Warkworth’s Chronicle

The Warkworth Chronicle: Part I


of the
First Thirteen Years of the Reign of


By John Warkworth, D.D.

Master of St. Peter’s College, Cambridge.
Edited, from the MS. Now in the Library of St. Peter’s College,

By James Orchard Halliwell, Esq. F.R.S., F.S.A.

Of Jesus College, Cambridge; Corresponding Member of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of France, &c. &c. &c.

“Oft sithes it is seene dyvers ther arne, the which forseene not the causis precedent and subesquent, but for the which they fall many tymes into such erroure, that they abuse theymeself, and also othir theire sequacis, gheving credence to such as wrighten of affeccion, leving the trouth that was deede.” — Hearne’s Fragment, p. 298.




By John Bowyer Nichols and Son, Parliament Street,


Table of Contents

  • Part I: Introduction and Endnotes to the Introduction.
  • Part II: Warkworth’s Chronicle: The Coronation of Edward IV through the Elevation of William Stafford, Lord Stafford of Southwyke, to the Earldom of Devonshire in Edward’s Eighth Regnal Year.
  • Part III: Warkworth’s Chronicle: Endnotes to Part II.
  • Part IV: Warkworth’s Chronicle: The Ninth Regnal Year of Edward IV through the Birth of Prince Edward in Sanctuary at Westminster.
  • Part V: Warkworth’s Chronicle: Endnotes to Part IV.
  • Part VI: Warkworth’s Chronicle: Edward’s Return from Flander through the Death of Henry VI and the Arrests of the Rebels in Kent.
  • Part VII: Warkworth’s Chronicle: Endnotes to Part VI>
  • Part VIII: Warkworth’s Chronicle: The Appearance of a “Mervelous Blasyne Sterre” in January of Edward’s Eleventh Regnal Year through the Defeat and Capture of the Earl of Oxford at St. Michael’s Mount in Cornwall in Edward’s Thirteenth Regnal Year.
  • Part IX: Warkworth’s Chronicle: Endnotes to Part VIII.


Transcriber’s Note

Every effort has been made to exactly duplicate the 1839 Halliwell edition of the Warkworth Chronicle. However, certain idiocyncracies of the Middle English text, in particular, are not possible to reproduce in the electronic medium. Whenever superscript or subscript has been used in the following, the reader will find this indicated by brackets..{}. Use of the tilde in ways no longer found in modern usage are indicated by the use of italics for that particular letter. Wherever entire passages of Latin are used, as they are in the following Introduction, these are italicized in their entirety, although short quotes are left as they appear in the original. Spaces left in the text are indicated by a dotted line —– wherever applicable. The footnotes and endnotes in the 1839 edition have been modernized and are indicated numerically. For greater ease in computer downloading, the whole document has been divided into individual files, which can be handled separately. Otherwise, the following text is exactly as it appears in the Halliwell edition. — J.C.G., Transcriber



Mr. Hunter, in the Appendix to the last Report of the Record of Commissioners (1), was the first who noticed the existence of a singularly valuable and curious historical document preserved in the library of St. Peter’s College, Cambridge, which had been extensively quoted by Leland in in his Collectanea at the commencement of the sixteenth century. Leland extracts from a MS. volume of Chronicles given to the College by John Warkworth, who was then Master, the greater portion of which is a mere copy of Caxton’s edition of the Brute Chronicle; and, although, without the slightest notion of a judicious selection, that industrious transcriber has extracted as largely from the Brute as from other part[s] of the manuscript, yet his Collectanea has for three centuries been the only know receptacle (2) of a portion of the exceedingly curious facts recorded in Warkworth’s own Chronicle, and would, perhaps, have been for three centuries longer, had not the antiquarian diligence of Mr. Hunter discovered its latent resting-place, and added one more to the many instances of valuable documents resecued from oblivion by that zealous and able historian.

The following Chronicle comprises a history of the first thirteen years of the reign of Edward the Fourth. “This eventful period,” well observes Sir Henry Ellis, “though removed from us scarcely more than three centuries, is still among the darkest in our annals. Its records are confused, mutilated, and disjointed. They who wrote history in it, had no talents for the task; and there was a ferocity abroad among the partizans of both the rival houses, which prevented many from even assembling the materials of history.” (3) The paucity of documents illustrating this period has, indeed, long (4) been a matter of regret. To meet with one, then, so minute in particulars, abounding in facts, and of indisputable authenticity, cannot but be a matter of congratulation to the historian.

