Part 10

The writer professes his belief that the author was Francis Bacon, and advances a claim of parallel thoughts, etc., between the plays and the _Advancement of Learning_ in support of his opinion.

236 HAT FRANCIS BACON DIE DRAMEN WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE’S GESCHRIEBEN? Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der geistigen Verirrungen. Von Dr. EDUARD ENGEL, Leipzig, 1883. (DID FRANCIS BACON WRITE WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS? A contribution to the history of Intellectual Errors.) Pamphlet, pp. 43.

_Pro-Sh._

Dr. ENGEL takes for his text Mrs. Pott’s _Promus_, and this pamphlet is in answer to that work, and to the favorable notice of it appearing in the _Allgemeine Zeitung_ (see titles 205 and 206), which he ascribes to ‘Herr V.’ He strongly opposes all anti-Shakespearian theories.

“It would be deplorable, and would contradict all the history of the world’s literature, if Lord Bacon had written Shakespeare’s plays. It would be deplorable--and this decides the matter--because it would then be shown, for the first time in the history of mankind, that a poetical genius of the highest sublimity, and a character of the lowest baseness, could exist in one and the same man.”

Dr. Engel closes his essay with a quotation from Herder:

“I have in my mind an immense figure of a man, sitting high on a rocky summit; at his feet, storm, tempest, and the raging of the sea; but his head in the beams of heaven. This is Shakespeare. Only, with this addition, that far below, at the foot of his rocky throne, are murmuring crowds, who expound, preserve, condemn, defend, worship, slander, over-rate, and abuse him--and of all this he hears nothing.”

237 BACON AND SHAKESPEARE. In _Shakespeariana_, in the _Literary World_, Boston, June 2, 1883.

_Pro-Sh._

The editor introduces in this article an extract from a letter received by Mr. JOSEPH CROSBY from “one of the most learned and philosophical of living Shakespearian critics.” The writer of the letter [Dr. INGLEBY, of England] says, after expressing his dissent from the opinions of those who believe that it is immaterial whether the plays were written by Shakespeare or Bacon:

“And I cannot without concern witness the crazy efforts of these would-be critics to separate what history has joined together, and to make over the better half of Shakespeare’s fame to a man, not only immeasurably his inferior, but of a totally different order of mind. * * * I have read, studied, and written upon Francis Bacon, and seem to myself to know the man well; as well as I know Shakespeare, through his works. I do not hesitate to say that Bacon’s strength lay in his Analysis: he was a most acute and sagacious critic of the past, and moreover knew the needs of man, and in what direction those needs could be met, and to some extent satisfied. But this made him a tremendous Apollyon--a destructive force of the greatest, the most momentous character. He succeeded as a destroyer, but when he attempted to construct, he made a conspicuous failure. * * * Such a man write Shakespeare! It is really not worth five minutes’ discussion.”

238 ABOUT SHAKESPEARE. By JOSEPH A. WOODHULL. In the _Republican_, Angola, Ind., June 27, 1883. 1½ columns.

_Pro-Sh._

239 A BIT OF THE BACONIAN THEORY. A letter from CONSTANCE M. POTT. [Mrs. HENRY POTT.] In the _Pioneer Press_, St. Paul, Minn., July 15, 1883. 1 column.

_Anti-Sh._

This letter is mainly a description of St. Albans, the residence of Lord Bacon, with its historical associations and its objects of archæological interest, as compared with Stratford-on-Avon, and what R. Grant White calls its “museum of doubtful relics and gimcracks.”

240 WILLIAM DONE FOR. By JOHN W. BELL. In the _Commercial Gazette_, July 21, 1883. ½ column.

_Anti-Sh._

An answer to Mr. Hooper’s article (title 229) in same paper.

241 Mr. O’CONNOR’S LETTER. In BUCKE’S life of _Walt Whitman_. Philadelphia, August, 1883. (See pages 88 to 93.)

_Anti-Sh._

This is an introductory letter by William D. O’Connor to his _Good Grey Poet_, printed in the appendix to the above work.

