Johannes Cochlaeus` Heimlich gsprech Vonn der Tragedia

A Polemical Theatre Review on Stage:
Johannes Cochlaeus’ Heimlich gsprech Vonn der Tragedia Johannis Hussen
In 1997, Hans-Gert Roloff tried to draw the attention of German theatre history to what he
calls the first German “Literatur-Komödie”,1 i.e. the first German comedy about another piece
of literature: Johannes Cochlaeus’ Heimlich gsprech Vonn der Tragedia Johannis Hussen,
published in Freiburg and Mainz, 1538 and 1539 respectively.2 It is a comedy about Johannes
Agricola’s Tragedia Johannis Huss, published anonymously in Wittenberg in 1537, and performed in Torgau, 1538,3 and most probably also earlier.4 – German research has not followed
Roloff’s appeal, possibly also because the new edition of the Heimlich gsprech, which he had
promised to bring out by 1998,5 an edition that contrasted the comedy with its text of reference, has not yet appeared. Still, Cochlaeus’ text is more than worth regarding. While older
research saw it as a rather frivolous, but little respectable attack against the protagonists of
Lutheran reform,6 theological research on Cochlaeus, mentions the Heimlich gsprech as just
another anti-Lutheran satire, using the popular genre of drama.7 Similarly, Philip Haberkern
has recently analyzed it as an anti-Lutheran response to Johannes Agricola’s Tragedia Johannis Huss, drawing on the medieval genre of Shrovetide plays.8 He, however, does not pay
1
Hans-Gert Roloff: “Quelle – Text – Edition. Johann Agricolas Tragedia Johannis Huss”, editio 11 (1998),
pp. 78–85 (p. 78).
2
None of the editions mentions the place or publisher. I follow the information provided in VD16. Holstein
localizes the editions in: Mainz, 1538 and Dresden, 1539: Johannes Cochlaeus: Ein heimlich gsprech Vonn
der Tragedia Johannis Hussen, tzwischen D. Mart. Luther vnd seinen guoten freunden, Auff die weiß einer
Comedien, ed. by Hugo Holstein, Halle 1900, p. vii. See also: Roloff 1998, p. 79; Philipp Haberkern: “‘After
Me There Will Come Braver Men’: Jan Hus and Reformation Polemics in the 1530s”, German History 27
(2009), pp. 177–195 (p. 190).
3
Gustav Kawerau: Johann Agricola von Eisleben. Ein Beitrag zur Reformationsgeschichte, Berlin 1881,
p. 121, quotes Burkhardt, who mentions a baccalaureus at the school of Torgau, Michael Schultes, who in
February, 1538 calls himself the speaker of prologue and epilogue in the forthcoming performance of the
spiel vom Johan Hus. Kawerau assumes that the performance took place at the elector’s court.
4
Earlier performances are mentioned in the letter of dedication printed with the tragedy: [Johannes Agricola:]
Tragedia Johannis Huss / welche auff dem Vnchristlichen Concilio zu Costnitz gehalten / allen Christen nuetzlich vnd trœstlich zu lesen. Wittenberg: Georg Rhau 1537, A2v, online access: urn:nbn:de:gbv:3:1-124712
(last access: 20/05/2013); second edition: [Johannes Agricola:] Tragedia Johannis Huß welche auff dem Unchristlichen Concilio zu Costnitz gehalten allen Christen nützlich und tröstlich zu lesen. s.l. [1538], A2v,
online access: urn:nbn:de:bvb:12-bsb00033300-0 (last access: 20/05/2013). Wolfgang F. Michael suggests
that it might have been performed in 1535. Wolfgang F. Michael: Das deutsche Drama der Reformationszeit,
Bern 1984, p. 80.
5 Kawerau 1881, p. 84, note 6. Editions used: Holstein 1900 and (for all quotations) the second edition of the
original print: Johannes Vogelgesang [Cochlaeus]: Ein heimlich Gesprech von der Tragedia Johannis Hussen / zwischen D. Mart. Luther vnd seinen guten Freunden/ Auff die weisz eyner Comedien. s.l. [Mainz: Ivo
Schöffer] 1539, online access: http://www.mdz-nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn=urn:nbn:de:bvb:12bsb10202953-4 (last access: 19/05/2013).
6
Cf. Hugo Holstein: Die Reformation im Spiegelbilde der dramatischen Litteratur des sechzehnten Jahrhunderts, Berlin 1886, p. 221; Kawerau 1881, p. 125.
7
Monique Samuel Scheyder: Johannes Cochlaeus. Humaniste et adversaire de Luther, Nancy 1993, p. 562;
Remigius Bäumer: Johannes Cochlaeus (1479–1552). Leben und Werk im Dienst der katholischen Reform,
Münster 1980, p. 113.
8
Haberkern, p. 190.
1
much attention to the theatre critique included in the comedy. Literary critique, however, is
essential to the anti-Lutheran polemic (and the comical appeal) of the Heimlich gsprech, as I
will demonstrate in the following paper.