It is quite unnecesary here to enlarge on the history of the period to which the following narrative relates. There is, however, one part of this diary, for in many instances it is sufficiently minute to be called an occasional one, which must necessarily arrest the attention of every reader, — the account of the mysterious death of King Henry, expressed in such decided terms, and with such apparently perfect knowledge of every part of the transaction, as cannot fail to raise strong doubts of its authenticity. On a question of so dark a nature, no excuse will be needed for another writer entering into the controversy, with the aid of an additional auxiliary of powerful evidence.

Before I proceed further, I will place before the reader a few of the unpublished evidences I have collected relating to this transaction:–

  1. “Obitus Regis Henrici Sexti, qui obit inter vicesimum primum diem Maii et ccij{m}. diem Maii.” MS. Bib. Reg. B. xv. fol. 1, r{o}.
  2. “Rex Henricus Sextus in arce London ferro transfigitur et occiditur.” MS. Cotton. Otho, B. xiv. fol. 221, v{o}.
  3. “Et Henricus, nuper Rex, reponitur in Turrim London, et, in vigilia Ascenscionis dormiente, ibidem feliciter moriens, per Tamisiam navicula usque ad Abathiam de Cheltosye deductus, bib sepultus est.” MS. Arundel, (College of Arms) No. 5, fol. 171, v{o}.
  4. “Et in vigili ascensionis moriebatur Rex Henricus Sextus in turri Londoniarum, qui quidem sepultus erat apud Chersey, et postea translatus per Regem Ricardum usque Wynsowerem.” MS. Laud, 674. (B. 23) fol. 11, r{o}.
  5. There is a Latin prophecy (written perhaps after the fulfilment of the predicted event) in MS. Digb. 196, that King Henry the Sixth shall die a violent death.
  6. “Also upon the ascencion evyn, Kyng Henry was brought from the tower thrugh Chepe unto Powlys upon a bere, and abowte the beere more glevys and stavys than torches; who was slayne, it was said, by the Duke of Glowcetir; but howe he was deed [nobody knewe, but] thedir he was brought deed; and in the chirch the corps stode all nyght, and on the morue he was conveyed to Chertsey, where he was buryed.” MS. London Chronicle, Bibl. Cotton. Vitell. A. xvi. fol. 133, r{o}.
  7. The following is taken from a metrical history of the reign of Edward the Fourth, by John Herd, M.D., a copy of which is in MS. Cotton. Jul. C. II.

    “Interea Henricus Sextus, spoliatus avito
    Qui fuit imperio, vita spoliatur, in arce
    In Thamesis ripa vitreas que prospicit undas.
    Illum fama refert regidum jugulasse Richardum,
    Gloucestrensis erat qui dux, vir sevus et audax,
    Post cujus cœdem sic insultasse refertur;–
    ‘Masculus, en! hæres Ederdo a rege creatus,
    Tertius illius qui vixit nominis olim, Preter nos hodie respirat nemo superstes–
    Nos, Eboracensis quos gloria stirpis honorat!’
    Henrici corpus Pauli transfertur in ædem,
    Et jacet in fereto, vulgi ut videatur ocellis.
    Parvulus est vicus, Chersei nomine notus,
    In quo cœnobium sacer Erchenwalde, locabas,
    Londini fueras qui clarus episcopus olim;
    Huc delatus erat tumuloque Henricus opertus;
    Post Vindessoram tranlatus, conditur æde
    Que sacrata tibi celebratur, dive Georgi!
    Octo et ter denos Henricus præfuit annos;
    Sex etiam menses post sceptra recepta regebat;
    Vitæ annos binos et quinquaginta peregit: Everdus princeps gnatus fuit unicus illi.”–
     Fol 170 v{o} – 171 r{o}.

  8. “Eodem die [mensis Maij xxj{o}.] decessit Henricus Sextus, olim dictus Rex Anglie, apud Turrim London, et sepultus est in monasterio de Chertesey juxta Tamisiam Winton dioces’. Et sic nemo relinquitur in humanis qui ex illo stripite coronam petat.” MS. Arundel, Mus. Brit. 28, fol. 25, v{o}.

