364 Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts, and Letters. 
(8) Both the shepherds and the merchants are too convinced 
of the fact of the deed to leave at once (Path. 11. 654- 
-6. Sec. Pas. 1. 541) 
(9) Pathelin at last succeeds in shaking the merchant’s con¬ 
viction, just as Gyll makes the shepherds want to 
atone for their trespass [Path. 706-31] {Sec. Pas, 
544-54) 
Banzer then concludes that the “Dialog, Aufbau, Handlung, 
und die Zeichnung von Gyll und den Schafern” point unmis¬ 
takably to Pathelin as the original,^^ and even adds to this con¬ 
clusion the striking statement that because of this proved rela¬ 
tionship the English miracle plays rest upon French originals.^® 
He admits the absence from Secunda Past or um of the entire 
second part of Pathelin, and he admits the difference between 
the two caused by the mixing of the roles, Gyll taking Pathelin’s 
part, and Mak that of Guillemette.^^ He assumes that there is 
no difficulty in placing Pathelin early enough (1388-92) to al¬ 
low of its being the source of Secunda Pastorium, and he ac¬ 
counts for the absence of characteristic scenes from Pathelin by 
supposing either that the author of the English play used an 
earlier and simpler version than we now possess, or that he 
feared he would be digressing too far from the liturgical story 
if he used more farcical material. He admits, however, that 
there is no ground for omitting the delirum scenes. 
So much for Banzer’s claims. While there is at first glance 
much plausibility in these claims, closer examination reveals 
their insecure basis. There are three decisive reasons for op¬ 
posing the above conclusions, almost any one of which is suffi¬ 
cient of itself, but all of which taken together afford irrefutable 
evidence, it seems to me, for rejecting Pathelin as the source for 
Secunda Pastorum. These reasons are: 
(1) A careful comparison of the above table of parallels, 
supplemented by a comparison of the characters and the tone 
of the two farces, reveals numerous striking differences, all of 
which cannot reasonably be accounted for if the English author 
were influenced by Pathelin. In the first place, some of Ban¬ 
zer’s parallels are more apparent than real. Numbers 2, 5, and 
p. 110. 
p. 111. 
Ibid., p. Ill- 
