THE cycles of the English mystery plays which are represented in this anthology are one of the chief glories of late medieval literature. They are the most comprehensive achievement of dramatic inspiration in their times, successful in their dramatic effects, and powerful in their literary expression. To give a sample of them is to offer an insight into one of the great literary achievements of the past, and one which had immense formative influence on the work of later dramatists. However, they remain, for the modern reader, distinctively medieval, requiring an act of historical imagination to give them life, and to allow them to be fully appreciated.
Such an appreciation is complicated by the fact that the authors of these plays had for their primary objective not a literary intention so much as a religious and didactic one which they attempted to realize by means of dramatic expression. The real achievement of these authors could only be appreciated by experiencing a performance in medieval times, when it appears the efforts of whole cities were expended in their realization. Fortunately in modern times there have been attempts to revive the cycles in performance, and though these performances cannot recreate completely the original circumstances, much has been done to make the original achievement more accessible.
It needs to be stressed that the plays were, in their most successful periods, produced in the form of cycles. We know that a large number of medieval towns and cities possessed cycles and we know that in several of these there were performances of the whole cycles at regular intervals, besides performances of individual plays for special occasions. The survival even of records of performances, let alone of actual texts, is a matter of pure chance, but it is clear that for about two hundred years a very considerable amount of money and talent was employed in producing the cycles. Nothing survives of the plays of the following, though records indicate considerable activity: Aberdeen, Bath, Beverley (a full list survives), Bristol, Canterbury, Dublin, Ipswich, Leicester, Worcester, and possibly Lincoln and London1. Individual plays have been preserved from cycles at Norwich (one play in two versions), Northampton, and Newcastle upon Tyne. Two plays have survived from the Coventry cycle, and from Brome in Suffolk we have the Abraham, which may have been part of a cycle. How closely each of these presumed cycles resembled the texts of the surviving cycles is a matter of conjecture. The Beverley list, it is true, indicates a close resemblance to the two other Yorkshire cycles but the Cornish cycle (originally written in the fourteenth century, and preserved in a fifteenth-century manuscript) is either incomplete or atypical since it does not deal with the Nativity. The London plays also appear not to have followed the design of the cycles.
Our knowledge of the cycles, then, rests chiefly upon the four texts which have survived. These are virtually complete and are the main source from which the present selection is made2. Two of the four, those of York (forty-eight plays) and Chester (twenty-four plays), are well supported by other civic documents and must remain our best insight into the place of the cycles in the life of the medieval cities from which they come. There is less detail available for the Towneley cycle (thirty-two plays) which comes from Wakefield in Yorkshire. The fourth cycle is known as the Ludus Coventriae (forty-two plays) from an early attribution which has long been known to be false: the cycle does not belong to Coventry, the balance of the linguistic evidence being for an East Midlands origin. Thus what remains, is a considerable bulk of plays, though there is good reason to suppose that very many more have been lost. The cycles we have show a remarkable and consistent similarity which leads to important conclusions about origins and interrelationships to which we shall return later.
Before considering each of the cycles in turn it is important to state that the similarities of general design are great indeed. The plays were written as part of a theological message, and were intended, no doubt, to be an act of teaching and worship combined. Such were the vigour with which they were executed, and the popularity which accrued to them that many other minor objectives grew up: but essentially the plays were meant to celebrate the Christian story from the Creation to Doomsday, with two central peaks in the Nativity and the Passion of Christ. All four of the cycles do this, and all four are arranged with roughly similar emphasis upon the great climaxes of the Christian story.
The York cycle is represented by one manuscript, British Museum Additional MS 35,290. This manuscript was written in the years 1430–40, and saw service as the official register of the plays for over a century. The origins of the plays at York, as in the case of the other cycles, are obscure. There is an early reference for 1378, and it is generally supposed that from this date a series of plays was in existence and was regularly performed. We may take York as typical of the other cycles in saying that the development is fascinatingly complex, and our information for judging the rate of growth of the cycles is tantalizingly sparse. The city of York is distinguished in having other dramatic activities at the end of the fourteenth century, for we know that there were plays dealing with the Creed and with the Pater Noster3. The cycle as we have it took several decades to grow; and no doubt it went on changing. The manuscript gives some evidence of this by the fact that some plays were copied into it after 1440, and is particularly interesting in that by the mid-sixteenth century changes stemming from the Reformation and the decline of the old religion led to alterations in the manuscript. Especially relevant to the rate of growth and the changes that were made are the lists of plays written by Richard Burton in 1415 and shortly afterwards. These lists contain over fifty plays, so that a process of combination and deletion had already begun by the time our copy of the plays was made.
One important aspect of the growth of the plays which must be touched on is the question of revision. Whatever the state of the cycle when it was first performed, it is clear that it could not exist indefinitely in that state. The most significant aspect of this is that the guilds who were responsible for the performances were not stable institutions. New guilds came, others declined, amalgamations became necessary in a number of cases. Sometimes new versions of the plays had to be evolved because of these changes, so that the text is now uneven in its literary merits. There seems to have been one particularly effective writer who re-wrote the Crucifixion sequence with a realism and terror not found elsewhere in the cycle. The evidence of the metrical characteristics is a valuable indication of where revision has taken place, and so too is the presence of an alliterative style which is the work of a considerable poet.
The questions of growth and revision are equally complex in the Towneley cycle. It is written, like the York plays, in fifteenth-century Yorkshire dialect (many of the expressions are still astonishingly alive today) and its close affinity with the York cycle cannot be doubted since six of the plays are virtually the same in both cycles (Pharaoh, Christ before the Doctors, Christ Led up to Calvary, the Harrowing of Hell, the Resurrection, and the Last Judgement) and there are a significant number of other identical passages. The manuscript, HM1 in the Henry E. Huntington Library, California, is thought to have been written in about 1450. Its name derives from the Towneley family of Burnley in Lancashire who kept it for many years. The attribution to Wakefield, though not entirely free from objection, is fairly reliable in that the name Wakefield appears at two places in the manuscript. But the only references to performances at Wakefield are for 1554 and 1556: it is clear from these that the plays were indeed craft plays, and the manuscript itself mentions the names of several guilds.
