No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
XV.—The Ludus Coventriae and the Digby Massacre
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2020
Extract
A vague suggestion has been in the air of late that there is a more than casual similarity between the so-called Ludus Coventriae and the plays of the Digby Manuscript. The following paper is an attempt to render that suggestion somewhat more concrete and to define the nature of that relation. First, however, it is clearly necessary to deal with the questions of the structure and development of the Ludus Coventriae before its external relations may be considered. Miss Swenson's recent careful study is perhaps most valuable in its metrical analysis; but even this must be tested in the light of Miss Block's somewhat more fruitful examination of the manuscript, which in turn neglects the metrical form of the plays. Miss Swenson is led to believe that the “tumbling” lines mark the chief additions to the cycle; but the changes noted by Miss Block which are indicated by manuscript disturbance go far beyond these in certain respects. We are justified, therefore, in using the evidence from both sources as a basis for a new study, with the hope that further and more specific conclusions may be reached.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1920
References
1 Ward comments on the Digby play thus : “The earlier part of this play has nothing to differentiate it very specially from the Coventry Plays” (History of Dramatic Literature, London, 1899, I, p. 93); Gregory Smith observes that the Digby Massacre is “reminiscent in parts of the Chester Plays, in parts of the Coventry Cycle” (The Transition Period, N. Y., 1900, p. 284); Pollard comments on the LC as follows : “In language, in meter, in tone, in the elaborate stage directions, in the proclamation of the play by the wandering banner-bearers or vexillatores, this cycle appears to bear close affinities to the later miracle plays, such as the Croxton play on the Sacrement, and the play of Mary Magdalen, and with the early moralities, such as the Castell of Perseverance, all of which are of East Midland origin, and to the East Midlands I feel sure that it will eventually be assigned” (English Miracle Plays, Oxford, 1909, fifth ed., p. xxxviii). Other comment of the kind will be found in Chambers, Mediaeval Stage, Oxford, 1903, ii, pp. 421 ff.; Wells, Manual of the Writings in Middle English, New Haven, 1916, p. 575; Dodds, Mod. Lang. Rev., ix, pp. 88 ff.
2 E. L. Swenson, “An Inquiry into the Composition and Structure of the Ludus Coventriae,” Studies in Lang, and Lit., number one, Univ. of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 1914; K. S. Block, Mod. Lang. Rev., x, pp. 47 ff. I shall not take up Miss Dodds's investigation (MLR, ix, pp. 79 ff.), which is satisfactorily reviewed by Professor Craig in relation to Miss Swenson's theories in the volume with her study, pp. 81 ff., and by Miss Block in the article cited in relation to her views. Miss Block unfortunately seems to have neglected Miss Swenson's study. For the sake of clearness in comparisons I have adhered entirely to Miss Swenson's metrical distinctions and terminology, and perhaps unwisely in one respect: namely, in that in most cases I have accepted her classification of the “tumbling” lines and have made them a criterion for the group of plays unrelated to the general prologue. But, as I later point out, long lines of four-stress measure are sometimes difficult to distinguish from some of the tumbling lines so far as meter is concerned, and some of these lines appear in the prologue stanza. On the whole, the stanzaic form has proved to be a surer test, and it will be found that I have kept this in mind.
3 The evidence from this cycle should be brought to bear on the problem of revisions in other cycles. Cf. Mod. Philol., xv, p. 556 and n. 2. It should be observed here that so far no proof is established that the prologue and its group are older than the rest of the cycle. The prologue shows signs of adaptation as much as the plays (Chambers, ii, p. 419, builds on this fact), although the prologue group may in certain respects seem the more primitive. Cf. Swenson, p. 62.
4 Miss Swenson, p. 55, and Miss Block, p. 54, note that in play XXVII, p. 263 (I shall use Halliwell's numbering and pagination for convenience in reference throughout) the scribe changed his mind several times as to what scene to insert. If Miss Block's study of the handwriting is accurate (pp. 54-5), there is another scribe of importance who is responsible for the addition of folios 95, 96, 112, and who added notes in later plays. His work comes after that of the chief compiler: see his additions p. 357 (Miss Block, p. 55).
5 Miss Swenson, p. 4, says that the numbering of the plays “is in a hand contemporary with that of the scribe.” Is it the work of the later scribe (n. 4 above), whose handwriting “may possibly be of the same general period” (Swenson, p. 39) ?