The Text of Reference: Agricola’ Tragedia Johannis Huss
The content of Agricola’s Tragedia is the result of Luther’s discovery of Jan Hus as an icon of
the evangelical truth that is oppressed by the institution of the Church. In the course of the
Leipzig Disputation in 1519, Johannes Eck had accused Luther of adhering to the Bohemian
heretics.9 Thereafter Luther read Hus’ De ecclesia and was fascinated by the similarities between his and Hus’ thoughts. He wrote to Spalatin: “sumus omnes Hussitae ignorantes”.10
From now on, Luther in increasing frequency referred to Hus as the first martyr of Antichrist
(i.e. the papal Church) and as a leading figure of reform.11 In 1531, he for the first time mentions Hus’ prophecy that, 100 years after the burning of the goose (Hus), a swan (i.e. Luther)
will sing a beautiful song to those who couldn’t bear hearing the goose.12 Luther supported
the edition of Hus’ works: the 1520 print of De ecclesia,13 and Otto Brunfels’ three volumes
of collected works of Hus’ (Straßburg, 1524/25).14 Supported by Johannes Agricola, Luther
himself edited a selection of four letters which “the holy martyr” Hus had written during his
imprisonment in Constance (Latin 1535/German 1536).15 Thereby the reformer calls Hus a
martyr and saint.
Already in 1529, Johannes Agricola had published the History und Warhafftige Geschicht,
Wie das Heilig Euangelion mit Johann Hussen, im Concilio zu Costnitz, durch den Bapst und
seinen Anhang, offentlicht verdampt ist [...].16 It is Peter Mładoniowitz’ eye-witness report of
the process against Jan Hus,17 translated into German by Nicolaus Krumpach. Luther welcomed the text and incorporated the last part of the History in his edition of Hus’ letters. Agricola’s Tragedia re-uses the History again and dramatizes it.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Cf. Hans-Gert Roloff: “Die Funktion von Hus-Texten in der Reformations-Polemik“, in Kleine Schriften zur
Literatur des 16. Jahrhunderts. FS Hans-Gert Roloff, ed. by Christiane Caemmerer et al., Amsterdam/New
York 2003 (Chloe 35), pp. 227–264 (pp. 236–241); Thomas Krzenck: Johannes Hus. Theologe, Kirchenreformer, Märtyrer, Zürich 2011, p. 186; Gerhard Wehr: Jan Hus. Ketzer und Reformator, Gütersloh 1979,
p. 86.
Martin Luther: Letter to Spalatin, Wittenberg, c. 14th February, 1520, in D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische
Gesamtausgabe. Briefwechsel, ed. by Joachim K. F. Knaake, vol. 2, Weimar 1931, § 254, pp. 40–42 (p. 42).
Cf. Roloff 2003, pp. 241–243.
Cf. Roloff 2003, pp. 244–251; Heiko A. Oberman: „Hus und Luther. Der Antichrist und die zweite reformatorische Entdeckung“, in Jan Hus. Ziwschen Zeiten, Völkern, Konfessionen, ed. by Ferdinand Seibt, München
1997, pp. 319–346 (p. 338).
Cf. Roloff 2003, p. 250; Peter Hilsch: Johannes Hus (um 1370–1415). Prediger Gottes und Ketzer, Regensburg 1999, p. 288.
Cf. Roloff 2003, pp. 252–253; Krzenck 2011, p. 187.
Roloff 2003, pp. 255–260.
Die Gefangenschaftsbriefe des Johann Hus. Nach dem Originaldruck vom Jahr 1536, ed. by Constantin von
Küngelen, Leipzig 1902, A2r. Cf. Achim Thomas Hack: „Heiligenkult im frühen Hussitismus. Eine Skizze“,
in Patriotische Heilige. Beiträge zur Konstruktion religiöser und politischer Identitäten in der Vormoderne,
ed. by Dieter R. Bauer et al., Stuttgart 2007, pp. 123–156 (p. 154); Roloff 2003, pp. 260–262.
Online access: urn:nbn:de:bvb:12-bsb00027859-9 (last access: 19/05/2013).
Hus in Konstanz, Der Bericht des Peter von Mladoniowitz, trans. into German by Josef Bujnoch. Graz 1963.
2
The tragedy is written in rhymed couplets – just as it was usual for late medieval and early
modern vernacular plays. It is structured in five acts, with an exposition in the first, a climax
in the fourth and a catastrophe in the last act. The drama observes the unities of time (we at
least do not realize that the action takes more than one day), of action and of space. According
to the stage directions, everything takes place in one room, which is called palacium. Here the
members of the council take their seats, to here they return when they have been away. It is a
room which is provided with an organ (D8v), a pulpit and an altar (D8v), i.e. it is most probable that the play was thought to be performed in a church. – This, however, is not quite usual
for protestant dramas. In his Fastenpostille, 1525, interpreting Eph 5,4, Luther had argued that
according to Saint Paul, all narrenteydinge, i.e. amusing stories, should be banned from the
Christian congregation, and that it especially conflicted with Christian belief to narrate or perform any entertainments in church: und sonderlich ist das unchristlich, wo man solche narrenteyding treybt ynn der gemeine, da man zu samen kompt Gotts wort zu hören und die
schrifft zu lernen.18 He among other traditions mentions religious plays as examples for these
foolish entertainments:
Und da man zu Weynachten das kindling gewigt und mit reymen affenspiel getrieben
hat, gleich wie auch mit den heyligen Dreykönigen, mit der passio Christi, mit Dorothea und andern heyligen geschehen ist.19
[…] and when at Christmas the child was rocked in the cradle and foolish plays were
performed in rhymes. The three Magi were treated in a similar way, and the Passion of
Christ, Saint Dorothea and the other saints.