If the manuscript is 1450, and the only known performances are 1554 and 1556, the date when the cycle first came into existence is obscure. It has been thought, from the correspondences with the York cycle, that originally the citizens of Wakefield must have borrowed that text and gradually made it their own. The complications to this view are that some plays in the Towneley cycle appear less sophisticated, more primitive than the York counterparts, and also that some Towneley plays are much more complex than those of York. The explanation is probably that after the borrowing of the text, the process of revision at York went on (before 1430–40?) whilst at Wakefield some revision was carried out, though the plays which were chosen for revision were not necessarily the same in both cycles. The principal reviser of the Towneley plays is the so-called Wakefield Master who worked on six plays, Mactatio Abel, Processus Noe cum Filiis, Prima Pastorum, Secunda Pastorum, Magnus Herodes, and Coliphizacio. His work is chiefly in a nine-line stanza, and exhibits a fine sense of dramatic effect, especially comedy. He is a poet in his use of language which is potent and subtle, and he is without doubt one of the most gifted of writers for the stage. His revisions have been dated in the first half of the fifteenth century, but there is no way of being more specific. His work, whilst it exhibits a sense of human comedy and pathos, shows much evidence of being that of a learned man – at least, one might say, a clerk who has been educated by the Church.
The Chester cycle was formerly thought to be the oldest of the four extant cycles, but this view cannot now be substantiated4. It seems likely that it first appeared around 1375, which corresponds roughly with what we know of the York plays. There is some evidence of relationships between the Chester and other known plays, but the manuscript position is very much more complicated. Five complete versions of the cycle exist5, but they were all written very late, when the plays had ceased to be performed. The most reliable of these appears to be British Museum Harley MS 2124 of 1607, though two others were written a decade earlier. Two plays have survived independently: Antichrist, probably a prompter’s copy from 1475–1500; and The Trial and Flagellation, copied in 15996.
The background information available from municipal records is perhaps more complete than at York and it is possible to reconstruct the development of the Chester cycle in more detail. We know that a play existed in about 1375, and that by 1422 plays were being performed by the guilds. Various references provide evidence that they continued to perform them throughout the fifteenth century. By 1467 eight guilds were certainly producing plays, and the early Banns which were first written at that date, and subsequently enlarged, give evidence of eighteen guilds. By 1500 the number of guilds had risen to twenty-four, and the early Banns, enlarged by 1540, detail twenty-six. The Reformation produced some pressure on the production of plays, and the late Banns (1575) show that there were twenty-four plays. It is possible that the original author may have been Sir Henry Francis, but there is very little that can be adduced to make this certain. Various other writers no doubt contributed to the development of the cycle subsequently, but their work is not easy to isolate. There is no evidence of the work of able dramatists such as are found at York and Wakefield contributing a personal style. Indeed the cycle is characterized by few hints of individual genius.
The Ludus Coventriae (also known as the Hegge Plays, and the N-town Cycle) has survived in one manuscript, British Museum Cotton MS Vespasian D viii, written entirely by one scribe and dated 1468. It is distinct in having no evidence that it was performed by guilds. Nor has the place of its origin been discovered. The language is East Midlands, and though Lincoln has been suggested, some of the linguistic forms indicate that it must have been written south of Lincolnshire7. Some of the staging arrangements are so complex as to suggest that it must have been performed in one place rather than as a procession of pageants.
The text is prefaced by a Proclamation which gives details of what is to come, but when this is compared to the contents of the cycle, there appear a number of discrepancies. It looks as though the scribe was acting as a compiler, and that one of the materials he had before him was the Proclamation which he tried to fit in, but he found that a perfect match could not be made. Much of the material appears broadly similar to the other cycles, though one does not find close verbal correspondence with them.
Certain features are peculiar. The stage directions are very full. Some are in Latin, and the plays in which these appear have been held to be the oldest layer of composition, relics perhaps of an earlier cycle which the scribe incorporated. Besides this, three parts of the cycle have special features. The plays dealing with the Passion of Christ are grouped into two Passion Plays which were intended to be used as alternatives from year to year. Why this arrangement was devised remains a mystery. It does not seem to have been the idea of the scribe: evidence suggests that the two Passion Plays had an independent existence, and that he incorporated them perhaps because they were the only material he had to hand. The stage directions are entirely in English in this part of the cycle, and there is a specially written Prologue. Another section of the cycle used apocryphal material which makes up a Saint Anne’s Day play not found in the other cycles. The possibility is that this part was performed by a guild of Saint Anne. The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary appears in the cycle as a separate item, distinguished from the rest in style, paper and handwriting. It bears corrections by the scribe who wrote the rest of the manuscript, and this too comes from an independent source. But the interest in Mary is echoed in other parts of the cycle, and it: has been suggested that these too come from separate sources, probably two in number, and were incorporated by the scribe as he compiled the cycle.
Thus the Ludus Coventriae is of particular interest. In one sense it shows that the compiler was aware of a structure typified in other cycles, but that the material which he had available made it necessary for him to make special arrangements to combine the various items into a cycle which is not, in the end, as close to the other cycles as they are to each other. Special interests in the life of Mary may have dictated his arrangements, but we have no way of knowing whether this was a deliberate act of selection, or purely a matter of chance depending upon what material happened to be to hand.
