Chapter XXV: Humanism and Mediaevalism (9)

(f) 1875. Play ii (_Mactacio Abel_); T. Valke, _Der Tod des Abel_ (Leipzig).

(g) 1885. Plays viii, xviii, xxv, xxvi, xxx (_Pharao_, _Pagina Doctorum_, _Extraccio Animarum_, _Resurreccio Domini_, _Iudicium_); L. Toulmin Smith, _York Plays_, 68, 158, 372, 397, 501 (not quite in full, for comparison with corresponding York plays).

(h) 1890. Play xiii (_Secunda Pastorum_), abridged; Pollard, 31.

(i) 1897. Cycle, G. England and A. W. Pollard, for E. E. T. S. (Extra Series, lxxi).

(k) 1897. Plays iii, v, vi, xiii (_Processus Noe_, _Isaac_, _Iacob_, _Secunda Pastorum_) from (i); Manly, i. 13, 58, 94.

_The Cycle._

There are thirty-two extant plays, as follows:—

i. The Creation (The Barkers, Wakefeld).
ii. Mactacio Abel (The Glovers).
iii. Processus Noe cum filiis (Wakefeld).
iv. Abraham (incomplete).
v. [Isaac].
vi. Iacob.
vii. Processus Prophetarum (incomplete).
viii. Pharao (the Litsters or Dyers).
ix. Cesar Augustus.
x. Annunciacio.
xi. Salutacio Elezabeth.
xii. Una pagina Pastorum (Prima).
xiii. Alia eorundem (Secunda).
xiv. Oblacio Magorum.
xv. Fugacio Iosep & Mariae in Egyptum.
xvi. Magnus Herodes.
xvii. Purificacio Mariae (incomplete at end).
xviii. Pagina Doctorum (incomplete at beginning).
xix. Iohannes Baptista.
xx. Conspiracio (et Capcio).
xxi. Coliphizacio.
xxii. Fflagellacio.
xxiii. Processus Crucis (et Crucifixio).
xxiv. Processus Talentorum.
xxv. Extraccio Animarum.
xxvi. Resurreccio Domini.
xxvii. Peregrini (the Fishers).
xxviii. Thomas Indiae (et Resurreccio Domini).
xxix. Ascencio Domini (incomplete).
xxx. Iudicium.
xxxi. Lazarus.
xxxii. Suspencio Iudae (incomplete).

Plays xxxi and xxxii (a fragment) are obviously misplaced. The former should come between xix and xx; the latter, which is added to the MS. in an early sixteenth-century hand, between xxii and xxiii. Probably two plays at least are lost. Twelve leaves are missing after Play i, and twelve more after Play xxix. These doubtless contained plays of _The Fall_ and _Pentecost_.

_Literary Relations._

The Towneley Cycle is a composite one (Ten Brink, ii. 257; iii. 274; Davidson, 253; England-Pollard, xxi). Mr. Pollard distinguishes three fairly well-marked strata, and this classification is probably not exhaustive. There are (a) a group of plays of the ordinary didactico-religious type; (b) a group derived from the York plays in an earlier form than the extant text; (c) a group written by a single writer of marked power and a bold sense of humour. The plays of this group include iii, xii, xiii, xiv, xxi, and are, for literary quality, the pick of the vernacular religious drama. Mr. Pollard considers the cycle practically complete by about 1420. The horned female headdress (xxx. 269) which led the Surtees editor to put the composition in 1388, is found in miniatures of the later date. The relation of the cycle to that of York is also studied by Davidson, 271 sqq., and A. R. Hohlfeld, in _Anglia_, xi. 253, 285. Ten Brink, ii. 244; iii. 274, thinks that a much earlier (late thirteenth century) play is preserved in Plays v and vi (_Isaac_ and _Iacob_). I agree with Mr. Pollard that this conjecture lacks proof.

A. Ebert has a study, _Die englischen Mysterien, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Townley-Sammlung_, in _Jahrbuch f. rom. u. engl. Lit._ i. 44, 131. The folk-lore incident of the _Secunda Pastorum_ is supplied with parallels by E. Kölbing, in England-Pollard, xxxi, and by H. A. Eaton, in _M.L.N._ xiv. 265, from _The Merry Tales of Gotham_ (H. Oesterley, _A Hundred Merry Tales_ (1526), No. xxiv; Hazlitt, _Shakespeare’s Jest-Books_, iii. 4). There is an allusion to the ‘foles of Gotham,’ in Play xii. 180. J. Hugienen, in _M.L.N._ xiv. 255, finds in Play iv. 49 an adaptation of the French _Viel Testament_, 9511.

_The Locality._

Douce described the manuscript for the sale of Towneley MSS. in 1814 as supposed to have ‘belonged to the Abbey of Widkirk, near Wakefield, in the county of York.’ In his Roxburghe Club edition of the _Iudicium_ he substitutes the name of the Abbey of Whalley, near Towneley Hall. How far either of these statements or conjectures rests upon Towneley family tradition is unknown. Widkirk is merely another form (cf. Prof. Skeat, in _Athenæum_ for Dec. 2, 1893) of Woodkirk, also called West Ardsley, a small place four miles north of Wakefield. There was not, strictly speaking, an abbey at Woodkirk, but a small cell of Augustinian canons, dependent upon the great house of St. Oswald at Nostel.

The MS. itself seems to bear witness to a connexion of the plays with the crafts of Wakefield. Play i is headed ‘Assit Principio, Sancta Maria, Meo. Wakefeld.’ In the margin of Play ii is written ‘Glover Pag.’ in a later hand. Play iii is headed ‘Processus Noe cum filiis. Wakefeld.’ In the margin of Play viii is ‘Litsters Pagonn’ in a later hand, and further down, in a third hand, is ‘lyster play.’ Under the title of Play xxvii is ‘fysher pagent’ in a later hand. Further in Play xiii is a mention of ‘Horbury Shroges,’ Horbury being a village two or three miles from Wakefield, and a ‘crokyd thorne’ which may be a ‘Shepherd’s Thorn’ near Horbury in Mapplewell. These indications are spread over the three groups of plays distinguished by Mr. Pollard, and certainly suggest that the whole cycle belonged to the Wakefield crafts. On the other hand, I find no hint of any plays in the local histories of Wakefield. The evidence for a connexion with Wakefield is strengthened by M. H. Peacock, _The Wakefield Mysteries_, in _Anglia_, xxiv. 509, from which it appears that there are places called Thornhill and Thornes to the E. and W. respectively of Horbury. Play ii, line 367 ‘bery me in gudeboure at the quarell hede’ points to Goodybower Close in Wakefield, which once had a quarry. Play xxiv, line 155 ‘from this towne vnto lyn’ suggests at least a borrowing from East Anglia.

Perhaps we may combine the data of the manuscript and of tradition by supposing that the plays were acted by the crafts of Wakefield, not in the town at Corpus Christi or Whitsuntide, but at one of the great fairs which the canons of Nostel held under charter at Woodkirk about the feasts of the Assumption (Aug. 15) and the Nativity (Sept. 8) of the Virgin. These fairs, run into one continuous horse fair, and known from a local family of Legh, as Lee fair, lasted until quite recently[938].

LUDUS COVENTRIAE.

