original better than the other, but to a certain extent this is inference and not proof. A third version, however, such as the Lambeth Interpolation has been shown to be, furnishes an invaluable check. Any incident common to any two of the three versions, Gaimar, the Lay and the Interpolation, may now be regarded with almost certainty as belonging to the lost French romance. It is possible, therefore, to reconstruct with considerable accuracy the form of the story that served as a source for these three writers. With the existence established of this lost French form of the romance, the question may be asked, Was it not also the source of the English Havelok? It was certainly more likely to be so than either Gaimar or the Lay, and its existence is a strong opposing argument to any attempt to derive the English romance in whole or in part from the extant French versions. But it seems extremely improbable that this lost French version could have been the source of the English. For this there are numerous and significant reasons, among which may be mentioned the complete dissimilarity of names, the fact that the English has no mention whatever of Arthur, the great variation in even the more important incidents, the difference in tone, the fact that the English appears to be closer to tradition, and the lack of convincing evidence to show that the English is a translation. from the French. Against these arguments can be alleged 'The tradition that the English version is derived from the Lay goes back to Madden, but even Madden seems to admit the possibility that an earlier form of the story was used as a source by both the Lay and the English romance.-Madden, p. viii. Ward (Catalogue of Romances, p. 440) says the English romance represents a popular development of the legend, but that its writer must have been acquainted with the Lay. This last statement is made neeessary by Ward's unsatisfactory attempt to prove that the Lay is nothing but an expansion of Gaimar. See also ten Brink, History of English Literature, to Wyclif, translated by Kennedy, New York, 1883, pp. 150, 181, 232-234; Kupferschmidt, Romanische Studien, Vol. IV, 430; Gaston Paris, Romania, IX, 480; Körting, Grundriss der Geschichte der Eng. Lit., 2nd edition, pp. 98-99; Wohlfeil, The Lay of Havelok the Dane, a dissertation, Leipsic, 1890, p. 12. the general presumption that every Middle English romance was translated from the French, a presumption which does not hold for Horn1 and which lacks proof in the case of Havelok. It seems likely, therefore, that the lost French version and the English romance both go back to an earlier source or sources. Into the question, however, of the original form of the story, it is not the function of the present investigation to go. Before plunging into theory it is well to make sure of what firm ground is within reach. In confirming the existence of the lost French version of Havelok and in determining the probable form of its story, one step, at least, seems to have been taken in the direction of explaining the development of the romance. Toward this step the hitherto neglected Lambeth Interpolation has rendered material aid. Child, Ballads, Vol. 1, 187; Ward, Catalogue of Romances, Vol. 1, pp. 447-467. II. LA VIE DE SAINTE CATHERINE D'ALEXANDRIE, AS CONTAINED IN THE PARIS MANUSCRIPT La Clayette. 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, 1" 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. 1 NOTE.-Insertions by the editor are enclosed in brackets; suppressions are enclosed in marks of parenthesis. Manuscript Readings.-3 Li] Le Qu'an la fin bien ne l'en reponde. Et de latin en romanz traire, A mon talent puisse a chief traire. 23 l'a] lai a Encienement ot a Rome Un emperiere moult preudome 62 il] i 40 Preuz et hardiz et de cuer fins. Filz fu l'empereur Coutant Qui sainte Yglise ama tant C'onques, tant comme il tint la terre, Ne sort a Cretienté guerre. 45 Mes il l'estut venir en France Qu'i l'amendast moult volentiers. Donnoit assez or et argent Por fere les Cretiens prendre |