der Melodien, Mittlere Deutsche Literatur in Neu- und
Nachdrucken, 19:2, Bern, 1996.
457
Trauden, Dieter, Archetyp oder Aufführung? Überlegungen zur Edition mit-

telalterlicher Dramen , Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 37
(1993), pp. 131-45.
Väterlein, Christian (ed.), Graduale Pataviense (Wien 1511), Das Erbe deut-
scher Musik, 87, Kassel [etc.], 1982.
Veit, Andreas Ludwig, Kirche und Kirchenreform in der Erzdiözese Mainz
im Zeitalter der Glaubensspaltung und der beginnenden tridentinischen
Reformation (1517-1618), Erläuterungen und Ergänzungen zu Janssens Ge-
schichte des deutschen Volkes, Band 10, Heft 3, Freiburg, 1920.
-----, Kirchliche Reformbestrebungen im ehemaligen Erzstift Mainz unter
Erzbischof Johann Philipp von Schönborn, 1647-1673, Studien und
Darstellungen aus dem Gebiete der Geschichte, 7, Heft 3, Freiburg, 1910.
Völker, Paul-Gerhard, Schwierigkeiten bei der Edition geistlicher Spiele des
Mittelalters , in Hugo Kuhn, Karl Stackmann & Dieter Wuttke (eds.), Kol-
loquium über Probleme altgermanistischer Editionen, Marbach am
Neckar, 26. und 27. April 1966. Referate und Diskussionsbeiträge, Deut-
sche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Forschungsberichte, 13, Wiesbaden, 1968,
pp. 160-68.
-----, Überlegungen zur Geschichte des geistlichen Spiels im Mittelalter , in
Ingeborg Glier [et al.] (eds.), Werk Typ Situation: Studien zu poetologi-
schen Bedingungen in der älteren deutschen Literatur, Stuttgart, 1969, pp.
252-80.
Vogel, Cyrille, Introduction aux sources de l histoire du culte chrétien au
moyen âge, Biblioteca degli Studi Medievali, 1, Spoleto, 1981.
-----, Medieval Liturgy: An Introduction to the Sources, (trans. and rev.)
William Storey & Niels Rasmussen, NPM Studies in Church Music and
Liturgy, Washington, 1986.
Vorderstemann, Jürgen, Die Büchersammlungen des Speyerer Domes in
tausend Jahren: Ein Überblick aus Anlaß der 950-Jahr-Feier im Jahre
1980 , Archiv für Mittelrheinische Kirchengeschichte 33 (1981), pp. 45-61.
Vijfvinkel, Elly, Das letzte Abendmahl in dem Donaueschinger Passions-
spiel, dem Luzerner Osterspiel und in der Bibel , in Mehler & Touber
(eds.), Mittelalterliches Schauspiel, pp. 377-85.
Wackernagel, Karl Eduard Philipp (ed.), Das deutsche Kirchenlied von der
ältesten Zeit bis zu Anfang des XVII. Jahrhunderts, 5 vols., Leipzig, 1864-
77 [repr. Hildesheim, 1964].
Wackernell, J. E. (ed.), Altdeutsche Passionsspiele aus Tirol, Quellen und
Forschungen zur Geschichte, Litteratur und Sprache Österreichs und seiner
Kronländer, 1, Graz, 1897.
458
XII. Bibliography
Wagner, Günter, Mainz , in Finscher (ed.), Musik in Geschichte und Gegen-

