‘That yerely in the tyme of lentyn there_The mediaeval stage, volume 2 (of 2)

for the tyme beyng iiij of the moste connyng discrete and able players

within this Citie, to serche, here, and examen all the plaiers and plaies

and pagentes thrughoute all the artificers belonging to Corpus Xᵗⁱ Plaie.

And all suche as thay shall fynde sufficiant in personne and connyng, to

the honour of the Citie and worship of the saide Craftes, for to admitte

and able; and all other insufficiant personnes, either in connyng, voice,

or personne to discharge, ammove, and avoide. And that no plaier that

shall plaie in the saide Corpus Xᵗⁱ plaie be conducte and reteyned to

plaie but twise on the day of the saide playe; and that he or thay so

plaing plaie not ouere twise the saide day, vpon payne of xlˢ to forfet

vnto the chaumbre as often tymes as he or thay shall be founden defautie

in the same.’

By ‘twise’ is probably meant ‘in two distinct pageants’; for each pageant

repeated its performance at several stations. In 1394 these stations were

‘antiquitus assignatis.’ In 1399 the commons petitioned the council to

the effect that ‘le juer et les pagentz de la jour de corpore cristi’

were not properly performed on account of the number of stations, and

these were limited to twelve. In later years there were from twelve

to sixteen, and from 1417 the corporation made a profit by letting to

prominent citizens the right to have stations opposite their houses.

A list of ‘Leases for Corpuscrysty Play’ in 1554, for instance, shows

twelve stations bringing in from xiijᵈ to iijˢ iiijᵈ each, while nothing

was charged for the places ‘at the Trinitie yaits where the clerke kepys

the register,’ ‘at the comon Hall to my Lord Maior and his bredren,’ ‘at

Mr. Bekwyth’s at Hosyerlane end, where as my Lady Mayres and her systers

lay’ and ‘uppon the Payment.’

Outward signs of the civic control were the ‘vexilla ludi cum armis

civitatis,’ which were set up at the stations by order of the mayor on

Corpus Christi eve. Apparently the city claimed also to put its mark

on the pageants themselves, for in an agreement of 1422 merging the

pageants of the Shoemakers, Tilemakers, Hayresters, and Millers it was

declared, ‘quod nulla quatuor artium praedictarum ponet aliqua signa,

arma, vel insignia super paginam praedictam, nisi tantum arma huius

honorabilis civitatis.’ But the more important crafts, who had a pageant

to themselves, may not have been subject to this restriction.

Although the corporation profited from the ‘dimissio locorum ludi

Corporis Christi,’ they did not meet many of the expenses. They paid

for the services of the minstrels employed, and for refreshments for

themselves and for important visitors to the town. They occasionally

helped out the resources of a poor craft. The following extract from the

Chamberlains’ accounts for 1397 seems to be quite exceptional:—

‘Expens’ in festo de Corpore Xp’ i.

Item: pro steyning de iiijᵒʳ pannos ad opus paginae, iiijˢ.

Et pro pictura paginae, ijˢ.

Et pro vexillo novo cum apparatu, xijˢ ijᵈ.

Et in portacione et reportacione meremii ad barras coram Rege,

ijˢ jᵈ.

Et pro xx fursperres ad barras praedictas coram Rege, vˢ xᵈ.

Et pro xix sapplynges emptis de Iohanne de Craven pro barris

praedictis, vjˢ viijᵈ.

Et viij portitoribus ducentibus et moventibus paginam, vˢ iiijᵈ.

Et Ianitori Sanctae Trinitatis pro pagina hospitanda, iiijᵈ.

Et ludentibus, iiijᵈ.

Et ministrallis in festo de Corpore Xp’i, xiijˢ iiijᵈ.

Et in pane, cervisiis, vino, et carnibus, et focalibus pro

maiore et probis hominibus in die ad ludum, xviijˢ viijᵈ.

Et in ministrallis domini Regis ac aliorum dominorum

supervenientibus, vijˡⁱ vijˢ iiijᵈ.

Et ministris camerae in albo panno et rubeo pro adventu Regis,

lviijˢ xᵈ.’

Certainly the corporation did not themselves provide a ‘pagina’ in

1415 or later years. I think that in 1397 they prepared one for some

allegorical performance of welcome, distinct from the play itself, to

Richard II. The king was evidently placed at the gate of Trinity Priory,

where was the first station as late as 1569.