All the cycles bear much evidence of theological learning – they were the products of the ecclesiastical milieu in which they were created – but the Ludus Coventriae is more learned, more consciously the work of a religious scholar, than the rest. This fact, together with the unusually full stage directions, has led some modern scholars to believe that the text of the cycle is really meant to be read rather than performed. This does not mean that it is not dramatic, but that the text as we have it has been presented in a literary form. The compiler, whoever he was, was not working with the same objectives as the scribes of the other cycles, who were probably, at some stage or other, working as the servants of the corporations and making a master copy for reference, and as a means of controlling the performances. Thus the Ludus Coventriae does not seem to have been subjected to pruning to meet the requirements of post-Reformation theologians and politicians. Nor was this scribe or compiler working purely as an antiquarian. The concern he feels for his material is that of a teacher: this accounts for the use of the Contemplacio figure, and perhaps too for the hint of morality play technique in the Death of Herod.
To complete this rather brief review of the texts of the cycles as they have come down to us, it is appropriate at this point to consider two other items for which a place has been found in the present selection: the Coventry Shearmen and Tailors’ Play and the Brome Abraham.
The Coventry plays were perhaps the most famous in England in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. On several occasions in the fifteenth century there were royal visits to performances. The first mention of the plays is for 1392, and the songs were added to the manuscript as late as 1581. Only two play texts from the cycle have come down into modern times: the Shearmen and Tailors’ Play, which was published by Thomas Sharp in 1817 and 1828, and was destroyed by a fire at the Birmingham Free Library in 1879; and the Weavers’ Play, which Sharp published in 1836, and which then disappeared until Hardin Craig rediscovered and published it in 19028. The manuscripts were written in 1534 by Robert Croo, who was paid for work on the texts of plays at various times over twenty years.
There is some further evidence about the nature and development of the cycle at Coventry to be found in municipal records. It appears that the cycle contained fewer plays than was generally the case. Although seventeen crafts are mentioned in the Leet Book in 1445, other records indicate that there were only ten pageants, and that the guilds combined regularly to perform them. It is not easy to show that any of these dealt with Old Testament subjects, though the probability is that some did. The number of stations for the performances was also unusually small, perhaps only four.
Both the existing plays are longer than plays in other cycles and they contain more incidents. The Shearmen and Tailors’ Play, for example, combines two plays. The first deals with the Annunciation, the Nativity, and the Visit of the Shepherds. This is linked by a dialogue between three Prophets to the second and longer sequence, which comprises the Visit of the Kings, the Flight into Egypt, and the Slaughter of the Innocents. The texts are very mixed as to metre, which suggests very considerable revision – not surprising if Croo was working on material going back at least one hundred and forty years. One of the metres is similar to that of most of the Chester cycle. It has been established that there is some close verbal similarity between the Doctors episode in the Weavers’ Play and the same episode in the cycles. It is quite close to Chester but the nature of these similarities makes it impossible to establish which came first. It is likely that the Towneley version is older, and it may be that this goes back through the York play as it once existed to an older version from Northumberland. Such a link gives an important indication of the origin of the cycles, and we shall return to it later.
There is no certainty that the Brome Abraham is part of a cycle, and there are no indications in the text to suggest that it was ever performed by a craft guild. But it is similar in general terms to the plays in the cycles, and the text is very close for some two hundred lines to that of the Chester Abraham. These factors justify its inclusion in the present selection.
The manuscript is part of a commonplace book, The Book of Brome, which was started as a collection of moral and religious items and then passed to other scribes who added material of a quite different nature, some of it legal documents. The part of the book which contains the play has been dated 1450–759. It originated at Brome in Suffolk and, until recent times when it went to the Yale University Library, it remained in the locality and for most of the time in the possession of a local family. The scribe had some difficulty with rimes and in several lines the word order has been changed. It is probable that he was attempting to restore the rimes of his exemplar, but that at times he was unable to do so, or was daunted by the complexity of his task. The similarity with the Chester play mentioned above has been much debated. The most convincing argument recognizes the superiority of the Brome version in general terms. It is likely that the writer of the Brome version (presumably not the scribe himself) used an original which was also the original used by the writer of the Chester play. The latter author was, however, less careful and thorough in his work, or perhaps his version of the original was less reliable.
It will be seen that there is a considerable body of cyclic drama from which the editor may select. Though much has been lost, we are able to form an impression of this dramatic achievement which is based upon reliable data. Let us now look more closely at the origins and development of the cyclic drama.
The historical account of the mystery plays which follows makes no claim to be original. It is rather an attempt to survey the field of knowledge as it now stands and to put the many speculations which have arisen over the origins of the cycles into some sort of perspective. The question of origin is a thorny one because there are few dates to go on, and there is no convenient chronicler who thought it worth while to record the steps by which the cycles came into existence. Nevertheless the subject has great fascination, partly because of its complexity, and it is worth attempting to penetrate the obscurity, or at least to indicate where the obscurity lies.
