SUPPLEMENTA HUMANISTICA LOVANIENSIA XXXII · — Joaquín Pascual Barea, School Progymnasmata and...

SUPPLEMENTA

HUMANISTICA LOVANIENSIA

XXXII

Reprint from “The Early Modern Cultures of Neo-Latin Drama” - ISBN 978 90 5867 926 0 - © Leuven University Press, 2013

SUPPLEMENTA HUMANISTICA LOVANIENSIA

Editors: Prof. Dr. Gilbert Tournoy (General Editor) Dr. Godelieve Tournoy-Thoen Prof. Dr. Dirk Sacré

Editorial Correspondence: [email protected] Seminarium Philologiae Humanisticae Blijde-Inkomststraat 21 (Box 3316) B – 3000 Leuven (Belgium)

This publication was made possible with the financial support of PEGASUS Limited

For the Promotion of Neo-Latin Studies


THE EARLY MODERN CULTURES

OF NEO-LATIN DRAMA

Edited by Philip FORD and Andrew TAYLOR

SUPPLEMENTA

HUMANISTICA LOVANIENSIA

XXXII

LEUVEN UNIVERSITY PRESS

2013


© Leuven University Press / Universitaire Pers Leuven / Presses Universitaires de Louvain, Minderbroedersstraat 4, B-3000 Leuven (Belgium)

All rights reserved. Except in those cases expressly determined by law, no part of this publication may be multiplied, saved in an automated datafile or made public in any way whatsoever without the express prior written consent of the publishers.

ISBN 978 90 5867 926 0D/2013/1869/1NUR: 635-694


Table of ConTenTs

— Philip Ford and Andrew Taylor, Introduction 7

— Olivier Pédeflous, Ravisius Textor’s School Drama and its Links to Pedagogical Literature in Early Modern France 19

— Carine Ferradou, George Buchanan’s Sacred Latin Tragedies Baptistes and Iephthes: What Place for Humankind in the Universe? 41

— Elia Borza, La traduction de tragédies grecques: Alessandro Pazzi de’ Medici et les problèmes liés à la métrique 63

— Howard B. Norland, John Foxe’s Apocalyptic Comedy, Christus Triumphans 75

— Jeanine De Landtsheer, Lambertus Schenckelius’s Tragoedia(e) Sanctae Catharinae 85

— Michiel Verweij, The Terentius Christianus at Work: Cornelius Schonaeus as a Playwright 95

— Joaquín Pascual Barea, School Progymnasmata and Latin Drama: thesis, refutatio, confirmatio and laus in the Dialogue on the Conception of Our Lady (1578) by the Spanish Jesuit Bartholomaeus Bravo (1553 or 1554–1607) 107

— Judi Loach, Performing in Latin in Jesuit-run Colleges in Mid- to Late-17th-Century France: Why, and with what Consequences? 113

— Jan Bloemendal, Similarities, Dissimilarities and Possible Relations Between Early Modern Latin Drama and Drama in the Vernacular 141


— Cressida Ryan, An Ignoramus about Latin? The Importance of Latin Literatures to George Ruggle’s Ignoramus 159

— Sarah Knight, ‘Et spes et ratio studiorum in Caesare tantum’: Robert Burton and Patronage 175

— Veronika Coroleu Oberparleiter, Simon Rettenpacher’s Comedy Votorum discordia 189

— Arthur Eyffinger, ‘The Unacknowledged Legislators of Mankind’: Greek Playwrights as Moral Guidance to Hugo Grotius’s Social Philosophy 203

— Index nominum 219


Jeanine De Landtsheer

lamberTus sChenCkelIus’s tragoedia(e) sanCtae Catharinae

In the summer of 1588 Melchior Moretus (1573-1634), the eldest living son of Johannes Moretus and Martine Plantin,1 left Antwerp to obtain his degree of baccalaureus artium at the Collegium Acquicinctinum (Collège d’Anchin) in Douai, which was run by the Jesuits.2 Meanwhile his brother Balthasar (1574-1641), who was his junior by one year, continued his humanities at the chapter school of Our Lady’s cathedral in Antwerp (the so-called Papenschool), where Melchior had probably studied as well.3 Balthasar had by then moved to the classis tertia or syntaxis, in which he was initiated in prosody and metrics and was expected to compose his own Latin verses. Melchior kept up a lively correspondence with the home front,4 especially with Balthasar. Both siblings were encouraged by their father to keep in touch with each other, not only by writing letters in prose but also in verse. At least part of this correspondence has been preserved thanks to Balthasar, who between c. 4 September 1588 and 1 October 1592 composed a little album, an octavo of 45 leaves, collecting

1 His older brother Caspar (born 1572) died in Leiden in September 1583, when he was visiting his grandfather, Christopher Plantin, in his mother’s company.

