We’re back today with our second of three episodes looking at the performing arts in education. In this episode, we move forward to the nineteenth century to look at theatre in Jesuit schools in the United States.
My guest this week, who will walk us through this history, is Michael Zampelli, SJ. Michael is a theatre director and historian at Fordham University. His research interests include gender and sexuality in performance, antitheatricality, Jesuit performance history – his recent work has focused on the Jesuit performance tradition in the nineteenth and twentieth century United States. Alongside his research work, he has directed productions of several Jesuit-inspired pieces from the early modern period.
Transcript
Michael Donnay
We’re back today with our second of three episodes looking at the performing arts in education. If you haven’t listened to my conversation with Amanda Eubanks Winkler from our last episode, I’d recommend starting there. Have you finished listening? Great!
In this episode, we’re moving forward in time to the 19th century (with a brief stop over in the 18th) to talk about performance in Jesuit schools and colleges in the United States. The Jesuits – also known as the Society of Jesus – are a Catholic religious order known for their educational work. They still run dozens of schools, colleges, and universities around the world. They are less well known for their equally important focus on the performing arts, which played a major role in Jesuit education until the order was suppressed in the 1770s.
When the order was restored in 1814, the Jesuits resumed their educational work, but the conventional wisdom is that they did not resume their performance tradition. The research of my guest today pushes back against that conventional wisdom. Michael Zampelli is an Associate Professor of Theatre at Fordham University, a theatre director and historian, and a Jesuit priest. Some of his recent work has focused on the Jesuit performance tradition in the nineteenth and twentieth century United States and the role it played in their pedagogical practice. He’ll be our guide through that history.
Before we jump in, I want to dedicate this episode to Prof. John O’Malley, who passed away recently. Prof. O’Malley was a historian who played a major role in the emergence of Jesuits studies as a field, and particularly the study of the arts in Jesuit practice. He was also partially responsible for my interest in the history of education and was in many ways the impetus for this episode.
With that, I hope you enjoy my conversation with Michael Zampelli.
Welcome to the podcast Michael, we’re so excited to have you with us.
Michael Zampelli
Thanks very much. It’s great to be here.
Michael Donnay
So I think the best place for us to start today’s conversation, as we talk about these questions of the Jesuits and their artistic tradition, is to provide people with a little bit of background context, since we’re going to be talking about Jesuits in the 19th century. And some of the questions you frame are deliberately looking back to an earlier Jesuit history. Is there a reason that you’re asking the questions you do in your research the way – with reference to the Suppression as being this big pivotal moment in Jesuit history?
Michael Zampelli
Yeah, I think so. So, I think it’s really important to know that the Jesuit investment in the performing arts – so music, theater and dance was really very considerable, from the very beginning of the Order’s founding in the middle 16th century. And really, that lasted up until the last quarter of the 18th century, when the Society was suppressed. Theater became a staple in Jesuit education within three years of the founding of the first school that the Jesuits had in Messina, Sicily. And the focus there really was this cultivation of what we call elloquencia perfecta latina or perfect Latin eloquence. And that meant not only speaking well, but also acting well, you know, growing in the human and Christian virtues that were necessary for living a good life in that early modern period. And then dance became pedagogically important because students in Jesuit schools – if they were going to actually inhabit their roles in early modern society as effectively as they could, they needed not only to speak well, but they had to move well, right. When they came into a room you had to know who they were, they had to be able to take possession of a space, they had to be graceful. So that Renaissance emphasis on physical grace, proper deportment that became important for Jesuit education because it also reflected interior grace, interior reverence and manners. So for the Jesuits, the eloquence was not just a matter of the tongue, it was also a matter of the body.
And particularly that became true in France, where the Jesuits were on the ground floor of the theorisation of ballet. And in other places, like in Italy, for example, fencing and equestrianism would have done a similar thing, really. So, because Jesuits were such good communicators, and they stayed in touch with each other, and their superiors by regular letters, all of these kinds of practices were disseminated wherever Jesuits were working. So they shared play scripts, musical scores, scene designs, things like that, because they were so good at staying in touch with each other. And then, of course, was made easier, because they were all speaking Latin, at least in the formal sense, right in the formal way of sharing things. And I also think that the sharing was a concrete manifestation of the ways in which they leveraged the power of their own network, that they stayed connected, no matter where they were in the world. They communicated what they were doing and how they were doing it. So that’s basically the kind of pre-suppression world you know. A very active performing arts world that’s involved not only in the educational context, but also in kind of pastoral and missionary efforts.