In the survey of the existing manuscripts above, it has already been mentioned that there is a reference at York to the play in 1378, when a fine was levied on the Bakers. The Guild Book at Beverley refers to ‘pagentes’ in 1377, and it is thought that the Chester plays originated in about 1375. The Coventry plays are first mentioned in 1392. These dates indicate that plays were in existence: when they were composed is quite another matter. Before the last quarter of the century there are two significant factors which contributed to the development of the cycles. The first is the existence of liturgical plays in a number of ecclesiastical centres. These dramatic episodes were played as part of the liturgy of the Church and strictly related to the time in the Church’s calendar when they were performed. They were enacted inside the Church building. The Regularis Concordia of St Ethelwold from the eleventh century shows how the coming of the three Marys to the sepulchre and their encounter with the Angel were to be represented at Mattins on Easter Day by four brothers suitably costumed. The words they were to use were in Latin, In the Shrewsbury Fragments of the early fifteenth century we find the same subject, Officium Resurrectionis, in a text which is in Latin and English. The first of these fragments, Officium Pastorum, containing the lines of the Third Shepherd and his cues, is very similar to the York play on the same subject and this probably indicates that there was a common source. Two points thus emerge. One of the sources of the York cycle lies within the liturgical drama and it is possible to suppose that this may be true of some other plays in this and other cycles. Secondly we do not know how widespread the liturgical drama was (much, though not all, of the available evidence comes from the Continent), nor whether it had any pretensions to being cyclic in form. It appears rather that the liturgical drama remained within the Church, and was maintained by the clergy, using Church music and perhaps vestments for its performance. We are probably right to look for other sources for the idea of cyclic form.
This brings us to the second important influence upon the formation of the cycles, the establishment of the Feast of Corpus Christi. This was established at the Council of Vienne in 1311, and by 1318 it was widespread in Europe and in Great Britain. The Feast was celebrated by a procession of religious organizations who visited churches and holy places. It occurred on the Thursday after Trinity Sunday, and quickly attracted the attention of craft guilds, as well as stimulating the establishment of Guilds of Corpus Christi. It is notable that the Feast had no specific reference to the calendar of the Church, unlike other Feasts which by tradition had their own liturgical offices with quotations from scripture, appropriate music and dramatic episodes. There was no story or episode associated with Corpus Christi. The fact that the Feast occurred in June meant that the day was long and it no doubt gave opportunity for elaboration of the public ceremonies, and there seems to have been something very deliberate about the establishment of the Feast which may have led to the concentration of dramatic episodes on that day. The Feast celebrated the completion of the sacrifice of Christ, which was reached annually on Trinity Sunday. In view of these factors it seems likely that it was decided to present the story of Christ from Adam and Eve to Judgement Day, but this is a supposition which can only be supported from probability. It is true that other cyclic performances have been discovered on the Continent, but what we have to suppose, without any proof, is that someone had the idea of concentrating various elements around the Corpus Christi procession. Whether this was the same person as the one who first actually composed a play is open to conjecture. Probably the growth was gradual from about 1318 through the middle years of the fourteenth century. Perhaps we are right to suppose that what happened is a kind of group invention whereby a number of people associated with the procession arrived, by experiment, at a workable arrangement.
Even more intriguing than the problem of who were the creators of the cycles is that of where it all happened for the first time. As it is unlikely that they were created in one blow, it is also unlikely that they were created in one place. Yet the surviving cycles do seem to suggest that the North of England is the more likely area, and the various exchanges of material which we have noticed so far seem to suggest a process whereby the successful achievements of one area were taken over by another, though such exchanges would not always be in one direction.
The nature of the earlier layers of the cycles may give us an important clue here. They were undoubtedly the work of writers working within the orbit of the Church. The close correspondence of Shrewsbury Fragment I and the York play shows that one writer at least was intimately connected with the Church. There is a tradition at Coventry that the authors were Friars. This is probably not very reliable, but it may help us to see that the Church must have influenced firmly though indirectly the nature of the material that went into the cycles. The earliest plays were not just invented, they were derived by a scholarly process from what was already well established and well known. They are also very concentrated: extraneous matter from other sources seems on the whole to come in later. Thus it is reasonable to suppose that the men who had the greatest formative influence might have been secular clergy, perhaps priests associated with guilds.
Indeed, it is the guilds which made the most practical contribution to the development of the cycles. They were often rich, and it seems that the fourteenth century was a time when they rose in civic importance. The organization of the cities depended largely upon the interrelationships of the guilds and the prosperity which they were able to achieve. The guilds no doubt strove with one another for a place of influence in order to protect their interests. Perhaps through the Corpus Christi processions it became necessary to assert importance by the carrying of banners and emblems, and the parading of liveried members in their groups. It seems likely that in this process is to be found the important change from clerical to lay actors. As soon as records of the cycles begin it becomes clear that the players were guild members, and that considerable obligations were laid upon the guilds by the corporation to ensure that their members took an active part in the plays. There is even a regulation at York which restrains actors from playing in more than two plays.
As time went on the corporation and the guilds retained their authority. They made arrangements for performances, arranged for storage of carts and their good order. Changes in status of individual guilds required official adjustment so that guilds could amalgamate or separate. Rehearsals and other preparations came under their control. Thus the cycles were essentially amateur productions, associated with the prestige of the city and calling upon vast resources of men and materials to maintain standards. Sometimes there were complaints about the burdens on guilds, and sanctions had to be applied to keep dilatory guilds up to the mark. But there seems little doubt that the intensity of the amateur commitment contributed to the popularity of the cycles and enabled them to grow and develop for perhaps two hundred years.
The guilds had to maintain the text of their plays, and it is here that one may suspect that the Church (and the State) maintained influence on the plays. There had been objections to religious drama for some time from within the Church, and some modern writers on the subject have felt that the movement from within the Church buildings to the streets of the town was partly a rejection by the Church authorities of a rather unruly offspring. This theory is now discredited as the main impulse leading to the development of the cycles, but the assumption of responsibility by the guilds was no doubt very convenient for the Church in as much as civic control was asserted over the crowds, and additional monies were made available, always provided that the resulting drama maintained and supported religious experience. This happened through the agency of the scribes and the writers who maintained the texts for the guilds. Many of the revisions of the cycles took place after the cyclic form had been evolved, and the revisers continued to use scriptural and homiletic material which was approved by the Church and available for their use. Though there may be a humanizing process discernible in the work of the revisers, there seems little doubt that, like Chaucer, they wished their work to remain in line with the teachings of the Church.