But the bulk of the cost fell upon the crafts. They had to build, repair,

decorate, and draw the pageant (Latin, _pagina_; English, _pagiaunt_,

_paiaunt_, _pachent_, _pagende_, _pagyant_, _padgin_, _padgion_,

_paidgion_, _padzhand_, &c., &c.). They had to house it in one of the

‘pageant howses’ which until recently gave a name to ‘Pageant green,’

and for each of which a yearly rent of xijᵈ seems to have been the

usual charge. They had also doubtless to provide dress and refresh the

actors; and some of their members were bound personally to conduct the

pageant on its journey. The fully organized craft-guilds appointed

annual ‘pageant-masters,’ and met the ordinary charges by a levy of

‘pageant-silver’ upon each member according to his status. The amounts

varied from 1_d._ to 8_d._, and were supplemented by the proceeds of

fines and payments on admissions and on setting up shop. Smaller guilds

were often grouped together, and produced one pageant amongst three or

four of them. Even the unincorporated trades did not escape. In 1483

four Innholders undertook the responsibility of producing a pageant for

eight years on condition of a fixed payment of 4_d._ from each innholder

in the city. Exceptional expenses were sometimes met in exceptional

ways. The Mercers gave free admission into their fraternity to one

Thomas Drawswerd, on condition that he should ‘mak the Pagiant of the

Dome ... of newe substanciale for vij marks and the old pageant.’[928]

In 1501 the Cartwrights made four new wheels to a pageant, and were

thereupon discharged from further charges for 6_d._ a year. Evidently the

obligation of producing a pageant was considered an onerous one, and as

trades rose and fell in York, the incidence of it upon this or that trade

or trades was frequently altered. All such rearrangements came before

the civic authorities, and many of them are upon record. Naturally they

involved some corresponding revision, piecing together, or splitting up

of plays (cf. p. 412). I only find one example of a play produced by any

other body than a craft. The Hospital of St. Leonard produced the play of

the Purification in 1415, but had ceased to do so some time before 1477.

It is to be noted that in 1561 the Minstrels took their place with the

other crafts, and became responsible for the Herod play[929].

_Pater-Noster Play._

Wyclif in his _De Officio Pastorali_, cap. 15 (1378), says that,—

‘herfore freris han tauȝt in Englond þe Paternoster in Engliȝcsh tunge,

as men seyen in þe pleye of Yorke[930].’ The reference here is to a

performance distinct from the Corpus Christi play. The preamble to a

return of the ordinances and so forth of the guild ‘Orationis Domini,’

made in 1389, states that

‘Once upon a time, a Play setting forth the goodness of the Lord’s Prayer

was played in the city of York; in which play all manner of vices and

sins were held up to scorn, and the virtues were held up to praise.’

The guild was formed to perpetuate this play, and the members were bound

to produce it and accompany it through the streets. In 1389 they had no

possessions beyond the properties of the play and a chest. A _computus_

of the guild for 1399 contains an entry of an old debt of 2_s._ 2_d._,

owed by John Downom and his wife for entrance fee:—

‘Sed dictus Iohannes dicit se expendisse in diuersis expensis circa

ludum Accidiae ex parte Ric. Walker ijˢ jᵈ, ideo de praedicto petit

allocari[931].’

It would appear that by 1488 the guild had been converted to or absorbed

in a guild of the Holy Trinity, which was moreover the craft-guild of

the Merchants or Mercers. Certainly in that year this guild chose four

pageant-masters to bring forth the Paternoster play. They were to bring

in the pageants ‘within iiij days next after Corpus Christi Day[932].’ In

1488 the Paternoster play was presumably a variant for the usual Corpus

Christi plays. It was similarly played on Corpus Christi day in 1558. The

management was in the hands of one of the few unsuppressed guilds, that

of St. Anthony; but the corporation gathered ‘pageant silver’ from the

crafts and met the charges. A ‘bayn,’ or messenger, rode to proclaim the

play on St. George’s day, and another on Whit Monday. Another performance

took place on Corpus Christi day (now called ‘Thursday next after

Trinitie Sonday’), 1572. The book was ‘perused, amended and corrected.’

Nevertheless, on July 30 the council sent a ‘trewe copie’ of it, at

his request, to the Archbishop [Grindal] of York, and although in 1575

they sent a deputation to urge him to appoint a commission to reform

‘all suche the play bookes as perteyne this cittie now in his grace’s

custodie,’ there is no proof that his grace complied.

_Creed Play._

As already stated, the guild of Corpus Christi had nothing to do with the

regular craft-plays. But in 1446, William Revetor, a chantry priest and

warden of the guild, bequeathed to it a ‘ludus incomparabilis’ called

the ‘Crede play,’ to be performed every tenth year ‘in variis locis

dictae civitatis.’ An inventory of 1465 includes:—

‘Liber vocatus Originale continens Articulos Fidei Catholicae in lingua

anglicana, nuper scriptum, appreciatum xˡⁱ.

Et alius liber inveteratus de eodem ludo, cˢ.

Et alius liber de eodem anglice vocatus _Crede Play_ continens xxij

quaternos.’

There were also many banners and properties, amongst which

‘Et xij rotulae nuper scriptae cum articulis fidei catholicae, apprec’

iijˢ iiijᵈ.

Et una clavis pro sancto Petro cum ij peciis unius tunicae depictae,

apprec’ xijᵈ.

Et x diademata pro Xp’o et apostolis cum una larva et aliis novem

cheverons, vjˢ.’