2 He would remain there until August 1592; some weeks later he matriculated in Leuven. On Melchior’s studies in Douai, see D. Sacré, ‘Balthasar Moretus’ Conamina poetica (1588-1592)’, in Ex Officina Plantiniana Moretorum. Studies over het druk-kersgeslacht Moretus, ed. by M. de Schepper and F. de Nave (Antwerp: Antwerpsche Bibliophielen, 1996 [= De Gulden Passer, 74 (1996)]), pp. 59-109 (esp. p. 77, n. 72).

3 One of Balthasar’s classmates for at least two years was Peter Paul Rubens. In later years Balthasar did not hesitate to call upon this friendship and invite Rubens, who was quite famous as a painter by then, to draw title pages or illustrations for some of the most prestigious publications of the Officina Plantiniana. See Sacré, ‘Balthasar Moretus’ Conamina poetica’, p. 59, n. 2. Rubens collaborated, for instance, on the second edition of Justus Lipsius’s edition of Seneca, which came from the press in 1615 (he improved the title page, drew a new portrait of Lipsius, and made two full-page portraits of Seneca himself, a bust and the so-called ‘Seneca in his bath-tub’). About twenty years later he was asked to draw the title page of the beautiful edition of Lipsius’s Opera omnia, Balthasar’s final tribute to his former tutor. The illustrations are described in J.R. Judson and C. Van de Velde, Book Illustrations and Title-pages, Corpus Rubenianum Ludwig Burchard, 21 (London: Harvey Miller; Philadelphia: Heydon & Son, 1978), pp. 154-63, nos 30-31 (Seneca, edn 1615) and pp. 301-303, no. 73 (Lipsius, Opera omnia, 1637).

4 Several of Melchior’s letters from that period are preserved in Antwerp, MPM [Museum Plantin-Moretus], Arch. 89.


86 Jeanine De Landtsheer

53 letters and poems, all in Latin except for some Dutch verses in an epitaph Balthasar’s cousin Franciscus Raphelengius, Jr composed for their grandfather, Christopher Plantin (f. 16v, no. 22). Balthasar was the author of the greater part of these texts, but he had also copied letters and verses by Melchior, or by their cousins Franciscus and Justus Raphelengius. All the poems are written either in dactylic hexameters or in elegiac couplets. This booklet, now Arch. 202 in the Museum Plantin-Moretus, Antwerp, has been described in a rather general way by Maurits Sabbe5 and far more exhaustively by Dirk Sacré almost three quarters of a century later.6 A few months after Melchior’s departure on 25 November 1588, Saint Catherine’s day, the pupils at the Antwerp school performed a play about the martyrdom and death of this saint, who had become most popular in Catholic Countries since the Crusades.7 It is not clear whether Balthasar was only a spectator, or was allowed to play an active part, but sometime in the month of December he sent a lengthy description of the event in 61 dactylic hexameters to his brother in Douai:8

Schenkelii a pueris acta est comoedia nuperde Sancta Catharina9 festo illius ipso,supplicium quantum tulerit pro nomine Christiostendens. Quae autem sunt acta intellige quaedam.(6-9)

In this introduction, the name of the author was mentioned: Schenkelius. This Lambertus Thomas Schenkelius (’s-Hertogenbosch, 7 March 1547 - after 1624) had been rector of the municipal school in Mechelen, where he seems to have written several works intended for his pupils, as well as some verses in true classical tradition.10 In the course of 1588, probably

5 See M. Sabbe, ‘De humanistische Opleiding van Plantin’s Kleinkinderen’, in M. Sabbe, De Moretussen en hun Kring. Verspreide Opstellen (Antwerp: V. Resseler, 1928), pp. 5-26.

6 Viz. the aforementioned ‘Balthasar Moretus’ Conamina poetica’. Appendix 1, pp. 99-105, lists the texts with their incipit, the author, the metre, and the date. In Appendix 3 the ‘full text of Balthasar’s clumsy poem’ (to quote p. 68, n. 38) about the performance of Catharina is given.

