Purposeful Play: The Reception of Daniel 5–6 in Ludus Danielis

1 Introduction

The book of Daniel is the subject of a famous piece of medieval drama, Ludus Danielis.^[1] Composed by the clerics and students connected to the Beauvais Cathedral in northern France in the late twelfth century and committed to writing in the early thirteenth century, the musical drama presents the story of Daniel in the courts of Balthasar and Darius (Dan 5–6) within the Christological context of Christmastide.^[2] Ludus Danielis has enjoyed immense scholarly attention – as it is one of the fullest and earliest extant works of its kind – as well as modern performance interest since Noah Greenway’s New York Pro Musica production in 1958. Excellent work has already been done focusing on the play’s function as a corrective to the Feast of Fools and secular traditions,^[3] its features and performance history,^[4] its devotional impact,^[5] and the performance traditions that shaped the context within which Ludus Danielis developed.^[6] Building on this scholarly foundation and incorporating ludic game-play as a theoretical framework, this paper will suggest that the story and person of the biblical Daniel as adapted in Ludus Danielis created a formational playscape for critique, reform, and spiritual imagination in a context of fluctuating ecclesiological and theological concerns. More than simply representing a biblical story, Ludus Danielis functioned as both an instructional commentary on the young clerics’ ecclesial and social identity as subdeacons and a devotional pilgrimage experience that reinforced transformations in the Eucharistic theology of the period.

2 Ludus Danielis in the History of Paraliturgical Performance

The exquisitely composed musical drama is preserved in an illuminated manuscript (Egerton MS 2615, ff. 95r–108r) from the Saint-Pierre Cathedral in Beauvais, France.^[7] Ludus Danielis is written in Latin with Northern French insertions, with neumatic musical notation on red staves, red and blue initials (some decorated), and rubrics in red script. Ralph Middenway, who established the most recent performance edition of Ludus Danielis, describes the work as a “strongly patterned poem,” suggesting the influence of secular music, which employed rhyme and rhythm, rather than exclusively religious music, which drew on the “unrhymed, arrhythmic” biblical texts.^[8] The selective use of plainchant together with polyphonic musical motifs introduced by the Notre Dame school created a church-like feel while also ornamenting the music with some approximation of not only popular French but also Middle Eastern rhythms and tones.^[9] The inclusion of the Office for the Feast of the Circumcision as well as two gospel lections and several polyphonic hymns solidifies scholarly opinion regarding the ritual and calendrical context of the play as well as its association with the subdeacons, whose ministry role was celebrated around that time.^[10] The manuscript itself is dated to ca. 1227–1234 based on references to Gregory IX’s pontificate and the lack of mention of Marguerite of Provence (whom King Louis IX wed in 1234);^[11] however, scholarly consensus is that the initial conceptualization and performance history of the play predates this written form.

The form of Ludus Danielis reflects both a pinnacle and a pivot point in the history of the medieval Church’s performance practices, building on known interpretations and conventions, while also shifting focus away from simple re-presentation of biblical material toward formational commentary. There was already a robust tradition of increasingly dramatic and play-like representations of biblical narratives, including the still-life tableaux, poetic commentary on the lectio, the Quem Quaeritis? dialogue, and the Ordo Prophetarum.^[12] Such performance traditions were often developed for the celebration of special liturgical seasons such as Easter and Christmastide, and served as commentary on the biblical text and attendant theological concerns as much as a pious entertainment. By the twelfth century, the Church’s performance traditions had grown to incorporate material intended to amuse, educate, fill in narrative gaps, and engage the performers and audience in a whole-body experience. It is against this background that Ludus Danielis appears. While performance had always had a commentative purpose, Ludus Danielis is an example not just of commentary, but also a formational tool to shape the identities and characters of the players.^[13]