Various performances of the Creed play are recorded. In 1483 it was given

on Sunday, September 7, before Richard III, by order of the Council,

‘apon the cost of the most onest men of every parish in thys Cite.’ From

1495 decennial performances can be traced, generally about Lammas (August

1), and ‘at the common hall.’ In 1535 the Corpus Christi play proper was

omitted, and the crafts contributed ‘pageant silver’ to the Creed play

at Lammas. But they refused to give way to it again in 1545. The guild

was suppressed in 1547, and the ‘original or regestre’ passed into the

hands of the hospital of St. Thomas. In 1562 the corporation proposed the

Creed play as a possible alternative for ‘th’ ystories of the old and

new testament’ on St. Barnabas day; and in 1568 they again designed to

replace the regular Corpus Christi play by it. But first they submitted

it to the Dean of York, Matthew Hutton, who, in a letter still extant,

advised that—

‘thogh it was plawsible to yeares ago, and wold now also of the ignorant

sort be well liked, yet now in this happie time of the gospell, I knowe

the learned will mislike it, and how the state will beare with it, I

knowe not.’

Consequently the book was ‘delyveryd in agayn,’ and no more is heard of

it.

Mr. Davies suggests that the play probably fell into twelve scenes, in

each of which one of the apostles figured. If so, there is perhaps an

allusion to a performance of it in a letter of Henry VIII to the justices

of York in which he speaks of a riot which took place—

‘at the acting of a religious interlude of St. Thomas the Apostle made

in the said city on the 23ʳᵈ of August now last past ... owing to the

seditious conduct of certain papists who took a part in preparing for the

said interlude.’

He requires them to imprison any who in ‘performing interludes which are

founded on any portions of the Old or New Testament’ use language tending

to a breach of the peace[933].

_St. George Riding._

In April, 1554, the Council made an order for ‘Seynt George to be brought

forth and ryde as hath been accustomed,’ and the following items in the

accounts show that the personages in the procession were much the same as

at Dublin (q.v.):—

‘to the waites for rydyng and playing before St. George and the play.’

‘to the porters for beryng of the pagyant, the dragon and St. Xp’ofer.’

‘to the King and Quene [of Dele] that playd.’

‘to the May [the Maid].’

‘to John Stamper for playing St. George[934].’

_Midsummer Show._

As the regular plays waned, the ‘show’ or ‘watch’ of armed men on

Midsummer eve became important. There is an ordinance for it in 1581. In

1584 it took place in the morning, and in the afternoon John Grafton,

a schoolmaster, gave at seven stations a play with ‘certaine compiled

speaches,’ for which the council allowed him to have ‘a pageant

frame.’ Apparently the Baker’s pageant was repaired for the purpose.

In 1585 Grafton borrowed the pageants of the Skinners, Cooks, Tailors,

Innholders, Bakers, and Dyers, and gave another play. Grafton’s account

for 1585 mentions ‘the hearse,’ ‘the angell,’ ‘the Queene’s crowne,’

‘the childe one of the furyes bare.’ He got iijˢ, vjˢ, viijᵈ for his

pains[935].

TEXTS OF MEDIAEVAL PLAYS AND EARLY TUDOR INTERLUDES

I. MIRACLE-PLAYS.

CHESTER PLAYS.

_Manuscripts._

(i) Hg. †1475-1500. _Hengwrt MS._ 229, in the library of Mr. Wynne of

Peniarth, containing Play xxiv (_Antichrist_) only. Probably a prompter’s

copy, as some one has ‘doubled it up and carried it about in his pocket,

used it with hot hands, and faded its ink.’

(ii) D. 1591. _Devonshire MS._, in the library of the Duke of Devonshire,

written by ‘Edward Gregorie, a scholar of Bunbury.’

(iii) W. 1592. _Brit. Mus. Addl. MS._ 10,305. Signed at the end of each

play ‘George Bellin.’

(iv) h. 1600. _Brit. Mus. Harl. MS._ 2013, also signed after some of the

plays by ‘George Bellin’ or ‘Billinges.’ A verse proclamation or ‘banes’

is prefixed, and on a separate leaf a copy of the prose proclamation made

by the clerk of the pentice in 1544 (cf. p. 349) with a note, in another

hand.

(v) B. 1604. _Bodl. MS._ 175, written by ‘Gulielmus Bedford,’ with an

incomplete copy of the ‘banes.’

(vi) H. 1607. _Brit. Mus. Harl. MS._ 2124, in two hands, the second being

that of ‘Jacobus Miller.’ An historical note, dated 1628, is on the cover.

(vii) M. MS. in Manchester Free Library, containing fragment of Play xix

(_Resurrection_) only.

[The MSS. D, W, h, B are derived from a common source, best represented

by B. MS. H varies a good deal from this group, and is the better text.

MS. Hg is probably related to H.]

_Editions._

(a) 1818. Plays iii, x (_Noah_, _Innocents_) and Banes; J. H. Markland,

for Roxburghe Club (No. 11).

(b) 1836. Play xxiv (_Antichrist_); J. P. Collier, _Five Miracle-Plays_.

Miracle-Plays_.