In other contexts, Luther makes clear that he is not at all against religious drama, as long as it
is clearly separate from the service, follows pedagogical purposes and does not ridicule
Christ. He therefore rejects Passion plays that present Christ being mocked.20
Agricola stages the condemnation of Jan Hus in a church – certainly not within a liturgical
frame, but he plays with the associations that are bound to the room. During the first four acts
the audience observes the numerous dignitaries of the Church and the Empire who are present
on stage in an overwhelming predominance and who play an unfair game with the single representative of honesty. Hus clearly enjoys the audience’s sympathy, but the spectators are still
little involved in the play. A first step to involve the audience is indicated between act two
and three, when the organ is played between the acts, replacing the choir of a classical tragedy. The organ might remind the audience of its role as an assembled community, and it is
given such a role when it is said that from now on the trial will be public, an offentlich verhör
18
19
20
Martin Luther: Fastenpostille 1525: Am dritten Sontage ynn der fasten Epistel. Zun Ephesern am 5, in D.
Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe, ed. by Joachim K. F. Knaake (WA), vol. 17/II, Weimar
1927, pp. 205–212 (p. 208). Cf. Bernd Neumann: Geistliches Schauspiel im Zeugnis der Zeit. Zur Aufführung
mittelalterlicher religiöser Dramen im deutschen Sprachgebiet, München/Zürich 1987, vol. 2 (MTU 85),
p. 900, § 3738.
Luther: Fastenpostille, pp. 208–209.
Cf. Neumann, pp. 900–902; Thomas I. Bacon: Martin Luther and the Drama, Amsterdam 1976 (Amsterdamer Publikationen zur Sprache und Literatur 25), pp. 42–44; Haberkern 2009, p. 188.
3
(C5r). At the beginning of act five, after another piece of organ music, the bishop of Lodi
climbs the pulpit and recites a sermon against heretics (D8v). It is a literal (prose) quotation of
the original sermon which is reported in the History. The stage directions allow it to be shortened for the performance: So er aber zu lang were / so mag man ein kurtz Argument daraus
begreiffen (D8v). By the change from verse to prose, the change of genre is clearly indicated.
The sermon spoken from the pulpit in a church room seems to interrupt the dramatic performance. It transforms the audience into a congregation listening to a priest, whose words, however, are most threatening to the intended Lutheran audience. The bishop’s sharp words culminate in a praise of God, who destroys all the enemies and challengers of the holy Christian
faith: das du die feinde des heilgen Christlichen glaubens vnd seine anfechter zerstörest (E6v).
At this moment the latest, the audience is given a role in the play. As a group of challengers of
what the bishop calls the “holy Christian faith”, the spectators are turned into a group of Hus’
supporters. The church room and the temporary transgression of the borders between the play
and the service may support this effect.
In the following scenes of the fifth act, Agricola closely parallels the trial against Hus with
the trial against Jesus. Hus compares himself with Christ when he is being mocked, given the
alba or crowned with the heretics’ hat (comparable to the crown of thorns, F4v), he speaks
some of Christ’s last words, while the members of the Council turn into mirror images of the
Jews condemning the Lord.21 The scenes clearly follow the example of medieval Passion
plays or at least illustrations of the Passion. Haberkern describes the scenes as “Merkbilder”,
as static tableaux on stage that fix the message in the spectators’ minds.22 The scenic quotation of medieval Passion plays makes Hus identifiable as the ideal follower of Christ, while
the Roman Church is depicted as the church of the Antichrist.
The death of Hus is not presented in the drama. The fifth act of the Tragedia ends with the
stage direction Nach solchem wird er hinaus gefurt vnd verbrant (F5v), “hereafter they lead
him outside and burn him”. If Hus’ burning were staged, it would have required the audience
to leave the room and follow the actors to the outside, where a theatrical trick would have
been necessary to stage the burning – a trick that could have revealed the fictive character of
the presentation. This, however, is something that Agricola tries to avoid. He rather maintains
his audience resembled in the church room, where it has already been reminded of its role as a
congregation. He uses the classical technique of backstage-events. Soon after Hus has been
led out, a prophet appears and announces that 100 years after the burning of the goose, a swan
will come, the words of which those who falsely killed the goose will be forced to hear.
21
22
Cf. Cora Dietl: „Neue Blicke auf die Kontinuitäten zwischen mittelalterlichem Spiel und frühneuzeitlichem
Drama: Johannes Agricolas Tragedia Johannis Huss als ‚protestantisches Passionsspiel‘“, in Das Geistliche
Spiel des Spätmittelalters und der Frühen Neuzeit, ed. by Wernfried Hofmeister/Cora Dietl, Wiesbaden
(should appear 2015); Cora Dietl: „Viele Stiere umgeben mich … Die Wahrnehmung anderer Religionsgemeinschaften als Gewaltgemeinschaften im Märtyrerspiel der Frühen Neuzeit“, in Religion und Gewaltgemeinschaften, ed. by Hans-Jürgen Bömelburg, Göttingen (should appear 2015).
