brave martyr to have been deacon of the First Parish at Jaalam Centre.  ‘Jack Jugler’ further gives us playsent and sartayne.  Dryden rhymes certain with parting, and Chapman and Ben Jonson use certain, as the Yankee always does, for certainly.  The ‘Coventry Mysteries’ have occapied, massage, nateralle, materal (material), and meracles,—­all excellent Yankeeisms.  In the ’Quatre fils, Aymon’ (1504),[25] is vertus for virtuous.  Thomas Fuller called volume vollum, I suspect, for he spells it volumne.  However, per contra, Yankees habitually say colume for column.  Indeed, to prove that our ancestors brought their pronunciation with them from the Old Country, and have not wantonly debased their mother tongue, I need only to cite the words scriptur, Israll, athists, and cherfulness from Governor Bradford’s ‘History.’  So the good man wrote them, and so the good descendants of his fellow-exiles still pronounce them.  Brampton Gurdon writes shet in a letter to Winthrop. Purtend (pretend) has crept like a serpent into the ’Paradise Of Dainty Devices;’ purvide, which is not so bad, is in Chaucer.  These, of course, are universal vulgarisms, and not peculiar to the Yankee.  Butler has a Yankee phrase, and pronunciation too, in ’To which these carr’ings-on did tend.’  Langham or Laneham, who wrote an account of the festivities at Kenilworth in honor of Queen Bess, and who evidently tried to spell phonetically, makes sorrows into sororz.  Herrick writes hollow for halloo, and perhaps pronounced it (horresco suggerens!) hollo, as Yankees do.  Why not, when it comes from hola?  I find ffelaschyppe (fellowship) in the Coventry Plays.  Spenser and his queen neither of them scrupled to write afore, and the former feels no inelegance even in chaw and idee. ’Fore was common till after Herrick.  Dryden has do’s for does, and his wife spells worse wosce. Afeared was once universal.  Warner has ery for ever a; nay, he also has illy, with which we were once ignorantly reproached by persons more familiar with Murray’s Grammar than with English literature.  And why not illy?  Mr. Bartlett says it is ’a word used by writers of an inferior class, who do not seem to perceive that ill is itself an adverb, without the termination ly,’ and quotes Dr. Mosser, President of Brown University, as asking triumphantly, ’Why don’t you say ‘welly?’ I should like to have had Dr. Messer answer his own question.  It would be truer to say that it was used by people who still remembered that ill was an adjective, the shortened form of evil, out of which Shakespeare and the translators of the Bible ventured to make evilly.  This slurred evil is ‘the dram of eale’