(d) 1843-7, 1853. Cycle; Thomas Wright, from MS. W, for Shakespeare

Society.

(e) 1883. Part of Play xix (_Resurrection_), from MS. M, in _Manchester

Guardian_, for May 19, 1883.

(f) 1890. Plays iii, part of iv (_Noah_, _Isaac_); Pollard, 8.

(g) 1893-. Cycle (vol. i with Introduction, Banes and Plays i-xiii only

issued by 1902); H. Deimling, from MS. H (with collation), for E. E. T.

S. (Extra Series, lxii).

(h) 1897. Plays v, xxiv (_Prophetae_, _Antichrist_); Manly, i. 66, 170,

from (g) and MS. Hg respectively.

[F. J. Furnivall, _Digby Plays_, xx, prints eighteen additional lines to

the Banns as given by Deimling from MSS. h, B. These are from a copy in

Rogers’s _Breviary of Chester_ (cf. p. 350), _Harl. MS._ 1944. A distinct

and earlier (pre-Reformation) Banns is printed by Morris, 307, from

_Harl. MS._ 2150 (cited in error as 2050), which is a copy of the White

Book of the Pentice belonging to the City of Chester.]

_The Cycle._

The list of ‘pagyns in play of Corpus Χρi’ contained in the ‘White Book

of the Pentice’ (_Harl. MS._ 2150, f. 85 b), and given apparently from

this source, by Rogers (Furnivall, xxi), makes them twenty-five in

number, as follows:—

i. The fallinge of Lucifer.

ii. The creation of yᵉ worlde.

iii. Noah & his shipp.

iv. Abraham & Isacke.

v. Kinge Balack & Balaam with Moyses.

vi. Natiuytie of our Lord.

vii. The shepperdes offeringe.

viii. Kinge Harrald & yᵉ mounte victoriall.

ix. Yᵉ 3 Kinges of Collen.

x. The destroyeinge of the Childeren by Herod.

xi. Purification of our Ladye.

xii. The pinackle, with yᵉ woman of Canan.

xiii. The risinge of Lazarus from death to liffe.

xiv. The cominge of Christe to Ierusalem.

xv. Christs maundy with his desiples.

xvi. The scourginge of Christe.

xvii. The Crusifienge of Christ.

xviii. The harrowinge of hell.

xix. The Resurrection.

xx. The Castle of Emaus & the Apostles.

xxi. The Ascention of Christe.

xxii. Whitsonday yᵉ makeinge of the Creede.

xxiii. Prophetes before yᵉ day of Dome.

xxiv. Antecriste.

xxv. Domes Daye.

The list of plays contained in the pre-Reformation Banns is the same as

this, with one exception. Instead of twenty-five plays it has twenty-six.

After _Wyt Sonday_ is inserted the play ‘of our lady thassumpcon,’ to be

brought forth by ‘the worshipfull wyves of this towne.’ This play of _The

Assumption_ was given in 1477, and as a separate performance in 1488,

1497, and 1515 (Morris, 308, 322, 323). Doubtless it was dropped, as at

York, out of Protestantism. The post-Reformation Banns and the extant

MSS. of the cycle have it not. Further, they reduce the twenty-five plays

of the ‘White Book’ list to twenty-four, by merging the plays of the

_Scourging_ and _Crucifixion_ into one. In MSS. B, W, h, the junction is

plainly apparent (see Deimling, i. ix; Wright, ii. 50). In MS. H there is

no break (Deimling, i. xxiv).

_Literary Relations._

Wright, i. xiv, and Hohlfeld, in _Anglia_, xi. 223, call attention to

the parallels between the Chester plays and the French _Mystère du Viel

Testament_ and to the occurrence in them of scraps and fragments of

French speech. The chief of these are put into the mouths of Octavian,

the _Magi_, Herod, and Pilate, and may have been thought appropriate

to kings and lordings. They may also point to translation from French

originals. Davidson, 254, suggests that the earliest performances at

Chester were in Anglo-Norman, and points to the tradition of MS. H (cf.

p. 351) as confirming this. There are slight traces of influence upon

some of the Chester plays by the York cycle (Hohlfeld, loc. cit. 260;

Davidson, 287). Hohlfeld, in _M.L.N._ v. 222, regards Chester play iv as

derived from a common original with the Brome _Abraham and Isaac_. H.

Ungemacht, _Die Quellen der fünf ersten Chester Plays_, discusses the

relation of the plays to the Brome play and the French _mystères_, and

also to the _Vulgate_, the Fathers, Josephus, and the _Cursor Mundi_.

YORK PLAYS.

_Manuscripts._

(i) _Brit. Mus. Addl. MS._ 35,290, recently _Ashburnham MS._ 137, fully

described by L. T. Smith, _York Plays_, xiii. The MS. dates from about

1430-40, and appears to be a ‘register’ or transcript made for the

corporation of the ‘origenalls’ in the hands of the crafts. In 1554 the

‘register’ was kept by the clerk at the gates of the dissolved Holy

Trinity Priory. After the plays ceased to be performed it got into the

hands of the Fairfaxes of Denton. In 1695 it belonged to Henry Fairfax,

and its ownership can be traced thence to the present day.