Haberkern 2009, p. 189.
4
Thereby, the audience is quickly transferred into its present situation and is reminded of its
role as supporters of the Lutheran faith. Finally, the epilogue warns the audience that it should
follow Hus’ example of loyal faith, and reminds it of the historical fact that God has always
destroyed his enemies. When these words conclude the drama, there is no doubt any more that
the audience has been urged to take its role as a Lutheran protestant congregation.
The Tragedia can well be read as a book, but it is very effective when it is staged, especially because of its use of the stage, which differs from the Humanist Terence stage and takes
up features of medieval theatre: the performance in the church, the involvement of the audience, and certain Merkbilder that are taken from Passion plays. All these deviations from
Humanist drama support the message of the Tragedia. The variation of the classical choir’s
appearance, too, does not seem to be incidental, but rather serve a significant function: While
the lack of a choir after the first two acts might not be very remarkable, the replacement of a
choir by an organ play after act three reminds the audience of the room in which they are in
and of the role that it usually takes in this room. After the last act, the choir song is replaced
by the prophecy of the chant of the swan, which will have the last word. Thus the “choir”
serves at linking the action on stage to the present time and situation of the performance,
when Luther had to expect to be summoned to the Council of Mantua.
Cochlaeus’ Answer
Since his first encounter with Luther at the Imperial Diet in Worms, 1521, the Franconian
theologian Johannes Cochlaeus was a severe opponent of Luther’s and published a series of
polemical texts against Luther, including his very critical Historia de actis et scriptis Lutheri.23 Cochlaeus saw a very close connection between the Lutheran reform and the revival
of the memory of Jan Hus. As a reaction to Luther’s publication of Hus’ letters and Agricola’s
publication of the History und Warhafftige Geschicht, he wrote his Historia Hussitarum, using the autobiography of Charles IV., the chronicle of the Council of Constance by Ulrich von
Richental,24 and other sources that supported him in verifying the righteousness of the Council’s decision. The Historia Hussitarum was ready to be published in 1534, but the author
could not collect the funding to have it printed before 1549. He, however, published parts of it
in 1537, including a passage in which he tries to prove that Luther had forged Hus’ letters.25
Johannes Agricola’s Tragedia Johannis Hus came out in 1537, just about at the time when
Agricola came into conflict with Luther, caused by his antinomian tendencies.26 Cochlaeus
mentions the tragedy as early as 7th October, 1537.27 When on 6th January, 1538 the conflict
23
24
25
26
27
Cf. Bäumer 1980, pp. 22–33, 108–112.
The question whether Ulrich’s chronicle could be called objective is discussed by Helmut G. Walther: “Magister Jan Hus, 1370–1415. Sein Weg nach Konstanz”, in Johannes Hus in Konstanz, ed. by Michael Müller,
Konstanz 1985, pp. 27–73 (p. 69).
Bäumer 1980, pp. 112–113.
Cf. Agricola’s letter to Luther, 02/09/1537, WA Briefwechsel, vol. 8 (1938), no. 3175, pp. 121.
Martin Spahn: Johannes Cochläus. Ein Lebensbild aus der Zeit der Kirchenspaltung, Nieuwkoop 1964,
p. 265, note 1.
5
between Agricola and Luther escalated as much as to make Luther renounce Agricola’s admission to teach and preach,28 Cochlaeus’ chance had come. He quickly reacted by publishing
Ein heimlich gsprech Vonn der Tragedia Johannis Hussen, tzwischen D. Mart. Luther vnd
seinen guoten freunden. It is not only very critical against Luther and Agricola, but also
against Spalatin, Jonas (who became a very sharp opponent of Cochlaeus’),29 and Melanchthon. The latter, however, is treated differently. Cochlaeus had originally paid high respect to
Melanchthon, until during the Imperial Diet in Augsburg, 1530, he had realized that Melanchthon represented a theology mostly identical Luther’s.30 Thus, from 1531 on Melanchthon
was a new target of Cochlaeus’ polemics.31
The comedy, of which we do not know whether Cochlaeus staged it during his time as canonicus in Meißen, was published under the pseudonym “Johannes Vogelgesang” or “Avicinius”. In the printed version, it is accompanied by a letter, written in Przibram (a mining town
close to Pilzen), 8th January, 1538. It is addressed to Magister Johannes Horatius in Budweis
by “Procopius Spalicius von Piltzu”,32 which is most probably just another pseudonym for
Cochlaeus himself, i.e. the letter seems to be fictional:33 The date of the letter – just two days
after Luther’s letter revoking Agricola’s right of preaching and long before his reconciliation
in December 153834 – might as well be fictional. Procopius Spalacius claims that he has received two play texts that were sent to him from Wittenberg, one of them is anonymous and
printed, the other one is a manuscript carrying the name of Johann Vogelgesang, which did
not get the permission to be printed in Wittenberg. The latter play he esteems the better one,
since it is more likely to be true, and it is easier to perform than the Tragedia.