As one of a number of performance traditions composed during the twelfth century and bearing the name ludus (or, “play”), the performing pedagogy of Ludus Danielis draws on a Roman conception of the relationship between play, game, and sport which persisted in the medieval mind.^[14] There were other ludi, including Ludus de passione in the Carmina Burana (ca. 1180), and Ludus de antichristo (ca. 1157–1160), which playfully engaged social and ecclesial critique, polemic, and stylistic innovation.^[15] These ludi could incorporate various forms of entertainment including dance, song, and acrobatics; yet for all their apparent frivolity, they were far from merely playful. Ludi became liminal stages whereupon the performers and audience became mutual “players,” gaming together in the creative playscape to challenge or affirm established norms. Indeed, dramatic performance, including the retelling of biblical narratives, was a common means of negotiating social, cultural, political, and religious changes in the medieval period.^[16] In his discussion of ludi with respect to game theory, Nathan Kelber argues, “One distinctive aspect of medieval ludi, as opposed to commercial theater, was that they were often predominantly communal and participatory…[they] should be judged not just for the artfulness of the familiar stories they told but for their attempts to model and perform social order.”^[17] Jerome Taylor similarly affirms that ludi, and particularly Ludus Danielis, created a “collective or communal activity symbolically designed to express and to re-affirm, through serious and reverently wrought imitation, the concepts and values which interpreted and judged life for its participants – the source, the ideal norms, and the goal of their life in common.”^[18] Considering the practice of ludi from the perspective of performance theories of identity formation and embodiment, these artistic and cultural performances used playfulness as a purposeful means of symbolically working out how a person is meant to live and identify. Ludus Danielis and its multivalent ludic playfulness enabled the clerical players to claim space for spiritual imagination even as the ecclesial hierarchy asserted its authority to reinscribe theological norms.

In addition to being a superb example of the ludic performance tradition, Ludus Danielis also serves as the pinnacle of dramatic expansion specifically of the story of Daniel. The development of the story from re-presentation to commentary to formational tool began with the fifth century sermon Contra Judeos, paganos, et Arianons, sermo de symbolo by Quodvultdeus, wherein the preacher summons young Daniel and Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar to join other prophets and Gentiles to foretell the birth of Jesus Christ.^[19] The lectio also cites additional Danielic material (Dan 9:24 and Dan 3:91-92 [3:24-25]) almost verbatim to connect the Holy of Holies and the fourth figure in the fiery furnace with Christ. Daniel continued to function as a prophet of the Nativity as the Ordo Prophetarum tradition developed in France, predominantly in Limoges, Laon, and Rouen. The Rouen Ordo again adds the testimony of the three friends in the fiery furnace via the Song of Azariah (Add Dan 3:24–90), but the Limoges Ordo is notable in the history of performance because it appears to be a versification of the lectio rather than directly drawing from the biblical text itself.^[20] Although Daniel himself remained a relatively minor witness in the Ordo, the choice to include the account of the three friends in Daniel 3 and Nebuchadnezzar’s confession foreshadowed themes of persevering piety and spiritual conversion that would shape the reception of Danielic material in later dramatic representations. The Church’s performance tradition continued to move from simply quoting the biblical material toward creatively playing with the language of the lectio and even expanding upon the source material in terms of dialogue, action, scenery, and props, developing into genuine dramatic representation (discussed further below).^[21]

There are two known examples of medieval ludic adaptations of the book of Daniel: La Historia de Daniel Representanda, composed by Hilarius ca. 1130, and Ludus Danielis. Scholars have debated the relationship between the two plays given their striking resemblance: the two plays are similar not only in content (Dan 5–6) but also in context (both were composed for Christmastide – Ludus Danielis for the Feast of Fools and La Historia for Epiphany), particular turns of phrase, and compositional history.^[22] The context of the plays likely derives from the interpretive tradition of Daniel as a prophet of the nativity and the recognition of God by Gentiles in the larger story.

Where the two “Plays of Daniel” differ, and indeed where Ludus Danielis stands out from its other predecessor traditions, is twofold: first in the more overt use of Daniel not only as a prophet of Christ, but as a real prefigurement thereof; and second in the connection between Daniel and the clerics, specifically the subdeacons, for the purpose of identity and role formation. Building on the trajectory of its antecedents, Ludus Danielis elaborates on biblical representation and commentary, growing beyond re-presentation, meant to be observed, to engage the medium of performance itself as a pedagogical tool. The play is meant not simply to depict a biblical story and attendant theological and ritual commentary; it is meant to form the clerics who would put that theology and ritual into practice. Especially within the Feast of Fools context, Ludus Danielis became an opportunity for the young clerics to sing, dance, and proclaim their way through Daniel’s story as a vehicle to perform their way into their own evolving identity and role.