John Blakman (5), after relating an anecdote of the patience of Henry, adds– “Consimilem etiam misericordiam cum pluribus aliis ostendit, specialiter autem doubus, mortem ei intendentibus, quorum unus collo suo grave vulnus inflixit, volens excerebrasse vel decolasse eum, quod tamen Rex patientissime tulit, dicens, forsothe and forsothe, ye do fouly to smyte a kynge enoynted so;” and he afterwards proceeds to state– “Et tandem mortis ibi corporis violentiam sustinuit propter regnum, et tunc sperabatur, ab aliis pacifice possidendum.” Little did the author of the following curious song imagine that his reigning sovereign would arrive at so tragical an end–

“Now grawnt him hit so be may–
Pray we that Lord is Lord of all,
To save our Kyng, his reme ryalle,
And let never myschip uppon him falle,
Ne false traytoure him to betray.
I pray youe, seris, of your gentre,
Syng this carol reverently;
Fore hit is mad of Kyng Herre,
Gret ned fore him we han to pray!
Yif he fare wele, wele schul we be,
Or ellis we may be ful sore;
For him schul wepe mone an e,
Thus prophecies the Blynd Awdlay.”(6)

And “mone an e” doubtless did weep for the sainted Prince. The Croyland Continuator forcibly concludes his account with the following prayer: “may God grant time for repentance to the person, whoever he was, who laid his sacreligious hands on the Lord’s annointed.”

But to return from this digression. Mr. Bayley says “we have satisfactory testimony that Henry lived at least up to the twenty-fifth of May,” and he quotes the Fœdera for his authority, thereby falling into an error which Sharon Turner made, in mistaking the day of the payment of certain monies for that on which they were incurred, –an error which Dr. Lingard was the first to point out, and which takes away entirely the only seeming substantial evidence that has been brought forward to show that Henry did not die between the 21st and the 22nd of May, as stated in the following Chronicle. Fleetwood’s narrative affirms that Henry expired on the 23rd “of pure displeasure and melancholy,” and this very palpable attempt at deception proves at any rate that the popular feeling and opinion was strong enough to induce the Yorkists to attempt to throw a veil over the important circumstantial fact that would render a murder probable, viz, that Henry died the very night Edward made his triumphal entry into the metropolis. (7) Indeed, the whole of the circumstantial evidence is in favour of the murder; Edward made his triumphal entry into London on the 21st, and went into Kent with the Duke of Gloucester on the following day; on the afternoon of the 22nd, Henry’s body was brought to St. Paul’s, and there, as we are informed by four good authorities, bled afresh–

“O, gentlemen, see, see! dead Henry’s wounds
Open their congealed mouths, and bleed afresh!–
Blush, blush, thou lump of foul deformity;
For ’tis thy presence that exhales this blood
From cold and empty veins, where no blood dwells;
Thy deed, inhuman and unnatural,
Provokes this deluge most unnatural.”

William Habington (8) remarks that “the death of King Henry was acted in the darke, so that it cannot be affirmed who was the executioner, only it is probable it was a resolution of the state. The care of the king’s safety and the publicke quiet, in some sort making it, however cruell, yet necessary;” and he adds, “at what time his body lay in Saint Paul’s, and after in Blackefryers, a large quantity of blood issued from his nose–a most miraculous way of speaking of the barbarisme of his murther, and giving tyrants to understand that the dead dare in their language tell the truth, and call even their actions to account.” I make this extract for the purpose of remarking on Habington’s political reason for the murder of Henry–an argument which Hume and all subsequent historians, with the exception of Dr. Lingard, have strangely underrated. If the life of Henry was of no importance, how was it that at Ludford the leader of the Yorkists considered it expedient to report his death, and actually cause mass to be celebrated for the repose of his soul, although he knew that the King was then alive and well.(9) Neither do I consider the argument alleged by Sir James Mackintosh (10) of much weight–it is improbable that those who through so many scenes of blood had spared the Prince should at last incur the odium of destroying him. Had not the most recent of Edward’s misfortunes been owing to him? and, moreover, while the child was living, (11) so long as the heir apparent of the throne was in existence–if so, indeed, he could be called after the treaty made by his father–the life of Henry was not worth caring for in comparison with the danger of destroying him. But now the love of the people, stronger and more enthusiastic as the unfortunate Henry was overwhelmed with greater and increasing difficulties, tended towards, and, perhaps, would ultimately have accomplished, the ejection of his rival, a sovereign who was inclined to deal heavily with them, and who never could have been a general favourite.