(ii) _Sykes MS._ in possession of the York Philosophical Society, fully

described in _York Plays_, 455. This is of the early sixteenth century.

It contains only the Scriveners’ play, of ‘The Incredulity of Thomas,’

is not a copy from the Ashburnham MS., and may be an ‘origenall,’ or a

transcript for the prompter’s use. It has a cover with a flap, and has

been folded lengthwise, as if for the pocket.

_Editions._

(a) 1797. Play xlii (_Incredulity of Thomas_), from _Sykes MS._, in J.

Croft, _Excerpta Antiqua_, 105.

(b) 1859. Play xlii (_Incredulity of Thomas_), from _Sykes MS._, ed. J.

P. Collier, in _Camden Miscellany_, vol. iv.

(d) 1890. Play i (_Creation and the Fall of Lucifer_), from _York Plays_,

in Pollard, 1.

(e) 1897. Plays xxxviii, xlviii (_Resurrection_, _Judgment Day_), from

_York Plays_, in Manly, i. 153, 198.

_The Cycle._

The subjects of the forty-eight plays and one fragment contained in the

_Ashburnham MS._ are as follows:—

i. _The Barkers._ The Creation, Fall of Lucifer.

ii. _Playsterers._ The Creation to the Fifth Day.

iii. _Cardmakers._ God creates Adam and Eve.

iv. _Fullers._ Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

v. _Cowpers._ Man’s disobedience and Fall.

vi. _Armourers._ Adam and Eve driven from Eden.

vii. _Glovers._ Sacrificium Cayme et Abell.

viii. _Shipwrites._ Building of the Ark.

ix. _Fysshers and Marynars._ Noah and the Flood.

x. _Parchmyners and Bokebynders._ Abraham’s Sacrifice.

xi. _The Hoseers._ The Israelites in Egypt, the Ten Plagues,

and Passage of the Red Sea.

xii. _Spicers._ Annunciation, and visit of Elizabeth to Mary.

xiii. _Pewtereres and Foundours._ Joseph’s trouble about Mary.

xiv. _Tille-thekers._ Journey to Bethlehem: Birth of Jesus.

xv. _Chaundelers._ The Angels and the Shepherds.

xvi. _Masonns._ Coming of the three Kings to Herod.

xvii. _Goldsmyths._ Coming of the three Kings, the Adoration.

xviii. _Marchallis._ Flight into Egypt.

xix. _Gyrdillers and Naylers._ Massacre of the Innocents.

xx. _Sporiers and Lorimers._ Christ with the Doctors in the

Temple.

xxi. _Barbours._ Baptism of Jesus.

xxii. _Smythis._ Temptation of Jesus.

xxiii. _Coriours._ The Transfiguration.

xxiv. _Cappemakers._ Woman taken in Adultery. Raising of Lazarus.

xxv. _Skynners._ Entry into Jerusalem.

xxvi. _Cutteleres._ Conspiracy to take Jesus.

xxvii. _Baxteres._ The Last Supper.

xxviii. _Cordewaners._ The Agony and Betrayal.

xxix. _Bowers and Flecchers._ Peter denies Jesus: Jesus examined

by Caiaphas.

xxx. _Tapiterers and Couchers._ Dream of Pilate’s Wife: Jesus

before Pilate.

xxxi. _Lytsleres._ Trial before Herod.

xxxii. _Cokis and Waterlederes._ Second accusation before Pilate:

Remorse of Judas: Purchase of Field of Blood.

xxxiii. _Tyllemakers._ Second trial continued: Judgment on Jesus.

xxxiv. _Shermen._ Christ led up to Calvary.

xxxv. _Pynneres and Paynters._ Crucifixio Christi.

xxxvi. _Bocheres._ Mortificacio Christi.

xxxvii. _Sadilleres._ Harrowing of Hell.

xxxviii. _Carpenteres._ Resurrection: Fright of the Jews.

xxxix. _Wyne-drawers._ Jesus appears to Mary Magdalen after the

Resurrection.

xl. _The Sledmen._ Travellers to Emmaus.

xli. _Hatmakers, Masons, and Laborers._ Purification of Mary:

Simeon and Anna prophesy.

xlii. _Escreueneres._ Incredulity of Thomas.

xliii. _Tailoures._ The Ascension.

xliv. _Potteres._ Descent of the Holy Spirit.

xlv. _Draperes._ The Death of Mary.

xlvi. _Wefferes._ Appearance of our Lady to Thomas.

xlvii. _Osteleres._ Assumption and Coronation of the Virgin.

xlviii. _Merceres._ The Judgement Day.

(Fragment.) _Inholders._ Coronation of our Lady.