With amateur actors, a ‘secretariat’ in the hands of the minor clergy, and substantial financial backing, there was a basis for continuity in the presentation of the cycles. One further important formative influence was the use of the English language. The fourteenth century is the time of Chaucer, Langland, and the poetry of the north-west represented by Sir Gawayne and the Grene Knight and Pearl. For the first time, if one may be permitted a generalization, the English language was a means of literary expression of the first rank, even though it was still under the powerful influence of regional dialects. It was in this century, too, that John of Trevisa noticed that grammar schools were using English as a means of instruction. The fact that the performance of the mystery cycles was in the hands of common labouring men meant that English had to be used there too. The language acquired a new status in the community, and there seems little doubt that the development of the cycles was part of this process. Only in some stage directions, and in certain scriptural quotations which amplify the texts do we find Latin regularly used. If common men used the language, they would also invent, and so we may suggest that the common actors in this way were able to contribute directly to the texts as they evolved. This is not to overlook the contributions of the dramatic poets we have already mentioned: it is noticeable in the case of the Wakefield Master that the vigour of everyday language plays an important part in the effectiveness of what he writes.
To conclude this account of the origin and development of the cycles we must raise two issues which were important in their history. In general the cycles were referred to as Corpus Christi plays, and this is true even in the records of a number of towns whose plays have not been recovered. It appears that plays were usually performed on the Feast of Corpus Christi. This was certainly so at York, though there are records of attempts to move them to other days, perhaps because of the difficulty of mounting the whole cycle on a day when time had to be found for religious ceremonial. The same difficulty seems to have occurred at Chester. There the plays were performed at Corpus Christi until possibly 1447, when they are recorded at Whitsun. There is little to go on at Wakefield beyond a strong probability that they were given at Corpus Christi. We also know that there were performances on that day at Newcastle upon Tyne, Coventry, Dublin, and Hereford. Whatever the difficulties of presentation, it is certain that the cycles became generally known as Corpus Christi plays even when they were moved to other days. The reasons for this lie in the tradition which they established, and in the main religious objective, which was never forgotten, to celebrate the Eucharist.
The second issue is really a caveat. In considering the cycles we must beware of seeing them as ever being in a definitive state. Because they were always changing to meet changes in the community year by year, we may correctly say that the cycles never existed in a perfect form. The first contributors can have had no idea what their work was to become as it was used by later generations. Even in the case of the York manuscript, which was an attempt to produce a reliable register, we can see that changes were constantly being made, even in minor ways as new words and expressions are interlined. The provision of alternative versions of individual plays in the manuscripts is a further indication of this, as in the two Shepherds’ plays of the Towneley cycle.
The cycles were finally suppressed because they were contrary to the new doctrines of the Reformation10. In the last years of Henry VIII and the reign of Edward VI we find revisions, particularly the omission of plays on the Assumption and Coronation of the Virgin. The reign of Queen Mary and the revival of Catholicism saw a return to the old ways for a time, but in the time of Elizabeth I there was a determined attempt by the ecclesiastical authorities to make it more difficult for the plays to appear. This was done at York and Chester by calling in the books for revision, and prolonging the examination until it was too late to put a performance in hand. That the suppression was in the hands of the Church itself is an indication that it was a political change working through the new Protestant hierarchy. It was a change not generally welcomed by the corporations of the North, but it was brought about in spite of them. The last recorded performance of a complete cycle seems to have been at Coventry in 1580. The Chester cycle was last performed in 1575, and the York in 1569. Subsequent attempts at revivals of the cycles were unsuccessful, and there is evidence of very considerable official criticism of those who promoted them. It is interesting to note that the Mystères, the medieval French plays which correspond in some ways to the English mystery cycles, were also suppressed at the Reformation, by an enactment of the Parlement de Paris in 1548, and that they too were destroyed whilst they were still enjoying great popularity11.
The subjects which are dealt with in the mystery cycles are an important factor in making a choice of them. In this section it is intended to look at the principles underlying their subject matter, and to consider briefly some of the sources which the compilers relied upon.
If the central assumption regarding the origins of the cycles is correct – that the establishment of the Feast of Corpus Christi gave both a religious and civic opportunity for their development – it follows that the celebration of the Passion of Christ is the chief object of these plays. Around the betrayal of Christ, his Death and Resurrection are centred the essential truths of Christianity. Upon this depends the Eucharist, and the possibility of man’s redemption. Even the liturgical drama, which preceded the establishment of Corpus Christi, placed emphasis upon these episodes, and it is natural that the authors of the cycles adopted them. Most of the remaining items in the cycles can be related to the Passion, as foreshadowing it, or revealing its consequences.
The items which the authors chose to include show a remarkable consistency in the four cycles and in the Beverley list12. These are
The Fall of Lucifer
The Creation and Fall of Man
Cain and Abel
Noah and the Flood
Abraham and Isaac
Moses (not Beverley)
The Prophets (not Beverley; Balaam at Chester)
The Nativity – Annunciation, Suspicion of Joseph, Shepherds, Purification, Magi, Flight into Egypt, Massacre of the Innocents
The Baptism (not Chester)
The Temptation (not Towneley)
Lazarus
The Passion – Conspiracy, Judas, Last Supper, Caiaphas, Condemnation, Crucifixion, Lament of Mary, Death
The Resurrection and Ascension
The Assumption and Coronation of the Virgin (not Towneley)
Doomsday
That the English mystery cycles are so consistent is particularly fascinating since we find that the French Mystères show a rather different choice, giving space to Joseph and Job from the Old Testament. This may cause us to suspect that the origins of the four cycles that we have (and of Beverley) may lie very close together. Be that as it may, the English selection is determined by the intention to represent the important episodes of scriptural history which prefigure the life of Christ. Much of what might have been included is omitted; what is there seems to be chosen to illustrate the central theme of Christ’s sacrifice and the redemption of man. Thus the death of Abel and the sacrifice of Isaac foreshadow the Crucifixion. The Fall of Lucifer anticipates the Fall of Man, and this in turn is echoed by the Temptation of Christ. The Flood and Doomsday are related. God’s Promises run through Noah, Moses, the Baptism and the Harrowing of Hell. The Prophets remind us of the Annunciation and the Nativity. The many correspondences of this type cannot here be followed in detail; indeed it is possible that the many complexities of cross-references are not fully accessible to modern scholarship. But this theory provides an insight into why the plays take the form that they do. The cycles depended for their structure on their capacity to suggest a totally organized cosmos in which the individual man might know his own salvation. To present a picture of such a universe required that the authors make a purposeful selection of the events in the Christian narrative rather than attempt to encompass its entirety. So powerful were the principles underlying the selection that we find very little deviation from it in the long period of time when the cycles were being actively enlarged and performed.