3 From Bible to Libretto

To engage in such purposeful play, Ludus Danielis retells the story of Daniel in the courts of Balthasar and Darius (Dan 5–6), including the account of the prophet Habakkuk aiding Daniel during the lion’s den episode as told in Add Dan 14:31–42. The chorus that frequently interjects to comment on the characters and narrative action also alludes to other Danielic and biblical material including Daniel 1, Additions to Daniel 13–14 (the accounts of Susannah and Bel and the Dragon), and Proverbs 31. The play embraces known Christian iconographies and interpretations of the text and characters, but otherwise adheres fairly closely to the contours of narrative as recounted in the Bible. When the play does make adjustments to the biblical text, it is typically to suit performance, pedagogical, or devotional purposes.

Some adjustments were relatively minor, serving to clarify and dramatize the narrative. For example, the time between Daniel’s arrest and punishment for praying to God rather than to Darius is condensed, perhaps to maintain dramatic focus on Daniel himself in keeping with the tradition of Add Dan 14:31–42 (compare to Dan 6:11–17 where the narrative focus remains on Darius).

Several major changes to the narrative, however, served ideological and pedagogical purposes. One change is the emphasis on Daniel’s youth and lowliness in contradiction to the presumed internal timeline of the court tales in Daniel 1–6. While Daniel’s age is not noted in the biblical text, it is reasonable to expect that Daniel would be fully grown, even elderly, by the reigns of Balthasar and Darius so many years after young Daniel’s initial introduction to the Babylonian court in Daniel 1.^[23] In the play, however, he is portrayed as still a youthful figure. This is consistent with depictions of the prophet in art and iconography of the medieval period, portraying him as beardless, long-haired, and even naked.^[24] The playmakers’ choice to embrace and enliven the iconography of a youthful Daniel rather than reverting to the biblical text’s logical timeline highlights how the play moves forward the performance tradition and takes on a formational pedagogy. The goal is not to merely re-present the text as it is. Rather, the playmakers draw on the interpretive tradition to establish a natural association between Daniel and the “young men” who presumably developed the play, establishing a crucial pedagogical element of similitude between the character and the players in the play’s function as a formational tool.^[25]

Another major change from the source material is the response of the prideful Gentile characters to demonstrations of God’s authority and power. For example, Balthasar is consistently presented in the biblical narrative as an inferior king to his predecessor, Nebuchadnezzar. Although Nebuchadnezzar was himself subject to prideful self-aggrandizement, he tended to heed Daniel’s wisdom and acknowledge the ultimate authority of God. Balthasar, on the other hand, seems unrepentant, hardly reacting to Daniel’s proclamation of impending doom except to follow through with granting the promised reward (Dan 5:29). There is no sign of the remorse or plea for mercy that characterized Nebuchadnezzar’s responses. In Ludus Danielis, however, Balthasar actively attempts to forestall his downfall. While not entirely repentant, perhaps, the king nonetheless attempts to set things right by returning the temple vessels that his predecessor had stolen away and he himself had grievously misused: “General, take away the vessels,/lest they bring me to wretchedness.”^[26] The adjustment aligns Balthasar with Nebuchadnezzar and Darius as one who responds to the demonstration of divine power. Similarly, the scheming nobles who manufacture the occasion for Daniel’s harrowing experience in the lion’s den are themselves tossed in. The biblical narrative describes how even their families are thrown into the pit (Dan 6:24), but Ludus Danielis seems to spare the families – perhaps due to practical performance considerations limiting the number of players.^[27] More notable is how the play gives the nobles a voice to acknowledge the justice of their punishment: “We suffer this deservedly,/for we have sinned:/we acted unjustly/toward God’s holy one,/we did a shameful deed!”^[28] The expectation of a response to God’s sovereignty bears out ritually as the players are likewise called to respond to their own experience of divine power expressed in the course of the play.

Ludus Danielis also inserts explicitly Christological material into the retelling of Daniel’s story. This is done in three ways: through the choral commentary, Daniel foretelling of the coming Christ, and the angelic confirmation of Christ’s birth. Naturally, these are absent from Daniel 5–6, but their inclusion in the play leans on existing Christian interpretive traditions about the messianic “one like a son of man” whose kingdom is everlasting (see Dan 7:13-14).^[29] In Ludus Danielis, though, Daniel serves not only as a prophet of Christ, but as a prefigurement of Christ. His divinely-granted wisdom foreshadows the coming Christ, who is “God’s Wisdom,” as the chorus proclaims.^[30] The story of his experience in the lion’s den in particular was already understood in Christian interpretation as a typology of Christ’s death and resurrection.^[31]