_Manuscript._

_Brit. Mus. Cotton MS. Vespasian_ D. viii. Forty-two plays, the last incomplete. On f. 100ᵛ is the date 1468. At the beginning is written ‘Robert Hegge, Dunelmensis’ and before the twenty-ninth play ‘Ego R. H. Dunelmensis, Possideo: Ου κτησις αλλα χρησις.’ On the fly-leaf, in an Elizabethan hand, is ‘The plaie called Corpus Christi,’ and in the hand of Cotton’s librarian, Richard James, ‘Contenta Novi Testamenti scenice expressa et actitata olim per monachos sive fratres mendicantes: vulgo dicitur hic liber Ludus Coventriae, sive ludus Corporis Christi: scribitur metris Anglicanis.’ The following account was given by a later librarian, Dr. Smith, in his printed catalogue (1696) of the Cottonian MSS.: ‘A collection of plays, in Old English metre: h.e. Dramata sacra, in quibus exhibentur historiae veteris & N. Testamenti, introductis quasi in scenam personis illic memoratis quas secum invicem colloquentes pro ingenio finget Poeta. Videntur olim coram populo, sive ad instruendum sive ad placendum, a Fratribus mendicantibus representata.’

_Editions._

(a) 1830. Plays i-v (_Fall of Lucifer_, _Days of Creation and Fall of Adam_, _Cain and Abel_, _Noah’s Flood_, _Abraham and Isaac_) in Dugdale, _Monasticon Anglicanum_ (ed. 2). vi, pt. 3, 1534.

(b) 1836. Play x (_Betrothal of Mary_), Collier, _Five Miracle-Plays_.

(c) 1838. Plays xii, xiv (_Doubt of Joseph_, _Trial of Mary_), William Marriott, _English Miracle-Plays_.

(d) 1841. Cycle: J. O. Halliwell[-Phillipps] for Shakespeare Society.

(e) 1890. Play xi (_Annunciation_), Pollard, 44.

(f) 1897. Plays iv, xi (_Noah’s Flood_, _Annunciation_), Manly, i. 31, 82.

(g) A new edition of the complete cycle is promised in the ‘Extra Series’ of the Early English Text Society.

_The Cycle._

The text is not definitely divided up into plays in the MS., although some such indication as an _Explicit_ occasionally helps. Probably the following division is correct. Halliwell’s is clearly wrong, but for convenience of reference I give his numbers in brackets.

i. Fall of Lucifer (Halliwell, i).
ii. Days of Creation. Fall of Adam (H. i, ii).
iii. Cain and Abel (H. iii).
iv. Noah’s Flood (H. iv).
v. Abraham and Isaac (H. v).
vi. Moses (H. vi).
vii. Prophets (H. vii).

Then a prologue by Contemplacio, promising a ‘matere’ of ‘the modyr of mercy’ from her conception to the meeting with Elizabeth, and a ‘conclusyon.’

viii. Joachim and Anna (H. viii).
ix. Mary in the Temple (H. ix).
x. Betrothal of Mary (H. x).
xi. Annunciation (H. xi).

Opens with scene between Contemplacio, Virtutes, Pater, Veritas, Misericordia, Iusticia, Pax, Filius.

xii. Doubt of Joseph (H. xii).
xiii. Visit to Elizabeth (H. xiii).

This group of plays closes with the promised ‘conclusyon,’ namely ‘Ave regina coelorum,’ and Contemplacio disappears.

xiv. Trial of Mary (H. xiv).
xv. Nativity (H. xv).
xvi. _Pastores_ (H. xvi).
xvii. _Magi_ (H. xvii).
xviii. Purification (H. xviii).
xix. Slaughter of Innocents (H. xix).
xx. Death of Herod (H. xix).
xxi. Dispute in Temple (H. xx).
xxii. Baptism (H. xxi).
xxiii. Temptation (H. xxii).
xxiv. Woman Taken in Adultery (H. xxiii).
xxv. Lazarus (H. xxiv).
xxvi. Conspiracy of Jews (H. xxv).
xxvii. Entry into Jerusalem (H. xxvi).
xxviii. Last Supper (H. xxvii).
xxix. Mount of Olives (H. xxviii).

Another group of scenes begins. Contemplacio, called in the stage direction ‘an exposytour, in doctorys wede,’ reappears; and after a procession has ‘enteryd into the place, and the Herowdys taken his schaffalde and Pylat and Annas and Cayphas here schaffaldys,’ says:—

‘Be the leve and soferauns of allemythty God,
We intendyn to procede the matere that we lefte the last ȝere;
...
The last ȝere we shewyd here how oure Lord for love of man
Cam to the cety of Jherusalem mekely his deth to take;
And how he made his mawndé.
...
Now wold we procede, how he was browth than
Beforn Annas and Cayphas, and sythe beforn Pylate:
And so forth in his passyon how mekely he toke it for man.’

This group does not well bear splitting up into plays. The action is continuous, although it takes place now at one scaffold, now at another.

xxx. Herod desires to see Christ. Trial before Caiaphas (H. xxix,
xxx).
xxxi. Death of Judas. Christ before Pilate and Herod (H. xxx).
xxxii. Pilate’s Wife’s Dream. The Condemnation (H. xxxi, xxxii).
xxxiii. Crucifixion (H. xxxii, xxxiii).
xxxiv. Longinus. Burial of Christ (H. xxxiv).
xxxv. Harrowing of Hell. Resurrection (H. xxxv).

Here, possibly, the group ends. Then follow:—

xxxvi. _Quem quaeritis_ (H. xxxvi).
xxxvii. _Hortulanus_ (H. xxxvii).
xxxviii. _Peregrini_ (H. xxxviii).
xxxix. Incredulity of Thomas (H. xxxviii).
xl. Ascension (H. xxxix).
xli. Pentecost (H. xl).
xlii. Assumption of Virgin (H. xli).

The Assumption play, according to Halliwell, is inserted in a hand of the time of Henry VIII.

xliii. Doomsday (H. xlii).

A few lines appear to be missing at the end.

In dividing the plays, I have been helped by a prologue which is put in the mouths of three _Vexillatores_. Says _Primus_:—

‘We purpose us pertly stylle in this prese,
The pepyl to plese with pleys full glad.
Now lystenyth us, lovely, bothe more and lesse,
Gentyllys and ȝemanry of goodly lyff lad, This tyde.’

The _Vexillatores_ then take turns to describe the ‘ffyrst pagent,’ ‘secunde pagent,’ and so on, up to ‘the xlᵗⁱ pagent.’ This should be ‘xlii,’ but by a slip two numbers are used twice. The prologue ends:—

‘A Sunday next, yf that we may,
At vj of the belle we gynne oure play,
In N. towne, wherfore we pray,
That God now be ȝoure spede. _Amen._’

The prologue so far agrees with the plays that it must have been written for them; but it was not written for them as they stand. It gives some of the incidents, especially of the trial scenes, in a different order from the text. Plays viii, xiii, xviii, xxvi, and xlii are omitted altogether. Of these xlii is a late interpolation in the text; but the fact that the numbers viii and xiii are skipped over in the enumeration, although the order in which the _Vexillatores_ speak proceeds regularly, shows that the prologue is later in date than the text, and contemplates the omission of existing plays.