But there’s a break, right. So in the 200 year tradition, there’s the suppression of the Society, which is this moment in 1773, when Pope Clement XIV, having been pressured by various European monarchs to suppress the Society, because of a variety of reasons – you know, political involvements, whatever – the Society ceases to be. And even before that moment in 1773, the Jesuits had been expelled from Portugal, France, Spain, and all their dominions. And again, I think the animus toward the Jesuits grew over many years for a variety of complicated reasons. Though the Jesuit involvement in politics I think, was probably high on the list. Interestingly though, the Jesuits are not entirely suppressed, because in places like Russia, for example, where Catherine the Great refuse to promulgate the Bull of Suppression, the Jesuits continued to function and had novitiate actually, so people were continuing to enter the Jesuits there, even though it was under the Roman radar. And given the events that are happening right now, I think one of Catherine’s reasons for maintaining the Society was her respect, in particular, for the Jesuit school that was run in Kyiv, in what is now Ukraine.
But the fact of the matter is, this suppression created a gulf in Jesuit history. And the Order wasn’t permanently restored until 1814. So that’s about 40 years, where Jesuits had little concrete experience of the living tradition of the Society, and had to figure out how to start this whole thing all over again, mostly from documents. And so one of the things that presumably could have gotten lost is this performance tradition. Because being able to survive a kind of rupture, historical rupture, like that, is going to be difficult, especially because the thing that we’re talking about are really events of liveness. Right? And when you don’t have live people, and you don’t have an experience of them, it’s really hard to sort of reappropriate what might have been going on in the pre-suppression Society for the post-suppression Society.
Michael Donnay
And I think it’s really interesting, you mentioned that the political critiques are probably the most salient for the Jesuits and why they’re getting suppressed. But I’m imagining as well, that some of these artistic practices, got them in for a little bit of criticism, given that there’s a pretty strong strain in Catholicism against this kind of embodied practice or against what people might consider something that’s a bit too worldly or a bit too sensual. And I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about what those critiques might have been?
Michael Zampelli
Yeah, absolutely. So this would have been especially the case, among rigorousists of most kinds, I think, no matter where they were, but the particularly the French Jansenists were particularly upset by the Jesuit investment in performance. It kind of served as a sort of emblem of what they perceived to be the Order’ss laxity with regard to many things. So the fact that the Jesuits spent so much time working in theater or working in dance, was an indication that they were flirting a little bit too closely with worldliness. And where as Jesuits might have interpreted that kind of worldliness in a positive way, many of their critics did not. This was not about of engaging culture, this was really being seduced by the elements of culture that had the potential to corrupt people.
So for example, in France, one of the one of the objections to the to the ballet, was that the Jesuits not only taught the ballet and had ballets performed during the course of the year, particularly at Louis-le-Grand, which was kind of a center in Paris. But they would also invite the dancing masters of the king, you know. So Louis XIV’s dancing master would go and sort of helped the students learn the dance moves was sort of teach them more and more about ballet. And then in addition to that, the Jesuits would have dancers, professional dancers, from the Paris Opera, join the students in the student productions of the ballet. And the idea there was that in some way, the higher level, the professional level performance of these guest performers would, would encourage the students to up their game, right. That they raise the bar. So that they really had to work harder in order to keep up with these professional dancers. But of course, professional dancers were not considered to be wholesome people in this early modern period, right? So the Jansenists look at this and think what is going on at that place. So again, this notion of laxity of departing from what the essence of the Catholic tradition is, flirting with things that are dangerous. This all can be encapsulated in that kind of devotion to performance. That became a kind of emblem for the way the Order might have been sort of skating on the edge of orthodoxy. So I think you’re right in terms of this notion that performance could be problematic for a lot of people.
Michael Donnay
That does not surprise me in the least, but it’s interesting to hear that in sort of all sorts of different times and places, this connection or affinity to the arts leads to the sort of allegations of moral laxity.
