Thank you. The dialect certainly looks rather late to me ("lyth/myth" for "lyght/myght" for example), but I didn't think it was as late as early 16th century, the date of the manuscript. Thanks also to David Klausner for the information on the manuscript date.
Alan B.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: REED-L: Records of Early English Drama Discussion
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Jennifer
> Roberts-Smith
> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 6:54 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: dating the Digby plays
>
>
> Baker, Murphy & Hall say that the dialect is possibly end of
> the fifteenth
> century, so a little earlier than the copy, if they're right.
> This ref. is
> on p. xxxii of their introduction.
> Jennifer
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: REED-L: Records of Early English Drama Discussion
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David N. Klausner
> Sent: June 9, 2004 8:44 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: dating the Digby plays
>
> Digby 133 is a composite manuscript, with several parts
> dating from the seventeenth century; the watermarks in the
> paper on which Mary Mag. is written would support a date of
> around 1520, give or take half a decade or so. This date is
> also supported by the hand, which is transitional Anglicana
> > Secretary. You have to keep in mind, of course, that the
> date of the manuscript and the date of the composition of
> the play may be significantly different!
> --
> David N. Klausner, Professor of English and Medieval Studies
> Director, Centre for Medieval Studies, University of Toronto
> voice: 416-978-5422 fax: 416-971-1398
>
> "Of all noises, I think music is the least disagreeable."
> Samuel Johnson
>