wart, vol. V, cols. 1592-97.
Wallace, Robin, The Role of Music in Liturgical Drama: A Revaluation ,
Music and Letters 65 (1984), pp. 219-28.
Weale, William Henry James, Bibliographia liturgica. Catalogus Missalium
ritus latini ab anno 1474 impressorum; ed. Hanns Bohatta, London-Leip-
zig, 1928 [rpt. Stuttgart, 1990].
Weinhold, Karl, Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik, Paderborn, 1883 [rpt.
Paderborn, 1967].
Werhahn, Heinz Martin, Hymnarium Aquense: Ein bisher unbekanntes
Mainzer Hymnar aus der Fragmentensammlung Stephan Beißel in der Öf-
fentlichen Bibliothek der Stadt Aachen , in Anon. (ed.), Geschichte im Bis-
tum Aachen, Aachen-Kevelaer, 1996, pp. 155-84.
Werner, Wilfried, Studien zu den Passions- und Osterspielen des deutschen
Mittelalters in ihrem Übergang vom Latein zur Volkssprache, Philologi-
sche Studien und Quellen, 18, Berlin, 1963.
Wilmotte, Maurice, Les passions allemandes du Rhin dans leur rapport avec
l ancien théâtre français, Paris, 1898.
Wimmer, Ruprecht, Deutsch und Latein im Osterspiel: Untersuchungen zu
den volkssprachlichen Entsprechungstexten der lateinischen Strophen-
lieder, Münchener Texte und Untersuchungen zur deutschen Literatur des
Mittelalters, 48, München, 1974.
Wimpfeling, Jakob, Laudes ecclesiae Spirensis, (ed.) Jodocus Gallus, Basel,
1486.
Wittwer, Peter, Identifikation liturgischer Handschriften aufgrund der Matu-
tinresponsorien des Offiziums , Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft 41 (1999),
pp. 41-62.
Wolf, Klaus, Kommentar zur Frankfurter Dirigierrolle und zum Frankfur-
ter Passionsspiel , Tübingen, 2002 [Ergänzungsband 1 of Johannes Janota
(ed.), Die hessische Passionsspielgruppe. Edition im Paralleldruck, Tübin-
gen, 1996-2002].
-----, Verfremdung oder Identifikation? Zur Problematik einer Rekonstruk-
tion des Kostüms im geistlichen Spiel des Spätmittelalters , in Horst Brun-
ner & Werner Williams-Krapp (eds.), Forschungen zur deutschen Literatur
des Spätmittelalters: Festschrift für Johannes Janota, Tübingen, 2003, pp.
255-64.
-----, Für eine neue Form der Kommentierung geistlicher Spiele: Die Frank-
furter Spiele als Beispiel der Rekonstruktion von Aufführungswirklichkeit ,
459
in Hans-Joachim Ziegeler (ed.), Ritual und Inszenierung. Geistliches und

weltliches Drama des Mittelalters, Tübingen, 2004, pp. 3-32.
Wolter, Emil (ed.), Das St. Galler Spiel vom Leben Jesu: Untersuchungen
und Text, Germanistische Abhandlungen, 41, Breslau, 1912 [rpt. Hildes-
heim, 1977].
Wordsworth, John & Henry Julian White (eds.), Novum Testamentum Domi-
ni Nostri Iesu Christi latine secundum editionem Sancti Hieronymi, vol. I:
Quattuor Evangelia, Oxford, 1889-98.
Wright, Stephen K., The Ingressus Pilatus Chant in Medieval German
Drama , Comparative Drama 28 (1994), pp. 348-66.
-----, Drama , in Mantello & Rigg (eds.), Medieval Latin, pp. 574-81.
Würdtwein, Stephan Alexander, Commentatio historico-liturgica de stationi-
bus ecclesiae Moguntinae, ex antiquitatibus ecclesiasticis eruta et addito
ecclesiarum Trevirensis et Coloniensis ritu illustrata, Mainz [= Frankfurt],
1782.
Wyss, Hans (ed.), Das Luzerner Osterspiel. Gestützt auf die Textabschrift
von M. Blakemore Evans und unter Verwendung seiner Vorarbeiten zu
einer kritischen Edition nach den Handschriften, 3 vols., Schriften heraus-
gegeben unter dem Patronat der Schweizerischen Geisteswissenschaft-
lichen Gesellschaft, 7, Bern, 1967, vol. I: Text des ersten Tags, vol. II: Text
des zweiten Tags, vol. III: Textteile 1597, 1616. Anmerkungen, Quellen,
Glossar.
Young, Karl, The Harrowing of Hell in Liturgical Drama , in Transactions
of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, 16, Part II,
Madison, WI, 1909, pp. 889-947.
-----, The Drama of the Medieval Church, 2 vols., Oxford, 1933.
460

