Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T01:52:36.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Date of the “Wakefield Master”: Bibliographical Evidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2020

Mendal G. Frampton
Mendal G. Frampton*
Affiliation:
Pomona College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In PMLA for September, 1935, I proposed a new and later date than customary for the flourishing of the author of the Secunda Pastorum in the Towneley cycle of mystery plays. It seemed to me then, as it seems to me now, that the evidence of the costume allusions in his plays and the evidence of local history both pointed to the years 1425–50 as encompassing the years of his major work. At the close of that article I quoted W. W. Greg and Miss Marie C. Lyle as bibliographical authorities, the one as believing that the York Passion Group could “hardly be earlier than 1400” and the other as placing the influence of the Gospel of Nicodemus upon that group as after 1415 when Roger Burton, city clerk of York, set down in the official York Memorandum Book a description of the plays as he knew them at that time. Miss Lyle, it is true, was immediately replied to by Miss Grace Clark and partly dislodged from her position. After reviewing Miss Clark's argument as it bore on the point at issue, however, I concluded that “my case would stand.” I propose now to bring the bibliographical evidence under the review of Burton's two “lists”—the first set down, as I have said, in 1415, and the second a few years later—and also under the review of entries in the York Memorandum Book (Surlees Society,cxx and cxxv).

Type
Research Article
Information
PMLA , Volume 53 , Issue 1 , March 1938 , pp. 86 - 117
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1938

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Professor Harold Davis, of the English department of Pomona College, has called my attention to the fact that the word pilus in the Judicium does not mean ‘hair’ as I read it, but ‘pillow.‘ This correction makes the import of the passage even more clear, as the poet could not say of the sloping shoulders of the gown of the early part of the fifteenth century, in the words of Tutivillus, that “on sich pilus I me set and clap thaym cheke and chyn no nay.” (ll. 290–291.) He must have been referring to the gown of the time of Henry VI with the padded shoulders and leg of mutton sleeves.

2 W. W. Greg, The Library, 3rd series, v, 291.

3 Marie C. Lyle, “The Original Identity of the York and Towneley Cycles,” Research Publications of the University of Minnesota, viii, no. 3, Ch. II.

4 PMLA, l, 659, n. 155.

5 Cf. Mrs. Grace Frank, PMLA, xliv, 313 ff., and Miss Lyle, ibid., 319 ff.

6 PMLA, xliv, 327.

7 Lucy Toulmin Smith, York Mystery Plays, p. xxviii.

8 York Plays, op. cit., p. xxviii.—W. W. Greg says, however: “I do not think that any competent critic today would place it much before the middle of the second half of the century.” See The Library, Series 3, v, 26, n. 1.

9 Cf. York Plays, op. cit., pp. xv–xvi.

10 Ibid., p. xxi.

11 Ibid., p. 117, n. 1.

12 Both the transferred passage and the last strophe of Play xv bear an unmistakable relation to the Shrewsbury fragment of the Pastures. Most scholars look upon the fragment as antedating the play; see Osborn Waterhouse, The Non-Cycle Mystery Plays, EETS, E.S., civ, xiv-xviii; but W. W. Greg says: “A liturgical play in the vernacular is, however, in itself such an anomaly, and these particular texts are so late,, that a borrowing from and not by the York cycle seems the more probable explanation.” The Library, 3rd Series, v, 288, n. 1. If he be right, the Pastores must have been borrowed before the transference of the passage in question to Play xvii.

13 Miss Smith says these words were “added in another ink.” York Plays, op. cit., p. xxi, n. 3.

14 York Plays, p. xxi.

15 Miss Smith fails to write the opening of the play in strophes. The first two strophes are clear; the third, however, has lost its cauda, closing with line 30. The fourth is restored to perfect form by writing the present line 44 as the second half of line 43. The last strophe is restored by placing line 58 in line 57 after the word “lawes” with the alliteration on “1.” The d lines of the last strophe are reduced to three accents.

16 Gayley states the characteristics of the late school most fully. See Charles Mills Gayley, Plays of Our Forefathers, p. 155.

17 “York Memorandum Book,” Surtees Society, cxxv, 123–124.

18 York Plays, p. xxvi.

19 Quoted from Robert Davies, “Extracts from the Municipal Records of the City of York, etc.” (London, 1843), p. 235.

20 Plays of Our Forefathers, p. 154. Of course Professor Gayley looked upon them as having taken their present form before Burton wrote, but in 1907 all scholars placed the plays very early.