The sources of these principles lie in the homiletic literature which was the inheritance of the clerkly authors. There has been a good deal of work on individual authorities which appear to provide source material, in terms of the narratives themselves, the language which was used, and the theological implications of what was to be enacted. The main source for narrative is the Vulgate, but a wide variety of paraphrases and collections of apocryphal material was also available. Thus the Gospel of Nicodemus provides a good deal of material for the sequences about Pilate in the York cycle, particularly in the Trial, and in Pilate’s Wife’s Dream. There is also evidence that the Harrowing of Hell owes something to the same source. One of the most widely known collections was the Northern Passion which was translated from the French in the early fourteenth century and which was widely circulated. The Passion group of plays at York is partly based upon it. At Chester two possible sources are of particular interest. Manuscripts of the Stanzaic Life of Christ were copied at Chester in the fifteenth century, and the poem seems to have influenced plays dealing with the Purification and the Temptation, though the influence was felt in revision rather than in the original composition. There are also some close parallels with Le Mistère du Viel Testament. These have occupied scholars for some years13. The problem is partly that the French plays exist in a printed edition of 1500, which is too late for the original composition at Chester: but this does not exclude the possibility that the imitation or translation occurred earlier.
The chief importance of the bulk of the source material, however, lies in the indications it gives of the purposes of the original compilers and of the revisers who sought to translate the teaching of the Church into a dramatic form which could be appreciated and performed by the laity. It is further evidence that the Church never lost its interest in the cycles.
Let us now look at some of the technical considerations which arose in the production of the cycles. This means that we shall have to deal in generalizations because of the long period during which the cycles were performed: what may have obtained at one point may not have been continuous throughout.
The civic records of York and Chester show that the plays were performed on pageant carts14. These were expensive to make and maintain, and special arrangements had to be made for their storage. The guilds bore the financial burden, but it was often so great that several guilds would share the same pageant cart, which would appear several times in the course of the performance. This happened at Chester, where the performance was spread over three days.
It must be admitted, however, that this would require a fair amount of organizing since the carts were decorated and elaborated to represent several places simultaneously. We are hampered as to the general appearance of the carts, and to their size. Some had six wheels, and at Coventry they were moved by horses. They almost certainly had a closed space which would be used as a dressing room15.
The scenes which the plays demand must have presented a considerable challenge to the ingenuity of those building the carts. Several plays call for an upper layer from which angels might descend. The episode of the Last Supper implies an upper room and a council chamber simultaneously. Graves and tombs were sometimes asked for, as well as a multiplicity of courts and meeting places where two or more actions might go on at the same time. The records of scaffolds at York and Chester are an indication of a possible solution to these complex problems. In one case these had wheels and this means that they could be taken around the streets and set up close to the pageant carts themselves, so enlarging the acting area. Guild accounts show considerable expenditure on paint and carpentry, which suggests that the carts were adapted to provide various kinds of framework for the actors, perhaps not unlike the floats in a modern carnival or Lord Mayor’s Show. Indeed the skills necessary for many types of civic procession in medieval cities could have benefited the presentation of plays.
The question of mobility is a very important one. We note that expenditure was often necessary on new axles for the carts, and there is also provision for soap to grease the wheels. At York and Chester we have lists of stations where the plays were performed. The routes can still be traced through the streets of these cities with reasonable accuracy. The number of stations varied from time to time, especially where they were in front of the private houses of important and ambitious citizens. We shall return later to the implications of the processional nature of the performances, but it is important to note here that one of the effects was that a very large number of people could see the plays as they waited at the stations while the pageants passed over the route. The audience was static and most people probably stood during the performance of the episodes. However, in the case of the stations which were established in front of the houses of citizens of repute, the upstairs windows would become a prized vantage point, and it appears that seats placed there could be used by important visitors such as the royal parties which viewed the performances from time to time.
Besides the furnishing of the carts, the accounts of the guilds list expenditure on clothing. Some of it appears to be ecclesiastical – copes (cloths of gold, red velvet), albs, stoles. There is also payment for masks – for devils presumably – and for gloves. Individual costumes, particularly Pilate’s which was no doubt very expensive, were sometimes paid as a separate item. The splendour of this character, and perhaps of the important ecclesiastical figures like Annas and Caiaphas, who were probably mitred, may have made protection against the weather a necessity. The pageant carts were partly roofed, providing some shelter.
