Charles Davidson — JiJyiylish Mystery Plays. 267 



This table reveals a closer agreement between IX and XI than 

 between X and XI, yet X and XI have the same stanzaic structure. 

 It establishes the connection of VIII with the cycle, since VIII ranks 

 with X in agreement with XI, and indeed ranks above X, when we 

 consider that VIII is confined to four-word series, as it has no cauda, 

 and that this author appears to express his preferences, so far as 

 they depart from the literary conventions of his daj^, more often in 

 the two-word series of the double quatrain. It sharply separates 

 XXXIX from VIII. That this division is not the result of accident 

 is further demonstrated by the behavior of XXXIX in combination. 

 The common rimes of VIII, IX, and X agree with XI in one rime in 

 four, but the common rimes of XXXIX, and IX and X, agree with 

 XI in only one rime in nine. 



In accordance with these results, we conclude that VIII and IX 

 belong to the cycle, and that XXXIX does not. As a confirmatory 

 fact, we note that the subjects of plays VIII and IX are interde- 

 pendent. If one play belongs in the cycle, the other must go with it. 



The third hypothesis must now be considered. Is W ' Conspiracio' 

 from "Cayphas" to "Tunc dicet Sanctus Johannes" the work of the 

 author of the York cycle ? 



This question should admit of an answer through the rime tests 

 employed in the preceding investigation. It is not necessary to give 

 the steps in detail. The results obtained for comparison with those 

 of the table are 8, 31, 1/6, and 1 in 18 lines, a confirmatory result. 



Let us beware, however, of accepting these tests as absolutely 

 conclusive of single authorship. They do seem to establish a com- 

 mon membership in a parent cycle, to separate the work of one age 

 from that of another, but the distinguishing of individual authorship 

 within a school of literature is a very different matter. The number 

 of rime series known to the Northern writers was limited. Individ- 

 ual prefererces had but little freedom. A similar test made upon 

 the first four hundred lines of the Northern Evangelium Nicodemi 

 gives nearly as favorable an answer for single authorship ; yet it 

 seems almost certain that this poem is by a different author of the 

 same school, probably of a slightly earlier date. 



The poet of the Nicodemus was individual in his use of riming 

 plurals, ' dedes,' *lawes,' of rimes upon 'now,' 'stout,' 'house,' for 

 his fondness for certain series, ' Cayphas,' 'pas,' 'was;' 'Pilate,' 

 ' gate.' The latter he uses seven times out of eleven rimes on ' gate,* 

 although the rime itself is found in none of the plays examined 

 excepting once in XI. In these details, meagre it is true, and of 



