Comparison of the Two Plays

Home , Elckerlijc, Everyman (play), Mankind (play), Morality play, Vice (character)

Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Department of English and American Studies

English Language and Literature

Eliška Poláčková

Everyman and Homulus: analysis of their genetic relation Bachelor’s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: Mgr. Pavel Drábek, Ph.D.

2010

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

……………………………………………..

Eliška Poláčková

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank my supervisor Mgr. Pavel Drábek, Ph.D. for his patient and kind help, Prof. PhDr. Eva Stehlíková for useful advice, and Mgr. Markéta Polochová for unprecedented helpfulness and support. Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 1

1 Morality Play and Its Representatives ...... 3

1.1 Morality Play ...... 3

1.2 Everyman ...... 5

1.3 Homulus ...... 7

2 Concept of Translation in The Middle Ages ...... 9

3 Comparison of Everyman and Homulus ...... 11

3.1 Composition ...... 11

3.2 Plot ...... 13

3.3 Language and Style ...... 21

3.4 Characters ...... 27

3.5 Selected Motifs ...... 33

3.5.1 Classical Versus Medieval Literary Background ...... 33

3.5.2 Criticism of the Church ...... 35

Conclusion ...... 39

Summary ...... 41

Resumé ...... 42

Bibliography ...... 43 Appendices: The English text of Everyman The Latin text of Homulus Introduction

The aim of this bachelor thesis is to show, on the basis of close reading of two medieval plays, the specific character of the work of a translator in the Middle Ages or at the beginning of the early modern period, and the consequent implications concerning the use of words „translation‟ and „adaptation‟ while talking about a piece of literature originating at that time. The main argument of the thesis is that the notion of translation has a different meaning when it is applied to a medieval literary work, since the understanding of what it means to transfer a piece of text from one language to another differed immensely from our modern notions. Therefore, dealing with a medieval translation, one should bear in mind the specific role of its author, who does not only translate the words of the original text in the target language, but also adds to the theme of the work various motifs and elements according to his personal attitude. The two chosen plays, English morality play of Everyman (c1475) and its Latin translation

Homulus (c1536), serve as a convenient example of this common medieval practice.

The first chapter serves as a summary of background information concerning the two compared texts. It gives a brief overview of what a medieval morality play is, and provides basic information about the two plays. In the second chapter, elementary information concerning the concept of medieval translation is provided to the extent necessary for the purpose of the comparison. The comparison covers the remaining part of the thesis, being separated into several subchapters dealing with particular features of the two plays important for the argument presented. Thus, composition of the two plays, their plot, language and style, characters, and selected motives are discussed respectively in the third chapter, supported by textual evidence taken from both texts.

The English versions of Latin texts given in footnotes are my own translations. A special attention is given to a detailed comparison of the plotline of both plays, stressing the differences and additional elements employed by the pseudonymous author of

Homulus, Christianus Ischyrius. The reason for such a detailed description is, above all, to give a reader non-proficient in Latin a chance to become acquainted with the plot of

Homulus, since the play was translated only to German, the edition not being easily available in the Czech libraries.

1 Morality Play and Its Representatives

1.1 Morality Play

Morality play is a distinctive genre of medieval drama that emerged in the 14th century in England, gaining almost immediately wide acceptance and becoming one of the most prolific literary genres not only in the Middle Ages but also in the following epoch. It has a more or less settled structure and highly ideological content pertaining to the central morality theme of the Church, the doctrine of man's salvation.

The idea that only God can grant salvation to a man is expressed in the plays in a highly stylized and formal way: there is a more or less given set of allegorical characters, which can be categorized into several groups according to their purpose.

They do not stand for particular human beings, but – on one side – represent a generalized figure representing mankind, and – on the other – a group of allegorical domestic virtues and vices who serve as a temptation for the man on his life-journey.

The decisions of the main character “lack personal motivation or any inward struggle”

(CRAIG 64) and the shifts in his behaviour are by no means motivated psychologically; on the contrary, the character of everyman1 acts to fulfil what is called the concept of human justice (CRAIG 67). The basic idea, delivered by morality plays, is that of man being a part of larger divine plan of salvation, in which he first has to be sinful, so that

1 The form “everyman” is used for denoting the character of mankind, regardless of whether it refers to the character of Everyman or Homulus. While talking about the particular character, the capitalized form of the name is used.

God could give him the privilege of forgiveness. It comes through a gradual and painful process of man's repentance, sometimes presented as a separate character. In the end, everyman understands what the permanent good is and learns to desire it, not the worldly pleasures.

The genre probably originated in England as a form of popular literature at about the same time as the guild pageants (CRAIG 69, 70). The earliest recorded morality is thought to be the play Pater Noster, although Hardin Craig rather plausibly argues against its characterization as typical morality play (CRAIG 65). Be it so or not, later morality plays – such as The Pride of Life, Mankynd, The Castle of Perseverance, or

Wisdom – bear distinct features of the genre (allegorical characters, the theme of salvation, similar structure) and can be divided into particular type forms according to age, sex and occupation of the main character (CRAIG 64). The development of the genre is closely connected to another form of medieval drama, the already-mentioned biblical pageant. Despite numerous differences between the two genres (e. g. “the morality does not dramatize biblical persons and episodes, but personifies the good and bad qualities of everyman and usually shows them in conflict” CAWLEY XXI), there are many similar features between the morality play and pageant; for example, both employ allegorical figures, and are influenced by the sermon and folk activities. The morality play undoubtedly started as a form of popular literature, and only later became the dominion of individual authors. Its development can be divided into two periods according to the time of the origin of the plays. The representatives of the first group

(those mentioned above), which are called pre-Tudor moralities, are mostly of an anonymous authorship, while the later plays – the Tudor and Elizabethan moralities – can be assigned to particular authors. Wilson's Three Ladies of London or Medwall's

Nature (CRAIG 69) and other plays belong to the second group. The morality play had a great influence on the development of Elizabethan drama, especially in the use of staging methods (the use of balcony, mechanical effects and music) and “the freedom of medieval playwrights in „mingling kings and clowns‟” (CAWLEY XXIII).

1.2 Everyman

Everyman, written in the late 15th century by an anonymous author, is considered to be the best example of English morality play because the doctrinal content is demonstrated in a masterly way through carefully constructed plotline, characters and dramatic action.

The dramatic impressiveness is, according to Lawrence V. Ryan (RYAN 723), one of the greatest merits of the play and the reason for its long-lasting popularity with the audience.

Everyman, as well as other morality plays, brings an answer to the question how a man can be saved (RYAN 723). The anonymous author of the play builds the structure of the text by effectual employment of emotional and doctrinal climaxes, which both occur at the same time, thus mutually enforcing the effect of each other. For example, when Everyman is finally abandoned even by his personal possessions and friends, he seems to be most humble and his condition, therefore, raises in the audience an extreme feeling of sympathy. At the same time, the moment is important from the doctrinal point of view, since it denotes the last step of Everyman's spiritual journey to the acceptance of Divine Grace – the knowledge of ephemerality of all worldly things, including one's own personal qualities. Everyman, however, is by no means a simple moral lesson in a form of drama; on the contrary, it brings a complex presentation of the

5 doctrine of man's salvation as presented by the Church, serving as a good catechetic tool for the contemporary, mostly illiterate laic audience.

Being genetically dependent on older stories of a similar content, Everyman shows certain deviations from the previous versions concerning the structure of the text.

