impressed by their great size, "the men being for the most part seven feet high." He tells of their painting and tattooing their bodies and that they go naked save for a linen cloth. Their war dances, torturing and scalping of captives, their courage and cannibalism are all described by Alsop, who thought that "the Devil is all the god they worship." Their women tilled the ground, while the men were engaged in hunting and warfare. The dead warriors were buried in a sitting posture, facing westward, in a hole five feet long and three feet deep, covered with bark. With them were interred their bows, arrows and targets, and a kettle of broth and corn, lest they "should meet with bad quarters" on their way.

Enoch Pratt Free Library, Baltimore.

BERNARD C. Steiner.

APPENDIX

1. For Cecilius Calvert's Life see Hall's "Lords Baltimore" (Lecture II); Browne's "George and Cecilius Calvert."

2. Third Maryland Archives, Coun. (p. 18). I Chalmers's "Introduction to the History of the Revolt of the American Colonies" (p. 63), calls attention to the fact that Claiborne never alleged that the patent of Maryland was surreptitiously obtained, nor that the previous settlement of the Dutch was concealed by Baltimore.

3. The original Latin of Maryland's Charter is printed in Bacon's "Laws of Maryland," and an English translation there given is taken almost as authoritative. This translation is printed in the annual Maryland Manual, in the reprint of "The Relation of 1635" (pp. 75 and ff.), and in II Bozman's "Maryland" (p. 9). The English text of the Charter of Avalon is printed in I Scharf (p.34). See II S. T. Wallis's Works, (p.97), "Mr. Neill on the Maryland Charter." Davis's "Day Star" (p. 26 and ff.), discusses the phrases "Holy Church" and "true Christian religion" and toleration and religious establishment under the Charter. In Streeter's "Maryland Two Hundred Years Ago" (p. 71), there is a long discussion of the proper translation of sacrosancta Dei et vera Christiana religio, claiming that the ordinary translation, "God's holy and true Christian religion," is wrong, and that it should be translated "the holy

service of God and true Christian religion." Brantz Mayer's translation was "God's holy rights and the true Christian religion." On the Maryland boundary, see II Bozman (p. 617). On the proprietary Province as a form of colonial government, see Osgood's article in Second American Historical Review (July, 1897, p. 644), and his work in three volumes on "The American Colonies" (1905). See also S. Lucas's "Charters of the English Colonies in America" (1850, p. 87). On the disturbances in Virginia over the grant of the Maryland Charter, see Eighth Virginia Magazine (pp. 147-161).

4. March 26th, 1584. Raleigh's Virginia Patent had no boundaries, but gave "free liberty to search for and find such barbarous lands, not possessed by any Christian people, as to him might seem good and the same to occupy and enjoy forever." Gardiner (Eighth "History of England," p. 179) says: "The retention of the exact phrases used in the Newfoundland Charter requires some explanation. When inserted in the grant made in 1632 to a Secretary of State who was still a member of the English Church, they would undoubtedly act as the establishment of that Church in the Colony, though it would be an establishment arising rather from the goodwill of the authorities of the settlement than from any words in the Charter itself. The proprietor was empowered to found churches and to have them consecrated according to the laws of the Church of England, if he chose to do so; but there was nothing to compel him to do this unless he pleased, or to prevent him from founding other Catholic or Nonconformist places of worship by the side of the churches consecrated after the directions of the Charter. It is impossible to suppose that words so vague in their meaning were reinserted in the Maryland Charter without due deliberation." VIII Gardiner's "History of England" says: "Holy Church" was never to my knowledge applied to the Church of England after the Reformation. Vide also I Anderson's "Colonial Charters" (p. 477).

5. For the use of the phrase "Palatine in America," see an interesting article by Albert Matthews in The Nation (Vol. 78, February 18, 1904, p. 127). See also Series Nine Notes and Queries (Vol. 12, p. 347). Brantly, in III Winsor's "Narrative and Critical History of America" (p. 522), well says of the Maryland Charter: "If it be true that the powers given to the Proprietary were greater than those ever conferred on any other Proprietary, it is equally true that the rights secured to the inhabitants were greater than in any other charter which had then been granted."

6. Rhode Island was held by a Kentish tenure, that of the manor of East Greenwich, so that lands of criminals did not escheat in that Colony by the Charter of 1663. See S. S. Rider's articles in Twenty-Second Book Notes (p. 25), on the consideration of the land tenure clauses as they exist in the Charter of Maryland and in the Charter of Rhode Island. On the holding of the Province according to the Manor of East Greenwich, see E. P. Cheyney's article in The American Historical Review for October, 1905, and the attack on it by Rider in Twenty-Second Book Notes (p. 158). Hall, after going over the Calvert papers, reports ("Lords Baltimore" p. 63) that he finds extant receipts for arrow heads from 1633 to 1750, signed by the Governor or Constable of Windsor Castle, or by some one as his representative in the King's name, save during the Protectorate and in 1660, when the receipt is signed by Gen. Monk for the Commonwealth of England. The arrows were usually delivered by the hands of a servant or messenger but, on April 16th, 1661, Cecilius presented them in person. The extensive character of Baltimore's powers may be seen from the grant by the Crown on February 16, 1638-39, to Henry, Lord Maltravers (Eleventh Virginia Historical Magazine, p. 174), of a royal license to issue farthings for twenty-one years, in all the King's royal plantations except Maryland. On the powers of the Bishop of Durham, see Lapsley's "Palatinate of Durham."

