some textual notes on the english mystery plays

Some Textual Notes on the English Mystery PlaysAuthor(s): P. E. DustoorSource: The Modern Language Review, Vol. 21, No. 4 (Oct., 1926), pp. 427-431Published by: Modern Humanities Research AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3714549 .

Accessed: 25/06/2014 04:39

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Modern Humanities Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend accessto The Modern Language Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.156 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 04:39:05 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mhra

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3714549?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Miscellaneous Notes Miscellaneous Notes

Many things the 'simple ignorant people' read and hear about are far above their understanding. Udall concludes this portion of his pre- face by urging that considerations such as these should not impede the

setting forth of edifying works.

The two allusions made by Udall to Chaucer within six years are therefore noteworthy, firstly as suggesting a link between Chaucer and

Spenser, and secondly, as showing that Chaucer was being widely read, despite his presenting some few linguistic difficulties.

ARTHUR R. MOON. LONDON.

SOME TEXTUAL NOTES ON THE ENGLISH MYSTERY PLAYS.

The following remarks on some readings adopted in our editions of the Mystery Plays suggested themselves to me in a recent study of the

plays of the Old Testament Group and are offered to the student of these texts for what they are worth.

The York Mystery Plays, ed. by Miss L. Toulmin Smith.

I. p. 22, 11. 1-7: For woo my witte es in a were, That moffes me nmykill in my mynde, The godhede tat I sawe so cleere, And parsayued pat he shuld take kynde,

of a degree That he had wrought, and I denyed pat aungell kynde

shuld it no3t be.

As Miss Smith here notes that in the MS. the first five stanzas are written very confusedly and that she has attempted corrections, and as the sixth and seventh lines should have, in this stanza, as they have in

the rest of the playl, eight syllables each, I believe that the original reading for' denyed' (1. 6) was the disyllabic 'dedyned' (cf.' dedyned' in 1. 11 and 'parsayued' in 1. 4), which perfectly suits the sense, the metre

and the rime, and that 11. 6-7 quite regularly read as: That he had wrought, and I dedyned

pat aungell kynde shuld it no3t be2.

1 Except for 11. 73 and 160 which have seven syllables each and 1. 138 which has nine. 2 Since proposing this reading I have seen Holthausen's (Archiv, LXXXV, p. 412) and

Kolbing's (Englische Studien, xx, p. 182) emendations, but neither appears to me very satisfactory.

28-2

Many things the 'simple ignorant people' read and hear about are far above their understanding. Udall concludes this portion of his pre- face by urging that considerations such as these should not impede the

setting forth of edifying works.

The two allusions made by Udall to Chaucer within six years are therefore noteworthy, firstly as suggesting a link between Chaucer and

Spenser, and secondly, as showing that Chaucer was being widely read, despite his presenting some few linguistic difficulties.

ARTHUR R. MOON. LONDON.

SOME TEXTUAL NOTES ON THE ENGLISH MYSTERY PLAYS.

The following remarks on some readings adopted in our editions of the Mystery Plays suggested themselves to me in a recent study of the

plays of the Old Testament Group and are offered to the student of these texts for what they are worth.

The York Mystery Plays, ed. by Miss L. Toulmin Smith.

I. p. 22, 11. 1-7: For woo my witte es in a were, That moffes me nmykill in my mynde, The godhede tat I sawe so cleere, And parsayued pat he shuld take kynde,

of a degree That he had wrought, and I denyed pat aungell kynde

shuld it no3t be.

As Miss Smith here notes that in the MS. the first five stanzas are written very confusedly and that she has attempted corrections, and as the sixth and seventh lines should have, in this stanza, as they have in

the rest of the playl, eight syllables each, I believe that the original reading for' denyed' (1. 6) was the disyllabic 'dedyned' (cf.' dedyned' in 1. 11 and 'parsayued' in 1. 4), which perfectly suits the sense, the metre

and the rime, and that 11. 6-7 quite regularly read as: That he had wrought, and I dedyned

pat aungell kynde shuld it no3t be2.