_The Problem._

The exact nature of the _Ludus Coventriae_ is a nice literary point. It is much doubted whether they have anything to do with Coventry at all. Cotton’s librarians regarded them as Coventry plays, acted not by craft-guilds, but by monks or begging friars. But what was their authority? The earliest possessor of the MS. who can be traced is Robert Hegge, a Durham man by birth, and a Fellow of C. C. C., Oxford. Hegge died in 1629, and probably the MS. then passed into Sir Robert Cotton’s collection through Richard James, who happened to be also a C. C. C. man, and was in the habit of picking up finds for Cotton in Oxford[939]. The note on the MS. may represent a tradition as to its origin gathered by James from Hegge.

With this note should be compared the following passage in Dugdale’s _History of Warwickshire_, referring to the house of Franciscans or Grey Friars at Coventry:—

‘Before the suppression of the monasteries, this city was very famous for the _Pageants_ that were play’d therein, upon _Corpus-Christi_-day; which occasioning very great confluence of people thither from far and near, was of no small benefit thereto; which _Pageants_ being acted with mighty state and reverence by the Friers of this House, had Theaters for the severall Scenes, very large and high, placed upon wheels, and drawn to all the eminent parts of the City, for the better advantage of Spectators: And contain’d the story of the New-Testament, composed into Old English Rithme, as appeareth by an antient MS. intituled _Ludus Corporis Christi_ or _Ludus Coventriae_’ [_in bibl._ Cotton, _sub effigie Vesp._ D. 9].

‘I have been told by some old people, who in their younger years were eye-witnesses of these Pageants so acted, that the yearly confluence of people to see that shew was extraordinary great, and yielded no small advantage to this City[940].’

Dugdale, it is to be observed, has the MS. as one of his authorities, but he goes further than the librarians by ascribing the plays to a particular house of friars. Unfortunately his account will not hold water. He was born in 1605, and educated for five years in Coventry. Now there could have been no plays performed by the Grey Friars after 1538, for they were suppressed in that year. But the craft-plays survived, with great _éclat_, until 1580, and it is manifest that it is these plays which his informants described to him. They were acted on Corpus Christi day, obviously leaving no room for Grey Friars plays on the same day. The craft-plays seem to have been confined to the history of the New Testament (cf. p. 423), but the _Ludus Coventriae_ is not. There is, however, a not very trustworthy bit of evidence which makes it just possible that the Grey Friars did act, not at Corpus Christi, but at Whitsuntide. This is the statement of the Coventry _Annals_ that in 1492-3, Henry VII came to see the plays acted by the Grey Friars[941]. But the _Annals_ only date from the seventeenth century, and they are not trustworthy (cf. p. 358) as to the history of the plays. I incline to think that the Grey Friars connexion is an Oxford guess of Hegge or his friends, which has found its way alike into the accounts of Richard James and Dugdale, and into the _Annals_. But is the connexion of the plays with Coventry also part of the guess, inspired by the fact that the Coventry mysteries, and these alone, obtained literary notice in the sixteenth century? Or have we Coventry guild-plays to deal with? The _Ludus Coventriae_ is quite distinct from the two extant Coventry plays (p. 422); but those are of the sixteenth century, and appear to represent a recension in 1535 of ‘new plays’ produced, according to the _Annals_, in 1520 (p. 358). So far as this goes, the _Ludus Coventriae_ might be the discarded fifteenth-century cycle of the Coventry crafts. Ten Brink points out certain features in the _Ludus_ which seem, from the Cappers’ accounts extracted by Sharp, to have existed also at Coventry[942]. On the other hand, the Coventry plays, unlike the _Ludus_, seem to have been confined to the New Testament. The _Ludus_ does not give those opportunities for showing off artisanship which are characteristic of other craft-cycles[943]. And, strongest of all, while the Coventry plays were processional, a study of the _Ludus_ will make it quite clear that it was intended for a stationary performance. The ‘pagents’ contemplated by the prologue can only be episodes artificially distinguished in a practically continuous action. Often there is no well-marked break between pageant and pageant. The same personages appear and reappear in more than one; and the whole performance evidently takes place in and around a ‘place’ or _locus interludii_ (Halliwell, 44) upon which are situated various ‘scaffolds’ or ‘stages[944],’ a heaven, a hell, a temple, a _sepulchrum_, and so forth. The _navis_ for Noah is practicable, and can come and go.

If the plays are not from Coventry, can they be located elsewhere? They have been ascribed to Durham, but merely, I think, because Robert Hegge was ‘Dunelmensis.’ Mr. Pollard follows Ten Brink in assigning their dialect and scribal peculiarities to the North-East Midlands, and in ascribing them to a strolling company[945]. They regard ‘N. towne’ in the prologue as a common form (N = ‘nomen,’ as in the Church Catechism and Marriage Service). As to the dialect I offer no opinion; I am sorry not to have been able to see M. Kramer, _Sprache und Heimath der Coventry-Plays_. But I do not think that the strolling company is proved. The _vexillatores_ may be merely proclaimers of banns sent round the villages hard by the town where the play was given. And ‘N.’ may be an abbreviation for a definite town name. Northampton (q.v.) has been suggested; but would not scan. Norwich (q.v.) would; and these might conceivably be a cycle played by the guild of St. Luke at Norwich before the crafts took the responsibility for the Whitsun plays from it. But the elaborate treatment of the legends of the Virgin suggests a performance, like that of the Lincoln plays, and of the _Massacre of the Innocents_ in the _Digby MS._, on St. Anne’s day (July 26). It is to be observed that both these examples are in the E. Midland area to which philologists assign the text of the _Ludus Coventriae_.

_Literary Relations._

Ten Brink, ii. 283, calls attention to the composite character of the cycle, in which groups of various origin are placed side by side without much attempt at imposing a literary unity upon them. He thinks, however, that all the plays received their form in the same part of England, and considers the dialect to be that of the North-East Midlands. In a note (iii. 276) he finds an analogy in the treatment of certain themes between the _Ludus Coventriae_ and the Coventry plays proper. Davidson, 259, thinks that the author might have been ‘connected with one of the great religious houses of the Fen District.’ Hohlfeld (_Anglia_, xi. 219) has some interesting remarks on the cycle. It may be observed that Plays xxx-xxxv in my grouping are evidently taken from a cycle of which only a part was given in each year. The _Purification and Presentation in the Temple_ of the Digby MS. affords a parallel example. Possibly Plays viii-xiii in which, as in Plays xxx-xxxv, Contemplacio appears, have the same source.

COVENTRY PLAYS.

[See also account of _Ludus Coventriae_.]

_Manuscripts._

A copy, probably the ‘original’ of the Shearmen and Tailors’ play, was in the possession of Thomas Sharp. It is described in a colophon as ‘T[h]ys matter nevly correcte by Robert Croo the xiiijᵗʰ day of marche fenysschid in the yere of owre lorde god MCCCCC & xxxiiijᵗᵉ [1534/5].’ At the end are three songs, with the date 1591. A similar copy of the Weavers’ play ‘nevly translate be Robert Croo in the yere of oure Lorde God Mlvᶜ xxxiiijᵗᵉ ... yendide the seycond day of Marche in yere above sayde,’ was ‘unexpectedly discovered in 1832,’ and a transcript made by Sharp. This also has songs at the end, but no date. The collections of Sharp passed into the Staunton collection at Longbridge House, and thence into the Shakespeare Memorial Library at Birmingham, where they were burnt in 1879.

