Thanks for the reply, Cliff.  My sense of the matter is that there is an increasing degree of skepticism that all of these works must be attributed to a single individual.  They might point to a convergence of metrical, stylistic, lexical, structural, and thematic traits produced by several hands.  I think I'm just going to caution my colleague and advise him to use the old dodge:  "a play often attributed to the so-called 'York Realist'."
From: REED-L: Records of Early English Drama Discussion [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Clifford O Davidson [clifford.davidson@WMICHU]
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 2:39 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: York Master?


It is a problem that has been considered by Paul Johnston in his contribution to my TEAMS edition of the York plays. His results are tentative, and he hopes eventually to do a book on the topic. I personally after editing the plays suspect a number of hands involved rather than a single "York Master," but I don't have the linguistic expertise that Paul has.


----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stephen K Wright" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 4:27:19 PM
> Subject: York Master?
> Dear Reedlers:
> I would like to know more about the current state of thinking about
> the existence of the so-called "York Master"?  I know that Richard
> Beadle felt that a reconsideration was in order, but I am not sure
> as to what the current state of the discussion is.  Could someone
> point me to the latest literature on the topic?
> Thanks in advance,
> Steve Wright
> Dept of English / CUA
> Washington, DC 2006