I think that’s a really helpful context. And I think that helps make sense of why when you then turn to the Jesuits after the Restoration, particularly in the 19th century United States – where your research focuses on right now – that you would be looking for performance, given that it’s such a major part of the Jesuit tradition earlier. And that a lot of historians in the past haven’t found it. But a big part of your research is arguing that it’s actually quite present. So I was wondering if in turning to the 19th century, we could talk a little bit about some of the components of that practice. And in particular, you lay out three different ways of thinking about it, or three parts of thinking about it. Who are the agents of performance? What are the contents of the performances themselves? And then what is the occasion and location of these performances in the educational context? And so turning to each of those one at a time, we can work our way through what Jesuit performance looks like, in this sort of restored, new Society.
Michael Zampelli
And one of the questions that I asked really, is that whenever I used to talk about the history of Jesuit theater, people would always ask me, “Well, what the hell happened? You know, what happened to this?” And so I wondered, many people would give kind of the pat answer that what, “You know, when the Jesuits are restored, they played it much more safely. You know, they didn’t, they didn’t invest as much into in performance. Because they were really trying to sort of toe the line a little bit more, and they were just trying to be to color within the lines a little bit more.” And I have to say, that was never really a very satisfying answer to me to the question, because I feel like you had all of these Jesuits in the restored Society, who were being kicked out of their countries in Europe in the 19th century, they were coming across to the United States. And then they were starting all of the schools, they were going to all these different parts in the wilderness of the United States, and they were beginning all of these works. And I thought, well, they must have been willing to color outside the lines and doing all of that stuff. Because most of the time, they didn’t get permission to do the things that they were doing from the central office before they did them. So it seems to me some risk taking seemed to have been part of their life.
If you read any of the histories, you will always see whoever’s writing the history will always talk about the performances that are given from the earliest times in the Jesuit school. The thing that they don’t do – so they talk about theater, and music and dance. The thing that they don’t do, though, is talk about what those things were to any degree. They don’t really talk about details much. And they don’t really try to try to understand what might have been going on in those performances. So I think they document that performance exists, but not really what it’s import is. And I think that’s one of the things that I was hoping in my own work to try to figure out. What’s happening in these performances in these various places in the United States. And as you say, you know, for me, it’s been easy to kind of, not easy, but I feel like eventually I got to the point where I thought, well, it’s basically asking the questions, “Who’s doing them? When, why, and what?” Those kinds of basic questions, just to see if there’s anything that emerges in terms of what’s important for the Jesuits in this 19th century experience.
And so first and foremost, in terms of the agents of performance, the agents of the performance were the students. So as in the old Society, we often refer to the Jesuit order prior to its suppression as the old Society. So in the old Society, performances, though always diverting and fun, they always had a certain pedagogical end in view. And I think even in the United States in the 19th century, first among those ends was this cultivation of eloquence, this cultivation of presence. Perhaps no longer in Latin, but certainly now in English and sometimes even in a student’s own native language. So for example, in places where were the immigrants were actually from Germany, there would have been occasion into do plays in German as well as an English. So this whole idea of cultivating eloquence in language became an important part of the Jesuit pedagogical aim. So cultivating eloquence and presence.
And related to this, I think, was publicizing the work that was being done at the institution. So these performances oftentimes took place – these public exhibitions and plays – they really serve to perform what Jesuit education was for the surrounding community. And it demonstrated the talents and the skills of the students who are in the process of being educated for American society. Mostly immigrant students who are looking to prepare for a place in American society and these performances, really foregrounded the advancing skills and abilities of these students to do just that. So the performance was significant, I think, particularly because it began this process of showing how Catholic immigrant families could be in the process of integrating themselves into a Protestant America. And so performance, I think, was a really important way of doing this and demonstrating this. So for the students, that became a really important piece of the experience, you know, a kind of laboratory for demonstrating what they were learning and how they were able to command presence.
Then you had the faculty members who are also the agents of this thing. So prior to the suppression, the person who was responsible for mounting and often writing the Latin plays that were produced usually twice a year was the teacher of rhetoric. So there was a connection between the curriculum and what we might call the co-curriculum. Between the classroom and the stage, which as I’ve mentioned before, functioned as a kind of laboratory, a kind of interpretive laboratory to practice the habits that were being cultivated in class. Whether those habits had to do with speaking well or choosing well or feeling well. So in the restored Society, at least in the United States, theatrical performances were also overseen by faculty members, most often a Jesuit. And with increasing frequency, a Jesuit who is in formation – somebody who is studying for the priesthood. Small scale performances, like dialogues, recitations, they might have been directly related to class, so the teacher of the class would be the appropriate guide.