The majority of these plays were entered in the register about 1440. The

fragment of a later play on _The Coronation of Our Lady_ was added at the

end of the fifteenth century. It was doubtless intended to supersede

xlvii. _Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden_ (iv) and _The Purification of

Mary, Simeon and Anna prophesy_ (xli) were inserted in 1558. The former

is probably of the same date as the rest; the latter is thought by the

editor to be later. It is misplaced both in the MS. and the printed text.

It should follow xvii, but there was no room for it in the MS. Some

notes, probably written when the plays were submitted to the Dean of York

in 1579, state that xii, xviii, xxi, xxviii had been rewritten since the

The register does not represent quite all the plays ever performed at

York. Spaces are left for _The Marriage at Cana_ and _Christ in the House

of Simon the Leper_, which were never written in; and the corporation

archives refer to a play of _Fergus_ or _Portacio Corporis Mariae_,

which came between xlv and xlvi and was ‘laid apart’ in 1485; and to a

scene of _Suspencio Iudae_, which was in 1422 an episode of xxxiii. In

other respects the contents of the register agree substantially with

the fifty-one plays of the _Ordo paginarum_ entered by the Town Clerk

in the _Liber Memorandorum_ in 1415[936] and with the fifty-seven plays

of a second _Ordo_ of uncertain date which comes a little later in the

same _Liber_[937]. The three lists show some variations in the grouping

of the subject-matter into pageants, due to the constant shifting of

responsibility amongst the crafts.

_Literary Relations._

Davidson, 252 sqq., attempts to trace the growth of the York plays out

of a parent cycle, from which the Towneley and Coventry plays borrowed.

The biblical and apocryphal sources are discussed by L. Toulmin Smith,

_York Plays_, xlvii; A. R. Hohlfeld, in _Anglia_, xi. 285; P. Kamann,

_Die Quellen der York-Spiele_, in _Anglia_, x. 189; F. Holthausen, in

_Arch. f. d. Studium d. neueren Sprachen und Litteratur_, lxxxv. 425;

lxxxvi. 280; W. A. Craigie, in _Furnivall Miscellany_, 52. I have not

been able to see O. Herrtrich, _Studien zu den York Plays_ (Breslau

Diss. 1886). There are textual studies by F. Holthausen as above, and

in _Philologische Studien_ (Sievers-Festgabe), 1896; E. Kölbing, in

_Englische Studien_, xvi. 279; xx. 179; J. Hall, in _Eng. Stud._ ix.

448; Zupitza, in _Deutsche Litteraturzeitung_, vi. 1304; K. Luick, in

_Anglia_, xxii. 384.

TOWNELEY PLAYS.

_Manuscript._

Written in the second half of the fifteenth century, formerly in the

library of Towneley Hall, long in the possession of Mr. Quaritch, the

bookseller, and now in that of Major Coates, of Ewell, Surrey. There are

thirty-two plays in all, but twenty-six leaves are missing.

_Editions._

(a) 1822. Play xxx (_Iudicium_); F. Douce, for Roxburghe Club

(_Publications_, No. 16).

(b) 1836. Play xiii (_Secunda Pastorum_); J. P. Collier, in _Five

Miracle-Plays_.

editor was J. Raine, J. Hunter, or J. S. Stevenson.)

(d) 1838. Plays viii, xiii, xxiii, xxv, xxx (_Pharao_, _Secunda

Pastorum_, _Crucifixio_, _Extractio Animarum ab Inferno_, _Iudicium_); W.

Marriott, _English Miracle-Plays_.

(e) 1867. Play iii (_Processus Noe cum filiis_), E. Mätzner,

_Altenglische Sprachproben_, 360.

(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_.

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.

(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.

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_.

(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).

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.).

[1521-1537.] John Skot. ‘Here begynneth a treatyse how the hye fader of

heuen sendeth dethe to somon euery creature to come and gyue a counte of

theyr lyues in this Worlde, and is in maner of a morall playe’ (B. M. and

Huth Library).

[1529-1537.] John Skot (in St. Paul’s Churchyard).

There are modern editions by Hawkins (1773, vol. i), Gödeke (1865),

Hazlitt-Dodsley (1874. vol. i), Pollard (1890, part only, and in full in

_Fifteenth Century Prose and Verse_, 1903), H. Logeman, _Elckerlijk and

Everyman_ (1892), F. Sidgwick (1902). Another is announced in a series

edited by I. Gollancz.

There are about 900 lines. Pollard, 202, assigns the text to the end

of the fifteenth century; Ten Brink, ii. 302, to the reign of Edward

IV. Prof. H. Logeman, _Elckerlijk_ (1892), argues the play to be an

English version of the closely similar Dutch _Elckerlijk_, attributed to

Petrus Dorlandus of Diest, but K. H. de Raaf, _Spyeghel der Salicheyt

van Elckerlijk_ (1897), would invert the relation: cf. Brandl, xiv. The

characters are Messenger, God, Death, Everyman, Fellowship, Kindred,

Goods, Good Deeds, Knowledge, Confession, Beauty, Strength, Discretion,

Five Wits, Angel, Doctor. The Messenger prologizes. God sends Death for

Everyman, who finds that no one will accompany him save Good Deeds. The

Doctor epilogizes. There are no indications of the _mise en scène_,

except that there was a central scaffold for the ‘House of Salvation’

(Gödeke, 174, 200, cf. Brandl, xx).