Es ist mir darneben geschrieben / das offt gedachte Tragedie sey zů Torgaw offentlich
gespielt worden. Welches mir doch nicht wol gleublich ist / weil sich der Autor nicht
darzu bekennet / vnd so viel grosser herren […] darinn angetast / vnd wider die wahreit der rechten Historien vnd offentlicher Acten / bößlich in solchem geticht vnd spiel
verunglimpfft werden. […] Es hatt auch Martin Luther selbs kein gefallen dran / wie
das vngedruckt büchlein außweiset. (A2v)
There is a note written next to it, that the above mentioned tragedy was publicly performed in Torgau. I cannot believe this, since the author does not reveal his name, and
since in such a fictive play so many noble men […] are badly treated and badly vitu28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Luther’s letter to Agricola, 06/01/1538, WA Briefwechsel, vol. 8 (1938), no. 3208, p. 186.
Adolf Herte: Das katholische Lutherbild im Bann der Lutherkommentare des Cochläus, Münster 1943,
vol. 1, pp. 2–3.
Bäumer 1980, pp. 34–35.
Cf. Spahn 1964, pp. 168–173, 186–191.
Emil Weller: Lexikon Pseudonymorum, reprint of the second edition Regensburg 1886, Hildesheim 1977,
p. 533, identifies Procopius Spalacius as Simon Lemnius, possibly because research before 1900 thought that
Vogelgesang was identical with Simon Lemnius. This is because in 1538 Lemnius published a very polemical anti-Lutheran comedy Monachopornomachia, which uses the same a-historical names for the reformers’
wives as the Heimlich gsprech. In 1900, however, Holstein discovered a letter written by Cochlaeus, indicating that Lemnius used his Heimlich gesprech as a source of inspiration. Holstein 1900, p. vi.
Cf. Holstein 1886, p. 221.
WA Briefwechsel, vol. 8 (1938), no. 3284, pp. 342–343.
6
perated, against the truth that can be read in the proper chronicle and in the published
acts. […] Martin Luther himself did not like it, as the unprinted booklet documents.
The argumentation is quite simple: The drama cannot be staged, because it isn’t true, and because it reproaches noble and important persons and is disliked by everybody. In addition, the
author who doesn’t dare mentioning his name certainly wouldn’t stage it publicly. The rest of
the letter plays on the differences between Bohemia and the Empire, caused by the Hussite
wars. It presents a Bohemian perspective, but certainly aims at a German audience, who
should be reminded of the painful experience of the wars.
When publishing this fictive letter, Cochlaeus most probably had already started the negotiations for his move from Meißen to Breslau. Here, the Hussite wars had left a far deeper
impression than in Saxony. In any case, the intended reading audience of the letter was an
audience in different regions of the Empire. Cochlaeus asks it to consider whether there is any
reason why Germans should be sympathetic to Hus.
It is however remarkable that the remembrance of the Hussite wars plays a far minor role
than the question whether the Tragedia was performed or not. Obviously Cochlaeus was
aware of the fact that the performative aspect of the tragedy is very strong and effective, and
this is why he had to disprove it, while at the same time he claims it easy to stage his own
comedy.
Without any problems the Heimlich gsprech can be performed on a Humanist Terence
stage. All scenes either take place in the street or in the entrance of a house. In act 1–3 the
play depicts the fictive reactions of Luther and his friends to Agricola’s Tragedia. Melanchthon is deeply dissatisfied by its poetic and dramatic form, while Luther, who had not read the
text at the beginning, when reading it and the History, which in the comedy he doesn’t know
either, increasingly gets furious about the text that openly states the differences between Hus
and Luther and thus ridicules Luther when calling Hus a saint. Finally, he revokes Agricola’s
right to preach in Wittenberg. Act four and five depict the reactions of the reformers’ wives.
When she learns about her husband’s misery and realises her own danger to plunge into poverty, Agricola’s wife Martha (supported by her beautiful daughter Ortha) ask the other reformers’ wives for help, until finally Gutha (Spalatin’s wife) can persuade “Kätha” to make
her husband Luther forgive Agricola. This second part of the play is full of vivid polemic,
illustrating the most dubious marriage life of the reformers. Melanchthon’s wife is the only
one who claims to have a loving partnership to her husband, as opposed to “the priests’
whores” (II,2, E1r). The peak of satire is reached in the dialogue between Kätha (Katharina of
Bora) and Luther, when Kätha uses the Bible to prove that Luther’s body has to obey her, and
when she uses extreme blasphemy to butter him up.
Compared to the last part of the comedy, the anti-protestant agitation in the first part of the
Heimlich gsprech is rather moderate. This is why it has often been neglected by historical
7
research. In the following, I will mostly focus on the poetical critique in the first part of the
play.