The performances obviously required a good deal of preparation. Besides work on costumes and the pageant carts, and the rehearsing, there was an official statement of the intention of performance. At Chester there was both a Proclamation setting up the legal requirements of peace and good order, and Banns which described the contents of the plays, possibly for the benefit of the actors as well as the audience. The Riding of the Banns was a procession in itself, with representatives of the guilds in their costumes. The Banns were called through the city, perhaps establishing the route of the main procession and clearing the way for it. If one looks at some of the narrower places in the medieval streets of York and Chester, one gains the impression that to move large pageant carts through them might be a difficult operation: a preliminary check on the route might therefore be very functional, as well as having the effect of increasing expectation. Special payments were made to those who actually read out the Banns.
In conclusion, we must notice that the Ludus Coventriae is different from the other cycles in being arranged for a static performance. There is no evidence that it was processional. The idea of simultaneous action in a number of ‘houses’ or locations which was used to a limited extent on the pageant carts of York is extensively elaborated, particularly in the Passion Play. We should note that the French tradition with the Mystères in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries calls for many locations arranged around the acting area: at Mons in 1501 there were as many as seventy locations. There is no doubt that although the processional performances of most of the cycles had distinct advantages, the extensive use of simultaneous staging in the Ludus Coventriae shows a movement towards a more complex kind of dramatic effect.
But whether the performances were processional or static, the length of cycles is astonishing. At Chester it took three days to perform the whole cycle. At York, where there were forty-eight plays, the cycle was performed on Corpus Christi day, sometimes displacing the procession. Because of the size it was necessary to assemble the actors at 4.30 in the morning so as to make the best use of the hours of daylight. It is small wonder that in both cities there are records of payment for food and drink for those taking part.
In attempting a critical evaluation of the cycles the modern reader faces two difficulties. The first is the length of time during which they were evolved and performed. With so many different authors or compilers, it becomes impossible to use the critical standards which might be applied to the coherent work of one dramatist. The process of composition was one of translation, accretion, adaptation, revision. With very few exceptions the plays lack the stamp of an individual creating mind. The second difficulty is that the works have no critical theory – no poetics. As far as we know none of the authors wrote anything about his work. There is no attempt to justify, explain, or theorize. The only early writings about the plays are the administrative documents of the corporations and guilds, and the notes of a few antiquarians at the end of the sixteenth century. The absence of contemporary criticism may be an accident of oblivion, but the plays themselves give us little evidence of literary theory. The emphasis in the Banns is rather didactic and expositional, and the authors would not have considered themselves as artists, or poets, or dramatists.
In spite of all this the modern reader has to consider the plays as literature, and indeed it is possible to do so, if one at first takes full account of the religious objectives of the authors.
As we have seen there is a strong possibility that those who worked on the texts were clerics. The sources which they used were the devotional literature which was available to them. Most of the source books which we know about formed part of the wealth of medieval literature which was devised to train and support the priesthood and others who lived a life of devotion. Some of the works were rather more popular or encyclopaedic in type, perhaps reflecting the need to cater for some whose educational standard was low. The outlook of the authors as far as we can determine it is conservative. There appears to be little attempt to break new ground, the intention being to present the essential truths of Christianity, with the implication that these were settled and apparent. A brief comparison with Chaucer is useful here, for he too is conservative as far as religious doctrine is concerned, though he is quick to seize upon abuses. But Chaucer shows us what the dramatists did not do. His sources were literary, and he ranged widely over secular and religious writings in English, French, Latin, and Italian, and though he was never wildly revolutionary his work breaks new cultural and intellectual ground, even to the extent that he occasionally seems to want to draw back.
If the truths are self-evident, then the purpose of the authors is to display them. Spokesmen like the Expositor and Contemplacio point out the significance of what is performed, and act as a link between episodes. The authors aim to reveal the Divine, and this involves worship, which the plays often are. They celebrate truths, and show how divine promises are made and kept. The action and speeches of characters in the Old Testament plays continually point to Christ who is yet to come.
The Redemption implies the corruption of man, a theme which is elaborated throughout, from the Fall of Adam to the wickedness of Herod. Indeed the corruption of man is much emphasized. We see jealousy, pride, wrath, ambition. Man appears ignorant, lost, wrong-headed. The divine figures, as well as the prophets, angels and disciples, are in contrast, and offer reassurance and hope. The plays raise the terror of sin and death, and in many places they show the sufferings of man. Even the personal sufferings of Christ at the Crucifixion are seen in human terms.
There are many hints that the authors intended to reach all ranks of society. One feels, and the evidence of the performances supports this, that the plays were written on the assumption that society was unified and hierarchical and that all men in their ranks should mark the message that was being sent. This affects the types of character which are included.
In stressing these religious objectives we have already begun to consider some of the literary aspects which are now as important. The overall structure supports and maintains the didactic elements. One of the most striking effects of seeing even a modern performance is the sense of purpose which is communicated. Because the cycles contain humour, pathos, suffering, as well as the culminating magnificence of the Crucifixion and Resurrection, one derives a sense of coherence. A comparison with the architecture of medieval cathedrals seems appropriate when we are considering overall design. For often we find in these buildings a sense of completeness, even though the chapter house is built in a different style from the west front, and the spire has been burned down twice. Perhaps the key to this comparison lies deep in the medieval ethos: the certainty that the individual and his particular and personal efforts are part of a whole. In the cycles the quasi-chronological sequence contributes to this, and one must remember that in composing the cycles the authors left out many biblical and legendary episodes which could not be fitted into their design.
Besides this structural power, one must also consider the dramatic strength of many of the episodes. One notices particularly the ability to centre a play on a striking episode which has a powerful visual impact. The dove that re-appears with the olive branch in its beak, the empty tomb, Christ walking with his disciples unbeknown to them: these are incidents which though traditional in story are given powerful visual emphasis. They are shown in spite of the technical difficulties they must have presented. The determination to do this is astonishing: how could the Red Sea be made to divide before the eyes of the spectators? Yet the story would not be dramatic without it happening, and such was the style of drama that the difficulty was solved. The solutions which were found for this kind of difficulty were not realistic: indeed there is a remarkable disregard for realistic enactments. The dramatic impulse of the cycles works in quite another manner. Just as ages pass in the twinkling of an eye, so the elements, the locations and the buildings are incorporated in the performances in a forthright and simple way.