The sources of the story are, above all, a Buddhist parable about false friends that very early migrated to the West, and its version called Barlaam and Josaphat from the

Golden Legend (Legenda aurea) by Jacobus de Voraigne. In Barlaam and Josaphat, there are only three false friends to abandon Barlaam, namely “abundance of wealth, wife and child and kindred, and the man's virtues and good deeds” (RYAN 726), while there are eight of them in Everyman. Moreover their appearance in the latter play is slightly rearranged in comparison with the former, so that the dramatic and emotional impact of the actions would be more impressive. This careful handling with the structural motifs is one of the reasons why the play is so appreciated and appraised by scholars as a masterpiece of its genre.

Another important structural motif in Everyman, in opposition to its predecessors, is the so-called „digression on priesthood‟. Strictly speaking, it is not a digression at all, because it is essential for the correct interpretation of the doctrinal purpose of the play. It stresses the idea of exclusivity of divine blessing and the impossibility of its substitution by human will. While interpreting the message of the passage, it makes no difference whether the priest offering sacraments is morally good or bad – the only thing that matters is the commission given to him by God to do it.

Therefore, the digression on priesthood is “designed to stress the validity of the sacraments regardless of the moral condition of the minister” (RYAN 734).

The history of scholarly interest in the play pertains from a great part to the question of its originality, particularly the genetic relation between English Everyman by an anonymous author and Dutch Elckerlijc by Petrus Diesthemius. Although the debate on this theme has been long and ferocious, it now seems to be a generally accepted fact that the English version, extant in four printed editions2, is prior to the

Dutch one, which was presumably written in 1470 and printed in 1495. Another adaptation of Everyman is Latin Hecastus (1536) by Macropedius (ADOLF 207).

1.3 Homulus

Homulus3 is another version of the everyman story, derived undoubtedly from the

English play of Everyman, not from the Dutch version, as is sometimes claimed for

Macropedius's Hecastus. The play was written in 1536 by Christianus Ischyrius and translated in 1540 into Low German by Jaspar from Gennep as Comedia Homuli

(STEHLÍKOVÁ 75). Since the play has not been subject to a profound scholarly research yet, little is known both about the text and its author. Concerning the genetic background of the text, it is obvious the text comes directly from the English source, the

2 [Everyman.] London: Richard Pynson, [c. 1510-25]. British Library C.21.c.17 (STC 10603).

[Everyman.] London: Richard Pynson, [c. 1525-30]. Douce Fragment, Bodleian Library (STC 10604).

The Somonyng of Everyman. London: John Skot, [c. 1525-30]. British Library, Huth 32 (STC 10605). The

Somonyng of Everyman. London: John Skot, [c. 1530-35]. Huntington Library, formerly at Britwell Court

(STC 10606).

3 The text of the play is known in five printed versions from the years 1536, 1537, 1538, 1539 and 1546.

The edition of Roersch, serving as a basis for this thesis, is based on the 1536 variant, which regards the other editions if necessary.

7 process of its creation being a typical example of medieval translation with all its specific features (see the following chapter).

The author of the play, named Christianus Ischyrius4, is known also under pseudonyms Fortis or Sterck. He was born in a Dutch city of Vryaldenhoven and became a rector of the Maastricht Latin School, but was under a constant pressure from the part of the municipal committee of Maastricht during his whole career, until he finally resigned from his function in 1532. From that moment on little is known about him except for that he published Homulus in 1536, meaning he had probably written the play in the period between his dismissal and 1536.

Apart from Homulus, there is one more book written by Ischyrius entitled

Hortulus animae (Garden of Soul). It is a religious file containing a few treatises and several spiritual poems. The purpose of the book is given in a Latin preface added to it by its publisher Wolfgang Hopylius from Paris in 1517: “Hortulus anime cum diversis ac odoriferis flosculis decorata. In quo anima fidelis Christi amore languid salutifera sibi facile inveniet medicamenta”5 (ROERSCH XV). Ischyrius dedicated the file to dean and capitulars of Saint-Servais College in Maastricht and published it in 1532. The style of the book bears similar features with that of Homulus, even a certain number of the very same expressions (ROERSCH XVI).

4 The name could be itself a pseudonym, although it is not suggested by Roersch.

5 Transl.: Garden of soul decorated with various odoriferous blossoms. Faithful soul longing for Christ can easily find healing medicaments there.

2 Concept of Translation in The Middle Ages

Saying that Homulus is a translation of Everyman could be useful for the purpose of general characterization of the relation between the two texts. However, it appears to be inaccurate or vague, taking into consideration the way in which a literary text was dealt with by a medieval scholar, the function of a literary text in the medieval culture in general, and the understanding of the authorship concept in the medieval context.

From the perspective of translation, texts were regarded by medieval scholars as belonging to one of the two distinct groups: a canonical text or a „fiction‟. Canonical text was treated with the greatest care, since it was supposed to be of a divine origin or at least inspired by the Holy Spirit, and was translated more or less word by word. On the contrary, no difference was being made between all the other literary texts concerning their authorship, because the concept itself had a completely different meaning in the Middle Ages in comparison with its modern understanding.

A medieval author was not differentiated from a translator in any way, because the way in which both were dealing with a text was similar. An author of an „original‟ text was still using all his knowledge taken from various literary, as well as non-literary sources, using them as pretexts for his own work usually without attempting at quoting them. Similarly, a translator was not obliged to make a translation from a single source text; on the contrary, he could easily use more than one original text, compiling and rearranging them according to his own purpose.

The ideology underlying this practice was the following: it was not the form of the text what mattered but the content, which was always part of the shared corpus of knowledge common to the whole medieval community of scholars. The consequences

9 for a translator were immense: the original text served him only as a starting point for his own ideas; therefore he dealt with it with considerable liberty, changing whatever he wanted in whatever way he needed. There are three basic means of changes occurring in medieval translations: abbreviation, enlargement and rearrangement of particular motifs in the text (LEVÝ 21). Especially the sequence of motivic elements employed in a text was not considered as obligatory, as well as the particular generic features of the text.

For example, it was possible for a medieval translator to rework a prosaic text into a verse form or vice versa.

This attitude to a written text, so alien to a modern reader informed by carefully defined concept of copyright legislative, can be understood only as a part of a more complex ideology of shared knowledge, based on the works of classical writers.

“Medieval translation cannot be understood without reference to the traditional systems of rhetoric and hermeneutics which so much defined its practice” (COPELAND 3), or without considering the role of the commentary tradition, an extremely prominent way of sharing knowledge in the medieval scholarly practice. What connects all these practices with that of translation is their striving for interpreting a text and delivering its meaning to a particular audience. In this respect, the work of an author, translator, interpreter or rhetorician does not seem to differ in any particular way, since all of them are dealing with an original text and try to transfer it according to their own purpose to the target audience.

Therefore, the word „translation‟ can be used when speaking about a medieval text only with the greatest caution and with an awareness of the previous facts. It is – thus – sometimes safer to use the expression „adaptation‟ instead, since it corresponds more accurately to the real character of a medieval translated text.

3 Comparison of Everyman and Homulus

As was stated before, Homulus cannot be perceived as a translation of Everyman in the modern sense of the word. It is because there are substantial differences between the two texts on all the important levels, which can serve as a basis for a literary analysis, namely in the composition and plot of the two plays, in the use of linguistic and stylistic devices, or in the employment of characters and various literary motifs. The following pages will be dedicated to the definition of the points mentioned above and their further exploration.

3.1 Composition

Profound changes occur on the structural level in the play of Homulus in comparison with Everyman. Not only is the Latin version almost twice as long as the English original, but it is also handled more carefully from the perspective of structural division.