Warkworth informs us that the Duke of Gloucester was at the Tower of London on the night of the murder of Henry. No certain evidence has transpired relative to the share that this prince had in the deed, nor is it to be expected that we could obtain any; the voice of the people attributed the direct performance of the murder to him; and his insatiable ambition, for his road was doubtless more open after Henry’s decease, afforded a fair ground for the presumption. Philip de Comines says, “if what was told me was true, after the battle was over, the Duke of Gloucester slew this poor King Henry with his own hand, or caused him to be carried to some private place, and stood by himself, while he was killed.” There must have been some reason for these rumours, and De Comines was contemporary; perhaps Goucester might have had a double purpose in the death of the king–the accomplishment of his grand aim of ambition and the service of his brother. He appears to have been detected in his aim at sovereignty, for Lewis Glyn Cothi (Works, p. 47, l. 13.) in a poem written immediately after the death of Edward, seems to have had some presentiment that Richard would succeed to the throne, for he emphatically styles him y brenin Risiart.

In perusal of the following narrative every one must be struck with the difference between the characters of the two rival princes; although, perhaps, with the enthusiasm of a staunch Lancastrian, its author has coloured the vices of the one, yet in no place has he magnified the virtues of the other. Nothing can be fairer or more sensible than the view he gives of the state of popular feeling, after the resumption of the throne by Henry,–“These were the causes, among others, which caused the people to gumble against him; and the common people said if they could have another king, he would regain all his lost possessions, and amend every corruption in the state, and bring the realm of England into prospertiy and peace; nevertheless, when King Edward reigned, the people expected all the aforesaid prosperity and peace, but it came not; but one battle after another, and much trouble and loss among the common people.” Almost every great change, expected by the people to produce great and immediate advantage to them, has failed at least in its incipient operation, and the above clearly accounts for the strong reaction in favour of Henry. Afterwards it acted as a much more powerful motive, and so deeply did the fortunes of the royal prisoner excite the general compassion of his subjects, that, after he was really deceased, no adulation was considered sufficient to sustain the well-merited reputation of his moral virtues. Of this we have a remarkable instance in the legendary life of him, written by a monk of Windsor, about the year 1500, which opens with the following hymn,(12)–

“Salve! miles preciose,
Rex Henrice generose,
Palmes vitis cellice;
In radice caritatis
Vernans flore sanctitatis,
Viteque angelice.

“Salve! flos nobilitatis,
Laus et honor dignitatis, Seu corone regie;
Pie pater orphanorum,
Vera salus populorum, Robur et ecclesie.

“Salve! forma pietatis,
Exemplar humilitatis,
Decus innocencie!
Vi oppressis vel turbatis,
Mestis atque desolatis,
Scola paciencie.

“Salve! fax superne lucis,
Per quam servi summi ducis
Illustrantur undique:
Dum virtute lucis vere,
Meruisti prefulgere
Tantis signis gratie.

“Salve! quem Rex seculorum
Choris jungens angelorum
Civem fecit patrie;
Te laudare cupientes
Fac ut semper sint fruentes
Tecum vita gloria! Amen.”

Henry the Seventh made an application to Pope Alexander the Sixth for the canonization of Henry, but his extreme penuriousness was the reason for its not being carried into effect, as he was unwilling to incur the necessary expenses.

John Lidgate’s well-known poem on the Kings of England concludes with the reign of Henry VI.; but one manuscript (13) contains an addition relating to Edward IV. which renders the entire stanzas on those two reigns worthy of insertion, because the contrast is most singular;–

“Sixt Henry brought forthe in al vertu,
By just title borne by enheritaunce,
Aforne providede by grace of Criste Jhesu,
To were ij. crownys in Ynglonde and in Fraunce;
To whom Gode hathe yove soverayne suffisaunce
Of vertuous lyfe, and chose hym for his knyghte,
Longe to rejoyse and reigne in his righte.

“Comforthe al thirsty and drynke with gladnes!
Rejoyse withe myrthe thoughe ye have nate to spende!
The tyme is come to avoyden yowre distres–
Edwarde the fourthe the olde wronges amende
Is wele disposede in wille, and to defende
His londe and peple in dede, withe kynne and myghte;
Goode lyf and longe I pray God hym sende,
And that seynte George be withe hym in his righte.”