Perhaps the easiest approach for the modern reader is through the psychological realism of many of the characters. Yet it is important to note that this comes about partly because the didactic impulse led the authors to devise ways by which the audience could identify with the characters. Many examples of the problems of everyday experience are to be found. Noah’s wife is famous for her railing, but there are other places where the comedy which arises from tension in human relationships is used. Joseph’s anxiety about his young wife is a case in point, and so too are the relationships between Cain and Abel and between Pilate and his wife. The social criticism presented by the poor shepherds gives vent to the resentment felt by the common man in hard times. The proud and ruthless tyrant, exemplified by Herod, is the object of bitter ridicule. In these characterizations the attitudes of the audience are directed and strengthened and the conflicts which surround the biblical stories are elaborated, sometimes from the merest hint in the source.
But this process is not confined to the comic. The wretchedness of Abraham, torn between his desire to serve God and his love for his son (a child in the Brome and Chester plays), has the beginnings of a tragic dilemma. Though the cycles never touch the matter of romantic love, there are many other occasions when human feelings are strongly aroused. The cruelty of the Tormentors in the Crucifixion is sharpened by their calculating skill, and their feeling of success when their work is effectively done. Often the destructive impulses which the action embodies are pointed by the savage enjoyment of it. Particularly effective here is the joke played on Christ in the Buffeting, and the soldiers’ cruelty in the Slaughter of the Innocents. Even the fear of death is shown in the Death of Herod, where Mors carries off Herod in an incident reminiscent of the Dance of Death. Often, as in these episodes, the realism is related to an appreciation of the violence in man.
In characterization there are a number of important successes: Pilate, who is often viewed sympathetically, Mrs Noah, Mak and Gill, Cain, Annas and Caiaphas, and Herod whose ranting became proverbial. There are lively and cheeky servants like Jak Garcio, one of the character types who was to be elaborated in later drama. Particularly effective are the groups of characters who react to momentous events, the Shepherds, the Kings, the Torturers, the Devils. These are not always distinguished as to individual characteristics, but they provide an effective commentary, and are an important feature in the drama of display.
Much has been written of the work of the Wakefield Master. He is unquestionably the most able of the writers, and the most accessible for the modern reader because he offers an individual’s view. His embittered social criticism and his dramatic use of symbols and parallels make him a powerful voice. In these and other respects he extends and enlarges the work of his predecessors. The mock nativity, the sheep in the cradle, which is a punning reference to the Lamb of God, and the scene in which the sheep is discovered are beautifully plotted, and written in a language which exploits the poetic possibilities of everyday speech. The speech is sharpened and concentrated by irony and proverb, and is essentially dramatic in its peculiar appositeness to the apparent and the symbolic meaning of what is enacted. Important too is his reliance upon material from the folk games. Here he brings into the religious drama an expression of reverence and vitality which is other than the purely Christian. In this respect we feel again that he was in close contact with the world of man.
But however important the Wakefield Master is, his work is but a small part of a rich achievement. His writings are very much within the orbit of his fellow authors. Though he may have seen the world more sharply and responded to it with greater literary subtlety, his world is the same as that of the other authors. The power of Christ’s Incarnation is expressed in his work, and the vitality and variety of life are seen in the light of the Redemption.
In making the present selection from the cyclic plays a number of considerations have been borne in mind. It seemed desirable to offer as full a collection as possible: there is one set of Banns and some thirty-eight plays. If, as was suggested above, it is possible to find common ground in the structure of the cycles, it seemed best to offer a selection here which would include all the incidents which are common to the extant cycles; and this, with a few minor exceptions, is what has been done in the composite cycle which follows. This is the only authority behind the selection, apart from the editor’s personal preference for one version over another. No claim is made that the resulting collection is related to the protocycle which some critics have thought lies behind the original composition. Indeed it does not seem that there is a case for a protocycle: as we have seen, the process of composition probably operated quite differently.
It has been possible to select plays so as to give some other results. Some long sequences have been included from the individual cycles: the first five plays from Chester are here, and so is the Passion Play I from the Ludus Coventriae. The work of the Wakefield Master and the York poet are represented. Some parallel versions of the same episode may be compared: Chester and Towneley Noah, and Chester and Brome Abraham. It has been possible to include the Coventry Shearmen and Tailors’ Play, which gives a strong contrast with Nativity sequences from Towneley and York. Again it is possible to see work from different dates: the earliest is probably part of the Coventry play.
Such a collection, then, is a personal choice, but there may be some justification for it when we remember that for all the cycles it is difficult to say what the definitive form was.
The texts which are printed here are treated conservatively. There is not much choice as to which to follow, except in the case of Chester. Where possible the texts have been collated with the manuscripts or with photocopies of them, and as few changes as possible have been made with regard to spelling. Indeed, a great deal of editorial conjecture has been disregarded. Brackets are used to indicate departures from the manuscripts. Modern punctuation and capital letters have been supplied, obsolete letters have been transliterated – with some odd-looking results in one or two places – and the modern conventions for ‘u’ and ‘v’ have been followed. All the original stage directions have been included, and some additional ones supplied in brackets. Each play is prefaced by a brief note giving details of the date of composition, where it can be supposed, and other general matters.
Difficult words are explained at the foot of the page on their first appearance, and sometimes I have repeated the explanations. A list of these explanations, arranged alphabetically, is at the end of the volume. Fuller explanations of individual phrases and other notes are numbered and printed after the last play.