Miracula and The Tretise of Miraclis Pleyinge

Abstract

For over a century before the establishment of English vernacular religious drama in cities of the north, there was a concerted effort by the papacy and episcopacy to eradicate or rechannel lay and clerical ludi that struck the establishment as more conducive to lechery, gluttony, and the mocking of sacred things than to worshipful remembrance of Christ's sacrifice or to meditation on man's lamentable condition. However, legislating a distinction between appropriate and inappropriate ludi was not easy. When Innocent III sought to ban ludi theatrales among his clergy, his edict had to be glossed to assure religious communities that the pope did not oppose the decorous representation of certain topics the story of Rachel, the Three Kings, and Herod.1 Since some of these ludi took place within monastic and other religious houses, not all the participants thought them objectionable, but English bishops, particularly Grosseteste and Grandisson, tried to put down raucous and inappropriate ludi some of which they called miracula whether they occurred within religious houses or among the laity.2 By examining the few records we have of miracula and miracles in English documents, I should like to demonstrate that miracula are not, as we have supposed, vernacular religious dramas produced by lay people, towns, or guilds; nor are they saints' plays or the kind of liturgical repraesentationes best known in the editions of Karl Young. Rather, they are activities we have called pagan survivals or boy-bishop ceremonies or activities that parody the liturgy or make jest of sacred events. After an analysis of the activities prohibited under the name miracula, I shall discuss the Tretise of Miraclis Pleyinge and a relevant section in the Dives and Pauper. I believe these tracts are companion pieces which represent two views on appropriate kinds of ludi. Both justify amusements or playing by reference to David's dancing before the ark of the Lord; however, the two writers seem to disagree on what is acceptable. I do not believe that either tract is concerned with vernacular religious drama, nor do I believe the Tretise of Miraclis Pleyinge to be antitheatrical polemic.