This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
See, for example, Eleanor Prosser,Drama and Religion in the English Mystery Plays (Stanford, 1961) pp. 96–102, where the author discusses the N-Town play of Joseph's return as if it were a homogeneous work. Rather than demonstrate how this play has two differing approaches to the characterization of Joseph which have been brought together by dint of heavy interpolation, she manages to find an artistic unity in the resultant inconsistencies which no original author can ever have intended.
In this study, fluctuation of prosodic pattern is taken to be an important indicator of the respective parts of a composite text. The effectiveness of this approach to the textual composition of the N-Town cycle in general has been recently argued by Stephen Spector, “The Composition and Development of an Eclectic Manuscript: Cotton Vespasian D VIII”,Leeds Studies in English, New Series 9 (1977), 62–83.
The four studies containing the principal analyses of the textual composition of the Marian plays are as follows: Walter W. Greg,Bibliographical and Textual Problems in the English Miracle Plays (London, 1914), pp. 108–43; Esther L. Swenson,An Inquiry into the Composition and Structure of the Ludus Coventriae, University of Minnesota Studies in Language and Literature, 1, (Minneapolis, 1914); K. S. Block, ed.Ludus Coventriae or The Plaie Called Corpus Christi, EETS, ES 120 (1922), introduction; Spector, “Composition”. My study accepts some of their findings and revizes or supplements others. (All subsequent references to the text will be to Block's edition).
Critics who have been prepared to take the manuscript at its face value have given unfounded ciritical judgments, as for example in the case of the “Contemplacio” prologue to theParliament of Heaven play (Block, pp. 97–98, lines 1–32). Rosemary Woolf,The English Mystery Plays (London, 1972), p. 164, says “this functional and unpoetic figure [Contemplacio], suddenly and with mysterious force momentarily turns into a personification of the human power of contemplation”. Richard Axton,European Drama of the Early Middle Ages (London, 1974), p. 173, says “The N-Town play of the Annunciation is designed as a communal act of worship, in which the expositor Contemplacio has a priest-like role. His passionate invocation of the threefold God sets in motion the process of the Incarnation”. However, these lines were never originally intended to be spoken by Contemplacio at all; the ascription to Contemplacio as it stands in the manuscript is the result of revision.
Edmund K. Chambers,The Medieval Stage (Oxford, 1903) vol. II, pp. 126–27 and 146, is amongst the earliest of the commentators to speak of the Marian cycle as “inserted”.
It is evident that the scribe-compiler is actively combining and rearranging material, but there is no clear evidence to suggest that he is substantially rewriting or adding text. For an interesting characterization of the method and procedure of the scribe-compiler, see Peter Meredith, “A Reconsideration of Some Textual Problems in the N-Town Manuscript (BL MS Cotton Vespasian D VIII)”,Leeds Studies in English, New Series 9 (1977), 35–50; see especially pp. 46–47.
If the scribe-compiler is not in fact responsible for revision of such a kind, then possibly the work of at least two revisers, characterized by two distinct rhyme-schemes, can be seen in such places as the additions to the Contemplacio prologues (see, for example, Block, p. 63, lines 17–25 and p. 71, lines 9–17; both extracts share anababcdddc pattern) and in theabababab stanza additions (see, for example, Block, p. 106, lines 261–84 and p. 108, lines 321–28).
A single further exception, Block, p. 67 lines 119–22, must be mentioned. These lines form an independentabab quatrain. Possibly a little of the text has been lost at this point, but there is no reason why the quatrain should not still be regarded as first Marian group material.
The assumption made here of a single author for the first Marian group is wholly justifiable. All first Marian group material shares a basically consistent prosody and style. Further, a small group of phrases and expressions suggests by its recurrence the work of a single author. Note, for example, “Prynce of Prestys”, appearing in theConception (Block, p. 63, line 5 and p. 65, line 69), thePresentation (Block, p. 73, line 33 and p. 81, line 260), theBetrothal (Block, p. 87, line 176) and theVisitation (Block, p. 116, line 27); also, “modyr of mercy”, appearing in theConception (Block, p. 62, line 9), thePresentation (Block, p. 71, line 8) and theSalutation (Block, p. 108, line 338).
