292 PROBLEMS OF THE ENGLISH the influence of, York ; and finally, the additions of a single remarkable writer. 1 There is much that is uncertain about this cycle. Its connexion with Wakefield and with the activi- ties of craft guilds is proved by notes in the manu- script itself, and supported by allusions in at least the latest layer of the work. That the guilds were those of Wakefield is matter of inference. Curiously enough, there is no record of the per- formance of any cycle at Wakefield, though at least one player from Wakefield is known to have performed in the Corpus Christi plays at York. 2 A tradition connecting the cycle with the Augus- tinian house of Widkirk or Woodkirk was at one time recorded and subsequently denied by Douce. 3 At most it would only imply that the manuscript may at some time have been preserved there ; it would not justify any conjecture as to the original authorship, or even as to the collection or transcrip- tion of the plays. The manuscript is mutilated, possibly through Puritanical zeal; but it is also 1 But opinion is by no means unanimous. Davidson's treat- ment (cf. chapters xx and xxn) is less full and less satisfactory than in the case of York. On the other hand, Pollard's intro- duction to the E.E.T.S. edition is of first-rate importance. It follows in general the lines laid down by Hohlfeld in * Anglia,' xi. 306. Asmus Bunzen, in his * Beitrag zur Kritik der Wake- fielder Mysterien' (1903, p. 19), attempts an analysis rather too elaborate to be altogether convincing. Cady in the articles already cited argues that the borrowings from York are the latest addition to the cycle. But I do not see how such a play as ' Doomsday ' can be explained except as being in substance a York play worked over by the distinctive Wakefield author. 2 See Hohlfeld, Anglia,' xi. 258. 3 See Chambers, < Mediaeval Stage,' ii. 415.