The two scenes of act 1 off very similarly, with the reformers asking each other about the
newly published tragedy on Jan Hus. There is no indication of any performance, rather to the
contrary, they all have read it as a printed text – except for Luther, who has got the book, but
didn’t care to read it. Initially, two points of critique are brought forward against the tragedy:
its anonymity and its poetical form. Only in the later course of the discussion, when in the
second act Luther finally has read the Tragedia, Luther criticises its theological message –
which had not bothered Melanchthon, Spalatin and Jonas. The discussion culminates when
Luther finally also reads the History from which the critical passages of the Tragedia are taken and is furious about the text that clearly shows that in many respects Hus with full conviction defended positions of the Roman church, which were opposite to Luther’s understanding
of the sacraments and of the institution of the pope. Luther has to realise that Jan Hus (the
way he is presented in the Tragedia and the History) is far from being his forerunner and that
the Lutherans have no right in venerating him a saint.
It is Melanchthon’s role to criticise the poetic quality of the tragedy. At first sight, his commentary to the play seems to be distinct from the theological discourse. Agricola, he claims,
has no understanding of a proper tragedy. His tragedy is not comparable with those written by
Sophocles, Euripides or Seneca (A3v). Therefore he concludes:
Es were jhm vnd vns besser / auch ehrlicher / das er were zu Eißleben geblieben / vnd
hette den Schůtzen vnd Bachanten seinen Terentium resumiert (A3v).
It would be better for him and for us, and more honest, if he had stayed at Eisleben,
and taught Terence to the schoolboys and the freshmen.
Melanchthon does not claim that Agricola hadn’t any notion of drama as such, but rather that
he remained on a far too basic level and that he had not understood the difference between
Terence and Sophocles, i.e. between comedy and tragedy. That might be acceptable for elementary teaching in a small town like Eisleben, but not at a university of the rank of Wittenberg. The basic differences between comedy and tragedy that were taught at Humanist universities of the 16th century were according to Donatus (Evanthius) and Horace:35 the differences
in style and personnel, in the development and solution of the conflict, and in historical truth
(or credibility). Agricola, according to Melanchthon’s complaints, does not even understand
these basic differences, nor does he respect general rules of the drama, as they had been stated
in Horace’s De arte poetica, such as the restriction of speaking personnel to three persons per
scene (l. 192).36 In the Heimlich gsprech Melanchthon is repeatedly asked to comment on
35
36
Marvin T. Herrick: Comic Theory in the 16th Century, Urbana, Ill. 1950, p. 58; cf. Cora Dietl: Die Dramen
Jacob Lochers und die frühe Humanistenbühne im süddeutschen Raum, Berlin 2005, pp. 25–34.
Horaz: Ars poetica / Die Dichtkunst, ed. and transl. by Eckart Schäfer, Stuttgart 2008.
8
(and, as the others expect, to praise) Agricola’s tragedy. But he bursts out in furious expressions of disapproval. His major points of critique are:
(1) The style of the Tragedia
Erstlich ist der Stilus vil zu gering und nidrig denn eine rechte Tragedia haben sol (A3v), the
style is far too simple and lower than it should be for a proper tragedy, he states, and a little
further he explains more explicitly: Darzu seind die reyme vielmals vngereimpt / vnd kindisch
gekuppelt / vnd mit vnnötigen worten genötiget (A4r): The rhymes are often badly done, with
childish joining and forced with unnecessary filler words. Melanchthon thus criticizes the
German rhymed couplets, the traditional meter of the medieval and early modern vernacular
drama. Latin Humanist tragedy ought to be written in hexameters, but this is a meter which
does not exist in German literature at that time. Indirectly, thus, Melanchthon seems to express the idea that a proper tragedy should be written in Latin. This idea is in accordance with
his pedagogical ideas that Latin drama should be performed at schools for the purpose of
practicing the student’s language skills. – Cochlaeus certainly knows that the decision for the
Latin language would have reduced the impact that Agricola’s Tragedia had in Wittenberg.
He thus attacks one of the strong qualities of the drama by pointing at the Protestants’ inconsequence when they place Latin drama performances in the curricula of their schools, but
write German dramas for the purpose of theological instructing of their audiences and the
propagation of their reform. In order to mark the contrast, he chose rhythmic prose as the meter of the Heimlich gsprech. Prose comedies are rather rare in vernacular German literature in
the 16th century, but they can be found as an alternative to the comedy in iambic trimester in
Latin Humanist writings, following Reuchlin’s comment on the difference between the antiqui and the novi poeti: The first wrote trimetro et tetrametro, while the latter soluta oratione
licentius.37 The “medieval” meter used by Agricola is thus opposed with Cochlaeus’ modern
Humanist style.
(2) The personnel
There is no doubt that the status of the personnel in Agricola’s Tragedia is high enough to
obey the rules of tragedy. Wittily, however, Cochlaeus turns the argument when he lets Melanchthon complain:
Zum andern sind viel zu viele personen da / das man sie nicht leichtlich spielen kan.
Andere Tragedien haben selten vber zehen person / offtmals weniger / diese aber hat
acht vnd dreissig person / vnd wo die selbigen solten auch knechte bey sich haben /
nach gebür vnd gewonheit jhres stands / so würde wol ein gantzes här darauß. (A3v)
Secondly, there are far too many persons, so that it cannot be staged easily. Other tragedies hardly ever have more than ten characters, often less. But this one has 38 roles,
37
Johannes Reuchlin: Sergius vel Capitis caput, ed. by Hugo Holstein, in id.: Johann Reuchlins Komödien. Ein Beitrag zur
Geschichte des lateinischen Schuldramas von Hugo Holstein. Halle 1888, S. 107–136 (ll. 14–15).