Furthermore, the proportion of monologue and dialogue differs in the scope of the whole texts, as well as the character of monological and dialogical passages.

The original play of Everyman goes into the rank of short plays not exceeding

1,000 lines. The total amount of verses in Everyman reaches the number of 923 not including number of stage directions, while Homulus is composed of 1,539 verses as a whole. Obviously, the content of the former was reworked by Ischyrius, and various changes were done in comparison with the original, one of them being the recomposition and restructuring of the original text. While the play script of Everyman

11 bears no further divisions except for the indication of characters speaking, Homulus has a carefully developed structure of acts and scenes.

First comes prologus, which has no indication concerning by whom it should be delivered. It is followed by five acts divided into a total of twenty scenes distributed between the acts as follows: actus primus contains four scenes (225 lines), actus secundus five scenes (243 lines), actus tertius three scenes (165 lines), actus quartus two scenes (73 lines) and actus quintus consists of six scenes (781 lines). In general, no particular reason for such distribution can be deduced from the content of the scenes.

However, it seems plausible to perceive the first three acts as more balanced in the sense of textual proportions of the play, while the last two acts probably suffer from the demand for suitable and appropriate disentanglement of the intrigue, hence the disproportion in their length.

Another important difference in the structures of the two plays is the distribution of verses among the particular characters, or the proportion of monologues and dialogues in the two plays. For the purpose of the comparison, three basic types of speech will be indicated: (1) long speech (or monologue, more than twenty-five lines),

(2) short speech (from four to twenty-five lines), and (3) stichomythia (passage of one- or two-lines long replicas). In Everyman, the type of speech most frequently used is the second type, which constitutes approximately two thirds of the whole text, while the remaining third is divided equally between the first and third type. Long monologues are scarcely used there, with the exception of the opening speech of Messenger and

God, and the concluding monologue of Doctor, which serve as a source of background information and their considerable length is, thus, understandable. Stichomythia, on the other hand, is used – similarly to its employment in classical plays – as an expression of

12 a quick, excited exchange, such as in the discussion between the personified Virtues and Everyman.6

In Homulus, however, the proportion of the three types of speech is slightly different from that of Everyman, namely in the amount of stichomythia and number of monologues employed. In comparison with the text of Everyman, stichomythia is used more often, which is caused by the fact that more short excited talks occur between the characters in this play than in the former7. This – again – could come from the fact that more characters meet Everyman on his journey to death; therefore there are more occasions for discussion. Similarly, more acting characters provide more opportunities for longer speeches; the more that the extra characters are predominantly the personified virtues who tend to utter universal, therefore more extended speeches8.

3.2 Plot

As for the plot, it seems that the one of Everyman is the basic pattern which was only extended and adapted by the author of Homulus. The layout is the same for the both plays and contains the same crucial points, although Homulus contains some extra situations independent of the text of Everyman.

At the beginning of both plays, prologue is delivered by a character called

Messenger in Everyman but untitled in Homulus. However, each of them serves a slightly different purpose in the context of the particular play, as will be discussed later.

6 Approximately 648 – 669.

7 For example 500-504, 1200-1205 etc.

8 For example the monologues of Mors or Homulus.

Presently, it is enough to say that while the prologue of Homulus gives the full account of the plotline of the play, that of Everyman merely draws out the main objective of the play, which is to counsel everyman to live a pious live and remember the death. In addition, both strive to win the attention of the audience, which was an obvious and indispensable aim of every prologue of a medieval play, taking into consideration the conditions of the performances.

The character of God then appears and complains about the foolishness and corruption of a man. Finally, he decides to ask Everyman to submit to him a reckoning of his good and bad deeds, and prepare to come forward to the iudex eternus, meaning to die. God summons Death to convey his decision to Everyman, which he willingly obeys, and Everyman enters only to meet him and receive the message. However, another motif is inserted into this basic structure by Ischyrius, which is the monologue of Death about how he will spread his kingdom all over the world. In about fifteen lines, he passionately describes his powers in mortals and the impact his coming usually has on those enjoying worldly pleasures. It seems that the author of Homulus was, from time to time, elaborating on the associations (concerning the image of Death in this particular case) that came to his mind when he was translating the text of the original play, the basis of these elaborations being his knowledge of various literary and oral sources.

Having delivered the message, Death commands Everyman to summon his reckoning and follow him to God. Everyman tries to persuade him to give him more time to prepare his reckoning, which he fiercely refuses. He – then – tries to bribe him and when he fails, he at least wants to know whether he could come back again. When

Death destroys even this final hope of his, he despairs and implores God to save him.

Finally, Death permits him to take a companion who would help him to give his reckoning and make the way easier.

In Homulus, the scene proceeds in a similar manner, only the informative density of the text is lower than in the other text. In other words, what is said in

Everyman in two lines appears in Homulus to be extended into four. The ways in which it happens will be dealt with at its place, namely in the part concerning language and style. However, several informatively relevant parts are added as well, e.g. Homulus's desperation in which he threatens to kill himself and turns a sword to his chest. The act of bribery is duplicated there, contrary to the text of Everyman, where the main character tries to get at Death only once.

In reaction to the permission of taking a companion, Everyman decides to call on Fellowship to accompany him on the journey. Fellowship first promises him his help, wherever he is obliged to go, but when he hears the journey ends at the tomb, he immediately changes his mind and backs. He assures him he would follow him to

“haunt to women lusty company” (273), even to accompany him on the way to Hell, but refuses to make the required journey and abandons him.

The same situation is in Homulus delivered in much more extended version, containing not a single personified virtue, but six of the particular representatives of the category – six of Homlus's friends of different names (see the part concerning characters). The discussion unfolds in a way similar to that of Everyman, only it is much more eloquent and several motifs are repeated in more than one dialogue, e.g. the promise of a particular friend to follow Homulus anywhere he would like to go. In addition, a vivid picture of Hell is delivered by Cantager to support his unwillingness to accompany Homulus. Other motifs from Everyman are retained or extended, such as the

15 funny notion of Lusitor, who – being at loss how to evade the fulfilment of his promise

– offers Homulus to give him his servant as a companion. The same situation occurs in

Everyman, though later in the play when the main character meets his kinsmen. This is an interesting example of Ischyrius's freedom of using motifs from Everyman according to his own preferences and intentions, disregarding their employment in the original play.

Having lost the hope of taking his friends as companions, Everyman turns to his kinsmen to seek for help. There are two of them talking to the main character at the same time, both assuring him first about their loyalty and then abandoning him, having heard about the destination of his journey. This passage is rather short in comparison to the same situation in Homulus, where the plot is extended not only by more eloquent expressions, but also by more numerous crowds of relatives as well as by addition of another group of them – the kindred women. The structure of their dialogue with

Homulus is more or less the same as the one of his discussion with the male kinsmen, only the argument is slightly accommodated to their role in Homulus's life. For example, Clatria stresses the fact of being his mother. When she shows him the rest of her progeny, she claims he is more precious to her than all of them.

Another instance to which Everyman turns himself is his personified Goods.

Everyman praises her and calls for her help, but Goods refuses to follow him, claiming it is not its custom to accompany people to their graves. Goods then proves him to have been mistaken when he trusted such a worldly and perishable thing as possessions. It says nobody can fully own his possessions or take them on the last journey with him. In

Homulus, the scene is similar to the one in Everyman almost to the verge of analogy.

The only discernable difference is again the more extended length of the part in the

16 latter, together with one additional motif, which is the displaying of a goblet Goods gives to Homulus.

