language and not with its bleached bones, it must correlate and interpret the subtle transitions of function, the interplay of resources, the distribution of activities that keep a language the adequate vehicle of a nation's thought. By the traditional methods of approach-the empiric, the historical, and the genetic-you would learn when weordan formally died, and what ailed it. You would be told of its ancestry, but not a word as to its progeny.

I emphasize, therefore, the continuity of English syntax, and the necessity of a comprehensive knowledge of Modern English before this continuity can be adequately realized. The leaders in the study of English syntax have from the first been Germans. Not speaking English as their mothertongue and of course not thinking in English, they would be the first to admit themselves incapable of appreciating the niceties of Modern English syntax. Under their influence great results, it is true, have been accomplished. The study of Old English and of Middle English has been raised to the dignity of a science; but Modern English has been neglected. The syntax of Alfred is being exhaustively treated; but no one has investigated the syntax of Browning or Tennyson or Carlyle or Ruskin. So far as I know, not one monograph has been written on the syntax of any English author born since the year 1600.

The study of English syntax as a whole remains, therefore, fragmentary. The syntax of earlier periods is yet to be correlated with the syntax of later periods. Until this is done and it can be done only by those who speak English as their mother-tongue-the range and persistency of syn

1

1 Paul, Prinzipien, 3d ed., p. 28: "An der Muttersprache lässt sich daher das Wesen der Sprechthätigkeit leichter erfassen als an irgend einer anderen." But Stoffel (Studies in English, Preface, p. vii) holds that "anomalous idioms. . . . stand a better chance of being made the subject of systematic study by foreigners than by natives." True, but "anomalous idioms" constitute about as much of syntax as "Gorgons and Hydras and Chimeras dire" do of zoology.

tactical phenomena cannot be fully apprehended, and interpretation cannot be thorough-going.

In thus correlating the old with the new, it is surprising to see how little has been done even in the minutiæ of syntax. One illustration will suffice. Investigators in Old English have offered various explanations of the singular verb that is found in relative clauses after alc pāra pe, nan pāra pe, and anig para pe, meaning respectively each of those who, no one of those who, and any one of those who. They seem to see in these expressions a syntactical curio, an Old English Melchisedec "without father, without mother, without descent." Nothing could be further from the truth. The idiom may be found in the works of almost every standard writer of this century, and in newspapers and conversation it is rare that one finds the plural used instead of the singular.

Irving speaks of the alleged prejudice of Americans against Englishmen as "one of the errors which has been diligently propagated." William Dean Howells says, "He appeared to me one of the noblest creatures that ever was." Thackeray, Dickens, Emerson, and Ruskin furnish numerous illustrations; and Macaulay, purist of purists, says, "This reply [of Mr. Burke] has always struck us as one of the finest that ever was made in Parliament." It is not my purpose now to proffer a solution of the difficulty; but I contend that the solution will be reached through Modern English more easily than through Old English, because in Modern English our syntactic sense has freer play.

Not only are syntactical distinctions long-lived, not only (as in the case of weordan) do they survive the particular forms in which they originated, but they sometimes shift the

The singular is also found in Old French and Modern French (see Tobler's Vermischte Beiträge, I, p. 196), and in Gothic and Modern German (see Paul's Prinzipien, 3d ed., p. 285). Neither Tobler nor Paul cites any illustrations from Modern English; nor has anyone sought help in sentences like "He is the best man that has been here," in which, to my mind, the true solution lies.

sphere of their activity. Exorcised in one place, they take refuge in another. English and American students, for example, find it difficult to appreciate the distinction that the Germans make between du and Sie, the French between tu and vous, the Spanish between tu and Usted, and the Italians between tu and voi. It does not help matters to be told that a corresponding distinction once obtained in English between thou and you. It still seems unreasonable that anyone should have used thou to his wife and yet to his servant; that the same word that figured among the members of one's family as a term of intimacy and affection was a gross insult if applied to a stranger or an equal. Under what modern formula may we group these apparently incongruous elements?

The difficulty is removed at once by recurring to our use or omission of such titles as Miss, Mrs., and Mr. A man does not call his wife Miss Mary (or Mrs. Jenkins); he does not call his daughter Miss Alice, his housemaid Miss Jane, or his cook Miss Bridget. In these instinctive omissions we group into one category the same persons that the Germans group under du, and our forefathers grouped under thou. With outsiders and equals we use, as the case may be, the unprompted Miss or Mrs. or Mr. This again is the circle. of the German Sie and of our own former ye or you. The distinction, therefore, is not lost in Modern English. It has only shifted its territory. The syntactical feeling that dictated the proper use of thou and you to our forbears survives intact to-day. It has passed, however, from the realm of the personal pronoun to the realm of the titular prefix, and has become more social than syntactical.

In conclusion, the illustrations that have been adduced are sufficient, I trust, to show that the significance of a syntactical complex is not exhausted by tracing it back to its earliest. stage, even when the tracers sent out prove entirely successful. We must trace forward as well as backward. In the summary of a man's life and influence his children count for

fully as much as his great-grandfather. Nor is syntax a straight line. There are lateral relationships as well as lineal relationships. The clue to one phenomenon may have to be sought in another and apparently irrelevant phenomenon. There are affinities with style, there are notes of personality, there are analogies and radiations. If the investigator overlooks them, he will do so at the peril of every conclusion that he announces. His work may be exhaustive, but his results will be none the less fragmentary.

C. ALPHONSO SMITH.

V.-INFLUENCE OF THE COURT-MASQUES ON

THE DRAMA, 1608-15.

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.1

This last fact points to an interesting connection between the masques and the drama, for it establishes an a priori probability that the antic dances used in the masques would be performed again in the theatres. As Mr. Harold Littledale has shown, such a repetition of an anti-masque does undoubtedly occur in the Two Noble Kinsmen, borrowed from Beaumont's Masque of the Inner Temple and Gray's Inn, 1613. When presented at court, this anti-masque won especial praise

For proof of the statements in this paragraph, see Die Englischen Maskenspiele. Alfred Soergel. Halle, 1882.

'See The Two Noble Kinsmen, ed. Harold Littledale, New Shakspere Society. Series II, 7, 8, 15, 1876-85. Mr. Littledale was unacquainted with Dr. Soergel's investigation and gave this borrowing less prominence than it deserves in fixing the date.