_Editions._

(a) 1817. _Shearmen and Tailors Play._ Thos. Sharp in a series, separately paged, of _Illustrative Papers of the History and Antiquities the City of Coventry_. [Reprinted 1871 under editorship of W. G. Fretton.]

(b) 1825. _Shearmen and Tailors’ Play._ Reprinted from (a) by Thomas Sharp, with full illustrative matter, in _A Dissertation on the Coventry Mysteries_, 83.

(c) 1836. _Weavers’ Play._ J. B. Gracie for the Abbotsford Club.

(d) 1838. _Shearmen and Tailors’ Play._ William Marriott, _English Miracle-Plays_.

(e) 1897. _Shearmen and Tailors’ Play._ Manly, i. 120, from (b).

(f) 1902. _Weavers’ Play._ Edited from (c) by F. Holthausen, in _Anglia_, xxv. 209.

(g) 1903. _Shearmen and Tailors’ Play._ A. W. Pollard, in _Fifteenth Century Prose and Verse_ (_English Garner_), 245.

(h) Both plays are being edited by H. Craig for the E. E. T. S.

_The Cycle._

The _Shearmen and Tailors’ Play_ has a prologue by ‘Isaye the profet.’ Then follow in order, the Annunciation, the Doubt of Joseph, the Journey to Bethlehem, the Nativity and Shepherds, a dialogue of two ‘Profettis,’ Herod and the Magi, the Flight to Egypt, the Massacre of the Innocents. The _Weavers’ Play_ must have followed next in the cycle. It opens with a dialogue of two ‘_Profetae_’. Then come the Presentation in the Temple and the Dispute with the Elders. The subjects of four of the other plays can be pretty clearly identified. The Smiths’ accounts show them to have played the Trial and Crucifixion, to which was added in 1573 the ‘new play’ of the Death of Judas; the Descent from the Cross passed through various hands from the Pinners and Needlers in 1414 to the Coopers in 1547; the Cappers’ accounts point to the Resurrection, Harrowing of Hell, and _Quem quaeritis_, with from 1540 the ‘Castell of Emaus’; and those of the Drapers to Doomsday. It is difficult to say how many plays remain unidentified. The crafts were grouped and regrouped, and the total number of plays may have varied. But it would seem that besides the crafts already named, the Mercers, Whittawers, Girdlers, Cardmakers, and Tanners were playing in the middle of the fifteenth century. The ‘jest’ quoted on p. 358 points to a Pentecost play with the ‘xij Articles of the Creed,’ similar to that of Chester. It is noticeable that no Old Testament play can be established at Coventry.

_Literary Relations._

These plays, of which the _Weavers’ Play_ was, until recently, difficult to procure, have been but little studied. Two communications by C. Davidson and A. R. Hohlfeld in _Modern Language Notes_, vii. 184, 308, call attention to the fact that the larger part of the dialogue in the _Dispute in the Temple_ scene is practically the same as that common to the York, Towneley, and Chester plays (cf. _York Plays_, 158, and A. R. Hohlfeld in _Anglia_, xi. 260).

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE.

_Manuscript._

The Shipwrights’ Play of _Noah’s Ark_ was in the hands of its first editor, Henry Bourne; but is not known to be now preserved (Holthausen, 32).

_Editions._

(a) 1736. _Noah’s Ark; or, The Shipwrights’ Ancient Play or Dirge_; in H. Bourne, _Hist. of Newcastle_, 139.

(b) 1789. Reprint of (a) in J. Brand, _Hist. of Newcastle_, ii. 373.

(c) 1825. Reprint of (a) in T. Sharp, _Dissertation on Coventry Mysteries_, 223.

(d) 1897. F. Holthausen, in _Göteborg’s Högskola’s Ärsskrift_, and separately.

(e) 1899. R. Brotanek, in _Anglia_, xxi. 165.

Both (d) and (e) are founded on Bourne’s text; but Brotanek has endeavoured to restore what he considers to have been the probable MS. text. This he dates, conjecturally, at about 1425-50.

_The Cycle._

The Shipwrights’ play deals with the Making of the Ark, but stops short of the Deluge. The personages are Deus, Angelus, Diabolus, Noah, Uxor Noah. The subjects of most of the plays of the other crafts can be recovered, as follows:—

Creation of Adam.
Noah’s Ark.
Offering of Isaac.
Israel in Egypt.
Kings of Cologne.
Flight into Egypt.
Baptism.
Last Supper.
Bearing of Cross.
Burial of Christ.
Descent into Hell.
Burial of Our Lady.

Of these, two, the Creation of Adam and the Flight into Egypt, were maintained, in 1454, by one craft, the Bricklayers and Plasterers. The Merchant Adventurers, in 1552, paid for ‘fyve playes, whereof the towne must pay for the ostmen playe.’ There are six guilds whose plays are not known; so that the total number may have been as many as twenty-three[946].

The accounts of the Merchant Adventurers also include in 1554 and 1558 charges in and about ‘Hoggmaygowyk’ or ‘Hogmagoge[947].’ I do not think, with Holthausen, that this was one of the Corpus Christi plays. I think it was a spring or summer folk-feast. One of the London ‘giants’ is Gogmagog.

NORWICH.

_Manuscript._

The extracts, made early in the seventeenth century from the Grocers’ Book, and in the possession (1856) of Mr. Fitch, included two versions of the play of the _Fall_. The first was copied into the Book in 1533. It is headed _The Story of yᵉ Creac̄on of Eve, wᵗ yᵉ expellyng of Adam & Eve out of Paradyce_. It ends with a ‘dullfull song,’ perhaps the ‘newe ballet’ paid for in 1534 (cf. p. 388). It appears to have a _lacuna_. The second version is ‘newely renvid & accordynge unto yᵉ Skrypture, begon thys yere Aᵒ 1565. Aᵒ 7 Eliz.’ It is quite a new text. It is provided with two speeches by a Prolocutor, one to be used ‘when yᵉ Grocers Pageant is played wᵗ owte eny other goenge befor yᵗ,’ the other for use ‘yf ther goeth eny other Pageants before yᵗ.’ The former speaks of the ‘Pageants apparellyd in Wittson dayes’ that ‘lately be fallen into decayes.’

_Editions._

(a) 1856. Robert Fitch in _Norfolk Archaeology_, v. 8, and separately.

(b) 1897. Manly, i. 1, from (a).

_The Cycle._

The Grocers’ play begins in both versions with the creation of Eve. The first ends with the expulsion from Paradise. The _dramatis personae_ are _Pater_, _Adam_, _Eva_, _Serpens_. In the second is added an Angel, and after the expulsion Adam and Eve depart ‘to yᵉ nether parte of yᵉ Pageants,’ are threatened by _Dolor_ and _Myserye_, and comforted by the _Holy Ghost_.

A list, dating probably from 1527, makes it possible to complete the outline of the cycle[948]:—

Creation off the world.
Paradyse [_Grocers’ play_].
Helle Carte.
Abell & Cain.
Noyse Shipp.
Abraham & Isaak.
Moises & Aaron, with the Children of Israel & Pharo with his Knyghts.
Conflict off David and Golias.
The Birth off Christ with Shepherds and iij Kyngs of Colen.
The Baptysme of Criste.
The Resurrection.
The Holy Gost.