The motif is especially interesting taking into consideration the general tone of the play, which is much more emphatic than that of Everyman. In this particular scene, sarcasm is used by Goods to mock Homulus and to humiliate him. Goods advises him to entail all his possessions to the offspring, offering him a precious goblet full of wine as a way of teasing him. Since it is not the only situation in the play where some kind of emphatic expression is used, the topic will be discussed separately in the chapter concerning style and language of the two plays.

Everyman, being abandoned by his Goods, finally decides to turn his attention to the virtues and seeks Good Deeds first. However, he realizes they are absolutely battered and unable to offer him any help. Good Deeds scold him and show him the book of his deeds that is all empty. Everyman is horrified and implores Good Deeds to assist him with his reckoning. They advise him to go to Knowledge, which he willingly obeys. Then the pace of the story quickens unexpectedly, as Knowledge all at once turns everything bad into good and Everyman, appeased and relieved leaves the stage accompanied by Knowledge for Confession. Confession plays only a minor part in the play, as it has only one, although important, action. It gives Everyman the vestment of penitence and scourge, and advises him to do as Saviour did for him – to suffer for his sins. Everyman willingly obeys and starts flogging himself and then finishes the act of penitence with prayer to God, whom he implores to save him, and to Virgin Mary, whom he asks to advocate for him.

In Homulus, on the other hand, the first virtue sought by Homulus is Virtus herself, meaning the superior of all virtues. It is difficult to translate her name into

English or any other modern language by one concrete word, since in Latin it has a manifold meaning expressing the perfect state of human character, which could be attained mostly by gods and heroes in the ancient Rome and Greece, or by saints in the

Christian culture. She, similarly to Good Deeds in Everyman, is weak and incapable of helping Homulus and the whole scene is developed in the same way as in the other play.

There is even one particular moment, which goes almost word by word as in the original; that is the part about illegibility of Homulus's reckoning.

Cognitio (Knowledge) then sends Homulus to Confessio as could be expected from the plotline of Everyman. However, in that moment the plotline of Homulus starts to differ from that of Everyman in the most distinctive way ever. First deviation from the pattern followed by the author of Everyman is the gift Confessio gives to Homulus – a cross (crux). It should serve Homulus, according to her words, as a tool of salvation and commemoration of Christ's messianic death.9 Confessio then sends him to Virgin

Mary to ask her, again, for support at the final judgement. However, what was presented in Everyman only as a monologic prayer becomes in Homulus a genuine action with two new characters appearing on the stage – Virgin Mary and Baby Jesus.

The apparition of the deities is welcomed by Homulus with a panegyric hymn on

Virgin Mary. Then a short dialogue between Mother and Son follows, containing only one replica for each of the characters. Mary intercedes for the soul of Homulus, while

Deus kindly replies he would never mishear his mother's wish. He promises everlasting joy in Heaven and participation on the heavenly feast to everybody supported by Mary's intervention.

9 Lat.: Accipe chare mihi, sanandi vulneris apta/ Haec emplastra tibi et duros pro sorde labores. Transl.:

Accept, my dear, balsamic bandage apt for healing wounds for your hard labours (868-869).

The motif of request for a divine intervention creates a sort of break point in both plays, although it is not marked in Homulus (which is otherwise divided by means of act divisions into separate parts) by any means. Nevertheless, after Everyman's prayer and Homulus's meeting with the deities, the final stage of everyman's story starts to unwind – the journey to the grave itself.

Knowledge stimulates Everyman to set out on the journey immediately, and to take Discretion, Strength, Five Wits and Beauty with him. These four virtues are the last companions of his who attach him to his mortal dwelling. It seems, at first, they would follow him obediently, but when they realize the destination of his journey, they quickly break away as all the others. But before this happens, Knowledge urges Everyman to go and seek for a holy unction, which is a convenient excuse for the author to insert into the play a catechetic digression concerning the importance of sacraments and the order of priests for the life of a pious Christian. When all the virtues finally abandon

Everyman, he is devastated and complains about being alone. In that moment, Good

Deeds accede, who promise not to desert him in any case, and Knowledge, who makes a promise to stay with him until the very edge of his grave. Everyman then commits his soul to the hands of God with relief and disappears in the grave.

In Homulus, on the other hand, the act of flogging comes after Homulus's meeting with Virgin Mary and Baby Jesus. However, the pattern of Everyman is then followed until the time of the catechetic digression, which bears a strikingly different content from that of the original play. While in Everyman both Knowledge and Five

Wits are apprising priests, especially their blessing that entitles them to offer sacraments, in Homulus it is only Quinisensus who speaks appraisingly about them.

Cognitio, on the other hand, articulates a rather harsh critique of priests, blaming them

19 for number of faults, all of them being the emblematic objections pronounced against the Church at the time of creation of the play. The particular objections will be dealt with at its place (i.e. the subchapter “Criticism of the Church”).

Moreover, the digression is preceded by another extension, which is a comic dialogue between two devils, Larvicola and Crambarabus, who lament about the loss of

Homulus's soul. The action serves as a tension-remover, and it offers the audience the possibility to relax and amuse themselves. The action follows more or less the well- known pattern of servant comic scenes from ancient comedies, where the major theatrical device to entertain the audience is the employment of swearing, prominent dramatic action and quick exchange of replicas.

Homulus then returns back, having accepted the sacrament (in this version it is

Eucharist) and the story continues as in Everyman until the very end of the play. The endings of both plays are more or less the same. Knowledge summarizes Everyman's

/Homulus's story as an admonition for the audience, then an Angel appears and invites

Everyman to Heaven to be – in the play of Everyman – immediately alternated by a character called Doctor. He is there to further develop the admonition, but Ischyrius probably did not consider it necessary to employ a completely new character at the end of the play, so that he inserted the whole final monologue to the mouth of the Angel. In both variants of the play the story thus ends with an admonition for a good Christian life, especially for the awareness of the fact that the Death is always close and men should not postpone execution of good deeds, otherwise it could be too late.

In general, the changes made by Ischyrius in the plotline of the original play can be divided into a number of groups according to some universal patterns. These can be described as follows: first, there is the basic rearrangement of elements rooted in the

20 text of Everyman. Second, Ischyrius elaborated on the motifs and ideas present potentially in the original text but not expressed explicitly. Third, he made brand new additions to the structure of the play, both situational and non-situational (e.g. the prayers). Last but not least, he diminished the informational density of the text in comparison with the original play by multiplying characters and elements of action, and by various linguistic strategies. All these changes seem to be applied partly to support the existing ideology of the play (i.e. the concept of salvation), partly to introduce a new one, such as the open criticism of the Church. Moreover, at least some of them were certainly meant to make the play more entertaining for the audience.

3.3 Language and Style

This chapter deals only with those aspects of language and style of the plays that are distinct or important in any way for the purpose of the comparison, namely the language registers, literary genres, the economy of language and the metrical structure.

The play of Everyman seems to be more homogenous concerning the style than

Homulus. The former is mostly written in a solemn, serious and non-emotional language, using only one stylistic registry disregarding the character speaking. A few exceptions can be found, though, of the style being changed into more colloquial one, such as in the following scene:

BEAUTY: I take my tappe in my lappe and am gone.

EVERYMAN: What, Beaute, whyder wyll ye?

BEAUTY: Peas! I am defe. I loke not behynde me,

Not & thou wolde gyue me all the golde in thy chest. (801-804)

On the contrary, Homulus represents a much more complex system of stylistic features and registers. The basic tone is the same as in the original text: the grave and non- emotive style apt for the religious theme of a morality play. However, other genres requiring changes of style and tone of the speech occur in the body of the play.