9
and if they also have some servants accompanying them, as it should be according to
the honor and customs of their status, then there will be a whole army of actors.
The status of the persons is so high, he explains, that it can’t be plausible that they aren’t accompanied by any servants.
Denn sollen solcher herrn person one diener sein / so ists ein vnstand und widergebrauch. Sollen sie aber diener bey sich haben / so mögen die leute nit raum haben /
das spiel zu sehen. Darzu würde viel vnkostens lauffen auff die kleidung so viler personen. (I,1; A4r)
If these noble persons have no servants, it’ll break social rules and will be a misuse [of
these figures]. If, however, they have servants accompanying then, the audience won’t
have enough space to watch the performance. In addition, the costumes for so many
figures would cause enormous costs.
Cochlaeus’ Melanchthon does not argue with Horace, to whom the strange rule that “most”
tragedies have ten or less figures seems to allude, but with practical arguments: The room in
which the tragedy is performed is too small so that it can’t house all the actors and the spectators, and the Lutherans do not have the money to buy all the costumes for these roles. Here
Cochlaeus obviously has the mass performances of late medieval religious plays in mind: As
opposed to the Lutheran tragedy, they are performed in an open space, and they are financed
by the guilds and the councils of the cities. Therefore, for the Catholic performances the
points mentioned here, are no problem. The Lutherans, however, who criticise the medieval
performances, would like to imitate them, but can’t do so for practical reasons. This is why
they have to restrict the personnel. But doing so, they diminish the credibility of their tragedy:
The personnel has to be of highest status, but without its servants it does not present itself
according to its status. Melanchthon’s suggestion thus is to strictly limit the personnel (to
even one person less than those acting in Cochlaeus’ Heimlich gsprech). This, however,
would reduce the effectiveness of the Tragedia, which very impressively presents the single
hero Hus in opposition to the overwhelming masses of the Church representatives and thereby
appeals to the audience to withstand any comparable situation of suppression.
Melanchthon keeps repeating the argument that the high number of persons is a fault for
practical and especially for financial reasons. When Agricola asks him why he doesn’t like his
tragedy, he explains:
Das ist nicht ein kleyner fehl / das so viel Personen darzu gehören / die man drauff
kleiden soll / dardurch man viel zeit vnd vnnötiges vnkostens zubringt (II,1; B4v).
This is not a minor fault that there are so many figures in it. They all have to be dressed for it, and that means an expenditure of much time and unnecessary money.
He thinks that, since everybody already has financial problems, simple man should rather
concentrate on his work and nourish his family than care for such a play (II,1; B4v). In other
words, Agricola’s Tragedia is said to be a luxury that “simple man”, i.e. Agricola’s intended
audience, should ignore.
10
(3) The development of the plot and the ending
Cochlaeus does not only claim that Agricola missed his audience, but also that he failed to
develop a tragic plot. His Melanchthon complains:
Vber das hat sie vil vbriges geschwetz / vnd das nöttigst / nemlich wie sich Johan Huss
bei dem fewr gehalten hab mit knien / beten vnd singen / ist ausgelassen (I,1; A4r)
In addition, it is full of unnecessary gossip, while it leaves out the most necessary part,
namely how Hus behaved in the fire, how he kneeled, prayed and sang.
The catastrophe is not presented on stage, and the plot is criticised as lengthy, gossipy and
boring. Once again, Cochlaeus has Melanchthon complain about elements of the drama that
are central to its message: As mentioned above, a presentation of the death scene would have
opened the stage from the church to a market square performance and it would have run the
risk that the audience when leaving the church dropped its role as part of the (Lutheran) congregation, and that the play might have ended in an unholy, fictional spectacle, possibly showing the differences between Hus and Christ. When Melanchthon here claims that the death
scene was the most important scene in the play, he seems to misinterpret the rules of a tragedy
that do not demand that the death of the hero is visible, and he seems to be interested in Hus’s
spectacular death only, and not in the imitation of Christ that is demonstrated in the Tragedia.
In addition, he does not understand the message of the tragedy, because the “gossipy” and
“lengthy” parts that he disapproves of contain the theological message of the drama. They are
certainly those parts of it that Luther criticises in the Heimlich gsprech, but none of the other
figures seem to care about them or understand them. Justus Jonas is convinced that theological sentences should not be found in a tragedy at all (I,2; A4v), while Melanchthon claims that
the tragedy should be shortened, but it can’t, because the text is directly taken from Mładoniowicz’ report,
so hangt es alles aneinander / vnd wil nicht wol abzubrechen sein / darümm solt eyn
rechte Tragedia viel ein ander art vnd weiß haben (II,2; C1r)
everything is closely interlinked and cannot correctly be shortened. This is why a
proper tragedy should have a very different shape and form.
By this assumption, Cochlaeus once again claims that the Tragedia is not suitable for performance – for structural reasons, while at the same time he misuses the authority of the
Humanist Reformers to criticise the basic idea of Lutheran theological drama.
