MIRACLE CYCLES. 203 cyclic manuscripts were not formed by the collec- tion of a number of different texts from separate sources, it is not very likely that the relation of the manuscripts should differ in different portions of the text. Still it is conceivable : for instance the two scribes of MS. H might have used different originals. This, in point of fa6t, they do not seem to have done, for the divergence of H, like the close relation of W K, evidently persists throughout the cycle. The only doubt is as to the positions of B and D. In the course of an analysis of the readings of the second pageant based on Deimling's colla- tions I found D apparently associating itself more closely with H and B with W K. 1 But, as I have said, Deimling's collations are entirely untrust- worthy, and such a reversal of relation is in itself extremely improbable. 2 The procedure which an editor should adopt with regard to the text of the Chester plays will now be evident. Of the two traditions repre- sented by H and the group B D W K respectively, 1 Hemingway appears to have found this too: see 'English Nativity Plays,' p. v. But, as I have said before, I suspedl his collations of having been borrowed from Deimling's edition. The apparently anomalous character of the readings of B as reported by Deimling may be due to the rather difficult hand of that manu- script.
- It is quite clear that the two scribes of H follow the same
tradition and presumably transcribe from the same manuscript. But, of course, it does not follow that their work is equally accurate. The importance of H as representing the elder tradition persists throughout ; but, supposing the divergencies of H from rj to be due directly to the scribes of H and not to a succession of intermediate copies, the accuracy of the text of H may vary greatly in different parts. This, of course, might be the case even were only one scribe concerned. The * Antichrist ' was written by the second scribe.