One of the genres appearing in the text of Homulus is a prayer. It can be found for example in lines 951-975, where Homulus passionately implores God to heal his soul and bring him salvation. The speech is carried in a highly formal manner with a lot of settled epithets10 and frequent addressing of God, which is common for the genre of prayer. Another genre close to that of the prayer occurring in the play is laude. It has similar features as a prayer, only the person delivering it does not ask anything of the deity, he only prises him or her. There is a typical laude to Virgin Marry delivered by

Homulus in lines 908-923.

The unity of style in Everyman comes hand in hand with its abstract and economic language. Every idea or thought is expressed in as little words as possible and repeated only once in the flow of the speech. On the contrary, everything is said twice or thrice in Homulus in different words or from a different point of view. The passage on the criticism of the Church can serve as a graphic instance of this phenomenon, as its comparison to the similar section in Everyman offers an example of the abundance and eloquence of the language of Ischyrius:

If preestes be good, it is so, suerly.

10 E.g. vita viventium (life of the living), panis beatorum (bread of the blessed), indeficiens (unfalling), mortalium viaticum (viaticum of mortals) etc.

But whan Iesu hanged on the crosse with grete smarte,

There he gaue out of his blessyd herte

The seuen sacraments in grete tourment;

He solde them not to vs, that Lorde omnypotent.

Therfore Saynt Peter the apostell dothe saye

That Iesus curse hath all they

Whiche God theyr Sauyour do by or sell,

Or they for ony money do take or tell.

Synfull preestes gyueth the synners example bad:

Theyr chyldren sytteth by other mennes fyres, I haue harde;

And some haunteth womens company

With vnclene lyfe, as lustes of lechery.

These be with synne made blynde. (750-763)

Fateor, nihil esset his eximius

Atque honoratius ministris,

Si religiose vitam agerent et emendatius.

Atqui ille redemptor orbis maximus

Dum trabe penderet ab alta,

Nobis de effoso pectore septena donavit,

At nunc licitantur, veneuntque, mercantur,

Numerantque aureorum millibus, non secus

Quam in nundinis oves atque boves

Execrandus hic mos increbuit undique.

Roma caput mundi scelerisque.

Hoccine dicis regale genus? scilicet regis inferi.

Denique mandavit deus, quos supra coelituum honorarat agmina,

Coelibem qoque in terris ducere vitam virgineamque.

Respice compita, quibus scateant sacerdotum liberi,

Temploque ut cursitent pusioli, docti vocitare parentem heri nomine.

O nefas impurissimum et inexpiabile scelus.11 (1175-1192)

The structure of the two passages is almost analogous, as is obvious from the comparison of the particular motifs used in the satire. First, there is the sigh from the part of the character of Knowledge/Cognitio that priests are not always as pious and faultless as they should be. Then, there is the reminiscence of Jesus Christ's passion on the Cross with a special emphasis on the charitability of his sacrifice in opposition to the traffic some of the priests execute. In addition, another sin is mentioned, which is that of unclean life, while priests should be chaste and virgin in both their thoughts and deeds.

Therefore, the difference between the two speeches lies merely in the way of representation of the particular structural motifs, namely in the space devoted to each of them, and in the choice of linguistic means for their representation. As far as the space is concerned, the example of an extension can be seen in the very first motif, which is the general complaint about morals of the priests. While occupying only one line in

11 I say, nothing would be more exceptional or more honourable in these priests that if they lived piously and faithfully. Because when the greatest saviour of the world hanged on his high cross, he gave us from his stabbed heart seven gifts for free and did not sell them for gold. But these bid, sell and traffic, and count thousands of coins not differently than sheep and cows in the market. The execrated habit is now spreading everywhere. And Rome itself is a head not only of the world but also of villainy. So would you call this class “imperial”? Maybe that of the emperor of Hell, I say. These, whom God honoured above all the heavenly phalanges, he consigned to lead continent and chaste life on the Earth. Now, have a look at the crossroad, where children of priests swarm, and see how little girls run to the temple, calling the learned men „father‟. Oh, the most sordid sin, the inexpiable guilt!

Everyman, the author of Homulus devotes whole three lines to it only for the sake of eloquence, not enriching the motif by any substantial unit of meaning.

As for the linguistic means, it would be instructive to have a look at the passage concerning the lecherous life of the priests. Both authors decided to use a different image to concretize the abstract situation of fornication. The author of Everyman chose two images – one of children brought up by foster-parents, and the other of priests haunting women to win pleasure. Ischyrius, on the contrary, employs only one motif but unwinds it into a more complex imagery of children running about the temple, stressing the idea of the priests' paternity.

The third important strategy concerning the structure of this passage is detraction/addition of particular motifs. For example, in Everyman there is a reminiscence on the first epistle of Saint Peter, where it is written: “scientes quod non corruptibilibus argento vel auro redempti estis de vana vestra conversatione paternae traditionis sed pretioso sanguine quasi agni incontaminati et inmaculati Christi“12

(Epistula prima sancti Petri ch. 1, vs. 18 and 19). This reminiscence does not appear in

Homulus at all. On the other hand, Ischyrius inserts into his text a notion of Rome as a head of all vices growing in the Church, which is not present in the original text (see the subchapter “Criticism of the Church”).

The last feature of the two plays to be discussed is the form of the texts, i.e. their metrical structure. Since it was common in the Middle Ages and in the early modern period to create literary pieces in a verse form, it is not surprising both texts are also

12 Transl. (according to the document quoted): Knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, as gold or silver, from your vain conversation of the tradition of your fathers: But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled.

25 carefully organized in this respect. Everyman, as has been noted by many scholars, is written in rhyming couplets in four- or five-stress lines of irregular metre with an iambic pace, imitating the natural pace of spoken language. Homulus is more informed by the classical rhetorical devices, so that it strives to retain the most natural form of

Latin literary texts – hexameter and pentameter. However, the rhyme scheme is employed neither with too excessive accuracy nor consistency. Most frequently, only a certain hexametrical tendency can be recognized in the Latin verses, such as in the following lines:

Tecum audax ad omnia pergam,

– U | – U U | – UU| – U

Quae pedibus fas est penetrare vel equo.

– U U| – – | – U U | – U U | – –

In galeatas aereasque cohortes

– U U|– – | – – | – U U | – –

Prima ferar truci turbida vultu,

– U U | – – – | – U U | – U

Sude succincta trabali, nullo perterrita casu.

– U U | – U U | – – | – – | U U – U | – – (1105-1109)

As comes from the metrical structure of the verses, the number of icti in one verse differs from four to six, which is the case also in the scope of all verses in the whole text of the play. The pace of the verses is without any doubt dactylic, although several other kinds of foots occur as well: mostly spondee but also tertius paeon or molossus. The metre used corresponds with the religious theme and the predominantly grave tone of the play. In the parts where irony, satire or mockery is applied, the pace of

26 the speech quickens, pentameter being used mostly in these passages (see e.g. the scene with two devils).

In conclusion, language and style of the two plays generally serve a pragmatic purpose, which is to teach the audience a lesson concerning the Christian doctrine of salvation, and to move them to the point of admitting their own sinfulness. However,

Everyman seems, in comparison with Homulus, to be more concentrated on the sole religious theme, omitting every other aspect not only on the thematic level, but on the stylistic one as well. In other words, the author of Homulus seems to employ more varied linguistic and stylistic devices than the author of Everyman, although this conclusion would by no means need to be supported by a more detailed survey of the texts to be taken for granted.