“The main scope and purpose of the Shakespeare drama are definitely given by Lord Bacon in connection with his assertion that the compilation of the natural history of the human passions is the first duty of philosophy, and that it is particularly the province of poetry. In this connection he describes the Shakespearean work perfectly. Therein, he says, ‘we may find painted forth, with great life, how passions are kindled and incited; how pacified and refrained; and how again contained from act and further degree; how they disclose themselves; how they work; how they vary; how they gather and fortify; how they are inwrapped, one within another; and how they do fight and encounter one with another; and other the like particulars.’ ‘That is to say,’ remarks Dr. Kuno Fischer, quoting this passage: ‘Bacon desires nothing less than a natural history of the passions; _the very thing_ that Shakespeare has produced.’

* * * * *

“The only supreme tyrant is ignorance. If I sought to express the Shakespeare drama in the image of a person, I would not choose the eidolon of any feudal emperor. My choice would be a man like Francis Bacon, * * * wise with all the lore of all the ages, the companion and counsellor of princes, the familiar of gypsies, and tinkers, and sailors as well; deep-eyed, with long insight into the minds of men of every degree; master of multiform experiences; traveled, elegant, courtly, august, intrepid, loyal, gentle, compassionate, sorrowful, beautiful; clothed, from fondness for sumptuous apparel, in purple three-piled velvet, rich laces, and the hat with plumes, yet loving--another anecdote tells of him--to ride with bared head, in the warm and perfumed rains of spring, that he might feel upon him, he said, the universal spirit of the world.”

242 A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE EXHUMATION QUESTION. By Dr. C. M. INGLEBY. In _Shakespeare’s Bones_. London: Trübner & Co., 1883. 4to. pp. 48.

_Unc._

This Bibliography is appended to Dr. INGLEBY’S book, and is pertinent to this question only in its references to an exhumation as likely to set at rest the theories (Miss Bacon’s, for instance) as to documents being deposited in the tomb of Shakespeare.

243 THE SONNETS OF SHAKESPEARE. WHEN, TO WHOM, AND BY WHOM WRITTEN. By ANTIQUARY. (Reprinted from the _Truth Seeker_, New York, of August 18, 1883.) Pamphlet, 12mo. pp. 12.

_Anti-Sh._

The author gives the dedication of the Sonnets:

“To the onlie begetter of | these insuing Sonnets | Mr. W. H. all happinesse | and that eternitie | promised by | our ever-living poet | wisheth | the well-wishing | adventurer in | setting forth | T. T.”

The American Cyclopedia says:

“To whom they were written, and in whose person [T. T.] is among the most difficult of unsolved literary problems. * * * Who this ‘onlie begetter’ was, no man has yet been able satisfactorily to show.”

The writer discusses the various theories on this subject. His conclusions may be summed up in the following extract:

“All the internal and external evidence points to the year 1590 as the date, Francis Bacon as the writer, and the Earl of Essex as the person addressed.”

244 MR. MORGAN AND SHAKESPEARE. In the _Pioneer Press_, St. Paul, August 19, 1883, introducing a letter from Appleton Morgan. 1½ columns.

_Anti-Sh._

This refers mainly to Fleay’s Shakespeare Manual, which (Mr. Morgan claims) proves that “many hands and many brains were concerned in composing the works we call Shakespeare.”

245 THE GOUT CLUB DISCUSSES THE AUTHORSHIP OF SHAKESPEARE. In the _Tribune_, Denver, Col., October 14, 1883. 3 columns.

_Unc._

What is here called the Gout Club of Denver, consists of a few congenial spirits who meet socially and discuss various subjects in an informal way. In this article various gentlemen are credited with opinions and speeches on the question. The colloquists consist of Col. Ward H. Lamon, Col. J. B. Belford, Judge Ward, Col. Craig, Major Carson, Col. Dormer, and Judge Steck.

Reference is made in this discussion to an article, _Who Wrote Shakespeare’s Henry VIII?_ by J. S. [JAMES SPEDDING], in the _Gentleman’s Magazine_ for August, 1850, as the earliest mention of a doubt as to the authorship. (The date is erroneously given as February, 1852.) That article, however, does not raise the general question of the authorship, but simply claims to discover the hand of Fletcher in a portion of this play, as a co-worker with Shakespeare.