7 Throughout the centuries girls in countries all over Europe were named after her in a number of variants. She is also among the saints most regularly represented in paintings from the late Middle Ages and the early Renaissance.

8 See Antwerp, MPM, Arch. 202, ff. 4r-5r.9 Metri causa, Catharina has twice a long a in its first syllable, as is also the case in

verse 12.10 Among them a Grammaticae latinae breves et necessariae praeceptiones, tribus

libellis distinctae (Antwerp: Christopher Plantin, 1581), reissued several times. Schen-


Schenckelius’s tragoedia(e) sanctae catharinae 87

during the summer holidays, he came to Antwerp, where he seemed to have earned his living as a private teacher, and by providing lodgings to students of the Jesuit College.11 That one’s pupils practise their Latin by performing short conversations, while at the same time learning some good manners or being encouraged to become pious and honest persons, had already been the intention of Erasmus’s earliest colloquies. In the course of the sixteenth century staging a play once or twice a year for a somewhat larger audience, with doting parents and grandparents in the first row, had become quite popular. Schenkelius obviously approved of such activities, for in his Tabulae publicae scholae Mechliniensis, a text published by Plantin in 1576, he had stated:

Singulis annis semel, ut minimum, aut bis commoedia vel tragoedia hone-sta nullaque obscenitatis labe contaminata, bene Latina, pura et emendata publice exhibetur: quae scilicet actoris formet linguam, spectantium capiat oculos, aures oblectet audientium et simul mores erudiat.12

balthasar moretus’s account of schenkelius’s tragoedia sanctae Catharinae

In his verses Balthasar gives a summary of the play (without explicitly discerning between the acts), adding time and again details about how it was staged. After an introduction (Cum prologus sua dixisset, v. 10), Jupiter appears on the scene with a group of other gods (presumably his colleagues from Mount Olympus). Outraged because Catharina holds him in contempt, he orders Mercurius to convey his rage to her:

kelius developed an apparently most successful mnemotechnical system, based on the experience of an Irish monk, Patrick Lenan; from 1593 onwards Schenkelius travelled around through the Netherlands, France and the Empire, to promote and sell his system. According to an official statement (Brussels, Royal Library, VH 8847) Philip Rubens was among his audience in Brussels in 1594. On him, see A. Roersch, in Biographie nationale, 44 vols (Brussels: Thiry - van Buggenhoudt, 1866-1986), 21, coll. 686-91, and E. Steenackers, ‘Lambert-Thomas Schenckels de Bois-le-Duc, recteur de la grande école à Malines 1574-1588’, Handelingen van den Mechelschen Kring voor Oudheidkunde, Letteren en Kunst, 36 (1931), 111-54.

11 There is no testimony that he taught at the ‘Papenschool’, so Balthasar (and perhaps also Melchior, but for a very short time) might have had some extra lessons from him, as is suggested by Sabbe, ‘De humanistische Opleiding van Plantin’s Kleinkinderen’, p. 11.

12 See F.G.C. Beterams, ‘Lambertus Thomas Schenckels en zijn Tabula Publicae Scholae Mechliniensis. Bijdrage tot de studie van het humanisme’, in Handelingen van den Mechelschen Kring voor Oudheidkunde, Letteren en Kunst, 52 (1948), 98-154, with the text on p. 154. It is also quoted by Sacré, ‘Balthasar Moretus’ Conamina poetica’, p. 67.



procedit ineptusJupiter ex scaena,13 quoque magna caterva deorumJupiter et queritur quod Catharina peralmaseipsum contemnat, flammato cordeque mandatMercurio furiam infernalem ut mittat ad illam.(10-14)

The young poet might have remembered his Vergil here, for magna caterva deorum echoes magna comitante caterva (said of Laocoon in Aeneid, II. 40); flammato corde is said of Juno in Aeneid, I. 50, and the mission of Mercurius to Catharina reminds us of his mission to Aeneas in Carthage in Aeneid, IV. 259-78.14 Next it is Catharina herself who sets the action in motion by approaching Emperor15 Maxentius and accusing him of idolatry. The emperor sends her to prison, where she is accompanied by her nurse. Thereupon the well-known confrontation with the philosophers is organised, by which Maxentius hopes to convince her. But the reverse occurs and the philosophers are converted to Christianity. In his frustra-tion the emperor condemns them to the stake.