Peter Macardle - The ST - Gall Passion Play

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Peter Macardle - The ST - Gall Passion Play

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The St Gall Passion Play

Peter Happé and Wim Hüsken

Volume 1: English Parish Drama

Amsterdam – New York, NY 2007

The illustration on the cover of this book is from a15th-century antiphonal

I The Text and the Problem 21

A note on the transcription and editing of text and notation 119

V Localizing the Play 123

n Africa they know it takes a whole village to bring up a single

Literatur of the University of Cologne, especially Frau Hiltrud Hoff-

tance and extraordinarily generous hospitality on several research vis-

Since the plays of the Church were actually

early seventy years ago, in a pioneering study of the music

lacking in interest.3 And so this large corpus of music has languished

come from outside the German-speaking world.7 But German scholars

the music of the Sterzing plays is shown to be a clue to other aspects

stricted aims of such editions matched the limited expectations of their

realisations to be readily grasped something which approaches like

melodies to an appendix, and whilst even minor errors in the dialogue

etween two pages of Codex 919 of St Gall Abbey Library,

wilderness; the calling of Peter and Andrew; the repentance of the

Similar chronological misfortune attended the preparation of

play. A swingeing critique indeed; but how well does it stand up to

aimed at readerly pleasure; the use in later manuscripts of vellum

which indicate closeness to performance. These include: references to

non-polemical context of his edition, he concedes that the manuscript,

Studien, Initienregister , pp. 290-91.

Now, three of these aspects of performance practice might indeed

pository of liturgical melodies.46 Clerics acting in plays, or rehearsing

relevant manuscripts, is in effect a vindication of the approach.49

written text. Obviously it cannot be known exactly how much of a

from contributing towards dating or localizing the manuscript, this

The Problem of Localization

Schützeichel s edition, however, brought a new localization. In it,

mark umlaut characterized writing from Worms and further north;

In all, the problems concerned with the

ninth, by ritual and musical developments from the Frankish tradi-

Differences, then, between local uses were numerous rather than

sel in Konrad Wiedemann, Manuscripta theologica: Die Handschriften in Folio,

am Main, the Stiftsbibliothek Aschaffenburg, the Universitätsbiblio-

Mainz liturgy has enjoyed extensive scholarly investigation.13 A

has been further investigated by Konrad Wiedemann, in the course of

Romano-Moguntinum von 1698 , Archiv für Mittelrheinische Kirchangeschichte

married, not always very comfortably, with the traditional Mainz

The Mainz Ordo

Ms. 2o theol. 99 are two examples of a combined liber ordinarius and

datum or washing of feet on Maundy Thursday. Because they are used

came to Speyer in 1825 from a collection of displaced Mainz Cathe-

The Worms Ordo

ries.47 The remaining ones are: London, British Library, MS add.

Wormatiensis, Mainz, 1516; Breviarium iuxta ritum et ordinem ecclesiae Worma-

Worms, Stadtarchiv, Abt. 106/1 is a fifteenth-century manual from

modata [...], Mannheim, 1740; Compendium Ritualis Moguntini, Wormatiensis,

cordat of 1801; the modern diocese, founded in 1821, is much smaller

What is clear from the surviving sources, however, is that, as in

The Speyer Ordo

Karlsruhe, Generallandesarchiv, 65/738 is a fragmentary manu-

Bistumsarchiv 2, which now consists of 315 folios, but originally

(Bestand A: Bücher, Handschriften, Frühdrucke, Drucke; late 1999). Lamott, Ger-

Vatican, cod. pal. lat. 514, a Speyer breviary (pars aestivalis) of

schöflichen und Ritterschafts-Bibliotheken nach Karlsruhe gelangt sind, Heidel-

been considerable divergence in the contents of Speyer rituals in the

Printed Worms breviary, c. 1475 : (no title) [Printed Worms bre-