246 THE OFFER TO THE NEW SHAKESPERE SOCIETY. In the _Academy_, London, November 24, 1883.

_Unc._

The “curiosities” of this literature would be incomplete without the following:

“Mr. Furnivall, as director of the New Shakespere Society, has received an amusing letter from New South Wales. A gentleman there has, after seven years’ search, discovered, not only the well-known historical character who wrote all Shakespeare’s plays and poems, but the very month and spot in which eleven of the plays were written, and the probable date and locality in which the rest were composed, the author’s object in writing them, and the historical characters and events meant by the dramatic ones; further, that one character was interpolated, and one entire play was written by the author after Shakespeare’s death. This antipodean discoverer can also now date and explain all the Sonnets except four (123, 124, 144, 146), and those ‘will be explained on a future occasion.’ He knows who ‘Mr. W. H.,’ the begetter of the Sonnets, was, and all the persons to whom they were addressed; and he can show that our royal family is descended from Perdita. So certain is the researcher of the value of his discoveries that he offers to come to London and unfold his secrets to the New Shakespere Society, if only they will guarantee him the payment of £30,000 in case he can convince the majority of them of the truth of his discoveries. A letter from the Premier of New South Wales attests the high standing and sanity of the discoverer.”

247 NOTES ON JULIUS CÆSAR. By WM. J. ROLFE. In _Shakespeariana_ (the new Shakespearian monthly. New York: Leonard Scott Publishing Co.), for December, 1883.

_Pro-Sh._

A part only of the article refers to this subject:

“The closeness with which the dramatist follows Plutarch in Julius Cæsar and the other Roman plays has been noted by the commentators generally. * * * Even the blunders of Plutarch, or of his copyists or editors (as _Decius Brutus_ for _Decimus Brutus_, _Calphurnia_ for _Calpurnia_, and the like), are literally reproduced in the play. To my mind this is proof positive that Bacon did not write it. He was too good a scholar to follow blindly the translation of a translation, repeating errors which a scholar would neither make himself nor fail to detect in another; and he was too independent to adopt the views of any one authority without comparing them with others that were equally well known to him.”

248 LAWYER OR NO LAWYER. Letter from APPLETON MORGAN. In _Shakespeariana_, New York, for January, 1884.

_Anti-Sh._

Mr. Morgan argues from the “grave-digger travesty” in _Hamlet_, and the trial scene in the _Merchant of Venice_, that “William Shakespeare was neither a lawyer nor a lawyer’s clerk.”

“It is wicked to peep and botanize over the magnificent and matchless poetry of that matchless trial scene. But if it is worth while to find out who wrote that magnificent and matchless poetry, these questions ought not to be stifled.”

249 DID SHAKESPEARE WRITE SHAKESPEARE? By Prof. J. H. GILMORE. In the _Standard_, Chicago, January 31, 1884. 2 columns.

_Pro-Sh._

“The plays do not evince _learning_, but _genius_. They are especially deficient in that refinement which springs from thorough culture, and which Bacon pre-eminently possessed. Indeed, as insisted by Dowden, the whole habit and spirit of Bacon’s mind and the mind of Shakespeare were different.”

The comparison of Shakespeare and Bacon alluded to above will be found in DOWDEN’S _Shakespeare: His Mind and Art_, pages 16, 17.

250 “WHO WAS HOLOFERNES?” By Mrs. HENRY POTT. In _Shakespeariana_, New York, for February, 1884. 2 pages.

_Anti-Sh._

This was occasioned by an article of Mr. Henry Hooper’s, in _Shakespeariana_, for December, 1883, under the same title, intimating that Shakespeare had Lord Bacon in his mind as the model for _Holofernes_, the pedantic schoolmaster in _Love’s Labor Lost_. Mrs. Pott believes that the character of _Holofernes_ was drawn by Bacon himself as an example of “pedantic and wordy affectations,” and quotes from his works to sustain her opinion.

251 THE LAW IN SHAKESPEARE. By C. K. DAVIS. St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1884. 12mo. pp. 303.

_Pro-Sh._

An index of Legal Terms and References in the plays, with an introduction (pages 3-59) devoted to the Baconian theory in part.

“And now comes some one and says that here is more proof that Shakespeare is a mere _alias_ for Bacon. It is difficult to touch or let alone this vagary with any patience. One is inclined to protest simply in the words of Shakespeare’s epitaph:

Good frend for Iesvs sake forbeare To digg the dust encloased heare,

and pass on, deeming all secure against a desecration worse than that which the poet cursed.