Accedit virgo Regem, dein arguit illumidolatriae16, caderet cum victima vanisdivis. Iratus Rex hanc ad carceris antrumadduci iubet. Insequitur tunc nata puellaillam, quae nutrix erat huius virginis almae.Illa autem melius quam alii sua paene cavebat.Doctores quaerit Caesar Maxentius atroxqui possint illam ad falsos pervertere17 divos.Nonnullos reperit, sed convertuntur ab ipsaad Dominum Christum. Tunc Rex Maxentius illoscomburi iubet.(15-25)

At this point Balthasar gives some information about the mise-en-scène: to suggest a huge fire, a cloud of smoke was produced (‘in scaena tunc

13 The preposition seems somewhat out of place here; Balthasar means scaena as ‘coulisses’.

14 The Antwerp MPM still preserves Balthasar’s extensively annotated copy of Book IV of the Aeneid published by his grandfather in 1575.

15 For convenience’s sake Balthasar always uses rex in his hexameters.16 The correct form should be idololatriae, as emended by Sacré, ‘Balthasar Moretus’

Conamina poetica’, p. 108, n. 169.17 Balthasar probably consciously opted for pervertere instead of convertere to stress

the fact that it would be an abjuration of the true faith. See also vv. 31 and 54.



cernitur ignis fumus’ (25-26)), although he does not mention how this effect was achieved. In the next scene the audience was reminded of how an angry Maxentius had Catharina flogged to break her persistence, and how the scourges neither hurt her nor left any traces. Balthasar clearly had some difficulty in adequately putting his ideas in a hexameter and ends up with a rather obscure phrasing, caused by his somewhat clumsy combining of fact and staging:

Virgo flagellatur tortoribus alma,horrida sed simulant non se donare flagellatortores, sed carnem attrectant molliter eius.(26-28)

The next two verses are rather strange too; I interpret them in the following way: Christ, still showing the horrible traces of his own suffering (ater18) and accompanied by Peter and Paul, two other martyrs who had been imprisoned, appeared to the virgin in her cell (eam visum vadit – literally, ‘went to see her’):

Christus eam visum vadit factus qui erat atercum Petroque‚ Pauloque, esset cum in carcere virgo.(29-30)

When Catharina, in a third confrontation, remains constant in her faith and refuses to worship the ancient gods, the emperor condemns her to be broken on the wheel. An angel, however, answers her prayers and breaks the wheel with his sword.

An sese vellet pervertere virgo rogatur;crudeli Regi frustra mortemque minantiilla negat constans Christumque relinquere nolit.Adfertur rota, qua ipsam deiurare studerent.Virginis at precibus sacris venit Angelus eccequi rumpit gladio.(31-36)

At this point, Schenkelius himself appeared on the scene, roaring Stupescite! This is followed by the scene in which the queen chides her husband for his injustice and his cruel punishment, confessing that she too has become a Christian.

18 Ater is used in a similar way to describe Hector in Vergil, Aeneid, II. 272.



Praeceptor protinus ipseSchenckelius, clara tunc voce ‘Stupescite’ clamat.Hic Regem obiurgat coniunx, Regina maritum,immeritam cupiat quod dira morte perirevirginem et ingenue se Christiolam19 esse fatetur.(36-40)

I am inclined to follow here the interpretation of Sabbe – who first mentioned Balthasar’s poem – that Schenkelius himself played the part of the angel, rather than the interpretation given by Sacré, who has Schenke-lius’s interruption continued until fatetur (v. 40). According to Sacré the author of the play intruded and addressed himself to the audience:

[…] Schenkelius had publicly drawn attention to the paradoxical nature of the action on stage, stressing how strange it was that the emperor Maxentius’ wife complained about the tortures Catharina was put to, that she blamed her husband for killing an innocent woman, and that she had been converted to Christian faith by the young woman herself.20

I rather am inclined to believe that ‘Stupescite!’ should be understood as a command by the angel to the executioners who were manipulating the wheel, which then came to a stand-still and was broken.21 It is also a more plausible solution for the following verses: according to Sacré’s interpretation the empress can only bow her head and lose it, whereas if Schenkelius’s intervention is integrated into the play and limited to his Stupescite!, her role becomes more balanced and stronger by having her personally speaking to her husband.

When the Emperor in a fit of rage condemns his wife to be beheaded, Balthasar again offers some information about the staging (sed quo pacto sit, percipe, factum, v. 42): it is possible that some kind of cabbage (or even a pumpkin), which was probably cut with eyes, nose and mouth, was put on the actor’s head.22 Some walkers-on took positions between the victim and the audience, and as soon as the headsman had lowered his sword, the ‘body’ was immediately covered with a coat or a cloth.