THE WORLD AND THE CHILD.

_Editions._

An Oxford bookseller, John Dorne, had a copy of ‘mundus, a play’ in

1520[949].

1522. Wynkyn de Worde. ‘Here begynneth a propre newe Interlude of the

Worlde and the chylde, otherwyse called (Mundus & Infans)....’

1523. Wynkyn de Worde.

There are a reprint by Lord Althorp (Roxburghe Club, 1817) and modern

editions in Hazlitt-Dodsley, vol. i; Manly, i. 353.

The _dramatis personae_ are Mundus or the World, Infans or Dalliance or

Wanton or Love-Lust and Liking or Manhood or Shame or Age or Repentance,

Conscience, Folly, Perseverance. The representative of Man in various

ages is alternately won over to good and evil. There are 979 lines.

Collier, ii. 224; Pollard, li, assign the play to the reign of Henry VII;

Brandl, xlii, thinks that the use of the _Narrenmotif_ points to a date

of composition not long before that of publication. Mundus says, ‘Here I

sette semely in se’ (l. 22), and Manhood ‘Here in this sete sytte I’ (l.

285).

JOHN SKELTON. (_Magnificence._)

Skelton was born, probably in Norfolk, about 1460. He studied at

Cambridge and acquired fame as a scholar. Both universities honoured him

with the degree of _poeta laureatus_. He was tutor to Henry VIII as a

boy, and became rector of Diss in Norfolk. But he died in sanctuary at

Westminster (1529), driven there on account of his bitter satires against

Wolsey. In his _Garland of Laurell_ (pr. 1523), a late work, he has a

list of his writings, including—

‘Of Vertu also the souerayne enterlude:

...

His commedy, Achademios callyd by name:

...

And of Soueraynte a noble pamphelet;

And of Magnyfycence a notable mater.’

Bale, _Scriptores_, i. 652, ascribes to him _Comoediam de uirtute_, Lib.

1; _De magnificentia comoediam_, Lib. 1; _Theatrales ludos_, Lib. 1; _De

bono or dine comoediam_, Lib. 1. _Magnificence_ is, however, his only

extant play.

Warton (Hazlitt-Warton, iii. 287) describes a piece shown him by William

Collins, the poet, at Chichester, about 1759. He says:—

‘It is the Nigramansir, a morall _Enterlude_ and a pithie, written by

Maister Skelton laureate, and plaid before the King and other estatys at

Woodstoke on Palme Sunday. It was printed by Wynkyn de Worde in a thin

quarto, in the year 1504. It must have been presented before Henry VII,

at the royal manor or palace at Woodstock in Oxfordshire, now destroyed.

The characters are a Necromancer or conjurer, the devil, a notary public,

Simony, and Philargyria or Avarice. It is partly a satire on some abuses

in the church.... The story, or plot, is the trial of Simony and Avarice.’

Warton proceeds to describe the action at some length. Nothing further

is known of the play. Ritson, _Bibliographia Poetica_, 106, said ‘it is

utterly incredible that the _Nigramansir_ ... ever existed,’ and Mr. H.

E. D. Blakiston (_Eng. Hist. Rev._ for April, 1896) has called attention

to several cases in which Warton showed _mala fides_ as a literary

historian. In another place (iii. 310) Warton incidentally calls the

piece ‘Skelton’s _The Trial of Simonie_.’ E. G. Duff, _Hand Lists of

English Printers_, Part i, knows of no extant copy.

_Magnificence._

_Editions._

[1529-1533.] John Rastell. ‘Magnyfycence, a goodly interlude and a mery,

deuysed and made by mayster Skelton, poet laureate, late deceasyd.’ Folio.

1533. John Rastell. Quarto.

1821. J. Littledale (Roxburghe Club).

1843. A. Dyce, _Poetical Works of Skelton_, i. 225.

1890. Pollard, 106 (extract).

The characters are Felicity, Liberty, Measure, Magnificence, Fancy,

Counterfeit Countenance, Crafty Countenance, Cloked Collusion, Courtly

Abusion, Folly, Adversity, Poverty, Despair, Mischief, Good Hope,

Redress, Sad Circumspection, Perseverance. The plot shows Magnificence

brought low by evil counsellors, and restored by good ones. The players

come in and out of ‘the place.’ There are 2,596 lines. The play was

written later than 1515, as a reference to the liberality of the dead

Louis of France (l. 283) must intend Louis XII who died in that year, not

the niggard Louis XI.

SIR DAVID LYNDSAY. (_Ane Satyre of the Thrie Estaitis._)

Sir David Lyndsay ‘of the Mount’ in Fifeshire was born in 1490. By 1511

he was employed in the royal household, first as an actor or musician,

then as ‘Keeper of the Kingis Grace’s person.’ In 1529 he became Lyon

King at Arms, a post which included the charge of court entertainments.