But larger performances were often produced by the school’s dramatic society and these societies emerged very quickly after the establishment of schools. And those societies were moderated by faculty members who had the responsibility to choose the repertory to oversee the various aspects of the production process. Basically, producers, directing, making sure that students were abiding by their commitments to the society. So having to attend rehearsals, making sure that they were doing all the work necessary, etc. So you have the faculty members who are clearly involved in these kinds of productions.
And then lastly, in terms of agents, you have the audiences. So the students and faculty of the school with a primary audience in some sense. For the most part life in a Jesuit school was relatively regimented. And though there was time for recreation – and the Jesuits were very concerned that there would be enough time allotted to recreation and getting a break from studies – there were a lot of expectations regarding what people did, when. So when performances were given, it was a really kind of break for everybody in the school. The schedule got varied. It was a special event. These moments became diverting and entertaining. So it was something that the entire school – students and faculty – enjoyed together.
And I think it’s important to realize that entertainment was not a bad word for Jesuit educators. They felt like that was a really important counterpoint to the kind of discipline of education because if people didn’t have free time, if people didn’t have time to sort of be diverted, then their work in the classroom was going to actually suffer. So this idea of alternating entertainment with the discipline of classwork was really important. So these participated in that varying of the schedule. And like all performances, and like athletic competitions, these also are occasions of bonding among the school community. Witnessing the work of other students, witnessing the work of peers. So they created a greater sense of community, it seems. The students would critique the performances, they would write reviews in papers and alumni journals. And then the audiences included also parents, ecclesiastical dignitaries, civic leaders, people for invited from the community to come and see what what the students were doing. And again, much of this is very much in sync with what was happening prior to the suppression of the Society. Namely, publicizing the reputation of the school to the local environment. So it’s basically saying, “Look how good our students look out, look how effectively our students are being extra educated for the society in which they will enter.” So the audiences also included the local community, not just the school community, and that was an important piece for publicizing the work of the school.
Michael Donnay
I think that’s a really helpful thing to keep in mind when we’re thinking about the sort of pedagogical purpose and the way that students are actually experiencing that. Not just what’s intended for them, but how they actually inform or incorporate that into their own work. And thinking in terms of what they’re actually being made to perform or what they’re choosing to perform – you mentioned a second ago that they are moving a little bit away from the sort of Latin repertoire that would have been the standard in the pre-suppression Society. What takes that place?
Michael Zampelli
For the most part, the performances tended to have a didactic person purpose. That were usually consistent with the formal curriculum, right. So plays for the most part had to have a moral that was to be learned and appreciated, or some sort of example that could be appropriated by the students. For the most part. So the plots of some of the more emblematic plays that were chosen usually explored things like the contest between virtue and vice. Counseling, of course, that the virtue should win really. The cultivation of the former and the repudiation of the latter was really important to them. Some of the plays though certainly not all of them had a specifically Catholic interest, urging the spectators to a certain kind of a Christian piety and holiness. So some examples are very popular play that was performed throughout the Jesuit network was The Hidden Gem by Cardinal Wiseman about St. Alexius. And again, St. Alexius, is a model of a young Christian man. And so that is offered to the boys and the young men in the school as a kind of model of piety and holiness. The play Thomas Moore, for example, by [Anthony] Munday and [Henry] Chettle, which has the revisions by Shakespeare, that was something that was often performed. But there was also attention given to producing works that had a certain kind of cultural cachet. That would have been markers of a kind of literary sophistication, that seemed necessary for an educated gentleman in the United States. So Shakespeare gets performed, particularly things like Henry IV, The Merchant of Venice, Macbeth. Sheridan. Schiller.
So there’s a kind of range of things that get performed. It’s not just kind of one particular type of performance. It’s many different things get performed, but usually, they all have some sort of relevance to the pedagogical purposes of the curriculum. And there also seemed to have been a concerted attempt to produce work that mirrored the popular stage in urban areas. So one of the things I’ve noticed is that there’s this sense of wanting to keep students alert to what is happening in popular culture. So remember, in the 19th century theater is the popular entertainment and it is the thing that people are watching – people are going to see. So oftentimes plays like Damon and Pythias, which is a 19th century vehicle for a host of English and American actors, that was always on the circuit in the US but that made a made its appearance in Jesuit schools and other schools as well. [Edward] Bulwer-Lytton’s Richelieu, which is most famous for the line, “the pen is mightier than the sword.” That is something that’s actually on secular stages that gets brought into the Jesuit repertory.