19 Sacré, ‘Balthasar Moretus’ Conamina poetica’, p. 68 and 109, completes to Chris-ticola (literally: ‘worshipper of Christ’) which is definitely the commonly used word, unless Balthasar was making an effort to coin a neologism, a (pitying) diminutive (‘a poor Christian woman’) (p. 69).

20 Quoting ‘Balthasar Moretus’ Conamina poetica’, p. 68.21 In classical Latin stupescere is only attested in the sense of ‘to become astonished’,

but it could be considered here a synonym of stupere or torpere. 22 I am grateful to Gilbert Tournoy for this interpretation.



Imperat uxoris caput a cervice reciditunc Caesar; sed quo pacto sit, percipe, factum.Imponunt caulem capiti; circum ordine quodamstant pueri. Tortor caulem tunc deiicit ense;hoc facto, pueri super illam pallia iactant.(41-45)

In the next scene an anonymous nobilis summus dux stands up for his creed by confirming that he too had been converted to Christianity by Catharina, whereupon Maxentius has him decapitated also (on this occasion Balthasar gives no further details about the staging).

Nobilis hic summus dux Regem obiurgat eandemob causam audacter se Christigenamque fatetur.Imperio Regis tunc decollatur et ipse –hos ambos autem virgo converterat antead Salvatorem veramque fidemque sacratam.(46-50)

In the final act Maxentius decides to try a different approach by using more flattering and charming words. When this change of policy has no avail, he orders the executioner to sever Catharina’s head as well.

Tunc atrox blanditur ei rex virgini amice,Ut si non duris, verbis moveatur amicis.Nullius sed blanditiis ea virgo movetur,nec sese cupit ad vanos pervertere divos.Imperat hic decollari Maxentius illam.(51-55)

The final verses concerning the play (when an angel and a walker-on attempt to lift Catharina’s body) might be a reference to the commonly accepted account that the body of the martyr was carried off by angels to the desert of Sinai.

Angelus et quidam puer adsunt protinus, ecce,qui cupiunt auferre illam, sed corporis illisnon vis talis erat. Quare illos adiuvat unuslictor, virginis et facies tunc cernitur almae.(56-59)



The tragoedia sanctae Catharinae preserved in mechelen

Unfortunately, Balthasar’s summary is all that remains of this Antwerp play. Yet in the Archive of the archiepiscopate of Mechelen – the city where Schenkelius lived for about twelve years as teacher and headmaster – the draft of an anonymous Tragoedia Catharinae is preserved among a plethora of documents from the chapter of St Rombout’s cathedral. It is obviously written in a late-sixteenth-century hand, and from time to time the question has risen whether this play might be the one Balthasar described in his poem.

Before examining the plot of this play and comparing it to the one performed in Antwerp, let me give you some particularities of the manu-script play. It contains 27 unnumbered leaves, written on both sides mostly in a clear hand, with the occasional word or verse erased. The last scene of the first act was added at a later stage, with (in its appropriate place) the remark vide folio primo referring the reader to pages 1-2, where indeed this scene is to be found even before the prologus. Only in the second act is it hard to reconstruct parts of the text, since a great number of verses or half verses have been substituted or scribbled between the lines or in the margins. The play totals around 1340 verses; apart from the prologus and the epilogus of eight verses each, it is divided into three acts of seven, ten and five scenes respectively, the second act being almost as long as Acts I and III together. Immediately before the epilogus the author crossed out ten verses bearing the title Angeli quaerunt corpus cantando et in montem Sinai auferunt. Except for a few passages acted by a choir and written in Latin lyric metres, the play is entirely composed in the common iambic trimeter. The third scene of Act II merely consists of a musical intermezzo (Proinde canitur triumphus musice) to give the audience some breathing space. Above each scene a survey of the main points of the action are given, sometimes followed by an enumeration of the characters occurring in it.

Balthasar’s information about the prologus limits itself to the very fact that it had been recited. In the Mechelen manuscript the eight introduc-tory verses inform us that the play is the work of a young poet, or at least one who still has to make his name (novus poeta, v. 2); it was written to be performed by students (per iuventutem novam, v. 1) for the benefit of the audience (vos plurimum salvere, spectantes, iuvet, v. 5). After introducing the modestia topos (Rogans benignis auribus verba excipi; | Siqua bona sint tribui Deo; mala omnia | sibi, vv. 5-7), the inexperience of the poet is stressed again (quia poeta est novus, v. 8).