7. The citizens of Avalon were denizens and liegemen, but were given the same privileges.

8. In Avalon, a period of ten years was set, during which no tax at all should be paid. Baltimore had the right to declare what places in the Province of Maryland should be ports of entry, but, with a curious remembrance of the fisheries of Newfoundland, there was saved to all Englishmen and Irishmen "the liberty of fishing for seafish in the seas, rivers, and harbors, and drying fish on the shores." A clause is added (not in the Avalon Charter) permitting fishermen to build huts and cabins necessary for drying fish.

9. These last two provisions were not in the Avalon Charter. 10. I Chalmers's "Introduction to the History of the Revolt of the American Colonies" (pp. 60-63).

II. Smith's "General History of Virginia" (Chapter V), reprinted in I Scharf, (p. 6). The names of the party were: Captain John Smith, Dr. Walter Russell, Ralph Morton, Thomas Momford, William Cantrill, Richard Fetherstone,

James Burne, Michael Sicklemore, gentlemen; and Jonas Profit, Anas Todkill, Robert Small, James Watkins, John Powell, James Reade, Richard Kale, soldiers. See I Bozman's "Maryland" (p. 104).

12. He tells a story of finding a hot spring on Ployer's (probably Watkins's) Point.

13. Dr. Anthony Bagnall, Mr. Nathaniel Powell, Edward Pising and Wm. Ward, soldiers, were the new men. Dr. Walter Russell, Mr. Ralph Morton, and Mr. William Cantrill; Robert Small, John Powell and James Reade, soldiers, were on the first and not on the second voyage.

14. See George L. L. Davis's article on the Mattapeaks and other Indians of Kent Island, in the Baltimore American for May 18th, 1853. III Tooker's Algonquian Series translates Susquehanna as Sasquesat + hannogh, breaking into pieces, i. e., booty+men; and Chesapeake as K'che + sepi or sipi + ack great + river + place. The Iroquois name for Maryland was Jaquokranogase.- (First "Documentary History of New York," p. 401).

15. See extended discussion of the Maryland Indians in I Bozman's "Maryland" (pp. 160 and ff.).

16. Smith inserted Pory's narrative into his History, and I Bozman's "Maryland" (pp. 148 and ff.), reprints it with his usual and valuable notes.

17. II Smith's "General History of Virginia" (p. 177). 18. II Bozman's "Maryland" (p. 566).

19. See Neill's "Founders of Maryland" (pp. 22 and ff.); "English Colonization" (pp. 222 and ff.). For Fleet, see Second Virginia Magazine (p. 70).

20. Thirty-fifth Maryland Historical Society Fund Publications (pp. 42-45); "Relation of 1634" (pp. 15-20); "Relation of 1635."

21. "Character of the Province of Maryland" (pp. 71 and ff.). 22. "Relation of 1635" (pp. 41 and ff.). Wampumpeag, says the writer, is three times the value of roanoke, and both are made of a fish shell, i. e., that of the clam. See W. V. Murray's "Dictionary of the Nanticoke Language" edited by Brinton in Proceedings American Philosophical Society. J. G. Shea identifies the Susquehannas (Second Historical Magazine, p. 295), with the Andastes (the French name), the Minquas (the Dutch term), and the Conestogues (the Pennsylvania title), and gives a history of the tribe.

SHAKESPEARE AND SHAW*

If there is one thing for which the intelligent world is indebted to Bernard Shaw, it is for his iconoclastic utterances on the subject of Shakespeare. Mr. Shaw indeed was not the first to protest vigorously against the preposterous idolatry of the Elizabethan dramatist; in his preface to "Cæsar and Cleopatra," he expressly disclaims that distinction. He was, however, the first to war persistently and relentlessly upon a passionate apotheosis which, he insisted, was utterly destructive of genuine criticism.

Readers of the London Saturday Review between 1895 and 1898 will remember many entertaining passages from the weekly articles of "G. B. S." in which the brilliant critic set forth his views on the superstitious veneration everywhere accorded to Shakespeare's works. In the prefaces to the "Unpleasant Plays" and to the "Three Plays for Puritans," Shaw continued his onslaughts and attempted to convince his readers that nineteenth century Shakespeare-adoration had stifled intelligent appreciation in a quagmire of sentimentality. Such was the force of argument, the trenchancy of criticism and the persuasiveness of style characterizing these compositions, that two hemispheres were roused to a lively interest in the subject. As his dramatic reputation grew apace, Shaw was urgently besought to mount the lecturer's platform and unfold his sentiments to the general public. This he proceeded to do. The usual reportorial perversions of statement followed and were widely circulated in the United States, on the Continent and in Great Britain.

Shaw at length determined to set all misrepresentations at rest, and in the spring of 1905 he sent to the London Daily News twelve assertions containing the gist of his lectures on

*Mr. Shaw himself read over the manuscript of this paper and appended the marginal notes, which are here reproduced with his initials, "G. B. S.”— THE EDITOR.