In addition to all of those, again, this in some ways, harkens back to the observation that I made earlier that entertainment wasn’t necessarily a bad word. So the fair also included burlesques, operetta, operettas, original musicals, pieces that were intended to be almost entirely diversionary and entirely funny. That there was a place for that. So those kinds of things are happening as well, you know, even though the Latin drama seems to have recessed. There is a period in the late 19th century, early 20th century, where there is a revival really, of the classical work. We might call it the classical revival, where Greek and Latin dramatic works – in Greek and Latin – were being presented for large audiences. This happened not only in Jesuit schools, but in secular schools as well. Harvard’s production in 1881 of Oedipus sort of started this trend. And Jesuits really jumped right into this really. So doing Plautus in the original Latin, for example. St. Francis Xavier did a production of that in 1893. And it was not only produced in New York, but also at the Chicago World’s Fair. St. Joseph’s in Philadelphia did a production of Oedipus at Colonus in Greek, and that’s probably the first production of that play in the US ever. Holy Cross did a huge production of Hecuba in 1926. All in Greek, outside – people took the train, classicists, all these people from all over the United States – to see this production that was taking place in ancient Greek.
So in some ways, Jesuit performance really kind of reflects and encourages movements and all sorts of educational trends, right? So those classical works are happening at a time, when the classical curriculum is being is being questioned by many institutions of higher learning. That in some way, people are asking what is the value of Greek and Latin when really people need to be prepared for careers in an industrialized society. “What is what is useful about that?” And so that’s exactly the time that these productions begin to sort of increase. So this this conversation between the larger educational world and the Jesuits, as one party, really beginning to almost perform the debate around the value of certain kinds of education.
And it might be important to say that something that’s taken my attention much more recently, is that they were also really some problematic performances that took place. So as you can imagine, because one of the staples of 19th century entertainment is the minstrel show, those also make themselves felt in Jesuit environments. This construction of blackness, the construction of race that is particularly alarming to us are these kind of artifacts of disturbing and problematic performances,. That in some way to me pull against the Jesuit ideal of eloquencia perfect, of seeing language and performance as a way of liberation. And actually deploying this language and performance really as a way of confining certain people or removing dignity away from certain classes of people. So I think there’s all those things are happening as well. So as you can see, there’s a whole range of contents that we’re actually dealing with.
Michael Donnay
I’m conscious of our time and I’d love to talk a little bit about methods and a bit of the historical craft that goes into doing this kind of research. Something you talk about a fair amount in your own writing and that I think a lot of people who work on the performing arts have noted is that it’s a really challenging thing to study in the past because – particularly before photos and videos and sound recordings – there is very scant record of what these performances actually looked like and what performance practices were. So I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about sort of what those challenges are in your own research, and what sort of sources or approaches you take to try to get at these really embodied and ephemeral performing arts.
Michael Zampelli
Right. So this is a complicated question. This is a complicated question for me. So the major challenge, as you’ve already articulated it, is that the thing that we’re interested in. the thing that I’m interested in looking at Jesuit performance, the thing that any historian of performance is interested in, is studying something that no longer exists. It is simply not there anymore. So you have a play text, you have a musical score, you have some markings on a piece of paper, but you do not have the event. Which is precisely the thing that you’re interested in, because the event is where performers are relating to an audience in a particular context with a particular kind of content. And the relationships among all of those things are really complicated. And as you know, by going to a play now there’s a lot of stuff happening in that moment, that is not going to be able to be retained simply by an artifact like the program or the poster. The thing that you’re looking for is what happened, what did that thing mean? What did it feel like? All of those things are tantalizingly out of reach because you just can’t get at it.
I feel like another problem that we have is that we can have a tendency or – I’ll make it an “I” statement – I can have a tendency to think of an audience when I’m studying a kind of historical event in monolithic terms. That I just presume that everyone in the audience is participating in and evaluating that performance in the same way. And we know that that is completely not true from our own experience of going to the theater. That that there are layers of response and determining reception, whatever that means, can be a very difficult thing to do. And reception is one of the things that we always want to know about, you know, “How did something land in its audience?” What people write in reviews, or in their journal might be very different from how they were actually feeling about the thing, or how the large group of people might have been feeling about it.