A comparison of both plays indicates that on several occasions the action of the manuscript play is interrupted by a monologue of a personi-fied virtue commenting on the events. The fact that none of these inter-mezzi are mentioned by Balthasar might suggest that they were not included in the Antwerp play. Yet there are other more obvious and decisive differences between both versions, as becomes clear from the start. Balthasar’s play opens with a kind of council of the gods on Mount Olympus; it is Jupiter who decides to revenge himself on Catharina because of her contempt for the ancient pagan gods. In the Mechelen play the fatal confrontation between the virgin and the ruler, who is called Maximinus here, is initiated by Catharina, who addresses herself to the emperor and accuses him of idolatry. The latter is vexed and orders her to be sent to prison, where she is followed by her former nurse. The decree is applauded by an exultant Idololatria (here the word occurs in its correct form) and by the gentiles in Scenes 2 and 3. In the next scene Catharina makes her appearance: she regrets Maximinus’s decree and decides to go to him and argue with him, a confrontation described in Scene 5. In the next scene Maximinus wants to take up the discussion once again. To no avail, for he is still unable to convince Catharina, who provokes him to have a thorough discussion about the ancient gods. The emperor is wary of her intelligence and urges his philosophers to engage in the dispute. Act I ends with a dialogue between Fortitudo and Sapientia, two char-acters who return separately later on; they scorn the emperor promising their support to Catharina. There is no question of arrest yet.

The first part of Act II in the Mechelen play agrees with the Antwerp one: the philosophers are defeated in their confrontation with Catharina and are converted to Christianity. At the emperor’s command they are consigned to the stake. Only in the fourth scene a new aspect is intro-duced: a lictor announces that once the fire had consumed itself, the philosophers’ bodies were found intact. Hereupon Maximinus, in Scene 5, makes another attempt to win Catharina over to his point of view by using the most persuasive words. Upon her refusal she is condemned to be scourged and starved to death. Death by starvation is not a component in Balthasar’s account, nor is the fact that the sovereign used his fine and mellifluous words at this point.

Next comes the episode with the empress, but where Balthasar’s play has her immediately addressing her husband and soon admitting to be a Christian herself, the course of events in the Mechelen version is different. Here she expresses her wish to visit Catharina and is promised access to her by Porphirio, the prefect of the army. Meanwhile (Scene 7), the figure



of Fortitudo appears to encourage and comfort Catharina in prison, while the latter thanks God for his blessings and benefits. When the empress visits her in Scene 8, she is converted together with a few servants in her retinue, as is Porphirio with some of his men. In Scene 9 we recognise the account as given by Balthasar: when the emperor becomes aware that Catharina is still alive he tries once more to persuade her. When he fails he orders that she be tortured on the wheel. In the final scene of Act II a furious Fortitudo delivers a monologue scolding Maximinus for his stub-bornness.

Act III opens when the wheel is broken after a short prayer by Catharina. In the second scene the empress admonishes her spouse to forsake his punishment of the virgin and openly admits to being a Chris-tian herself. Maximinus, incensed, gives orders for the tearing off of her breasts (omitted in Baltahasar’s account) followed by her decapitation. In the following scene Porphirio (to be identified with Balthasar’s nobilis summus dux) steps forward declaring that he and his soldiers have been converted as well. The action is interrupted by a monologue in which Sapientia fulminates about Maximinus’s tyrannical behaviour. In the final scene Catharina again rejects the gentle exhortations of the emperor and is beheaded, with milk flowing from her neck instead of blood.

Conclusion

This survey shows that the plays differ on several decisive points, so that one can readily accept that the play preserved in Mechelen was definitely not the one performed in Antwerp. However, this does not rule out that Schenkelius could have been its author as well: as Saint Catherine was among the most popular of saints, he might have developed the same subject more than once, depending on the number, the age, or the level of his students. Hence as long as no autograph document of Schenkelius’s turns up to match the hand of the manuscript, the question of the author-ship remains open.

E-mail: [email protected]


Date post:	19-Oct-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	hakien
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

SUPPLEMENTA HUMANISTICA LOVANIENSIA XXXII · — Joaquín Pascual Barea, School Progymnasmata and...

Documents