* * * * *

“Charles I. was sixteen years of age when Shakespeare died. Bacon dedicated to him his history of Henry VII. Shakespeare in Macbeth nobly magnified the House of Stuart by a prophecy of its perpetuity. The works of Shakespeare were the closet companion of Charles, who was reproached for this by Milton, at a time when the fierce zealots of rebellion had come to look upon the drama as sinful. Falkland was Charles’s councilor, and it is from him that we have respecting Caliban, the first critical estimate extant of any character in Shakespeare. And yet from prince, king, courtier, poet, or scholar, we hear no hint which can give this modern theory the slightest support.”

252 DAVIS’S “THE LAW IN SHAKESPEARE.” Two articles in the _Pioneer Press_, St. Paul, February 24, 1884. [By APPLETON MORGAN].

_a_--Review of the book. 2½ columns.

_b_--Gov. Davis on Shakespeare. ½ column.

_Anti-Sh._

The following is the conclusion of the last named article:

“Gov. Davis has added a notable contribution to the material accumulating to answer this question, if answered it ever is to be. The Baconians will, perhaps, accuse him of unprofessional conduct in moving to cross off the roll of Shakespearean possibilities the name of a great lawyer and Lord Chancellor. But they will find their consolation in the fact that here is an entirely new arsenal for carrying on their warfare. For nobody has ever so unmistakably shown the lawyer in the plays before. In fact, Gov. Davis will thus find his peace all around. Shakespeareans will purr him for his heavy blows at the Baconians; Baconians will secretly approve him for building better than he knew when he traced an aristocratic lawyer in every Shakespearean line; and the neutral student will add the book to his Shakespeariana, among the fresh rather than the stale matter, with pleasure and thanksgiving. No Minnesotian will fail to feel honored that one of our most distinguished fellow-citizens has, for the first time, drawn from the history of Francis Bacon, if not from that of William Shakespeare, an almost insuperable and insurmountable reason why Francis Bacon, at least, could not have been William Himself.”

253 THE BACONIAN THEORY. Review of the _Promus_, in the _Times_, New York, Feb. 25, 1884. 1 column.

_Pro-Sh._

“In publishing this _Promus_, Mrs. Pott has not only failed to prove that Bacon wrote Shakespeare’s plays, but she has gone a long way toward proving that Bacon could not possibly have written them. It is inconceivable that a poet in keeping a note book of phrases, etc., to be used in his finished work, should not frequently write out in the glow of creation, whole passages, or, at least, consecutive lines of verse, to be afterward incorporated in his poem. Let any one compare, for instance, Hawthorne’s note book with his tales and romances. He will find entire pages transferred almost bodily from the former into the latter. He will find scores of metaphors, similes, reflections, outlines for stories, descriptions, incidents, etc., the language of which is reproduced, in great part literally, in the completed works of the romancer. There is no such resemblance to be detected anywhere between the fragmentary jottings in the _Promus_ and the text of Shakespeare’s plays. On the other hand, there are in the _Promus_ numbers of quotations and sentences which Bacon did use in his acknowledged writings, and in such cases the language is almost always identical, and any one familiar with the Essays, _e. g._ will recognize the source of many sayings that have struck his mind.”

254 SHAKESPEARE AS A FOREIGN LINGUIST. By Prof. JAMES A. HARRISON. In _Shakespeariana_, New York, for March, 1884.

_Pro-Sh._

This paper merely refers to the authorship in this suggestive question:

“If Bacon had been the author of these plays, would he not have strewn them with innumerable Latinisms?”

255 WHOSE SONNETS? By APPLETON MORGAN. In the _Manhattan_, New York, May, 1884. 8 pages.

_Anti-Sh._

“Either these Sonnets are those mentioned as circulating among Shakespeare’s private friends prior to 1598, or they are not. If they are, they are as doubtfully his as is the rest of the literary matter given by Meres, so far as we know. If they are not, then they have no claim to be called Shakespeare’s except from the fact that his name was put on the title pages of three books of verses, among which verses they appeared.”

INDEX TO TITLES.

In this index is included, not only the writers, but others who are mentioned as having expressed opinions. Where initials or assumed names are used, and the name of the writer is not known, the articles are indexed only to the magazine or other serial in which they appeared. References are to Title numbers, not pages.

