Of the several abridgments of the Havelok story in the chronicles of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, that which is interpolated in the Lambeth ms. of Robert Mannyng of Brunne's translation of Peter de Langtoft, is the longest and in many respects the most noteworthy. It has, however, not received the attention it merits. Madden attributes it to the scribe, who, he says, has made other changes in the ms. He describes it as “an abridged outline of the story itself, copied apparently from the French chronicle of Gaimar,” but presents no arguments to support his contention. Skeat simply copies Madden. Kupferschmidt, in his extremely valuable discussion of the relations of the various versions of Havelok one to another, accepts without investigation Madden's statement that the Interpolation is based on Gaimar. In view of the great interest attaching to the romance of Havelok a more careful investigation of this Interpolation may be of some service.

The literary history of the legend of St. Catherine of Alexandria, although it has already been more or less elaborately studied in various quarters, notably in the Geschichte der heiligen Katharina von Alexandrien of the late Hermann Knust (Halle, 1890), still awaits the accurate and thoroughgoing treatment it deserves. My attention was called to the hitherto unpublished version which follows, by the account given of it by M. Paul Meyer, in the Notices et Extraits des mss. de la Bibliothèque Nationale, tome 33, 1re partie (Paris, 1888), in his study Sur deux anciens manuscrits français ayant appartenu au marquis de la Clayette (tirage à part, pp. 61-64). Several years ago I made a copy of this unique version in the National Library at Paris. Having since been unable to control the widely scattered material essential to a proper discussion of the problems involved in the St. Catherine legend, I have decided to publish, without further delay, the text of the Clayette version, offering it to scholars for further utilization, as a not uninteresting literary and linguistic document.

Whatever our definition of philology may be, whether we limit the term in accordance with the prevailing English acceptation of the word to the study of language, or regard, with Boeckh, as its proper object the study of the whole range of human culture, of all the products of the human mind, we probably all agree that the chief task of philology is to record and to explain, not to prophesy or to legislate. In this sense the function of the philologist is distinct from that of the grammarian, the rhetorician, and the literary critic. It must indeed be admitted that these different functions have often been confused, that they have often been exercised by the same person and that in fact the work of the philologist has to some extent been the outgrowth of that of the practical teacher of language. The work of Jacob Grimm was preceded by that of a long line of men whose primary aim was to purify, regulate, and in general improve the German language, though incidentally they became interested in its history and began to investigate the origin of its living forms. The history of our science differs not in this respect from that of other sciences; mathematics and astronomy are distinct from surveying and navigation, and botany from horticulture, though the first astronomer was probably a sailor and the first botanist a gardener.

I am well aware that the expression interpretative syntax has not the prestige of previous usage. Indeed no one at all familiar with the modern trend of syntactical studies could say that they serve in the slightest degree as aids in the interpretation of literature. It seems to be assumed that syntax has nothing to do with literary criticism or with stylistic effects. And as the study of English syntax is now conducted, one can hardly imagine two persons more alien in their aims and methods than the literary critic and the writer on syntax.

During the reign of James I., court-masques attained a great importance both as splendid spectacles and in the literature of the time. They were very numerous, were produced at great expense, and engaged the services of the best poets of the day. Usually performed at a marriage, or on some festival like those of the Christmas season, they consisted primarily of two parts, (1) the dramatic dialogue usually setting forth some allegorical or mythological device which formed the basis of an impressive spectacle, and (2) the dances interspersed with songs and accompanied by music. These dances were performed by ladies and gallants of the highest court circles, the queen often participating. In addition to these elements, about the year 1608 a third appeared, the anti-masque, consisting of grotesque dances by ‘antick’ personages. These comic anti-masques at once became exceedingly popular and played no small part in the entertainments. The antic dancers were almost always actors from the public theatres.