The unique quarto to which this title has been given was printed at London for Thomas Cadman in 1585. It crossed the Atlantic as part of the Rowfant Library, and was for some time offered for sale in New York, until Mr. A. W. Pollard, on his recent visit to this country, bought it for the British Museum. It has been privately printed in England, with an introduction by Mr. Pollard, to whom I am indebted for many courtesies, but otherwise it has not been published since the original issue of 1585. It is, unfortunately, imperfect, lacking sig. A (title page and three other leaves) and beginning on B1 with the latter part of a sentence. Apart altogether from its rarity, it has features of considerable interest, but before entering upon questions of authorship and interpretation, it will be well to put the reader in possession of the text. Only obvious errors have been corrected, and in these cases the original readings are given in footnotes. I have numbered the lines of the comedy for reference.

Revewers hav not accuratly appraisd my Etimology ov the Romance Words for To Go. Inasmuch as the article appeard in 1904 and contributions to the subject seem rather scarce nowadays, I propose to take up the subject again.

I will express no opinion ov Horning's essay. He merely refers to a detail ov my article in a foot-note. Elise Richter has lately written ov “the solution ov the andare problem, which Horning sturdily attacks and which he has eminently advanst.” Just how, she does not say. But we used to hear ov la question ambulare, point-blank; so somhow a little ground is being gaind, whoever gets the credit. Schuchardt seems to abandon his monogenetic scheme by admitting that his tipe ambitare may be connected with ambire rather than with ambulare.

Butler's Hudibras has been edited many times, and much erudition has been shown in explaining the wit of that remarkable burlesque. Yet, curiously enough, the most obvious method of annotation has hitherto been entirely overlooked. This would have been to utilize the abundant material bequeathed to us by Butler himself in the form of prose “ characters,” which were published only after his death—material that throws a most interesting light upon the poet's method, and at the same time clears up many obscurities in the mock-epic. These “characters” were written between 1667 and 1669—five or six years after the appearance of the first part of Hudibras, but were not collected and published till 1759. Even then, only 121 out of 187 were printed in Thyer's edition of The Genuine Remains in Prose and Verse of Mr. Samuel Butler. The remaining 60 have lain undisturbed in the British Museum as “Addition No. 32625–6,” till the industry of a modern scholar has at last unearthed and published them. The whole collection conforms closely to the fashion of writing “characters” that was prevalent all through the seventeenth century. The character-sketch, or “ character ” as it came to be called in that age, was a short account, usually in prose, of the properties, qualities, or peculiarities, that serve to individualize a type. And such these of Butler are.

In the Macro play of Mankind the central motive is the tilling of a piece of ground “To eschew ydulness,” a motive, as Dr. Brandl points out, foreign to all the other morality plays. According to him it is introduced from the “Ackerfeld motive” of Lydgate's Assembly of the Gods. “Für die Quellenfrage sind die Uebereinstimmungen zwischen ‘Mankind’ und Lydgate's ‘Assembly of Gods’ wichtig. Auch in dieser allegorischen Erzählung ist der Mensch (Freewill) auf einem Felde (Mikrokosmos) gedacht. Virtue eilt dahin um Gnade zu predigen. Aber auch Vice stellt sich ein und schickt zunächst drei Gesellen (Temptation, Folly, Sensuality) voraus, von denen einer das Feld mit Unkraut besät (nach Matthäus 13, 24 ff.). In Folge dessen muss in der Schlacht um den Menschen Virtue zurückweichen, Freewill neigt sich zu Vice und wird nur dadurch gerettet, dass Virtue verstärkt zurückkehrt, worauf er mit Gewissen, Vice aber mit Verzweiflung zusammenkommt (Triggs' Ausgabe, S. 28-34).”

In 1907 M. Pierre Champion announced his discovery that the manuscript fr. 25248 in the Bibliothèque Nationale, consisting chiefly of poems by Charles d'Orléans, was to a great extent autograph, and where not autograph, was revised under the personal care of the poet. Important as is this discovery for the knowledge of fifteenth century French literature, there is one feature of the manuscript which may lead us, if the slender clues are followed, to an identification of a new English poet of the courtly school.

On page 346 of the ms . M. Champion finds, in the Duke's autograph, two roundels in English On pages 310–313, in an interpolated quire not originally part of the volume, are six roundels and a ballade in English. This quire contains no piece in the Duke's hand; but two pieces at the beginning of the quire are by him, and written in the hand of the earliest scribe of the volume.

This article will deal only with the phonology of the problem. By a careful study of the Spanish and French forms I hope to establish the correct etymologies of the important forms and to show that we must suppose for Vulgar Latin a form metīpsimus by the side of As I have said in my Studies in New Mexican Spanish, the majority of the explanations previously given for the various forms in Spanish and French, are curious rather than scientific. Gaston Paris (Extraits de la Chanson de Roland, § 18), Cornu (Rom. xiii, 289) and Menéndez Pidal (Gram. Hist., § 66), however, seem to have come to believe in a long vowel for some of the forms and rightly so. As to the numerous attempts made by others, it is only necessary to say, that in so far as the Spanish and French forms are concerned, every explanation which the writer has seen is either a traditional error or a new one. Such explanations as those of Baist (Grundriss, i, 887, and Krit. Jahrsb., i, 534), Cejad or (La Leng. de Cervantes, i, 739), Cuervo (Apuntaciones, § 777), Ford (Don Quixote, 93), Pieri (ZRPh., xxvii, 584) and others for the Spanish forms, and of Mussafia (Rom., xxviii, 112), Etzrodt (Rom. Forseh., xxvii, 878), Harseim (Boehmer Stud., iv, 287) and others for the French forms have little or no basis in fact and I need not refute them here.

The present study originated in a suggestion of Monsieur Marius Sepet, of Paris. In his famous monograph, Les Prophètes du Christ, in describing the so-called Festum Asinorum of Rouen, M. Sepet contributes the following note:

It probably does not often happen that a worker in Latin and Greek addresses a body of workers in the modern languages, or the converse. But there is nothing unnatural in such a proceeding, and it ought indeed to be a common thing. We of the classics and you of the modern languages have the same convictions to maintain in the scheme of education,—first the conviction of the charm and civilizing power of great literature, and, second, the conviction of the interest and educational efficiency of literary-historical and linguistic science. The difference between us is purely one of chronology. We proceed by identical methods. We cultivate the same great field, and our respective holdings in that field overlap. We are natural friends, if either party has a friend. Our interests, in their large and final bearings, are identical. Classical studies cannot really flourish in a university in which they are looked upon with hostility 'by the teachers of modern languages. But neither will the study of modern languages, beyond the strictly vocational ideal, flourish permanently in any atmosphere in which, for any reason, classical studies are asphyxiated.