1 Except for 11. 73 and 160 which have seven syllables each and 1. 138 which has nine. 2 Since proposing this reading I have seen Holthausen's (Archiv, LXXXV, p. 412) and

Kolbing's (Englische Studien, xx, p. 182) emendations, but neither appears to me very satisfactory.

28-2

427 427



Miscellaneous Notes

II. p. 67, 1. 369: Fadir, as pou likes my lyffe to spende.

I suggest that the original reading was 'you,' not 'Jou,' because, apart from the possibility of ']' and 'y' being confused in MSS. (cf. 272/45), we have the following internal evidence favouring 'you':

(1) Throughout the play Isaac and the servants invariably-if we omit the case 'sub judice'-address Abraham as 'You.' (That both Abraham and Isaac use ' 1ou' towards God is beside the question.)

(2) With 'like' the impersonal construction is the only one that seems to occur elsewhere in this cycle; cf. 8/7; 12/72. By reading 'you' for 'tou' we retain the impersonal form here also.

III. p. 81, 1. 219: Where is pis warlowe with his wande ?

The MS. has 'when': the 'where' is Miss Smith's. But it is evident that the 'when' of the MS. means 'whence' and that Pharaoh's

inquiry was one regarding Moses' antecedents and had nothing to do with his whereabouts. This is shown by the parallel Towneley text

actually having 'whence.' For the form 'whenne' or 'quhyne' (meaning' whence') cf. Piers Plowman, A, VI, 16; Bruce, vII, 240.

IV. The Towneley Plays (E.E.T.S.).

p. 4,11. 85-6: Agans my grete myght May thing stand then be (MS. Reading)

p. 26, 11. 107-8: For they would never stryfe With me then me offend (MS. Reading)

The editor has in both cases changed 'then' to 'ne.' But that this is needless tampering with an idiomatic feature of the text is shown by this use of 'then' (='than') in the sense of 'nor' in at least two other instances: 39/535; 58/75. Cf. also Cursor Mundi, 17586 Cotton and 29114 Cotton, and see N.E.D. under 'than.'

V. Specimens of the Pre-Shakesperean Drama, Vol. I. (Manly.)

p. 32, 1. 44: Therefore, sere, fore love of me.

According to both Manly and Miss Block the MS. has 'fere'.' It

1 Halliwell (Ludus Coventriae, p. 41) prints 'sere' without comment as if it were the MS. reading; Miss Block in her recent edition (p. 36) follows Manly in thinking that the MS. 'fere' is for ' sere,' but retains 'fere' in her text.

428



Miscellaneous Notes

seems that 'sere' is substituted (1) because 'sere' occurs in 1. 62, and (2) because 'fere' puts the speaker on a footing of equality with her husband. But cf. the Dublin MS. Abraham Play, where, though in 11. 318, 328 Sara addresses Abraham as 'Souereigne,' yet in 11. 86, 108 she calls him ' fere' and in 1. 133 even 'gentil hert.' Cf. also the Chester 'Creation' (1. 251), where Eve calls Adam 'my leeif fere.'

The Yon-Cycle Mystery Plays, ed. by O. Waterhouse (E.E.T.S.).

VI. p. 44, 1. 208 (Brome play): My hart begynnys stronly to rysse.

MS. 'begynnyd'; Miss Smith 'begynnys' (Anglia, vii); Manly 'begynnyth' (Specimens, I, p. 48). Manly's emendation is better than Miss Smith's, for the 3rd Sing. Pres. Ind. ends oftener in '-th' than in '-s' in this East Anglian play; and, indeed, we actually have

'begynnyth' in 1. 147. But so common is the confusion in this play between '-th' and '-t' or '-d' that an emendation in this one instance would be hardly justifiable. We have 'sent' (351) and 'senth' (317); 'mowthe' (218) and 'mowt' (347); 'wrogth' (404); 'knowyt' (320); 'schoyt' (440); 'weryt' (464). We also have once 'derewordy' (411) for 'dereworthy.' We might then very well allow 'begynnyth' to stand in 1. 147 and 'begynnyd' here.