Contrary to Hardin Craig,English Religious Drama of the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1955), p. 257, there is no mention of theVisitation in the N-Town proclamation.
Greg,Problems, p. 126, considered that the author of Contemplacio's speeches was writing them as the present manuscript was being compiled, and that they were inserted in places left for them in the manuscript. Since the speeches are not homogeneous, the suggestion must be discounted.
This reviser's work may possibly be found elsewhere. He may be responsible for the anomalous ending noted in theConception (Block, pp. 70–71, lines 218–26), where the schemeabbbacdcd is generically very similar to theababcdddc pattern. A portion of the speech of Contemplacio which precedes theBetrothal play is also related to this reviser's usual pattern (Block, pp. 81–82, lines 1–17; possibly lines 1–4 belong to the first Marian group, however).
This quatrain appears to have been sandwiched in between a regular first Marian group stanza, since the quatrains which immediately precede and follow it (Block, p. 79, lines 200–03 and 208–11) are linked by their rhyme into the familiarababbcbc pattern. I suggest that this quatrain too is an addition made by the reviser of the Contemplacio prologues. A common denominator linking almost all his additions is their introduction of staging requirements into the plays. The most conspicuous function of this quatrain (textually it adds little) is to introduce a movement direction into the text, as Anna declares that it is time for her and her husband to leave.
There is no reason to doubt whether the long section of quatrain exposition on the fifteen Gradual psalms (Block, pp. 74–77, lines 84–143) may be part of the first Marian group play. It is apparent that the author of the first Marian group was willing to leave his basicababbcbc pattern in order to incorporate Latin-liturgical material. Note the Latin-liturgical episode in theConception play, discussed above; also, the highly comparable antiphonal exposition of the Magnificat in theVisitation play (Block, pp. 118–20, lines 81–104).
See Peter Meredith, “‘Nolo Mortem’ and the Ludus Coventriae Play of the Women Taken in Adultrery”,MÆ 38 (1969), 54, footnote 43; he also believes that the Latin blessings of Joachim and Anna were part of the original text.
In the manuscript, the rubricated paraph opposite the beginning of Mary's speech contains within its lobe a red circle. See Peter Meredith and Stanley J. Kahrl,The N-Town Plays, Leeds Texts and Monographs, Medieval Drama Facsimiles IV (1977), fol. 67 r. This feature alone is sufficient to open the possibility of a Marian cycle connection, if not a first Marian group connection, for the quatrain that it accompanies (Block, p. 109, lines 17–20). Perhaps not only this quatrain may be first Marian group material, but also the four lines which immediately precede it (Block, p. 109, lines 13–16). Swenson,Inquiry, p. 30, came close to making this connection. She notes that the mention of a halo of light around Mary's face in these lines (Block, p. 109, lines 15–16) has an “ ecclesiastical quality”, and such an “ecclesiastical” or “theological” quality has often been ascribed to the plays of the Marian cycle (see, for example, Craig,Religious Drama, p. 249).
Bearing in mind the function of this couplet to introduce a staging requirement, there is a possibility that it too is the work of the reviser of the Contemplacio prologues. See footnote 10 above.
The syllabic quantity of a first Marian group line seldom drops below eight or nine syllables; the lines in question here have respectively 7, 6, 7 and 7 syllables each.
An independentabab quatrain spoken by Mary at the end of the antiphonally delivered Magnificat (Block, p. 120, lines 105–08) might at first sight seem to be an exception. However, it follows immediately after a section in which quatrain verses are regular, and the first Marian group playwright shows himself willing elsewhere to write in quatrains, especially where liturgical material is being incorporated into a play.