ABRAHAM AND ISAAC (Dublin MS.).

_Manuscript._

_Trinity College, Dublin, MS._ D. iv. 18, f. 16ᵛ. In the same hand are a list of mayors and bailiffs of North[ampton] up to 1458 and a brief chronicle, in which N[orthampton] recurs.

_Editions._

(a) 1836. J. P. Collier, in _Five Miracle-Plays_.

(b) 1899. R. Brotanek, in _Anglia_, xxi. 21.

_Literary Relations._

The play has probably no connexion with Dublin, beyond the fact that the MS. is there. Brotanek conjectures from the character of the MS. that it belongs to Northampton (cf. p. 386). The dialect appears to be South Midland of about the first half of the fifteenth century, and the text to be based on the corresponding play (xi) in the _Viel Testament_ (Julleville, _Les Myst._ ii. 363).

ABRAHAM AND ISAAC (Brome MS.).

_Manuscript._

‘The Book of Brome,’ a commonplace book of 1470-80 in the possession of Sir Edward Kerrison of Brome Manor, Norfolk.

_Editions._

(a) 1884. L. T. Smith, in _Anglia_, vii. 316.

(b) 1886. L. T. Smith, in _A Commonplace Book of the Fifteenth Century_.

(c) 1887. W. Rye, in _Norfolk Antiquarian Miscellany_, iii. 1.

(d) 1897. Manly, i. 41, from (a) and (b).

_Literary Relations._

The play is 465 lines long. There is an epilogue by a _Doctor_, but no title or prologue, and nothing to show that it was, or was not, part of a cycle. The text is probably derived from a common source with that of the corresponding Chester play: cf. Pollard, 185; A. R. Hohlfeld, in _M. L. N._ v. 222.

F. Holthausen has some critical notes on the text in _Anglia_, xiii. 361.

CROXTON PLAY: THE SACRAMENT.

_Manuscript._

_Trinity College, Dublin, MS._ F. 4. 20, of the latter half of the fifteenth century.

_Editions._

(a) 1861. Whitley Stokes, in _Transactions of Philological Society_, 1860-1 (Appendix).

(b) 1897. Manly, i. 239.

There is a prologue by two _Vexillatores_, ending—

‘And yᵗ place yow, thys gaderyng that here yˢ,
At Croxston on Monday yᵗ shall be sen;
To see the conclusyon of this lytell processe
Hertely welcum shall yow bene.
...
Now, mynstrell, blow vp with a mery stevyn!’

Then comes a title: ‘Here after foloweth the Play of the Conversyon of Ser Jonathas the Jewe by Myracle of the Blyssed Sacrament.’ The play is 927 lines long, with occasional lines in Latin. It ends with a _Te Deum_. The colophon runs: ‘Thus endyth the Play of the Blyssyd Sacrament, whyche myracle was don in the forest of Aragon, in the famous cite Eraclea, the yere of ower Lord God Mˡcccc.lxi, to whom be honower. Amen!’ This account of the event on which the play is founded is confirmed by ll. 56-60 of the prologue. The date of composition cannot therefore be earlier than 1461, and probably is not much later. After the colophon is a list of the _dramatis personae_, who are twelve in all, and the note ‘IX may play it at ease,’ signed ‘R.C.’ The name Croxton is common to places in Norfolk, Cambridgeshire, Leicestershire, and other counties. Further identification may perhaps be helped by ll. 540-1—

‘Inquyre to the Colkote, for ther ys hys loggyng,
A lytylle besyde Babwelle Mylle.’

The stage-directions imply a ‘place,’ with ‘stages’ for the chief players, a ‘tabyll,’ and a ‘chyrche’ (ll. 149, 288, 305, 445).

F. Holthausen has some textual criticism on the play in _Englische Studien_, xvi. 150, and _Anglia_, xv. 198.

SHREWSBURY FRAGMENTS.

On these, which are transitional between the liturgical play and the miracle-play proper, cf. p. 90.

DIGBY PLAYS.

[_Authorities._—The best edition is that of Dr. Furnivall.
The careful study by K. Schmidt, published partly as a Berlin
dissertation (1884), partly in _Anglia_, viii (1885), 371,
should be consulted.]

_Manuscript._

_Bodleian Digby MS._ 133. The dramatic contents of this composite manuscript are as follows:—(i) f. 37. _The Conversion of St. Paul._ This is written in a single hand, except that a second has inserted on f. 45 a scene between two devils, Belial and Mercury. At the end (f. 50ᵛ), is ‘ffinis conuercionis sancti pauli.’ There is a prologue, headed _Poeta_, against which has been written in a later hand ‘Myles Blomefylde.’ Schmidt, _Diss._ 6, identifies a Miles Blomefylde as a monk of Bury born in 1525. (ii) f. 95. _St. Mary Magdalen_, written in the second hand of (i). At the beginning are the initials M. B.; at the end (f. 145) ‘Explycit oreginale de sancta Maria magdalena.’ (iii) f. 146. _Massacre of Innocents_ and _Purification_, written in the first hand of (i). At the beginning is ‘candelmes day & the kyllynge of the children of Israell, anno domini 151’; at the end ‘Anno domini Millesimo, cccccxij,’ and after a list of ‘The Namys of the Pleyers’ the entry ‘Ihon Parfre ded wryte thys booke.’ None of these notes seem to be in the hand of the text. (iv) f. 158. Fragment of morality of _Mind, Will, and Understanding_, found complete in the _Macro MS._ (cf. p. 437), in a hand apparently distinct from those of (i), (ii), (iii). This also has ‘M. B.’ at the beginning.—The texts in the MS. are probably early sixteenth-century copies of late fifteenth-century plays. There is nothing to show that Parfre or Blomfield was concerned in the authorship. They may have been the copyists. If Blomfield was really the monk of Bury born in 1525, he was probably only an owner of the MS.

_Editions._

(a) 1773. _Massacre of Innocents_, in T. Hawkins, _Origin of the English Drama_.

(b) 1835. _Massacre of Innocents_, _Conversion of St. Paul_, _St. Mary Magdalen_, in T. Sharp, _Ancient Mysteries from the Digby Manuscripts_ (Abbotsford Club).

(c) 1838. _Massacre of Innocents_, in W. Marriott, _English Miracle-Plays_.

(d) 1882. Complete series in F. J. Furnivall, _The Digby Mysteries_ (New Shakspere Soc., reprinted in 1896 for E. E. T. S.).

(e) 1890. _St. Mary Magdalen_ (part only), from (d), in Pollard, 49.

(f) 1897. _Conversion of St. Paul_, from (d), in Manly, i. 215.

_The Plays._

The plays appear to have been accidentally brought together in one MS., and should be treated separately for the purposes of literary history.

A. _Conversion of St. Paul._

Schmidt, _Diss._ 28, assigns this to an East Midland author, and a Southern scribe. The play opens with a prologue by the _Poeta_ who speaks of ‘owr processe.’ In the first scene or ‘station,’ Saul starts for Damascus and ‘rydyth forth with hys seruantes a-bout the place & owt of the place.’ There is a ‘conclusyon’ by the ‘Poeta—si placet,’—

‘ffynally of this stacon we mak a conclusyon,
besechyng thys audyens to folow and succede
with all your delygens this generall processyon.’