VII. p. 19, 1. 2' (Newcastle play): No marvel it is if I do show.

Holthausen (H)2, 'if I dos how'; Brotanek (BK)3 and Waterhouse

(W), 'no marvel if I it destroy.' I suggest that the original Northern text had 'no maruell es if I do

sla.' The verb 'sla' would govern 'Pir folk' in 1. 3 and furnish a correct rime to ' faa' (1. 4). Cf. Cursor Mundi, 7616; Bruce, ii, 207-8. For the

phrase 'no marvell es' cf. Y. 93/1.

VIII. p. 19, 11. 9-14: All Mankind dead shall be,

10 With Storms both stiff and steer; All but Noah my Darling free, His Children and their Wives, Ever more yet they trow'd in me, Save therefore I will their Lives.

The numbering of the lines is after Waterhouse, while the text reproduced at the head of each of the following notes is Bourne's.

2 Goteborgs Higskolas Arsskrift, Vol. II (1897). 3 Anglia, xxI, pp. 165 ff.

429



Miscellaneous Notes

I agree with BK in regarding these six lines as forming one stanza, but I would rather read them as:

All mankin dede sail be With stormis bath stiff and stere, All but Noe my derling fre His childir and pair wifis dere; Euir-mare 3itt pai trowid in me, Save barfore I pair lifis in fere.

For 1. 12 I accept W's suggestion that 'dere' should follow 'wifis' here as well as in 1. 171; cf. Halliwell's Lud. Cov. 91/2; Y 65/311. In 1. 14, I take it that the stop-gap phrase 'in fere' has been omitted

by Bourne (B). ('Lifis' is monosyllabic; cf. 'floodis,' 1. 7; 'trowid,' 1. 13; 'thingis,' 1. 25, etc.)

IX. p.24,1. 164: 0 yes dame, could thou layne.

BK adds 'trewely' to this line and changes 1. 166-from 'How God of Heaven an angel sent' to 'How God an angel sent fra hie'-so as to

get his rime. H and W read 'stint' for 'layne.' BK's emendation

appears far-fetched, to say the least; while it is difficult to accept that of H. It is more likely, I think, that the word here rendered 'layne' was in the original 'leynd' (= tarry, linger, abide; cf. T 68/140; Y 44/214, 45/16; Wright's Ch. II, 49; Bruce, xv, 747). B either

deciphered it incorrectly or sought to emend it from his knowledge of dialectal 'layne' (= hide, keep secret about. See N.E.D.). Anyway, I believe 'leynd' suits the context better than 'layne.' That 1. 164 has, then, only six syllables, while 1. 166-' How God of heaven,' etc. (cf. Y 59/118; T 22/446) or'How God on hye,' etc. (cf. Dub. Abraham, 347)-has eight syllables, does not in itself prove that the former is incomplete; cf. 11. 9, 11 of this play, which neither H, BK, nor W has

sought to change. As for the rime 'leynd: sent,' it may be that the

original had, not 'sent,' but 'send' or 'seynd,' a form which occurs often both in the pret. and p. p. Cf. 1. 192 and the rime 'wende:sent,' 11. 146, 148 (where BK needlessly alters B's 'hath sent' to 'will send'); also Bruce, I, 145; II, 176, etc.; 'The Thistle and the Rose,' 78. For the rime 'lend:send' cf. Y 59/116-118; Cursor Mundi, 10775-6 Cott.; Bruce, III, 747-8.

X. p. 24,1. 169: With storms both stiff and steer fell.

BK and W dispense with 'fell,' but do not account for its supposed gratuitous inclusion by B. I believe 'fell' is not unoriginal but only

430



Miscellaneous Notes Miscellaneous Notes

out of place as it stands': we know of transpositions in 11. 59, 138, etc. In my opinion the line in the original ran: 'With stormis fell bath stiff and stere,' where 'fell' is to be taken, not, as B perhaps took it, as the verb meaning 'destroy, knock down' (cf. T 141/24), but rather as the

adjective meaning 'sharp,''cruel' (cf. T 170/142). As for the rime- word 'dere,' inserted by W in 1. 171, see remarks above on 11. 9-14.