6 I and II are connected in the manuscript, but XXI and XXII are separated by a page and a half blank. Play XXI begins with folio 112 in a different hand.
7 Hemingway, Eng. Nativity Plays, N. Y., 1909, p. xxxiv, thinks that play III is a composite. In XXXIX Miss Swenson finds a discrepancy with the prologue, urging (p. 60) that only one angel appears “whereas the Prologue states that there shall be two,” and that at the end of the play Peter makes a speech not mentioned in the prologue. But the latter is comprehensible, since, as Miss Swenson points out, Peter's speech is consistent with the Biblical narrative and is only incidental. Peter's name happens to be omitted in the manuscript, and the speech may not have been assigned to him. And as to the angels, Miss Swenson has overlooked the Latin stage direction calling for “duobis angelis sedentibus in albis.” It is true that only one speaks.
8 The quatrain may be original here (p. 252) or taken from the stanza on p. 256 (cf. Miss Swenson, p. 53), where, we may note, it is interwoven by rhyme with the preceding as well as the following lines. For the leaf see Miss Block's study, p. 53.
9 P. 263. See Swenson, p. 55; Block, p. 54.
10 Swenson, p. 29; Block, p. 51.
11 Compare, p. 128, the visit which in some speeches is to last three months and in others is finished during the play. This point is discussed below (note 28).
12 Miss Block, p. 53. Miss Swenson, p. 56, says that the prologue of the doctors is written in a different hand, that it is followed by two blank folios, and that “the hand in which Contemplacio's speech is written seems to differ both from that of the usual scribe and also from that of the doctor's prologue.”
13 The argument from the character of the stage directions is complicated by the fact that Latin was apparently used by the compiler, as in play IV (Lameth episode, pp. 44-6), or in plays VIII and IX with English (in the Contemplacio group), and on p. 90 (note “Ysakar” and cf. “
” p. 134. Miss Swenson, p. 33, suggesta that the former may be scribal). On the other hand, in play XIII (p. 129) an English stage direction appears among the double quatrains which show an inconsistency with the tumbling meter.
14 On the influence of Bonaventura's Meditationes, see Block, MLR, x, p. 51; also note the use of the Northern Passion pointed out by Miss Foster, The Northern Passion, London, 1914, p. 100. Miss Foster's “revisers” B and C correspond to the author or school accountable for the tumbling group here. Of her exceptions, which as she thinks are not found in the work of reviser B, none are found in the prologue stanza, and only one (p. 265) is found in the ballad stanza.
15 See pp. 70 ff. (the speech of Contemplacio); pp. 78, 146-7, 291, 306, 309. Miss Swenson fails to observe this fact. In plays XXXIX and XL we have the prologue stanza with scheme ababbcbc. For this form see Swenson, p. 61.
16 Cf. p. 70: “This matere here mad is of the modyr of mercy,” followed by “How be Joachym and Anne was here concepcion.”
17 P. 71, for example.
18 P. 74. Miss Swenson, p. 26, says that this play “is written entirely in the tumbling measure.”
19 P. 117. Cf. Swenson, p. 30.
20 P. 243. Miss Swenson, p. 54.
21 P. 190. Miss Swenson, p. 38. This play shows variety but should be classed with the tumbling group.
22 P. 14.
23 P. 249.
24 P. 223.
25 Notice, for instance, the gradual transition from one variety to another in play XXXVIII, p. 373; also p. 129 (the speech of Contemplacio).
26 See Swenson, p. 29; Block, p. 51.
27 Pp. 252-3. Swenson, p. 53; Block, p. 53.
28 This has been referred to above. See Swenson, p. 31. Mary plans to stay three months with Elizabeth, but departs almost immediately. Later, a speech of Contemplacio ignores the departure.
29 This theory is harmonious with that of Miss Foster cited above, note 14; see Foster, Northern Passion, pp. 98 ff. She, however, gives the tumbling lines to reviser C. It is a question which seems the more reasonable explanation of the error on pp. 128-9: the theory that the compiler made up original lines in part inconsistent with the setting, or that he copied such lines from an older play and let the mistake stand. I am quite willing to believe that the group with the tumbling lines as I have classified it contains sub-groups.
30 Anglia, xxi, pp. 21 ff.
31 EETSES, civ, pp. xlvi. Note the rhyme i, y = e, ll. 329-333. Cf. LC, p. 38, unkende, frende. There are many other examples.