It is evident that this latter part was written at the commencement of the reign of Edward IV.

The MS. which contains the Chronicle now printed consists of a folio volume of 225 leaves of vellum, the last being pasted to the cover, and written not long after the last mentioned event, A.D. 1473. Leland errs in saying that the MS. is in Warkworth’s handwriting, for it is evidently the work of a common scribe; we fortunately possess a note of presentation in Warkworth’s autography, and the fac-simile of this, with a specimen of the scribe’s calligraphy, will be found at the commencement of the volume. The sentence with which Warkworth opens his memoranda is curious; it is probable that he had two copies of Caxton’s Chronicle, in one of which he had written his own continuation, beginning with the words “at the coronacyone of the forseyde Edward,” and in the other, instead of making a second copy of the continuation, he simply made the reference, “as for alle thynges that folowe, referre them to my copey, in whyche is wretyn a remanente [or continuation] lyke to the foreseyd werke” [i.e. written in the same manner as Caxton’s Chronicle.] The scribe, who made the transcript of Caxton now preserved in the Peterhouse, had been directed to refer from one manuscript to the other for the continuation, and in doing so added Warkworth’s note of reference by way of introduction to the new part, joining them together by means of the words “that is to wytt that.”

The scribe of the Brute Chronicle has exchanged Caxton’s orthography for his own, as the reader may readily see by comparing the printed edition with the following conclusion:–

“And here I make ane ende of this lytelle werke as myche as I can fyde aftere the forme of the werke byfore made by Ranulpd Monke of Chestere. And where ther is ony faughte I beseche them that schal rede it to correcte it. For yf I cowede have founde moo storyes I would have sett in itt moo; but the substaunce that I can fynde and know I have schortely seett them in this boke, to the entent that suche thynges as have be done sithe deythe or ende of the same booke of Polycronycone be hade in rememberaunce and not putt in oblyvione, ne forgetynge prayenge alle them that schalle see this simple werke to pardone my symple and rude wrytynge. Endede the secunde day of Julij the xxij. yere of the regne of Kynge Edwarde the fourt, and of the incarnacyone of our Lorde M{1}. cccc. iiij. score and tweyne.
“Finysched and ended after the copey of Caxtone then in Westmynster.” Fol. 214, v{o}.
“Liber Collegii Sancti Petri in Cantebrigia, ex dono Magistri Johannis Warkeworthe, Magistri dicti Collegii, sub interminacione anathematis nullatenus a libraria ibidem alienandus.”

From the style in which this is written, there can be no doubt that it is in Warkworth’s own handwriting; and it is also evident from a comparison with several of his autographs still preserved in the library of the College.

I have been able to collect nothing relative to the personal history of Warkworth, except that he was Master of St. Peter’s College from A.D. 1473 to A.D. 1498.(14) He appears to have been a man of moderate learning and ability, although his story about the Wemere partakes strongly of superstition, and a reliance upon mere hearsay; but, in some instances, his minuteness in particulars would lead us to believe that he was intimately acquainted with the political affairs of the period.

The account which he gives of Henry’s death is certainly most singular. It would seem as if he had intended for every reader a certain assurance far from being voluntarily taken–

“Rede thise treyte it may hym move–
And may hym teche lightly with awe.”(15)

I may observe that much new matter to illustrate this period may be found in the contemporary poems of Lewis Glyn Cothi, a Welsh bard, part of whose works have been published by the Royal Cymmrodorion Institution, under the able editorship of my friend, the Rev. John Jones, M.A. (Tegid), of Christ Church, Oxford, and the Rev. W. Davies. I have made more particular reference to these spirited poems in the notes; but I take the opportunity here of pointing out to the general reader Mr. Jones’ Introductory Essay on the Wars of the Rival Roses, which would have done ample credit to a work professing far higher pretensions: I speak of it not as the result of much research, or of any difficult research whatever, but as being an admirable view of the facts of the case, discussed with great judgment and ability, and well adapted to fulfil the purpose for which it was intended.

I gladly take the opportunity of expressing my respectful and grateful thanks to the Rev. William Hodgson, D.D., Master of St. Peter’s College, and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, for the readiness with which I have been favoured with every possible facility for rendering the text of the following document as correct as the MS. will allow.

