Charles Davidson — English Mystery Plays. 291 



Mary addresses Jesus. — Agreement of Y and W. 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 adds 

 verses after the manner of W in the ' Harrowing of Hell.' 



Joseph addresses Jesus in Y and W, but Mary addresses Jesus in 

 W of Co and Ch. This is a significant difference. 



An angel closes the Ch play. In Y and W the closing agrees, 

 although W has preserved the proper assignment of parts to the 

 Doctors, which in Y have all been given to one speaker. W of Co 

 shows Croo's handiwork in a tedious closing. 



Such, then, is the play of ' Christ with the Doctors in the Temple.' 

 A few inferences can be drawn from these facts : — 



First. The play, as found in W of Co, divides into three parts : 

 the Play of the Prophets; the Play of Simeon, Anna, and the Coming 

 to the Temple; the Play of Christ among the Doctors. With the last 

 only have we any concern. 



Secondly. The original play was the present York play, the slight 

 errors of the scribe of the Register being eliminated. 



Thirdly. The compiler of W took the Y plaj^ but not from the 

 Register, and interpolated or expanded according to his known cus- 

 tom, but with fewer changes than usual. 



Fourthly. W of Co, in the matter of the commandments, appears 

 to lean upon W rather than upon Y. 



Fifthly. Ch, because of the transposition of the two speeches of 

 the Doctors, is probably later than the other plays, and 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 daj^s of Robart Croo, i. e. before 15 — . This dependence 

 upon W of Co does not, however, apply to the whole play in Ch. 

 The scene of Simeon and Anna is in the metre of the cycle, the 

 scene of Christ in the Temple is in quatrains. 



Sixthly. It is demonstrated, then, that the craft-gilds of Coventry 

 were conversant with the gild plays of the North, and that the Ches- 

 ter plays form also a composite cycle, as truly as do the plays of W 

 and Y, though composite to a less extent. 



If the plays of the remaining craft cycles, those of Newcastle-on- 

 Tyne, Beverley, Worcester, and others if there were others, were ex- 

 tant, it is probable that many other points of agreement could be 

 established. These plays were not acted in a corner. The Mercers 

 of Shrewsbury fined a brother that absented himself from their 



