33 In an addendum (p. 831) Mr. Cargill finds additional proof for Pilkington's authorship of the Towneley Play in Miss Lyle's discussion of the Northern Passion and the Towneley Passion group (Research Publications of the University of Minnesota, VIII, 3, 1919). The following points deserve mention. (1) The Passion is not “employed extensively in four plays in the cycle.” A critical examination of Miss Lyle's parallels on pages 5-28 indicates that extensive parallels are found in Towneley XX (Conspiracy, though she does not cite the closest parallel of all; see EETS, Or. Ser. 147, p. 87); and fewer parallels in XXII (Scourging) and XXIII (Crucifixion). Those in XXI (Buffeting) are negligible. Mr. Cargill is right that my statement in the Northern Passion introduction needs qualification; it should read (p. 86): “Except in passages due to York influence, the debt of the Towneley cycle to the Passion is confined to Play XX.” (2) The form of the Passion used in the “Pilkington stanza sections” of the Towneley plays is not the original version found with Pilkington's name in Cambridge University MS Ff. 5. 48, but the later expanded form of some MSS of the Northern Homily Collection (see EETS, Or. Ser. 147, pp. 3-6). If the parallels between the Passion and the Towneley plays proved identity of authorship, they would indicate that the Wakefield master is not Gilbert Pilkington but the editor of the Northern Homily Collection in Harleian MS 4196. (3) “Professor Cady's theory that the couplets and quatrains are editorial” (JEGP, X, 572) has been refuted by Mrs. Frank, “Revisions in the English Mystery Plays” (Modern Philology, XV, 565-72)