After a stage-direction ‘ffinis Istius stacionis, et altera sequitur,’ the _Poeta_ introduces another ‘prosses,’—

‘Here shalbe brefly shewyd with all our besynes
At thys pagent saynt poullys conuercyon.’

This scene takes place outside and in Damascus. There is a tempest, and ‘godhed spekyth in heuyn.’ Saul meets Ananias, and ‘thys stacion’ is concluded by the _Poeta_, and ‘ffinis istius secunde stacionis et sequitur tarcia.’

Again the _Poeta_ calls on the audience ‘To vnderstond thys pagent at thys lytyll stacion.’ Saul returns to Jerusalem, preaches and plans to escape over the wall in a basket. Here the later hand inserted the devil scene. The _Poeta_ has his ‘Conclusyo,’ which ends:—

‘Thys lytyll pagent thus conclud we
as we can, lackyng lytturall scyens;
besechyng yow all of hye and low degre,
owr sympylnes to hold excusyd, and lycens,
That of Retoryk haue non intellygens;
Commyttyng yow all to owr lord Ihesus,
To whoys lawd ye syng,—Exultet celum laudibus.’

The play, but for the devil scene, follows closely the biblical narrative. It was probably written for a small village, and for scene had a _platea_, and two _loca_, for Damascus and Jerusalem (with possibly a third for heaven). The audience moved with the actors from one ‘station’ or ‘pageant’ to the other, and back again. A later hand has inserted marginal directions for a ‘Daunce’ at various points in the speeches of the _Poeta_.

B. _St. Mary Magdalen._

Schmidt, _Anglia_, viii. 385, assigns this to a West Midland author and Kentish scribe. Furnivall, 53, thinks the dialect East Midland. The plot covers the whole legendary life of the Magdalen, as it appears in the _Golden Legend_. The characters are very numerous, and include Satan and other devils, with allegorical figures such as the ‘Kyngs of the World and the Flesch’ and the ‘Seven Dedly Synnes.’ The action is not in any way divided in the manuscript, and implies an elaborate stationary _mise en scène_ with various _loca_. These include the ‘castell of Maudleyn’ or Magdalum, thrones for the _Imperator_, who opens the play by calling for silence, Herod and Pilate, ‘a stage, and Helle ondyr-neth that stage’ for ‘the prynse of dylles,’ Jerusalem with a ‘place,’ an ‘erbyr’ or arbour, a tavern, the ‘howse of symont leprovs,’ a _sepulchrum_ for Lazarus, and another for the _Quem quaeritis_ and _Hortulanus_ scenes which are introduced, a palace for the King of ‘Marcylle’ (Marseilles), a heathen temple, a ‘hevyne’ able to open, a lodge for the Magdalen in Marcylle, another castle, a rock, and a wilderness. There is also a practicable ship which goes to and from Marcylle (l. 1395 ‘Here xall entyre a shyp with a mery song’; l. 1445 ‘Her goth the shep owt of the place’; l. 1717 ‘Ett tunc navis venit in placeam’; l. 1797 ‘tunc remigat a montem’; l. 1879 ‘et tunc navis venit adcirca plateam’; l. 1915 ‘et tunc remigant a monte’; l. 1923 ‘Here goth the shep owȝt ofe the place’). The play ends with a _Te Deum_; but the following lines, added after the _Explicit_, suggest that the author had readers as well as spectators in mind:—

‘yff Ony thyng Amysse be,
blame connyng, and nat me:
I desyer the redars to be my frynd,
yff ther be ony amysse, that to amend.’

C. _Massacre of the Innocents._

Assigned by Schmidt, _Diss._ 18, to a Midland author and Southern scribe. Against the title of the play has been written, in a hand identified as that of the chronicler Stowe, ‘the vij booke.’ Evidently the play was one of a series, spread over successive years, and given on Saint Anne’s day (July 26). This is shown by the opening speech of a _Poeta_, from which I extract:—

‘This solenne fest to be had in remembraunce
Of blissed seynt Anne moder to our lady,
...
The last yeer we shewid you in this place
how the shepherdes of Cristes birth made letificacion,
And thre kynges that came fro ther Cuntrees be grace
To worshipe Iesu, with enteer deuocion;
And now we purpose with hooll affeccion
To procede in oure mater as we can,
And to shew you of our ladies purificacion
That she made in the temple, as the vsage was than.
...
ffrendes, this processe we purpose to pley as we can
before you all, here in your presens,
To the honour of god, our lady, & seynt Anne,
besechyng you to geve vs peseable Audiens
And ye menstrallis, doth your diligens,
& ye virgynes, shewe summe sport & plesure,
These people to solas, & to do god reuerens,
As ye be appoynted; doth your besy cure!
¶ Et tripident.’

The action includes the Wrath of Herod, with a comic knight, Watkin, the Flight into Egypt, the Massacre of the Innocents, the Death of Herod, the Purification. The stage-directions mention a ‘place’ and a ‘tempill.’ In the latter are the virgins, who ‘tripident’ with Anne at the end. The _Poeta_ excuses the ‘rude eloquens’ and ‘sympyll cunnyng’ of his company, promises ‘the disputacion of the doctours’ for next year, and calls on the minstrels and virgins for a final dance.

D. _Morality of Wisdom._

See _Texts_ (ii), s.v. _Macro Morals_.

BURIAL AND RESURRECTION.

_Manuscript._

_Bodleian MS. e Museo_, 160, f. 140. Furnivall, vii. 166, asserts that this once formed part of the _Digby MS._ 133, but offers no proof. The copy seems to date from the early fifteenth century. After the _Explicit_, in a later hand, is ‘written by me ...’; unfortunately the name is torn off. Lines here and there in the earlier part of the piece have been crossed out.

_Editions._

(a) 1843. Wright and Halliwell, _Reliquiae Antiquae_, ii. 124.

(b) 1882. F. J. Furnivall, _The Digby Plays_, 171 (New Shakspere Soc., reprinted 1896 for E. E. T. S.).

See study by K. Schmidt in _Anglia_, viii. 393.

_The Play._

Schmidt assigns the play to a writer whose dialect was a mixture of Northern and East Midland forms; Morris to a Northern author and West Midland scribe. Ten Brink, ii. 287, also thinks it to be Northern, and to date from 1430-60. Apparently the author set out to write, not a drama, but a narrative poem, mainly in dialogue. The first fifteen lines are headed ‘The prologe of this treyte or meditatione off the buryalle of Criste & mowrnynge therat,’ and contain a request to ‘Rede this treyte.’ The first 419 lines have a few narrative phrases introducing the speeches, such as ‘Said Maudleyn,’ ‘Said Joseph.’ At this point the writer seems to have stopped these, crossed out such as he had already written, and inserted in the margin of his second page,—

‘This is a play to be playede, on part on gudfriday after-none, & the other part opon Esterday after the resurrectione, In the morowe, but at the begynnynge ar certene lynes [the prologue] which must not be saide if it be plaiede, which (_... a line cut off_).’