3.4 Characters

The number of characters is another important difference between the two plays. Since the length of the plays is different, the number of acting persons expectedly increases.

Nevertheless, the number of characters in Homulus is almost doubled in comparison with that of Everyman, which seems suspicious, taking into consideration the disparity in the number of verses is by no means that prominent. It would be too bold to speculate about the reasons why Ischyrius almost doubled the number of dramatis personae. It could have been connected to the fact that he wanted to engage more actors in the performance. On the other hand, there did not need to be more than eight or nine people on the stage at the same time, since the characters take turns in appearing on the stage.

Be it as it was, there is a total of sixteen characters called for by the text of Everyman, while Ischyrius needs thirty-one characters to fulfil the requirements of his play. Most characters are obviously analogous, but in both plays there is at least one character, which does not appear in the other one.

There are three basic characters in both plays that can be perceived as the main ones from the ideological point of view. They are called God, Death and Everyman in the play of Everyman, while their counterparts in Homulus are Deus, Mors and

Homulus. All of them bear more or less the same features as their counterparts from the other play: Everyman and Homulus are personifications of mankind and are present on the stage during the course of the whole play with one exception in both variants – when he leaves to accept the sacrament. Death appears only at the beginning and serves as a messenger of God who tells everyman about his fate. His depiction in both texts is similar, only in Homulus he is described more vividly as a terrifying apparition that longs to be feared by mortals (101-116).

God appears at the beginning of both Everyman and Homulus, and in the latter again towards the end together with Virgin Mary. His picture is again the same in both plays, presenting him as the most merciful, omnipotent and loving, and as a refuge of sorrowful. The following quotation can serve as a typical demonstration of his depiction in both everyman plays. It is Homulus's praise of God from the end of the play: “O rex angelorum clementissime,/ (...) E coelo feratis opem et pacis amica munera”13 (1505 and 1507).

13 Transl.: Oh, the most majestic king of angels,/ (...) you bring support and friendly gifts of peace from heaven.

In addition to these three main characters, there is a number of other characters that can be divided into several groups according to their purpose in the plot of the plays. There are those whom Everyman/Homulus asks first to accompany him on his journey – his friends. However, while there is a group of five of them in Homulus

(marked by proper names Hannio, Hirtacus, Cantager, Lusitor and Harundio14), the author of Everyman makes do with only one representative of friends that is called

Fellowship in the play script. The purpose of the friends in the plays, be them many or only one of them, is to serve as representatives of worldly reliances that do not last forever.

The second group of characters appearing on the stage serve the very same purpose as the first one. These are Everyman's relatives, who are represented by

Kindred and Cousin in Everyman, while in Homulus, there appear men called Megarius,

Pamphilus, Trabilio, Confraneus, Licambeus, Abagardus and Bellerophon, and women

Clatria, Helbia, Phylliria and Olendria. The names of friends and relatives represent an unusual treatment of the genre of morality play on the side of Ischyrius, since it is uncommon to employ more than the allegorical characters representing generalized virtues, vices or groups of people in those plays. In Homulus, however, the author presents the particular people instead of abstract entities, even stressing the fact when calling them by common medieval proper names. The reason why he works like this is unclear, but it again could relate to the fact Ischyrius for some reason wanted more people on the stage.

14 The names probably were not meant to be the “speaking names”, because only the name of Lusitor seems to bear some meaning connected to the ideology of the play (from ludo = to play, to play with, hence he could be the person with whom one can only play but not share one's worries).

Vices are represented in both plays only by one character called Goods in

Everyman and Opulentia (Wealth) in Homulus. As well as friends and relatives, they are unable to follow everyman on his journey and help him to gain salvation. This is the sole merit of virtues, which are first represented in Everyman by Good Deeds and in

Homulus by Virtus (Virtue), feeble and battered by neglect they are treated with. This character appears in both plays and has the same role in both of them. The same can be said about two other virtues appearing in the plays: Knowledge/Cognitio and

Confession/Confessio. The role of the former is to instruct everyman what to do to obtain salvation, while the latter serves as the means of the salvation.

The last group representing the securities of this world inclined to pass away is the group of everyman's personal qualities, namely Beauty/Pulchritudo,

Strength/Fortitudo, Discretion/Prudentia and Five Wits/Quinisensus. These are the last ones to abandon everyman at the edge of his grave when he becomes old and infirm.

The structure of their dialogue is completely the same as in the case of friends and relatives: they first promise everyman to be with him wherever he would go, and then abandon him when they realize the destination of his journey.

At the end of the plays, there appears a character of Angel in Homulus, accompanied by Doctor in Everyman, who pronounces the conclusion and moral message of the everyman story. It is an interesting question why Ischyrius decided to diminish the number of dramatis personae in this particular case, while everywhere else his philosophy is, on the contrary, to enlarge their number. In my opinion, one of the plausible answers could be that Ischyrius did not want to employ a new character only to deliver eight lines of speech, as it is in the original play. Therefore, he attributed all the following lines to the Angel, completely omitting the character of Doctor.

Apart from the characters mentioned above, which are present in both texts, two additional groups of characters appear in the play script of Homulus. These are the representatives of good and evil forces operating in the world, namely Virgin Mary with her Son and two devils, Larvicola and Cramabarbus15. As for the former, they are probably put on the stage to make the ideological meaning of the play more explicit.

Mary and her Son are present in the original play as well, though only indirectly as the subjects of Everyman's prayer. However, their interference is crucial for the outcome of the whole story, since their will is the only power which can bring Everyman salvation.

Therefore, Ischyrius may have presumed their presence on the stage inevitable, or at least serviceable for the required impact of the message of the play.

As far as the characters of Larvicola and Cramabarbus are concerned, their employment in the story has two major reasons. First, they create a counterbalance to the victorious divine characters, being themselves deprived of their prey – the soul of

Homulus. The audience can, therefore, observe a vivid representation of what kind of evil powers could have possessed Homulus, had he not in the last moment rejected their companionship. Second, they are supposed to entertain the audience and offer them a momentarily relief from the grave and solemn proceeding of the play.

Last but not least, there is a group of characters employed in Homulus called personae mutae, silent characters. They first appear in the ancient drama which could

15 These are definitely the so-called „speaking names‟. Larvicola is a name of a person derived from Latin larva (ghost, mask) by standard derivational suffix –icola (e.g. in agricola or incola). Cramabarbus is a compound that can be separated into two parts: crambe meaning a kind of cabbage and barba, the beard.

All the words remind of something unpleasant, ugly or humble, which is exactly the kind of connotation one should have with the names of the servants of Hell.

31 use only limited number of well-trained actors, but sometimes needed more characters present on the scene at one moment. The practice of using silent persons for representing necessary, though mute, characters was then transferred into the medieval theatre, where it was widely used throughout the whole period of its existence. In case of Homulus, there are four silent persons appearing on the stage: two maids of

Homulus's male relative Megarius, and two daughters of Clatria, Homulus's female relative. Their presence is marked, above all, by the paratextual commentary on the side of the printed script. It follows (for Megarius) “Habebit Megarius duos famulos stipatores,”16 (next to 551-555) and (for Clatria) “Hic Clatria ostendet Homulo sibi adstantes proles”17 (next to 634-636). In addition, they are mentioned in the list of dramatis personae at the beginning of the print: “Megarius duobus stipatus famulis”18 and “Clatria duabus stipata puellis”19 (ROERSCH 3).