The prosody and style of the first and last eight lines of this epilogue (Block, pp. 121–22, lines 1–8 and p. 122, lines 29–36) strongly suggest that the lines constituted the conclusion to the first Marian group of plays. Since the lines do not provide any resumé of the narrative events of theVisitation, there is no way of knowing how the first Marian group play originally ended, or indeed how long this ending was which has been replaced.
Though the first four lines of the second ending form an independent quatrain (Block, pp. 120–21, lines 125–28), it is still likely that they form part of the following three blocks of verse with theabababab pattern.
A further criterion for distinction is provided in the layout of the manuscript itself; paraphs which preface stanzas lifted from the Marian cycle exemplar invariably contain a small rubricated dot within their lobe, whereas those which preface stanzas of proclamation cycle material have no dot. This feature was first pointed out by Meredith and Kahrl,N-Town Plays, introduction, p. xviii, and has been elaborated by Spector, “Composition”, p. 71.
See Meredith and Kahrl,N-Town Plays, introduction, p. xiii.
J. Vriend,The Blessed Virgin Mary in the Medieval Drama of England (Purmerend, 1928), p. 54, footnote 2, observes this distinction and relates it to the two different sources of the compositeBetrothal. This difference in usage is a useful additional guide to first Marian group material. On the strength of the difference, a problematic quatrain of theBetrothal (Block, p. 89, lines 229–32) can be safely ascribed to the first Marian group.
This reason may also account for a thirdBetrothal quatrain (Block, pp. 92–93, lines 331–34), and the dotted paraph that prefaces the quatrain in the manuscript suggests at least that the scribe-compiler copied it from the Marian cycle exemplar.
Block, introduction, p. xxiiff.
Greg,Problems, p. 125 and footnote 1, was the first to point out that the “Contemplacio” speech was not originally spoken by Contemplacio at all Spector, “Composition”, p. 70, followed Greg's opinion. However, both critics ascribed the first two stanzas of the speech to the angels and the second two to the archangels, and this is not correct. Evidence for the ascription of the stanzas to thepersonae of Isaiah and Jeremiah is set out in Alan J. Fletcher, “The ‘Contemplacio’ Prologue to the N-Town play of the Parliament of Heaven”, N & O New Series 27 (1980), 111–12.
There is little doubt that theSalutation play is that of the first Marian group. For example, English stage directions, which are probably not themselves first Marian group material, are nevertheless strongly associated with the appearance of first Marian group play text. TheSalutation has two English stage directions (Block, pp. 106 and 107) very much in the tradition of those found in the first Marian group plays (compare Block, pp. 65, 68, 70, 71, 80, 81 and 121).
The Premiere Journée of the fifteenth-century GrébanPassion provides evidence of the scope existing for the treatment of theSalutation andParliament motifs in conjunction. It has aSalutation play following on immediately after the debate between the four Daughters of God in aParliament of Heaven. (See Omer Jodogne, ed.Le Mystére de la Passion (Brussels, 1965) I, 32–52.) However, Samuel B. Hemingway,English Nativity Plays (New York, 1909), introduction, p. xxxvi, has argued that theParliament of Heaven of the N-Town cycle was not originally part of theSalutation, on the grounds that a strong Bonaventuran tradition registered in the play ends where theParliament ends.
It may be noted that the action proper between Gabriel and Mary in all other survivingSalutation plays in English begins with Gabriel's “Ave”.
The quatrain immediately following (Block, p. 108, lines 329–32) may also be the work of theabababab reviser. Stylistically at least its narrative content flows on logically after the previous stanza, in which Mary has asked Gabriel to pay her frequent visits.
According to the proclamation, Gabriel is sent to “oure lady ffre” (Block, p. 5, line 158) and “my lady ffre” are the words with which he greets her in theSalutation. I am obliged to John Marshall,The Staging of the Marian Group form the N-Town Cycle, unpubl. M.A. thesis, Leeds University, 1974, for pointing out this possible link with proclamation cycle material.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fletcher, A.J. Layers of revision in the N-town Marian cycle. Neophilologus 66, 469–478 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01998992
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01998992