ABBOTT, Dr. EDWIN A., 187.

_Academy_, London, 246.

ADEE, ALVEY A., 199, 203, 209, 215, 225.

ADEE, DAVID GRAHAM, 148, 149.

_Advance_, Chicago, 49.

_Advertiser_, Boston, 189.

AINSLIE, TH., 65.

ALLEN, T. S., 177.

_Allgemeine Zeitung_, Stuttgart, 205, 206.

ALLIBONE, S. AUSTIN, 104.

_American_, Philadelphia, 151.

_American Register_, Paris, 108.

_Appletons’ Journal_, N. Y., 114, 116.

_Argus and Radical_, Beaver, Pa., 54.

_Argus_, Melbourne, 144.

_Athenæum_, London, 5, 8, 14, 16, 18, 22, 46, 196.

ATKINSON, HENRY G., 120, 123, 166, 176, 181, 183, 186.

_Atlantic Monthly_, Boston, 27, 217.

BACON, Miss DELIA, 4, 17.

BEECHER, HENRY WARD, 70.

BELFORD, J. B., 245.

BELL, JOHN W., 155, 178, 240.

_Bell’s Weekly Messenger_, London, 117.

BENTON, MYRON B., 116.

_Bibliographer_, London, 182.

_Bibliopolist (American)_, N. Y., 57.

_Blackwood’s Magazine_, Edinburgh, 11.

_Blade_, Toledo, O., 155.

BOHN, HENRY G., 28.

_Boston Public Library Bulletin_, 216.

BOUCICAULT, DION, 61.

BRADFORD, Rev. A. B., 54.

BRADY, JAMES T., 62.

BRALEY, A. B., 233.

_British Quarterly Review_, London, 174.

BROUGHAM, JOHN, 62.

BUCCELLATI, Prof. ANTONIO, 94.

BUCKTON, T. J., 26.

_Bulletin_, Philadelphia, 64.

BULLOCH, JOHN, 105, 106.

BURGESS, J. B., 65.

BURK, ADDISON B., 68.

BURTON, WILLIAM E., 62.

BUTLER, Gen. B. F., 95.

CALDWELL, GEORGE S., 98.

CALKINS, E. A., 214.

_Canadian Monthly_, Toronto, 119.

CARLYLE, THOMAS, 73, 131.

CARSON, Major, 245.

CARVALHO, S. N., 77.

_Catholic World_, New York, 101.

CATTELL, CHARLES C., 103, 112, 113, 123, 130.

_Chambers’s Edinburgh Journal_, 2.

_Christian Observer_, Richmond, 45.

_Christian Register_, Boston, 88.

_Chronicle_, Brookline, Mass., 171.

_Chronicle_, Newcastle, Eng., 92.

_Chronicle_, San Francisco, 165, 179.

_Church Eclectic_, Utica, N. Y., 126, 232.

_Civil Service Review_, 90.

CLARKE, Rev. J. FREEMAN, 132.

_Clipper_, New York, 51.

CLOSE, RICHARD COLAMA, 127.

COLQUHOUN, Sir PATRICK, 117.

_Commercial Gazette_, Cincinnati, 229, 234, 240.

_Commonwealth_, Boston, 218.

CONWAY, MONCURE D., 131, 234.

_Cornell Review_, Ithaca, N. Y., 87.

CORSON, Prof. HIRAM, 71, 87.

_Courant_, Hartford, Conn., 197.

_Courier_, Lebanon, Pa., 70.

CRAIG, Col., 245.

CROSBY, JOSEPH, 81, 126, 129, 231.

DAVEY, R., 63.

DAVIS, C. K., 251.

DAVIS, L. CLARKE, 71.

DIXON, WILLIAM HEPWORTH, 93.

DONNELLY, IGNATIUS, 53.

DORMER, Col., 245.

DOUGHERTY, DANIEL, 65.

_Eagle_, Brooklyn, 34, 61.

ENGEL, Dr. EDUARD, 236.

_Enquirer_, Cincinnati, 179.

_Evening Post_, New York, 44.

FARRAR, Mrs. JOHN, 30.

FERRIER, WILLIAM W., 133, 142.

FILLEBROWN, EDWARD, 171, 218.

FOLLETT, O., 118, 138, 220.