21 I think Burton's accuracy could be defended in all the cases I have used.

22 Plays of Our Forefathers, p. 162.

23 Marie C. Lyle, “Original Identity etc.,” Chap, v; PMLA, xliv, 320–321.

24 For a summary of the position of scholars see Mrs. Grace Frank, PMLA, xliv 317–319.

25 Lyle, “Original Identity,” p. 60.

26 Ibid., p. 38.

27 A. Hohlfeld, “Die altenglischen Kollectivmysterien,” Anglia, xi, 293.

28 Surtees Soc., cxxv, 123–124.

29 It is my private opinion that the Towneley xrv was written by the Wakefield Master. Miss Foster, (PMLA, xliii, p. 133) and Miss Lyle (PMLA, xltv, p. 321, n. 8) both look upon the York plays as first divided in 1431. If so, what was the second play which the Goldsmiths wished to release? Certainly the division took place sooner.

30 “Original Identity,” 53.

31 Ibid., 32–33.

32 PMLA, xliv, 314, n. 1.

33 PMLA, xliv, 327.

34 PMLA, xliii, 158.

35 Charles Davidson, “Studies in the English Mystery Plays,” p. 169. Professor Davidson's statement that Wakefield has this speech “in common with Chester” is slightly inaccurate as only three of the strophes correspond.

36 EETS, ES, lxxi, xix.

37 W. W. Greg, “Bibliographical and textual problems of the English Mystery Plays,” The Library, 3rd series, v, 285, n. 1.

38 Op. cit., xix, n. 1.

39 Op. cit., 285, and n. 1.—Mr. Greg shows that the correspondence extends further than noted by Pollard. (Correct the close of line 4 of his note to read 322–327.) Pollard thought that Chester might have borrowed from Towneley but Greg declares this impossible “for in that case the passage in Chester would have been in the metre of the rest of the play or in that of Wakefield.” It is neither. The “Skelton” poem of nine strophes is inserted between the first and the second strophes with Chester correspondences.

40 Op. cit., xix.

41 Miss Lyle points out that “the metre of the lyric begins three strophes earlier in Towneley than do the verbal similarities.” PMLA, xliv, 323, n. 17. She might have added that stanza 48 is also an expansion of the lyric. It is further true, as she says, that “no similarities with Chester are apparent in the stanzas written in the metre of the lyric.”

42 George C. Taylor, “Relation of the English Corpus Christi Play to the Middle English Lyric,” MP, v, 26–27.

43 Stanza 46 of the play is almost identical with stanza 2 of the lyric. Stanza 5 of the lyric is transposed to follow stanza 1, otherwise the play follows the poem faithfully.

44 It may be argued that the lyric derives from the play, but this direction for the influence seems to me exceedingly unlikely. That the strophe form is not found otherwise in the Towneley plays argues against this view as does the fact that, according to Professor Taylor, almost a quarter of the Towneley cycle derives from sources “in a broad sense lyrical.” Op. cit., 15. If we were certain that Skelton wrote the lyric we should have to advance the date of the manuscript from 1460, the date used by the Oxford Dictionary, as Skelton was not born until approximately that date. Captain R. B. Hazelden, Curator of Manuscripts at the Huntington Library, however, writes me that he has “found a very similar hand of 1475” and that he “can see no reason why the date of the manuscript of the Towneley Plays should not be 1485 or even later. The scribe may have been an old man, writing in an archaic style, or he may have been writing in a part of the country where new fashions did not penetrate so rapidly.” Letters dated Sept. 9 and Sept. 15, 1936.

45 This is, of course, the position taken by Miss Lyle, PMLA, xliv, 323.

46 Op. cit., xx. The situation in the play is not so serious as Professor Pollard seems to think. Set lines 562 and 585 as extra metrical lines, which they are, and restore lines 583–584 to their rightful place as the cauda of stanza 96, and two perfect stanzas will emerge from three very imperfect ones.

47 Ibid., xviii.

48 Ibid.

49 York Plays, p. xxvi.

50 Davies, op. cit., p. 235.

51 Two of the strophes, stanzas 15 and 18, are tetrameter. Stanza 3 has lost most of a quatrain and Miss Smith has placed unrelated quatrains in stanzas 6 and 7.