32 In one minor respect, which Miss Swenson has failed to note, play V differs from the description of it in the prologue. The prologue says that the angel “bad Abraham a shep to kyl.” In play V Abraham makes the suggestion himself, but in the Dublin play the angel says “Turn þe & take þat wedyr there,” l. 269, p. 33.
33 Swenson, p. 8. Manuscript evidence as to the sequence of the plays is not, however, very important, since in that respect its method seems haphazard. Note, for instance, the page and a half blank between plays XXI and XXII, both of which are in prologue meter and which were apparently acted together (Swenson, p. 39).
34 Ballad stanzas of this type are found in the LC Resurrection, p. 342.
35 Compare also, however, some of the lines in the LC prologue; “The soule goth than to the grave, and be ryth gret vertu” (p. 15).
36 Miss Traver finds evidence for a common source but not interrelation: “With the exception of the controversy before God's throne, the Castell never runs parallel with the Salutation, though both the Castell and the Salutation present other parallels with the Charter,” Bryn Mawr College Monographs, The Four Daughters of God, Bryn Mawr, 1907, p. 139. Gayley finds the use of the allegory in the LC merely a sign “of the literary times,” not a “new dramatic invention nor of uncommon historical significance,” Plays of Our Forefathers, N. Y., 1908, p. 206. The similarity of the Castell to the LC has been noticed by Chambers, Med. Stage, i, p. 155; Dodds, MLR, ix, p. 89; and others. We may note in the Castell the praise of Mary, ll. 1632, 1710; the list of alliterative names (compare the list in the work of the first scribe in the Croxton Sacrement, ll.15 ff.; and in the ballad stanzas in LC, play XIV, pp. 131 ff.); and the early date (see EETSES, xci, p. xxiv.). The dialect Dr. Furnivall assigned to Norfolk. It shows the i, y = e rhyme (see ll. 15-17-19-21); but the signs of Norfolk he gives as follows: absence of gutteral gh (also found in Mankind and Wisdom: Mankind, ll. 445-6; Wisdom, ll. 728 ff., although he has failed to make a note of it); use of w for v; sch in schul and schal, etc., instead of x. These last two characteristics depend much on the scribe, and may so easily have been lost in copying that they are scarcely safe tests for distinguishing Mankind and Wisdom. The loss of gutteral gh, as Dr. Furnivall observes (p. xlii), occurred in many other midland and southern counties “early in the fifteenth century.” It is found in many places in the LC (e.g. “byte,” “plyte,” “bryth,” p. 25). And although the LC has x for sch regularly, the sch may have stood formerly in the prologue group before it was used and in part copied by the present scribe. The Dublin Abraham does not show a loss of gh, but on that score the brevity of the play makes its evidence of little weight. The appearance of the substantive plural in -us may be more important (see EETSES, civ, p. xlvii) for west midland influence; but in both plurals the stress falls on the preceding syllables, and the same phenomenon occurs in the Castell (“gamys” rhymed with “laudamus,” ll. 3646-50) and Mankind (“pecuniatus,” “patus,” “gatus,” rhymed, ll. 464-5-6). Cf. LC, p. 130. The Dublin play, on the other hand, preserves the sh in shal and shuld.
37 I omit, of course, the Watkyn scene (leaf 147, back). Schmidt, Die Digby-Spiele, Berlin, 1884, p. 20, finds parallels to the LC. There are schemes, however, which he thinks peculiar to the Digby play: abbba (ll. 345-9, cf. Croxton, Sacrement, ll. 198, 247, 292); and the couplet (549-50) at closing scenes. Couplets are found in the LC, and even abbba with the preceding quatrains forms what I have called a modified prologue-stanza (see note 15 above). Schmidt, p. 19, has difficulty in scanning the verse, for he considers much of it heroic and yet is bothered by exceptions where only four or three stresses occur. The “tumbling” lines in LC would present similar difficulties: cf. p. 191, “How it was wrought, and how long it xal endure” (five stresses?) On the other hand, cf. the Digby play: p. 2, l. 43, “Of ij yeeres age & within, sparyng neither bonde nor ffree”; or p. 23, 1. 562, “The disputacion of the doctours to shew in your presens.” With these two lines, compare again the line from LC (p. 161) : 'I am the comelyeste kynge clad in gleteringe golde.“ The Digby play has also the simple four stress: p. 21, l. 520, ”In this tempill with hert and mende.“ For three stresses cf. these lines in the LC, p. 147: ”A! swete wyff, what xal we do? Wher xal we logge this nyght? “
38 Pp. 18-9. He notes the i, y = e rhyme, and the loss of gutteral gh.
39 In the York the Purif. is followed by the Flight. See L. T. Smith, York Plays, p. 433, n. 1. Cf. The Massacre, ll. 30 ff.:
And to shew you of our ladies purificacion
that she made in the temple as the vsage was than.
