the scriptural history an allegorical exposition of theological and moral doctrine. It is the object of the present book briefly to record the rise, also in the fifteenth century, of new dramatic conditions which, after existing for a while side by side with those of mediaevalism, were destined ultimately to become a substitute for these and to lead up directly to the magic stage of Shakespeare. The change to be sketched is primarily a social rather than a literary one. The drama which had already migrated from the church to the market-place, was to migrate still further, to the banqueting-hall. And having passed from the hands of the clergy to those of the folk, it was now to pass, after an interval of a thousand years, not immediately but ultimately, into those of a professional class of actors. Simultaneously it was to put off its exclusively religious character, and enter upon a new heritage of interests and methods, beneath the revivifying breath of humanism. A characteristic note of the new phase is the rise of the term _interludium_ or ‘interlude.’ This we have already come across in the title of that fragmentary _Interludium de Clerico et Puella_ which alone amongst English documents seemed to bear witness to a scanty dramatic element in the repertory of minstrelsy[524]. The primary meaning of the name is a matter of some perplexity. The learned editors of the _New English Dictionary_ define it as ‘a dramatic or mimic representation, usually of a light or humorous character, such as was commonly introduced between the acts of the long mystery-plays or moralities, or exhibited as part of an elaborate entertainment.’ Another recognized authority, Dr. Ward, says[525]: ‘It seems to have been applied to plays performed by professional actors from the time of Edward IV onwards. Its origin is doubtless to be found in the fact that such plays were occasionally performed in the intervals of banquets and entertainments, which of course would have been out of the question in the case of religious plays proper.’ I cannot say that I find either of these explanations at all satisfactory. In the first place, none of the limitations of sense which they suggest are really borne out by the history of the word. So far as its rare use in the fourteenth century goes, it is not confined to professional plays and it does not exclude religious plays. The _Interludium de Clerico et Puella_ is, no doubt, a farce, and something of the same sort appears to be in the mind of Huchown, or whoever else was the author of _Sir Gawain and the Green Knight_, when he speaks of laughter and song as a substitute for ‘enterludez’ at Christmas[526]. But on the other hand, Robert Mannyng of Brunne, at the very beginning of the century, classes ‘entyrludes’ with ‘somour games’ and other forbidden delights of the folk[527], while the Wyclifite author of the _Tretise on Miriclis_ at its close, definitely uses ‘entirlodies’