52 Miss Lyle points out three identical rimes and about the same number of phrase echoes. “Original Identity,” p. 84.

53 Y. xxxviii, st. 50 and T. xxvia, st. 73. The Towneley scribe came nearest solving the truncated stanza as he saw the true rimes in “-ay.” Towneley should be set as follows:

Tercius miles, what devyll alys you two sich nose and cry forto may?

Secundus miles, ffor he is gone. Tercius Miles. Alas wha? Secundus Miles, he that here lay.

Tercius Miles, harrow! devili! how gat he away?

The cauda is lost.

54 York Plays, p. 18, n. 1.

55 Plays of our Forefathers, p. 157.

56 Leaf & vij. York Plays, p. 341, n. 2.

57 Lines 316–347. This passage begins to pick up the registered play with line 338, stanza 40. As the passage is all in quatrains or double quatrains with sometimes four and sometimes three accents and varying rime schemes, little can be made of it. I would suggest that it may represent the original form in which the play was presented at Wakefield.

58 Frances Foster, PMLA, xliii, 133, n. 48.

59 Plays of Our Forefathers, p. 164.

60 PMLA, xliv, 325.

61 Ibid.

62 The rime words in York xxxiii occur in stanzas 33 and 34. “Rede” is, of course, merely suggested by “roode.”

63 York Plays, p. xxv.

64 Davies, op. cit., p. 235.

65 EETS, O.S., cxlv, 180, Additional MS, line 24.

66 Surtees Soc., cxxv, 171.

67 Two bits of evidence should be discussed, I think, in a footnote. (1) The Towneley play substitutes for the closing stanzas of York xxxiv—those dealing with the Casting of Lots—a single stanza in the pseudo-Wakefield form abab4c1ddd2c3. This fact might be used as evidence of a borrowing after the present close of the York play was written. In that case, however, I should find it hard to explain the absence of any evidence in T. of the present opening scene in York. (2) A difference from Burton might be argued on the difference in his ordering of the scenes. I think that he usually gives scenes in their proper order, but in this case I cannot believe that he did, for I find it hard to visualize a play with

the meeting of Mary mother with Christ after the scene in which Simon of Cyrene is forced to relieve Christ of the cross. Yet Burton's order requires this.

68 “Original Identity,” p. 98.

69 EETS, E.S., c, 30 ff. I shall defend this judgment just below. The Gospel, of course, has but one trial scene.

70 EETS, O.S., cxlv, 99–101.

71 Cf. Gayley, Plays of Our Forefathers, pp. 154–157.

72 In this he agrees with the Northern Passion, but that he was probably writing in independence of that account and of the content of the play of Burton's second list seems likely from the absence in his lines of any indication that Christ was bound to a pillar for the flogging. The Millers said of their play when they asked to be released from producing it, that it was one “ubi Jesus ligatus erat ad columpnam et flagellatus.” York Plays, p. xxiv, n. 1, and in the Northern Passion we read: “And till a peler him fest.” EETS, O.S., cxlv, 123, Harley MS. 1193. As Towneley also binds Christ to a pillar (line 130), it would seem to have derived from York before the registered play was written. Professor Smith points out, however, that the action may still have persisted in the York registered play without being indicated in the language.

73 Cf. Gayley, Plays of Our Forefathers, pp. 154–155; Greg, op. cit., p. 282, n. 1.

74 Cf. “Original Identity,” p. 98.

75 The Library, 3rd Series, v, 291.

76 York Plays, p. xxv.

77 Play no. 40 became the registered Play xxxiv.

78 We first hear of this play in 1417 when its sponsors petitioned the Council regarding it. Surtees Soc., cxx, 155. Miss Smith gives the record, York Plays, p. xxiv, but conjectures the erroneous date, 1410.

79 The list has been available only in Robert Davies, Extracts from the Municipal Records of the City of York, etc., (London 1843), where it occupies pages 233–236. Since his transcription has inaccuracies and is so inaccessible, I present here a true copy together with an account of the entry as sent me through the courtesy of the Reverend Angelo Raine, of