_Fraser’s Magazine_, London, 29, 41, 58.

_Freeman’s Journal_, Dublin, 121, 154.

FURNESS, HORACE HOWARD, 63.

FURNIVALL, F. J., 97.

_Gazette_, Birmingham, Eng., 48.

_Gazette_, Cincinnati, 151.

_Gazette_, Washington, 190.

GILMORE, J. H., 249.

_Globe Democrat_, St. Louis, 153.

_Globe_, London, 117.

_Golden Age_, 54.

_Good Literature_, New York, 146.

HACKETT, JAMES H., 44, 62.

HACKETT, Recorder, 67.

HALL, A. OAKEY, 62.

_Harper’s Magazine_, New York, 43.

HARRISON, Prof. JAMES A., 254.

HART, Prof. JOHN S., 78.

HART, JOSEPH C., 1.

HARTE, BRET, 61.

_Harvard University Bulletin_, 135.

HAWTHORNE, NATHANIEL, 6, 17, 22, 24, 27.

HENSHAW, Mrs. SARAH E., 49.

_Herald_, Angola, Ind., 133, 142.

_Herald_, New York, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80.

_Herald_, Stratford-on-Avon, 144.

HIGGINS, Rev. Father, 200.

HINTON, RICHARD J., 39, 190.

HOLL, H., 136.

HOLMES, NATHANIEL, 32, 93, 153, 167, 200.

_Home Journal_, New York, 36.

HOOPER, HENRY, 229, 250.

HOPPER, A., 9.

_Hornet_, London, 91.

HUDSON, Rev. HENRY N., 122.

_Illustrated London News_, 10, 12, 13.

INGLEBY, Dr. C. M., 12, 59, 81, 83, 99, 100, 122, 160, 166, 237, 242.

_Inter-Ocean_, Chicago, 151.

_Jewish Messenger_, New York, 37.

_Journal des Debats_, Paris, 107.

KING, THOMAS D., 84.

KNORTZ, KARL, 157.

LAMON, WARD H., 245.

LEACH, Rev. WILLIAM T., 84.

LEIGHTON, WILLIAM, JR., 230.

LELAND, T. C., 214.

_L’Instruction Publique_, Paris, 109.

_Literary Gazette_, London, 7, 16, 19.

_Literary World_, Boston, 115, 125, 134, 140, 164, 188, 204, 209, 225, 237.

_Littell’s Living Age_, Boston, 6, 58.

_Mail_, Birmingham, Eng., 227.

_Manhattan_, New York, 255.

_Memoriale Diplomatique_, Paris, 94.

_Mercury_, Leeds, Eng., 221.

_Mercury (Sunday)_, Philadelphia, 55.

_Methodist_, New York, 40.

_Modern Thought_, London, 185.

MORGAN, APPLETON, 114, 147, 164, 184, 188, 213, 219, 222, 228, 232, 244, 248, 252, 255.

_Morning Journal_, Cincinnati, 223.

_Nation_, New York, 33, 211.

_National Reformer_, London, 183, 186.

_National Review_, London, 20.

_Nederlandsche Spectator_, The Hague, 110.

_News_, Milwaukee, 70.

_Nonconformist and Independent_, London, 159, 172.

_North American Review_, Boston and New York, 23, 42, 132.

_Northwestern_, Oshkosh, Wis., 177.

_Notes and Queries_, London, 3, 9, 26, 31, 59, 83, 100, 160, 166.

O’CONNOR, WILLIAM D., 24, 241.

O’LEARY, Prof., 74.

_Oracle_, London, 162.

OWENS, JOHN E., 65.

_Pall Mall Gazette_, London, 224.

PALMERSTON, Lord, 29, 95.

_Philosophic Inquirer_, Madras, India, 176.

PIERREPONT, EDWARDS, 65.

_Pioneer Press_, St. Paul, 150, 212, 213, 222, 239, 244, 252.

PLUMPTRE, Rev. E. H., 146.

POLLOCK, DAVID, 78.

_Post_, Boston, 66, 219.

_Post (Evening)_, Hartford, Conn., 193.

_Post_, Washington, 161.

POTT, Mrs. HENRY, 187, 239, 250.

_Press_, Philadelphia, 61, 64.

PRICHARD, J. V., 58, 80.

PRIOR, Sir JAMES, 25.