16 Transl.: Megarius is going to have two attendant maids.

17 Transl.: Here Clatria is going to show Homulus two offspring standing next to her.

18 Transl.: Megarius accompanied by two maids.

19 Transl.: Clatria accompanied by two daughters.

3.5 Selected Motifs

It is not possible to cover in this paper all the areas of similarities and dissimilarities between the two plays. Therefore, two particular motifs were chosen examples and will be discussed in brief. Their choice was motivated by desire for evenness, thus one theme from the literary field and one from the political or social were chosen.

3.5.1 Classical Versus Medieval Literary Background

Interestingly enough, the two texts differ profoundly in the register of literary motifs employed as a common part of rhetoric of a medieval text. It was crucial for an author in the Middle Ages to show his knowledge of both classical and medieval authorities to win the approval of his audience. Furthermore, it was only natural for him to use the terms from classical and Christian „mythology‟, since he was reading them constantly in his school texts and interpreting them during the hours of his personal studies in case he was a monk of one of the scholarly orders, such as Benedictine. What draws the attention of a reader comparing Everyman and Homulus is the disproportion in the number of the terms from both areas employed in the two texts.

In Everyman, there is only one term evoking the classical background in the whole play. It is the equation of Christian God to the pagan Jupiter in line 407. The simile itself is absolutely natural for the medieval way of thinking, what is striking is its isolation in the context of the whole play. All the other literary motives based on a literary pretext are taken from the medieval Christian tradition. There is Adam's sin

33 mentioned two times (145 and 585), God is called Adonai20 in line 245 and “Messias, of

Jerusalem King” in line 494, Fellowship swears “by Saint John” in line 288, and Moses,

Saint Peter and Judas Maccabee are reminded in lines 596, 755 and 787 respectively.

On the other hand, the pretexts used by Ischyrius for Homulus are mostly the classical ones, although the Biblical motifs are used as well. In general, it can be said that the mythological pretexts are used in a more complex and elaborate way in

Homulus than in Everyman. Their usage could be differentiated into several categories.

First, there are classical expressions serving only formal purposes which were not perceived by contemporary audience as an element alien to their own culture. The typical example of these are swearing based on the name of Hercules21, which were common in antiquity and remained in the linguistic awareness even in the Middle Ages.

Second, Christian elements are denoted by classical terms of a similar meaning, e.g.

God is called Iuppiter several times (7, 41, 1214 and 1268), Hell is referred to as Styx22

(8 and 1132) or Pluto's23 kingdom (1206 and 1260), Phoebus24 stands for the Sun (209 and 816) etc.

Third, classical or Biblical names and expression can also serve as meaningful elements in the structure of the play, though this usage is less common than the previous

20 Hebrew for God from the Old Testament.

21 E.g. Lat.: Ita me Hercle fecissem. Transl.: That's what I'm going to do, by Hercules (416); Lat.: Per sacram Herculis dextram. Transl.: By holy right hand of Hercules (1389).

22 It is an underground river serving in classical texts as a metonymy of Hades – the underworld.

23 Pluto (Lat.) or Hades (Gr.) is the name of the god of the underworld.

24 Phoebus is a Latin byname used either for the Greek god Apollo when referred to as the Sun or for

Helios, the god of the Sun himself.

34 ones. These are expressions that bring comprehensive and coherent idea with them, developing in one way or another the meaning of the linguistic reality they are inserted in. For example, Prudentia – when abandoning Homulus – swears “per magnam

Iezabel”. This Biblical character, wife of Ahab, was known as an impious and brutal queen who fought against Christians. In the symbolic sense, her name denotes someone cruel and hostile to the Christian faith. Therefore, when Prudentia shields herself by the name of Jezebel, she claims to be hostile to a good Christian, meaning Homulus in that particular case.

3.5.2 Criticism of the Church

Another interesting difference between the English original and the Latin translation is the way in which Ischyrius deals with the hints of criticism of the Church included in the Everyman play. What is only a few-line mild satire on some problematic aspects of priesthood in Everyman becomes a ferocious and extended assault against the falseness of the representatives of the Church in Homulus.

In Everyman, the whole sequence covers no more than about fifteen lines (750-

764), in which Knowledge picks up the reference on priests given by Five Wits in the previous lines of the speech. Five Wits held a laudatory sermon about priests and the indispensability of their order for a Christian society. Knowledge points out there are not only good priests, though; there are also those who execute simony, infringe celibate and commit many other sins. Five Wits, in response, express hope there would not be any as such, and then the talk takes in another direction.

In Homulus, a much more violent criticism appears, though the vices criticized are completely the same as in Everyman. What changes, however, is the way in which the criticism is presented. The section covers only slightly more lines than in the original (1175-1194) and the main points as well as the beginning resemble the original version. Ischyrius repeats almost word for word the part where Christ hanging on the

Cross is described, which serves as the starting point for the dismissal of simony.

However, what is in Everyman only laconic mentioning of the condemnable practice, is turned by Ischyrius into a vivid picture of priests buying and selling sacraments as goods in the market.25

What follows is a violent attack on Rome, the seat of the Church and its major representatives with the Pope as the first of them. This was by no means anything new in the literature of the 16th century; on the contrary, the criticism of the Church, in general, had started much earlier, its best-known testimonies being the poems in Codex

Buranus from the end of the 13th century. There were many other poets from then on (e. g. Walter of Châtillon, Alain de Lille or Hugh Primas of Orléans), criticizing the Church and particularly its official head – Rome. One of the most emblematic of the various poems dealing with this theme is Golias in Romanam Curiam (Golias about the Roman

Curia), satirical Latin poem from the 12th century inscribed to a fictional poet Golias. It contains a part attacking the Church with a fierce gusto:

Roma mundi caput est; sed nil capit mundum:

25 Lat.: At nunc licitantur, veneuntque mercantur,/ Numerantque aureorum minibus, non secus/ Quam in nundinis oves atque boves. Transl.: But these bid, sell and traffic, and count thousands of coins not differently than sheep and cows in the market (1182-1184).

quod pendit a capite totum est inmundum;

transit enim vitium primum in secundum,

et de fundo redolet quod est juxta fundum. 26 (WRIGHT)

The emotive and stylistically elaborate criticism of the vices of the Church enfolds throughout the whole poem, representing the general idea of Rome as a den of all depravity. This attitude is expressed in Homulus in the sentence “Roma caput mundi scelerisque”27 (1186). The emotive tone of the whole sequence also reminds of the other satirical works of the period, using their playfulness and irony. These are fully developed in the second part of the criticism concerning the neglecting of celibate by some of the priests. The author of Everyman only generally states:

Theyr chyldren sytteth by other mennes fyres, I haue harde;

And some haunteth womens company

With vnclene lyfe, as lustes of lechery. (760-762)

However, Ischyrius gives the audience an extremely vivid and, in a way, funny picture of the vice discussed: “Respice compita, quibus scateant sacerdotum liberi,/ Temploque ut cursitent pusioli, docti vocitare parentem heri nomine”28 (1190 and 1191).

26 Transl. of the 4th strophe: Rome is a head of the world, but doesn't have anything elegant in itself: what stinks from head is totally filthy; indeed, first vice comes to a second one, and what comes from the bottom smells after it.

27 Transl.: Rome, a head of the world as well as of villainy.

28 Transl.: Have a look at the crossroad, where children of priests swarm, and see how little girls run to the temple, calling the learned men „father‟.