As the play unfolds, the recitation of Daniel’s deeds of wisdom and bravery evoke Christ’s own life and ministry. For example, the play embraces the typological interpretation of Daniel’s meal in the den as symbolically evoking the Eucharist, which itself is linked to the Last Supper of Christ.^[32] Margot Fassler suggests that even though the scene of Habakkuk being carried by the hair to bring food to Daniel is comical, it playfully but intentionally alludes directly to the sacramental meal.^[33] This link is strengthened in Ludus Danielis through liturgical quotes, such as Daniel singing kyrie eleison and alleluia before and after receiving nourishment, and the probable use of eucharistic vessels in the staging. Another symbolic reference to the life of Christ includes the possible staging of Daniel exiting the den. The crypt or sepulcher that was often featured in church architecture provided a symbolic setting that was used as least since the Quem Quaeritis? tradition, wherein the Marys receive the news of Christ’s resurrection.^[34] The spatial symbolism of Daniel descending into the “den” and emerging unscathed from a literal tomb invites contemplation on Christ’s own death and resurrection. By representing Daniel’s story as a Christological typology, Ludus Danielis becomes an experiential commentary that affirms the Church’s interpretation and invites meditation on Christological themes.

4 Identity Formation Through Play

Such adjustments to the biblical narrative recast the text’s story and characters to exert the play’s formational purpose, that is, to shape the personal and collective identity of young clerics.^[35] The educational lifestyle that shaped the students at cathedral schools, monastic orders, and clerics like those connected to the Beauvais Cathedral was a communal process that involved practical training alongside book-learning. Practice and social exchange drove the formation of behaviors, skills, and shared values.^[36] One such mechanism, as Michal Kobialka notes, was various representational practices that “labored to define a local reality and produce modes of thinking and expression that would implement it.”^[37] Composition and performance of works like Ludus Danielis could be included among such representational practices. Ludus Danielis creatively served as such a formational tool to reinforce the desired ecclesial and theological norms of its time. While the play could have been particularly geared toward the formation of young clerics, the “young” who are credited with the composition of the play could conceivably refer to other persons who are also being formed for service in the Church, and any other participants in the performance, including a lay audience would also benefit from the formational efforts of the exercise.

It is important to note that Ludus Danielis is associated particularly with the subdeacons, given that this clerical order was spotlighted during the Feast of Fools. The subdeacons were members of a clerical order tasked with assisting the deacon and priest during the Mass (including preparing the elements for the Eucharist) and caring for the vessels, vestments, and other ritual accoutrements. The association between Ludus Danielis and the subdeacons not only concerns the multivalent resonances between the clerics and the story of Daniel; it is also suggestive of the pedagogical utility of the play. Scholars including Margot Fassler and Max Harris have persuasively argued for the function of Ludus Danielis within the context of the Feast of Fools, whether as a reformation of or as an alternative to the playful, topsy-turvy traditions of the feast day.^[38] By bringing the popular festival back into the church’s purview and transforming it into devotional opportunities, the play offered the clerics a positive and instructive perspective.

There could be an additional purpose to the play in light of how the understanding of the role of the subdeacon appears to have been evolving during this period. Known since at least the third century CE, the subdiaconate was considered a minor order until the late twelfth to early thirteenth centuries, when the role’s increasing prominence and, perhaps, proximity to the Eucharistic altar resulted in its elevation to a major order.^[39] Interestingly, this was right around the time that Ludus Danielis was composed and performed, lending itself to the hypothesis that the play was intended, in part, as a pedagogical tool to shape the identities and qualities of the subdeacons associated with Beauvais as they embraced their newly enhanced role.^[40]

As such, one means of reinforcing the expectations of the sacred order was identifying Daniel as an ideal role model for the young clerics at Beauvais. By the medieval period, Daniel was already an exemplar salutis of persistent piety in the face of worldly antagonisms.^[41] In the biblical narrative and interpretation, Daniel is depicted as a paragon of virtue: he is reverent and prayerful even in his youth; he refuses worldly temptations; he is humble and obedient to the law of the land; he is chaste; he is knowledgeable and disciplined. Through the practice of composing, rehearsing, performing, and witnessing the play, the players would learn to embody the Danielic virtues and thereby participate in the ideal life of a cleric.

