The use of contrasting locales and settings was not unprecedented at this point of medieval drama, probably because opposing forces play such a prevalent and recurring theme in the Bible. Even in “The Raising of Lazarus,” a piece nearly devoid of spectacle or movement, there is the fundamental basis for a comparison between Judaea, which is inherently bad, and wherever Jesus and his disciples are, which is holy and therefore good. The difference in these two plays from their predecessors, however, is the presence of the various scenes on stage for the entire duration of the play, a technique which inflicts a much greater feeling of drama upon the audience then mere descriptions of opposing locations. Dramatic plays that followed, such as “The Passion Play,” reflected even greater development of this technique, having both settings and actors simultaneously present upon the stage to engage the audience and enhance the drama by creating parallel action.
Another distinctive element seen in both plays is the elaboration of dialogue to further the characterization of traditionally flat or stock roles. The transcript for “The Holy Resurrection” is incomplete; however, the opening stage direction explains that it will go on to depict the resurrection of Christ. Even though the depiction of Christ’s resurrection was lost, what remains of the piece allows one to infer that the lost scene would have been consistent with what is still intact and therefore would have included several characters with a fair amount of dialogue. In comparison with other Easter plays, “The Holy Resurrection” is highlighted by an expansion of the dialogue of existing roles to heighten characterization beyond its predecessors. One indicator of the prominence of characterization is the lack of choir lines in the piece, which suggests a much greater emphasis on individual lines and drama then on reiteration of biblical verses and leads to more extensive developments in the traditional roles of characters such as Pilate, Joseph, Longinus and Caiaphas.
The use of characterization in “The Conversion of Paul” is much less prevalent due to its brevity, however, is still present in comparison to earlier pieces. The character Ananias, for example, plays a prominent role in going to Saul and helping him become a follower of Christ, whereas in the past Ananias may not have had more then one or two vague lines to stay consistent with biblical verse. Similarly, in “The Christmas Play” the characters of Augustine and Archisynagogus both rely heavily on lengthy and elaborated dialogue, an effect used not only for the audience to understand them better, but also to further enhance the dramatic appeal of the story.
Finally, although both pieces were innovative in dialogue and settings, they still relied heavily upon some basic dramatic elements dramas that had originated in the church. For example, every drama’s underlying theme enforced the importance of God’s immutability or Christ’s resurrection, or some kind of a variation upon these basic concepts. The inventiveness in which the plays convey their respective themes, however, does demonstrate some variation from earlier plays. For example, in “The Conversion of Paul” Saul asks “why have you deprived me of my sight?” Metaphorically, blindness was one way used to represent someone who had yet to “see” the power of Christ’s salvation, and thus physical blindness was synonymous with being blind to eternal salvation. In a parallel fashion, at one point in “The Holy Resurrection” soldiers go to Christ’s body on the cross and have a blind man, Longinus, stab him with a spear. When he incidentally wipes the blood of Jesus in his eyes, his sight is restored, as well as his faith in Christ. The thematic purpose of the blindness, albeit temporary, of Longinus and Saul parallel one another in that their presence in the plays help to further the dramatic emphasis of salvation and Christ.
On first glance, the twelfth century dramatic pieces of “The Holy Resurrection” and “The Conversion of Paul” appear distinct and unrelated. However, on closer inspection, varying elements present in either play clearly reflects the development of drama during the medieval period. A greater reliance on settings, additional dialogue and improvements of earlier plays both emphasizes and enhances both plays’ dramatic appeal. Consequently, the developments in dramatic elements seen in these plays make them more appealing and their respective themes more translucent to the audience.