His satire did not spare the church, and he seems to have been in

sympathy with Knox and other reformers, but he did not so far commit

himself as to endanger his office, which he held until his death in 1555.

_The Thrie Estaitis._

_Performances._

(i) _Jan. 6, 1540_, _Linlithgow_, before James V. This performance, the

first of which there is any satisfactory evidence, was described by Sir

W. Eure in a letter to Cromwell (Ellis, _Original Letters_, 3rd Series,

iii. 275; Brewer-Gairdner, xv. 36), enclosing a ‘Copie of the Nootes of

the Interluyde.’ The version seems to have been different from that now

extant. ‘Solaice’ figured as the presenter. Eure mentions the ‘scaffald’

and ‘the interluyds of the Play.’ He adds that, as a result, James V

admonished the Bishops to reform their ways.

(ii) _June 7_ (_Whit-Tuesday_), 1552, _Cupar of Fife_. The Bannatyne

MS. (see below) has the ‘Proclamation maid at Cowpar of Fyffe, upon the

Castell-hill, 7 June, beginning at seven.’ This was therefore the extant

version. The year is fixed by an incidental reference to the day (June 7)

as Whit-Tuesday.

(iii) 1554 (?), _Edinburgh_. Henry Charteris, in his preface to Lyndsay’s

_Warkis_ of 1568 (Laing, iii. 231), says of the ‘makar’s’ relations to

the clergy, ‘Sic ane spring he gaif thame in the Play, playit besyde

Edinburgh, in presence of the Quene Regent, and are greit part of the

Nobilitie, with ane exceding greit nowmer of pepill, lestand fra ix

houris afoir none till vj houris at evin.’ The Bannatyne MS. gives the

play as ‘maid in the Grenesyd besyd Edinburgh,’ and ‘in anno 155-ȝeiris.’

Cf. Appendix W, p. 366.

_Editions._

(_a_) 1602. Robert Charteris. ‘Ane satyre of the thrie estaits, in

commendation of vertew in vituperation of vyce. Maid be Sir Dauid

Lindesay of the Mont, alias, Lyon King of Armes.’

Diligence, as presenter, summons the three estates before Rex Humanitas.

Many ‘Vycis’ and other allegorical personages appear before the Rex on

his ‘royall sait.’ In ll. 1288-1411 comes the first interlude (although

the term is not used in the text) of ‘The Sowtar and Tailor.’ At l. 1931

is the ‘End of the First Part of the Satyre,’ with the direction, ‘Now

sall the Pepill mak collatioun: then beginnis the Interlude: the Kings,

Bischops, and principal Players being out of their seats.’ This interlude

introduces the Pauper, Pardoner, Sowtar, and others. Part ii begins at

l. 2298. At l. 4283, ‘Heir sall enter Folie,’ and at l. 4483, ‘Heir sall

Folie begin his Sermon, as followis.’ The theme is, of course, _Stultorum

numerus infinitus_, and at the close the preacher names recipients of

his ‘Follie Hattis or Hudes’ (cf. ch. xvi). At l. 4629, the people are

finally dismissed to dance and drink, Diligence calling on a minstrel.

(_b_) †1568. Bannatyne MS. (ed. Hunterian Club, 1873-1896, Part iv).

George Bannatyne included in his collection of pieces by the Scots

‘makaris’ (_a_) the ‘Proclamation’ at Cupar of Fife (see above), (_b_) a

preliminary interlude, not in Charteris’s edition, of a Cottar, an Auld

Man and his Wife, a ‘Fuill,’ &c.; (_c_) seven extracts from the play,

headed, ‘Heir begynnis Schir Dauid Lyndsay Play maid in the Grenesyd

besyd Edinburgh, quhilk I writtin bot schortly be Interludis, levand

the grave mater thereof, becaws the samyne abuse is weill reformit in

Scotland, praysit be God, quhairthrow I omittit that principall mater and

writtin only Sertane mirry Interludis thairof verry pleasand, begynnyng

at the first part of the Play.’

1869. F. Hall, _Works of Lindsay_, Pt. iv (E. E. T. S. o. s. 37).

1879. D. Laing, _Works of Lindsay_, vol. ii.

[Other editions are enumerated by Laing, iii. 259. There is an analysis

of the play in T. F. Henderson, _Scottish Vernacular Literature_, 219.]

III. TUDOR MAKERS OF INTERLUDES.

HENRY MEDWALL.

Medwall was chaplain to John Morton, cardinal and Archbishop of

Canterbury (1486-1500), who is probably the ‘my lord’ of _Nature_, i.

1438. Besides _Nature_, he wrote an interlude ‘of the fyndyng of Troth,

who was carried away by ygnoraunce and ypocresy,’ played by the King’s

players before Henry VIII at Richmond on Jan. 6, 1514. The ‘foolys part’

was the best, but the play was too long to please the King (cf. p. 201).

‘That yerely in the tyme of lentyn there shall be called afore the maire