It is here simply to be observed that the discourse of the doctors occupies similar places in WCo, Y, and T, and that in Ch a colloquy of the doctors is implied; for Primus Doctor says before Jesus has spoken, Heare our reason right on a row, you clarkes that be of great coning; me thinke this childe learne our law, he taketh great tent to our talking. In these passages the other texts show slight agreements with Y: Ch with confusion in speeches preserves practically one whole line and parts of others (Y 50, Ch 222; Y 49, 65-6, Ch 233-4, 236); WCo bears resemblance to Y all through this passage, but is in a different metre (WCo 857-8, Y 48, 63; WCo 870, Y 53; WCo 875-6, Y 63-5; WCo 878, Y 69; WCo 882, Y 59-60); even in the part of the colloquy preserved in T there is at least one slight agreement (Y 61–2, T 9–10).

Y 90, He wenes he kens more than we knawes; T 64, he wenys he kens more than he knawys; Ch 242, he wenes he kennes more than he knowes; WCo 903, All secrettis surely he thynkith he knois. T, Ch and WCo here represent evidently the same reading, one which makes sense too; but in Y the sense seems somewhat more original and knawes is perhaps a northern plural.1 WCo 905 clere, Y 92 yitt, T 66 yit, Ch 244 cleane. Clargy clere (Y 54, WCo 870) is indicated by alliteration.

WCo 932 and T after 86 have the Latin quotation, Ex ore infancium, etc.; it does not occur in Y. In WCo 922-34 the paraphrase is exceedingly free.

In Ch it is Jesus who asks for the first commandment; in Y and T, the third doctor; in WCo, the first doctor. Ch 140, which is a part of the first doctor's answer, agrees with Y 140, T 112, WCo 960, where it is the second line of the question.

1 See, however, York Mist. Plays, p. lxxii.

2 See also Ch 268, 271-2.

Before considering this important correspondence of WCo and T, the following minor agreements might be pointed out: Y 171-2, T 143-4; WCo 985-6, Y 175-6; WCo 989-90, Y 181-2. The corresponding passages are: WCo 977-84. The thryd beddith the, in any wey, Thatt of thy labur thow schuldyst reste, | And truly kepe thy Sabett day, / Thy-selfe, thi servande and thy best. | The forthe bydithe the do thy best | Thy fathur and mothur for to honoure; | And when ther goodis are decrest, | With all thy myght thow shuldist them succure. T 143-52, The thyrd bydys, "where so ye go, That he shall halow the holy day; || from bodely wark ye take youre rest; | youre household, look the same thay do, | Both wyfe, chyld, seruande, and beest," || The fourt is then in weyll and wo "Thi fader, thi moder, thou shall honoure, // not only with thi reuerence, || Bot in thare nede thou thaym socoure, | And kepe ay good obedyence." The writer or reviser of WCo was perhaps trying to make an eight-line strophe which would have prevented a closer agreement than exists, or, as is more likely, the difference has been increased by the rewriting of T. In any case, the diversity among the plays in their recitals of the commandments, and the metrical regularity and almost entire independence of Y being taken into consideration, the conclusion is almost unavoidable that WCo and T preserve here parts of the same original.

WCo 1001–10, Y 193-202, T 181-90, Ch 257-66.

The placing of these speeches in Ch before the recital of the commandments was certainly accidental, the result of unskilful borrowing.

WCo 1011–26,

Y 203-18, T 191-206.

WCo 1022 and T 202, amend; Y 214 mende.

WCo 1027–40, Y 219-32, T 207-20,

Ch 305-16.

The order in which lines of Y and T are reproduced in Ch is: 223, 224, 221 and 219, 222; 225 and 226; 231, 230, 229, 232. Ch omits the idea of hurrying home on account of the lateness of the hour (Y 227-8) and puts in (Ch 311-2), thatt sitteth with yonder Doctors gay; for we have had of hym great care. WCo follows

C. C. PLAYS.

с

Y and T closely in sense and order of lines except in 11. 1037-40, where the arrangement is that of Ch. This is the most important of the resemblances between Ch and WCo; it can be easily seen how it came about. The passages are: Ch 313-6, Mary, wife, thou wottes right well | that I must all my travayle teene, | With men of might I can not mell, that sittes so gay in furres fyne. WCo 1037-40, Ey! Mare, wyff, ye kno ryght well, / Asse I have tolde you many a tyme, / With men of myght durst I neyuer mell. Loo! dame, how the sytt in there furis fyn! Y 229-32, With men of myght can I not mell, | Than all my trayvale mon I tyne, | I can noght with them, this wate thou wele, They are so gay in furres fyne. T follows Y. Ch differs from Y and T in its displacement of genuine lines; but WCo differs from them only because of the exigencies of paraphrasing the archaic words in Y 230 (Ch 314). WCo 1041-64, Y 233-56, T 221-44, (Ch 317-20).

WCo 1043 have reygardid you, Y 235 will take rewarde to you, T 223 will take hede to you. WCo 1044 this wott I well, Y 236 this wate ye wele, T 224 this wote I weyll. Mary's speech to Jesus, Ch 317-20, follows Y and T in the use of the word deare and in the idea of the search for Jesus, but differs from them in having no reference to the distress of Joseph and Mary; it expresses their joy at having found him. WCo, on the contrary, uses the word swete, omits all reference to the search and dwells upon the grief which Joseph and Mary have felt during the three days of Jesus's absence.

WCo 1065–72, Y 257-64, T 245-52, Ch 221-8.