Dringhouses Vicarage, York. Mr. Raine writes that “this second list is now partly illegible, owing, no doubt, to damage done by water in 1892 when a great flood in the River Ouse submerged the city muniment room.” As a result entries 31–37 “are completely illegible” and entries 51–57 are “almost completely illegible—the ink is wholly washed away—all that is left is the impression of the pen on the surface of the parchment.” Mr. Raine was able to verify as correct all of the last group of entries except for six words, but could not recover anything from the earlier group. Our debt to Davies is thus very great, as the now illegible entries are among those of most significance. There are at present three foliations of the manuscript. Two of these are medieval, writes Mr. Raine, who says further that “according to one the foliation of this second list is 246, according to the other 266. A modem foliation in pencil—evidently Dr. Sellers—gives 255. This is the one she adopts in the Memorandum Book.” The list is in two columns and “at the bottom of the right hand column is the signature ‘Burton’.” This word, however, is not in either of the hands of the list proper. That list is in two hands, all the emendations being in one hand and the entries in another according to Mr. Raine. As to whether any of the three hands is Burton's Mr. Raine does not commit himself. Whether Burton wrote any of the entries, however, the list is later than Burton's 1415 list. The list follows.

Ordo paginarum ludi corporis Christi

1. Barkers Creacio celi et terre.

2. Plasterers Operacio quinque dierum.

3. Cardemakers Formacio Ade et Eve.

4. Walkers Prohibicio ligni sciencie.

5. Coupers Decepcio diaboli in serpente.

6. Fourbours Assignacio laboris Ade.

7. Glovers Cain occidens Abel.

8. Shipwrights Fabricacio arce Noe

9. Fysshemangers Maryners} Arca Noe per diluvium.

10. Parchmeners Immolacio Isaac per Abraham.

11. Hosyers Pharao cum Moise et filii Israel.

12. Spicers Annunciacio Marie per Gabrielem.

13. Foundours Joseph volens dimittere eam occulte.

14. Tielers Bethleem cum puero nato.

15. Chaundelers Presentacio pastorum.

16. (Masons Herod interrogans tres reges.)

(Not in same hand as rest of entries. It has been added to the list—written in a smaller hand between the lines occupied by Chaundelers and Goldsmiths. Raine.)

17. Goldsmyths Oblacio trium regum.

18. Sancti Leonardi, Jam Masons } Presentacio Christi in templo.

(Jam Masons in same hand as masons above between lines occupied by Sancti Leonardi and Marsshalls. Raine.)

19. Marsshalls Qualiter Christus fugit in Egyptum.

20. Gyrdelers Occisio innocentum pro Christo.

21. Sporyers Inventio Christi in templo inter doctores.

22. Barbours Baptizacio Christi per Johannem.

23. Taverners Nupcie in Chana Galilee.

24. Smyths Temptacio Christi in deserto.

25. Cornreours Transfiguracio Christi.

26. Irenmangers Convivium in domo Simonis.

27. Plummers Mulier capta in adulterio.

28. Hartshorners Suscitacio Lazari.

29. Skynners Jerusalem cum civibus.

30. Cuttellers Vendicio Christi per Judas.

31. Bakers Cena Christi cum discipulis. (Davies, p. 234.)

32. Waterleders Lavacio pedum apostolorum. (Davies, ibid.)

33. Cordewaners Capcio Christi orantis in Monte. (Davies, ibid.)

34. Bowers Illusio Christi coram Caypha. (Davies, p. 235.)

35. Tapiters Accusacio Christi coram Pilato. (Davies, ibid.)

36. Lyttesters Presentacio Christi coram Herode. (Davies, ibid.)

37. Cukes Penitencio Jude coram ludeis. (Davies, ibid.)

38. Sausmakers Suspencio Jude.

39. Tylemakers Condemnacio Christi per Pilatum.

40. Turnors and Bollers Flagellacio et coronacio cum spinis. (Tumors and Bollers are in one line in manuscript. Raine.)

41. Shermen Ductio Christi et ostensio Veronice.

42. Milners Particio vestimentorum Christi.

43. Payntors Expansio et clavacio Christi.

44. Latoners Levacio Christi super montem.

45. Bouchers Mortificacio Christi super Calvare.

46. Sadelers Spoliacio inferni.

47. Wrygts Resurrectio Christi.

48. Wynedrawers Apparicio Christi Marie Magdalene.

49. Wolpakkers Apparicio Christi peregrinis.

50. Scryveners Apparicio Christi Thome apostolo.

51. Taylors Ascensio Christi in celum.

52. Potters Descensio spiritum sancti. (Last two words illegible).

53. Drapers Transitas beate Marie. (Last two words now illegible).

54. Masons Portacio corporis Marie.

55. Wevers Assumpcio beate Marie. (Last word now illegible).

56. Taverners Coronacio ejusdem. (Hostilers). (Hostilers is added in the margin in the same hand as the additions in numbers 16 and 18. Taverners just legible. Raine.)