In addition to emphasizing Daniel’s youthfulness, a significant way Ludus Danielis helped the players associate themselves with Daniel was through deliberate use of vernacular language. Just as the book of Daniel itself is bilingual, the language of the play notably switches between Latin and a Northern French dialect, usually when Daniel is moving between the Gentile court and the Israelite populace. When Balthasar sends the nobles to search for Daniel and bring him to interpret the writing on the wall, the nobles call out for him as they weave through the playing space, repeatedly switching from Latin to French mid-sentence. Daniel’s response in French intermingles with the nobles’ ongoing bilingual call. Daniel similarly responds to the summons to Darius’ court in French. On each occasion French is sung, Daniel is located away from the Gentile courts, in the place designated as his house or perhaps even among the audience. Daniel switches to singing in Latin, however, when he is in the presence of the kings, which may reflect the biblical character’s ability to successfully navigate his status and role as an exile in a foreign court. The only time French is sung without direct correlation with Daniel is when Darius sings “O hez!” urging his nobles to disseminate the edict that he alone is to be worshipped for 30 days.^[42] Although sung by the Gentile king, the use of French again indicates a call to traverse between the courtly and popular spheres.

Though the use of the vernacular was not uncommon in medieval ludi, it serves a functional purpose in Ludus Danielis. First, it invites the performers and the audience into the world of the play by speaking their own language, empowering the players to become participants and not simply observers. Second, the use of French identifies Daniel with the players – he is one of them. If one of their own can be a paragon of pious virtue, surely they, too, can learn to imitate that high standard. Third, the players are empowered to emulate Daniel’s skill in navigating his multiple statuses and occupational spheres, just as the medieval clerics themselves would have to capably negotiate the various ecclesial and social positions they might occupy.

The invitation to an “imitatio Danielis” was about more than simply establishing a role model, however; Ludus Danielis invites the players into a personal experience of Daniel’s story in order to draw them toward an imitatio Christi. Imitation of Christ had long been a part of Christian tradition in various forms. Among the devotional practices that encouraged conformity with Christ was the contemplative, spiritual pilgrimage.^[43] The interplay between narrative and performance in Ludus Danielis could have functioned as such a pilgrimage, immersing the players in the story of Daniel in a manner that encouraged Christological meditation.

Embodied contemplation could have been encouraged through the staging of the play. Analysis of the rubrics found in a variety of traditions including the Ordo Ioseph, La Historia de Daniel Representanda, and similar plays intended for performance within the context of a church indicates that it was likely customary to make creative use of the physical space, vestments, vessels, and other ritual properties found within the church.^[44] While this custom surely served a practical purpose, it also inscribed the biblical story within the properties of the Church and thereby interpreted it with a particular theological and ritual lens.

For instance, it is probable that the cathedral’s own Eucharistic vessels were used as Balthasar’s vessels, exemplifying their misuse and then restoring them to their proper place. Since the vessels were the subdeacons’ particular responsibility, it is reasonable that the sacred objects would feature significantly in the play. Similarly, the subdeacons were tasked with assisting in the preparation and presentation of the Eucharistic elements; as such, the extended representation of Habakkuk’s journey and Daniel’s meal serves to draw a connection between the biblical story and the ritual obligations of the clerics. The players could be invited into a devotional contemplation of the wonder of the Eucharist and recognize their vital role in celebrating it with the congregation during the Mass.

Another is the presence of dynamic rubrics and locative instructions, including naming four specific playing spaces (the court, Daniel’s house, the lions’ den, and an “unexpected place” whence an angel sings). This suggests that the act of movement itself is critical to the performance. The rubrics of Ludus Danielis do have an interesting quirk, though; as Andrew Tallon points out, in Ludus Danielis the rubrics are less concrete than might be expected when compared to rubrics in contemporary plays like the Fleury Playbook, La Historia de Daniel Representanda, and a series of Pilgrim plays, which directly reference architectural elements.^[45] Despite the spatially noncommittal and therefore flexible rubrics, however, it is conceivable that the players in Ludus Danielis embraced the movement-oriented staging conventions of similar productions. Though there may have been differences in the staging from year to year, movement through the playing environment matters to the storytelling: the searching nobles seem to weave through the space, processional choruses dance through the aisles, and staged scenes occur at the specified “stopping places.” Indeed, as Tallon points out, nearly half of the play’s lines are delivered in procession.^[46] This is not mere filler between scenes; it emphasizes the incorporation of kinetic, mental, and spiritual engagement with the material and, thereby, the whole-self formation of the players.