Therefore, the criticism of the Church in Homulus seems more appealing, although its informative content is completely the same as in Everyman. What is profoundly different, however, is the way in which the message is passed to the audience. Since the formulation is emotional, the response of the audience/reader tends to be comparatively emotive, thus in a way stronger. The reason for this shift is close at hand, taking into consideration the time when the two plays originated. While

Everyman was written towards the end of the 15th century, when the criticism of ecclesiastic malpractice was still more or less unofficial and restricted to debates within the internal structures of the Church, in 1536 – the year of Homulus's publication – the protestant reformation was already on the move. In the year of publication of Homulus,

Luther's Ninety-Five Theses had been already nailed to the door of All Saints' Church in

Wittenberg, and the separation of the Church of England from Rome had been completed. The political atmosphere in Continental Europe as well as on the British

Islands was boiling, incited by works of Martin Luther, Thomas Müntzer, Menno

Simons and many others. The rhetoric of Homulus undoubtedly mirrors this particular social and political situation, using much more aggressive and reproaching discourse concerning the commentary on the Church practices than its half-a-century younger counterpart.

Conclusion

As the analysis of a two particular texts, the medieval English morality of Everyman and its Latin derivate called Homulus, showed, it is not possible to apply at the latter the term „translation‟ in the modern sense of the word. The two texts bear too many differences concerning their structure, style and motives to call Homulus simply a translation of Everyman. It would be more appropriate, from the today's perspective, to call it an adaptation because of the number of changes in the translated text in comparison with the original. All three basic types of changes can be perceived in the text of Homulus, namely abbreviation, evolution and rearrangement of the motives used in Everyman. The translation method of the author of Homulus, Christianus Ischyrius, could be described as that of constant rethinking and restructuring of the original play on the basis of his knowledge of numerous pretexts, gained by studying the common corpus of literary texts both in English and Latin.

Consequently, Ischyrius cannot be perceived simply as a translator of Everyman, but as an author of an independent literary work, the emergence of which was conditioned by a particular socio-political situation of the time of its origin. The act of translation was, therefore, not urged simply by the need of having the play of Everyman available in Latin (still more universal to the general readership), but by demand for a piece of literature that would conveniently transfer certain ideas Ischyrius had in mind and considered worth telling. He, thus, becomes not only translator of the original play but its co-author, since his contribution to the former lies far beyond the limits of mere trans-latio of the concepts and meanings rooted in the original text.

The result of his translation method is a new text that needs to be perceived from the modern perspective as an independent piece of literature based on the pretext of the

Everyman play. The aim of a literary critic studying the text is, consequently, that of analyzing the similarities and differences between the two plays and providing plausible explanations for their occurrence. This, however, is not the aim of this thesis, which only strives to show the possible directions of future research and stresses the eventual points of controversy.

Summary

The notion of translation versus adaptation as well as the concept of authorship of a literary work has different implications while applied on a piece of literature originating in the Middle Ages and Early Modern period. There is not a strict borderline between the work of translator and that of an independent author, since the concept of authorship itself is an anachronism to the medieval understanding of the origin of a literary work.

A literary work is perceived either as inspired by God or being a part of a generally- shared knowledge based on the cultural heritage not only of the Middle Ages but also the preceding epoch of antiquity. Therefore, the author of a literary work is welcome to choose from this universal source of information whatever he wants, and use it according to his own will and purpose. Similarly, he is not only allowed, but encouraged to contribute to the corpus on his own, thus the emphasis is put on the shared piece of information, not on the individual contributor. The implication for the process of translation is that the translator is allowed to deal with the original text with a considerable liberty. The analysis of parallels and differences between the English morality play of Everyman and its Latin translation Homulus by Christianus Ischyrius proves that it is more accurate to perceive the translated text as an adaptation of the original, as there are profound changes on many instances in the text of Homulus compared to that of Everyman, mainly in the plotline and structure of the play, the employment of characters, language and style, and generally in the ideology of the play.

Resumé

Termíny „překlad“ a „adaptace“, podobně jako koncept autorství, získávají poněkud jiný význam oproti jejich modernímu chápání, pokud jsou aplikovány na literární dílo vzniklé v období středověku nebo na počátku moderní doby. V rámci středověkého způsobu chápání vzniku literárního díla neexistuje jasná hranice mezi překladatelským procesem a vlastní autorskou tvorbou, protože sám koncept autorství v moderním slova smyslu je pro středověkou kulturu anachronismem. Středověk chápe literární dílo buď jako inspirované Bohem, nebo jako součást všeobecně sdíleného souboru vědomostí a kulturního povědomí společného pro celou středověkou společnost, ale pramenícího již v antice. Autoři z tohoto všeobecně sdíleného pramene nejen čerpali při tvorbě vlastních děl, ale informace takto získané mohli podle vlastních potřeb upravovat, a dokonce doplňovat. Výsledkem bylo, že subjekt autora jako původce díla nebyl důležitý, důležitá byla sdělovaná informace a způsob, jakým s ní bylo v konkrétním díle nakládáno. Co se týče překladu, znamenal výše zmíněný postoj k literárnímu dílu především to, že překladatel mohl nakládat s překládaným dílem s na dnešní poměry neuvěřitelnou volností. Jak dokazuje analýza shod a rozdílů v textech dvou středověkých moralit, anglického Everymana a jeho překladu, latinského Homula autora Christiana Ischyria, bylo by přesnější nazývat středověký překlad určitou formou adaptace původního textu.

Změny v textu překladu jsou totiž ve srovnání s originálem naprosto zásadního charakteru a týkají se především děje a stavby hry, práce s postavami, jazyka a stylu textu i celkového obsahu a vyznění Homula.

Bibliography

Primary sources

“Carmina adscripta cuidam Goliæ Episcopo.” Ed. Thomas Wright. 20 Apr. 2010.

Golias/gol_carm.html#04>.

“Everyman.” Divadelní revue 4 (1997): 79-104.

Everyman and Medieval Miracle Plays. Ed. A. C. Cawley. 3rd ed. London: Everyman,

1995.

“Epistula prima sancti Petri/First Epistle of Saint Peter.” Latin Vulgate. 20 Apr. 2010.

http://artfl.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.59:1.vulgate.

Ischyrius, Christianus. “Homulus.” In: Homulus. Ed. Alphonse Roersch. Gand: La

libraire Néerlandaise, 1903.

Secondary sources

Adolf, Helen. “From Everyman and Elckerlijc to Hofmannsthal and Kafka.”

Comparative Literature 9:3 (Summer 1957): 204-214. JSTOR. 21 Apr. 2010

Copeland, Rita. Rhetoric, Hermeneutics, and Translation in the Middle Ages: Academic

Traditions and Vernacular Texts. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1995.

Craig, Hardin. “Morality Plays and Elizabethan Drama.” Shakespeare Quarterly 1:2

(Apr. 1950): 64-72. JSTOR. 18 Nov. 2009

Everyman and Medieval Miracle Plays. Ed. A. C. Cawley. 3rd ed. London: Everyman,

1995.

Homulus. ed. Alphonse Roersch. Gand: La libraire Néerlandaise, 1903.

Levý, Jiří. České teorie překladu. 2nd ed. Praha: Ivo Železný, nakladatelství a

vydavatelství, 1996.

Ryan, Lawrence V. “Doctrine and Dramatic Structure in Everyman.” Speculum 32:4

(Oct. 1957): 722-735. JSTOR. 18 Nov. 2009

Stehlíková, Eva. “Potkala ho Smrti.” Divadelní revue 4 (1997): 75-78.