So those are for me, those are some of the challenges that present themselves. And maybe the ways that I’ve tried to rise to those challenges, just by doing what all other historians of performance tried to do: you go through the material history. You try to find everything possible, that still exists. So all of these programs, journal articles, newspaper critiques, drawings, diaries. One of the things that’s been useful to me is – speaking of the communicative power of the Jesuits – are these diaries that the minister of the house. The minister is the person who is usually responsible for, in the Jesuit community, for all the practical details. So there was a tradition, at least up until recently, with a minister of the house would keep a diary about what happened. What was happening in the community, how people responded to things, it was a kind of record – a house history. So those things have been very helpful to me to figure out how was the performance world was intersecting with the community for which the performance was aimed.
Michael Donnay
I think those all seem like really good answers, or at least attempts to get at the really fundamental, really tricky bit of performance that is the thing in the moment. And I think the last question I’d like to leave our audience with – since we’ve been talking so much about audience – because one of the things about your career that I find so interesting is that you work both as a researcher looking at the history of performance, but also as a director, who creates performance. Some of which is actually very directly tied to the research you’re doing. So I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about how you think about those roles informing each other and whether there’s things you’ve learned from being sort of a theatre practitioner that inform your work as a theatre and educational historian.
Michael Zampelli
So I feel like I’ve learned a lot – in addition to loving doing both of these things, I feel like that’s an important piece that I really enjoy doing both of these things – I’ve learned a lot by doing them side by side in some way. So directing always reminds me that performance is an embodied practice. And it really combines both meticulous planning but also generous spontaneity. That my idea of what’s happening in the play always changes depending upon whom I’m speaking with or who I’m working with at any particular time. So, for example, my ideas are always inflected by the actors, always inflected by the designers, always inflicted by the people that I’m working with. And the idea that I thought I had is really not the best idea, right? So it reminds me that that people’s intentions around doing performances really develop over time in community with other people. So there’s a certain kind of unpredictability there. So when I do research, I have to try to keep myself remembering that that a production is not formulaic. That things happen in the process of production that you can’t anticipate or predict. And so it helps me not oversimplify what might have been happening in that performance moment. So knowing what plays someone did doesn’t tell me what the production of the play was, how it was inflicted, how effective it was. So I remember that all of that is much messier than one wants to think. So I feel like my own experience as a director really helps me keep complicated the questions that I might ask of historical material.
The other thing that I’ve learned – I’ve directed a fair number of Jesuit-inspired performance pieces. Mostly chamber operas from the old Society that were generated in that period of time. And one of the things that that taught me is that you really can’t know what a particular performance piece was like, or what it did, until you try to put it on its feet. So I approach these pieces as a kind of laboratory for my own work. So for example, it’s commonplace to say that Jesuit drama and Jesuit-related opera, which is when I was sort of working in, that these things are didactic, that they’re pious. For most people, when you say something descriptive like that, it communicates itself to them, like, “Boy, these people must these pieces must be really boring with a capital B. You know, didactic and pious, right? I’d rather watch paint dry.” But after having directed several of those pieces for contemporary audiences, I learned that affective engagement is really hardwired into those pieces. So they are didactic, and they are pious. But the thing that emerged was they work. There is an internal dynamic that people knew how to put something like this together, so that it would stir the affect of the audience, no matter who the audience member was. So especially when dealing with these rare historical pieces, I think it’s important to try to let them, in some context, do what they were meant to do before writing about them.
Michael Donnay
To be so lucky to be able to put your historical work on its feet like that, just sounds like an incredibly valuable experience.
Michael Zampelli
Yeah, for sure, for sure, for sure.
Michael Donnay
Well, Michael, I wanted to thank you so much for taking the time to come talk to me today and to share a bit about your research and your practice. I’ve really appreciated our conversation.
Michael Zampelli
Thank you very much. It’s been a pleasure to be here.
Sources
Bridging the Distance: Jesuit Performance Transposed to a Contemporary Key by Michael Zampelli, in Music as Cultural Mission
The Jesuits: Cultures, Sciences, and the Arts, ed. by John W. O’Malley, Gauvin Alexander Bailey, Steven J. Harris, and T. Frank Kennedy