P. E. DUSTOOR. ALLAHABAD.

DID JONSON WRITE ' THE EXPOSTULATION' ATTRIBUTED TO DONNE ?

The elegy beginning 'To make the doubt clear that no woman 's

true,' has been thought to be Donne's, having been published among his works in the first edition of 1633, two years after his death. Sub-

sequently it appeared in all the seventeenth-century editions of his

poems, and it has been retained by all his modern editors. For the sake of convenience, I shall call it by the title which it bears in Grierson's

edition, 'The Expostulation.' When the second folio of Ben Jonson's Works was published in 1640,

the poem, with some unimportant variations, was included in Under- woods. The editors of Jonson-Whalley (1756), Gifford (1816), and

Cunningham (1875)-have included it among the authentic work of their author. Thus there exists the unusual situation of the appearance of the same poem in the latest edition of one well-known seventeenth-

century poet, and in what must still be considered the standard edition of another.

Jonson's editors have not deigned to argue the question of authorship. And while Sir Edmund Chambers, in editing Donne, has at least realized the necessity of stating why he believes in Donne's authorship, he has

not, it seems to me, proved his case. He merely states: This poem was included in the collection of verses called Underwoods, which

first appeared in the second folio edition of Ben Jonson's works. It is No. 58 in

Cunningham's edition. I see no reason, however, to take it from Donne. It appeared in two editions, 1633 and 1635, during Jonson's life; the Underwoods is posthumous, and of no great authority; and both style and sentiment are characteristic of Donne....It is signed J. D. in William Drummond's Hawthornden MS. 15.

Professor Grierson does not specifically discuss the authorship of the

poem. He does say, however (Introduction, p. cxxx), that 'the presence

1 In 1. 175, on the other hand, the 'perfect,' in B's 'less or more perfect,' is palpably

unoriginal.

out of place as it stands': we know of transpositions in 11. 59, 138, etc. In my opinion the line in the original ran: 'With stormis fell bath stiff and stere,' where 'fell' is to be taken, not, as B perhaps took it, as the verb meaning 'destroy, knock down' (cf. T 141/24), but rather as the

adjective meaning 'sharp,''cruel' (cf. T 170/142). As for the rime- word 'dere,' inserted by W in 1. 171, see remarks above on 11. 9-14.

P. E. DUSTOOR. ALLAHABAD.

DID JONSON WRITE ' THE EXPOSTULATION' ATTRIBUTED TO DONNE ?

The elegy beginning 'To make the doubt clear that no woman 's

true,' has been thought to be Donne's, having been published among his works in the first edition of 1633, two years after his death. Sub-

sequently it appeared in all the seventeenth-century editions of his

poems, and it has been retained by all his modern editors. For the sake of convenience, I shall call it by the title which it bears in Grierson's

edition, 'The Expostulation.' When the second folio of Ben Jonson's Works was published in 1640,

the poem, with some unimportant variations, was included in Under- woods. The editors of Jonson-Whalley (1756), Gifford (1816), and

Cunningham (1875)-have included it among the authentic work of their author. Thus there exists the unusual situation of the appearance of the same poem in the latest edition of one well-known seventeenth-

century poet, and in what must still be considered the standard edition of another.

Jonson's editors have not deigned to argue the question of authorship. And while Sir Edmund Chambers, in editing Donne, has at least realized the necessity of stating why he believes in Donne's authorship, he has

not, it seems to me, proved his case. He merely states: This poem was included in the collection of verses called Underwoods, which

first appeared in the second folio edition of Ben Jonson's works. It is No. 58 in

Cunningham's edition. I see no reason, however, to take it from Donne. It appeared in two editions, 1633 and 1635, during Jonson's life; the Underwoods is posthumous, and of no great authority; and both style and sentiment are characteristic of Donne....It is signed J. D. in William Drummond's Hawthornden MS. 15.

Professor Grierson does not specifically discuss the authorship of the

poem. He does say, however (Introduction, p. cxxx), that 'the presence

1 In 1. 175, on the other hand, the 'perfect,' in B's 'less or more perfect,' is palpably

unoriginal.

431 431



some textual notes on the english mystery plays

Documents