The Good Friday scene is an elaborate _planctus_. It is opened by Joseph of Arimathea, and the three Maries. Then comes Nicodemus, and the body of Christ is taken from the cross. The Virgin Mary enters with St. John, and the _planctus_ is resumed. The body is laid in the sepulchre, and the scene is closed with—

‘Thus her endes the most holy
Beriall of the body of Crist Iesu.’

The Easter morning scene begins with—

‘Her begynnes his resurrection
On pashe daye at Morn.’

It contains a _Quem quaeritis_, a scene of lamentation between Peter, Andrew, and John, a _Hortulanus_, with a second apparition to all three Maries. They sing the first part of the _Victimae paschali_, ‘in cantifracto vel saltem in pallinodio,’ and the Apostles come in for the dialogue part. Then the tidings are announced, and Peter and John visit the sepulchre; after which, ‘Tunc cantant omnes simul _Scimus Christum_ vell aliam sequentiam aut ympnum de resurrectione.’

UNIDENTIFIED PLAYS.

(i) C. Hastings, _Le Théâtre Français et Anglais_, 167, says:—

‘Il existe, en plus des quatre cycles de Mystères dont nous avons parlé dans les chapitres précédents, une cinquième collection (manuscrit), propriété d’un simple particulier, M. Nicholls.’

(ii) W. C. Hazlitt, _Manual for the Collector and Amateur of Old English Plays_, 274, says:—

‘Mr. F. S. Ellis told me (Dec. 10, 1864) that a gentleman at Leipsic then had a fragment of a large sheet on which was printed in types formed from a block and of a very large size an English Miracle-Play. In its perfect state it seems to have been intended to attach to a church door or any other suitable place.’

CORNWALL.

i. _Origo Mundi: Passio Domini: Resurrexio Domini._

_Manuscripts._

(i) _Bodl. MS._ 791. Fifteenth century, with some alterations and additional stage-directions in a later hand. The text is Cornish, not earlier in date than the fourteenth century. Mr. Pedler (Norris, ii. 506) puts it, not very convincingly, at the end of the thirteenth.

(ii) _Bodl. MS._ 28,556. Seventeenth-century copy of (i), with an English translation of the larger part of the text by John Keigwyn, of Mousehole, 1695.

_Edition._

1859. In Edwin Norris, _The Ancient Cornish Drama_, from (i), with modern translation by the editor.

_Analysis._

The text forms three dramas, intended, as the closing words of the first two show, for performance on three consecutive days. At the end of each is a diagram of the disposition of the _pulpita_ or _tenti_ (cf. p. 391) for the day. The action on each day is continuous, but for the sake of comparison I divide it into scenes. These are sometimes indicated by a _Hic incipit_ or similar formula.

(1) _Hic Incipit Ordinale de Origine Mundi._

Fall of Lucifer (line 48).
Creation and Fall of Man (1-437).
Cain and Abel (438-633).
Seth in Paradise, and Death of Adam (634-916).
Noah and the Flood (917-1258).
Abraham and Isaac (1259-1394).
Moses and the Exodus (1395-1708).
Moses in the Wilderness (1709-1898).
David and the Rods (1899-2104).
David and Bathsheba (2105-2376).
Building of the Temple (2377-2628).
Prophecy of Maximilia (2629-2778).
Bridge over Cedron (2779-2824).

The diagram gives _Celum_, _Tortores_, _Infernum_, _Rex Pharao_, _Rex Dauid_, _Rex Sal[omon]_, _Abraham_, _Ortus_.

(2) _Hic Incipit Passio Domini Nostri Jhesu Christi._

Temptation (1-172).
Entry into Jerusalem (173-330).
Cleansing of the Temple (331-392).
Healing of Bartimaeus (393-454).
Jesus in House of Simon the Leper (455-552).
Conspiracy of Jews (533-584).
Treachery of Judas (585-616).
Last Supper (617-930).
Gethsemane (931-1200).
Jesus before Caiaphas (1200-1504).
Remorse and Death of Judas (1505-1566).
Jesus before Pilate (1567-1616).
Jesus before Herod (1617-1816).
Condemnation (1817-2533), including—
Dream of Pilate’s Wife (1907-1968, 2193-2212).
Cross brought from Cedron (2534-2584).
Bearing of the Cross (2585-2662).
Crucifixion (2663-2840).
Casting of Lots (2841-2860).
Death of Jesus (2861-3098), including—
_Planctus Mariae_ (2925-2954).
Longinus (3003-3030).
Harrowing of Hell (3031-3078).
Descent from Cross (3099-3201).
Burial (3202-3216).

The diagram gives _Celum_, _Tortores_, _Doctores_, _Pilatus_, _Herodes_, _Princeps Annas_, _Cayaphas_, _Centurio_.

(3) _Hic Incipit Ordinale de Resurrexione Domini Nostri Jhesu Christi._

Release of Joseph and Nicodemus (1-96, 307-334, 625-662).
Harrowing of Hell, resumed (97-306).
Setting of Watch (335-422).
Resurrection (423-678).
_Quem quaeritis_ (679-834).
_Hortulanus_ (835-892).
Incredulity of Thomas (893-1230, 1345-1586).
_Peregrini_ (1231-1344).
Death of Pilate (1587-2360), including—
Veronica and Tiberius (1587-2360).
Ascension (2361-2630).

The diagram gives _Celum_, _Tortores_, _Infernum_, _Pilatus_, _Imperator_, _Josep Abar[imat]_, _Nichodemus_, _Milites_.

At the end of (1) and (3) the minstrels are directed to pipe for a dance.

_Locality._

Mr. Norris prints an opinion of Mr. Pedler that the place-names suggest the neighbourhood of Penrhyn, and that the plays may have been composed in the collegiate house, hard by, of Glasney.

ii. _Creation of the World._

_Manuscripts._

(i) _Bodl._ 219, with colophon ‘Heare endeth the Creacion of the worlde wᵗʰ noyes flude wryten by William Jordan: the xiiᵗʰ of August, 1611.’ The text is Cornish, with English stage-directions containing forms earlier than 1611.

(ii) _Bodl._ 31,504 (MS. Corn. C. 1). Copy of (i), with English translation by John Keigwyn, 1693, written by ‘H. Usticke.’

(iii) _Harl._ 1867. Similar copy of (i), with Keigwyn’s translation.

(iv) MS. belonging (in 1864) to J. C. Hotten the bookseller, containing also a copy of the narrative _Passion_ or _Mount Calvary_.

_Editions._

(a) 1827. _The Creation of the World, with Noah’s Flood._ Edited from (iii) by Davies Gilbert (with Keigwyn’s translation).

(b) 1864. _Gwreans an Bys. The Creation of the World._ Edited from (i), with a [new] translation by Whitley Stokes, as appendix to _Transactions of Philological Society_ (1863).

_The Play._

The text is headed ‘The first daie [of] yᵉ playe’ and ends with a direction to minstrels to pipe for dancing, and an invitation to return on the morrow to see the Redemption. It is, therefore, probably unfinished. It appears to be based, with certain additions, on the _Origo Mundi_. It is continuous, but may be divided as follows:—

Creation and Fall of Lucifer (1-334).
Temptation and Fall (335-1055).
Cain and Abel. Birth of Seth (1056-1430).
Death of Cain (1431-1726).
Visit of Seth to Paradise (1727-1964).
Death of Adam (1965-2093).
Seth and Enoch (2094-2210).
Noah’s Flood (2211-2530).

iii. _St. Meriasek._

_Manuscript._

In _Hengwrt MSS._ of Mr. Wynne at Peniarth. Cornish _Ordinale de Vita Sancti Mereadoci Episcopi et Confessoris_, written by ‘dominus Hadton’ in 1504. At the end is a circular diagram.