Although the rubrics are indeed noncommittal and there is no explicit mention of an audience, scholars typically accept the plausibility of a lay audience during the performance of the play.^[47] Therefore, the invitation to an embodied, contemplative pilgrimage through the story of Daniel could be extended to incorporate the audience as fellow players on this pilgrimage journey of physical and spiritual movement together. By incorporating spatial movement and narrative commentary, Ludus Danielis creates an embodied contemplative pilgrimage experience as they transition the players from one space – or identity – to another. The players become immersed in the story as they themselves become the Babylonian, Medean, and Israelite populations in turn. The culmination of their symbolic, contemplative journey is when they enter into the life of Christ by entering into the life of Daniel. Thus, Ludus Danielis uses ludic playfulness to guide participants on a pilgrimage toward a deeper spiritual devotion to Christ.

The function of Ludus Danielis as a devotional journey may further reflect a response to the significant reevaluation of sacramental theology that occurred during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Theologians including Hugh of St. Victor, Rupert of Deutz, and Peter Lombard contributed to the movement to distinguish between that which is sacramental, and that which is sacred but not sacramental.^[48] One consequence of this theological codification was that the Eucharistic celebration became more re-presentational and performative, increasingly limiting direct participation by the laity while increasing the mediating role of the clergy.^[49] The proliferation of representational and performance practices like Ludus Danielis that coincided with this theological adjustment may reflect, in part, the tension between clericalization and rise of a “piety of vision”^[50] that enabled the laity’s imaginative participation in the sacrament. Kobialka describes how the performance practices that arose to convey the developing sacramental theology increasingly strengthened ecclesial authority, even as devotional practices that arose around the Eucharist tended to emphasize lay devotion to Christ and a desire to personally connect and communicate with him through the sacrament.^[51] Kobialka further argues that performance practices of the twelfth century Church helped secure a Eucharistic theology that was at once corporeal, spiritual, and ecclesiological.^[52] As Carol Symes has explained, medieval liturgical texts and performance practices helped establish spaces to confront and negotiate such changes in thought and practice.

Ludus Danielis could serve as a negotiating space for this development. For the clerics, including the subdeacons, performing in the play could embody for them their mediating role – through the use of the very vessels used in the celebration of the Mass, moving about the sacred space, and recognizing the commonalities between Daniel, Christ, and themselves, the clerics could learn about their role and identity as mediators. On the other hand, for a lay audience that may have been present, the sumptuous visual spectacle of a performance like that of Ludus Danielis, together with its musical and dramatic artistry, could have enhanced this growing “piety of vision” by placing an emphasis on participation through observation. Ann W. Astell explains that “a devout, intent gazing upon the consecrated Host at its elevation during Mass was often regarded as a substitute for the sacramental consumption of the Eucharist […] Understood in the context of medieval popular visual theory and piety, to see the Host was to touch it.”^[53] The development of Ludus Danielis, then, was not only for entertainment, education, or formation; it was also a playfully innovative means navigating new perspectives on Eucharistic theology, personal piety, and the mediating role of the cleric.^[54]

The contemplative pilgrimage of Ludus Danielis may have helped the players at Beauvais negotiate this tension between ecclesial meditation and personal devotion. The playscape of the drama permitted a mingling of the expanding devotional practices and heightened ecclesiology to shape its clerical players as both recipients and mediators of the sacrament. Specifically, as Nils Holger Petersen notes, the players participate in a figurative, quasi-sacramental re-presentation that combines the (re)presentation of the biblical account and ritualistic components.^[55] Petersen continues, remarking on the evident Eucharistic connection wrought by the play: “Daniel receives God’s life-giving food, leading the congregation to see and hear words that emulate what is said and done at the Eucharist.”^[56] Through performing this story, the play embedded the clerics and laity alike within the developing Eucharistic vision.