I also beg leave to return my best thanks to Charles George Young, Esq., York Herald, for the extreme kindness and liberality with which he assisted some researches I found it expedient to make in the library of the College of Arms; and to John Gough Nichols, Esq. for the communication of some valuable observations, which will be found introduced among the notes under his initials, and for the comprehensive index to the text and notes. The correctness of the printed text has been ensured by the careful collation made by Mr. Black, whose experience in these matters has rendered his assistance most valuable.

James O. Halliwell.
35, Alfred Place, Sept. 18th, 1839.


Endnotes to the Introduction


  1. Fol. Lond. 1837, p. 336, col. 2.
  2. Previously, however, to Mr. Hunter’s notice, the manuscript itself had been mentioned, but not for an historical purpose, in Mr. Hartshorne’s Book Rarities of the University of Cambridge, p. 390.
  3. Original Letters. Second Series, vol. i. p. 94.
  4. Gentleman’s Magazine, 1791, vol. 61, Pt. i. p. 222.
  5. De virtutibus et miraculis Regis Henrici, pp. 301 et 303.
  6. MS. Douce, Bib. Bodl. Oxon. No. 302, fol. 29, v{o}, a. A folio volume on vellum containing poems by John Awdlay, the blind poet, and (fol. 22, v{o}, b.) written in the Monastery of Haghmond in the year 1426. Mr. Hartshorne will use this MS. in his forthcoming Shropshire Glossary. I may refer here to four Latin verses on Henry the Sixth in MS. Bodl. 926. Laud, 670. E. 3 (Bern. 61.)
  7. The catalogue of authorities for the murder of Henry VI might be extended ad libitum, and do not show more than the popular opinion after all; it may be as well, however, to give a few references. L’art de verifier les Dates, i. 816, col. i.; Harl. Miscell. i. 313; Life of Henry the Sixth (8vo. Lond. 1712), p. 58; Grafton’s continuation of Harding’s Chronicle, Sir Henry Ellis’s edition, p. 460; “Rex Henricus occiditur clam in Turri,” MS. Tanner, Bodl. II. fol. 104, v{o} and fol. 56, r{o}; Hist. Anglie. a M. H. 1640, p. 180; Cooper’s Chronicle, p. 267; MS. Harl. 2408; Palmesii Continuatio Chron. Eusebiani, edit. 1483, fol 160, r{o};Mémoires Olivier de la Marche, sub anno 1469; Lilii Chronicon Angliæ, edit. 1565, fol. 63, r{o}; the Breviat Chronicle of the Kings of England, edit. Cant. 1553, a{o}. 1470; MS. Vinc. in Coll. Arm. 418.
  8. The Historie of Edward the Fourth. Lond. 1640, p. 104.
  9. Rot. Parl. V. 348; Owen and Blakeway’s History of Shrewsbury, vol. i. p. 229.
  10. History of England, vol. ii. p. 44.
  11. “And shortly after [his final defeat], to make that parte sure, was derpived of his lief, havinge loste also Edward his sonne the Prynce before spoken of, the hope of all his posteritie, in the Battlyle of Tewksbury.” MS. Sloan. 3479, fol. 6, v{o}. See also MS. Arundel, Mus. Brit. 28. fol. 25, v{o}. which contains the only early authority for this view of the transaction.
  12. De miraculis Henrici Sexti, libri duo. MS. Harl. 423, fol. 72, r{o}.
  13. MS. Harl. 2251, fol. 4, r{o}.
  14. In St. Peter’s College there is an original picture of Warkeworthe, executed in 1498, in a clerical habit, holding an open book with both his hands. This was formerly in the curious room called the Stone Parlour, but is now, I believe, transferred to the library. There is the following distich underneath–

    “Vives adoptata gaudeto prole; probato
    Non cuicunque libet, progenuisse licet.”

    In the ancient register of donations to the College is a list of books given to the library by Warkeworthe, and from this it appears that he presented his MS. Chronicle in the year 1483.

  15. MS. Bodl. 3692. Hyp. Bodl. 160. (226.) Tract. sep. ult. fol. 1, r{o}. A miracle play of the Burial of Christ, of the fifteenth century. I quote this MS. for the purpose of pointing out a curious miracle-play which does not appear to have been hitherto known.