_Edition._

1872. _Beunans Meriasek: The Life of Saint Meriasek._ Edited and translated by Whitley Stokes.

_Locality._

Mr. Stokes suggests Camborne, of which place St. Meriasek was patron. The play invokes St. Meriasek and St. Mary of Camborne at the close.

II. POPULAR MORALITIES.

THE PRIDE OF LIFE.

_Manuscript._

Written in two hands of the first half of the fifteenth century on blank spaces of a _Computus_ of Holy Trinity Priory, Dublin, for 1343, preserved in the Irish Record Office, Dublin (Christ Church collection).

_Editions._

1891. J. Mills in _Proceedings of Royal Soc. of Antiquaries of Ireland_.

1898. Brandl, 2.

Cf. H. Morley, _English Writers_, vii. 1730.

The play was probably written early in the fifteenth century. The dialect is that of the South of England, not far from London, modified by Northern scribes.

Only a fragment (502 ll.) is preserved, but a prologue gives the plot. There is no title; but ‘[A mens]ke gam schal gyn & ende’ (l. 7), and ‘[Of Kyng of] lif I wol ȝou telle’ (l. 17). The extant characters are _Rex Vivus_, _Primus Miles Fortitudo_, _Secundus Miles Sanitas_, _Regina_, _Nuntius Mirth_, _Episcopus_. The King rejoices with Mirth and his soldiers, and Queen and Bishop vainly call on him to repent. Later in the play Death and Life strove for the King, and Death took him. He was claimed by the ‘ffendis,’ but ‘oure lady mylde’ prayed to have him.

The play was out of doors (l. 10); the King had a _tentorium_ which could be closed (l. 306); the Bishop sat on his ‘se’ (_sedes_); and so probably with the other actors, except Mirth, who perhaps came in ‘oure þe lake’ (l. 269); cf. Brandl, xix.

MACRO MORALS.

_Manuscripts._

(a) _Macro MS._, formerly in the possession of Mr. Cox Macro, now in that of Mr. Gurney, of Keswick Hall, Norfolk. The MS. appears from a gloss in _Mankind_ (l. 674; cf. Brandl, xxvi), naming King Edward, to have been written during the reign of Edward IV (1461-1483). At the end of two of the plays is the name of Hyngham, a monk, to whom the MS. belonged.

(b) _Digby MS._ 133, on which cf. p. 428, has on f. 158 the first 754 lines of _Mind, Will, and Understanding_. The handwriting is said to be the same as that of the _Macro MS._ (Collier, ii. 207).

[A complete edition of the three moralities of the _Macro MS._ has long been contemplated by the E. E. T. S.]

i. _The Castle of Perseverance._

_Edition._

1890. Pollard, 64 (408 lines only).

Pollard dates the play not later than the middle of the reign of Henry VI. It contains about 3,500 lines.

The subject is the struggle of good and bad qualities for _Humanum Genus_. On the one side are _Malus Angelus_ and _Mundus_, _Belial_, and _Caro_, aided by the Seven Deadly Sins and _Voluptas_, _Stultitia_, _Detractio_: on the other _Bonus Angelus_, with _Confessio_, _Schrift_, _Penitencia_, and the Six Divine Graces. Amongst other episodes _Humanum Genus_ is besieged in the _Castle of Perseverance_. At the end _Misericordia_, _Iustitia_, _Pax_, _Veritas_, dispute in heaven, and _Pater sedens in trono_ inclines to mercy.

The indications of _mise en scène_ are very valuable. On the first leaf of the MS. is a diagram of the playing place, reproduced by Sharp, 23. There is a large circle with a double circumference, in which is written, ‘This is the watyr a bowte the place, if any dyche may be mad ther it schal be pleyed; or ellys that it be stronglye barryd al a bowte: & lete nowth ower many stytelerys be withinne the plase.’ Within the circle is a rude representation of a castle, and above, ‘This is the castel of perseveranse that stondyth in the myddys of the place; but lete no men sytte ther for lettynge of syt, for ther schal be the best of all.’ Beneath the castle is a small bed, with the legend, ‘Mankynde is bed schal be under the castel, & ther schal the sowle lye under the bed tyl he schal ryse & pleye.’ At the side is a further direction, ‘Coveytyse cepbord schal be at the ende of the castel, be the beddys feet.’ Outside the circle are written five directions for scaffolds, ‘Sowth, Caro skaffold—West, Mundus skaffold—Northe, Belial skaffold—North Est, Coveytyse skaffold—Est, deus skaffold.’ At the foot of the page are some notes for costume: ‘& he that schal pley belyal, loke that he have gunne powder brennyng in pypys in his hands and in his ers, and in his ars whanne he gothe to batayle. The iiij dowters schul be clad in mentelys, Mercy in wyth, rythwysnesse in red al togedyr, Trewthe in sad grene, & Pes al in blake, and they schul pleye in the place al to gedyr tyl they brynge up the sowle.’

There is a prologue by two _vexillatores_, who declare—

‘These percell in propyrtes we spose us to playe,
This day sevenenyt before you in syth,
At N on the grene in ryal aray.’

They add that they will ‘be onward be underne of the day’ (9 a.m.).

ii. _Mind, Will, and Understanding._

_Editions._

1835. T. Sharp, _Ancient Mysteries_ (Abbotsford Club, 754 lines from _Digby MS._).

1837. W. B. D. D. Turnbull (Abbotsford Club, the rest from _Macro MS._).

1882. F. J. Furnivall, _Digby Plays_, 139 (754 lines only).

Lucifer seduces Mind, Will, and Understanding. These are the three parts of Anima, who enters with devils running from under her skirts. Everlasting Wisdom effects a re-conversion. There are a number of mute persons attendant on the chief characters, whose coming and going, ‘dysgysyde,’ create scenic effects, as in a masque. There are minstrels and a hornpipe, songs and dances. At one point Lucifer snatches up ‘a shrewde boy’ (perhaps from the audience), and carries him off. An allusion to the Holborn quest suggests a London origin, but Schmidt (_Anglia_, viii. 390) thinks the dialect to be that of the north border of the West Midlands.

iii. _Mankind._

_Editions._

1897. Manly, i. 315.

1898. Brandl, 37.

The text is 901 lines long. A list of place-names (l. 491) makes it probable that it belongs to the borders of Norfolk and Cambridgeshire.

Mercy and Mischief, the latter helped by Nought, New Gyse, Nowadays, and the devil Titivillus, essay in turns to win the soul of Mankind.

The scene is divided. Part represents a tavern, of which Titivillus is host; part a ‘deambulatorye’ outside. A reference to the spectators (l. 29) runs, ‘O ȝe souerens, þat sytt, and ȝe brotherne, þat stonde ryghte wppe’: cf. Brandl, xxxii.

THE SUMMONING OF EVERYMAN.

_Editions._

[1509-1530.] Richard Pynson (fragment in B. M.).

[1509-1530.] Richard Pynson (fragment in Bodl.).