(4) The credibility
In Agricola’s Tragedia, the performative aspects are strongly supported by the stage directions which indicate and stress the parallels to late medieval Passion plays. In the Heimlich
gsprech Melanchthon has no understanding at all for these stage directions, which certainly
have no equivalent in classical Roman drama:
11
Jhr habt aber die sach / auch bey gemeynem volck damit verdechtig gemacht [...] Das
jhr bei jeglichem Actus und Scena außdrücklich habt hinzu gesetzt / wie mann sich
halten vnd stellen soll / auch wenn mann lachen vnd zusammen lauffen sol / Darauß
ein jeglicher Bawr / wer nur lesen kan wol vernimpt / das es eitel geticht ist / und
nichts da gehandelt wirt auß rechtem ernst vnd grunde der warheit. Diese barbarische
ineptia und grobe vnhöfligkeit / nimpt euch nicht allein den gelimpff vnd glauben dieses handels / Sonder ist auch der gantzen Vniversitet eyn schand vnd verkleinerung
bey den gelerten / denn jhr sonst nirgent wedder in Comedijs noch in Tragedijs findet /
das solche geberde / wie mann sich stellen soll / sind neben oder über den text außgetruckt / wie jhr gethan habt. Dann die zuseher solten nicht anderß wissen / dann das
es alles in rechtem ernst vnd von hertzen geredt vnd gehandelt würde / nicht auß geticht vnd angenomener weise, wie jhr furgebet. (II,2; C1r)
You have made things suspicious in the eyes of common man [...] since you have expressedly written in each act and scene how one should behave and pose, also when on
should laugh or come together. By this every ignorant peasant, if only he can read, will
recognise that it is vain fiction and that here are no actions in it that are performed in
proper sincerity or rooted in truth. Your barbarian ineptitude and rude inelegance does
not only deprive your work of its trustworthiness and credibility, but it is also a shame
to the whole university, and it diminishes it in the eyes of the learned. You won’t find
it anywhere, in any comedy or tragedy, that the manners how one should behave are
printed next or above the text, in the way how you have done it. This is because the
audience shouldn’t know anything else than that everything is spoken and acted in
proper sincerity and out of the heart – and not on the base of fiction and pretension, as
you require it here.
Melanchthon’s argumentation might be stunning at first sight. He argues that extensive stage
directions prove that the actors were not expected to identify with the figures they are representing, otherwise stage directions were unnecessary. This in fact means that Melanchthon
points at the similarity between the Tragedia and medieval religious plays, which, as we suppose, expect the actors to represent, but not to identify with their roles, and which often have
very elaborate stage directions. Criticising the closeness to medieval religious plays, Melanchthon attacks one of the very effective features of the Tragedia. He, however, develops his
argument even further: If the actors do not identify with their roles, he claims, the performance isn’t credible, and that means that the tragedy’s plot cannot claim to be true, it rather
appears as a fictional narrative, with its fictional character so openly displayed that even simple peasants could understand it. Cochlaeus was very critical about Luther’s position in the
peasant’s revolts, accusing him of haughtiness against the peasants, while on the other hand
Luther claimed to address the simple people with his translation of the Bible. Here Luther’s
well disputable dislike of the peasants is mirrored in Melanchthon’s comment, ridiculing the
pedagogical idea of Lutheran drama.
Summing up Melanchthon’s different remarks, he mostly criticises Agricola’s deviations from
“classical” Humanist drama. Those, however, are the features of the Tragedia that made it
most effective. He points at the fact that the Lutherans did not manage to develop a new form
of drama that avoided all those elements of medieval drama that Luther and Melanchthon had
12
criticised. It appears as if they often just pretended to be Humanists, but in fact needed to be
very medieval in order to stress their argument. While the figure of Melanchthon serves at
revealing the medievalism in the form of Lutheran drama and lies its finger into the wound of
literary and formal inconsequence, the figure of Luther serves at revealing the reformers’ theological inconsequence. Luther is depicted as discovering the fact that Jan Hus denied certain
heretic sentences which were in accordance with Luther’s writing. When, however, Hus defended positions of the old Church and opposed “Lutheran” positions, than those who think
that they are Hussitae ignorantes should consider whether also meant sumus papistae ignorantes. At least, however, concerning the use of religious drama, the Lutherans as they are
depicted by Cochlaeus have to confess that they are mediaevales (i.e. papistae) ignorantes.
Having ridiculed Agricola’s play in such a way, Cochlaeus may well give his comedy a
proper bifold end: Likewise a late medieval carnival play or an early modern festival play, he
has his actors dance at the end of the play, but then the print says: Vos nunc Valete et Plaudite. Ego Avicinius recensui (V,2; F3v). This is the traditional finishing formula of Terence’s
comedies, just with the name of Calliopius exchanged against that of Avicinius, the fictive
alter ego of the author. Thus, with sharp irony, Cochlaeus once again points at the fact that, as
opposed to the learned Lutherans, he well knows how to write a Humanist drama – a comedy,
though, that makes its audience laugh at the minor personnel presented in it.
13