57. Mercers Judicium finale. (Last word now illegible.)

Miss Lyle dates this list in 1431, “Original Identity,” p. 106, apparently because in that year the “Tres Reges” was turned over to the Masons and this change in sponsorship was entered on the list by interlineation. Since, however, plays no. 27 and no. 28 of the second list were united in 1422 in a new play ultimately registered as Play xxiv, (Surtees Soc., cxxv, 102–104. The date was January 31, 1422), and since the four plays we have just been studying were also replaced in that year by a single new one, Play xxxiii, the list could not have been written later than 1422. Perhaps we are safe in saying ca. 1420.

80 Surtees Soc., cxxv, 171; York Plays, p. xxv.

81 This play went through various sponsorships. See Miss Lucy Smith, York Plays, p. xxv, n. 1.

82 Ibid., p. xxviii.

83 Miss Lyle thinks the plays of all four guilds were at first combined in the new play and later, parts were discarded. If so the new play must have been very long. I cannot agree with her. (“Original Identity,” p. 105).

84 “Original Identity,” p. 33.

85 PMLA, xliv, 326–328.—As to the influence of the Gospel of Nicodemus, I agree with Mrs. Frank when she says that, in her judgment, the “Gospel of Nicodemus was not used at any one time or by any one man .. . but was known independently to several playwrights and revisers.” PMLA, xliv, 315. Among these was, of course, the late realist.

86 PMLA, xliii, 156.

87 PMLA, xliv, 317.

88 Play xxxiii, 11. 206–208.

89 Ibid., 1. 229.

90 Miss Smith, York Plays, p. 327, n. 1. says of these two men: “we should probably name them seventh and eighth soldiers.” As she well says further, “They, as well as Pilate, are . . . quite unconscious of the identity” with any of the six.

91 York Plays, p. xxiii.

92 Ibid., p. xxvi.

93 Ibid., p. 497.

94 Ibid., p. xxvii.

95 “Original Identity,” Chapter ii.

96 EETS, E.S., c, 27–35.—The order in the Gospel is, (a) Beadle, (b) Bowing of Standards, (c) Obeisance of Pilate, (d) the Devil and Procula. The devil appears to Procula in both the Gospel and the Northern Passion, but the play agrees with the Gospel in specifying

the loss of “richesse” and “welth” as the penalty for not releasing Jesus. (Play, 1. 175; Gospel, 1. 200.)

97 Plays of Our Forefathers, p. 154.

98 W. W. Greg, op. cit., pp. 290–291.

99 The distribution of the incidents between the plays is at first blush odd, Play xxx taking the last incident (the Dream) first and neglecting the Standards incident made so much of in Play xxxiii. It might be argued that a sufficient reason for this was that Burton's play had already made use of the Standards material. I think, however, that the transposition of the Percula material to the opening of Play xxx, and the addition to it of the interesting scene between her and Pilate, scene one of the play, made that play obviously a Percula play. The writer therefore used only such part of the earlier passages in the Gospel as seemed to him to make a sufficiently fitting opening for the audience before Pilate. The Standards scene was thus left free for some one else to use. Moreover, I am one who believes that both York xxx and York xxxiii were written by the great York realist. If so, the distribution of material is easy of explanation as providing each play a central source of interest.

100 PMLA, xliii, 154.

101 “Original Identity,” p. 105.

102 York Plays, p. xxix.

103 The scene derives from the Northern Passion, 11. 885–900b. See the discussion of the scene by Miss Frances Foster, EETS, O.S., cxlvii, 83.

104 See Miss Smith's note, York Plays, p. 307, n. 1.

105 Miss Smith makes no attempt to show the organization of lines 17–39.1 should like to propose the following solution of them. Lines 17–20—a quatrain. Lines 21–28 a strophe like stanzas 1 and 2, running ababcccd. Lines 29–35 like the short strophe in scene two, running abab4c2bc4. Lines 36–39—another quatrain.

106 See Plays of Our Forefathers, p. 155. Cf. Davidson, op. cit., p. 153.

107 Charles Davidson, op. cit., p. 153.

108 Plays of Our Forefathers, p. 154.

109 W. W. Greg, op. cit., 291.

110 PMLA, xliv, 324.

111 Ibid., 324.

112 “Original Identity,” p. 81.