Y 257 (T 245, WCo 1065) Wherto shulde ye seke me soo? does not appear in Ch, where the stanza begins with (321), Mother, full oft I tould you till (Y 258), and ends with (324), that must I needes doe, or I goe, which is a special line composed to go with the three which had been borrowed. Ch 328, and found to do that they commaund, diverges slightly from Y 264 (T 252), To ffonde what is folowand; WCo 1072, Ys were glade I have the fonde, uses instead of the northern word found, attempt, the past participle of find, discover, which may have been suggested by the former word.

In connection with this passage arises also the question of the supposed interchange of speeches between Joseph and Mary. Dr. Chas. Davidson 1 says (referring to WCo 1057-64, Y 249-56, T 237-44, Ch 317-28): "Mary addresses Jesus.-Agreement of Y

1 Loc. cit. p. 177. See also Review by Ungemach, Anglia Beiblatt, iv., pp. 258-9.

...

and W (T). Immaterial changes in W of Co, speech reduced to four verses of free paraphrase in Ch . . . Jesus replies.—Agreement among W of Co, Ch, and Y. W (T) adds verses after the manner of W (T) in the 'Harrowing of Hell.' Joseph addresses Jesus in Y and W (T), but Mary addresses Jesus in W of Co and Ch. This is a significant difference." Further on, "Ch... because of agreement with W of Co in Mary's speech, when Joseph speaks in the other plays, is without much doubt a borrowing from Coventry before the days of Robert Croo, i. e. before 15-." This conclusion rests upon a mistake, as will be seen by an examination of the texts. T 249-52 is the only case where there is any material difference in the plays as to speakers. In Y 261-4, Mary, and not Joseph as asserted by Dr. Davidson, addresses Jesus. Moreover, Mary's speech occurs in T in an exactly similar place to the one it has in the other plays. The mistake was due to the fact that Mary's speech is given in T to Jesus, who speaks immediately before her. The Towneley editor points out that the speech must have belonged to Mary by referring to Luke ii. (misprinted iii.), 51. These verses are not extraneous as Dr. Davidson implies, but hold their proper place as the conclusion of a twelve-line stanza. In WCo Joseph makes his

own speech, but not until 11. 1122-4.

Ch ends at this point 2 and WCo expands into an extensive leave-taking scene; some correspondences can be discovered:

There is no parallel in any play for the dialogue of the doctors with which WCo comes to an end.

Except for T 1-48 and Y 1-73, and T 145-78 and Y 173-90, Y and T are practically the same throughout. Ch and WCo are related to them in very different ways. Ch usually corresponds closely in language and rime, when it agrees at all; strophes and verses are often out of their original order; parts of lines are pieced together; and the story, where it is deficient, is filled out with matter in many cases peculiar to Ch. It is an imperfect version, just such

It must have been spoken by Jesus when the present version of T was written, for not has been changed to well.

2 See Hohlfeld, loc. cit. p. 260.

as would have resulted from oral transmission. WCo is also corrupt but in a different way. In story it seldom departs from Y and T except to interpolate and expand or to paraphrase into later English. As we have seen, WCo and Ch never coincide in their deviations in story. The few cases in which WCo and Ch have in common readings which differ from Y and T are insufficient to indicate interdependence. Indeed, from agreements in text of WCo with any other play, very little can usually be told; so much has WCo been altered in revision and transmission. This applies also to the relation of WCo to Y and T, as concerns its derivation from one or the other. The best piece of evidence, the agreement in the third and fourth commandments, is in favour of its derivation from T. Several smaller agreements point in the same direction.1

A fact, which adds to the presumption in favour of T as the original of WCo, is that in the Towneley cycle the Doctors' play stands next after the Purification; but in the York Cycle the corresponding play came between the Massacre of the Innocents and the Baptism of Jesus.2 The order of plays in the lost Beverley Cycle was virtually the same as in York: . . . Fyshers, Symeon. Cowpers, fleynge to Egippe. Shomakers, children of Israel. Scryvners, disputacion in the temple. Barbours, sent John baptyste, etc.3

4

In light of the whole matter, therefore, it seems probable that some Northumbrian nucleus of craft or church plays was in possession of this Doctors' play, and, since the subject was unusually attractive, the play spread to the south and west. On its way to Coventry it perhaps fell under the influence of T, or under influence which also affected T. This was probably also the case in its journey to Chester; but there is no reason whatever to think that the Play of the Doctors passed from Coventry to Chester or that Ch and WCo in any way interdepend.

1 Hohlfeld, loc. cit. pp. 265-7; and Intro. Towneley Plays, pp. xix-xx. 2 If Towneley XVII and XVIII had possibly been combined into one like Ch and WCo, the play would not have been inordinately long. There is a gap in the MS. between the plays; see Towneley Plays, p. 185.

3 Lansdown MS. 896, fos. 133, 139-40; Scaum's Beverlac, by Geo. Poulson, Esq., Lond. 1829, p. 272; the list, taken from Beverlac, has been corrected from Leach; see below, note 4.

4 See "Fragments of Liturgical Plays " and the editor's headnote in Specimens of Pre-Shak. Drama, ed. Dr. J. M. Manly, Boston, 1897, vol. i. pp. xxvii-xxxvii; Davidson, loc. cit. pp. 83 ff.; ten Brink, loc. cit., pp. 281–2. See also article on the Beverley play by Arthur Leach, Esq., in An Eng. Miscellany, Presented to Dr. Furnivall in Honour of his Seventy-fifth Birthday (Oxford, 1901), pp. 205-304.