Page:The Library, volume 5, series 3.djvu/33

 MIRACLE CYCLES. 21 stances of representation readied on the texts of the plays represented a readlion which extends in the case of the c Ludus Couentriae,' for instance, to the very make-up of the surviving manuscript, and necessitates our starting on a criticism of that cycle with an examination of the watermarks in the paper on which it is written. Over and over again the comparison of different manuscripts and the examination of records is found to illustrate the history of the miracle drama. To deal fully with the subject would require a course of lectures in itself. All I can do is to take almost at random a few points that may help to make my meaning clear. The most distinctive feature of the cycles we are considering is that the representation of the indi- vidual plays or pageants composing them was allotted to different guilds. Now the guilds were not constant, unchanging bodies. Some grew in importance and wealth, others declined and died out, there was amalgamation and there was division. As a consequence the cycles were in frequent need of alteration. Plays had to be shortened or ex- tended, fused or severed. The marks of this may constantly be seen in our extant texts, though un- fortunately it is seldom that we can trace exadlly what has happened. It is recorded that the Smiths of Chester once submitted alternative plays for the choice of the aldermen. Their extant play consists of two quite distindt parts, one of which is clearly not an original portion of the cycle. Again, manuscripts of the Chester cycle differ in making the Trial and Crucifixion one play or two. In its