113 Davidson, whose judgment must always be respected, looks upon the couplets and quatrains as editorial. Op. cit., pp. 155–156.

114 MP, v, 588–589.

115 Ibid.

116 T. xx, line 348. Miss Foster accepts Cady's exposition of the play including this error although she differs somewhat in details. (Northern, Passion, EETS, O.S., cxlvii, 88–89).

117 Original Identity,“ p. 81. Her proof lies in a comparison with the Northern Passion. Professor Smith adds the testimony of the two lines preceding the two I quoted in the text. They read;

Johannes. Sir, youre mett is redy bowne,

will ye wesh and syt downe? (11. 346–347).

118 Follows line 351.

119 York Plays, p. xxiii.

120 Play xv, ll. 89–104.

121 The Last Supper, 11. 758–771 and 806–812. The Judas episode splits the passage.

122 M.P., X, 592. So Foster, EETS, O.S., cxlvii, 88.

123 I am speaking of the order of events only. More carefully stated, the play follows the account as given by Luke who alone of the first three apostles places the Peter prophecy at the Supper.

124 Davies, op. cit., p. 234.

125 Towneley xxa was borrowed, of course, before 1422. The history we have just reviewed seems again to verify the accuracy of Burton in his account of Play xxxviii. The four Jews of the play, not mentioned by him, probably entered it at the time of one of its proven rewritings.

126 Plays of Our Forefathers, p. 157 and n. 1.

127 The last is a fragment added in a later hand,—a fact of no significance to my point.

128 Miss Lyle took the position that the Resurrection, the Conspiracy, and the Scourging, Plays xxvi, xx, and xxii, represented “a more primitive stage of cycle development than the corresponding plays at York,” PMLA, xltv, 321, and that the York plays therefore showed a splitting up of these plays. See her dissertation, pp. 68–71. Miss Foster replied, maintaining the opposite thesis. PMLA, xun, 132–133). My study has added materially to the support of Miss Foster's position. She was certainly right.

129 Stanzas 97–101. The passage should be set as four stanzas.

130 Stanzas 1–4.

131 Stanza 60.

132 Plays of Our Forefathers, p. 162.

133 Millicent Carey, “The Wakefield Group in the Towneley Cycle,” Eesperia, xi, 220–222.

134 Ibid., chapter v, part ii.

135 Ibid., p. 228.

136 Stanza 5 of Play xx and stanza 3 of Play xxiv.

137 Stanza 49 of Play xxii and stanza 60 of Play xxiv.

138 Stanza 57.

139 Stanza 10.

140 Hesperia, xi, 225–226.

141 The scribe always writes the first quatrain of the thirteen line pseudo strophes as an independent quatrain; the true strophes he always writes as a unit, the pedes with internal rime. I agree with Professor Smith that many of the pseudo strophes—possibly all of them —are by others than our poet. Some question the opening strophes of Play xx.

142 Stanzas 16–48 inclusive. The opening strophes of all three plays are all put thus into the mouth of one character.

143 Stanzas 31, 47, 48, 74, 75 and 76.

144 Stanzas 19, 20, 22, 23, 26, 30, 34, 36, 37, 48, 69, 70 and 71.

145 Stanzas 21–22, 25–26, 69–70 and 73–74.

146 Stanzas 26, 34, 36 and 71.

147 Stanza 27.

148 Hesperia, xi, 225–226.

149 Margaret Trusler, The Language of the Wakefield Playwright, (Chicago, 1933).—This thesis, “condensed and rearranged” will be found in SP, xxxiii, 15–39. In this version she gives full attention to the thesis that Gilbert Pilkington was the Wakefield Master and completes the interment of the idea. See Frances Foster, PMLA, xliii, 124 ff. and M. G. Frampton, PMLA, xlvii, 622 ff.

150 Ibid., p. 8.

151 “Die Sprache der Urkunden aus Yorkshire im 15 jhd.,” Angl. Forch., xi, 1902. Quoted from Miss Trusler, p. 54.

152 Ibid., p. 157.

153 For these details about Wakefield, see J. W. Walker, Wakefield, its History and its People, (Wakefield, 1934), Chapter vi.

154 Surtees Soc., cxx, xxxvii.

155 References in support of the data about Wakefield not given above are to be found in my previous study, PMLA, l, 651–655.