The overtly Christological and sacramental connections were concretized as the players performed their pilgrimage to participate in the life of Christ as foreshadowed by Daniel.^[57] The meditative commentary and pious imitation that the play encouraged served to connect the players themselves with Christ, mediated through Daniel’s typologically interpreted story. One may discern how Daniel functions as a sort of “sacramental figure moving the congregation to experience his sacred priesthood, which can lead them to Christ.”^[58] This was not meant to be a passive experience, but a transformational one. Just as Darius responds positively when he sees that Daniel’s God has preserved the prophet from the lions, Ludus Danielis invites the players to likewise renew their devotional commitment to the God of salvation. As Taylor concludes, “The play is a multi-media vehicle for congregational metanoia: it offers the audience new grounds for faith in God, and…invites their reversal of any personal religious indifference or lukewarm passivity.”^[59]

Further, as a formational tool, the play empowered the players to themselves become effective mediators of the presence of Christ by following Daniel’s example.^[60] Daniel, functioning in the play as a spiritual role model, a contemplative pilgrim, and a mediating guide embodied the transforming trifold Eucharistic theology: Daniel-as-role-model helps clerics participate in the spiritual communion of imitation; Daniel-as-pilgrim helps clerics engage in devotional meditation to move the mind toward Christ; and Daniel-as-guide helps clerics mediate the corporeal union between the believer and Christ through the Eucharist.

As the players participated in Daniel’s story, the play became a sacred sign reminiscent of the celebration of the Eucharist, confirming God’s remembrance of and love for the people, and the clerics’ Daniel-like role in facilitating that grace-filled encounter.^[61] Daniel receives the gift of food from God and praises God for saving him from death,^[62] much as the priest mediates the gift of grace through the sacrament to the people and all rejoice in salvation.^[63] Thus, the play established a means of devotional participation and instruction that reinforced ideal clerical identity and their role in the transforming Eucharistic theology of the period.

5 Conclusions and Future Trajectories

Performance practices like Ludus Danielis were crucial to the devotional and professional formation of young clerics during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. It is important to remember, though, that performances are inherently unrepeatable – every iteration is unique. As Symes has noted, the act of recording performance traditions in writing in part attempted to minimize differences between performances and censor perceived “unorthodox” practices.^[64] The recording of Ludus Danielis in the thirteenth century many years after the play’s conception, then, may have stemmed from the desire to codify not only the performance, but also the formational and theological contents therein. Despite this move toward regulation, however, it is logical that subsequent performances did not necessarily conform to the intended agenda put forth in the written composition.^[65] While the play might not be called “liturgy,”^[66] Ludus Danielis nonetheless lived into the spirit of leitourgia. It became a sort of “work of the people” whereby the players could faithfully negotiate their identity and piety with each unique performance even as the impulse to commit the performance tradition to writing asserted a specific framework. Like its antecedents, Ludus Danielis served as a theological and ritual commentary, but its creative interplay between source material and dramatic mechanisms established a symbolic space wherein the court tales of Daniel 5–6 became the language for working out issues of clerical authority and personal piety during a pivotal moment in French medieval life.

Future scholarship will continue to benefit from the sharing of critical perspectives and creative applications between performance and biblical studies in pursuit of functional interpretations. Appreciation for how the story and person of Daniel–and biblical narratives in general – were transformed in the medieval imagination for ecclesial purposes can open tantalizing investigations into how the biblical text functioned throughout its composition and reception history. The current proliferation of critical performance studies has been instrumental for both biblical studies and the analysis of medieval drama. Notably, a recent special issue of the Journal of the Bible and Its Reception showcased the influence and significance of the phenomenon of biblical drama in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Period, engaging a range of critical frameworks to highlight the diversity of perspectives and purposes that biblical dramas could enliven in both their original contexts and in modern performance.^[67] Interest in embodiment and cognitive studies with respect to performance can also be instructive. Eva von Contzen, for example, recently discussed the Middle English cycle plays from the perspective of “joint attention,” a framework that could be useful in exploring the way biblical texts themselves continue to be engaged in a variety of contexts.^[68] Similarly, consideration of certain parallels between the book’s longstanding identification with the genres of “court tales” and “story-collection” (especially the genres’ typical motifs, stock characters, and entertainingly instructive purposes) and the form and function of dramatic works like Ludus Danielis may illuminate how texts such as these help audiences negotiate changing circumstances and tensions of power and theology.^[69] Another trajectory that merits further examination is the invitation to revisit how the biblical text itself, including its translations, versions, and apocryphal material, is approached, engaged, and transformed in various communities across time and space. Daniel has been expansively studied the context of Christian typological interpretation and iconography, perhaps to the point of nearly being taken for granted as constitutive to the story of Daniel. Reconsideration of the history of these receptions and increased attention to, for example, medieval Jewish interpretations is warranted to offer a fuller and richer picture of the impact and significance of biblical narratives like Daniel 5–6 in the imagination and experience of communities past and present.