And after that shall herowd haue tydynges
how the three kynges he goon hoom another way, etc.
40 A few stanzas of the same type appear in play XII, a composite. See Swenson, p. 34.
41 For the play which follows, see Swenson, pp. 38 and 65, who classifies it as lacking in the tumbling measure. As I have said, this measure is a matter of dispute: cf., p. 190, “Goo hom, lytyl babe, and sytt on thi moderes lappe,” and the Digby play (EETSES, lxx), p. 3, “Aboue all kynges vnder the Clowdys Cristall.” For the same meter in the LC play which precedes, see p. 161.
42 See ll. 1 ff. It may be that this part of the LC hails originally from Lincoln. Cf. Craig, [Minnesota] Studies, No. 1, pp. 75 f. The prophet play (VII), on which his evidence is in part based, seems to be of the tumbling group or rather, as it is better to call it here, the group of plays with double quatrains (here simple four stress). The prologue group would hardly do for St. Anne's day, since it is prepared for “Sunday next.” Craig's attempt to find proof that the cycle as a whole belongs to Lincoln on the ground that Lincoln plays “seem to have been processional, and yet to have been acted, at least in part, upon a fixed stage” neglects the fact that the cycle is not a finished composition, that the fixed stations may belong to one group and the movable pageants to another.
43 See “Myles Blomefylde,” Schmidt, p. 6.
44 See allusions to Tolkote and Babwelle Mylle near Bury. Cf. Waterhouse, EETSES, civ, p. lxiv. Macro was son of a resident of Bury; see EETSES, xci, pp. ix and xxx, and p. 11, 1. 267, (the “comyn tapster of Bury ”). For the dialect of the Sacrement see the i, y = e rhyme, ll. 640-2. There is no evidence for the loss of gutteral gh, but the confusion of u, w, and v, occurs (see p. lvi). In the case of Mankind, see the rhyme ll. 270-2, and the loss of gh (note 36 above). Wisdom, which has no reference to Bury, may be also included, however, as offering the same problems as Mankind. The resemblance of the stage directions to those in LC is noted by the editor, EETSES, xci, p. xx.
45 Waterhouse, p. lv.
46 Ibid., p. lv.
47 P. 58, ll. 37-48; cf. LC, pp. 256, 261.
48 P. 66; cf. LC, p. 217 and elsewhere. It has part of a prologue stanza, p. 66; cf. LC, p. 309. It has other irregularities: abbba (see note 37 above); and ababb. Cf. ababbaba as on p. 81, ll. 746-53, with Digby and with LC (e.g. p. 305). See Schmidt, pp. 20-21.
49 Most of the ballad stanzas are given to the Vices. It is interesting to note that the Tutivillus lines of the Towneley Juditium are in the same measure.
50 EETSES, xci, pp. xi, xix.
51 Evidences of reworking appear most plainly in the Digby play in the stanzas of rhyme-royal on leaf 147. A further connection with Bury St. Edmunds is found in the fact that Lydgate, whose interest in the drama expressed itself in pageantry and mumming, wrote frequently in rhyme-royal and in the double quatrain. His known verse shows such regularity that Dr. MacCracken has denied to him certain dramatic pieces in the double quatrain with which we are here familiar: e.g., the pageant for the return of Henry V from Agincourt, see Withington, English Pageantry, Cambridge, 1918, i, pp. 132 ff., and ASNS, cxxvi, p. 100, n. 1; and the entry of Queen Margaret in 1445, Withington, i, 148, and Mod. Philol., xiii, p. 55. Hemingway (Nativity Plays, p. xxxvii) long ago suggested Lydgate as the author of the LC; and although it is unnecessary to ascribe the plays to him personally, the tumbling group may indeed show the work of the school which he once led. And it would be convenient to account for the “theological amplifications,” so often noticed (cf. Foster, Northern Passion, p. 98), by the influence of Bury.